Alterationists vs Non-Alternationists?

[Mike Rago]

The bullet which passed through the presidents neck came in at a much flatter trajectory than the autopsy doctors considered possible given their belief the bullet came from the 6th floor of the depository. The flat trajectory is very strong evidence that it originated from the second floor of the Daltex building or the second floor of the TSBD. Since the second floor of the TSBD seems like a very remote possibility it must have originated from the second floor of the Dal-Tex building.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

Mike... I guess you are not aware the the Connally wound originated with a 25 degree downward angle...

The THEORY that a bullet passed thru or between both men has been disproved 9ways come sunday.....

There were no transit lanes thru the shoulder to the throat... NONE

The throat wound is HIGHER on the body than the back wound.... SBT no workie

The throat would could only have been an exit wound IF THE BULLET HAS A CHANNEL THRU THE BODY... no channel, no SBT

O'Neill:

I know for a fact that when the autopsy was

complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance

at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher

in Dallas came out of JFK's body (DJ:due to external massage or just plain location of the bullet in the wound)

http://www.history-m...et/pdf/md47.pdf O'NEILL HSCA Affidavit

I heard Humes say that the bullets entered from a

45-60° angle. (JFK's backwound after Humes sticks his finger into it and FEELS the closed end of the wound. a 6.5mm bullet would leave a .25" lane thru JFK's body, thru ANY body it traveled thru... and ther simply was not such lane)

When the autopsy

doctor appeared to have no idea of where the bullet

entering the back may have gone, the doctors began

discussing other possible outlets for the bullet

The ambulance then travelled to the rear where

Sibert, Bill Greer (Secret Service), and Roy Kellerman

(Secret Service), and I placed the casket on a roller

and transported it into the autopsy room.

Mike - this is the entire conspiracy in a nutshell... At 6:35 a team of men carried a metal shipping casket into the morgue (Boyijean)

at 7:17, these four men ALONE, TESTIFIED TO placing an "empty" bronze casket onto rollers and brought it into an already bustling morgue.... actually the morgue's ante-room... where EVERYONE WAS TOLD TO LEAVE while this empty casket is brought in to be in close proximity to the body of JFK - WHICH HAD BEEN ON THE TABLE for over 30 minutes by now....

at 8pm the Joint Casket Bearer Team (MDW) arrives and OFFICIALLY takes the bronze casket, NOW with JFK's altered body, into the morgue....

If you read the interviews and statements of S&O closely, we find they were NOT in the morgue during this time.... and were NOT there when the bronze casket was opened....

and did NOT do into the morgue until JFK was already back on the table....

So Mike, BEFORE you tell us about SBT, or JFK pass-thru wounds... you have to overcome the mountain of evidence that already shows there NEVER WAS A TRANSIT LANE THRU THE BODY of JFK.

The wound to the throat APPEARED to be from a frontal gunshot

and all the angles and movement of the location of the shots will not change this...

on the other hand... we have confirmed sightings of a man with a rifle in the SE 6th floor window, which, from THAT window would be a much more steep angle to both JC and JFK from z190 thru the overpass....

[Mike Rago]

The bullet which hit Connally was not the bullet which passed through the presidents neck.

Sorry, but there was a transit lane. You are postulating some very extraordinary theories in order to justify a mistake.

The HSCA Medical Panel investigated the autopsy.

Here are their objectives....

And here are their conclusions...

Edited August 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

Mike... please point to where it says the wound from back to front on JFK exhibited a TRANSIT LANE

thanks

DJ

btw... "Here is there objectives" ??? Really?

"Here are their objectives"?

and what does the listing of the OBJECTIVE of an autopsy have to do with PROVING A TRANSIT LANE?

[Mike Rago]

Look at item 5...

[David Josephs]

First off these are OBJECTIVES OF AN AUTOPSY

"Hardly sufficient" and "MUST BE DISSECTED" does not refute anything... does not show that at any time the would was shown to have transited the body..

YEs Mike, they SHOULD have dissected the upper torso to ascertain a track or confirm the shallow wound....

But whan a 6.5mm high velocity bullet is shot thru a person, IT LEAVES A .25" hole thru the body... The would would not simply END.

Secondly... the HSCA was not in the room at Bethesda...they do not say Hume's statement is false, and it is true, to ascertain the TRACK, dissection is needed....

Is a dissection needed to determine the downward angle of the hole being probed?

