A question to David Lifton

[Guest]

I truly don't care enough about the tracheotomy issue to even pretend to be knowledgeable, but this is from an article on Jim D's own site, https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/ricochet-of-a-lie-and-kennedy-s-throat-wound.  It does at least suggest that my assumption about the Parkland incision is not completely misguided.

How do emergency room doctors respond to a penetrating wound in the neck, regardless of whether the patient has wounds elsewhere in the body?

Doctors must quickly find and repair any life-threatening damage that has been done—and that means creating a fairly wide incision, one large enough to visualize the carotid arteries, for example. (These arteries are not in the middle of the throat; they are off to either side of the neck.)

From Perry’s and Humes’s descriptions, it sounds like Kennedy had a “collar incision,” similar to the one shown below from the Journal of Trauma 1978; 18 (1) : 2-77 (see the Addendum at the end of this article for more extensive documentation).

In Kennedy’s case, it was already clear that he was having trouble breathing, and one doctor placed an endotracheal tube which proved to be inadequate. So when Perry arrived, he performed a tracheotomy. And, he said, he “made an incision right through this wound which was present in the neck.”9

But that was not all that Perry did. He made an incision large enough to allow him to inspect the carotid arteries, the mediastinum, and other structures.

“Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point, the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.”10 (His testimony on another day is similar.11)

“I also made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea ... I didn’t know whether I was going to encounter carotid arteries or whatever. But the path of the bullet clearly put those vessels at risk as well as the trachea, so I made the wound big enough to do that ... How big it [the incision] was, I don’t know ... . I made it big enough to control an underlying bleeding blood vessel if necessary.”12

[David Von Pein]

16 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

How do Francois and DVP explain the butchery of the President's tracheotomy?

Let me remind you, Ray, what one of the conspiracy theorists' all-time favorite Parkland witnesses, Dr. Robert McClelland, had to say in both 1988 and again in 2009 about the size of the tracheotomy wound in JFK's throat....

~~~~~~~~~

"The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. .... And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- David Von Pein; November 2013

~~~~~~~~~

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Dr. Malcolm Perry, David Lifton, And The Trach Wound

 

Edited November 15, 2018 by David Von Pein

[François Carlier]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Let me remind you, Ray, what one of the conspiracy theorists' all-time favorite Parkland witnesses, Dr. Robert McClelland, had to say in both 1988 and again in 2009 about the size of the tracheotomy wound in JFK's throat....

~~~~~~~~~

"The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. .... And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- David Von Pein; November 2013

~~~~~~~~~

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Dr. Malcolm Perry, David Lifton, And The Trach Wound

 

That's all very well and good, David, but I suspect that in a few months' time, Ray Mitcham will nonetheless ask you again : "How do you explain the butchery of the President's tracheotomy?"
Be prepared !
😉

[Ray Mitcham]

5 hours ago, François Carlier said:

That's all very well and good, David, but I suspect that in a few months' time, Ray Mitcham will nonetheless ask you again : "How do you explain the butchery of the President's tracheotomy?"
Be prepared !
😉

You're right, Francois. I will, as the wound shown in the death stare photos wasn't the result of a tracheotomy. I am trying to find a report by one of the Parkland doctors who said when the body left parkland the wound was closed and the entrance wound inviolate.

[François Carlier]

28 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

You're right, Francois. I will, as the wound shown in the death stare photos wasn't the result of a tracheotomy. I am trying to find a report by one of the Parkland doctors who said when the body left parkland the wound was closed and the entrance wound inviolate.

Oh, I see, then please tell us why you think that Robert McClelland said that the wound was the same in Bethesda as it was in Parkland ?

Edited November 15, 2018 by François Carlier

[Ray Mitcham]

19 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Oh, I see, then please tell us why you think that Robert McClelland said that the wound was the same in Bethesda as it was in Parkland ?

I will if you can show me the photo he was shown when he said it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

You're right, Francois. I will, as the wound shown in the death stare photos wasn't the result of a tracheotomy. I am trying to find a report by one of the Parkland doctors who said when the body left parkland the wound was closed and the entrance wound inviolate.

