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

[David Lifton]

10 hours 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, 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.)

 

 

[David Lifton]

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

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:

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.
 

 Quoting Bojzuck:

"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."

DSL RESPONSE:  Mr. Bojzuck lives in a world where he (apparently) believes that the primary purpose of body alteration was to create the appearance of a "lone assassin." It was much more than that; the deception goes deeper.  It was to create the illusion that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon. To accomplish that, "non-Oswald" bullets could not be found (ergo, had to be retrieved, pre-autopsy) and "Oswald ammunition" had to be planted.  So it was't "only" a matter of wound geometry ---inferred trajectories -- it was (also) a question of (a) retrieving the genuine bullets (and/or fragments); and then (b) creating false trajectories that would implicate "Oswald as the assassin" and then  (c) planting the requisite ammunition that would implicate his rifle (mail ordered in March 1963)  as the murder weapon.  The challenge facing those who planned this crime was not simply creating the (false) appearance of a "lone assassin."  (Yes. that was one facet;. and so the grassy knoll had to be erased as the true source of the shots).  But then came the"Part B":  That was implicating Lee Oswald --who had lived in the USSR for 2-1/2 (plus) years --as "the assassin."  That meant planting ammunition that would be ballistically plausible and "connect" his rifle to the crime, as the murder weapon. I don't understand why Bojzuck has such a problem with this. Logically, body alteration is --practically speaking-- a necessary condition to autopsy falsification, unless one wishes to believe that the autopsy doctors were in on the plot, and agreed to lie.

The  who planned this crime planned to falsify the autopsy to achieve their goal, and the choice was simple: either falsify the autopsy by getting the examining doctor(s) to lie, or falsify the evidence the were examining --. i.e., President Kennedy's body.  Mr. Bojzuck seems to opt for a "designer shooting" (in order to frame Oswald) but  in which wounds don't have to be altered and bullets don't have to be retrieved.  That's not wishful thinking. That's magic.

P.S. Here's another Bojczuk gem: 

You can have a conspiracy to kill JFK without a conspiracy to alter the wounds on his body.

RESPONSE: Of course you can. As long as it is not intended to implicate Oswald's rifle, as the murder weapon, or Oswald as the assassin.

In that case, the President's body is sent for autopsy, it is determined that JFK was shot from the front, and the bullets and fragments are retrieved. Now whose rifle was responsible for this dastardly deed?  The District Attorney learns that there is this interesting fellow, Oswald, who worked at the TSBD, and who lived in Russia for 2-1/2 (plus) years (And who owned a rifle!) . He calls him in for questioning, only to learn there is no case because (a) Oswald's rifle was not the murder weapon and (b) as to wound geometry, Oswald explains that he was having lunch; and that no, he was not on the grassy knoll, firing any weapon. 

Why is it so difficult to Jeremy Bojczuk to understand that the President's body was the most important evidence in this case, and that for Oswald to be implicated (if the shots were fired from the front) then the autopsy results had to be falsified.  The clear choice: either get the doctors to lie, or alter the body. ("Q.E.D.")

 

Edited April 17, 2020 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Sandy Larsen writes:

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

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

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

3 - Micah Mileto provides this quote by Connally:

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:

From there, Lifton ropes in the Zapruder film:

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:

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?
 

Here's another point that Bojczuk is either unaware of (or ignores):

As Connally was being rushed to the operating room, he was asked by a reporter about  the direction from which he was struck. He replied to the reporter, and his response was on the UPI wire (at about 1:07 PM, as I recall).

His response; "From behind, I think."

"I think?"  . . when did that response evolve to the great sense of certainty that JC exhibited some days later?

Edited April 17, 2020 by David Lifton

[Gary Murr]

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, 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.)”

You are absolutely correct on this point, Sandy. This is a fact made by the surgeon of record for this particular wound site, Dr. Robert Shaw. As Shaw indicated, one of the “side effects” of the exit wound on the Connally anterior chest wall is that as he attempted to breath his lungs, in particular his right lung, attempt to aspirate/exit out through the opening  created by the exited missile. As Shaw further indicated, this is an extremely painful wound. The fact that Connally unquestionably felt excruciating pain as a result of this exit wound it is not clear indication that this was a wound of “entry.”

