The forward head movement - an illusion?

[David Lifton]

To David Lifton,

Yes, I know you still believe in the impossible -- i.e., the "impossible" notion that (in a very brief period of time) President Kennedy's wounds were altered and/or rearranged in order to eliminate all evidence of supposed frontal gunshots (all without a single witness ever coming forward--in 47 years--to say that he or she witnessed any such covert surgery on the President of the United States).

And, yes, I know you still believe in the Impossible #2 -- i.e., the incredibly silly notion that ALL of the shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 came from the FRONT of the President's vehicle. (DSL Interjection: I'm ignoring this, for the moment, becuase it is really not the chief issue. . . )

I just happen to vigorously disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, Mr. Lifton. And I strongly disagree with your theories, DESPITE the opinions and observations of the several Parkland and Bethesda witnesses you interviewed on film in 1980.

((DSL INTERJECTION: "opinions and observations". . that's the evidence, sir. They were there, and you were not.))

You will say I'm ignoring those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, such as Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, Aubrey Rike, et al.

((DSL INTERJECTION: Yes, that's exactly what you are doing. . . ))

But, the truth is, I'd rather disagree with people like Paul "No Brains In The Head" O'Connor if the alternative option is to place a single ounce of faith in the outlandish theory that you, Mr. Lifton, have been peddling since 1966.

((DSL INTERJECTION: Calling something "outlandish" is not response to the evidence.))

Can I ask you a straightforward question, Mr. Lifton?

Do you REALLY and TRULY believe that such "body alteration" on the President's head COULD have been accomplished in such a short period of time on the evening of 11/22/63? Could such perfect head-altering surgery have been performed so that ALL THREE of JFK's autopsy surgeons at the Bethesda autopsy were totally fooled by the covert surgery?

((DSL Interjection: They were not "totally fooled." The FBI said that upon viewing the body, Commander Humes said: it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the head."))

Do you really and truly, deep down, today, believe such amazing behind-the-scenes patchwork surgery on JFK's head/body could have resulted in the autopsy report we now find on Pages 538-546 of the Warren Commission Report?

((DSL Interjection: what is "amazing" is your apparent insistence on ignoring the evidence that (a) there was a cover intercept; (b ) the autopsy doctor recognized the situation and said so aloud (as recorded by the FBI agents); and (c ) a number of bystander witnesses also attest to the fact that there was no brain in the head when the body first arrived. ))

I'm virtually certain what your answer will be to my last question, but I thought I'd ask it anyway (for the record).

((DSL Interjection: Yes, for the record, I stand behind my work, as published in Best Evidence, and that includes the case that the body was intercepted, the case that the wounds were altered.))

http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com

-------------------------

DR. HUMES' COMPLETE 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH DAN RATHER:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

DVP:

In response to my book, the argument you propose is really not an argument at all. It is simply a refusal to deal with the evidence. Further, labeling something as “impossible” does not change the very obvious evidence that it happened.

You demean Paul O’Connor, who told the House Select Committee investigators that the cranium was empty—a fact that he repeated to the Florida newspapers shortly after he was interviewed by the HSCA, and then repeated to me on the telephone, in August, 1979, and then again on camera, in October, 1980.

FYI: Paul O’Connor wasn’t the only one who said the cranium was empty. Both FBI agents have made similar statements.

FBI Agent Francis O’Neill told one of his key financial supporters, Wayne Cooke, who read my book, and had a number of serious conversations with him about it: “Wayne, there was no brain.”

Quote unquote.

FBI Agent Sibert stated, in handwritten notes brought to his ARRB deposition, in Spetmber, 1997: “Brain had been removed from head cavity.”

Remember these two FBI agents, Mr. DVP? They wrote, in their report—and based on what the doctor said when he first examined the body, that it was “apparent “ that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.”

