Jump to content
The Education Forum

The JFK Autopsy Observations of Lt. Richard Lipsey


Recommended Posts

Robert,

Lipsey also appears to offer an explanation for the "shallow" back wound (which I assume is what he calls the wound low in the back of the neck). It wasn't shallow at all, the pathologists, according to Lipsey, thought the bullet was somewhere down in the body and they simply gave up looking for it.

Yup, now we're on the right track!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was just reading one of the posts above and realized I may not have fully answered one of the questions.

Someone asked if there were a more "powerful" bullet that could have caused the skull bone to blow out at the entrance wound in the back of JFK's skull, and then go on to blow most of the right half of JFK's brain out a huge opening in the front of his skull.

Conceivably, a rifle bullet could be made with a small amount of explosives in it, similar to a small cannon round but, how much damage could it do? If the round was set to detonate on contact with the skull bone at the back, and it completely detonated on the surface of the skull, nothing would be left to penetrate into the brain, out to the front of the skull, and detonate there.

There is no magic. Either the round would fully penetrate the skull, leaving a small entrance wound, and detonate mid-brain (or just beyond) and take out the front of the skull, or the round would detonate on the rear of the skull, cratering it but leaving nothing to carry on to the front of the skull,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lipsey has no recollection of when the X-rays were taken.

This is a clue that he wasn't with the body ALL the time and there are some holes in the timeline that he may not understand so he just skips them.

Lipsey seems unsure of a great many things. This points to him not being present all of the time but it also points to a man not on an agenda, and attempting to fill in gaps with biased fabrications. I think we should appreciate the honesty and naivete of Lipsey's responses, and glean what details we can from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only correction I would like to make is that I am unable to find anything in his interview that says he overheard there were three bullets that entered JFK's skull.

From what I read, one bullet entered the skull, one entered the back of the neck high up just below the skull and the third entered low on the back of the neck.

Yes, Robert, you're right. I wrote that Lipsey said three bullets hit JFK in the back of the head -- when actually he described two so low that one should be counted in the back of the neck and one in the upper back.

Yet in reading your responses to Joe and Ron, I also gather that you doubt Lipsey; that is, since the back of JFK's head was blown away (rather than the right-side of JFK's face) then a frangible (exploding) bullet must have entered from the front above the right eye and emerged from the back of his head.

Am I reading you correctly?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul

Lipsey observed and heard exactly what was shown to him. Reading his interview, I don't believe Lipsey put much effort at all into analyzing what was presented to him and, if he was asked, I'm quite sure Lipsey would shrug his shoulders and say, "Three bullets from behind. One blew the skull apart from back to front. Must've been Oswald."

In analyzing Lipsey's interview, I don't believe it is a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with Lipsey. I see him as a somewhat naive messenger, and nothing more.

P.S.

Regarding the head wound. Either a bullet entered the front and blew the back out, or a bullet entered the back and blew the front out. One or the other.

Considering the head wound observed by almost everyone at Parkland, I tend to go with the front entry/rear blowout.

What was observed at Bethesda by Lipsey could have only been brought about after the body left Dallas.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lipsey states, "We had a decoy hearse because we knew there was a mob waiting at Bethesda Naval Hospital." He later describes what he saw as "thousands of people" at Bethesda, and says that landing their helicopter was tricky because of the danger of hitting some of the crowd.

Had it been publicly announced where the autopsy was going to be held? If so, why, if they were so concerned about security of the body as to use a decoy ambulance?

Furthermore, if there was a mob at Bethesda waiting for the arrival of the hearse with JFK's body, then it stands to reason there was media there with TV cameras, as would be true at any such massive public gathering on such an historic night. I have previously stated on this forum that I remember watching live TV coverage of the Dallas casket's arrival at the Bethesda entrance. No other JFK researcher that I know of remembers seeing this, and apparently no videotape now exists. Gary Mack assured me that there was no TV coverage of the arrival, and I reluctantly came to believe that what I thought I saw back then is a false memory. But if what Lipsey says is true, that a mob of thousands of people was at Bethesda, then there is no doubt in my mind that I did see live TV coverage of the event whether anyone else did or not.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the brief biography, Sandy.