No bullet,

No transit

Bullet from Parkland, complete, pristine... this really isn't that difficult

S&O report:

This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.

Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X-Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

[David Lifton]

... The hole suggests it WAS there, and as I say, if HUMES and BOSWELL took the bullets out of JFK themselves,

asking whether there are dissolvable bullets is pretty clever - don't you think?

One of the problems with that scenario, David, is that it is inconsistent with an extremely shallow wound to the back.

They could barely get the tip of their pinky to where the path ended. There was no "surgery" evident in the back at

the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so

without leaving any evidence of surgery?

I am not necessarily convinced that the flechette dart was used, but I will not rule it out based on the evidence nor on

arguments that I have thus far seen entertained by detractors. I've been looking at this evidence for almost 2 decades

and even Fletcher Prouty told me when I brought it up that he was almost certain it was used. He based his opinion on

the characteristics of the wounds and the effect on the target, that are unique to this weapon system. He was the one

who originally got it approved for development for the CIA.

Greg: I think it is good that you are focusing on the back wound. It deserves plenty of attention.

Re your statement "There was no "surgery" evident in the back at the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so without leaving any evidence of surgery?" . . . :

That is not quite true.

Please do not forget Dr. Perry's testimony about what Humes said to him, during the critical phone call the two had on 11/23:

"Did you make any wounds in the back?"

Here's the exact quote from Perry's WC deposition: ". . . he asked me at that time [Nov 23, 1963] if we had made any wounds in the back." (WC Vol , p. 17)

True, that is not "direct evidence" of surgery, but for Humes, an experiences pathologist, to ask Perry a question like that surely implies that there was something about that wound that struck him as peculiar.

I would also call your attention to the following "collateral" pieces of evidence. None of this constitutes "direct evidence" of surgery, of course, but it sure seems relevant to me:

(1) Nowhere in the autopsy report or testimony is there any evidence that the back wound had an "abrasion collar". (Yet the presence of an abrasion collar is the sin qua non of a genuine bullet wound.

(2) In their FD-302 report, FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill refer to the rear entry wound, into which they saw one of the doctors poke his finger as an "opening" in the back

(3) That Clark Panel (which examined the autopsy photos in 1968) went out of its way to note that the entry wound that was visible in the official autopsy photographs was too small to "permit the insertion of a finger" (quoting, from memory)

(4) As discussed in Chapter 31 of BEST EVIDENCE, a ruler (which doesn't seem to be performing any real function) conceals the area where Sibert and O'Neill report this "opening", in the same photo that shows the supposed entry wound, this time (i.e., in the photograph) sporting a nicely visible abrasion collar.

(5 ) There exists an official receipt for a "missile" removed from the body, etc.

If all these elements were laid out in an episode of "LAW AND ORDER" or CSI, the next plot development would be for one of the investigators to say, "Hey, that image in the official photo can't possibly be the 'wound' which that doctor inserted his finger!" and "Gee, I wonder what's under the ruler!" and. . finally. . (and this is not going to happen in the JFK case, let me assure you I realize that). . . "Let's get the judge to order an exhumation."

Let's take the "wide angle" view of this entire situation (just as I did, when writing BEST EVIDENCE): In lining up the evidence for "body alteration" (more precisely stated, "wound alteration"), the head wounds provide the strongest evidence; the throat wound is next in line; and the two rear entries come last.

I think the fundamental threshold question is: Did anyone monkey with the body? Is there any evidence of that--at all?

The head wound evidence (per Ch. 13, in BEST EVIDENCE) provides the answer: a resounding "yes". Next comes a similar question, posed re the neck (i.e., throat wound). Again (see Ch 11 of B.E.) the answer is "yes."

Once one establishes there is any monkeying around with the body, one has to approach the two rear entries--neither of which were seen in Dallas--from that perspective.

Obviously, the purpose of playing around with the body is not to change just one particular wound, but (a) to keep certain ballistic evidence (i.e., "the bullets") from reaching the FBI Laboratory; and (b ) to change the bullet trajectories, which lawyers call, in their inimitable vocabulary, the "facts" of the shooting.

Those "facts" (in this case) constitute the medico-legal foundation for the entire official version of the crime--i.e., that Oswald shot the President from the TSBD.

And I believe that changing those "facts" to support that false story is exactly what took place on November 22, 1963: the "facts" of the shooting were "changed," so the autopsy conclusions would read one way, and not some other.