When you yave witnesses who know that the President’s body arrived in a body bag, and in a different coffin (than the one in which it left Dallas), when you have witnesses who clearly state that the head wounds were different (i.e., that the Bethesda wound was some 400% larger than the Dallas “large” wound); and, finally, when you have TWO FBI agents,PLUS a Bethesda medical technician stating that the cranium was empty, or that the brain had already been removed—it no longer is a question of whether this or that was “possible”—the evidence clearly indicates that it occurred.

What kind of an argument is it that you merely poke fun at the witness, and ignore the facts, and your riposte is simply “you can’t really believe that, can you?” –when in fact the evidence indicates it is true.

With regard to Dennis David, we have a similar situation. Dennis David was at the back of the hospital and is an eyewitness to the delivery of the Presient’s body in a shipping casket, a good 20 minutes before the naval ambulance with Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and the Dallas coffin arrivd at the front.

Now you can poke fun at him all you want, but documents unearthed by the ARRB—and specifically, the “Boyajian Report” (the report of Army NCOIC Roger Boyajian, in charge of the morgue security detail) records that the body arrived at 6:35 PM, EST, which corroborates Dennis David’s account.

Furthermore, you conveniently forget Donald Rebentish, who immediately came forward after my book was published, and corroborated Dennis David’s account. Recently, I found the original tape of my interiew with Rebentish, made the day the wire service story ran (in mid January, 1981), and BEFORE he had read my book, and he provides very strong corroboration for everything Dennis David reported. He, too, was a witness to the arrival of the black hearse at the back, with the shpping casket, and then went up to the lobby of the hospital, where he saw Jaqueline Kennedy, waiting to board the elevator which would take her upstairs, an event that occurred just after she left the naval ambulance parked outside, and which contained the Dallas coffin.

So it is very clear from the documents, and the eyewitness accounts, that that Dallas coffin was empty.

Now you know, Mr. DVP, if you had a law license (which you don’t) you can’t just go into court, and after the prosecution has presented its case, and your turn comes, step before the jury and go:

“Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! I just don’t believe this!”

. . . . and then sit down.

That’s not evidence, that’ not an argument, and that’s not logic.

In fact, it is of no cognitive significance.

The fact is—you (and your pal, Bugliosi) just “don’t believe” where the evidence leads, in this case, and that is your right. To not believe.

Or, to state the matter differently, to place your faith in a pile of planted evidence, found at the sniper’s nest, and which does not properly “connect up” with the murder, on the street below, because the body was altered (!).

In other words, you have every right to close your eyes and look the other way. Now I know you wouldn’t do that when crossing a busy street, but certainly you can do that on the Internet.

But don’t confuse that with a logical argument, or presenting credible data that undercuts witnesses and documents which, in this case, clearly establish that the most important evidence in this case, the President’s body , was covertly intercepted, and altered, prior to autopsy.

DSL

5/31/11; 3:15 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA.

[Daniel Gallup]

If it were really there, Humes would have seen it, and measured it. But that didn't happen. Can you explain why?

No, I can't explain it. But there would be no reason to falsify ANYTHING via your theory. A bullet entering at EOP level could exit higher than it entered. The bullet could easily have changed trajectory after striking the skull. In fact, I believe the bullet did change direction after entering JFK's head at the cowlick. If it hadn't, it would have likely exited JFK's face. But we know his face was intact.

I don't know why most people think a bullet that strikes a human skull can't change direction after impact.

I highlighted the words in your post: "at the cowlick." Why do you put the entrance wound there, when the autopsy doctors put it 4 inches lower? They can describe a wound directly in front of them, can't they, and record its placement both on the facesheet and the autopsy report? Please advise, and thanks, Daniel

[David Von Pein]

DSL Interjection: what is "amazing" is your apparent insistence on ignoring the evidence that (a) there was a cover intercept; (b ) the autopsy doctor recognized the situation and said so aloud (as recorded by the FBI agents); and (c ) a number of bystander witnesses also attest to the fact that there was no brain in the head when the body first arrived.

Funny, isn't it, Mr. Lifton, that the HSCA and the WC and the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel "ignored" the very same evidence that has led you down the "body alteration" path?