As can be seen, Lipsey had no medical experience and this was, in fact, the first autopsy he had ever witnessed. According to the HSCA interview, Lipsey witnessed the entire autopsy plus the enbalming and reconstruction process performed by the morticians; only leaving the theatre for breaks of a few minutes when General Wehle stopped in to relieve him. Lipsey had a good vantage point, too, no more than 12-15 feet from the table on which JFK's corpse lay during the autopsy. From what he described, the three doctors made no effort to conceal their discussions from Lipsey and the others present, although Lipsey was the first to admit a lot of the medical discussion went right over his head.

The thing I like most about Lt. Richard Lipsey is he kept his oath of silence for 14 years following the autopsy, discussing with no one what went on at that autopsy. It was only at the request of the HSCA interviewers that he reluctantly broke his oath of silence. Following the interview, he didn't go on speaking tours or write books about his JFK experience but, instead, went back to the quiet life he had been living since he left the military in 1974 and, as far as I can tell, made no effort to share his recollections further.

The amazing thing about Lipsey's interview is that while, in 2016, the details provide earth shattering revelations to those of us well studied in the medical evidence of the JFK assassination, how many in 1978, outside of a handful of researchers, would appreciate the full implications of what his recollections pointed to? Did Lipsey himself understand the implications of the wounds he was describing? I really don't believe so, as he parrots the autopsy doctors in describing three bullets striking JFK from behind and high up, and all three bullets that struck JFK coming from the same weapon. Although he never says so in the interview, he seems to support the notion of a single shooter and he looks down upon conspiracy theorists as uninformed amateurs.

Lt. Richard Lipsey's interview is valuable simply because I believe he is answering every question as honestly as he can. With no axe to grind, he seems to be delivering the real goods to us.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm

I've been writing about Lipsey on this forum for a decade. My study of the medical evidence (as opposed to the witness testimony) led me to believe Kennedy was shot three times, once in the back, once at the base of the skull, and once on the right top side of the head above the ear, with the second of these shots exiting the front of the throat. It never occurred to me that a witness to the autopsy would support these conclusions, and claim these were in fact the conclusions of the doctors at the autopsy. And then I stumbled on Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson, TWO witnesses to the autopsy who claimed the doctors described the very scenario I'd proposed.

But I'm not here to blow my horn, but to share some information. Lipsey didn't disappear, Robert.

From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:

The Return of Richard Lipsey

As the country neared the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death, Richard Lipsey re-appeared in a series of interviews and articles in which he pushed that Oswald acted alone. (While there are probably more, I have come across a November 2013 article on Lipsey in Country Roads Magazine, an 11-17-13 article on Lipsey in the Baton Rouge Advocate, an 11-20-13 article on Lipsey in The New Orleans Times-Picayune, an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on radio station WKRF, and an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on C-SPAN2.) Now, it's not so strange that Lipsey would reappear as the country neared the 50th anniversary. He was an important witness, after all. No, what's strange is the content of his interviews. He said he'd been impressed with Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, and that he also supported Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History, even though he had never actually gotten around to reading it.

Well, this might lead one to believe Lipsey had changed his mind, and that he no longer stood by what he'd told the HSCA back in 1978. Beyond claiming that "the direction" of the bullets as determined at autopsy supported that the shots came from behind, after all, he avoided detailed discussion of the President's wounds. One might conclude, then, that he no longer stood by his earlier account of the autopsy, an account that was totally at odds with the autopsy as presented by Posner and Bugliosi.

But one would almost certainly be wrong. In one of the interviews, Lipsey let it slip that he'd studied the FBI's report on the autopsy, and that he largely agreed with it. This report claimed that no passage connecting the back wound with the throat wound had been discovered during the autopsy. This was precisely what Lipsey had told the HSCA. Well, if Lipsey had subsequently come to believe there had been such a passage, well, then, why didn't he say so?