RE: SOLUBLE BULLETS

As for soluble bullets, etc.: I think the proper way to look at that data is not that such missiles were actually used, but rather that, confronted with a body without any bullets (i.e., a "bulletless body," which is the term I used in B.E.) the examining doctors (at Bethesda) were seriously puzzled as to how to explain such an absense. (In the words of the report of agents Sibert and O'Neill, the examining doctors were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets). So, imho, their remarks (along those lines) speaks more to their puzzlement about a bulletless body, than to the actual employment of such technology, in the shooting of JFK.

Personally, I think it unlikely such technology was employed. What I do believe was "employed" --if I may use that term in this context--was a considerable amount of thinking about just how to shoot the President, and then leave his body in such a condition that it would be easy to alter. And I think the answer is exactly as I have laid out in BEST EVIDENCE, in the chapter titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." The plan was to shoot the President from the front, with low velocity ammunition (which would not exit) and then "reverse" the trajectories just as described in my chapter: extract the bullets, and then create false rear entries, as needed. What is important about this whole scheme--which is spelled out in detail, with supporting evidence, in my book--is that the body was treated in its totality, and in advance. So President Kennedy was treated not just as a person to be killed, but (then) as a diagram to be altered. And Chapter 14 spells all that out--right down to the DPD radio transmissions indicating (within 3-5 minutes) that "the assassin" was seen firing from a window of the TSBD, etc etc.

This was a well co-ordinated "strategic deception." And I'll have more to say about this "planning in advance" in a future writing. .

KENNEDY'S T-SHIRT

For now, I'd like to point to an area that Prof. Liebeler and I used to joke about: What happened to President Kennedy's undershirt? And was he wearing one? And what would have happened (vis a vis Arlen Specter, for example) had it been found, and found to contain no (rear entry) bullet hole?

Just last night, in reviewing Jimmy Breslin's original interview of Dr. Malcolm Perry, which was published in the Saturday Evening Post in December --but which was published (and most folks do not realize this) on Sunday, 11/24/63, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch--there appears a statement in the article (which could only have come from Dr. Perry), that JFK's T-Shirt was in fact lying there, right on the floor. That it had been removed, and there it was.

Its just a passing comment, but wouldn't it have been nice if the WC staff had noticed that, and had sought (a) testimony from Breslin about his original interview with Perry, on 11/23/63, and exactly what notes or recollections he might have had about the T-shirt; and then (b ) questioned Dr. Perry along those same lines?

I find it very odd that the T-shirt--reported by Perry, in this article--apparently "disappeared"; and I think all would agree that if that T-shirt did not contain a hole, that would be the ultimate evidence that the back wound was man made.

(Which is exactly what I believe to be the case.)

DSL

8/17/12; 11:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited August 17, 2012 by David Lifton

[Mike Rago]

Mr. Lifton do you seriously believe that a jury would buy this statement.

Personally, I think it unlikely such technology was employed. What I do believe was "employed" --if I may use that term in this context--was a considerable amount of thinking about just how to shoot the President, and then leave his body in such a condition that it would be easy to alter. And I think the answer is exactly as I have laid out in BEST EVIDENCE, in the chapter titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." The plan was to shoot the President from the front, with low velocity ammunition (which would not exit) and then "reverse" the trajectories just as described in my chapter: extract the bullets, and then create false rear entries, as needed. What is important about this whole scheme--which is spelled out in detail, with supporting evidence, in my book--is that the body was treated in its totality, and in advance. So President Kennedy was treated not just as a person to be killed, but (then) as a diagram to be altered. And Chapter 14 spells all that out--right down to the DPD radio transmissions indicating (within 3-5 minutes) that "the assassin" was seen firing from a window of the TSBD, etc etc.

So the president was shot with bullets that did not exit. Where did the bullets go?

I know you are a respected author of a popular book. I can see your impact on some of the members of this forum.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Mike Rago

[David Josephs]

Thanks David... yet I will have to disagree with you on this point: that the shot from the front was part of a reverse engineering job....

Before the plane landed in Bethesda Oswald was the culprit... end of story.

But would you agree that up until that point, the CIA manufactured "conspiracy" was designed to illicit the response that Oswald and his Mexican, Russian, Cuban "associates" killed JFK... so let's go wipe Cuba and Russia off the planet.... This is what the JCS and CIA seem to have been setting up at least since the summer of 63.

