What if? - the tracheometry wasnt undertaken?

[ThomZajac]

Hi Mike,Well, I just got an email back from David Lifton, and so now I've got the scoop on the why the throat wound would have been changed to make it appear to be an exit wound while not initially altering the body with a corresponding 'entry' wound in the back of the neck or very upper back (this was done eventually by moving up the back wound originally determined to be five or six inches below the top of the shoulder).But the original plan was different; the 'exit' wound in the throat was originally explained as having been caused by a fragment from the fatal head shot, and it seems the body may have been altered to indicate such a path. (I believe Wim has a medical source who says a such a path did exist at Bethesda). But that explanation had to change when it become apparent -and I know Wim disagrees with the following- that JFK was hit in the throat five or six seconds prior to the fatal head shot, and therefore the exit wound in the throat could not have been caused by a head shot fragment. By the way, before the first scenario was blown, Humes had concluded that the magic bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland must have fallen out of JFK's back). But that explanation needed to be changed, and that meant that the bullet that had entered the back now had to have passed through the body to cause the exit wound, and since it was too low, they simply decided to move it up (and even that doesn't really work.)Lifton's research is meticulous. His 'theories' are based on the best evidence; the president's body. There was clearly some hanky panky going on somewhere between when the president's body left Parkland and when it arrived at Bethesda. The evidence strongly suggests that the president's body was altered to indicate that shots had hit the president from behind only. Best Evidence is a fantastic book, and I highly recommend it. I have yet to find Lifton to be factually incorrect on a single matter.Cheers!Thom

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

ThomZajac wrote:Hi Mike,Well, I just got an email back from David Lifton, and so now I've got the scoop on the why the throat wound would have been changed to make it appear to be an exit wound while not initially altering the body with a corresponding 'entry' wound in the back of the neck or very upper back (this was done eventually by moving up the back wound originally determined to be five or six inches below the top of the shoulder).But the original plan was different; the 'exit' wound in the throat was originally explained as having been caused by a fragment from the fatal head shot, and it seems the body may have been altered to indicate such a path. (I believe Wim has a medical source who says a such a path did exist at Bethesda). But that explanation had to change when it become apparent -and I know Wim disagrees with the following- that JFK was hit in the throat five or six seconds prior to the fatal head shot, and therefore the exit wound in the throat could not have been caused by a head shot fragment. By the way, before the first scenario was blown, Humes had concluded that the magic bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland must have fallen out of JFK's back). But that explanation needed to be changed, and that meant that the bullet that had entered the back now had to have passed through the body to cause the exit wound, and since it was too low, they simply decided to move it up (and even that doesn't really work.)Lifton's research is meticulous. His 'theories' are based on the best evidence; the president's body. There was clearly some hanky panky going on somewhere between when the president's body left Parkland and when it arrived at Bethesda. The evidence strongly suggests that the president's body was altered to indicate that shots had hit the president from behind only. Best Evidence is a fantastic book, and I highly recommend it. I have yet to find Lifton to be factually incorrect on a single matter.Cheers!ThomI have to go with you on Lifton. Best Evidence is actually the FIRST book I ever read on the JFK assassination (besides Rush to Judgment) and I haven't heard or found anything to be factually incorrect in it either. Certain people may disagree with the analysis of the information, but Lifton is very meticulous.

[mike oneill]

Hi ThomIts interesting to note your direct contact with David Lifton - thats quite something. I will look out for his soon to be released new book.Whilst ive never fully accepted everything he concludes in Best Evidence, i certainly do accept that he found "many issues" that just dont add up. It would be good if he can convince me a bit further in his new book. Im looking forwards to that - and ive always prided myself on having a logical open mind on all assassination matters. Ive never simply followed the crowds - i like to make my own balanced conclusions based on facts and probability.Getting back to the late evening/early morning autopsy affairs - the news that eventually reached Humes (that is, concerning the tracheometry/throat wound present at Parkland) AFTER he had already made his draft autopsy report at Bethesda must have broken him in half.He probably believed he had already made some good conclusions - then suddenly that bomb shell hits him! And he has to rethink the whole thing again - but worst still - the body is now out of his hands in the Rotunda!!!! Ive never believed that he DELIBERATELY fudged the autopsy - he was just a victim caulght up in the middle of things - like so many others.And thats why he burnt his original notes - NOTHING to do with blood stains - (he just wanted to cover up his embarassment) and thats why of course the Siebert and Oneill report that night matched the Humes report, but 24 hours later there were 2 completely different conclusions on record.Some conspiracy supporters hold the belief that Humes got a tap on his shoulder and was told how to write the final report but for me, it was nothing like that, it was just him trying desperately to reassess all this extra information and come up with a new conclusion to include all this new information.Over the years ive felt very sorry for him - there he was undertaking the most important autopsy ever undertaken in history, and after the body has gone he suddenly has to make some guesses about what really happened.Why, over the years he never decided to jump under a train i will never know.Best regard ThomMikeO