When one sifts through another article on Lipsey, this one published in The Advocate back on 9-6-92, for that matter, one finds even more reason to believe Lipsey never backed off from his 1978 recollections. The article claimed: "Lipsey said he also spoke years later with two other men in the room, Lt. Sam Bird, who was in charge of the honor guard that carried the casket from Air Force One to the ambulance and from the ambulance into the hospital, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill. Lipsey said that a few months ago O'Neill let him read the report he submitted after the autopsy. "I agreed with, like, 90 percent of what he said, and I'm sure the 10 percent I didn't agree with wasn't because he was correct or I was correct," Lipsey said. "It was because... after 30 years your memory gets a little foggy. His report that was written one hour after the autopsy really corroborates my way of thinking."

O'Neill's report, of course, claimed the bullet creating the back wound did not enter the body. While it's possible Lipsey thought this an understandable mistake that was cleared up the next day, it's hard to see how he could think such a thing, and 1) claim his disagreements with O'Neill (who never believed the bullet entered the body) were due to the passage of time, and 2) still claim O'Neill's report "corroborates my way of thinking."

And there's yet another reason to suspect Lipsey never wavered from his statements to the HSCA. In none of these post-HSCA interviews did Lipsey bring up his earlier claim a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited from the throat. But more to the point, in none of these interviews did the interviewer point out that the "official" story pushed by the men to whom Lipsey was now deferring--Posner and Bugliosi--holds that no bullet of any kind entered low on the back of the head, and that, as a consequence, no discussion of a bullet entering low on the back of the head could have been overheard by Lipsey during the autopsy. And that Lipsey's statements to the HSCA were thereby balderdash...

In fact, these interviews failed to mention Lipsey's ever saying anything at odds with the Posner/Bugliosi version of the Oswald-did-it scenario.

But he was not always so careful. A 10-31-09 article on Lipsey found on 225BatonRouge.com, for example, claimed that upon re-reading his statements to the HSCA, Lipsey, "notes that some of his responses were not as clean and concise as they could have been." He didn't admit he was wrong, mind you. The article then discussed the autopsy in some detail, and claimed the "doctors concluded there were three entry wounds: one in the lower neck, one in the upper neck/lower skull region and one at the rear crown of the head." Well, this was just bizarre; one might guess that the writer of this article, LSU Professor, James E Shelledy, was trying to hide that the bullet hole now claimed to be the fatal bullet hole, the one on the crown of the head, was not observed or discussed at the autopsy. To wit, Shelledy then offered "Several years later, second opinions by doctors determined Kennedy was hit by only two bullets." So, yeah, Shelledy made a strange mistake, and this mistake allowed him to conceal that the wound now claimed to be the fatal entrance wound was not observed by any witness to the autopsy, including Lipsey, and that Lipsey also failed to recall any discussion of such a wound.

A look back at Lipsey's words to the HSCA, however, put this strange passage in context, and make it clear Lipsey was responsible for the description of three bullet entrances, and not Shelledy. Lipsey told the HSCA's investigators: "as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more or less at the bottom of the neck." And to this, he later added: "I feel that there was really no entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out."

So, there it is. The entrance by the crown, to Lipsey's recollection, was the rear entrance to the large head wound he claimed had been described as a wound of both entrance and exit. It was not the small red spot in the cowlick later "discovered" by the Clark Panel. Lipsey had, after all, no recollection of an entrance wound in the cowlick.

And this goes to show that Lipsey, as late as 2009, still believed the doctors had on the night of the autopsy concluded the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And that they only subsequently decided that this wound was connected to the wound at the upper neck/lower skull.

We have good reason to doubt, then, that Lipsey ever changed his mind about what he told the HSCA. He supported O'Neill, who claimed there was no passage from the back wound into the body. And he continued, as late as 2009, to claim the doctors initially concluded the large head wound was a wound of both entrance and exit.

