Any prevailing theories on the back wound?

[Robert Prudhomme]

From the HSCA testimony of Lt. Lipsey:

"... They traced it through the back of his neck through, you know, when they did the autopsy, through the inside of his body and there was no where the bullet was then where it should have exited, it was not. And at the angle it was traveling, and from, you know, with the other things they saw visible in the chest area once they cut him open, you know, it had started down, but where was it?

Because, from their conversations, they tracked this bullet as far as they could in a downward position before they couldn't tell where it went. That's when they started taking organs apart and looking where ever they could look without going ahead and just cutting him apart. And I think their decision finally was, we're just, you know, not going to completely dissect him to find this bullet. So they tracked the bullet down as far as it went. Obviously, by that point it wasn't that important.

... The bullet has penetrated. It went into his skin. There was evidence of it inside his body. It had penetrated the body. There was no way it could have fallen out."

BINGO!!

Why oh why did no one ask Lt. Lipsey to elaborate on this sentence?

".... the angle it was traveling, and from, you know, with the other things they saw visible in the chest area once they cut him open, you know, it had started down, but where was it?"

WHAT OTHER THINGS DID THEY SEE VISIBLE IN THE CHEST AREA???

Edited October 25, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ron Ecker]

Diana Bowron was asked twice --twice!--under oath whether she observed a back wound. The answer: No.

In her WC testimony, when Bowron was asked if she saw any other wound besides the head wound and she said no, they were talking about when she first saw JFK in the car. If they were talking about what she saw later, she certainly would have at least said she saw the throat wound.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any?

Miss BOWRON - I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us.

Nurse Henchcliffe's WC testimony may be more instructive. She said that she saw a head wound and a throat wound. One would think that when she helped clean up the body, she would have noticed a back wound or heard Bowron or the orderly mention it if either one of them saw it.

[Robert Prudhomme]

From the HSCA interview of Lt. Lipsey:

"LIPSEY: The bullet has penetrated. It went into his skin. There was evidence of it inside his body. It had penetrated the body. There was no way it could have fallen out."

If I had a dollar for every time an HSCA interviewer was given an opening such as this, and did not follow it up with the obvious question "What evidence inside the body would that be?", I would be a rich man.

[Sandy Larsen]

From the HSCA testimony of Lt. Lipsey:

"... They traced it through the back of his neck through, you know, when they did the autopsy, through the inside of his body and there was no where the bullet was then where it should have exited, it was not. And at the angle it was traveling, and from, you know, with the other things they saw visible in the chest area once they cut him open, you know, it had started down, but where was it?

Because, from their conversations, they tracked this bullet as far as they could in a downward position before they couldn't tell where it went. That's when they started taking organs apart and looking where ever they could look without going ahead and just cutting him apart. And I think their decision finally was, we're just, you know, not going to completely dissect him to find this bullet. So they tracked the bullet down as far as it went. Obviously, by that point it wasn't that important.

... The bullet has penetrated. It went into his skin. There was evidence of it inside his body. It had penetrated the body. There was no way it could have fallen out."

BINGO!!

I had a feeling you'd like that.

[Pat Speer]

BUT... why did Gerald Ford have to raise the back wound by 2 inches?? Humes (via the autopsy) had already done so (in step #2 above).

The WC staff believed the back wound was below the throat wound until March 1964, when Chief Justice Warren demanded his staff bring him better witnesses, and Joe Ball--who was tasked with explaining how a shot fired from above could enter the back and exit the throat--made a sudden trip to Bethesda hospital and had a long talk with Admiral Galloway, Dr. Humes, and Dr. Boswelll. A few days later, Humes and Boswell testified, only now accompanied by some freshly-made drawings now showing---for the first time ever--a back wound above the throat wound. This is all documented and discussed in my presentation The Single-Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science, and Zombie Lies, which was delivered at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference last fall. This presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT.

[Robert Prudhomme]

BUT... why did Gerald Ford have to raise the back wound by 2 inches?? Humes (via the autopsy) had already done so (in step #2 above).