What, they neatly stitched up the tracheotomy incision on a corpse with the top of its head missing?  Does Conspiracy Logic extend that far?  Even if that were true (which I find inconceivable, but I'm flexible), would not the incision have been reopened as part of the autopsy?  Of course it would.  Again and again, we see that Conspiracy Logic absolutely insists on finding sinister motives and conduct in circumstances where those who aren't in the grip of Conspiracy Logic see nothing out of the ordinary.

Perhaps we need a Conspiracy Corollary to Ockham's Razor.  According to William of Ockham, whom I feel sure would have been a pretty firmly committed Lone Nutter, the simplest solution tends to be the correct one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.  Perhaps we could reformulate this as Ray Razor's, which has a nice ring to it:

Ray's Razor:  In the analysis of any historical event, the conspiracy enthusiast should carefully select that combination of facts, suppositions, inferences and speculation that will support the hypothesis of conspiracy, without regard to controverting facts, more reasonable inferences, common sense or logic.  The most convoluted, facially absurd solution tends to be the correct one.

[David Josephs]

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

You're right, Francois. I will, as the wound shown in the death stare photos wasn't the result of a tracheotomy. I am trying to find a report by one of the Parkland doctors who said when the body left parkland the wound was closed and the entrance wound inviolate.

Sadly Ray, the man you're talking about is EBERSOLE and I do not believe anyone corroborates this.. 

With the exception of the periods when I personally carried the cassettes containing the X rays to the X ray Department which was on the fourth floor of the hospital -- with the exception of those periods I was in the autopsy room from the time the coffin arrived to approximately three o'clock in the morning at which time my services were obviously no longer necessary and I left the hospital.

Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things noticeable were a small irregular ecumonic area above the super ecolobular ridge and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck. As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline just perhaps inside the medial board to the upper scapula.

There are no such word as "ECUMONIC" nor is there a place on the body called the "super ecolobular ridge ".  The man was so FOS it was absurd anyone listened to him.  And we come to find that he is the source of much of the manipulation - as well as mistakes in examining - on the xrays

Reading the Ebersole depo from the HSCA is a must for those wanting to better understand what happened at BETHESDA...

---

While Perry claims to have left the wound "inviolate" i.e. "still readily visible" and the Bethesda men failed to see or report on it for some time...

It was Ebersole in his HSCA depo where we find a host of conflicts and inconsistencies...  From what I remember, those under Ebersole (Custer & Reed) claimed he couldn't read or even create xrays and was pretty much another WCR mouthpiece...

CUSTER: lf they have a technician there. the technician takes the X-lays The radiologist reads the X-rays. Plain and simple. It’s an unwritten law.

Q: That said, do you know whether Dr. Ebersole knew how to take X-rays, if he had wanted to? And what I’m asking is not what you would guess, but just what you know.

CUSTER: I’m not trying to be fictitious about this, but that’s funny. Dr. Ebersole had a very high-fluting attitude about things ”I don’t want I to dirty my hands.” And this was his opinion. “I am here.  You are here.

That’s fine. If you want to feel that way, that’s fine.  I’ll do my job. Do my job to the best of my ability. But don’t step on my toes, and say you’re doing my job.” And he had a bad habit of doing that. He was a gentleman that liked to bask in the glory. But when the heat come down, he was the first one that went out the door

Page 190-191 below in CUSTER's ARRB deposition he talks about another lie from Ebersole... that it was he who took the x-ray film cartridges up for development.. Custer claims he never leaves the morgue.  The second sheet of his depo discusses how badly Ebersole interprets the images...

 

 

 

And this is that who's-who at Bethesda...

 

 

 

 

[Ray Mitcham]

I don't believe it was Ebersole who I am seeking, David.  I'm sure that there was another doctor who said it. Ebersole said it was a sutured wound, which it obviously wasn't.

For those who quote the photos, remember that Floyd Riebe, Autopsy photographer,  said he took photos of the hole in the occiput, photos  which have never been seen since.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Guest]

Here is one of the threads that I had in mind concerning the tracheotomy incision:  http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17203-the-trach-incision/

All of the usual suspects weigh in.  It's interesting reading for the first seven pages or so, then it predictably shifts to a discussion of the head wound and even more predictably descends into the usual mud-slinging.  Enough is presented, including testimony such as that below from Dr. Perry, to make clear that the size of the trach incision as seen in the autopsy photos is neither unusual nor mysterious for an ER procedure such as Dr. Perry performed (unless, of course, one is in the grip of Conspiracy Logic - but there is always that caveat).