It seems clear from this, moreover, that Lipsey, who left the military in 1964 to embark on a long and prosperous career as an arms dealer and big game hunter, wanted it both ways. Much as Governor Connally, and FBI agent Frank O'Neill, before him, he wanted to go on the record as saying Oswald did it by all himself, even though his personal recollections were in conflict with that conclusion. Strange. And sad.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the brief biography, Sandy.

As can be seen, Lipsey had no medical experience and this was, in fact, the first autopsy he had ever witnessed. According to the HSCA interview, Lipsey witnessed the entire autopsy plus the enbalming and reconstruction process performed by the morticians; only leaving the theatre for breaks of a few minutes when General Wehle stopped in to relieve him. Lipsey had a good vantage point, too, no more than 12-15 feet from the table on which JFK's corpse lay during the autopsy. From what he described, the three doctors made no effort to conceal their discussions from Lipsey and the others present, although Lipsey was the first to admit a lot of the medical discussion went right over his head.

The thing I like most about Lt. Richard Lipsey is he kept his oath of silence for 14 years following the autopsy, discussing with no one what went on at that autopsy. It was only at the request of the HSCA interviewers that he reluctantly broke his oath of silence. Following the interview, he didn't go on speaking tours or write books about his JFK experience but, instead, went back to the quiet life he had been living since he left the military in 1974 and, as far as I can tell, made no effort to share his recollections further.

The amazing thing about Lipsey's interview is that while, in 2016, the details provide earth shattering revelations to those of us well studied in the medical evidence of the JFK assassination, how many in 1978, outside of a handful of researchers, would appreciate the full implications of what his recollections pointed to? Did Lipsey himself understand the implications of the wounds he was describing? I really don't believe so, as he parrots the autopsy doctors in describing three bullets striking JFK from behind and high up, and all three bullets that struck JFK coming from the same weapon. Although he never says so in the interview, he seems to support the notion of a single shooter and he looks down upon conspiracy theorists as uninformed amateurs.

Lt. Richard Lipsey's interview is valuable simply because I believe he is answering every question as honestly as he can. With no axe to grind, he seems to be delivering the real goods to us.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm

I've been writing about Lipsey on this forum for a decade. My study of the medical evidence (as opposed to the witness testimony) led me to believe Kennedy was shot three times, once in the back, once at the base of the skull, and once on the right top side of the head above the ear, with the second of these shots exiting the front of the throat. It never occurred to me that a witness to the autopsy would support these conclusions, and claim these were in fact the conclusions of the doctors at the autopsy. And then I stumbled on Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson, TWO witnesses to the autopsy who claimed the doctors described the very scenario I'd proposed.

But I'm not here to blow my horn, but to share some information. Lipsey didn't disappear, Robert.

From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:

The Return of Richard Lipsey

As the country neared the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death, Richard Lipsey re-appeared in a series of interviews and articles in which he pushed that Oswald acted alone. (While there are probably more, I have come across a November 2013 article on Lipsey in Country Roads Magazine, an 11-17-13 article on Lipsey in the Baton Rouge Advocate, an 11-20-13 article on Lipsey in The New Orleans Times-Picayune, an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on radio station WKRF, and an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on C-SPAN2.) Now, it's not so strange that Lipsey would reappear as the country neared the 50th anniversary. He was an important witness, after all. No, what's strange is the content of his interviews. He said he'd been impressed with Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, and that he also supported Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History, even though he had never actually gotten around to reading it.

Well, this might lead one to believe Lipsey had changed his mind, and that he no longer stood by what he'd told the HSCA back in 1978. Beyond claiming that "the direction" of the bullets as determined at autopsy supported that the shots came from behind, after all, he avoided detailed discussion of the President's wounds. One might conclude, then, that he no longer stood by his earlier account of the autopsy, an account that was totally at odds with the autopsy as presented by Posner and Bugliosi.

