Jump to content
The Education Forum

Death of Hubert Clark (one of the JFK casket bearers)


David Lifton
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, David Lifton said:

 

David,

Walt Brown's interview with Aubrey Rike about the autopsy photos raises (yet again) the intriguing possibility (probability?) that those photos were NOT taken in the Bethesda morgue:

"Postscript: I recontacted Rike to clear up the last rites question, and he insisted that he was present, along with only one priest, when the sacraments were given, and that the shroud on the President's head was not removed. In our Dallas talk, he had seemed to place a great deal of faith in the theories advanced in 1980 by David Lifton, and I asked him in this postscript if he gave any consideration to the possibility that the photos, not JFK, had been altered. "I sat with the fella that took the photos," he told me. "He said the tiles on the floor don't work, as Bethesda had a concrete floor, and he also had a problem with the metal apparatus that was holding the President's head, as the one at Bethesda was made of rubber."

David, do you have any speculations where the autopsy photos were taken, especially this one?A_picture_of_President_Kennedy's_head_an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

David,

Walt Brown's interview with Aubrey Rike about the autopsy photos raises (yet again) the intriguing possibility (probability?) that those photos were NOT taken in the Bethesda morgue:

"Postscript: I recontacted Rike to clear up the last rites question, and he insisted that he was present, along with only one priest, when the sacraments were given, and that the shroud on the President's head was not removed. In our Dallas talk, he had seemed to place a great deal of faith in the theories advanced in 1980 by David Lifton, and I asked him in this postscript if he gave any consideration to the possibility that the photos, not JFK, had been altered. "I sat with the fella that took the photos," he told me. "He said the tiles on the floor don't work, as Bethesda had a concrete floor, and he also had a problem with the metal apparatus that was holding the President's head, as the one at Bethesda was made of rubber."

David, do you have any speculations where the autopsy photos were taken, especially this one?A_picture_of_President_Kennedy's_head_an

It would seem quite possible to get more verifiction of the tile floor we see in the photo above being different that the Bethesda concrete floor. Probably hundreds if not over 1,000 people were familiar with the interior having worked and/or come through that area in question. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe Bauer said:

It would seem quite possible to get more verifiction of the tile floor we see in the photo above being different that the Bethesda concrete floor. Probably hundreds if not over 1,000 people were familiar with the interior having worked and/or come through that area in question. Correct?

Joe,

The Bethesda Navy Hospital in 1963 is now part of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. This is the complex where the official autopsy was performed. 

Walter_Reed_National_Military_Medical_Ce

 

This gets confusing because in 1963 there was also the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. This facility (below) closed in 2011:

image.thumb.png.f508a3e9c1b46621d118b167f039a9e6.png

Attached below are photos (including the TILE FLOOR, not concrete) from Walter Reed Army Hospital's morgue. If you blow up the image, the floor is tile, but not the pattern seen on the floor of the room from the official autopsy photos.

While I don't know where the official autopsy photos were taken, a possible clue might be found in an article from 1992: Boswell claimed that he believed the autopsy should have been performed at the AFIP at Walter Reed:

"Boswell had been at the hospital going over autopsy slides with pathology residents. He recalls, ''Early in the afternoon, we received a call from Dr. Bruce Smith from AFIP, saying, `The president`s body is on its way to Bethesda for an autopsy.` I argued, `That`s stupid. The autopsy should be done at AFIP (which was located 5 miles away at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center).`

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html

I haven't found a picture of a morgue at the AFIP, apparently part of the WRAH. I am not even certain that AFIP itself had a morgue, but since Boswell was specific in his recollection about his conversation in 1992, I bet he believed that AFIP had such a separate facility from the WRAH.

http://www.cai.md.chula.ac.th/chulapatho/AFIP/AFIP fascicles/Afip_tumor of esophagus and stomach/afip_fascicle_fs18_text/www.afip.org/www.afip.html

This next link is the morgue (with the wall vaults) at Walter Reed in Washington, D.C. (Not Bethesda, Maryland):

https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101401318-img

I assume (but don't know) if the autopsy room pictured as an attachment below is the same room as the morgue, perhaps from a different angle. The floor appears to be the same in both images.

