Dr. David Mantik's new book

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe it is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[David Lifton]

On 7/29/2015 at 12:37 PM, James DiEugenio said:

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up."  An even better way to describe it is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception."  That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas.  (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  

It just seems a lot simpler and a lot more common and a lot more intuitively sensible to have a shooting with an ad hoc coverup. 

I have seen the phenomenon many times of people coming across circumstances, an archaeological dig, which would be analogous to a scene of a crime, trying to figure out the story of how things came to be that way ... and in that struggle to explain the details of that scene, coming up with explanations which are wrong or mistaken or stretches in reasoning. Then people get locked into their own stories and double down on them, in the academic world, when other later voices point out incongruities and problems in the original theory. As humans there is the drive to explain, to have a story that explains, and gaps are filled in to make a story work, even when not all moving parts fit together well. 

It just seems more intuitive that there be a murder operation focused solely on having success in the murder (and patsy set up to be blamed if so, along with getaway plans), without the extraordinary complexity of planning coverup afterward involving reading trained medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, civilians et al into having covert bit parts of a complex plot for which there is no certainty at the outset that that particular one (Dallas Nov 22) is even going to come off as planned. (The "what if it had rained harder Nov 22?" question, etc. So often in successful assassinations several failed attempts precede the one that works.) 

Risk of someone leaking. Risk of someone blowing the whistle. Risk of someone talking afterward who had been read into a bit part of the coverup beforehand. Risk that one or more of all of the planned actors in advance getting their roles wrong.

Some of the errors or stretches in original reasoning in such early narrative interpretations of an archaeological site, or scene of a crime, seem in retrospect so egregious that it can easily become interpreted as having been knowing dishonesty, even though that is not actually what happened. In the academic world there probably is a relatively high incidence of dishonesty in the form of scholars or professionals setting forth an original theory or argument, then challenged and shown wrong, but sticking to the original in public for reasons of pride and status even if privately now aware of the possibility they had gotten it wrong. But there is low incidence of scholars or professionals starting out knowingly or intentionally getting it wrong in the first place (because it is not pleasant to have errors later shown publicly). Just speaking from observation of how it works in the world of archaeology.

Could you speak to this consideration David, with respect to the planned vs. ad hoc coverup? (I always listen and often learn from what you have to say.)

[Micah Mileto]

On 7/29/2015 at 8:25 AM, David Lifton said:

 

[delete]

Edited January 23, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

On 7/29/2015 at 8:25 AM, David Lifton said:

Jim DiEugenio:

Yes. The agent was Elmer Moore, and his report—officially designated “SS 633”—was not published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission. (SS 663 was part of either CD 87 or CD 320, the two large SS reports submitted to the Warren Commission).

But there was a serious typo in my original post, which I went back and corrected. The paragraph you quote –when corrected—would read (and I have corrected it, so it does read properly as follows):

The first time these [Dallas] doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings,-- i.e., that JFK was shot twice from behind.  That autopsy document was not sent to the FBI until December 23, 1963, and to the Warren Commission about a month later.  

What follows is a more detailed narrative, dealing with the autopsy conclusions.

December 11, 1963 - the Secret Service visits the Dallas Doctors

What happened was that the Dallas doctors were visited by a Secret Service agent (Elmer Moore) who showed them the Bethesda autopsy report, which recorded two entry wounds on the back of the body, entry wounds which had not been observed or reported by any of the Dallas doctors. One was just above the shoulder blade; the other, at the bottom of the back of the head. The interviewing agent suggested that the Dallas doctors had “missed” these two rear entry wounds because “you hadn’t turned him over.” (my quotes). As far as is known, none of the Dallas doctors had the temerity to say, “Yes, that’s true; we didn’t turn him over; but two of our nurses washed the body, before putting him in the coffin, and they didn’t notice any such entry wounds either”.

The story of the Secret Service visit was told by Dr. McClelland to reporter Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Dudman then published it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of December 18, 1963 under the headline:

Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound.

The wound being referred to as having sustained a “revision” was the wound at the front of Kennedy’s throat. With the official appearance of a small entry wound on the back—more precisely, just above the shoulder blade—that wound was now said to be the entry point for a bullet which entered from the rear, and which traversed JFK’s body on a downward-sloping trajectory, exiting at the front of the throat. It exited via the throat wound which—on the day of the assassination (and in the days following)-- had (originally) been described as an entry wound.

But now, in this official autopsy report that the doctors were shown on December 11, 1963, the throat wound was described as an exit wound. Moreover, the Secret Service agent (or agents) who visited the Dallas doctors on December 11 1963 wanted them to see this autopsy report (for themselves) so they would cease making public statements that the wound at the front of the throat was an entry wound.