But one would almost certainly be wrong. In one of the interviews, Lipsey let it slip that he'd studied the FBI's report on the autopsy, and that he largely agreed with it. This report claimed that no passage connecting the back wound with the throat wound had been discovered during the autopsy. This was precisely what Lipsey had told the HSCA. Well, if Lipsey had subsequently come to believe there had been such a passage, well, then, why didn't he say so?

When one sifts through another article on Lipsey, this one published in The Advocate back on 9-6-92, for that matter, one finds even more reason to believe Lipsey never backed off from his 1978 recollections. The article claimed: "Lipsey said he also spoke years later with two other men in the room, Lt. Sam Bird, who was in charge of the honor guard that carried the casket from Air Force One to the ambulance and from the ambulance into the hospital, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill. Lipsey said that a few months ago O'Neill let him read the report he submitted after the autopsy. "I agreed with, like, 90 percent of what he said, and I'm sure the 10 percent I didn't agree with wasn't because he was correct or I was correct," Lipsey said. "It was because... after 30 years your memory gets a little foggy. His report that was written one hour after the autopsy really corroborates my way of thinking."

O'Neill's report, of course, claimed the bullet creating the back wound did not enter the body. While it's possible Lipsey thought this an understandable mistake that was cleared up the next day, it's hard to see how he could think such a thing, and 1) claim his disagreements with O'Neill (who never believed the bullet entered the body) were due to the passage of time, and 2) still claim O'Neill's report "corroborates my way of thinking."

And there's yet another reason to suspect Lipsey never wavered from his statements to the HSCA. In none of these post-HSCA interviews did Lipsey bring up his earlier claim a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited from the throat. But more to the point, in none of these interviews did the interviewer point out that the "official" story pushed by the men to whom Lipsey was now deferring--Posner and Bugliosi--holds that no bullet of any kind entered low on the back of the head, and that, as a consequence, no discussion of a bullet entering low on the back of the head could have been overheard by Lipsey during the autopsy. And that Lipsey's statements to the HSCA were thereby balderdash...

In fact, these interviews failed to mention Lipsey's ever saying anything at odds with the Posner/Bugliosi version of the Oswald-did-it scenario.

But he was not always so careful. A 10-31-09 article on Lipsey found on 225BatonRouge.com, for example, claimed that upon re-reading his statements to the HSCA, Lipsey, "notes that some of his responses were not as clean and concise as they could have been." He didn't admit he was wrong, mind you. The article then discussed the autopsy in some detail, and claimed the "doctors concluded there were three entry wounds: one in the lower neck, one in the upper neck/lower skull region and one at the rear crown of the head." Well, this was just bizarre; one might guess that the writer of this article, LSU Professor, James E Shelledy, was trying to hide that the bullet hole now claimed to be the fatal bullet hole, the one on the crown of the head, was not observed or discussed at the autopsy. To wit, Shelledy then offered "Several years later, second opinions by doctors determined Kennedy was hit by only two bullets." So, yeah, Shelledy made a strange mistake, and this mistake allowed him to conceal that the wound now claimed to be the fatal entrance wound was not observed by any witness to the autopsy, including Lipsey, and that Lipsey also failed to recall any discussion of such a wound.

A look back at Lipsey's words to the HSCA, however, put this strange passage in context, and make it clear Lipsey was responsible for the description of three bullet entrances, and not Shelledy. Lipsey told the HSCA's investigators: "as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more or less at the bottom of the neck." And to this, he later added: "I feel that there was really no entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out."

So, there it is. The entrance by the crown, to Lipsey's recollection, was the rear entrance to the large head wound he claimed had been described as a wound of both entrance and exit. It was not the small red spot in the cowlick later "discovered" by the Clark Panel. Lipsey had, after all, no recollection of an entrance wound in the cowlick.

And this goes to show that Lipsey, as late as 2009, still believed the doctors had on the night of the autopsy concluded the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And that they only subsequently decided that this wound was connected to the wound at the upper neck/lower skull.

