DiEugenio, Cranor, and the mole (my mole) - 3/31/20

[Micah Mileto]

18 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

sis

I don't believe anyone "mutilated" the governor's body.  That is the wrong word.  But I do believe that a small (and relatively minor) entry wound was created on the rear surface of Governor Connally's body to create valid medical evidence he was struck from behind.  Governor Connally knew that he was struck from the front (and later interviews I have make this clear). But it was imperative --to the official version--that he "agree" (in 1963/64) that he was struck from behind.  (I would imagine that it was "explained" to him that the world was teetering on the verge of nuclear war, or some such "national security" cover story).  As you may (or may not) know, a motion picture projector was brought to Connally's hospital room on Sunday evening, 11/24, and the film (which, as you may be aware, I believe to have been altered by that time) was repeatedly played for him.  Again and again. That film does not show any car stop. None at all. It shows a "six second" assassination; not the actuality (a 20 second shooting, approx). Governor Connally knows what actually happened, and I'll have more to say about this in Final Charade. By the next Wednesday evening (11/27), Governor Connally was prepared to state--for the record--a version of events which would become "his" version, and to which he testified in February, 1964. 

What about the thigh wound?

[David Lifton]

10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about the thigh wound?

 

10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about the thigh wound?

 

10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

What about the thigh wound?

Not sure. That can be argued in more than one way and merits a good discussion. The issue raised by that wound: Was it really there, and was a bullet (or fragment) extracted?  Or was it deliberately created (after the fact) etc.  Years ago, I collected as many of the "earliest" accounts that I could.  Its a murky area.

Edited April 16, 2020 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 4/14/2020 at 2:56 PM, David Lifton said:

"

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by David Lifton

[Joseph McBride]

A telling statement by John Connally that I report in INTO THE NIGHTMARE:

 

Could Tippit have been just what he seemed, a “poor dumb cop” who got in the way of history? Unfortunately for those who need heroes, there is too much conflicting evidence to enable us to accept such a simplistic view of the events of the last day of Tippit’s life. If it is hard to imagine policemen being satisfied with pinning the killing of one of their own on an innocent man, then the reader should just watch The Thin Blue Line to see exactly how such a travesty of justice can occur, with the connivance of Henry Wade and others involved in the Tippit case, in order to wrap up the case quickly. Could a misguided sense of patriotism also have been one of the reasons for Tippit’s fellow policemen to hide the facts about his life and death?

Such a motive in hiding the truth about the Kennedy assassination was at work in the mind of John Connally, the Texas governor who was wounded in the assassination along with Kennedy. Connally always refused publicly to endorse the Warren Commission’s single-bullet theory. Both he and his wife, Nellie, firmly maintained from November 1963 until the ends of their lives that the governor was wounded by a separate bullet from the ones that struck Kennedy. But though the next logical step would have been to admit that there were two gunmen, the Connallys would never do so. It seemed that they had decided to confine themselves to dropping a very broad hint. That supposition received confirmation in 2009 when a longtime journalist and Democratic Party congressional staff member, Doug Thompson, who founded the Capitol Hill Blue website, revealed a conversation he and his wife had with Governor Connally in 1982 when he visited Santa Fe for a political fundraiser.

Thompson wrote, “I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy?”

"Absolutely not," Connally replied. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission."

“So why not speak out?” Thompson asked.

Connally said, "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe."

Others would take a different view of what loving one’s country means. It would mean facing the facts, hard as it may be, about the assassination of the president, rather than knowingly accepting a false version that might seem consolatory in its simplicity.

[Ron Ecker]

Don't forget Connally's very first comment about the assassination: "They're going to kill us all."

 

 

[Gary Murr]

“(1) Why Gov Connally later (some years after his Warren Commission testimony) gave an account that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from the front. Do you think Connally’s memory decayed with time; or is this a situation in which, to quote Josephine Tey, “Truth is the daughter of time”?”

David:

As someone who possesses more than a passing interest in the wounding of John Connally, can you indicate to me/us the source for Connally claiming “that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from in front.”?