I have known, or been aware of David Lifton, for approximately 50 years. My first contact with David stretches all the way back to the late 1960’s – early 1970’s, contact as a result of my work with Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams during the construct of their manuscript, “Murder From Within.” As David well knows, I am respectful of his research, though we might not always agree on theoretical end results. I also, as many here on this Forum may be aware, spent the better part of twenty years studying the Connally wounding process and only the Connally wounding event. Based upon my research into this matter, I must state that to me the concept that John Connally suffered any wounds as a result of an entry wound created by a shot from the “front” of the Presidential limousine is ludicrous. To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, anyone is entitled to their own opinions – but not to their own facts.

Gary Murr

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

As Connally was being rushed to the operating room, he was asked by a reporter about  the direction from which he was struck. He replied to the reporter, and his response was on the UPI wire (at about 1:07 PM, as I recall).

His response; "From behind, I think."

 

Problem is, David, the response "from behind" is ambiguous. It can mean from Connally's behind, or from behind the car Connally was riding in.

[David Lifton]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Problem is, David, the response "from behind" is ambiguous. It can mean from Connally's behind, or from behind the car Connally was riding in.

 

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Problem is, David, the response "from behind" is ambiguous. It can mean from Connally's behind, or from behind the car Connally was riding in.

Oh pleez... Connally was talking about his body, not about the automobile.  (But I commend you on the originality of your hypothesis).

Edited April 17, 2020 by David Lifton

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/17/2020 at 3:06 PM, David Lifton said:

On 4/17/2020 at 2:56 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Problem is, David, the response "from behind" is ambiguous. It can mean from Connally's behind, or from behind the car Connally was riding in.

Oh pleez... Connally was talking about his body, not about the automobile.  (But I commend you on the originality of your hypothesis).

EDIT: I made a mistake in formulating the following analysis. Please disregard it.

 

It depends on Connally's frame of mind when he said, "From behind, I think:" Was he thinking of himself only, or of the entourage in the limo when he said that?
 

Frame of Mind = Himself:

Connally said:  "I got shot from behind, I think"
Interpretation:  Connally was shot in the back.

 

Frame of Mind = Entourage:

Connally said:  "We got shot from behind, I think"
Interpretation:  Connally was shot in the front.

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by Sandy Larsen

[David Lifton]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It depends on Connally's frame of mind when he said, "From behind, I think:" Was he thinking of himself only, or of the entourage in the limo when he said that?
 

Frame of Mind = Himself:

Connally said:  "I got shot from behind, I think"
Interpretation:  Connally was shot in the back.

 

Frame of Mind = Entourage:

Connally said:  "We got shot from behind, I think"
Interpretation:  Connally was shot in the front.

 

I still believe that Connally was talking about himself--not about the automobile (nor about any "entourage").  I think the two "Frames of Mind" you set up needlessly complicates the analysis of what he said.  One additional fact, with which most people are not familiar:  In connection with  his research for writing his book Death of a President,  Manchester had 20 or 30 hours of exclusive taped interviews with Jacqueline Kennedy.  Apparently relying on Jacqueline Kennedy for certain details as to what happened inside the limousine, he quotes Connally as having had the following spontaneous exclamation when struck:  "Oh no no no (etc.). . . . they are going to shoot us both!"   

Not "all". . . ."both."  (And not "kill," but rather "shoot").