The WC staff believed the back wound was below the throat wound until March 1964, when Chief Justice Warren demanded his staff bring him better witnesses, and Joe Ball--who was tasked with explaining how a shot fired from above could enter the back and exit the throat--made a sudden trip to Bethesda hospital and had a long talk with Admiral Galloway, Dr. Humes, and Dr. Boswelll. A few days later, Humes and Boswell testified, only now accompanied by some freshly-made drawings now showing---for the first time ever--a back wound above the throat wound. This is all documented and discussed in my presentation The Single-Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science, and Zombie Lies, which was delivered at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference last fall. This presentation can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHFvDw0VSb0

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT.

Hi Pat

Did you happen to see the post I directed to you, regarding Martin Heinrich's work on the autopsy back photo?

[Robert Prudhomme]

From the HSCA testimony of Lt. Lipsey:

"... They traced it through the back of his neck through, you know, when they did the autopsy, through the inside of his body and there was no where the bullet was then where it should have exited, it was not. And at the angle it was traveling, and from, you know, with the other things they saw visible in the chest area once they cut him open, you know, it had started down, but where was it?

Because, from their conversations, they tracked this bullet as far as they could in a downward position before they couldn't tell where it went. That's when they started taking organs apart and looking where ever they could look without going ahead and just cutting him apart. And I think their decision finally was, we're just, you know, not going to completely dissect him to find this bullet. So they tracked the bullet down as far as it went. Obviously, by that point it wasn't that important.

... The bullet has penetrated. It went into his skin. There was evidence of it inside his body. It had penetrated the body. There was no way it could have fallen out."

BINGO!!

I had a feeling you'd like that.

[Tom Neal]

I kinda suspected you had mis-written that. But I wasn't sure. Partly because, had I been right, then it would appear that you are challenging David Lifton on his assertion that the ruler is covering the lower wound. Something that I've long believed too.

Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

Now, it's MY turn to be confused. I'm not sure what you're asking me...

Let me re-state my position and question:

Until DSL's recent post I had accepted that the "Back Wound" (the one that matched the jacket/shirt holes) had been confirmed to exist in Dallas. It has been years since I considered the "false wound" theory, so last night I did some research and IMO it is entirely possible that, as DSL contends, no "back wound" existed when the body was in Parkland.

Humes lied when he was ordered to, but IMO he did not perform the 'surgery to the (top of the) head area', or the enlargement of the throat wound. Considering the number and scope of the lies he was already telling about the body, was it absolutely necessary to physically punch a hole in the body to create a false wound, or would another lie suffice?

The "back wound" that DSL refers to as the "lower" wound is the one that matches the "bullet holes" in the jacket and shirt. Per DSL, the "higher wound" was actually created by Humes because the "lower" false wound was too low to connect to the throat wound. I suspect that any MD would be reluctant to mutilate a body, so I had always assumed that Humes had only moved this lower back wound "on paper", so to speak. By creating the paperwork that stated this wound was located at the base of the neck, he in effect relocated the wound without actually punching a physical hole in the body.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the back wound was observed at Parkland, so by no means am I saying that this is what actually happened. Humes could CERTAINLY have physically punched a hole in the body, and if he did, it would explain some of the testimony given by others. MUCH work still needs to be done, but based upon current knowledge I believe this scenario AND the False wound scenario are possibilities.

Covering the lower back wound with the ruler while the photo was taken is a good idea in theory. But the "bullet holes" in the jacket/shirt are located 1 1/2" - 2" to the RIGHT of the mid-line of the back. To my eye, the ruler appears to be positioned to the LEFT of the mid-line. If that is correct, then the ruler could not cover the lower back wound.