The thread seems to make clear that only Ebersole described the incision as having been "sutured."  The consensus seems to be that he was intentionally being misleading.

From Dr. Perry's testimony to the ARRB (and page 3 of the above thread).  As someone points out on the above thread, this was more than a trach incision and should probably be referred to by something more like the "anterior neck procedure."

MR. GUNN: could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?
DR. PERRY: I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon but my reply to that was that it was big enough.
There are only two medical emergencies, airway & bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and quite large [sic] with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound , I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea. There was blood in the trachea through the end - when I looked through the pharyngoscope and attempted to put in the tracheal tube with blood inside the trachea.
There was hair [sic = "air"] in the mediastinum, and I didn't know whether I was going to encounter carotid arteries or whatever. But the path of the bullet clearly put those vessels at risk as well as the trachea, so I made the wound big enough to do that.
How big it was, I don't know. I'm sure Dr. Humes measured it to see when they got there. When he found out it was a tracheostomy, he measured. But since I made the transverse incision, went right through it, I made it big enough to control an underlying bleeding blood vessel if necessary and big enough to do a trach.
How big it was, who knows. Ron might know, but I don't know. Big enough.
DR. JONES: I was busy putting in the left chest tube and doing a cut down on the left arm and I was not paying a lot of attention to that.
DR. PERRY: We were all -
DR. JONES: I thought it was about an average size incision. I didn't see anything abnormally large or abnormal length of the incision.
DR. PERRY: It was bigger than I would make for an elective situation. In a patient that's not in extremis where you're doing an elective tracheostomy you make a nice tiny skin line incision in order to minimize the subsequent scarring. In an emergency situation, you make an incision adequate to accomplish the job, and in this case it was going to take more. After I'd made the incision, Dr. McClelland arrived and his hands came in to help me with the tracheostomy, but I'd made the incision at that time but Bob may recall how big it was because he held the retractors for it. It was big enough for me to control the trachea, and if necessary, to do a little more.

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Guest

[Ray Mitcham]

33 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Yes, we know - he was coached, he was lying, he'd been threatened, he'd been drugged, that wasn't really Dr. Perry, yada yada yada.  I don't know why people just keep saying the same things over and over, on thread after thread, for year after year, ad infinitum.  What a tedious and silly game.

removed.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[François Carlier]

12 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

removed.

Hey, I think that's your most reasonable post so far !
(OK, just joking, no hard feelings)

[Ray Mitcham]

4 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Hey, I think that's your most reasonable post so far !
(OK, just joking, no hard feelings)

None taken, Francois. I might even agree with you.

[Micah Mileto]

On 11/14/2018 at 11:18 PM, David Von Pein said:

Let me remind you, Ray, what one of the conspiracy theorists' all-time favorite Parkland witnesses, Dr. Robert McClelland, had to say in both 1988 and again in 2009 about the size of the tracheotomy wound in JFK's throat....

~~~~~~~~~

"The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. .... And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- David Von Pein; November 2013

~~~~~~~~~

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Dr. Malcolm Perry, David Lifton, And The Trach Wound

 

Not saying the throat defect was physically enlarged before the autopsy, but the autopsy pathologists still certainly lied when pleading ignorance on the throat wound.

 

Here's just one point of evidence out of several: the 1967 cbs memo.

 

Robert Richter was the associate producer for the multi-part TV special A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWtb2JwzkM8&), which aired 6/25-28/1967. In a 1/10/1967 CBS internal memo (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=597) to executive producer of special projects Les Midgley, Richter discloses information attributed to Jim Snyder of the network's Washington bureau.

"Jim Snyder of the CBS bureau in D.C. told me today he is personally acquainted with Dr. Humes. They go to the same church and are personally friendly. Snyder also knows Humes' boss in Bethesda; he is a neighbor across the street from Snyder. Because of personal relationships Snyder said he would not want any of the following to be traced back to him; nor would he feel he could be a middleman in any CBS efforts to deal with Hume."