Now, who should I go with -- the FOUR above-mentioned official Government panels who were assigned the task of looking at the JFK murder case (or various peripheral aspects of it at least)?

Or should I go with David S. Lifton, a person who thinks that all the shots came from the FRONT of JFK in Dealey Plaza, and who also thinks the President's body was altered with lightning-like swiftness and efficiency, even though the stealing of JFK's body was literally impossible to do, given the timeframe and the witnesses surrounding the alleged "interception" of the body?

Call me goofy -- but that's not really a very tough choice, DSL.

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Daniel Gallup]

DSL Interjection: what is "amazing" is your apparent insistence on ignoring the evidence that (a) there was a cover intercept; (b ) the autopsy doctor recognized the situation and said so aloud (as recorded by the FBI agents); and (c ) a number of bystander witnesses also attest to the fact that there was no brain in the head when the body first arrived.

Funny, isn't it, Mr. Lifton, that the HSCA and the WC and the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel "ignored" the very same evidence that has led you down the "body alteration" path?

David, the HSCA "ignored" the report of the autopsy doctors who actually saw the body and pieced together the entrance wound from bones brought to the morgue after midnight. It would seem to the causual observer that either Humes and Boswell are lying about where the entrance wound is, or the official x-rays and photos are fraudulant. I for one am willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that Humes and Boswell accurately located an entrance wound near the EOP by these late-arriving bones. If this is true, then the BOH, supposedly taken before the autopsy began, and which contain the cowlick wound a blind man could detect, must be a fake. If you can think of any other possibility, please advise, and thanks in advance. Best, Daniel

[Daniel Gallup]

BOH Addendum:

Daniel,

Canal totally ignores the fact that the HSCA's FPP determined that the red-spot photo lines up nearly perfectly with the hole in the skull of JFK, with both wounds measuring 100mm. above the EOP.

What does that say about the autopsy doctors, who placed the wound 100 cm below the Clark Panel? After all,they had the body right in front of them. Whom do you believe? Best, Daniel

[David Von Pein]

Many people think the red-spot picture was taken late in the autopsy, after JFK's brain had been removed. I, for one, have no idea exactly when it was taken.

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Whom do you believe?

I believe the autopsy picture. It's the best evidence for the location of the wound.

Plus there's the fact that the HSCA's FPP [via the audio file linked below] said the cowlick wound lines up perfectly with the beveled entry wound in the skull (i.e., 100mm. above the EOP).

http://www.box.net/shared/n4n1j7meua

Edited May 31, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

One of the biggest mistakes made by the autopsists, in addition to the silly mistake of not calling up Parkland while JFK was still on the autopsy table to ask somebody in Dallas if the trach covered a bullet hole, was when they decided not to measure the entry wound's "north/south" distance from the EOP. They put in a detailed lateral measurement (2.5 cm.), but then they decided to merely say "slightly above" when talking about the other measurement. Crazy.

I'm also of the opinion that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were always hesitant to admit they made an (obvious) 4-inch error with respect to the location of the entry wound. Much like the four Parkland doctors were very hesitant to admit their errors in front of the PBS-TV cameras in 1988. And Dr. McClelland's theory about the President's scalp is just loony as all get out.

I've also always wondered how McClelland, who was situated at the head of the ER table at Parkland, could have possibly been LOOKING STRAIGHT DOWN at JFK's face and yet still claim he was STARING DOWN into a great-big hole at the BACK of JFK's head. That's simply....impossible.

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/parkland-doctors-on-pbs-tv-in-1988.html

McClelland in 2009 (80-minute in-depth interview; very, very good too):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

Edited June 1, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Daniel Gallup]

Whom do you believe?

I believe the autopsy picture. It's the best evidence for the location of the wound.

