Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Paul Rigby]

No, what I am trying to do is to show how silly your ideas are.

And that does not take much effort to work.

Pretty rich coming from a guy who's still trying, a la Thompson, to sell us the Zapruder fake; and exculpate the SS.

You may fool the Yanks, Jimbo, but you cut no mustard this side of the Atlantic.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Indeed, there is ample evidence that the HSCA back-of-head

photograph is a fake. Here's a very nice, brief but important,

interview with David Mantik on the HSCA photograph as fake:

JFK--Autopsy Photo Forgery

http://vodpod.com/watch/167861-jfk-autopsy-photo-forgery

JF: The bullet to his back entered at around T-3 as Admiral Burkley explained in his death certificate. There is no evidence

to support any other location, unless you want to appeal to the redescription of the wound attributed to Gerald Ford

This is not quite accurate. The HSCA photos seem to support this more than T-3.

It then becomes a matter of impeaching the photos.

The HSCA condemned the photos in clear language...and then proceeded to build their own SBT on "obviously deficient" evidence. And people actually buy this nonsense!

From Saundra Kay Spencer's ARRB testimony 6/5/97, emphasis added:

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy

in addition to what you've already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that

showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --

you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones I

worked on.

The "obviously deficient" autopsy photos have no chain of possession. They are inconsistent with the physical evidence, the consensus eye witness testimony, and especially with the medical evidence that was prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols.

What kind of "primary" evidence is that?

There's not a shred of proof that the BOH photos are of John F. Kennedy.

None.

[Daniel Gallup]

[Apples and oranges.

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, It seems I need to read Hancock, for he, among others, seems to be a primary source for your contention that Oswald was not to be captured alive. Who was supposed to kill him? Tippit? Baker? Persons unknown? Now I have a confusion --- if Oswald's being captured alive triggered the need to intercept Kennedy's body, it is my understanding that Oswald was captured around 1:51 p.m., and at 1:58 Jfk's casket is wheeled from the emergency room to the awaiting hearse for the trip to Love Field. But there was quite a commotion about keeping the body in Dallas for a proper autopsy. This may well have started before Oswald's capture; this makes me think the Secret Service never intended the body to be given a Texas autopsy, regardless of whether or not Oswald was captured. This would be all the more important if their understanding of the wounds was the same as the Dallas doctors: that Kennedy was hit twice from the front (apologies to Bennett). Remember, the Dallas doctors gave no hint that Kennedy had a wound in his back. Oswald wouldn't do as a suspect if the bullets came from the front. Come to think of it, what difference would it make had Oswald been shot or not? The body (as the Secret Service would have understood it at that hour) displayed only indications of shots from the front. That couldn't be allowed to remain as such. In light of this, it is hard for me to see how those who killed Kennedy and those covering up the true nature of the crime constituted two entirely groups of people, or am I not understanding your position? Best, Daniel

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I am completely floored by this post from Cliff Varnell, many of whose posts in this thread I have admired.

(1) There is a huge difference between the head wound described in the autopsy report and diagrammed

by Boswell and the head wound as observed at Parkland and by many other witnesses. The craniotomy

performed by Humes himself was witnessed by two persons, one of whom was Thomas Evan Robinson.

I am stunned that someone as intelligent as Cliff Varnell continue to resist such blatant surgical alteration.

(2) The wound to the throat, which Malcolm Perry described three times as a wound of entrance during

the Parkland press conference (Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE), was also diagrammed by

Charles Crenshaw (Appendix A). It was a straight incision, very clean and short. I contrast it with the

gross, ragged wound in autopsy photographs from Bethesda in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX,

page 14. How anyone could deny that either body alteration or photo fakery was involved is beyond me.

(3) David Mantik has demonstrated that none of the autopsy X-rays in the National Archives is original

and Bob Livingston determined that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs there cannot possibly

be of the brain of John F. Kennedy, as ASSASSINATION SCIENCE reports. The article that initiated the

thread demonstrates that the back of the head wound was blacked out in key frames and that the HSCA

back-of-the-head photographs were also faked to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head.

We are thus confronted with an elaborate and integrated combination of an assassination and cover-up

where the film was altered (by removing the limo stop, painting in the "blob" and painting out the blow

out), the X-rays were "patched" to conceal the blow out (which can actually be seen in frame 374), autopsy

photographs (such as the HSCA back-of-the-head) were faked, and LIFE magazine published frame

313 with a phony caption claiming that, from this frame, the direction of the head shot was determined.

Even Zapruder went on television that day and described a blow-out to the right front, which was what

the alterations of the film, the photos, and the X-rays were intended to support. (See my chapter on

"Distorting the Photographic Record" in HOAX.) The Prologue to that book presents more than a dozen

examples of fakery and fabrication in the evidence. No one who had read only that chapter would deny

that "falsification of the evidence" is its most prominent feature and is essential to understand this case.