 

[...]

"Snyder said he has spoken with Humes about the assassination. In one conversation Humes said one X-ray of the Kennedy autopsy would answer many questions that have been raised about the path of the bullet going from Kennedy's back through his throat. Humes said FBI agents were not in the autopsy room during the autopsy; they were kept in an ante room, and their report is simply wrong. Although initially in the autopsy procedure the back wound could only be penetrated to finger length, a probe later was made---when no FBI men were present---that traced the path of the bullet from the back going downward, then upward slighlty, then downward again exiting at the throat.

One X-ray photo taken, Humes said, clearly shows the above, as it was apparently taken with a metal probe stick of some kind that was left in the body to show the wound's path.

Humes said that a wound from a high-power rifle, once it enters a body, causes muscle, etc. to separate and later contract; thus the difficulty in initially tracing the wound's path in the case of Kennedy. Also, once a bullet from a high power rifle enters a body, its course can be completely erratic; a neck wound could result in a bullet emeging in a person's leg or anywhere else.

Humes refused to discuss with Snyder the "single-bullet" theory in which the Warren Commision contends the same bullet described above went thru both Kennedy and Gov. Connally."

Humes did later appear on a CBS special on the Kennedy assassination(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8VmRC3-lp8&t=24m59s), but there is no mention of this alleged x-ray film. While this information would be considered hearsay, it should be noted that individuals in the media industry such as CBS executives would be more likely to have an incentive for accuracy.

 

When Humes was asked at his 2/13/1996 ARRB deposition(http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm) "...Do you recall any photograph or X-ray that was taken with a probe inserted into the posterior thorax?", Humes replied "No, absolutely not. I do not have a recollection of such". In Dr. Boswell's 2/26/1996 ARRB deposition(http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/boswella.htm), he was asked "*Were any photographs taken with the probe inserted?*", and he said "*I doubt it*". Dr. Finck was likewise asked at his 5/24/1996 ARRB deposition(http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fincka.htm) "Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes inserted into the wounds?", and responded "I don't". Autopsy photographer John Stringer recalled a “long metal probe” being “inserted in the throat wound in the front of the neck,” but couldn’t recall if any photos had been taken (ARRB MD 227, Call Report, Interview of John T. Stringer, April 8, 1996, pp.2–3; ARRB Transcript of Proceedings, Deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996, pp.72–73). Stringer’s assistant, Floyd Riebe, was asked by the ARRB on 5/7/1997 “Do you recall whether a photograph was taken while there was a probe in the body?” Riebe answered, “I don’t think so.” (ARRB Transcript of Proceedings, Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, May 7, 1997, pp.38–39).

The CBS memo adds one extra detail that could still establish it's importance:

"Humes also said he had orders from someone he refused to disclose--other than stating it was not Robert Kennedy--to not do a complete autopsy. Thus the autopsy did not go into JFK's kidney disease, etc."

 

This could be a clue in vertifying this memo as being at least partially based off the private words of Dr. Humes.

 

The level of restriction or interference placed on the medical professionals at Bethesda Naval Hospital during the body examination is an extensive discussion itself, but it is certain that there was no publicly available knowledge about it in 1967. All the publicly available knowledge about the JFK autopsy in 1967 (The 1964 Warren Commission report, it's twelve volumes, the FBI reports, and some exclusive stories from news media) did not specifically address why important procedures and details were missing from the autopsy and the record of it.

 

While there does exist a 11/26/1963 memo by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill(https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=687) that briefly discusses the "partial/complete autopsy" issue, this item was only publicly released in 1978 via FOIA to author David Lifton (Best Evidence, Part IV: What, When, and Where?, Chapter 19. Certain Preliminary Examinations), and then reprinted in 1979 by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Volume VII (7), Medical Panel Report, Section II. Performance of Autopsy, Part II. Facts and Issues (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=20&tab=page)). Dr. Finck's 2/24/1969 testimony at the trial of Claw Shaw (http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm) was the first time the public was provided any description of how the autopsy could have been interfered with. One day later, the New York Times published the article pointing out that "the autopsy would not qualify as a 'complete' autopsy by the standards of the American Board of Pathology because of certain restrictions which were imposed, including not dissecting out the entire bullet track through the base of the neck on the right side".