Tom

Edited October 26, 2015 by Tom Neal

[Pat Speer]

To Pat Speer

I read the excerpt below from a post made by you in 2013:

"4. Shortly after I used the ruler to measure the wound, I was contacted by, if I'm not mistaken, Martin Hinrichs,. He'd cleaned up the back wound photo considerably, and was able to demonstrate to my satisfaction that the ruler in the photo was not 12 inches, but a centimeter ruler closer to 15 inches, if I recall. So Robert's assumption the ruler is 12 inches long--the assumption I'd made as well--is incorrect."

I am intrigued by this. Did Martin clean the photo up to the point the numbers could actually be read on this ruler? The reason I ask is that I believe a known anatomical landmark can actually be seen in this photo:

The outline of the scapula (shoulder blade) is clearly visible in this photo. However, something else is equally visible here, and is referred to medically as the "scapular spine" or "spine of the scapula".

As seen in this diagram, the thoracic vertebrae are the ones with ribs attached to them, with T1 being the uppermost thoracic vertebra. Counting down, we can see the innermost end of the scapular spine is at a level about midway between T4 and T5.

Looking again at the photo, I believe the same innermost end of the scapular spine is visible at about the same level as the smaller dark spot some think may be another wound. It is also on the same level as the space between the fingers of the top hand and the fingers of the bottom hand. Now looking at the entrance wound, how far is it from the scapular spine to the entrance wound? I would say not more than the width of Boswell's two fingers. If we could read the ruler, we would know precisely.

Interesting timing, Robert. I only recently realized I could use Martin's ruler to measure the size of the red spot in the cowlick...and see if it was anywhere near the 15-20 mm claimed of it by the HSCA pathology panel. Here is the slide I created to demonstrate this point. It includes the ruler as cleaned up by Hinrichs, and a blow up of one end of it which I used to approximate the size of the red spot.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Thanks, Pat, although I am still unable to make out any numbers on the enlargement. However, if it is a 15 inch ruler, at 1 inch = 2.54 cm. the ruler would be about 38 cm. long.

I think we have been looking at the back photo quite wrongly all these years, and forgetting that perspective does tend to foreshorten things. Also, we believe we are looking at an entrance wound at the level of vertebrae C7/T1 mostly because that is where the WC told us the wound is,

However, the scapular spine landmark tells us a different story, as this landmark is at about the level of vertebrae T4/T5. The entrance wound is, at most (and possibly less) two of Boswell's finger widths above this landmark. Unless Boswell had REALLY big fingers, this would, to me, place the entrance wound at T3 in this photo.

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks for answering my question, Pat.

So Humes raised the back-wound location so that it could be associated with the throat wound. But alas he didn't raise it enough, so the WC had to raise it further.

But why didn't Humes raise it higher to begin with? I suppose because then it wouldn't have jibed at all with what witnesses had seen and were recording about the wound.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Only if you're desperate to claim the autopsy photos are fake. To my way of thinking, the back wound in the photos proves the lie orchestrated by Ball and Specter at Warren's urging. It proves the lie, and disproves the SBT.

Good point.

Well, except, the photo in question must have been altered given that the hole in the shirt doesn't line up with the wound shown on the back. I very much doubt that a shirt rises up with a jacket when raising a hand. It doesn't on me.

[David Lifton]

You ask why the low back wound was a problem on 22/11/63. [And/or why was it a problem for the WC.]

Now, suppose Lifton is right, that the low back wound was faked. What would have been the purpose of faking the wound? If it was to couple it to the throat wound, then why would they have placed the wound so obviously low?

The purpose of the back wound was to create the visual appearance that Kennedy was shot from the rear. IMHO--and as developed in Best Evidence--the shallow wound was to be "matched" to a bullet panted on a Dallas stretcher.

Remember: when the back wound was created, it is very likely that the conspirators did not now the tracheotomy wound was anything more than a trach incision. I think the "trouble" started when it was realized that the throat defect was not just the site of a trach incision, but a bullet wound.

That's when the real problem began: what the heck happened to the bullet that entered at the throat? It had to be located and extracted. Under no circumstances could it be permitted to enter the official "evidence stream" and go to the FBI Lab. I believe it was extracted and that is what accounts for the original FBI "receipt for a misle" (sic). Then some sleight of hand was performed and two tiny fragments from the brain were substituted. The actual missile has disappeared.