I have published so many articles beyond HOAX to explain this that I am simply astonished that there

are students of the case posting here who STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND that Lifton is right about this:

"New Proof of JFK Film Fabrication"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

"Zapruder JFK Film impleached by Moorman JFK Polaroid:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

Given the weight of the evidence, anyone who does not understand that falsification of the evidence is

the key, that Aguilar was right about the wound but only up to the point that Humes took his saw to the

cranium, that the Zapruder film, the X-rays, autopsy photos, and even Altgens7 were altered to conform

to the official account has simply missed the boat, "big time!". The theft of the body from Parkland, its

secret transportation to Walter Reed, and the pre-autopsy alterations assassination, the alteration of X-

rays and the faking of photographs were planned in advance to insure no one would ever be held liable.

Emphasis added:

Again: if you find fraud in the escrow, you don't buy the house.

And that's what happened in this country in November, 1963: there was fraud in the evidence, and that fraudulent evidence became the basis for a false story which facilitated the operation of the constitutionally mandated line of succession.

That, ultimately, is what this debate is all about. Not whether the shooter is behind this wall, or over in that window.

DSL

1/22/11, 3:40 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

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.

[Daniel Gallup]

From Michael Griffin, a good researcher, who does not have an axe to grind on Bowron:

"Former Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who washed the President's body before it was placed in the casket, has indicated that the back wound was two to three inches below the hole shown in the alleged autopsy photo of JFK's back, and this hole, by the HSCA's own admission, is about two inches lower than where the WC placed the wound. In other words, Nurse Bowron located the wound five to six inches below the neck, and at the same time challenged the authenticity of the alleged autopsy picture of the President's back. We will return to her account in a moment. (Some WC defenders argue that Bowron told the WC she didn't see any wound other than the large head wound. But if one reads her testimony carefully, it is clear she was speaking of the condition of Kennedy's body when she first saw it in the limousine. What she said in effect was that she didn't notice any wounds other than the head wound when she first saw his body lying in the limousine. See 6 H 136.)"

I respect Michael Griffiths but I am still troubled by Bowron's early silence about the back wound. After telling the WC of her role in Trauma Room 1, there is this exchange:

S. Do you have anything to add that you think might be helpful in any way to

the Commission?

B. Yes. When we were doing a cutdown on the President's left arm, his gold

watch was in the way and they broke it -- you know, undid it and it was

slipping down and I just dropped it off his hand and put it in my pocket and

forgot completely about it until his body was being taken out of the

emergency room and then I realized, and ran out to give it to one of the

Secret Service men or anybody I could find and found this Mr. Wright.

S. Was that the same day?

B. Yes -- he had only just gone throught O.B. -- I was just a few feet behind

him.

S. Do you think of anything else that might be of assistance to the

Commission?

No, sir.

If Bowron was witness to a wound in the back, this would have been a perfect time to have offered that information. Yet she didn't. Jim or anyone else, has Henchcliffe ever been interviewed? To my knowledge she has never acknowledged a wound in the back, but I could be wrong. It would be valuable corroboration of either Lifton or Bowron's comments to Livingston. Respectfully, Daniel

Edited January 23, 2011 by Daniel Gallup

[David Lifton]

Addressing the recent post(s) of Cliff Varnell:

Cliff,

I’ve had some more time to think about the position you’re taking, which I didn’t quite fully understand when I wrote my previous post(s).

You’re saying that you believe it would have been perfectly OK to have a multiple shooter (“Castro did it”) conspiracy, as long as Oswald was promptly eliminated.

I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree with that view. What I’m going to now say is all conjecture, because it didn’t happen, but, in the spirit of “let’s suppose it did”:

a) The nation would be told that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, returned to this country married a Russian wife, and recently went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet Embassy. Ergo, the basis for believing he was an ardent communist and became involved in a “Castro” conspiracy. All very well, to that point.

BUT THEN. . (and without a medical coverup):

There are unknown “other shooters” on the loose, and the FBI actually would have recovered ammunition from the body and (if you believe in the cross-fire theory, which I do not, but let’s suppose it to be true). . such evidence (plus any medical evidence of frontal entry) would constitute unquestionable prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, i.e., a “shooting” conspiracy.

Now, you then argue: why bother with a medical and ballistic cover-up? Why not just have the Kennedy assassination be an “unsolved crime,” with “other shooters” who simply “got away”?

To which my first response is: “Are you kidding?” Just “got away”?

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?

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). 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.

What you’re postulating would be a public relations disaster, and, for all practical purposes, a political disaster (for Johnson).

The stench of illegitimacy would be all over the place.

So that is my first initial reaction.

Of course, that’s all speculative (and I don’t mean to demean speculation, per se) but then we must face certain chronological facts that are far less easy to dismiss:

(a) The stretcher bullet linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was planted within 30 minutes.

( A similar situation, apparently, prevailed in the Connally OR, where ---according to Connally himself (see his memoir)-a bullet fell to the floor. (See also film clip of Wade, commenting on this, by Mark Oakes).