So, what we know so far is that the floor at the WRAH does NOT match the floor of the official autopsy photos. Whether the floor in those photos match the floor of the morgue at the Bethesda facility (or the floor of a - presumed - morgue at the AFIP) remains unknown.

Any help here from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Autopsy room WRAH.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I just found a pretty helpful article with not one, not two, but three sketches of the Bethesda morgue:

http://dealeyplazauk.com/research/collections/barry-keane/harold-skip-rydberg/

The three artists are Harold Rydberg, Paul K. O'Connor, and Lee Waske.

O'Connor's sketch from 1992, and Waske's sketch from 1968 appear to depict the morgue in a near-similar manner, albeit from two different angles. These two sketches seem to match the general background layout of the autopsy photos.

Rydberg's 2003 sketch may be the same room , but the phone is off, the sink(s) is a little off, and the "coolers" are on the wrong wall. I presume that Rydberg's memory in 2003 had faded somewhat. (He died in 2017 at the age of 77.)

Alan Eaglesham argued back in 2006 that in fact, the autopsy photos were indeed taken at Bethesda. He compared the background of the JFK photos with those of an autopsy from 1966 and found many identical details, including the floor. 

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/AutopsyRoom/

For now, it appears Aubrey Rike's suspicion about the floor of the Bethesda morgue was unfounded.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2020 at 4:24 PM, David Lifton said:

Joe,

You spell out your objections (and in doing so)  reveal the way you perceive the problem:

Repeating your objections:

Why would the plotters have wanted a Dallas autopsy,

since it would have been performed by Dr. Earl Rose [?]

who did the exemplary autopsies on Tippit and Oswald?

Dr. Rose could not be controlled. He would have recorded evidence of

wounds caused by shots from different directions.

My response to your assertions:

“Why would the plotters have wanted a Dallas autopsy?”

RESPONSE:  Plotters would want a Dallas autopsy —and especially one performed by Dr. Rose, the Dallas Medical Examiner —because anything else would smack of something “unusual” —and perhaps, even, a coverup.

“Dr. Rose could not be controlled.”

DSL comment:  Agreed. And Dr. Rose was not in fact “controlled.”

“He (Dr. Rose) would have recorded evidence of wounds caused by shots from different directions.”

DSL Comment: Not necessarily. Only if the body was not medically altered prior to any such Dallas autopsy. (I hope you do realize that a Dallas autopsy would not necessarily have valid conclusions simply because it was performed in the right ZIP code.)

FINAL COMMENT:  Your problem. Joe (and IMHO):  You have not conceived of a situation in which Rose examined an altered body.  But that is your problem — a failure to understand the design of the original Dallas plan.  Full details to be spelled out in Final Charade.  (12/11/20; 1:20 PM PST)

 

David,

When I was re-reading the FBI's Sibert/O'Neill Report on the autopsy, I was struck (yet again) about the bizarre language in this particular passage:

"Also during the latter stages of the autopsy, a piece of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was brought to Dr. HUMES who was instructed that this had been removed from the President’s skull. Immediately this section of skull was X-Rayed . . ."

http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report

A piece of the president's skull was "brought to Dr. Humes"? Where had it been if it wasn't already on JFK's head?

A chunk of the president's head measuring 4" by 2.5" just mysteriously "was brought" to the autopsy?

https://www.ginifab.com/feeds/cm_to_inch/actual_size_ruler.html

The passive voice here is telling. The lack of official curiosity is stunning! These two FBI agents were to write down everything that happened and who did what, and yet, a gigantic piece of the president's head just appears in some unnamed person's hands, and they offer exactly no explanation!

Further, this unnamed person then "instructed" Humes that this piece "had been removed from the President's skull." 