Now back to the back wound(s). All of this gets somewhat hypothetical. The bottom line is that the wound was placed "too low" and that led to the creation (at Bethesda, I believe) of a "higher" wound, and the necessity to hide the "lower" one via the adroit placement of the ruler to during autopsy photography. This is one line of speculation. But the bottom line is this: the rule doesn't measure anything, and its location is such that it would conceal the "opening" reported by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill.

DSL

10/24/15 1:50 A.M PST

Ballistically speaking, what kind of bullet do you think could enter JFK's throat and either a) not exit the back of his neck or not totally destroy the vertebrae in line with the path of this bullet?

I think that's a good question, and I'll leave the answer to those who know more about ballistics than I.

But I suspect that those who planned this affair used some kind of special soft-nosed bullets that would not travel very far and remain in the body. In making this statement, I am well aware that whatever struck the head was apparently a different kind of ammunition, because it certainly blasted out a hole at the rear--and , to some observers (anyway), actually caused an explosion.

DSL

[David Lifton]

Diana Bowron was asked twice --twice!--under oath whether she observed a back wound. The answer: No.

In her WC testimony, when Bowron was asked if she saw any other wound besides the head wound and she said no, they were talking about when she first saw JFK in the car. If they were talking about what she saw later, she certainly would have at least said she saw the throat wound.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any?

Miss BOWRON - I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us.

Nurse Henchcliffe's WC testimony may be more instructive. She said that she saw a head wound and a throat wound. One would think that when she helped clean up the body, she would have noticed a back wound or heard Bowron or the orderly mention it if either one of them saw it.

Ron:

THanks for posting this. Years ago, I used to know those lines by heart.

Something else: if you will look up Robinson's taped testimony before the HSCA (by Andrew Purdy) I am pretty sure you will find a Q and A where Purdy asks him if he saw any wound above the waist and below the head, and Robinson answers in the negative. Purdy --as I recall--then asked the question again; and again, the answer was "no". This testimony, as I recall, suggested that at the time Robinson made this observation (or these observations) there was no back wound on the body.

Again, look it up, and you can actually check the tape which--years ago--I did.

DSL

10/26/15 - 2:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Sandy Larsen]

I kinda suspected you had mis-written that. But I wasn't sure. Partly because, had I been right, then it would appear that you are challenging David Lifton on his assertion that the ruler is covering the lower wound. Something that I've long believed too.

Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

Now, it's MY turn to be confused. I'm not sure what you're asking me...

I think we engineers tend to do that to each other.

Let me re-state my position and question:

Until DSL's recent post I had accepted that the "Back Wound" (the one that matched the jacket/shirt holes) had been confirmed to exist in Dallas. It has been years since I considered the "false wound" theory, so last night I did some research and IMO it is entirely possible that, as DSL contends, no "back wound" existed when the body was in Parkland.

Humes lied when he was ordered to, but IMO he did not perform the 'surgery to the (top of the) head area', or the enlargement of the throat wound. Considering the number and scope of the lies he was already telling about the body, was it absolutely necessary to physically punch a hole in the body to create a false wound, or would another lie suffice?

I think Humes (or someone else at Behesda) had to have punched another hole. Because the hole we see on the photo is higher than the one on JFK's shirt. So either that hole was punched there, or the hole was drawn in... either on JFK's back or on the photo.

The "back wound" that DSL refers to as the "lower" wound is the one that matches the "bullet holes" in the jacket and shirt. Per DSL, the "higher wound" was actually created by Humes because the "lower" false wound was too low to connect to the throat wound. I suspect that any MD would be reluctant to mutilate a body, so I had always assumed that Humes had only moved this lower back wound "on paper", so to speak. By creating the paperwork that stated this wound was located at the base of the neck, he in effect relocated the wound without actually punching a physical hole in the body.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the back wound was observed at Parkland, so by no means am I saying that this is what actually happened. Humes could CERTAINLY have physically punched a hole in the body, and if he did, it would explain some of the testimony given by others. MUCH work still needs to be done, but based upon current knowledge I believe this scenario AND the False wound scenario are possibilities.