P.S. I should add something else that she said, and which was deleted during the editing by Richard Goodwin (but which was revealed years later):: that when Connally was hit, he "squealed like a stuck pig."  Being a city boy, I didn't have much experience in hearing such sounds.  But, if we now conjoin the two quotes, here's the essence of what she told Manchester, about  what she witnessed --and, most notably --heard inside the car: that Connally "squealed like a stuck pig," and cried out (or "exclaimed"): "Oh no no no no. . .they are going to shoot us both."  Further, upon reaching the White House that night, she told her personal companion, that (and I'm paraphrasing here): "I thought they were going to shoot me, too!" *

*Footnote: This was not just a thought, but something later revealed by Clint Hill: that not only did Jackie attempt to get out of the car in Dealey Plaza, she tried to do it twice again, after the car passed through the  Triple Underpass. In one case, the car almost came to a complete stop, and she had to be pushed back inside the car.   So, for whatever reason --and however irrational her fears-- she apparently thought that she too was a target during the assassination.

Edited April 18, 2020 by David Lifton

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

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, 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.)”

You are absolutely correct on this point, Sandy. This is a fact made by the surgeon of record for this particular wound site, Dr. Robert Shaw. As Shaw indicated, one of the “side effects” of the exit wound on the Connally anterior chest wall is that as he attempted to breath his lungs, in particular his right lung, attempt to aspirate/exit out through the opening  created by the exited missile. As Shaw further indicated, this is an extremely painful wound. The fact that Connally unquestionably felt excruciating pain as a result of this exit wound it is not clear indication that this was a wound of “entry.”

I have known, or been aware of David Lifton, for approximately 50 years. My first contact with David stretches all the way back to the late 1960’s – early 1970’s, contact as a result of my work with Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams during the construct of their manuscript, “Murder From Within.” As David well knows, I am respectful of his research, though we might not always agree on theoretical end results. I also, as many here on this Forum may be aware, spent the better part of twenty years studying the Connally wounding process and only the Connally wounding event. Based upon my research into this matter, I must state that to me the concept that John Connally suffered any wounds as a result of an entry wound created by a shot from the “front” of the Presidential limousine is ludicrous. To paraphrase Daniel Patrick Moynihan, anyone is entitled to their own opinions – but not to their own facts.

Gary Murr

I hate to pile on, but I have to agree with Gary on this point.

While a theory holding that Kennedy's body was altered prior to its inspection at Bethesda might hold water, the theory Connally's wounds were altered prior to their inspection at Parkland is really really really out there.

David, don't make us wait for your book. Who fiddled with Connally's wounds? And when did he/she get access to his body?

[Ron Ecker]

4 hours ago, David Lifton said:

One additional fact, with which most people are not familiar:  In connection with  his research for writing his book Death of a President,  Manchester had 20 or 30 hours of exclusive taped interviews with Jacqueline Kennedy.  Apparently relying on Jacqueline Kennedy for certain details as to what happened inside the limousine, he quotes Connally as having had the following spontaneous exclamation when struck:  "Oh no no no (etc.). . . . they are going to shoot us both!"   

Not "all". . . ."both."  (And not "kill," but rather "shoot").

 

"I immediately, when I was hit, I said, 'Oh, no, no, no.' And then I said, 'My God, they are going to kill us all.'" (John Connally, Warren Commission testimony)

 

[David Lifton]

6 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

"I immediately, when I was hit, I said, 'Oh, no, no, no.' And then I said, 'My God, they are going to kill us all.'" (John Connally, Warren Commission testimony)

 

Ron:  I agree that there is a disparity between the two versions. Moreover:  there's a research step that could be (and ought to be) pursued: compare the actual transcripts (if not the audio) of both interviews.  That would mean obtaining the actual steno transcript of the WC interview; and, in addition, obtaining the actual audio of the Manchester interview. I don't know if either is available, or what such a comparison would show. 

[David Lifton]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I hate to pile on, but I have to agree with Gary on this point.

While a theory holding that Kennedy's body was altered prior to its inspection at Bethesda might hold water, the theory Connally's wounds were altered prior to their inspection at Parkland is really really really out there.

David, don't make us wait for your book. Who fiddled with Connally's wounds? And when did he/she get access to his body?

Sorry Pat, but you're not exactly the gold standard for what's "really out there."  