 

Gary Murr

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

“(1) Why Gov Connally later (some years after his Warren Commission testimony) gave an account that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from the front. Do you think Connally’s memory decayed with time; or is this a situation in which, to quote Josephine Tey, “Truth is the daughter of time”?”

David:

As someone who possesses more than a passing interest in the wounding of John Connally, can you indicate to me/us the source for Connally claiming “that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from in front.”?

 

Gary Murr

https://web.archive.org/web/20070608162642/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant/2006/03/is_deception_the_best_way_to_s.html#more

This is a 2006 article recounting an evening with Connally in 1982.

 

"...When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe..."

Edited April 16, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

https://web.archive.org/web/20070608162642/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant/2006/03/is_deception_the_best_way_to_s.html#more

This is a 2006 article recounting an evening with Connally in 1982.

 

"...When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe..."

You are correct.  

Regarding the source of Connally's quote (that the impact "felt like he had been kicked in the ribs"), permit me to go back in time a bit--in fact, quite a bit--and to the year 2005 (approx).  What follows is written based on my present recollection; but I have another computer on which all of this is laid out, in detail, in memos I wrote at the time.

** ** ** **

I do not presently recall the exact details, but I came across the Capital Hill Blue item around 2005, and it was a game-changer for me. Based on my own research -- and (perhaps most importantly) my interview with Nurse Doris Nelson (in Dec 1982 [approx]) -- I felt certain that Governor Connally was shot in the chest from the front.  Over the years, I kept collecting data to support that thesis-- and made no secret of my views in various discussions on the Internet.  So.. . my Doris Nelson interview (12/1982) was (most probably) the beginning.  But then, years later, came the Doug Thompson article, and that (as I stated) was a real game-changer. For here was Connally, in his own words, completely contradicting what he had said to the Warren Commission --- that the impact felt like a fist striking him in the back, or back of his shoulder.  But in fact, that WC testimony doesn't capture the full extent of his falsehood.  Remember: Connally gave a filmed interview from his hospital bed on the day before Thanksgiving (i.e., on11/27/63) in which he made these same statements; an interview which was then front page news on Thursday, 11/28/63.  

What this meant to me, as a researcher (prior to the Doug Thompson revelations): No matter what my evidence was that Gov JC was shot from the front, I would have to deal with Governor Connally's Warren Commission testimony (Feb 1964), and I saw no way of overturning it. (Or, to use lawyer terminology, of impeaching it).

Then (years later)  came the Doug Thompson story, and the startling (and brand new) information it contained.  I was astounded.  Suddenly, the problem --or "the puzzle" [as my literary agent, Peter Shepherd)] used to say) -- "changed its shape."  So then the question became:  Which version of Connally's account was the most credible?  Which was most worthy of belief? 

Certain additional information weighed heavily in my conclusion that this was a situation in which --contrary to the normal legal practice)-- was a situation in which  Connally's "later" version (in the early 1990s) was in fact the truth. 

But let us first go back to weekend of the assassination.

11/24/63: John and Nellie Connally and the motion picture film

Most significantly, I learned that on Sunday night, 11/24 (I'm relying here on memory) a motion picture projector was brought to Governor Connally's room, and he was repeatedly shown the Zapruder film ---and by that,  I mean the altered Zapruder film (See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," for my beliefs about the Z film.  No time to engage in a "side-debate" about that issue, here. So let me just refer to that as the "Zapruder film.")

Anyway, the "Zapruder film" was shown to Gov. and Mrs. Connally, repeatedly, and presented (to them) as the reality of what had occurred just days before.

In other words, what they (supposedly) had experienced was a "six second assassination." even though --if the car stopped briefly -- it was closer to 20. (But lets set that aside, for now). 

Today, looking back at the situation, I would say that Gov. Connally was being gaslighted. (To those readers unfamiliar with the term, or its origin, I refer you to the classic movie "Gaslight,"  the 1944 film starring Charles Boyer and Ingrid Bergman.  Do consult the Wikipedia write-up to understand what "gaslighting"  means, and the psychological impact it can have. To say Connally was conned does not capture the impact of a "reality fake" of this magnitude).