Covering the lower back wound with the ruler while the photo was taken is a good idea in theory. But the "bullet holes" in the jacket/shirt are located 1 1/2" - 2" to the RIGHT of the mid-line of the back. To my eye, the ruler appears to be positioned to the LEFT of the mid-line. If that is correct, then the ruler could not cover the lower back wound.

This is the part where you are challenging David Lifton. (And challenging me too, which is okay and welcome.) That is, if your eye isn't lying to you. And I don't think it is. That is, the ruler does appear to be on the left side of mid-line at the point where the lower wound is supposed to be.

Tom

[David Lifton]

I kinda suspected you had mis-written that. But I wasn't sure. Partly because, had I been right, then it would appear that you are challenging David Lifton on his assertion that the ruler is covering the lower wound. Something that I've long believed too.

Let me know if I'm wrong about that.

Now, it's MY turn to be confused. I'm not sure what you're asking me...

Let me re-state my position and question:

Until DSL's recent post I had accepted that the "Back Wound" (the one that matched the jacket/shirt holes) had been confirmed to exist in Dallas. It has been years since I considered the "false wound" theory, so last night I did some research and IMO it is entirely possible that, as DSL contends, no "back wound" existed when the body was in Parkland.

Humes lied when he was ordered to, but IMO he did not perform the 'surgery to the (top of the) head area', or the enlargement of the throat wound. Considering the number and scope of the lies he was already telling about the body, was it absolutely necessary to physically punch a hole in the body to create a false wound, or would another lie suffice?

The "back wound" that DSL refers to as the "lower" wound is the one that matches the "bullet holes" in the jacket and shirt. Per DSL, the "higher wound" was actually created by Humes because the "lower" false wound was too low to connect to the throat wound. I suspect that any MD would be reluctant to mutilate a body, so I had always assumed that Humes had only moved this lower back wound "on paper", so to speak. By creating the paperwork that stated this wound was located at the base of the neck, he in effect relocated the wound without actually punching a physical hole in the body.

I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the back wound was observed at Parkland, so by no means am I saying that this is what actually happened. Humes could CERTAINLY have physically punched a hole in the body, and if he did, it would explain some of the testimony given by others. MUCH work still needs to be done, but based upon current knowledge I believe this scenario AND the False wound scenario are possibilities.

Covering the lower back wound with the ruler while the photo was taken is a good idea in theory. But the "bullet holes" in the jacket/shirt are located 1 1/2" - 2" to the RIGHT of the mid-line of the back. To my eye, the ruler appears to be positioned to the LEFT of the mid-line. If that is correct, then the ruler could not cover the lower back wound.

Tom

Tom:

Here's something I think we should all be aware of:

The FBI report written by Sibert and O'Neill places the wound "below" the shoulders.

The autopsy report written by Humes places the wound "above the scapula" (the shoulder blade).

IMHO: It is not possible for Humes to make a mistake and say that a wound was "above" the shoulder blade, if it was "below"; similarly, it is highly unlikely (bordering on the impossible) for the two FBI agents to describe it as "below' the shoulders, if it was in fact "above."

So clearly, we are dealing with two separate locations.

Again: once one accepts that as a fact, then clearly we are dealing with two separate wounds.

At that point, we are entering the world of fabrication and forgery--and while it would be nice to know all the details, it is a sticky wicket. The clothing holes, for example, pose a puzzle, but (to me) they are not definitive. Because if the wound(s) on the body are fake, then (of course) there is plenty of reason for the person(s) creating the clothing holes to not get it perfectly "right." (Bottom line: I wouldn't look to the clothing holes for a definitive and accurate location of either body wound).