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

removed.

I removed my unnecessarily snarky comment from my own post, although I obviously can't remove it from yours.  The non-snarky points that I think are legitimate are that:

(1) The same points do get made, over and over, to the point that they become pointless.  In a perfect world (i.e., if I were king), there would be a single "tracheotomy incision" thread that anyone could easily find and learn from or contribute to.  It would serve as its own little reference library on that topic and would not be allowed to go off track or descend into mud-slinging.  Your initial question here as to how Francois explains the "butchery" was not really a question (it seems to me) in the sense that you expected Francois to provide an answer that would be meaningful to you or that you would even care about.  You had already participated as recently as 2016 on the incision thread I cited.  It was (it seems to me) the classic "Oh, yeah, well about THIS?" diversionary tactic in which conspiracy enthusiasts seem to specialize.  When I attempted to provide a substantive answer, which Francois then endorsed, this was of no interest to you because you had decided long ago that there was indeed sinister "butchery."  You are (it seems to me) a fundamentalist conspiracy theorist and a fundamentalist tracheotomy butcherist.  It is impossible to have any sort of meaningful discussion with a fundamentalist of any ilk.

(2) Fundamentalists - and this certainly includes Lone Nut fundamentalists - cannot concede any gray areas.  As a non-fundamentalist, I can see how the tracheotomy incision might fuel speculation that something sinister occurred.  When the evidence is viewed as a whole, however, this is one area where I don't believe that a sinister explanation is either mandated or even plausible.  This is one area where I really don't believe the case is close.  A sinister explanation becomes plausible only if one has previously bought into something like Lifton's theory, which to me seems so utterly speculative and implausible as to be comical.  There are sane and reasonable conspiracy theorists (some of whom approach the level of fundamentalists) and then there are Harvey and Lee, Best Evidence and Me and Lee fundamentalists.  When weaknesses in their positions are exposed, fundamentalists of the latter sort do indeed tend to resort to second-level defenses such as "Dr. Perry only testified that way because They got to him" or even "That was an imposter."  I don't believe any plausible conspiracy theory hinges on the tracheotomy incision being the result of sinister doings.  More to the point, we will never know exactly why the incision looks the way it does in the death stare photo.  Common sense and logic tell me that if the tracheotomy incision were evidence of something sinister, it would have been tidied up and the death stare photo would never have seen the light of day.

FWIW, this completely conspiracy-oriented 2003 summary of the confusion in the medical evidence has always seemed to me to be a nice summary of the way that the various investigative panels managed only to generate more confusion:  https://www.historymatters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm  As a non-fundamentalist, I can certainly see how someone looks at this and says "Oh, come on, there is no way that this all has an innocent explanation!"  I agree - I don't believe it's plausible that all this can be attributed to confusion, chaos and incompetence (although much of it can).  Nevertheless, it does not equate to "A conspiracy to assassinate JFK."  I don't believe you can work backwards from the confusion, chaos and incompetence after the assassination to a conspiracy before the assassination.  As someone who still tries to maintain an open mind, I continue to believe the Lone Nut explanation is, by a considerable margin, the best explanation for the assassination.

I stumbled on an old thread the other day where Jim D. mentioned in sort of a blasé way that Oswald had listed Ruby as a reference on a job application in New Orleans.  My reaction was, of course, WHAT???????????  When Jim D. was pressed by someone with a similar reaction, the response (as I recall) was of course that someone had seen this and told a reputable researcher but the document had since disappeared.  Show me ONE PIECE of irrefutable evidence such as the original of a job application in which LHO listed Ruby as a reference, with a solid provenance, the age of the ink and paper established beyond reasonable doubt, and LHO's handwriting verified beyond reasonable doubt, and this ONE PIECE of evidence will have me screeching "THIS IS A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME!"  The problem is, after more than 50 years there is no such piece of evidence.  There is Prayer Man and Sandy's Expert Molar Analysis and Cliff's Irrefutable Solution and all variety of similar goofiness, but there is (at least in my reasonably informed opinion) no piece of flat-out solid evidence that casts serious doubt on any aspect of the Lone Nut explanation.

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by Guest