Now, all of a sudden, it's Oswald the Lone Nut... and we can't have anyone other than Oswald....

What bothers me most about this idea is that from the very first day's questioning, the SS/FBI INSISTED there were only three shots from behind... and brow beat any witness who disagreed.

Hoover was concerned about Mexico City enough to state on Dec 12, 63:

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

How did the FBI know and promote, in the first hours, that it was no longer a conspiracy? Wasn't Jean Hill told 3 shots, no more, don't care what you say you heard, almost immediately?

To conclude, I'd have to say then that the CIA COULD have simply been messing with Hoover and the FBI and SS in creating a trail to a ficticious conspiracy thereby making it even more difficult for the FBI to show Oswald as the LN and to jack up their buddy Hoover....

DJ

[David Lifton]

Mr. Lifton do you seriously believe that a jury would buy this statement.

Personally, I think it unlikely such technology was employed. What I do believe was "employed" --if I may use that term in this context--was a considerable amount of thinking about just how to shoot the President, and then leave his body in such a condition that it would be easy to alter. And I think the answer is exactly as I have laid out in BEST EVIDENCE, in the chapter titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." The plan was to shoot the President from the front, with low velocity ammunition (which would not exit) and then "reverse" the trajectories just as described in my chapter: extract the bullets, and then create false rear entries, as needed. What is important about this whole scheme--which is spelled out in detail, with supporting evidence, in my book--is that the body was treated in its totality, and in advance. So President Kennedy was treated not just as a person to be killed, but (then) as a diagram to be altered. And Chapter 14 spells all that out--right down to the DPD radio transmissions indicating (within 3-5 minutes) that "the assassin" was seen firing from a window of the TSBD, etc etc.

So the president was shot with bullets that did not exit. Where did the bullets go?

I know you are a respected author of a popular book. I can see your impact on some of the members of this forum.

Mr. Rago,

The assassination of President Kennedy was a political crime. It was not simply a “multiple shooter conspiracy” in which the solution lies in finding out “what happened on the grassy knoll.”

Of fundamental importance is that this crime was an inside job—and not only that, but an “inside job” that was carefully and deliberately disguised to have been an outside job: a man in a building who shot a man in a car. That’s the appearance presented on 11/22/63, and that did not happen by accident.

There are probably any number of ways to simply “kill the President.” But that’s not what this (i.e., "Dallas") was about—the goal here was not just to “kill the President,” but to do so and get away with it (and to clear a path so that the line of succession would operate smoothly, elevating the Vice President to the Oval Office); and to accomplish all this by altering the basic facts about the murder, immediately after the crime occurred.

A “motorcade assassination” was chosen as the venue and it was carefully planned in advance. “Shooting the President” was just one part of the overall plan. The overall plan was designed to make this well-planned shooting appear to have been a “historical accident.”

That’s why the focus was on Oswald, within such a short while, and why no other shooters were seen.

None of this could have been done without a plan, designed in advance, to make it appear that Oswald was “the assassin” and that could not have been accomplished without a sensible plan to falsify the autopsy.

That’s what BEST EVIDENCE—which you admittedly have not read—is all about; because, ultimately, you cannot have such a plan without planning in advance, to “deal with” the body.

That’s because “the body” –in any murder case, but especially in this one—is the centerpiece of the crime, and the most important evidence in the case.

By focusing on “the grassy knoll” as the key to this case (your bio says “Mike believes that understanding what happened on the Grassy Knoll is the key to solving this case”) you are focusing on the details of the shooting, rather than the pre-planned falsification of evidence which in fact is the key to arriving at the truth of this murder. Moreover, understanding how that pre-planned falsification was intended to work (even if the details did not work completely as planned) is central to deciphering the puzzle posed by what is commonly called “the Kennedy assassination.”

Since the venue for this entire crime was a “motorcade assassination,” then, and as such, one must deal with such “peripheral matters” as:

•Who was Lee Harvey Oswald –not who did he “appear” to be, but who, in actuality, was he? And why, at age 19, did he go to Russia, spent 2-3/4 years there, and have a Government assisted return?

•How was the trip to Dallas planned, and how was the parade planned?

•How was it possible that Oswald (the only one of about 15 defectors with rifle training, and in a nation of some 200 people), was employed on the parade route?

•Why, in March, 1963, did he order a rifle, by mail, from a Chicago store that kept its records on microfilm?