Plus there's the fact that the HSCA's FPP [via the audio file linked below] said the cowlick wound lines up perfectly with the beveled entry wound in the skull (i.e., 100mm. above the EOP).

http://www.box.net/shared/n4n1j7meua

David, thank you for your candor. Yours is the solution of the HSCA: all the doctors who saw the body, both at Parkland and at Bethesda, got it wrong. The ones who didn't see the body got it right. I don't need to tell you I have grave problems with that solution, but at least you propose one, and for that I am grateful. Best, Daniel

Edited June 1, 2011 by Daniel Gallup

[David Von Pein]

Are you saying what I think you are saying?

That the doctors at Bethesda really thought they were talking about the cowlick entry when they referred to the beveled wound?

I really hope you are not.

Are you?

Well, Jim, since I think the ONE and ONLY wound of entry in President Kennedy's head was, indeed, in the cowlick area....then, yes, the doctors at Bethesda HAD NO CHOICE but to have seen the bullet hole in the cowlick area (regardless of their differing testimony which places that wound elsewhere on JFK's head).

This opinion of mine really isn't all that surprising to you, is it James? In fact, this same opinion about the bullet hole being in the cowlick is not JUST my opinion--it's an opinion shared by many, many "LNers", including the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, the four members of the Clark Panel, plus Vincent Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, and many others.

So why are you so shocked?

In the final analysis (as the HSCA determined at 7 HSCA 41, which is a page of the HSCA volumes that you will continue to disregard until you breathe your last conspiracy-tinged breath), the red-spot photo isn't lying to us. The wound IS where that autopsy photo shows it to be -- in the cowlick. And that's where the beveled wound in the skull is located, too. And you cannot prove that photo is a fake. Nor can any other conspiracist. Period.

Edited June 1, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Daniel Gallup]

Whom do you believe?

I believe the autopsy picture. It's the best evidence for the location of the wound.

Plus there's the fact that the HSCA's FPP [via the audio file linked below] said the cowlick wound lines up perfectly with the beveled entry wound in the skull (i.e., 100mm. above the EOP).

http://www.box.net/shared/n4n1j7meua

Then if you don't mind, I will return to my original question, which now takes on a new urgency: since you have gone with the photos/ x-rays as the best evidence, how can the BOH photo be authentic, when until midnight, or shortly thereafter, there was no evidence of an entrance wound on the head? The late-arriving bones provided, according to Boswell, the evidence they needed to locate an entrance wound near the EOP. How then, can a photo taken at the onset of the autopsy show an entrance wound that was not visible to the naked eye until after midnight when the bones arrived? I await your answer. Best, Daniel

[David Von Pein]

Daniel,

What makes you so sure the red-spot photo was taken at the onset of the autopsy?

John Canal, among others, insist that picture was taken later on--after the brain was removed from JFK's head.

(And please don't tell me you think there was no brain in JFK's head at all when he arrived at Bethesda at 8 PM.)

Edited June 1, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Lifton]

DSL Interjection: what is "amazing" is your apparent insistence on ignoring the evidence that (a) there was a cover intercept; (b ) the autopsy doctor recognized the situation and said so aloud (as recorded by the FBI agents); and (c ) a number of bystander witnesses also attest to the fact that there was no brain in the head when the body first arrived.

Funny, isn't it, Mr. Lifton, that the HSCA and the WC and the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel "ignored" the very same evidence that has led you down the "body alteration" path?

Now, who should I go with -- the FOUR above-mentioned official Government panels who were assigned the task of looking at the JFK murder case (or various peripheral aspects of it at least)?

Or should I go with David S. Lifton, a person who thinks that all the shots came from the FRONT of JFK in Dealey Plaza, and who also thinks the President's body was altered with lightning-like swiftness and efficiency, even though the stealing of JFK's body was literally impossible to do, given the timeframe and the witnesses surrounding the alleged "interception" of the body?

Call me goofy -- but that's not really a very tough choice, DSL.

First of all, Mr. DVP, this is really a silly "argument from authority," and I would think you would know better.