(c ) The matter of Doyle Williams, the FBI agent who was prevented from entering the ER, when SS agents jumped him and knocked him to the floor. I have a wonderful 1990 filmed interview with Williams, and he goes through this in considerable detail. Kellerman, on top of him, says, “Perhaps you’d better leave.”

Now imagine that—the chief of Kennedy’s SS detail (in Dallas, anyway) telling an FBI agent to leave the area (!). At about 1:30 PM (!).

(d ) Kellerman, who looked back and did nothing to help Kennedy, then spearheaded the effort to get Kennedy’s body out of Dallas

All this is happening BEFORE Oswald was brought to Dallas Police Headquarters (2:03 PM, lets not forget that). So none of this can be explained by a “Castro did it!” model.

And then, finally, we come to this. . .

(e) There’s the matter of the “empty coffin,” critical evidence of the intercept, and obviously related to alteration of the body. No less than six witnesses state that the body arrived at Bethesda BEFORE the Dallas casket; which means the body wasn’t in the coffin on take-off from Dallas. The take-off was at 2:47 PM CST.

Now you can take your choice as to how that happened, and I don’t wish to be involved in an extensive discussion of that on this thread, and at this point (but see “The Casket Conspiracy” thread, if you wish to pursue it). The point is: the body is the centerpiece in the universe of the evidence in this case, and, since it arrived at Bethesda some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket, it must have been removed from the casket prior to the takeoff of AF-1. So: the notion that it was “several hours later” that decisions were made to do this or that to the body does NOT fit with your chronology, i.e., with your “political theory” of the cover-up.

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. 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.

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). 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

[Jack White]

Brilliant analysis by DSL. Great, David!

Jack

Addressing the recent post(s) of Cliff Varnell:

Cliff,

I’ve had some more time to think about the position you’re taking, which I didn’t quite fully understand when I wrote my previous post(s).

You’re saying that you believe it would have been perfectly OK to have a multiple shooter (“Castro did it”) conspiracy, as long as Oswald was promptly eliminated.

I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree with that view. What I’m going to now say is all conjecture, because it didn’t happen, but, in the spirit of “let’s suppose it did”:

a) The nation would be told that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, returned to this country married a Russian wife, and recently went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet Embassy. Ergo, the basis for believing he was an ardent communist and became involved in a “Castro” conspiracy. All very well, to that point.

BUT THEN. . (and without a medical coverup):

There are unknown “other shooters” on the loose, and the FBI actually would have recovered ammunition from the body and (if you believe in the cross-fire theory, which I do not, but let’s suppose it to be true). . such evidence (plus any medical evidence of frontal entry) would constitute unquestionable prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, i.e., a “shooting” conspiracy.

Now, you then argue: why bother with a medical and ballistic cover-up? Why not just have the Kennedy assassination be an “unsolved crime,” with “other shooters” who simply “got away”?

To which my first response is: “Are you kidding?” Just “got away”?

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?

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). 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.

What you’re postulating would be a public relations disaster, and, for all practical purposes, a political disaster (for Johnson).

The stench of illegitimacy would be all over the place.

So that is my first initial reaction.

Of course, that’s all speculative (and I don’t mean to demean speculation, per se) but then we must face certain chronological facts that are far less easy to dismiss:

(a) The stretcher bullet linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was planted within 30 minutes.

( A similar situation, apparently, prevailed in the Connally OR, where ---according to Connally himself (see his memoir)-a bullet fell to the floor. (See also film clip of Wade, commenting on this, by Mark Oakes).

(c ) The matter of Doyle Williams, the FBI agent who was prevented from entering the ER, when SS agents jumped him and knocked him to the floor. I have a wonderful 1990 filmed interview with Williams, and he goes through this in considerable detail. Kellerman, on top of him, says, “Perhaps you’d better leave.”

Now imagine that—the chief of Kennedy’s SS detail (in Dallas, anyway) telling an FBI agent to leave the area (!). At about 1:30 PM (!).

(d ) Kellerman, who looked back and did nothing to help Kennedy, then spearheaded the effort to get Kennedy’s body out of Dallas

All this is happening BEFORE Oswald was brought to Dallas Police Headquarters (2:03 PM, lets not forget that). So none of this can be explained by a “Castro did it!” model.

And then, finally, we come to this. . .

(e) There’s the matter of the “empty coffin,” critical evidence of the intercept, and obviously related to alteration of the body. No less than six witnesses state that the body arrived at Bethesda BEFORE the Dallas casket; which means the body wasn’t in the coffin on take-off from Dallas. The take-off was at 2:47 PM CST.

Now you can take your choice as to how that happened, and I don’t wish to be involved in an extensive discussion of that on this thread, and at this point (but see “The Casket Conspiracy” thread, if you wish to pursue it). The point is: the body is the centerpiece in the universe of the evidence in this case, and, since it arrived at Bethesda some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket, it must have been removed from the casket prior to the takeoff of AF-1. So: the notion that it was “several hours later” that decisions were made to do this or that to the body does NOT fit with your chronology, i.e., with your “political theory” of the cover-up.