Who "removed" it?

When was it "removed"?

How was it "removed"?

Why was it "removed"?

Where was this "removal" performed?

It was not present at the beginning of the "official" autopsy in time for the X-rays. No, this mystery piece of skull was yet to be X-rayed!

David, I believe this constitutes your strongest piece of evidence that some sort of medical procedure had taken place before the beginning of the autopsy. 

This is not the recollection of eyewitnesses as to the condition of the wounds on the president, strong though those recollections may be. This is not the memory of now-missing photos and X-rays, material at odds with the official version, suspicious as their disappearance may be.

No, this is an official FBI report, a document from the U.S. Government, published and endorsed by the sanctioned authority, the Warren Commission itself.

This is not merely evidence, this is PROOF that some kind of clandestine medical procedure took place somewhere before the official beginning of the autopsy.

We don't know the who, or how, or where, or when, or why (although we can guess!)

But we can say that such a procedure did indeed take place, and about it, the Warren Commission (and all of the official government lickspittle apologists ever since) have had nothing to say. 

Their silence is both telling and damning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/15/2020 at 4:47 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

responding to Paul Joliffe.

Agreed..  I will try to comment further later this evening.  DSL

 

 

 

David,

When I was re-reading the FBI's Sibert/O'Neill Report on the autopsy, I was struck (yet again) about the bizarre language in this particular passage:

"Also during the latter stages of the autopsy, a piece of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was brought to Dr. HUMES who was instructed that this had been removed from the President’s skull. Immediately this section of skull was X-Rayed . . ."

http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report

A piece of the president's skull was "brought to Dr. Humes"? Where had it been if it wasn't already on JFK's head?

A chunk of the president's head measuring 4" by 2.5" just mysteriously "was brought" to the autopsy?

https://www.ginifab.com/feeds/cm_to_inch/actual_size_ruler.html

The passive voice here is telling. The lack of official curiosity is stunning! These two FBI agents were to write down everything that happened and who did what, and yet, a gigantic piece of the president's head just appears in some unnamed person's hands, and they offer exactly no explanation!

Further, this unnamed person then "instructed" Humes that this piece "had been removed from the President's skull." 

Who "removed" it?

When was it "removed"?

How was it "removed"?

Why was it "removed"?

Where was this "removal" performed?

It was not present at the beginning of the "official" autopsy in time for the X-rays. No, this mystery piece of skull was yet to be X-rayed!

David, I believe this constitutes your strongest piece of evidence that some sort of medical procedure had taken place before the beginning of the autopsy. 

This is not the recollection of eyewitnesses as to the condition of the wounds on the president, strong though those recollections may be. This is not the memory of now-missing photos and X-rays, material at odds with the official version, suspicious as their disappearance may be.

No, this is an official FBI report, a document from the U.S. Government, published and endorsed by the sanctioned authority, the Warren Commission itself.

This is not merely evidence, this is PROOF that some kind of clandestine medical procedure took place somewhere before the official beginning of the autopsy.

We don't know the who, or how, or where, or when, or why (although we can guess!)

But we can say that such a procedure did indeed take place, and about it, the Warren Commission (and all of the official government lickspittle apologists ever since) have had nothing to say. 

Their silence is both telling and damning.

 

On 12/15/2020 at 4:47 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

David,

When I was re-reading the FBI's Sibert/O'Neill Report on the autopsy, I was struck (yet again) about the bizarre language in this particular passage:

"Also during the latter stages of the autopsy, a piece of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was brought to Dr. HUMES who was instructed that this had been removed from the President’s skull. Immediately this section of skull was X-Rayed . . ."

http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report

A piece of the president's skull was "brought to Dr. Humes"? Where had it been if it wasn't already on JFK's head?