"Schematics". . .(i.e., diagrams showing trajectories). . .

In fact, they didn't just show the doctors the Bethesda autopsy report (which was subsequently transmitted to the Warren Commission as CD 77 on December 20, 1963). They also displayed to the doctors certain "schematics"--i.e., drawings, apparently illustrating the back-to-front trajectory with an arrow passing through the neck (similar to, but not identical with, Rydberg drawings).

"Now, look here," the Dallas doctors were (in effect) told. The Bethesda autopsy reports a wound on the back of the body—a wound which you missed—and that explains why the wound at the front of the throat (which you fellows misinterpreted as an entry) was really an exit wound (!).

Essentially, that was the nature of the transaction on December 11, 1963. Remember: it was written that day, and published in the next day's Times-Herald.

Dudman’s article in the 12/18/63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence, which is devoted to the wound at the front of Kennedy's throat, and to the "transaction" described above. This Dudman article was first shown to me in 1965 by Ray Marcus, who was collecting all available information for inclusion in a large scrapbook he was compiling at the time, attempting to keep track of the evolution of the official story of the neck wound. Of course, in the course of writing Best Evidence, I subsequently ordered all of this material on microfilm, via the UCLA Research Library, and gave it very close study.

In that regard, there is one other news story connected with this affair, which is of equal—if not far greater ---importance; and that, too, is discussed in some detail in Best Evidence, also in Chapter 3.

THE “OTHER” NEWS STORY - Dec 12s 1963

4/25/22:  What follows is my investigation of what turns out to be a planted news story about the JFK autopsy conclusions (which was a front page in the Dallas Times- Herald)-- and my discovery of who was the source, an important Dallas doctor.  

** ** ** **

On December 12, 1963, the Dallas Times-Herald—an evening newspaper—published a story (on page one) by its science writer Bill Burrus which ran under the headline:

KENNEDY SHOT

ENTERED BACK

The story was datelined “Bethesda, Md.” and the lead paragraph read:

President Kennedy was shot in the back and the bullet, which had a hard-metal jacket, exited through his throat, a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital revealed Thursday.

Other key sentences in this account read:

It was a surprising disclosure that President Kennedy had been shot in the back. The wound had not bled externally, and doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital missed it in their 22 minutes of futility—trying to save the President’s life.

Most worldwide press and medical reports have described the neck wound as one which entered there, or one which went tangentially across the President’s throat.

The complete Bethesda [autopsy] report shows that the first bullet fired . . .

(and now came language that was almost identical with the official autopsy report transmitted to the Warren Commission on December 20 1963). . .

. . . entered above President Kennedy’s right scapula—commonly called the shoulder blade.

It did not hit any vital organs and came out just below the “Adam’s apple” in the throat, said the Bethesda report.

The story went on to explain—in some detail—why the bullet that passed through President Kennedy’s throat came out undamaged (i.e., just like bullet 399) and why the Dallas doctors were wrong in initially identifying the throat wound as an entrance:

Unlike an ordinary lead bullet, a jacketed bullet does not spread out upon contact. This explains why the President had no external bleeding from the entrance wound in the back, and why the neck wound was no larger—making it appear to doctors handling it as an emergency case as an entrance wound.

The final paragraph of the Burrus story read:

Investigating officers explained that the trajectory of the bullet from back to front is in line with one that could have been fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald.

This story, published locally in Dallas (again, in the Dallas Times-Herald ), was true remarkable, and yet was never carried by the wire services. What made it special was that whoever provided the information clearly had access to the Bethesda autopsy report (not provided to the FBI until December 20th); and, furthermore, there were phrases and terminology in this account that appeared to be setting the stage for the single bullet theory. (Yes, by that date in December 1963!)

Imagine that: all of that taking place on December 11, 1963 (the day the story was written).  But now let's go back to that point in time.

TIME AND PLACE: March 1978: DSL (yours truly) in Rockaway Beach, New York --  (aka "Belle Harbor, Long Island," to those who prefer the more fancy designation)- - writing the manuscript of B.E.

Specifically, at that time, I was writing the final draft of Chapter 3, "The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?").  Although my "official residence" was West Los Angeles, California, I was --temporarily-- residing at my parents home in Rockaway Beach, (a suburb of New York City). Our family home was located three houses from the beach, and I was occupying two rooms on the second floor, and racing against editorial deadlines.  I had promised my folks that my stay would be temporary, but now this matter of Bill Burrus and his unusual story came up, and it could not be ignored.  It was essential that I get to the source for this news story, in order that it be included in Best Evidence.  The story was datelined “Bethesda, Maryland” and so the implication (as could be inferred by the "Bethesda" dateline) was that the source was "east coast". And that was my initial belief: that the JFK autopsy results were being "leaked" by some Navy official connected with the Bethesda autopsy.  But that was not the case.  Not at all.