ADMIRAL BURKLEY'S REPORT

Now changing the subject a bit. . . :

I am open to any reasonable discussion of Admiral Burkley's report, which places "the" wound at T-3, but notice the sentence he writes; as I recall, he says that the wound (or "another" wound--the antecedent of the word "another" being the head wound) . . he says that "another" wound "occurred" (yes "occurred" ! ) at T-3.

I would be interested if those of you who are putting in serious time examining this issue would go back to Admiral Burkley's report, and offer your opinions--as the case may be--as to why Admiral Burkley used the verb "occurred."

Since when does a wound "occur" on someone's body. (Is this like "spontaneous combustion"? )

My belief: Burkley knows darn well that the T-3 wound is fake, and is using that verb for the purposes of CYA. Remember: nobody could really be sure that this whole thing wouldn't bust wide open. And his choice of verb may have been a defense against a future perjury indictment (or worse).

CHANGING THE FOCUS BACK TO HUMES. . (and my two conversations with him in early November, 1966)

When I called Humes in early November, and told him that Prof. Liebeler had written a memo calling for a re-examination of this whole affair, and asked him what he would say if questioned (this is about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull"), Humes was clearly rattled. He blurted out (again, I'm writing from memory): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I wrote a report, gave sworn testimony, and that is the end of it!" (emphasis on the word "the end" of it). I then complimented him on the fact that it was very "precise" testimony, to which he replied, softly, "thankyou". And then, playing the Columbo part, I said: "Of course, sir, if someone had extracted a bullet before the body reached you, that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything sinister about it (yeah, sure!!), but it certainly never came to the attention of the Warren Commission, and it ought to have."

Interrupting, and in a soft voice, Humes then said, "I'll say it ought to have".

"What's that?" I said. and/or. .

"And if you had known about such a thing, you would have told the Commission?"

"I would certainly think I would have". (or "I would certainly hope I would!"

That's when I started to say something, to continue the conversation, but, within a fraction of a second, I could hear that Humes was continuing to talk, so I just shut up, real fast, and my recorder caught what Humes said next, in a raised voice,and with considerable angst:

"I'd like to know by whom it was done. . . (pause) . . and when. . (pause). . .and where! (pause)."

I then said something like: "Well, that's what I thought, too" (just to make converasation); and then Humes cut in:

"I don't mean to ridicule your hypothesis, my friend, but I'd pick something else to be concerned about."

Again, I tried to defuse the conversation, and he said something like:

"I think you should just read our testimony, and take it as coming from someone competent to observe" (something like that).

And when I made some followup statement, he got a slightly bit sarcastic, and said:

"Lots of luck, is all I can tell you. It'll take you the rest of your life!"

Please note: that conversation took place in early November, 1966, when I had just turned 27.

Now I am 76.

So even if Humes was falsifying the facts when he made various other observations, I must admit that he was reasonably accurate, when he made that statement. (Just joking!)

* * *

And by the way. . . : there have been two quite different reactions to my tape of that conversation.

When I played it in 1993, at the MidWest Symposium, the (then) head of the New England Journal of Medicine, George (whats his name) tried to poo poo it. "Oh, Humes was just tryng to get rid of you, on the phone!" etc But i know of other students of the case who were just as interested in his responses--indeed, who "heard it as I did" and who were just as electrified by Humes' responses as I was, when I first had this conversation "in real time."

If my interpretation is (i.e., was) correct,then I nailed it perfectly. (See B.E. for my interpretation of Humes pysche, see the setion of B.E. titled "The Peculiar Testimony of Commander Humes" ). If my interpretation is correct, Humes was a perjurer who walked a very fine line, delivering technically accurate information which concealed, rather than revealed, the full truth.

There were a number of JFK researchers --at that conference--who just couldn't deal with that, because if my interpretation was correct, their theories go out the window, the body was indeed altered, and Humes (of course) knew that. All too well.

As I wrote in Best Evidence, what was he supposed to do: Call the Maryland State Police?

DSL

10/26/15 - 3:15 AM PDT

Edited October 26, 2015 by David Lifton