[ThomZajac]

Here's how I think the autopsy went down.The original plan had been to alter the body prior to the autopsy to make it appear that the president had been hit from behind only. Unfortunately for the planners, the fatal head shot left a massive exit wound in the back of the president's head and no amount of alteration was going to hide that fact. The planners did what they could; they altered the throat entry wound into one of exit, they created a back wound (not knowing at the time that it would have to account for the throat wound- see previous email), and they altered JFK's head as well- but they could not hide the massive exit wound in the back of JFK's head.But the planners needed the cooperation of the autopsy doctors in order to sell the shots-only-from-behind fairy tale to the public. The autopsy doctors KNEW the president had been shot from the front. And so, they were ordered to come to the pre-determined conclusion of shots from behind only. My guess is that they were probably told that 'we were trying to kill Castro but he got us first, and we don't want to start World War III over this, so in the interest of national security we are going to go with a lone nut firing from behind.' That was the cover used to get a lot of people to go along with the coverup. This was certainly the case with Earl Warren.Bottom line for me; the massive exit wound in the back of the president's head made it impossible for the autopsy doctors not to know the president had been shot from the front.

[mike oneill]

Thom - i understand what you are suggesting about dark pressures being applied to Humes etc. I dont deny its possible.im just wondering how i would respond if i received a gentle tap on the shoulder from "men in suits" saying things like "you need to do this thing for your country", "your country needs you to do this", ""if you dont do this millions will die in a new war"-------------------MMMM pretty compelling stuff.In fact, i can remember a famous scientific experiment (which demonstrates how pliable average people can be) where people were instructed to give electric shocks to volunteers in a hidden room and even though the volunteers were screaming "Stop im hurting"- the volunteers carried on increasing the voltages because the scientists TOLD them not to stop. Virtually everyone carried on increasing the voltages because they were told to do so by the AUTHORITIVE scientists and adopted a subordinate role.So yes Thom, you have a feasible proposal - cant deny.Finally, 2 things; knowing that David Lifton is well respected in the assassination circles, when you next chat, please ask him whether he would be prepared to initiate an "Exhume the body " campaign. i cant help thinking if the body was exhumed just so many of our questions could be resolved by a modern day reexamination. It was done with Oswalds body - so why not with Kennedy's?And if David ever undertakes any lecture tours here in the UK - please let me know. I would love to see/meet him.Time now for my big shot of Bells before i get to bed ready for my 90 miles drive to work tomorrow and 90 home again. Jeez - who else drives 180 miles a day just to go to work!!MadnessRegardsMikeO

[ThomZajac]