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. 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.

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). 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

[Jack White]

Brilliant analysis by DSL. Great, David!

Jack

Addressing the recent post(s) of Cliff Varnell:

Cliff,

I’ve had some more time to think about the position you’re taking, which I didn’t quite fully understand when I wrote my previous post(s).

You’re saying that you believe it would have been perfectly OK to have a multiple shooter (“Castro did it”) conspiracy, as long as Oswald was promptly eliminated.

I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree with that view. What I’m going to now say is all conjecture, because it didn’t happen, but, in the spirit of “let’s suppose it did”:

a) The nation would be told that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, returned to this country married a Russian wife, and recently went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet Embassy. Ergo, the basis for believing he was an ardent communist and became involved in a “Castro” conspiracy. All very well, to that point.

BUT THEN. . (and without a medical coverup):

There are unknown “other shooters” on the loose, and the FBI actually would have recovered ammunition from the body and (if you believe in the cross-fire theory, which I do not, but let’s suppose it to be true). . such evidence (plus any medical evidence of frontal entry) would constitute unquestionable prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, i.e., a “shooting” conspiracy.

Now, you then argue: why bother with a medical and ballistic cover-up? Why not just have the Kennedy assassination be an “unsolved crime,” with “other shooters” who simply “got away”?

To which my first response is: “Are you kidding?” Just “got away”?

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?

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). 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.

What you’re postulating would be a public relations disaster, and, for all practical purposes, a political disaster (for Johnson).

The stench of illegitimacy would be all over the place.

So that is my first initial reaction.

Of course, that’s all speculative (and I don’t mean to demean speculation, per se) but then we must face certain chronological facts that are far less easy to dismiss:

(a) The stretcher bullet linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was planted within 30 minutes.

( A similar situation, apparently, prevailed in the Connally OR, where ---according to Connally himself (see his memoir)-a bullet fell to the floor. (See also film clip of Wade, commenting on this, by Mark Oakes).

(c ) The matter of Doyle Williams, the FBI agent who was prevented from entering the ER, when SS agents jumped him and knocked him to the floor. I have a wonderful 1990 filmed interview with Williams, and he goes through this in considerable detail. Kellerman, on top of him, says, “Perhaps you’d better leave.”

Now imagine that—the chief of Kennedy’s SS detail (in Dallas, anyway) telling an FBI agent to leave the area (!). At about 1:30 PM (!).

(d ) Kellerman, who looked back and did nothing to help Kennedy, then spearheaded the effort to get Kennedy’s body out of Dallas

All this is happening BEFORE Oswald was brought to Dallas Police Headquarters (2:03 PM, lets not forget that). So none of this can be explained by a “Castro did it!” model.

And then, finally, we come to this. . .

(e) There’s the matter of the “empty coffin,” critical evidence of the intercept, and obviously related to alteration of the body. No less than six witnesses state that the body arrived at Bethesda BEFORE the Dallas casket; which means the body wasn’t in the coffin on take-off from Dallas. The take-off was at 2:47 PM CST.

Now you can take your choice as to how that happened, and I don’t wish to be involved in an extensive discussion of that on this thread, and at this point (but see “The Casket Conspiracy” thread, if you wish to pursue it). The point is: the body is the centerpiece in the universe of the evidence in this case, and, since it arrived at Bethesda some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket, it must have been removed from the casket prior to the takeoff of AF-1. So: the notion that it was “several hours later” that decisions were made to do this or that to the body does NOT fit with your chronology, i.e., with your “political theory” of the cover-up.

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. 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.

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). 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

[Cliff Varnell]

I am completely floored by this post from Cliff Varnell, many of whose posts in this thread I have admired.

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.

(1) There is a huge difference between the head wound described in the autopsy report and diagrammed

by Boswell and the head wound as observed at Parkland and by many other witnesses. The craniotomy

performed by Humes himself was witnessed by two persons, one of whom was Thomas Evan Robinson.

I am stunned that someone as intelligent as Cliff Varnell continue to resist such blatant surgical alteration.

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.

(2) The wound to the throat, which Malcolm Perry described three times as a wound of entrance during

the Parkland press conference (Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE), was also diagrammed by

Charles Crenshaw (Appendix A). It was a straight incision, very clean and short. I contrast it with the

gross, ragged wound in autopsy photographs from Bethesda in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX,

page 14. How anyone could deny that either body alteration or photo fakery was involved is beyond me.

Me too. The only mystery here is why you think I think otherwise.

Jim, you need to read my posts before you critique them.

(3) David Mantik has demonstrated that none of the autopsy X-rays in the National Archives is original

and Bob Livingston determined that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs there cannot possibly

be of the brain of John F. Kennedy, as ASSASSINATION SCIENCE reports. The article that initiated the

thread demonstrates that the back of the head wound was blacked out in key frames and that the HSCA

back-of-the-head photographs were also faked to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head.