That's sort of like saying "Columbus, I know you're saying you discovered America, . ... but now you're expecting us to believe there's a place called South America?.. .As a good flat-earther, I thought I was being mighty generous in believing  your alleged discovery of Miami Beach...but now you're claiming we must go "further south," to get the rest of the story?? OMG! What you're proposing strains credulity. Just too far out!"

No, Pat Speer. . . there is no tooth fairy, but two persons were shot in Dealey Plaza, and you can rest assured that if there was a medical setup prepared to deal with the President of the United States, that capability included reasonable contingency planning to deal with other unexpected developments.  Perhaps it was my training in systems engineering (or just plain common sense), but I completely disagree with the notion (i.e., your notion) that what I am proposing was (or is) "really . . . out there."  Rather, that's evidence of an inability (your inability)  to properly analyze the situation.  

I am so glad that you did not go into the field of astronomy.  We would never have discovered Pluto*.

*FWIW:  That planet, too --discovered in 1930 --  is "really really really out there" [your complete quote]. .  But its part of our reality.

Edited April 18, 2020 by David Lifton

[Ron Ecker]

26 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Ron:  I agree that there is a disparity between the two versions. Moreover:  there's a research step that could be (and ought to be) pursued: compare the actual transcripts (if not the audio) of both interviews.  That would mean obtaining the actual steno transcript of the WC interview; and, in addition, obtaining the actual audio of the Manchester interview. I don't know if either is available, or what such a comparison would show. 

David,

I remember seeing and hearing Connally quote himself on TV. I don't remember what interview but I clearly remember his words. Those words with their implication (conspiracy) were already known from his testimony, and there he was verifying them without any prompt, which is why the memory stands out. (I remember nothing else about the interview.) So there's no reason, in my mind at least, to question the WC record.

Moreover, I imagine Connally is a more authoritative source than Jackie is for exactly what Connally said during the shooting. Jackie may have been a little distracted at the time. 

 

  

[David Lifton]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

David,

I remember seeing and hearing Connally quote himself on TV. I don't remember what interview but I clearly remember his words. Those words with their implication (conspiracy) were already known from his testimony, and there he was verifying them without any prompt, which is why the memory stands out. (I remember nothing else about the interview.) So there's no reason, in my mind at least, to question the WC record.

Moreover, I imagine Connally is a more authoritative source than Jackie is for exactly what Connally said during the shooting. Jackie may have been a little distracted at the time. 

 

  

Thanks for your recollection.  But do keep this in mind: using  the standard way historians (and/or lawyers) would evaluate the situation (and you can find this laid out in any good book on evidence. . . "McCormack," the typical used back in the mid-60s, or Wigmore, going back to the turn of the century (1900, etc)..the "earliest recollection" is considered the better evidence.  (As I recall, Wigmore invokes the example of someone in a hospital bed, who writes on a nearby wall, the details or the accident that caused his injury. . don't hold me to this, but that's my current recollection. . ).  So then, what is the "best evidence" --so to speak--of Connally's "earliest recollection?"  Here are my thoughts on the matter. First, there is his spontaneous exclamation at the time he was shot. . that should/would be given great weight in any legal or historical inquiry (and for that there are two sources: what he told Manchester, and what he said at the time). Of course, there was no audio recorder inside the limo, so --for the record of "what he said at the time,"--we must rely on (a) what he said in the hallway, at Parkland, when he was being wheeled into OR-2; (And that's why I place great weight on what the words he then spoke, and which were [apparently] telephoned in to the local UPI office, perhaps by Merriman Smith); and then (b), we have, whatever he said--or alleged to have said--inside the OR; and then, and quite important (c), his televised (and nationally broadcast) interview on the afternoon or evening of 11/27/1963; and then, finally (d) his Warren Commission appearance.   (Pardon any errors as to date. I should "fact check" all of this against the NY Times. And I will, as soon as time permits).  Anyway, one must keep in mind that that TV broadcast preceded his Warren Commission testimony by months.  Further: before JC testified, I believe he went to the Oval Office and had a private meeting with Johnson. (Not sure how I "know" this. But I believe it is a matter of record. )
 