Hi Mike,David Lifton sent me this email in response to one of your posts-ThomHello Thom,There's a fellow on the group where you were posting (someone named MikeO'Neill) who raised a question about O'Connor. Let me post what he says, andthen give you my response. Please feel free to pass it on.WHAT THIS FELLOW SAYS:You mention the brain - and i have some strong beliefs about this. In myview Mr O'Connor has inadvertantly spread a lot of miss information over theyears. Im convinced when he said "the brain was gone" after he looked in theskull cavity, i believe what he was simply trying to say was the gunshotshad blasted much of the brain away. But many people have assumed he wassaying that the brain was "gone" eg physically removed by surgery forexample.I dont believe there is anything sinister involving this brain issue at all.Just simply a misunderstanding of what he was saying MikeO mike oneillUNQUOTEI know exactly what O'Neill is driving at; let me explain why I disagreewith his interpretation.The very first time I ever spoke with Paul O'Connor was on August 25, 1979.You can read a verbatim (real-time) account of that conversation in Chapter26 of Best Evidence.What was astounding about O'Connor--and this became evident to me DURING thecall--was that (a) he received the President's body in a body bag (which hadbeen inside a shipping casket) and (b) he was a direct eyewitness to thefact that, at the time he took the President's body out of the body bag, thecranium was "empty".HOWEVER--and this is critical--O'Connor apparently did NOT realize thatthere was anything wrong with the cranium being "empty." He apparentlyrationalized that as being the result of the bullet having blown the brainentirely out of the head.Of course, that is an absurd proposition, but I didn't want to disturb hisperception in any way, because, in the back of my mind, was the possibilityof going through all this, on camera.In fact, after I turned in the manuscript, I was able to get my publisher(Macmillan) to sponsor such a project. Remember: back in 1980, there wereno "home video" cameras, such as one can purchase at BEST BUY. So any filmshoot had to be conducted in 16mm, which meant a cameraman, sound man,airplane tickets and accomodations for 3-4 people etc. In short, each filmshoot could easily cost (and did cost) some $3,000 (or more).Anyway, the crew I hired had done a lot of professional work for WilliamBuckley's show, and--as I recall--for 60 Minutes. My soundman/producer wasMark Dichter, and you can often see movie credits with "Lee Dichter" (hisbrother). Anyway, I proceeded to Gainesville, Florida and the O'Connor shoot was oneof the most dramatic of the five we did.First of all, O'Connor was absolutely bubbling over with a story to tell,and with the tension still remaining from that night. There were severalimportant statements he made before we were set up, with all the cabling,lights, etc., and I had to actually get him to stop talking, by asking himfor an apple.Finally, he was seated, all wired up, and we proceeded. I followed a verycarefully planned, low key form of questioning, to get his entire story oncamera--before I challeneged any part of it.You can see this shoot on my video--just as it occurred.And one of the main things that O'Connor said was exactly what he had toldme on the telephone (in August, 1979)---that, when he opened the body bag,and the President was laid out on the autopsy table, his body was completelynaked, "except for a sheet, a bloody sheet."Then, he described what happened when the sheet was unwrapped--that therewas a "gasp" in the room, and then he said (and this is all on camera, soyou can see it on the video). . (from memory, now. . ) "and I looked down,and said, [to myself--dsl] "My God, there's no brain."I then got him to repeat this once or twice more, and to say, on camera,that the cranium was "empty" (or 90% empty, or that "there was no brain"etc.)Now throughout this entire questioning, I could tell--either because Isensed it, or from what he said--that he wasn't frightened or afraid of thissituation, because he honestly believed (apparently) that the bullet haddone this. And I did nothing to perturb this state of affairs, until I got him to sayever4ything he had to say, and it was "on film."Only then did I proceed to a cross-examination of sorts, challenging him,with with the information that what he was describing was NOT the way thebody was, in Dallas.And that's when he shot back that, well, then, something must have happenedbetween Dallas and Bethesda, because that's sure the way it was when he sawthe body.Moreover, O'Connor's entire demeanor changed--and his face, for the firsttime, showed fear--when I confronted him with the information that (a) thehead wound he was describing was four times larger (at least) than what wasobserved in Dallas; and (b) that the coffin he was describing (a shippingcasket) was NOT the way the body left Dallas, and (c ) that there wascertainly a brain in the head in Dallas.I could tell that O'Connor had a lot to think about, when we finished ourshoot, rapidly put our equipment away, and ran for the airport, at the endof the shoot--because then we had to fly to Texas, and a late night shootwith James Jenkins.Then, two months later, my book appeared in the book stores--and it wasinteresting to see O'Connor's reaction. I was on the phone with him once ortwice--and he STILL (apparently) did not grasp the full implications. Inshort, he still (apparently) believed that the "empty cranium" was theresult of the bullet having "blowed his brains out."In a way, this makes O'Connor's statement(s) about an "empty" cranium allthe more credible--because, in his mind, it was not the resut of a nefariousact (i.e., pre-autopsy surgery).Yet obviously, a bullet did NOT "blow his brains out" and that is simply acomplete misperception on O'Connor's part.So, in no way did O'Connor spread any MIS-information; to the contrary, hereported exactly what he saw. Where he is in error is when he came up withan incorrect and invalid interpretation to explain--I repeat, to"explain"--what he saw.O'Connor always struck me as extremely credible. What was odd was that heapparently "defused" the situation (for himself, psychologically) by comingup with an explanation for the bizarre fact to which he was a witness (anempty cranium) which apparently played a role in reducing his level of fear,and keeping himself on a level keel, psychologically.This was very much in contrast to James Jenkins, who was positivelyfearful--even at that late date (1979). O'Connor was not.The first trace of that appeared when it became clear to him that what hewas reporting (to me, and saying on camera) was not the way it was inDallas.Hope this helps clarify.Thanks.DSL

[kenmurray]

Thom. that was great that Lifton responded to you.

[ThomZajac]

David Lifton has been a subscriber to my newspaper, The Santa Cruz Comic News, for many years and a few months ago I wrote to him asking for a signed copy of Best Evidence (in exchange for a subscription renewal). He responded with an email and we have been in communication ever since, which is great indeed. I don't think he has the time to participate in this forum, but I wouldn't be surprised if he checked in from time to time and- like this time- provided some first-hand information via an email to yours truly.

[Bob]

ThomZajac wrote:David Lifton has been a subscriber to my newspaper, The Santa Cruz Comic News, for many years and a few months ago I wrote to him asking for a signed copy of Best Evidence (in exchange for a subscription renewal). He responded with an email and we have been in communication ever since, which is great indeed. I don't think he has the time to participate in this forum, but I wouldn't be surprised if he checked in from time to time and- like this time- provided some first-hand information via an email to yours truly.Nice connection Thom. We need all the help we can get. I happen to know that other prominent eyes look at this forum.