•If Oswald was a pro-Castro Marxist, how come his favorite author was George Orwell, and his favorite book 1984?

Finally, of course, it all comes down to the fact that on 11/22/63, and based on an autopsy conducted at Bethesda Naval Hospital—after the body was altered—Oswald’s rifle appears to have been the murder weapon.

Of course, all of this comes down to the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy.

BEST EVIDENCE presents the case that the body was altered.

In Chapter 14—“Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”—I spell out how this could have been planned in advance. That could have happened (and in my opinion did happen) because the authors of this crime understood, as part of the planning that must have taken place, that this was not just about "killing the President" but doing so while, in addition, fabricating a false story of how he died, one that would be acceptable to the mass media, and to all subsequent legal investigations (and, I might add, be almost impossible to detect 'in real time', and not be perceivable until quite a bit of time passed, and a wide assortment of records, particularly medical records, became available.)

Apparently, you don’t like my summary statement. You write: “Mr. Lifton, do you seriously believe that a jury would buy this statement?”

What you’re really saying is: “Mr. Lifton, I just can’t believe there was a political conspiracy of that magnitude.” Which, really means: “I can’t deal with this global overview you are presenting”. . . which in effect, leads to: “I’d rather believe that the key to this case lies in 'what happened on the grassy knoll.' I prefer viewing 'the conspiracy' as one consisting of "cross-fire", and not treason. I can deal with cross-fire. I cannot deal with treason.”

Well, that’s your choice.

But that’s sort of like saying that the key to the financial crisis in this country has just gone through was a particularly “bad guy” bond trader (or two) or a particularly greedy investment banker (or two, or three), rather than something more fundamental, and systemic.

Of course, you’re entitled to your belief, and no doubt, you would be thrilled to find the “grassy knoll shooter”. . .but, as I said in BEST EVIDENCE, and said many times in public appearances, the key to the Kennedy assassination--the key that leads to the authors of the crime--is not who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body, but who took them out.

DSL

8/17/12; 2:40 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

P.S. As to your question, "Where did the bullets go?" . . I presume you are aware of Dr. Clark's statement, made to the NY Times, that the bullet that entered at the throat "ranged downward and did not exit"; and that you are also aware of the observations of the autopsy doctors at Bethesda--specifically, of the bruise with the pyramidal shaped scar atop the right lung? And the FBI receipt for a "misle" removed from the body and handed to Humes? Somewhere in all that conglomeration of evidence, I am sure, lies the answer to the question as to what happened to that particular bullet. Of course, this is (almost) a mere technicality compared to the more general considerations raised in the main body of my post, above.

Edited August 17, 2012 by David Lifton

[David Josephs]

Of course, you’re entitled to your belief, and no doubt, you would be thrilled to find the “grassy knoll shooter”. . .but, as I said in BEST EVIDENCE, and said many times in public appearances, the key to the Kennedy assassination--the key that leads to the authors of the crime--is not who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body, but who took them out.

Cheers to you David....

Yet even if the integrity of the body was established as intact from Dallas... the OFFICIAL RESULTS of the Autopsy, the BEST EVIDENCE, could have been completely fabricated and have nothing at all to do with what was seen and recorded during those evening hours. Which of course is most evidence in the extant Autopsy Report... the THIRD autopsy report... the BEST EVIDENCE by which the LNer builds his case

DJ

[Greg Burnham]

Greg: I think it is good that you are focusing on the back wound. It deserves plenty of attention. Re: your statement "There was no "surgery" evident in the back at the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so without leaving any evidence of surgery?" . . . : That is not quite true.

Please do not forget Dr. Perry's testimony about what Humes said to him, during the critical phone call the two had on 11/23: "Did you make any wounds in the back?"

Here's the exact quote from Perry's WC deposition: ". . . he asked me at that time [Nov 23, 1963] if we had made any wounds in the back." (WC Vol , p. 17)

True, that is not "direct evidence" of surgery, but for Humes, an experiences pathologist, to ask Perry a question like that surely implies that there was something about that wound that struck him as peculiar.

David:

These are all good considerations to be sure, imho. However, as for the "peculiar nature" of the back wound, about which Humes questioned Perry, in my view it is equally plausible that he was referring to the fact that it was an extremely shallow wound of entrance for which there was no exit. That alone would warrant the question as Humes would need to rule out the Parkland doctors as the source.