We have good reason to doubt, then, that Lipsey ever changed his mind about what he told the HSCA. He supported O'Neill, who claimed there was no passage from the back wound into the body. And he continued, as late as 2009, to claim the doctors initially concluded the large head wound was a wound of both entrance and exit.

It seems clear from this, moreover, that Lipsey, who left the military in 1964 to embark on a long and prosperous career as an arms dealer and big game hunter, wanted it both ways. Much as Governor Connally, and FBI agent Frank O'Neill, before him, he wanted to go on the record as saying Oswald did it by all himself, even though his personal recollections were in conflict with that conclusion. Strange. And sad.

Hi Pat

Yes, strange and sad. Yet, if we simply ignore what Lipsey may or may not have agreed with years after the HSCA interview, I believe this is where the true value here lies,

It's just a shame the interview wasn't done in 1963, when Lipsey's memories were still fresh.

"LIPSEY: That's why they spent so much time looking for it. 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?

Q: When they opened up the body from the front, did -- were they able to discern any part of the track of the bullet?

LIPSEY: I'm convinced they were in the upper part of his body -- yes -- because that's how they started following it. And then I think, that's when they started taking his organs out, you know, one at a time only. They took all of the insides out, I remember that, boy. They had four or five piles of insides sitting on the table. And they thoroughly examined each one of those. They just had a big hollow chest and stomach cavity left -- or particularly chest cavity, when they got through. And, I'm very convinced, in my own mind, that they were very convinced that bullet was somewhere in him.

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems clear from this, moreover, that Lipsey, who left the military in 1964 to embark on a long and prosperous career as an arms dealer and big game hunter, wanted it both ways. Much as Governor Connally, and FBI agent Frank O'Neill, before him, he wanted to go on the record as saying Oswald did it by all himself, even though his personal recollections were in conflict with that conclusion. Strange. And sad.

Pat,

I don't think Lipsey understands that his testimony conflicts with the Lone Nut narrative. According to his understanding of the wounds, all three shots came from behind. Oswald was shooting from behind. Oswald's shooting caused all three wounds. Therefore, no conflict exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems clear from this, moreover, that Lipsey, who left the military in 1964 to embark on a long and prosperous career as an arms dealer and big game hunter, wanted it both ways. Much as Governor Connally, and FBI agent Frank O'Neill, before him, he wanted to go on the record as saying Oswald did it by all himself, even though his personal recollections were in conflict with that conclusion. Strange. And sad.

Pat,

I don't think Lipsey understands that his testimony conflicts with the Lone Nut narrative. According to his understanding of the wounds, all three shots came from behind. Oswald was shooting from behind. Oswald's shooting caused all three wounds. Therefore, no conflict exists.

That is also my reading, Sandy. Lipsey didn't realize he was really demonstrating a Conspiracy Theory, because if JFK was hit by three bullets -- even if they were all from behind -- then we need at least one more, fourth bullet to account for the nick in the face of James Tague. At least four -- and four bullets are also insufficient, because even this four-bullet theory presumes the Single Bullet Theory to account for one JFK bullet causing all five wounds of Governor Connally..

By the way, the SBT was so flawed that even the Parkland Doctors would not buy it; nor Governor Connally himself, nor Mrs. Connally, nor the Secret Service, nor even a few of the Warren Commission heads. Governor Connally was simply not hit by the first bullet. The Zapruder film shows this clearly. (If he had been, because of his position at the time, the bullet would have entered his right shoulder and then exited his left shoulder -- the Parkland doctors said that.)

Furthermore, just because LHO's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD with three cartridges on the floor does not prove that LHO was the shooter -- since there was not one single eye-witness. Everybody here knows that only 90 seconds after the JFK shooting, police officer Marrion Baker saw Oswald drinking a Coke on the 2nd floor, cool as a cucumber.