A chunk of the president's head measuring 4" by 2.5" just mysteriously "was brought" to the autopsy?

https://www.ginifab.com/feeds/cm_to_inch/actual_size_ruler.html

The passive voice here is telling. The lack of official curiosity is stunning! These two FBI agents were to write down everything that happened and who did what, and yet, a gigantic piece of the president's head just appears in some unnamed person's hands, and they offer exactly no explanation!

Further, this unnamed person then "instructed" Humes that this piece "had been removed from the President's skull." 

Who "removed" it?

When was it "removed"?

How was it "removed"?

Why was it "removed"?

Where was this "removal" performed?

It was not present at the beginning of the "official" autopsy in time for the X-rays. No, this mystery piece of skull was yet to be X-rayed!

David, I believe this constitutes your strongest piece of evidence that some sort of medical procedure had taken place before the beginning of the autopsy. 

This is not the recollection of eyewitnesses as to the condition of the wounds on the president, strong though those recollections may be. This is not the memory of now-missing photos and X-rays, material at odds with the official version, suspicious as their disappearance may be.

No, this is an official FBI report, a document from the U.S. Government, published and endorsed by the sanctioned authority, the Warren Commission itself.

This is not merely evidence, this is PROOF that some kind of clandestine medical procedure took place somewhere before the official beginning of the autopsy.

We don't know the who, or how, or where, or when, or why (although we can guess!)

But we can say that such a procedure did indeed take place, and about it, the Warren Commission (and all of the official government lickspittle apologists ever since) have had nothing to say. 

Their silence is both telling and damning.

 

On 12/15/2020 at 4:47 PM, Paul Jolliffe said:

David,

When I was re-reading the FBI's Sibert/O'Neill Report on the autopsy, I was struck (yet again) about the bizarre language in this particular passage:

"Also during the latter stages of the autopsy, a piece of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was brought to Dr. HUMES who was instructed that this had been removed from the President’s skull. Immediately this section of skull was X-Rayed . . ."

http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report

A piece of the president's skull was "brought to Dr. Humes"? Where had it been if it wasn't already on JFK's head?

A chunk of the president's head measuring 4" by 2.5" just mysteriously "was brought" to the autopsy?

https://www.ginifab.com/feeds/cm_to_inch/actual_size_ruler.html

The passive voice here is telling. The lack of official curiosity is stunning! These two FBI agents were to write down everything that happened and who did what, and yet, a gigantic piece of the president's head just appears in some unnamed person's hands, and they offer exactly no explanation!

Further, this unnamed person then "instructed" Humes that this piece "had been removed from the President's skull." 

Who "removed" it?

When was it "removed"?

How was it "removed"?

Why was it "removed"?

Where was this "removal" performed?

It was not present at the beginning of the "official" autopsy in time for the X-rays. No, this mystery piece of skull was yet to be X-rayed!

David, I believe this constitutes your strongest piece of evidence that some sort of medical procedure had taken place before the beginning of the autopsy. 

This is not the recollection of eyewitnesses as to the condition of the wounds on the president, strong though those recollections may be. This is not the memory of now-missing photos and X-rays, material at odds with the official version, suspicious as their disappearance may be.

No, this is an official FBI report, a document from the U.S. Government, published and endorsed by the sanctioned authority, the Warren Commission itself.

This is not merely evidence, this is PROOF that some kind of clandestine medical procedure took place somewhere before the official beginning of the autopsy.

We don't know the who, or how, or where, or when, or why (although we can guess!)

But we can say that such a procedure did indeed take place, and about it, the Warren Commission (and all of the official government lickspittle apologists ever since) have had nothing to say. 

Their silence is both telling and damning.

 

On 12/13/2020 at 10:20 PM, Joseph McBride said:

Response to Paul

 

 

 

 

Thanks, David -- I am glad to hear some of your thoughts from the book. But

if the body, as you argue, was unaltered in the coffin during the hallway confrontation, I am 

confused by what you first wrote above, implying that if Dr. Rose had done the autopsy, he would have

examined an altered body (and where and when would it have been altered?). Perhaps

I misread what you wrote. I gather from what you've written that you think the alteration

took place on Air Force One. Douglas Horne found witnesses to its taking place

at Bethesda.