I would also call your attention to the following "collateral" pieces of evidence. None of this constitutes "direct evidence" of surgery, of course, but it sure seems relevant to me:

(1) Nowhere in the autopsy report or testimony is there any evidence that the back wound had an "abrasion collar". (Yet the presence of an abrasion collar is the sin qua non of a genuine bullet wound.

(2) In their FD-302 report, FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill refer to the rear entry wound, into which they saw one of the doctors poke his finger as an "opening" in the back

(3) That Clark Panel (which examined the autopsy photos in 1968) went out of its way to note that the entry wound that was visible in the official autopsy photographs was too small to "permit the insertion of a finger" (quoting, from memory)

(4) As discussed in Chapter 31 of BEST EVIDENCE, a ruler (which doesn't seem to be performing any real function) conceals the area where Sibert and O'Neill report this "opening", in the same photo that shows the supposed entry wound, this time (i.e., in the photograph) sporting a nicely visible abrasion collar.

(5 ) There exists an official receipt for a "missile" removed from the body, etc.

If all these elements were laid out in an episode of "LAW AND ORDER" or CSI, the next plot development would be for one of the investigators to say, "Hey, that image in the official photo can't possibly be the 'wound' which that doctor inserted his finger!" and "Gee, I wonder what's under the ruler!" and. . finally. . (and this is not going to happen in the JFK case, let me assure you I realize that). . . "Let's get the judge to order an exhumation."

Let's take the "wide angle" view of this entire situation (just as I did, when writing BEST EVIDENCE): In lining up the evidence for "body alteration" (more precisely stated, "wound alteration"), the head wounds provide the strongest evidence; the throat wound is next in line; and the two rear entries come last.

I think the fundamental threshold question is: Did anyone monkey with the body? Is there any evidence of that--at all?

The head wound evidence (per Ch. 13, in BEST EVIDENCE) provides the answer: a resounding "yes". Next comes a similar question, posed re the neck (i.e., throat wound). Again (see Ch 11 of B.E.) the answer is "yes."

Once one establishes there is any monkeying around with the body, one has to approach the two rear entries--neither of which were seen in Dallas--from that perspective.

Although I see your point, and agree with it--that there was monkeying around with the body--still, that no doctor reported having seen a back wound in Dallas could easily be a function of the fact that the Parkland doctors were not exploring the body to determine cause of death, as in an autopsy, rather they were attempting to save the president's life. Because of the severity of the head wound and the severity of the throat wound, which apparently was recognized as obstructing the airway necessitating a tracheotomy, I believe the Parkland doctors had their hands full dealing with the immediate threat to life. Therefore the president was lying face up with his back unexposed for scrutiny. After he was pronounced dead it is unlikely that any of the trauma room doctors would feel the need to roll him over and examine his back. Of course, the coroner would have done so, but shortly after the president was pronounced dead the SS took custody of the body thus disallowing examination by the medical examiner and certainly preventing any scrutiny of the back. So the fact that the evidence of back wounds was absent in the Dallas doctors' reports is not evidence of their absence in the president's body.

(1) Nowhere in the autopsy report or testimony is there any evidence that the back wound had an "abrasion collar". (Yet the presence of an abrasion collar is the sin qua non of a genuine bullet wound.

True enough, however... flechette darts are not "genuine bullets" and therefore wounds inflicted by soluble flechette darts do not impart "abrasion collars" to the victim.

Kudos for your reply to the Rag Man.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Greg Burnham

[Mike Rago]

Of course, you’re entitled to your belief, and no doubt, you would be thrilled to find the “grassy knoll shooter”. . .but, as I said inBEST EVIDENCE, and said many times in public appearances, the key to the Kennedy assassination--the key that leads to the authors of the crime--is not who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body, but who took them out.

With all due respect Mr. Lifton, that is not the key to who killed the president. In fact, I am positive that attitude will never lead to the solution of this case.

You theory leads to too many bizarre conclusions.

Your theory cannot answer even the most simple test put to it in a reasonable manner.

Here is an example of just one of the bizarre conclusions reached by your theory...

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that the people who controlled the Zapruder film, intentionally inserted images of bone being ejected from the presidents skull in order to hide the fact that the presidents body was altered between Parkland and Bethesda. And that is just for starters.

Here is another absolutely totally bizarre conclusion...