Bottom line:  John Connally (thus gaslighted) must have been faced with a choice between his (and Nellie's) vivid recollection(s) of what they remembered, and the reality presented to them in a motion picture film -- a film that (most likely) did not comport with their recollections.  In any event, Connally went along with the "I was struck from behind" routine, but I think he always had doubts, serious doubts.  He must have thought: "What is going on here?  How can I not have remembered the reality of what just happened two days ago?"  On this score, a particularly vivid color picture comes to mind--one that was published in the famous LIFE issue in the fall of 1966, when LIFE published, on its cover, a blowup of frame 232, and --basically--came out against the Warren Report and the single bullet theory.

In that issue, there's a wonderful color photo of John Connally at the offices of LIFE, holding a high powered magnifier in both hands, and looking at the individual (4 x 5 inch) transparencies of the Zapruder film frames.  (I invite a reader of this post to add that picture to this thread).

My personal belief:  Connally was always puzzled --deeply puzzled --  as to why his recollections of November 22  1963 diverged from what the Zapruder film frames showed.  But-- and this is important (because I went through this process myself)-- unless one  "takes the next step," and becomes familiar with the world of optical printers -- and the whole art of motion picture film editing (i.e., alteration) -- the puzzle with which Connally may have been grappling would have seemed incomprehensible.   I can only speak here for myself: Even with a skeptical mindset and a good technical education (physics, math, etc.), it took me a good six years (and the reality of a careful compilation of  the "car-stop" witnesses) to have the realization (circa 1969)  that "OMG.. . these films were (i.e., "must have been") altered!"   So I have little doubt that, presented with the Zapruder film (and having no particular knowledge about the possibility of film alteration) Connally would have acquiesced to whatever request came from "higher authority" -- i.e., someone like Lyndon Johnson (or one of his trusted S.S. agents).  Also, remember what he said was his very first impression: that this was a coup.  If Connally truly entertained that idea, he surely must have been concerned with his own personal safety, and that of his wife.   (But I digress).

What I find interesting (sad, but interesting) about this situation is that so many years later, riding on an airplane next to a young man who he admired (and for whom he had an obvious political affection), and with the years of the Warren Commission (nightmare?) well in the past. . .that when it came to recounting what happened on that day way back in November 1963,  John Connally drew on his genuine recollections (finally), and did not bother to provide the false and manufactured story that he told starting on November 27 1963, from his hospital bed; and which he then repeated in February 1964 to the Warren Commission.

As Josephine Tey wrote--and I included this in the front matter to a later (paperback) edition of Best Evidence -- "Truth is the daughter of time."

Stay tuned.

DSL, 4/16/2020 - 12:15 PM PST (revised)

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 5/21/2019 at 5:16 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I can see the possibility of whoever set the whole thing up having someone ready in place in Dallas to alter the wounds, even a place ready to have done such.  But it's hard to see how they would have controlled the autopsy there and in particular the Callas coroner to the extent they did Humes and Co. at Bethesda.

The autopsy would not need to be "controlled" (in the sense that I believe you mean), if the alteration was simply perceived as being the result of legitimate life saving surgery.  OTOH: if it was a botched up mess (as was the case at Bethesda), then of course some "story" would be necessary to explain (to the examining pathologist) why the body was in such a messed up condition.  That's the situation Commander Humes was faced with (IMHO), and was the reason for the multiple drafts, the burned notes, etc.

On 3/7/2018 at 5:15 PM, Pat Speer said:

I've read the Sat Post article. It was basically a summary of Six Seconds in Dallas. Apparently, this scared the bejeesus out of the Johnson Administration. Soon thereafter, Ramsey Clark convened his secret panel to debunk Thompson.

FWIW, I saw Thompson last weekend. He's still looking for a publisher for Last Second in Dallas. We'll see.