What I wrote -- i.e., my answers --were precise and accurate.   Its your inferences and peculations that don't follow (or are unwarranted).  But I cannot fully address your (additional) questions at this juncture, or comment further on your speculations about my beliefs and conclusions. For that, you'll have to read the book.  FWIW:  I never agreed with Doug Horne's thesis that Humes altered the body, and told him so at the time.  In writing.  Not only did I disagree with him on this point -- I thought that conclusion was seriously incorrect, and did a major injustice to Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon.  IMHO: blaming Humes was akin to blaming a bank teller for cashing a forged check, when the teller did so only reluctantly, and left a clear trail of evidence that the item was illegitimate. (DSL, 12/14/20 - 2:20 AM PST)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2020 at 7:36 AM, Paul Jolliffe said:

Joseph,

I read your fine book some years ago. Thanks for all the incredible effort and information. Truly, your book is a "must read."

I wonder how much of the wound-alteration procedure was actually planned in advance. Was it, perhaps, a hasty, desperate improvisation by the conspirators, necessitated by the news that a very-much-alive "Oswald" had been arrested in Dallas?

I have long suspected (and argued) that the conspirators intended to frame not only "Oswald" but also, very possibly, Buell Wesley Frazier (and maybe unnamed others!) I've long wondered if the original plan was to frame "Oswald" as the ringleader of a group of disgruntled, unhinged Castro supporters, a couple of whom also fired at the president.

If that was the original plan, then that would have solved (from the conspirators viewpoint)  the problem of multiple shooters, as seen and heard by numerous witnesses. There was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for the framing of multiple shooters from different directions.

And, as I and many others have long suspected, if the original plan also called for "Oswald's" murder within minutes of the assassination, the frame would have been much easier. I am certain that the bizarre search by the two unnamed Dallas PD officers of the McWatters bus within a few minutes of the assassination was the first attempt to kill "Oswald" right then. Many, many people have argued that "Oswald" only survived arrest at the Texas Theater because he shouted "I am not resisting arrest" repeatedly, making the second attempt to murder him then impossible.

 Enormous pressure was put on Buell Frazier to "confess" late Friday night, and he was in real danger of being charged as an accessory (or maybe as an actual assassin!) until Will Fritz got the mysterious call from Washington around midnight on Friday, and all of the Dallas PD evidence was then turned over to the FBI. Without that call, Fritz might have eventually succeeded in browbeating/intimidating/beating Frazier into some kind of admission of complicity. (Not that I believe that Frazier was a part of anything, merely that the original plan called for his "confession" to support the case against the then dead "Oswald." Except that, of course, "Oswald" was not dead on Friday night.)

So, to sum up, there was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for framing multiple shooters from multiple directions. This would have accorded nicely with the real eye and earwitnesses who did indeed see and hear multiple shooters!

But framing accomplices required a dead ringleader - "Oswald." And he wasn't (yet) dead.

As of late Friday afternoon, there was a very real danger (to the conspirators) that "Oswald" might live to stand trial. So, the need to screw with the medical evidence to make it appear that all the damage was done by only one shooter. 

A living, breathing (talking!) "Oswald" was arrested a few minutes before 2 pm, Dallas time. At that moment, I believe President Kennedy's body was still at Parkland. 

Do you, Joseph McBride, or you, David Lifton, have any evidence that anyone at Parkland got a phone call saying that the suspect had been arrested while the president's body was still at the hospital?

Was the (shocking!) news that "Oswald" was alive the catalyst for the wound-alteration plan? For the conspirators on Friday afternoon, did a living "Oswald" mean they had to improvise a case that there was only one shooter?