Where My Pursuit Led Me 

Battling time deadlines, I set out to find Bill Burrus who, it turned out, was no longer in Dallas and no longer working at the Dallas Times-Herald. Then, a stroke of luck-- and that's what it was: pure luck.  Remarkably, I located him (by phone) in New York City—then working as a free lance. I started to question him in detail about his story; and he started to provide some rather tantalizing answers--but then he stopped. Suddenly.  It was as if he turned off a gushing water faucet.

Nope, he said, he was busy. He was a working writer, and had things to do. He didn't want to discuss it right then; but he would tell me "the whole story" --the whole story of his amazing "scoop"-- but under one condition: if we could meet, later that day, at his favorite bar in downtown Manhattan, and if I would buy him beer.

Really.  That's what he said, and that's what governed what happened next.

We arranged a meeting, a fully on-the-record tape-recorded meeting at a colorful bar and grill in downtown Manhattan. The location was only 13 miles distant, by the way the crow flies. But, being no crow, and carrying a bulky reel-to-reel tape recorder (a SONY TC 800, as I recall), I had to use public transportation. So the trip was closer to 20 miles (or more), and involved taking a bus ride of about 30 minutes from Rockaway Beach to the "last stop" of an IRT subway, located near the Brooklyn College campus.  But I stopped everything I was doing, grabbed my tape recorder, ran to the nearest bus stop for the Green Bus Line (the way to exit Rockaway Beach, and get to Brooklyn), and then take a subway to Manhattan.  I managed to get there by 5 p.m., our agreed upon rendezvous time.

March 1978: My Meeting with Bill Burrus in downtown Manhattan (at the "Portuguese Bar")

The meeting--with Burrus drinking one beer after another, and me grilling him incessantly--lasted several hours.  By the time it was over, I had a full account—to the extent Burrus was willing to share with me—about what happened on the night of December 11, 1963 and certain important information --critically important information-- about the source of the story he had published on December 11, 1963.

A Big Surprise About the Source

DSL Note, 4/25/22 (reviewed and tweaked, for improved clarity)

Bill Burrus never told me the source of this remarkable story (he stressed that it was highly confidential), but he seemed to want me to know it. Consequently, he dropped numerous hints, and basically implied that I should be able to figure it out for myself (which I later did).

Quite to my surprise, the source of the story was not someone in Bethesda, Maryland, even though Burrus had "datelined" his story as if it was.  But that was false. Completely incorrect. Of singular importance was that Burrus had deliberately "false sourced" the story to “Bethesda, Maryland” in order to hide the true source. As Burrus explained to me) back in December 1963,  Burrus would not reveal (i.e., refused to reveal) the true source, even to a high executive at the Associated Press the following day.  Consequently, Burrus's story was never run nationally (as it otherwise would have been).

In other words, because of a stubborn streak, Bill Burrus lost his "scoop".  (As I later came to understand: Burrus attempted to have it both ways --to have a scoop, but also honor a promise he had made not to reveal his source).  To repeat: Burrus's sloppy compromise was to "false source" his story implying to the reader that the source was "Bethesda"(i.e., someone connected with the naval autopsy), but concealing an important truth: that the source was Dallas; and specifically, the neurosurgeon who pronounced Kennedy dead.

Because of his false sourcing, Burrus story created confusion; and was not perceived as a scoop.  He was bitter and never got the recognition he believed he deserved. His story never became the "official leak," of the Bethesda autopsy conclusions, as --apparently--it was intended to be.  Instead, by losing his scoop, the result was that certain incorrect accounts--of a previous version of the Bethesda autopsy--were then unearthed and widely published (e.g., Nate Haseltine in the Washington Post of 12/18/63, etc.)

But now let's return to Burrus and my meeting with him in March 1978: As Burrus drank beer and my tape recorder turned. (FWIW: I don't drink, and anyway, I was listening, and making notes, and making sure my tape recorder was working properly, with the needle appropriately oscillating as Burrus held forth).  At some entered into the most important part of our dialogue. . Who provided this information?  How did it happen?  Would he tell me?

What follows is Burrus's account, as he related it to me.  And it begins with a telephone call to Burrus' residence about three weeks after President Kennedy's murder.  As I later determined, the caller was Dr, Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, and the Dallas physician who pronounced Kennedy dead.  Burrus's story is important because it permitted me to identify the Dallas doctor who was involved in behind the scene machinations to plant a story about the Bethesda autopsy results-- attempting to plant a story strongly stated Kennedy was shot from behind, and implying the source was some Navy official in Washington, when the source was himself.