With all due respect to Josiah Thompson's book, there was another factor involved, and I'm referring here to UCLA Law Professor Liebeler's memorandum of November 8, 1966 -- which spelled out the fact that a UCLA graduate student (me) had discovered an FBI 302 report stating that "surgery" had been discovered on JFK's body prior to autopsy (and had agreed not to focus public attention” on it until a proper investigation was made).  So as the months ticked by, LBJ had (at least) two reasons to be concerned that autopsy fraud might be discovered.  In January 1967, two months after the Liebeler memo, there was the "Military Review" of the autopsy photos and X-Rays.  Josiah Thompson's book wasn't published until fall 1968, but I'm sure that LBJ knew about it considerably earlier. In order to "stay ahead" of events, Johnson very sensibly ordered the very secret Feb/Mar 1968 review by the Clark Panel, BUT....

The "but" is that he kept this little "ace in the hole" safely in his vest pocket until  the last day or so before January 20th, 1969, his last day (or partial day) in  office.  That was when (finally) the news that there had been a Clark Panel was released.  Also, and I find this symbolic, when Lyndon Johnson left the Oval Office for the last time, at his side was Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician.  Burkley (by that time)  held the rank of Vice Admiral,  On 11/22, he had been with JFK at Parkland Hospital --and then with his body throughout the Bethesda autopsy.  Burkley had handled the delivery of all the key autopsy documents from the Bethesda morgue to the Oval Office.  To put it differently, Admiral Burkley was the only physician who saw the President's body both at Parkland, and then --5 hours later--at Bethesda. And so --unless Dr. Burkley was completely unobservant--he had to know the stark difference between the appearance of the President's head wounds at those two locations. Why do I say that?  Because Burkley, at Parkland Hospital, had carefully examined the President's wounds.  And then, at Bethesda some six hours later, he was present throughout the multi-hour autopsy, which began with Commander Humes statement that there had (already) been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."   So of course he had to know.  In other words, Burkley had to know that the President's body had been altered (i.e., the head wounds had been altered) prior to autopsy, not to mention the stitching of the throat wound. Now back to January 20th, 1969, the day Johnson left the Oval Office for the last time,  with Admiral George Burkely --the man I had attempted to interview, 2 years earlier -- at his side.

 On January 20th, 1969, I personally watched Johnson leaving the Oval Office (with Burkley),  as it was broadcast live, on national TV, and will never forget it.  There was Lyndon Johnson leaving the Oval Office for the last time--not accompanied by his wife, or daughters, or with a top political aide, but with Admiral George Burkley, the White House Physician.  George Burkley, the official who --on November 22, 1963--had handled the autopsy paperwork, delivering to the White House on Sunday night, 11/24/63 the final draft of the autopsy, in which the wound at the front of the throat was now a supposed exit wound and which even included a "Receipt for missile" removed at autopsy, a document not released until about 1969.. 

That scene --of Lyndon Johnson leaving the White House with Admiral Burkley at his side--was unforgettable and had a personal meaning for me. just two years before (around 1967), I had telephoned Burkley and attempted to interview him.  The conversation was brief and intense.  Burkley had refused to answer any questions. Not a one.   And he was angry that I had somehow figured out how to reach him by phone (as I recall, I may have actually reached him at the White House), and he was practically barking at me.  He said words to the effect that he wouldn't answer anything --- not a single question --- because "one question leads to another."   I couldn't agree more. 

Edited April 17, 2020 by David Lifton

[Sandy Larsen]

9 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

11 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

David:

As someone who possesses more than a passing interest in the wounding of John Connally, can you indicate to me/us the source for Connally claiming “that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from in front.”?

 Gary Murr

https://web.archive.org/web/20070608162642/http://www.capitolhillblue.com/rant/2006/03/is_deception_the_best_way_to_s.html#more

This is a 2006 article recounting an evening with Connally in 1982.

"...When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe..."

 

Huh? How does this John Connally quote indicate that the bullet hit him in the front of the chest? The back of the chest has ribs too.

And besides, he suffered a punctured lung and the immediate pain he felt was likely from that and not from the bullet wounds. (IMO based on my own experience with flesh wounds, where pain comes on very slowly, as opposed to organ and joint trauma, where the onset of pain is immediate.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Huh? How does this John Connally quote indicate that the bullet hit him in the front of the chest? The back of the chest has ribs too.