I've been arguing strenuously against the autopsy photos.

What is Mantik's beef with the neck x-ray?

We are thus confronted with an elaborate and integrated combination of an assassination and cover-up

where the film was altered (by removing the limo stop, painting in the "blob" and painting out the blow

out), the X-rays were "patched" to conceal the blow out (which can actually be seen in frame 374), autopsy

photographs (such as the HSCA back-of-the-head) were faked, and LIFE magazine published frame

313 with a phony caption claiming that, from this frame, the direction of the head shot was determined.

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)

The theft of the body from Parkland, its secret transportation to Walter Reed, and the pre-autopsy alterations assassination, the alteration of X- rays and the faking of photographs were planned in advance to insure no one would ever be held liable.

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.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[David Lifton]

Cliff,

I’ve had some more time to think about the position you’re taking, which I didn’t quite fully understand when I wrote my previous post(s).

You’re saying that you believe it would have been perfectly OK to have a multiple shooter (“Castro did it”) conspiracy, as long as Oswald was promptly eliminated.

I understand what you’re saying, but I still disagree with that view. What I’m going to now put forth is all conjecture, because it didn’t happen, but, in the spirit of “let’s suppose it did”, here is my commentary:

a) The nation would be told that Kennedy was killed by Oswald, who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 years, returned to this country married a Russian wife, and recently went to Mexico City and visited the Cuban consulate and Soviet Embassy. Ergo, the basis for believing he was an ardent communist and became involved in a “Castro” conspiracy. All very well, to that point. That’s the initial public perception. . .

BUT THEN. . (and without a medical coverup):

b ) There are unknown “other shooters” on the loose, and, in addition, the FBI would actually have ammunition recovered from the body and (if you believe in the cross-fire theory, which I do not, but let’s suppose it to be true). . such evidence (plus any medical evidence [at autopsy] of frontal entry) would constitute unquestionable prima facie evidence of a conspiracy, i.e., a “shooting” conspiracy.

Now, you then argue: why bother with a medical and ballistic cover-up? Why not just have the Kennedy assassination be an “unsolved crime,” with “other shooters” who simply “got away”? Assassins who, somehow, “escaped”. Right there in downtown Dallas.

To which my first response is: “Are you kidding?” Just “got away”?

I cannot imagine a situation like that: a Marxist assassin in Dallas, plus “others” who somehow escaped. And this would be the U.S. Government’s position, both to its own people, and to the world at large?

If the Warren Report was a “hard sell”—and in many ways it was—let me offer my opinion: that version of Dallas, despite its numerous implausibilities, would be easy, compared with what would be required for the American public to accept, in the scenario you propose. 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 “right wing Dallas,”—a man who had recently visited the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy—and then, in addition, it became front page news that, based on the official examination of the body, there were unknown accomplices who somehow had escaped the dragnet of the Dallas Police Department.

I find that thoroughly implausible. What you’re postulating would be a public relations disaster, and, for all practical purposes, a political disaster as well (and particularly for Vice President Johnson).

The stench of illegitimacy would be all over the place.

So that is my initial reaction to your proposed scenario.

Of course, what I’ve just laid out is speculative (and I don’t mean to demean speculation, per se) but its also highly implausible and, imho, unsupportable, because, ultimately, we must face certain chronological facts that are far from easy to dismiss, and which point to a plot in which the lone assassin scenario, ALONG WITH medical and ballistic falsification, was always part of the original plan.

Just consider these factors (no one of them is conclusive, all by itself, but the pattern seems clear):

(a) The stretcher bullet linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was planted within 30 minutes; and, at autopsy, a suspiciously shallow wound was found on the back of the body. Then, at autopsy, events unfolded in such a manner as to link that specific missile to the shallow back (or shoulder) wound. (All this is spelled out in BEST EVIDENCE, including the very clear paper trail that originally existed linking that bullet to that wound).

(b ) A similar situation, apparently, prevailed in the Connally O-R, where ---according to Connally himself (see his memoir, “In the Shadow Of Dallas”)--a bullet fell to the floor. (See also film clip of Wade, commenting on this, by Mark Oakes). Exactly what became of that missile is another story—but the point is, bullets were materializing to account for “the wounds” at an awfully early hour, i.e., within 30 minutes of the shooting! And in two cases!

(c ) The matter of Doyle Williams, the FBI agent who was prevented from entering the ER, when SS agents jumped him and knocked him to the floor. Had he entered the room, he would have been the “Sibert and O’Neill” of ER-1—and a paper trail might have been generated with exact times, what the doctors were saying, etc. I have a wonderful 1990 filmed interview with Williams, in which he goes through the incident in considerable detail, and particularly, the behavior of Roy Kellerman, who, when Williams was still down on the floor, came over, leaned over him, and said: “Perhaps you’d better leave.”

Imagine that—a Secret Service agent telling an FBI agent to leave the area (!).