Personally, I think it unlikely such technology was employed. What I do believe was "employed" --if I may use that term in this context--was a considerable amount of thinking about just how to shoot the President, and then leave his body in such a condition that it would be easy to alter. And I think the answer is exactly as I have laid out in BEST EVIDENCE, in the chapter titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." The plan was to shoot the President from the front, with low velocity ammunition (which would not exit) and then "reverse" the trajectories just as described in my chapter: extract the bullets, and then create false rear entries, as needed. What is important about this whole scheme--which is spelled out in detail, with supporting evidence, in my book--is that the body was treated in its totality, and in advance. So President Kennedy was treated not just as a person to be killed, but (then) as a diagram to be altered. And Chapter 14 spells all that out--right down to the DPD radio transmissions indicating (within 3-5 minutes) that "the assassin" was seen firing from a window of the TSBD, etc etc.

PS: I did find the Grassy Knoll shooter.

Regarding Mr. Josephs voluminous posting on the x-rays. He needs to learn how to read an xray or at least do some more googling on the subject.

Edited August 18, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Cliff Varnell]

RE: SOLUBLE BULLETS

As for soluble bullets, etc.: I think the proper way to look at that data is not that such missiles were actually used, but rather that, confronted with a body without any bullets (i.e., a "bulletless body," which is the term I used in B.E.) the examining doctors (at Bethesda) were seriously puzzled as to how to explain such an absense. (In the words of the report of agents Sibert and O'Neill, the examining doctors were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets). So, imho, their remarks (along those lines) speaks more to their puzzlement about a bulletless body, than to the actual employment of such technology, in the shooting of JFK.

Welcome to the discussion, David. Thank you for acknowledging the fact that the autopsists considered the possibility JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds. Just as the source of the "surgery to the head" scenario is from the only credible contemporaneous record of the autopsy -- the S & O FBI report -- the "blood soluble" scenario is part of Sibert & O'Neill's account of the autopsy.

The Blood Soluble Scenario and the Pre-Autopsy Head Surgery Scenario are not "theories," per se. These scenarios reflect what the autopsists were thinking during the autopsy with the body in front of them -- according to the FBI men. That's the "proper" way to look that them.

For instance, no one at the autopsy thought that a bullet entered the back wound and exited the throat -- that's a theory made up post-autopsy. The vast majority of theories about the case have been made up post-autopsy. The theory that JFK was struck in the throat with a low caliber round that pierced the windshield and was maybe a dud and then removed pre-autopsy -- all that is a theory.

The S & O report only refers to surgery to the head, which certainly raises the possibility of surgery to the throat, but the latter is a "theory" while surgery to the head is a "resonable scenario indicated in the historical record of the autopsy."

No, the Blood Slouble Scenario and the Pre-Autopsy Head Surgery Scenario are not like all those other theories. They are part of the historical record of the autopsy, the thinking of the autopsists before their deliberations were corrupted by news of what would eventually be known as CE399, the Magic Bullet.

The autopsists were "at a loss to explain" a "low", shallow back entrance wound, no exit, no bullet. They may very well have known about the wound in the throat. Same deal -- entrance wound, no exit, no bullet. They considered rounds "which dissolve after contact." FBI SA Sibert was inspired to call the FBI Lab to inquire about rounds which "fragment completely."

These are the root historical facts of the case. We have a variety of explanations for the back wound: a sabot-sheathed Magic Bullet, a post-mortem body mutilation, a defective round fished out pre-autopsy, or a second blood soluble strike.

For the throat wound there appears to be two possibilities -- pre-autopsy removal of the round, or a blood soluble Flechette. Your mileage will certainly vary as to which scenario is the "most likely."

Some speculate that the throat wound was the result of an exiting bone fragment from the head shot. This would mean that JFK started reacting to apparent throat trauma 6 seconds before he suffered a wound in the throat, to say nothing of the fact that the Parkland personnel described the throat wound as one consistent with entrance.

Personally, I think it unlikely such technology was employed.

I think the Blood Soluble Scenario reconciles too many crucial points of evidence to be regarded as "unlikely." People say the same thing about pre-autopsy surgery to the head. But pre-autopsy surgery to the head helps explain the conflicting head wounds data. The blood soluble scenario accounts for the small entrance wound in the throat, shallow back wound, the minor damage seen in the neck x-ray (especially the airpocket!), and most importantly a blood soluble paralytic best explains JFK's apparent paralysis in the limo.

Occam's Razor: What's the most likely explanation for a man acting paralyzed? He is paralyzed!

Edited August 19, 2012 by Cliff Varnell