MORE ON TRIP PLANNING: Also (and now changing the subject, or the focus): Connally did not want Kennedy to come to Texas, and particularly to Dallas; and made that clear to JFK (on  White House visit in early October, 1963), and even tried to call off the trip (a day or so before it began). But Kennedy wouldn't hear of it. First of all, he believed "courage" was a great virtue; second: he believed in fate. (e.g. "If they're going to get me, they'll even get me in church." (Approx).  Another point (not generally known): Kellerman (and Greer, I think) visited Connally at his ranch, and spent quite a bit of time with him there, after his release from the hospital in early December (1963).  So there were "private" discussions of what had happened, and no record of those discussions was ever made.  I have files on all of this-- from my careful reading of the Austin, Texas newspapers, some decades ago.  (I don't want to rely on my present recollection, but I have good files on all of this). Again: As I recall, Kellerman visited and spent some time with Connally at his ranch.

STILL MORE (and now on the actual motorcade -- and the matter of Kelleman, pushing certain buttons):  Remember: Kellerman was senior S.S. agent on the trip, and was sitting in the front seat of the car when JFK was shot.  He was not just "slow" to react; he didn't react at all (!).  Further, Gov. JC testified -to the Warren Commission--that he saw Kellerman pushing some buttons on the front dashboard of the limo. What was that all about, one might ask?.  Well, I don't think he was operating the radio, looking to tune in a good music station. What's more relevant is the function of one of those buttons.  It operated the elevation of the rear seat.  During the assassination --and this was discovered by the late Fred Newcomb (and included in their manuscript [and published in their posthumously published book "Murder from Within"] --  the rear seat was raised during the shooting.  This is not only established by certain geometric observations, but is supported by some eyewitness accounts of bystanders on the south curb at Elm Street, who reported that JFK was "standing" (or 'stood up') during the shooting. 

Pursuing the matter, I discovered an entire "hidden history" of how, at about the time of JFK's (1960) election, the Secret Service put in a request for a strong motor to be installed in the trunk of the limo, which would operate the mechanism to lift the rear seat. (In fact, by writing Ford, I obtained actual photographs of the installation).  The sinister explanation, of course, is that a motorcade assassination was planned, from the outset, and making Kennedy an "easier target" was the intent --and that's certainly a possibility.  The (more) innocent explanation is that it was known that candidate Kennedy loved motorcades (and their attendant crowds) and so the capability to raise the back seat at the touch of a button was done to please the new president-- and then utilized as a factor in his demise.  In any event, the brand new Lincoln limousine, with its "seat--raise" feature--was delivered to the White House in June 1961.  News of the "seat-raise feature" --by a full 10 inches-- was widely published, along with photos of the ex-Secret Service Chief (Baughman, quite loyal, and quite the innocent, IMHO) riding in the limo, with the seat raised. (At the time, James Rowley, the oh-so-innocent SS Agent who later became SS Chief, was head of the White House Detail). FWIW:  There is no record that any Secret Service official ever raising the alarm that installing such a feature, and having Kennedy  motoring around with the seat raised, made him a sitting duck for assassination. (But wasn't "security" their job?)

Bottom line(s). . and there are two of them:  

(1) Re Trip Planning (returning to the original discussion, above):  There is a backstory to Connally's Warren Commission testimony that I don't believe has her been adequately investigated, much less revealed.

(2) Re the seat raise feature of the limo (aka the "death car"):  Ditto. . . another "backstory." Similarly. . .not properly investigated.

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by David Lifton

[Ron Ecker]

David,

It's apparent that I've missed something. What exactly is your point about the difference between the two versions of what Connally said? What, specifically, is the significance of "shoot" versus "kill"? (Somebody was shooting to kill.) Or what is the significance of "us all" versus "us both"? I can understand that if he just said "us both," that could imply that he knew they were going to shoot Kennedy. But to me it also implies, if he just said "us both" instead of "us all," that he didn't care if his wife Nellie, sitting right there beside him, were to catch a bullet too. He only cared about (both) JFK and his own personal hide.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Ron Ecker