(d ) This is the same Roy Kellerman, who, at the time of the shooting, looked back and did nothing to help Kennedy, then spearheaded the effort to get Kennedy’s body out of Dallas.

Everything mentioned above was happening BEFORE Oswald was brought to Dallas Police Headquarters (about 2:03 PM, lets not forget that). So none of it could be explained by a “Castro did it!” model.

(e) I have also pointed out Kellerman’s weird behavior at Bethesda, in telling Sibert and O’Neill that Kennedy reached for a wound at the back of his shoulder, a wound which there is good reason to believe did NOT exist in Dallas; and, in any event, a motion that is clearly NOT on the Zapruder film. Best case scenario (as you have speculated): Kellerman was confused. Worst case scenario: Kellerman was deliberately creating a false record of Kennedy’s last seconds in life, to confirm with an altered wound pattern on JFK’s body. (Yes, that’s pretty dark, but those are the alternatives).

And then, finally, we come to this. . .

(f) The matter of the “empty coffin.” This constistutes critical evidence of the intercept, and is obviously related to alteration of the body. (See chapter 25 and 28 of BEST EVIDENCE). At this juncture, I can assure you that no less than six witnesses –at least—state that JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda BEFORE the Dallas casket (at least 20 minutes before); which means that JFK’s body was not in the coffin on take-off from Dallas. The take-off was at 2:47 PM CST.

Now one can debate the question of how that happened—and I don’t wish to be involved in an extensive discussion of that on this thread, and at this point (but see “The Casket Conspiracy” thread, if you wish to pursue it)—but it did happen. Further, the report of Sgt. Roger Boyajian, of USMC Security Detail (See ARRB Document MD-236 or Doug Horne’s book) makes clear that the body was delivered to the morgue at 6:35 PM. Remember: the naval ambulance with Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy (and the flag draped Dallas casket) pulled up at Bethesda at 6:55 PM.

My point is: the body is the centerpiece in the universe of the evidence in this case, and, since it arrived at Bethesda some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket, it must have been removed from the casket prior to the takeoff of AF-1. So: the notion that it was “several hours later” that certain “decisions” were made to do this or that to the body does NOT fit with your chronology. In short, what I will call your “political theory” of the cover-up does not match the known facts about the journey of the body. In fact, your chronology is seriously out of sync with that.

There are other very significant matters that can be added to this list, and you will be reading about them in the future.

So again, I come back to my initial point: I believe your basic “political model” to be incorrect. IMHO, the problem is this: 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.

But nonetheless, there is considerable overlap where we do agree; and so, in that spirit, let’s return 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).

Further, that not doing so was a foul-up of considerable importance. (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 the opposite: that the scenario involved certain detailed planning on this score, and that such planning was at the very heart of the Kennedy assassination.

Kennedy’s body was targeted in advance, so as to be able to tell a false story of the shooting, one that would comport with the unfolding “Dallas Police investigation.”

Remember: we’re dealing here with the wound pattern on the body—in effect, the “diagram of the shooting”.

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 deliberately create the appearance of conspiracy, a Castro conspiracy, which would THEN be the official solution to the crime.”

THE CHIEF PROBLEM WITH YOUR PROPOSED SCENARIO

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. In fact (and to the contrary) Johnson basically tamped down the entire situation. Further, he disavowed any significant plan to remove Castro covertly (I’m assuming you are aware of the documentation), but then secretly switched the policy on Vietnam—from de-escalation and withdrawal to an Americanization of the war. (That’s been debated, but that’s my take on the situation—and I’ve believed that ever since I was deeply involved with John Newman, back in the late 1980s, when he was doing his thesis, which then culminated with his 1991 book: JFK and Vietnam. And I think the ARRB document releases proves the point.)

But I digress, so again, let’s return to your scenario. In the midst of such an uproar and public 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.

So the assassination would have removed Kennedy from office, but left the Johnson presidency in a shambles. The transition would have been a mess. (And furthermore, in such a scenario, Bobby Kennedy might have easily picked up the fallen banner, challenged Johnson, and even won the nomination. Again, we're speculating, but I think that's a distinct possibility if "the transition" was not handled properly; and I think the last thing plotters would want would be RFK as president. No way.)

But, most important, and in the final analysis, 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). 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. Based on the arrival data at Bethesda, the body was not in the coffin when the plane took off. That didn’t happen by magic. And that’s got to be a central fact pertaining to any theory of strategic deception. So what we’re dealing with here must have commenced well before the “several hours later” that you apparently postulate and envision as the start of your “after-the-fact” scenario.

A most interesting subject, is it not?

My advice: focus on chronology, and remember what John Adams said: Facts are stubborn things.

Stay tuned.

DSL

Revised.

1/23/11; 1:40 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited January 23, 2011 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

To Cliff Varnell:

Here's an important point that I'd like to address, because it goes to the heart of the matter.