Now back to Burrus's account.s

THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 11, 1963: AT THE BURRUS RESIDENCE

Burrus was the science writer for the Dallas Times-Herald, and when the caller identified himself, Burrus was speechless.

Dr. Clark was calling to tell him "the truth" about the Dallas autopsy results-- and specifically, the trajectory of the shots that struck JFK.  There could be no hotter news story at the time, but there was an important condition -- Burrus must not ever reveal the source.   Burrus was being provided information that some "higher authority"  clearly wanted published as a news story as soon as possible. Each detail was important; the language had to be precise; with Burrus calling back his source more than once on that evening to verify this or that point; and to make sure that he "got it right." In a way, it was just as good as the Deep Throat story about Watergate, only better.  Deep Throat was about a burglary; Burrus' story was about murder. A President's murder.

I put a footnote about this in Best Evidence (stating that I had interviewed Burrus in March, 1978, and that the source of the story was not “Bethesda, Maryland” etc.), but I didn’t elaborate, and include the "remaining" details. I did so because a full account would have required hundreds of additional words, and certain additional information; and would have—as a practical matter—added an additional chapter to the book. My focus had to be the covert alteration of the President's body, not who was involved in leaking the autopsy results on Decmber 11, 1963.  Also, there were certain "additional insights" that I myself did not have in March 1978, and which came later, and turned out to be essential to properly deciphering the full implications of the Burrus story.

The result: there were complications to what Burrus (who died in 1993) told me (in March 1978) that prevented me from incorporating his account in Best Evidence. However, I intend to place a full account in Final Charade, and I think (that is, I hope) it will be apparent, to anyone reading that account, that, Burrus's full account implicates one of the Dallas doctors in playing an important "behind the scenes" role in the cover-up.  What role?  This Dallas doctor planted a new version of the Bethesda autopsy conclusions about trajectory, creating a page one story in the Dallas newspaper (the Times-Herald), providing it to the reporter on one condition: that the reporter hide the Dallas source, and create the appearance that the source was a Navy official in Washington.

In addition, the following facts became evident:

(a) the case for the "low" back wound being false (as stated in Best Evidence) is a very strong one; and . .

( b ) the groundwork for the "timing problem" being recognized as a critically important problem, and the Single Bullet Theory being the "solution" was being laid no later than December 11, 1963 and involved some very important people.  Most important, the "timing problem" completely ante-dated the formation of the Warren Commission; i.e., the arrival of WC attorney Arlen Specter on the scene (in Jan. 1964) etc.; and. .

(c ) Arlen Specter, upon arriving at the WC in Washington, D.C., simply assembled the “pieces” of the double-hit SBT trajectory, like a child assembling the components of a leggo toy: the back-to-front downward-sloping trajectory through JFK was the first element. That involved getting Specter to believe that the wound at the front of the throat had been an exit (not an entry).  Then Specter had to “join” that belief with a similar trajectory through Connally. The result ("voila!") was the Single Bullet Theory.

New Information about the "first appearance" of the Single Bullet Theory

From what I can see, Specter apparently thought he came up with the whole concept himself. Based on what I later learned, I do not believe he did.   I think that the pieces (the individual segments) of the Single Bullet Theory were "fed" to Specter (as a hypothesis); and that Specter -- with regard to the result-- honestly believed that he had "thought it up"  all by himself.  On this point:  Of particular importance to me was a discovery that I made (back in the late 1960's) when reviewing microfilmed records of the two Dallas newspapers: the Times-Herald and the Morning News.  Reviewing these microfilmed records, I was startled to find an unnoticed paragraph buried in a December 1963 Dallas news story.  The story published the statement from an unidentified source that speculated that both JFK and Governor Connally had been struck by a single bullet. (That story and that paragraph --or sentence-- must be "re-discovered, because it constitutes published evidence [circa December 1963] that the concept of a one bullet/two victim trajectory preceded the arrival in Washington of the Warren Commission legal staff (mis-Jan., 1964) by at least a month.)

To repeat: the original concept of the Single Bullet Theory was something that went back to mid-December, 1963, and ante-dated Specter's arrival in Washington by at least three weeks).   