 

 

Quoting from your writing:  QUOTE ON: So, to sum up, there was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for framing multiple shooters from multiple directions. This would have accorded nicely with the real eye and earwitnesses who did indeed see and hear multiple shooters! UNQUOTE

 DSL RESPONSE:   Of couse, you are free to postulate anything you wish; but the problem is that your hypothesis does not comport with the existing record.  From the opening minutes on the Dallas police  radio, through the initial wire service reports, the emerging story was that JFK was shot by a single shooter, firing from the SE corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD.  This comported very nicely with the notion that the assassination was a quirk of fate, an accident of history.  Furthermore, the falsification of the autopsy (via post-mortem wound alteration) reveals the true "blueprint" of the crime: the attempt to operate the constitutionally mandated line-of-succession.  What you're proposing -- some kind of wild-west "shoot 'em up," with no attempt tp conceal the multiple shooters who, to the contrary, simply "run away" afterwards-- would not have led to the stable succession, politically. As LBJ might have said, "That dog won't hunt."  

Edited by David Lifton
Correct typo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a high school student in Milwaukee, I listened to network radio reports on 11-22-63 from 12:40 p.m. onward. For twenty

minutes, the reports all said the shots came from the front, from the

railroad bridge area or the hill to the right of the motorcade. At 1 p.m., the radio networks started saying

all the shots came from behind, from a building called the Texas School

Book Depository. No explanation was offered for the change of direction

or for the lack of mention of the previously reported shots from the front.

I listened to the radio in a drugstore until I had to leave at 1:30 to go

back to Marquette University High School (where the scheduled topic in our junior Religion class was

"The Ethics of Murder"; the class went on as planned with only a brief

interruption at 1:40 when the principal came on the PA system to announce

that the President was dead, and we said a brief prayer). I was not fully conscious

of the significance of the change of reporting of the shots at the time, but

as the day went on and I watched the live TV reports, that early switch contributed

to my realization by night's end that Oswald was telling the truth and that he had not

shot anyone.

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 12/22/2020 at 6:22 AM, David Lifton said:

Quoting from your writing:  QUOTE ON: So, to sum up, there was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for framing multiple shooters from multiple directions. This would have accorded nicely with the real eye and earwitnesses who did indeed see and hear multiple shooters! UNQUOTE

 DSL RESPONSE:   Of couse, you are free to postulate anything you wish; but the problem is that your hypothesis does not comport with the existing record.  From the opening minutes on the Dallas police  radio, through the initial wire service reports, the emerging story was that JFK was shot by a single shooter, firing from the SE corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD.  This comported very nicely with the notion that the assassination was a quirk of fate, an accident of history.  Furthermore, the falsification of the autopsy (via post-mortem wound alteration) reveals the true "blueprint" of the crime: the attempt to operate the constitutionally mandated line-of-succession.  What you're proposing -- some kind of wild-west "shoot 'em up," with no attempt tp conceal the multiple shooters who, to the contrary, simply "run away" afterwards-- would not have led to the stable succession, politically. As LBJ might have said, "That dog won't hunt."  

David,

Respectfully, I'm not so sure about that. 

We all agree there were multiple shooters from multiple angles. Further I am certain that the bizarre (and suppressed) boarding of McWatters' bus by two unidentified DPD officers just a couple of minutes after "Oswald" had left the bus was in fact a deliberate attempt to kill "Oswald." 

Also, "Oswald" very nearly was killed at the Texas Theater - had he not shouted loudly "I am not resisting arrest" many people believe he would have been shot right there. 

No, I am convinced a crucial part of the plot was not merely to frame "Oswald" but to kill him immediately. A dead "Oswald"  with all of his (supposed) work as a pro-Castro agent would have led immediately to an invasion of Cuba. The other unidentified shooters could (in the heat of the moment) been named as Castro agents. 

Speculative?

Sure. 

But the Friday night pressure on Buell Wesley Frazier to "confess" to being "Oswald's" confederate was real and enormous. As late as midnight Friday, the Dallas Police (in the person of Captain Fritz) were desperate to round up multiple shooters. It was only after J. Edgar Hoover called Dallas from Washington early Saturday morning that the DPD backed off Frazier. Not coincidentally, the "official" autopsy was complete by then.