In our recent interchange, appears the following:

DSL : "No, I'm not turning witnesses into perps. I'm seeking a logical explanation of the events."

Your response: "Doesn't make sense to me to plan on falsifying wounds when the whole plot was designed to look like a conspiracy."

Let's focus on that last statement: that the plot "was designed to look like a conspiracy," because there's a major difference between the following two types of "design":

(A) a plot "designed to look like a conspiracy" because "Oswald, the shooter" had recently gone to Mexico City and visited both the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Consulate. (And, in that sense, that was the "design purpose" of the Mexico City trip; to create just such an appearance--i.e., of "foreign involvement");

(B ) A plot "designed to look like a conspiracy" because Kennedy was shot from multiple directions by multiple assassins and NO provision was made to hide that fact, i.e., to "shape in advance" the "solution" to Dealey Plaza.

The former presents an easily-managed and controlled situation because it turns on what Oswald did (or was directed to do); and how that is interpreted afterwards, i.e., after the actual Kennedy murder. Its still "one man" (i.e., the one shooter) who has mysterious "ties to a foreign power". Now that's something I've studied carefully and subscribed to for years. But that (i.e., Case A) is entirely different from a situation ("B" ) in which that same Oswald, "sheep dipped" in that same fashion, then turns up in Dealey Plaza and (supposedly) shoots the President as one of a number of assassins, THE REST OF WHOM (in this scenario ["B" ]) are not apprehended.

In (A), the situation is (to coin a term) "controlled" and well-defined. Numerous options are available. In (B ), the situation is completely out of control, and "in your face," with un-apprehended assassins on the loose (!).

I certainly do not subscribe to (B ), because--as I described in a somewhat lengthy post earlier this evening--it leads to a completely out of control political situation, and --imho--a first class public relations disaster for the new President.

For many years, I have believed that "A" was the intention of the plotters. "A" still leaves the potential for plenty of guilt and finger-pointing (e.g., at Castro) but it is entirely controllable.

"B"--as I have previously argued--leads to an out-of-control "in your face" public relations disaster,in which the toothpaste cannot be put back in the tube.

In the case of "A", Oswald can still be a "lone assassin," although there is "mystery" as to what went on in Mexico City. In the case of "B", there are unapprended assassins, and the FBI Lab even has the bullets from their guns (!).

I just don't see any comparison. If its the intention to create a stable political transition so that Johnson can ascend to the Oval Office without a huge cloud over his head, then "A" is the way to go.

And that's the sort of thing that, I believe, happened in this case.

And incidentally, you will find that "A" --in a perverse sort of way--is exactly what someone like Max Holland believes: that Oswald (who he actually believes shot at Kennedy, and was the "sole assassin")--was motivated out of a fierce devotion to Castro, and then the Warren Commission (for "political" reasons) concealed Oswald's true political profile.

You, too, would probably agree that the WC hid --or seriously soft-pedaled, or concealed--Oswald's "political"connections, but (like myself, and UNLIKE someone like Max Holland) would probably agree that Oswald was a pre-selected patsy.

So there are a number of ways to assemble the pieces of this "Rubic's Cube," depending on one's political proclivities, and how one interprets the evidence; and, most important of all (IMHO) whether one is willing to challenge the validity of the evidence.

Finally (and you can call this my own "pet peeve"): there are those who--for largely personal reasons--cannot abide by the fact that by the time they came to this case--often, after the 12/91 release of Stone's "JFK"--BEST EVIDENCE had been in print for over 10 years and (imho) they simply cannot deal with the fact that body alteration is the fundamental explanation for the bifurcated Dallas/Bethesda record.

As I've said on many occasions,"fraud in the evidence"--and body alteration to understand the bifurcated Dallas/Bethesda record--is the only way to understand the actuality of what happened in Dallas. It offers the best and most reasonable explanation as to why the legal and historical record (or, in computer lingo, the "data base") is so bifurcated, and appears the way it does, at this point in time.

Remember: The assassination happened only one way once-- not once for the benefit of the Warren Commission, and then in some other manner for the benefit of conspiracy theorists.

Ultimately--and in a manner that is roughly analogous to the "uniqueness theorem" in mathematics (and specifically, differential equations)--there is only one correct 'solution' to this rather complex crime.

DSL

1/23/11 4:30 AM PST

Los Angele, CA

Edited January 23, 2011 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

To Daniel Gallup:

You asked: Jim or anyone else, has Henchcliffe ever been interviewed? To my knowledge she has never acknowledged a wound in the back, but I could be wrong. It would be valuable corroboration of either Lifton or Bowron's comments to Livingston. Respectfully, Daniel

Yes; Henchliffe was interviewed, in person, and in detail, by JFK researcher Wallace Milam. The date was June 25,1993, at the time the Crenshaw case was in some kind of "pre-trial" (or "pre-settlement" phase).