ASIDE: If this had happened in the field of physics--which of course it never would--it would be as if Albert Einstein got a phone call one night at his home from someone who said, "Albert: Have I got a theory for you! Now get out your pencils and some paper, and write this down. First, the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Got that? Good! Now lets move on. . Second (now write this down carefully, Albert): "E equals M C squared" OK, get some rest. Good night!"   (No. . . I'm just kidding, only this isn't funny. . .We're talking about the birth of one of the critical parts of the "official solution" to the Kennedy assassination. END ASIDE

Bottom line: the whole thing—iMHO-- was contrived. Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front (just as Doctor Malcolm Perry originally stated [3 times, during the news conference on November 22, 1963—see Chapter 3 of Best Evidence for exact quotes from the White House transcript, which I obtained from the LBJ Library and published for the first time.] But then, the "medical facts" were physically changed.  They were changed via (1) the creation of a false back wound, (2) the covert extraction of that bullet (prior to the official autopsy), and then (3) from a combination of pressure on Humes (the chief autopsy doctor) plus careful management of public information.

From all this, the appearance was created that (a) the throat wound was an exit and (b ) the bullet that (supposedly) traversed Kennedy’s body back-to-front and which exited at that front of the throat went on to hit Connally. (And, supposedly, was the practically undamaged missile found on the stretcher!).

This was the essence of the "final version" of Bethesda autopsy report, which was sent to the Warren Commission on December 20, 1963 (where it was logged in as "Commission Document 77", and then became Warren Commission Exhibit 397) and was then sent to the FBI three days later.

I will elaborate on all of this in Final Charade.

DSL Note, 4/25/22): Re additional words below: Can be deleted.

P.S. And no, no one calls me up in the middle of the night with secret answers to the many puzzles connected with the Kennedy assassination. I have had to do all the work myself.

DSL

7/29/15 – 5:45 A.M. PDT (Tweaked w/minor revisions, 4/25/22)

Los Angeles, California

This was Lifton's most recent (edited 2022) and most definitive write-up on the Burrus article, and the leaks of medical evidence to the press. Only a couple of days before Lifton passed away, I tried sending him an email asking his opinion on what was apparently even earlier public acknowledgment on a back wound -  the 11/27/1963 article in the Boston Globe, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black. The article described it’s source of information as “an unofficial but authoritative source”… “This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets. It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken”. It read “...the sniper, firing from above and behind the President, first hit the President on the right side of the back part of his neck. This bullet passed through the windpipe and came out at the throat, just below his Adam's apple, making the large wound which doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital noted. This wound might not have been fatal, considering the quick medical attention which the President received”. The throat wound is oddly referred to as “large” instead of small. The wounding of the head was described with a reference to the left temple - “When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound”... “This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this” (Link). This may suggest that the article’s information came from somebody with access to the early Parkland hospital reports.

Edited January 23, 2023 by Micah Mileto

[Roger Odisio]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:50 PM, Greg Doudna said:

It just seems a lot simpler and a lot more common and a lot more intuitively sensible to have a shooting with an ad hoc coverup. 

I have seen the phenomenon many times of people coming across circumstances, an archaeological dig, which would be analogous to a scene of a crime, trying to figure out the story of how things came to be that way ... and in that struggle to explain the details of that scene, coming up with explanations which are wrong or mistaken or stretches in reasoning. Then people get locked into their own stories and double down on them, in the academic world, when other later voices point out incongruities and problems in the original theory. As humans there is the drive to explain, to have a story that explains, and gaps are filled in to make a story work, even when not all moving parts fit together well. 

It just seems more intuitive that there be a murder operation focused solely on having success in the murder (and patsy set up to be blamed if so, along with getaway plans), without the extraordinary complexity of planning coverup afterward involving reading trained medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, civilians et al into having covert bit parts of a complex plot for which there is no certainty at the outset that that particular one (Dallas Nov 22) is even going to come off as planned. (The "what if it had rained harder Nov 22?" question, etc. So often in successful assassinations several failed attempts precede the one that works.) 

Risk of someone leaking. Risk of someone blowing the whistle. Risk of someone talking afterward who had been read into a bit part of the coverup beforehand. Risk that one or more of all of the planned actors in advance getting their roles wrong.

Some of the errors or stretches in original reasoning in such early narrative interpretations of an archaeological site, or scene of a crime, seem in retrospect so egregious that it can easily become interpreted as having been knowing dishonesty, even though that is not actually what happened. In the academic world there probably is a relatively high incidence of dishonesty in the form of scholars or professionals setting forth an original theory or argument, then challenged and shown wrong, but sticking to the original in public for reasons of pride and status even if privately now aware of the possibility they had gotten it wrong. But there is low incidence of scholars or professionals starting out knowingly or intentionally getting it wrong in the first place (because it is not pleasant to have errors later shown publicly). Just speaking from observation of how it works in the world of archaeology.

Could you speak to this consideration David, with respect to the planned vs. ad hoc coverup? (I always listen and often learn from what you have to say.)

I'm not David Lifton, or even close, but let me respond.