(The plot to frame Frazier even included a pre-assassination frame of him - someone used Frazier's name in front of witnesses at the Sports Drome Rifle Range several weeks before the assassination. Yet the real Buell Wesley Frazier was never there, with or without "Oswald.")

David, I agree that the largest papers in New York and Washington were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but I'm not at all convinced that the Dallas Police were certain of that on Friday. Jesse Curry went to his grave in 1980 believing that there probably was a shooter on the grassy knoll. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2020 at 7:06 AM, Joseph McBride said:

When I was a high school student in Milwaukee, I listened to network radio reports on 11-22-63 from 12:40 p.m. onward. For twenty

minutes, the reports all said the shots came from the front, from the

railroad bridge area or the hill to the right of the motorcade. At 1 p.m., the radio networks started saying

all the shots came from behind, from a building called the Texas School

Book Depository. No explanation was offered for the change of direction

or for the lack of mention of the previously reported shots from the front.

I listened to the radio in a drugstore until I had to leave at 1:30 to go

back to Marquette University High School (where the scheduled topic in our junior Religion class was

"The Ethics of Murder"; the class went on as planned with only a brief

interruption at 1:40 when the principal came on the PA system to announce

that the President was dead, and we said a brief prayer). I was not fully conscious

of the significance of the change of reporting of the shots at the time, but

as the day went on and I watched the live TV reports, that early switch contributed

to my realization by night's end that Oswald was telling the truth and that he had not

shot anyone.

Joseph,

Fascinating stuff - thanks for sharing. Is there any chance you could post a link to the radio broadcasts from 1 pm (Wisconsin time) in which the dramatic change in the direction of the shots was suddenly aired?

We know the New York and Washington D.C. papers were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but that line wasn't published until Friday night. However, an examination of any national radio broadcast from within 30 minutes of the shooting which reversed the fast-emerging (true!) narrative might yet provide us with a pathway to the conspirators themselves.  If your recollection is accurate, then somebody knew the (false) "official" story and someone had to get it out there on the radio airwaves quickly. 

Thanks in advance for any specifics you could provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

David,

Respectfully, I'm not so sure about that. 

We all agree there were multiple shooters from multiple angles. Further I am certain that the bizarre (and suppressed) boarding of McWatters' bus by two unidentified DPD officers just a couple of minutes after "Oswald" had left the bus was in fact a deliberate attempt to kill "Oswald." 

Also, "Oswald" very nearly was killed at the Texas Theater - had he not shouted loudly "I am not resisting arrest" many people believe he would have been shot right there. 

No, I am convinced a crucial part of the plot was not merely to frame "Oswald" but to kill him immediately. A dead "Oswald"  with all of his (supposed) work as a pro-Castro agent would have led immediately to an invasion of Cuba. The other unidentified shooters could (in the heat of the moment) been named as Castro agents. 

Speculative?

Sure. 

But the Friday night pressure on Buell Wesley Frazier to "confess" to being "Oswald's" confederate was real and enormous. As late as midnight Friday, the Dallas Police (in the person of Captain Fritz) were desperate to round up multiple shooters. It was only after J. Edgar Hoover called Dallas from Washington early Saturday morning that the DPD backed off Frazier. Not coincidentally, the "official" autopsy was complete by then.

(The plot to frame Frazier even included a pre-assassination frame of him - someone used Frazier's name in front of witnesses at the Sports Drome Rifle Range several weeks before the assassination. Yet the real Buell Wesley Frazier was never there, with or without "Oswald.")

David, I agree that the largest papers in New York and Washington were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but I'm not at all convinced that the Dallas Police were certain of that on Friday. Jesse Curry went to his grave in 1980 believing that there probably was a shooter on the grassy knoll. 