And besides, Connally suffered a punctured lung and the immediate pain he felt was likely from that and not from the bullet wounds. (IMO based on my own experience with flesh wounds, where pain comes on very slowly, as opposed to organ and joint trauma, where the onset of pain is immediate.)

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

I didn't remember Connally having a punctured lung.  I thought the bullet went in at the base of his right arm pit, traversed a rib, breaking it and exiting out his right nipple.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Thank you, Andrej, for your thoughtful reply. It is true that the particular novelty features of Lifton's body-alteration theory (that the rear wounds were pure fabrications and that no shots came from behind) are separate from his basic claim (that the body was actually altered). You imply that you doubt the novelty features but accept the basic claim. Fair enough.

But it is far from an accepted fact that JFK's body was altered. As everyone knows, the medical evidence is a mess. Whatever interpretation one wants to put on it, there will be witness statements and other evidence which contradict that interpretation. There isn't much that is incontrovertible.

There are four claims one could make:

(a) The body was substantially altered, as Lifton claims.

(b) Only minor alterations were made.

(c) The body was not altered at all, and it shows evidence consistent with the lone-nut scenario.

(d) The body was not altered at all, and it shows evidence which contradicts the lone-nut scenario: shots from both front and rear, and shots which entered too low to have been fired by a lone nut.

Personally, I'd go for option (d). But whatever claim you make, there is evidence which supports that claim, and evidence which contradicts that claim. The current state of the medical evidence doesn't really allow any of these claims to be made with certainty.

The important point is that it is possible to make a plausible case that the body was not altered and that it shows evidence of shots from both the front and the rear. If you want to cast doubt on the lone-nut theory, it isn't essential to claim that the body was altered. Other areas of evidence are more than sufficient to indicate that the lone-nut theory is nonsense. The notion of body-alteration is, at best, an optional extra.

If you can explain a set of facts without proposing a conspiracy, that explanation is more likely to be correct than one which demands a conspiracy. And if there is to be a conspiracy, the smaller it is, the more plausible it is. When it comes to conspiracies, bigger isn't better. The more paranoid JFK assassination enthusiasts, with their army of conspirators faking everything in sight, will be disappointed to learn all of this, but it's true.

Now consider these points:

- It hasn't been proved beyond any doubt that the body was altered.

- Those who argue that the body was altered to support the lone-nut scenario are implying that they believe that the current state of the evidence clearly supports the lone-nut scenario.

- The most high-profile theory about how the body might have been altered, Lifton's, is clearly wrong in its novelty features, as Roger Feinman and others demonstrated many years ago.

- A plausible interpretation of the medical evidence exists which allows us to rebut the lone-nut theory without requiring conspiratorial body-alteration. You can have a conspiracy to kill JFK without a conspiracy to alter the wounds on his body.

- The smaller and simpler a proposed conspiracy is, the more plausible it is. The larger and more elaborate, the more implausible.

- The more plausible the proposed conspiracy, the more likely it is that the general public will accept it. The more implausible it is, the more easily the media can persuade the general public that any critic of the lone-nut theory is a paranoid fantasist. Without the support of the general public, the case won't get resolved.

Summary: The simplest, and thus the most plausible, explanation for the medical evidence is that the body was not altered. This explanation is perfectly compatible with the belief that the lone-nut theory is nonsense. Once you accept this, you can finally let go of Lifton.

As for Mr Lifton, I'm glad that he has stated for the record his denial that Connally was actually shot from behind, and his belief that at least one of Connally's wounds was fabricated:

Quote

I do believe that a small (and relatively minor) entry wound was created on the rear surface of Governor Connally's body to create valid medical evidence he was struck from behind.

He should have done this 40 years ago, and stated his opinion clearly in Best Evidence. But if he had, it would have had the same effect as if he had included his 'snipers hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll' idea.

No-one would have taken his book seriously. The media would have had a much harder job to mislead the public by promoting the book as representative of critical thought. It was a wise decision for Lifton to completely ignore the evidence for a rear sniper, and hope that his readers wouldn't notice.
 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

"...When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe..."

Huh? How does this John Connally quote indicate that the bullet hit him in the front of the chest? The back of the chest has ribs too.