Wallace (on behalf of Crenshaw's attorney) interviewed Henchliffe, in person, for some two hours, and made careful notes. In May 1996, he reviewed them with me, line by line. (FYI: Henchliffe did not care for Kennedy, politically). Anyway, here is a verbatim excerpt of my word-for-word notes, as Wallace read me his notes on the phone:

QUOTING:

When she got [i.e. was shown] the autopsy photos:

"Nothing looked like this"

She didn't see any hole in the back. (meaning, "the back surface of the body")

"We didn't look all the way down to his waist."

"I didn't see one"

"I'm not saying there was not one there."

"Why are you people still pursuing this?"

CHANGING THE SUBJECT: There's another medical person--a nurse--who told Wallace that the following statement was made, at Parkland, by Doris Nelson (on Friday, 11/22): "I wish these people would quit putting these bullets on stretchers." I will search my computer disk for the best records I have on this, but I know the quote comes from Nelson. (DSL)

[J. Raymond Carroll]

(c ) The matter of Doyle Williams, the FBI agent who was prevented from entering the ER, when SS agents jumped him and knocked him to the floor. I have a wonderful 1990 filmed interview with Williams, and he goes through this in considerable detail. Kellerman, on top of him, says, “Perhaps you’d better leave.”

Now imagine that—the chief of Kennedy’s SS detail (in Dallas, anyway) telling an FBI agent to leave the area (!). At about 1:30 PM (!).

Thank you for reminding us, David. This is another smoking gun.

I no longer have my BEST EVIDENCE video. Is this interview available on the BE video or some other video?

Is a transcript available?

During Hoover's tenure, FBI men were taught to respect local jurisdiction. I have no doubt Williams would have supported the local coroner in demanding that the body be given a local autopsy. Hence Kellerman's resort to intimidation.

Some sources on DOyle Williams, from Vince Palamara's site:

The FBI Agent turned out to be J. Doyle Williams [see "Reasonable Doubt" by Henry Hurt, pages 71-72 (based off Feb. 1983 interview); see also 18 H 795-796 (Berger), 798-799 (Johnsen); 21 H 261 (Price); RIF#180-10082-10454: 1/31/78 HSCA interview of SS agent Tim McIntyre; ALSO: "Bloody Treason" by Noel Twyman, pages 90, 91, 93, 96, and 110; 5 H 132, 144; 18 H 96 and "Pictures Of The Pain" by Richard Trask, page 105: photo of Williams; 22 H 841, 910; 23 H 681; 24 H 523; "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), pages 130 and 164

18 H 795

Edited January 23, 2011 by J. Raymond Carroll

[Cliff Varnell]

Before I get into the really good stuff in David Lifton's recent posts, a bit of catch-up from an earlier post...

Re:

How you missed this is beyond me.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA, 1978:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Where do you think the whole discussion of "ice bullets" came from?

MY RESPONSE: Well, candidly, I'm amazed (as Helms told the HSCA). No, I wasn't aware of that. And I admit my error. However, I think we probably disagree on what it means.

Let me hold forth here with my interpretation of this particular (which I do indeed find most interesting).

The problem faced by the autopsy doctors--specifically, Humes and Boswell, but I'm even willing to focus on just Humes here--is that they were (in the words of the report of the two FBI agents) "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets.

As I hope you will agree: "fragmentation" does not explain "disappearance"--and what Humes faced was "disappearance."

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.

Again, he was--according to the report of the two agents witnessing his supposed perplexity, "at a loss to explain" why he could find no bullets.

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.

With regard to the back wound, and as stated in Best Evidence, I believe it was nothing more than a man made puncture. (Let me remind you that in the autopsy report, there is no mention of an abrasion collar, the legal prerequisite for a bullet wound; curiously, there IS a clearly visible abrasion collar in the autopsy photos--but that's another matter. And let me bring up again that Humes called Perry the next morning and, according to Perry, asked "if we had made any wounds in the back." A most telling question.

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.

Anyway, and back to the main point: I think its interesting that Sibert and/or O'Neill would witness the doctors puzzlement over the absence of a bullet, and then pursue the matter as they (apparently) did.

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.

But the answer --I believe--is not some exotic weaponry; rather, its simply a crude puncture of some sort to the back (or shoulder, or whereever one places that wound, i.e., that phony [imho] "wound." I feel certain that that shallow puncture was intended to "match" the stretcher bullet--and nothing more. (And, anticipating any objections: Yes, that would mean the clothing holes would also have to be made "after the fact," but that's what "control of the body" is all about. Its about creating phony bullet trajectories, after the fact, to "explain" this shooting.

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.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

Ron, are you saying what I think you are saying here?

1.) That from a picture you could know precisely what Bennett's field of vision was during the entire shooting sequence.

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.

2.) That somehow Bennett could not have known about this back wound because it was not described to him yet.

I have no idea when Bennett knew about the back wound.

3.) That somehow Rowley suborned Bennett to go along with a body alteration plot that day?

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.

Dwight MacDonald once wrote--in reference to the autuer theory of film-- about the wages of a thorough going, dyed in the wool theorist.

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.