 

This wasn't just a murder.  It was a stark change in government, a change in the direction the US was heading, a change in its very purpose.  For a refresher, watch (if you haven't already) JFK's 1963 American University speech laying out his vision of the future and contrast it with where we are today, what politicians are saying,  and what we have become. 

 

The JFKA never would have happened without not only a coordinated plan for the murder and coverup, but also a plan about what to do with the power its perpetrators had seized.  The JFKAwas the biggest of jobs, and Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles, the war machine and its Wall Street allies weren't fooling around. 

 

Viewed from that perspective, and considering the power the murderers possessed, I think most of your questions about the plan melt away.

 

I'm sure you know there were a couple of failed attempts called off before Dallas.  You have to understand the control Johnson had over everything that happened in Texas at that time--political structure, law enforcement etc.--that led to Dallas as the choice of location.

[James DiEugenio]

To get back to the subject at hand.

There will be two reviews of the book at K and K.  One by Jerome Corsi, who really liked it, and one by me.  

I have to say, Mantik's book is a big one.  And he must have spent a lot of money on it due to all the color plates in it. But I found them to be helpful.

 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

On 4/25/2022 at 12:31 AM, Pat Speer said:

I don't think there's any mystery as to what happened, Micah. By mid-December the government as a whole and the SS in particular had become aware that there was a divide between the Parkland witnesses and Bethesda autopsy report. No, not the divide over the head wound that would later become the source of much debate. But a divide over the nature of the throat wound. Moore was sent to straighten this out.

While he, in effect, pressured the Parkland witnesses to play along and agree the throat wound could have been an exit wound, Moore and his superiors probably saw this as a necessary task. I mean, there's no evidence they knew where the shots came from...for a fact...and someone had to put a stop to the speculation shots came from in front of Kennedy. So he did his duty. At the time, moreover, it appears the Parkland witnesses were more delighted to have been invited behind the curtain and shown they autopsy report than they were troubled by Moore's actions. 

In retrospect, of course, this was quite problematic. What if the Parkland witnesses were correct and the autopsy report was wrong??? Was it proper for Moore to pressure, even unintentionally, the Parkland witnesses into going along with something they suspected wasn't true? I believe Moore was haunted by this...which led him to confide in Gochenaur. 

 

 

 

When Moore went to Parkland - with the autopsie report - he talked to Perry.  But wasn't there another Dr present during that talk ? I don't remember the name (Crenshaw perhaps ?).  

Anyway if there was another Dr there that day during the "talk", did this dr. later say anything about being pressured ?

When I read about it I made a note with the intention to look for it, but I couldn't find it.  

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Jim Gocheanaur told us-Oliver and myself--that it was him and Roger Warner who went to Parkland.

And it was more than one doctor they talked to.

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

When Moore went to Parkland - with the autopsie report - he talked to Perry.  But wasn't there another Dr present during that talk ? I don't remember the name (Crenshaw perhaps ?).  

Anyway if there was another Dr there that day during the "talk", did this dr. later say anything about being pressured ?

When I read about it I made a note with the intention to look for it, but I couldn't find it.  

 

 

McClelland was one of the doctors and he said he never felt pressured. 

What many fail to realize is that emergency room doctors are frequently proven wrong and/or over-ruled by pathologists. A man on his last breath is brought in to the ER. A doctor tries to revive him, but it's too late. The doctor's impressions of the cause of death could very well be wrong. He thought it was a heart attack but it was an OD on heart medicine or some such thing. 

[Micah Mileto]

On 7/28/2015 at 8:52 PM, David Lifton said:

I'm not sure I understand your argument, and wonder if you would clarify.

1. Is it not the case that three doctors--Dr. Harper, Dr. Cairns, and Dr. Noteboom--all concurred that the piece of bone was occipital bone?

2. Regarding your speculation as to what Doctor Cairns "would have" testified to, after --hypothetically--"viewing photos showing no hole in the back of the head", I find this argument seriously flawed.

Just about everyone who saw the President's body in Dallas on November 22 --and who wrote a report or was interviewed by the press or testified--said that the large wound they observed was (a) located at the back of the head and (b ) was an exit.

There is no indication whatsoever in the original Parkland Hospital medical reports that President Kennedy was shot from behind. (Surely, you are aware of that?)

The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind*, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1963.

*As originally posted,this read: "from the front". That was an error.

Aside from the record the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses created, both Pat Valentino and I showed a number of these doctors and nurses the autopsy photographs: myself, in December 1982, and both Pat and I [did so] in January 1983. All of this is laid out in detail in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). Almost uniformly, their reaction to being shown these photographs was to reject them as being valid. To shake their head from side to side and say, in effect, "No, that's not what I saw." Or: That's not what "we" saw

For whatever reason, you seem to be living in a reality which (a) rejects the first (and very official) record of the Dallas doctors and (b ) rejects their reaction when shown the autopsy photographs years later.