 

 

No, I am convinced a crucial part of the plot was not merely to frame "Oswald" but to kill him immediately. A dead "Oswald"  with all of his (supposed) work as a pro-Castro agent would have led immediately to an invasion of Cuba. The other unidentified shooters could (in the heat of the moment) been named as Castro agents. 

DSL response: I agree. it was intended from the outset that Oswald would be shot, within 1-2 min of the shooting, and supposedly while trying to "escape."  etc. In other words --and I used to say this a lot, when I first had these insights, (many) years ago: the plot to kill JFK was, from the outset, a plot to kill two people --i.e., two persons --JFK (of course) and the pre-designated scapegoat (LHO), with the original intention being that both would be dead within the first few minutes.  DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Clarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Joseph,

Fascinating stuff - thanks for sharing. Is there any chance you could post a link to the radio broadcasts from 1 pm (Wisconsin time) in which the dramatic change in the direction of the shots was suddenly aired?

We know the New York and Washington D.C. papers were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but that line wasn't published until Friday night. However, an examination of any national radio broadcast from within 30 minutes of the shooting which reversed the fast-emerging (true!) narrative might yet provide us with a pathway to the conspirators themselves.  If your recollection is accurate, then somebody knew the (false) "official" story and someone had to get it out there on the radio airwaves quickly. 

Thanks in advance for any specifics you could provide.

Paul Jolliffe:

Re: "David, I agree that the largest papers in New York and Washington were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but I'm not at all convinced that the Dallas Police were certain of that on Friday."

You refer to "the largest papers in New York and Washington" who 'were pushing the 'lone nut' line way too early'"

Agreed, but the situation is even worse than that.  FYI: I went down this path many years ago --decades ago--and obtained the key "real time" wire service records, both for AP and UPI.  In one case, I actually went up to UPI Headquarters, in New york City, and spent hours there.  Now back to what I found (and doing this from memory): There were instances of "suspicious" writing, in those early hours, and I became persuaded that a key aspect of the plot was to directly control the emergence of the "official" story.  However. . .: Because of multiple moves --California to Texas, and then onward from there-- I cannot locate those records at this time, but the point I want to make is this: It was not "the largest papers in New York and Washington" that holds the key; rather, the source is "upstream" from there.  Specifically, to the UPI and AP original wire service records, as they were transmitted (i.e., in real time) on 11/22/63.  

 Why do I say that? Because those newspapers either had an AP teleprinter or a UPI, or both.  (Remember, for example: The Cabinet Plane had a UPI Printer, and you can read all about that, in Pierre Salinger's 1967 memoir, With Kennedy) -- see Chapter 1.  So. . .  these "early" dispatches --while sometimes word-for-word AP or UPI (with appropriate by byline, or credit), there were instances where they would have their own reporter, and that person would use either or both of those sources, while writing his own copy.  For example: I remember one dispatch, "For internal use", that read (approx): "CORRECTION:  Please note:  In previous dispatch such-and-so please change Mauser, 7.65 to Carcano".  etc.  Something like that.   I spent months on this project.  As far as I'm concerned, the AP and UPI "real time record" is a "primary source"; and as important as anything one can find in the 26 volumes or at the National Archives. Because there is how the official story developed, minute bt minute, during the first few hours.   And yes, I came away from all this with the feeling that there must have been (or "may have been") one or two high level AP or UPI persons who were "involved."   DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I was listening to network radio broadcasts in that 12:40-1:30 pm CST time period before I had to go back to school in the rain that had come up from Dallas (where it ended that morning) to Wisconsin. I think the person controlling the radio at the Milwaukee drugstore where I and a few other people were huddled around it would switch channels for updates. Those reports said the shots came from the railroad bridge or the hill (soon to be known as the Grassy Knoll). But shortly after 1 p.m., Dan Rather on CBS Radio was reportong that the shots came from the TSBD. I quote Rather's report in my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE as well as samples of some earlier network radio reports I may have heard.

Edited by Joseph McBride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...