The evidence suggests that LHO was an unknowing part of a plot to which he had foolishly handed over his own rifle, and was instantly tagged the patsy. LHO's rifle was used -- I am willing to grant that -- but because there were more than three shots there is guaranteed to be more than one shooter. A Conspiracy is guaranteed by using Lipsey's testimony.

Lipsey tries to be conservative, but he ends up contradicting Arlen Specter -- and without the SBT, there can be no Lone Gunman. Lipsey didn't know that he switched sides.

By the way, in their book, The Kennedy Detail (2010), the Secret Service insists on the LN theory, but they also insist that Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally were correct to say that the Governor could not have been hit with the first bullet. Without the SBT there can be no LN theory, as Arlen Specter knew very well. So, even when trying to agree with the LN theory, these witnesses disagree.

I myself count seven bullets -- at least.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if what Lipsey says is true, that a mob of thousands of people was at Bethesda, then there is no doubt in my mind that I did see live TV coverage of the event whether anyone else did or not.

Which raises the question in my mind of why the videotape no longer exists and even the memory of it has been erased. (Wrong ambulance shown? Or more likely the inexcusable amount of time that the casket was left to sit there in front of the building after Jackie and the others had gone inside? I remember the off-screen reporter commenting on this. Gee, what was going on during all that time?)

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if what Lipsey says is true, that a mob of thousands of people was at Bethesda, then there is no doubt in my mind that I did see live TV coverage of the event whether anyone else did or not.

Which raises the question in my mind of why the videotape no longer exists and even the memory of it has been erased. (Wrong ambulance shown? Or more likely the inexcusable amount of time that the casket was left to sit there in front of the building after Jackie and the others had gone inside? I remember the off-screen reporter commenting on this. Gee, what was going on during all that time?)

Ron, I'm inclined to believe your earlier memory. There is still film showing two different colored caskets for JFK on 11/22/1963, IIRC.

The case made by David Lifton (Best Evidence) in 1980 still holds firm today -- which is rare for a CT from the 20th century. There was indeed a manipulation of the medical evidence beginning at Bethesda Hospital.

But not at Parkland Hospital. This is because JFK's body was taken from Parkland Hospital after only about 30 minutes of treatment. It was hurried away because: (1) actually JFK arrived DOA; (2) Jackie refused to leave JFK there; (3) LBJ had to get back to Washington DC to take office; and (4) LBJ could not return to Washington DC without Jackie.

That's what the Secret Service Agents all testified, and I believe them.

No, the trouble doesn't start at Parkland, or even at 1:30 PM on 11/22/1963, but only at 3PM, which is when (according to Professor David Wrone) we find J. Edgar Hoover calling RFK on the phone, telling him that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a Communist and wasn't an FPCC officer -- and then suddenly deciding that the correct approach to the JFK murder in the context of National Security was the "Lone Nut" theory.

LBJ quickly bought the Lone Nut theory, says Wrone, and from that hour forward, the FBI and the Pentagon were ordered to manipulate all JFK evidence -- the ballistics, the crime scene, the witnesses, the suspects, the documents, the limousine, the medical evidence, the film, the photographs -- AND EVEN THE AUTOPY -- in order to force all of it into the :"Lone Nut" scenario.

We might agree on this -- and if we do, I ask for one more concession. The "Lone Nut" theory of LHO wasn't intended to conceal the JFK Kill Team, but rather to block the JFK Kill Team in Dallas from selling their Communist Oswald theory.

The JFK Kill Team wanted to blame the Communists for the JFK assassination, so that the USA would invade Cuba. So LBJ, Hoover, Dulles and Warren all decided that a Big Lie, such as the "Lone Nut" theory of LHO, was necessary to prevent Nuclear War.

Therefore, the Bethesda autopsy, starting with JFK's arrival about 6pm, had to be faked -- and the decision to fake it had already been made by 4pm EST. The autopsy was faked with only one goal in mind -- there had to be evidence of one shooter firing three bullets from behind -- and everything else was unacceptable.

This explains the sloppiness of the handling -- and why the autopsy photographs and X-rays were withheld from the WC.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...