For whatever reason, and I suspect its related to your belief that the autopsy photographs are genuine--which seems to be the basis for all your theorizing--you then seem to feel free to speculate on "what would have happened" had doctors you never interviewed were called to testify at a hypothetical legal proceeding, and were shown evidence that just about every medical observer I ever interviewed claimed to be false.

Based on my own interviews, and my own study of the Parkland record, I think the outcome of such a hypothetical legal proceeding would have been entirely different than what you claim.

My Interview with Dr. Kemp Clark in January 1983

You are welcome to this journey in your (hypothetical) time machine, of course, but Pat Valentino and I personally sat down with many of these folks (again, in January 1983) and can report--based on a reality-based experience--that they rejected these photographs.

One other matter: in the later years of his life, Dr. Kemp Clark permitted himself to be interviewed, at some length, by a third party--apparently to set the record straight. He only wanted two questions answered, before he would agree to the interview: (1) Are you a lawyer? (2) Are you an author?

Satisfied that the answers to both were "no", he then agreed to the in-person meeting, and to be questioned.

Dr. Clark maintained that President Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the throat, and the other in the head, by a shot that caused the exit at the back of the head, exposing the cerebellum etc. (Reminder: Clark was there; he pronounced JFK dead).

You'll be reading more about this in Final Charade.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your views that the autopsy photos are authentic, and to build a reality based upon that, and to then proceed to posit various hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical journeys in a time machine, and to postulate the outcome of hypothetical legal proceedings that could have or might have occurred.

But Pat Valentino and I sat down with Dr. Clark--for at least an hour--in January 1983, and I/we have had the experiences enumerated above.

I'm sorry, but --based on the available evidence and the legitimate historical record (and not on postulated hypothetical proceedings that might have taken place in some alternate reality) --I reject the autopsy photographs as representing an authentic view of the back of President Kennedy's head at the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital.

Consequently, I agree with Dr. Clark that President Kennedy was shot in the head from the front, and I reject the various hypothetical outcomes you posit from journeys in your hypothetical time machine.

I think they are better suited to a description of a discussion that Capt Kirk, and Spock might have had during a coffee break on the Enterprise (if, between attacks by aliens, they were shooting the breeze about the Kennedy assassination) and not to a reality-based analysis of the legal record suitable for a university seminar on American history.

DSL

7/28/15 = 5:40 pm PDT

Tweaked 7/29/15; approx 2 a.m. PDT; tweaked 4/25/22, 11:55 PM

Los Angeles, California

Lifton went back and edited some of his old comments, like above.

[W. Niederhut]

On 7/28/2015 at 6:52 PM, David Lifton said:

I'm not sure I understand your argument, and wonder if you would clarify.

1. Is it not the case that three doctors--Dr. Harper, Dr. Cairns, and Dr. Noteboom--all concurred that the piece of bone was occipital bone?

2. Regarding your speculation as to what Doctor Cairns "would have" testified to, after --hypothetically--"viewing photos showing no hole in the back of the head", I find this argument seriously flawed.

Just about everyone who saw the President's body in Dallas on November 22 --and who wrote a report or was interviewed by the press or testified--said that the large wound they observed was (a) located at the back of the head and (b ) was an exit.

There is no indication whatsoever in the original Parkland Hospital medical reports that President Kennedy was shot from behind. (Surely, you are aware of that?)

The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind*, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1963.

*As originally posted,this read: "from the front". That was an error.

Aside from the record the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses created, both Pat Valentino and I showed a number of these doctors and nurses the autopsy photographs: myself, in December 1982, and both Pat and I [did so] in January 1983. All of this is laid out in detail in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). Almost uniformly, their reaction to being shown these photographs was to reject them as being valid. To shake their head from side to side and say, in effect, "No, that's not what I saw." Or: That's not what "we" saw

For whatever reason, you seem to be living in a reality which (a) rejects the first (and very official) record of the Dallas doctors and (b ) rejects their reaction when shown the autopsy photographs years later.

For whatever reason, and I suspect its related to your belief that the autopsy photographs are genuine--which seems to be the basis for all your theorizing--you then seem to feel free to speculate on "what would have happened" had doctors you never interviewed were called to testify at a hypothetical legal proceeding, and were shown evidence that just about every medical observer I ever interviewed claimed to be false.

Based on my own interviews, and my own study of the Parkland record, I think the outcome of such a hypothetical legal proceeding would have been entirely different than what you claim.