Second, with regard to all the investigations that occurred after the assassination--the WC, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the HSCA--not one of them really had any clear idea that one possibility to explain the contradictory data in this case was that the President's body had been covertly intercepted and that the wounds had been altered prior to autopsy. So citing these various inquiries simply provides you with a convenient way to side-step the key issues.

But, having said that, here are my brief comments on each of those investigations:

Re the Warren Commission: I have not only (of course) studied the Warren Report, but I have also studied, and in considerable detail, the office files (or "working papers") of the entire staff of the Warren Commission. Each and every folder, each and every memo. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind--based on that documentary evidence--that the lawyers on the Warren Commission hadn't the faintest idea that their own files contained evidence that (a) the President's body was covertly intercepted and (b ) that the wounds had been altered. Those lawyers convened in early January, 1964. The investigative outline(s) used to structure their inquire all reflect the presumption of Oswald's sole guilt. One in particular that I recall was dated January 6, 1964, by David Belin. It outlines the very same case reflected in the Warren Report. By late March, 1964, Redlich, Eisenberg, Belin et al had created the outline for the Warren Report that was actually sent to the printer in September, 1964. All of it was centered around the presumed validity of the so-called "sniper's nest" found at the Sixth Floor of the TSBD. Anyone attempting to say that the WCR was a deliberate coverup and that all the attorneys colluded have to deal with the contrary documentary evidence resident in these office files. Although I am more than willing to entertain "individual departures" from this major thesis, the major thesis--documented in these files--remains there, and it is striking: a presumption of Oswald's guilt, from the outset, and a series of preliminary reports, and outlines, that reflect the final version of the Warren Report laid out, for all to see, and dated March 30, 1964, plus or minus a few days.

From my own experience with the late Wesley Liebeler (who was the closest thing to a "Devil's advocate", but whose area was primarily Oswald's biography), he was shocked, astounded, and amazed when, on October 24, 1966, I not only showed him the statement about pre-autopsy "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, but spelled out what I thought it meant.

There is no question in my mind that he had never thought of any such possibility before, and neither (as far as I can tell) had anyone else on the Commission or its staff.

On that day--as described in my Chapter 9, of B.E.--Liebeler called Arlen Specter. He wouldn't let me hear what Specter said, but when Liebeler emerged from the private office, and I asked "What did he say?", he responded (as I reported in B.E.): "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact."

Anyway, so much for the WC and its staff.

Regarding the Clark Panel, convened in Feb-March, 1968, to examine the autopsy photographs and X-rays. I have no reason to believe that the Clark Panel conducted the kind of investigation that would have been necessary to pursue the matter of pre-autopsy alteration of the body. First of all, and fyi, I happened to have personally encountered Ramsay Clark, then either AG or Deputy AG, in early 1969, at a UCLA function, and when I raised the issue, he claimed he had never heard of it before, and said something to the effect of "And if I had, I would never have told Robert Kennedy about it." (or something like that). Second: the kind of investigation necessary would be to do what I described in Best Evidence: to (a) compare the Dallas and Bethesda descriptions of the wounds; and (b ) call the FBI agents in for careful follow-up question and (c ) trace the chain of possession on the body (as I did in B.E.) etc.

None of that was done. The Clark Panel simply looked at the X-rays and photographs, and reported what they saw. I see no reason to believe they ever investigated the hypothesis in any manner. Nonetheless, you will note the following anomaly reflected in their report, and this concerns the report of Sibert and O'Neill that, during the autopsy, the doctor stuck his finger in the shallow back wound.

As the Clark Panel notes: the wound was "too small to permit the insertion of a finger."

Now right there you have another indicia that something is terribly wrong. Dr.Humes,according to sworn testimony, stuck his finger in the wound; the photographs show a wound "too small" to permit that. Right there is evidence that either (a) the doctors hallucinated, or (b ) the photos in evidence do not show that wound. (And in fact, I believe it lies beneath the ruler).

With regard to the Rockefeller Panel, I see no reason that they did any kind of investigation that addressed the integrity of the evidence.