Indeed. Even by Lifton's standards, this is outrageous.

1 - David Lifton claims that Governor Connally said he was shot from the front:

Quote

Gov Connally later (some years after his Warren Commission testimony) gave an account that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from the front.

2 - Gary Murr asks for the evidence for Lifton's claim:

Quote

As someone who possesses more than a passing interest in the wounding of John Connally, can you indicate to me/us the source for Connally claiming “that he felt as if he were slammed in the chest from in front.”?

3 - Micah Mileto provides this quote by Connally:

Quote

"...When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe..."

4 - Lifton seizes on this quote and pretends that Connally is referring to being shot from the front. Further Best Evidence-style verbiage follows (I did this, I did that, a piece of evidence emerged, I was astounded, I came up with a solution), including the claim that Connally's quote contradicts his Warren Commission testimony:

Quote

For here was Connally, in his own words, completely contradicting what he had said to the Warren Commission --- that the impact felt like a fist striking him in the back, or back of his shoulder.

From there, Lifton ropes in the Zapruder film:

Quote

My personal belief:  Connally was always puzzled --deeply puzzled --  as to why his recollections of November 22  1963 diverged from what the Zapruder film frames showed.

Lifton implies not only that the Zapruder film must have been faked (because it shows Connally reacting to a shot from behind, contrary to Connally's recollections) but that it was the faked film that caused Connally, despite having doubts, to go along with the lone-nut story.

It's all made up. Connally did not claim to have been shot from the front, and there was no reason why he should have been puzzled (let alone "deeply puzzled") by what he saw on the Zapruder film. He consistently claimed to have been shot from behind, as the medical evidence shows, and as the Zapruder film shows.

Connally went along with the Warren Commission's conclusions in public, no doubt in order not to rock the political boat. He did indeed express doubts in 1966 about the Commission's conclusions, not because he knew he had actually been shot from the front, but on the grounds that he was shot later than the non-fatal shot which wounded Kennedy. From the beginning, he had claimed to have been shot later than Kennedy:

Quote

It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet. ... the major wound that I took in the shoulder through the chest couldn't have been anything but the second shot.

(Hearings, vol.4, p.136)

It was Connally's recollections about when he was shot, not from where he was shot, that made the single-bullet theory impossible, which thus made the lone-nut theory impossible.

The Zapruder film matches Connally's recollections. It shows him reacting to a shot from behind, and it shows him reacting noticeably later than Kennedy.

Far from being troubled by an inconsistency between his recollections and what he saw on the Zapruder film, Connally's recollections agree with the Zapruder film. His doubts about the Warren Commission's conclusions weren't due to his having been duped by a faked film, and they weren't due to his having been shot from the front. Lifton made it all up.

As things stand, there is no evidence that Connally was shot from the front, let alone that the wound in his back was fabricated, as Lifton is now claiming. There is plenty of evidence that Connally was shot from behind and that there must therefore have been a sniper at the rear. Lifton still needs to find a way to incorporate this fact into his nonsensical "all the shots were fired from the front" theory.

P.S. This is a good illustration of the point I made in my previous comment, to Andrej. If there is a credible, non-conspiratorial explanation (in this instance, the timing of Connally's wounding) which invalidates the lone-nut theory, there is no need to invent a further conspiracy (in this instance, a faked film and fake wounds).

P.P.S. Has Lifton apologised to James DiEugenio yet?
 

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

 Those who argue that the body was altered to support the lone-nut scenario are implying that they believe that the current state of the evidence clearly supports the lone-nut scenario.

How do you figure that? There are multiple witnesses to a gaping (exit) wound in back of the head. How does that evidence support the lone-nut scenario? 

The single bullet theory is impossible, the evidence for that impossibility being the laws of physics. So how does that support the lone-nut scenario?

Summary: The simplest, and thus the most plausible, explanation for the medical evidence is that the body was not altered.

What in your opinion was the reason for the arrival of JFK's body at Bethesda in a shipping casket, separate from the arrival of the Dallas casket? And why do you think Humes stated, at the start of the autopsy, that there was evidence of surgery to the head?