My Interview with Dr. Kemp Clark in January 1983

You are welcome to this journey in your (hypothetical) time machine, of course, but Pat Valentino and I personally sat down with many of these folks (again, in January 1983) and can report--based on a reality-based experience--that they rejected these photographs.

One other matter: in the later years of his life, Dr. Kemp Clark permitted himself to be interviewed, at some length, by a third party--apparently to set the record straight. He only wanted two questions answered, before he would agree to the interview: (1) Are you a lawyer? (2) Are you an author?

Satisfied that the answers to both were "no", he then agreed to the in-person meeting, and to be questioned.

Dr. Clark maintained that President Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the throat, and the other in the head, by a shot that caused the exit at the back of the head, exposing the cerebellum etc. (Reminder: Clark was there; he pronounced JFK dead).

You'll be reading more about this in Final Charade.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your views that the autopsy photos are authentic, and to build a reality based upon that, and to then proceed to posit various hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical journeys in a time machine, and to postulate the outcome of hypothetical legal proceedings that could have or might have occurred.

But Pat Valentino and I sat down with Dr. Clark--for at least an hour--in January 1983, and I/we have had the experiences enumerated above.

I'm sorry, but --based on the available evidence and the legitimate historical record (and not on postulated hypothetical proceedings that might have taken place in some alternate reality) --I reject the autopsy photographs as representing an authentic view of the back of President Kennedy's head at the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital.

Consequently, I agree with Dr. Clark that President Kennedy was shot in the head from the front, and I reject the various hypothetical outcomes you posit from journeys in your hypothetical time machine.

I think they are better suited to a description of a discussion that Capt Kirk, and Spock might have had during a coffee break on the Enterprise (if, between attacks by aliens, they were shooting the breeze about the Kennedy assassination) and not to a reality-based analysis of the legal record suitable for a university seminar on American history.

DSL

7/28/15 = 5:40 pm PDT

Tweaked 7/29/15; approx 2 a.m. PDT; tweaked 4/25/22, 11:55 PM

Los Angeles, California

This July 2015 comment by the late David Lifton is worth reading, for anyone interested in understanding the bogus blather about alleged posterior JFK skull entry wounds.

There weren't any.

I have a related question.

Where is the evidence of a posterior skull shot/entry wound on the Zapruder film?

There is none.

The fatal head shot struck the right upper forehead and blew off the back of JFK's skull (i.e., the occipital Harper fragment.)

Edited May 30, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Michael Griffith]

16 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

This July 2015 comment by the late David Lifton is worth reading, for anyone interested in understanding the bogus blather about alleged posterior JFK skull entry wounds.

There weren't any.

I have a related question.

Where is the evidence of a posterior skull shot/entry wound on the Zapruder film?

There is none.

The fatal head shot struck the right upper forehead and blew off the back of JFK's skull (i.e., the occipital Harper fragment.)

Actually, the Zapruder film does contain a very brief sequence that suggests a rear head shot. In Z312, JFK's head starts to move forward, but in Z313 it starts to move backward. 

I think the ever-so-brief forward movement is a remnant of a much more obvious forward movement in the original Zapruder film. 

Recall that several witnesses said JFK was knocked forward. Dan Rather, who saw the original Z film, said the film showed JFK being knocked forward. 

This forward movement, like the limo stop described by dozens of witnesses, was removed from the film (probably at the CIA-contracted photo lab in New York, as Doug Horne has documented). 

Another event missing from the extant Z film is JFK lifting his hand up to his head. Gayle Newman described it. After viewing an apparently different version of the Z film numerous times, William Manchester reported that JFK lifted his hand to his head (The Death of a President, p. 158). Even Jackie said, “And then he sort of did this [indicating], put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap” (5 H1 80). No movement of this kind is seen in the current version of the film.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

Why would the CIA have edited out any forward head movement on the Zapruder film?

That makes no sense.

They were the guys pushing the fictional narrative that the bullets all came from the TSBD.

That's why C.D. Jackson & Co. reversed the sequence of the Z-film stills in Life magazine-- to promote the CIA myth that JFK was shot from behind by a lone assassin.

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Why would the CIA have edited out any forward head movement on the Zapruder film?

That makes no sense.

They were the guys pushing the fictional narrative that the bullets all came from the TSBD.

That's why C.D. Jackson & Co. reversed the sequence of the Z-film stills in Life magazine-- to promote the CIA myth that JFK was shot from behind by a lone assassin.

As far as I know the CIA have never made any official proclamation as to what happened in Dealey Plaza because it was not their job to. The WC were investigating the assassination not the CIA.

Therefore there is no CIA "myth".