Jumping to the HSCA investigation--they defininitely had the opportunity to pursue the issue. With regard to the matter of "chain of pssession," the records show that HSCA staffer Mark Flanagan called up Greer, and Kellerman (in December, 1978) and basically said: "You guys didn't alter the body, did you?" THe result of each call was a 1 page report saying nothing happened to the body. That is like asking the fox to fill out an affidavit that "nothing happened" at the hen house.

As to the wounds being altered, the HSCA report simly acknowledges that the Dallas doctors all saw an occipital wound (of exit) but that such was not on the body, at Bethesda, and so they all must have been wroing.

The first legal body to really pursue the matter--albeit years later-was the ARRB Because of the presence of Doug Horne on the staff,and the presence of Jeremy Gunn, some half dozen witnesses were called. As I have posted elsewhere on this forum, Horne's reaction to the ARRB was to come out in strong support of my work.

Again, here is Horne's statement, and I QUOTE:

David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.)

Numerous persons the ARRB deposed or interviewed (FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, mortician Tom Robinson, and others) have essentially disowned the autopsy photographs showing the back of JFK's head intact. O'Neill said the photos of the back of the head looked "doctored" (by which he meant that he thought the wound had been repaired - put back together - not that the photo looked altered), and Sibert said the back of the head looked "reconstructed." Tom Robinson of Gawler's funeral home said there was a large hole in the back of the head where it looks intact in the photos. Pathologist J. Thornton Boswell said that there was a lot of bone missing in the right rear of the head behind where the scalp looks intact -but did not explain how the scalp could be intact if the bone in the right rear of the skull was missing! (See the ARRB deposition transcripts of Frank O'Neill, James Sibert, and J. Thornton Boswell, as well as the unsworn interview report of the ARRB interview with Tom Robinson.) UNQUOTE

So: When the matter was pursued, one of the key persons in charge has come out publicly and said my thesis was in fact correct.

DSL

6/1/11; 1:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited June 2, 2011 by David Lifton

[David Von Pein]

With regard to all the investigations that occurred after the assassination--the WC, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the HSCA--not one of them really had any clear idea that one possibility to explain the contradictory data in this case was that the President's body had been covertly intercepted and that the wounds had been altered prior to autopsy.

Bull. The Warren Commission and all the rest had the same data and the same witnesses you have had since you started your absurd body-alteration odyssey in 1966.

They knew about the contradictory statements made by the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses (even the WC back in '64).* They just had a little more common sense than some authors had when it comes to alleging things that the WC, et al, knew were simply impossible occurrences from the get-go -- such as stealing the President's body and whisking it away to Walter Reed without a single non-conspirator noticing. That type of activity just could not have happened.

Therefore, there IS another explanation to explain the contradictory witness statements. Your explanation is the most extraordinary (I think even you, yourself, DSL, will agree with that). While all other explanations are far less extraordinary.

* = Just one example of the WC knowing about the contradictory witnesses is this WC testimony supplied by Dr. Robert McClellend:

Dr. McCLELLAND -- "The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull itself, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head."

Haven't you ever asked yourself this one very pertinent question when assembling your body-altering theory, Mr. Lifton:

Why on Earth would any conspirators have even WANTED to do things the way you think they did them on 11/22/63 -- i.e., having to steal the body of the victim so that they can rearrange the wounds?

In other words, haven't you ever wondered WHY these goofy and overworked plotters didn't just SHOOT JFK FROM THE REAR TO BEGIN WITH, in order to avoid all the cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus that you say was required of them later in the day?

If that basic, fundamental question about the plot to murder the President hasn't crossed your mind since 1966, I have to wonder why it hasn't.

Edited June 1, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

In other words, haven't you ever wondered WHY these goofy and overworked plotters didn't just SHOOT JFK FROM THE REAR TO BEGIN WITH, in order to avoid all the cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus that you say was required of them later in the day?

DVP... I know of no one who has put this more succinctly... Salandria from the Last Investigation

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort micro-analyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by* promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."