(PART 1229)


David Lifton teases [his upcoming book] "Final Charade" on the "Night Fright Show" [see video below].

Some topics teased:

1. Lifton doubles down on the alterations being performed before the autopsy and outside of the autopsy room, contradicting Horne et. al

2. It is likely that Oswald was killed at Parkland hospital after the shooting, as there was a noted presence of air bubbles in his heart area.

3. Oswald was meant to have been shot and killed in the Depository with no witnesses; the Jack Ruby shooting was a hasty backup plan.

4. Oswald most likely did carry a large package containing a rifle into the TSBD; however, he was not a shooter.


Oh boy, some more of Lifton's crazy theories to keep things in the limelight and to hope to sell some more books.


You got it. The conspiracy crap never ends, and it never will. Craziness sells. And David Lifton knows that better than anybody. After all....

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton. .... One could safely say that Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent Bugliosi


One of the only things holding together the official story is the cowlick entry. Of all the theories about what wounds Kenendy may or may not have had, that's the most unsubstantiated. You have the autopsy doctors on record, practically blurting out "No, you damn idiots, that red spot isn't the wound, enough with this nonsense, I know we're not perfect but we didn't all simultaneously make the worst mistake in our entire careers!"

Nobody who saw the body recognizes the red spot as an entry wound, even with the artificially darkened versions with the red spot looking extra red. They all say that could be a drop of blood or a blemish related to the large head wound. The fracture on the X-ray is probably just a defect related to the large head wound as well. If you want to say it looks like an entry wound, then crazier things have happened. Nothing has to be faked or altered for that to be true.


But, Micah, would you agree that my following comment is true?....

Regardless of exactly where the entry wound was located on the President's head (whether it be high on his head near the cowlick or low on his head near the EOP), we know there was only one entry wound in JFK's head, and that entry wound (according to all three of the autopsy surgeons) was located in the BACK of President Kennedy's head.

Dr. James Humes talks in detail about JFK's wounds in 1967:


If a bullet entered the original EOP location and bounced up to exit the top-right side of the head, the cerebellum would be more damaged. You yourself acknowledged this in another thread I remember. The damage according to the official records is consistent with two bullets entering the skull, one only barely damaging the cerebellum & brainstem and hitting the base of the skull.

Is my understanding of this not correct?

If a bullet enters the brain, does it not damage it?


Right. I think the bullet entered the cowlick area because the photos clearly indicate that the cowlick location is the area where there's a bullet hole:

My earlier comment was merely in order to emphasize the fact that the autopsy report and the three autopsy doctors verified that just one bullet struck JFK's head—and that one bullet entered from behind. And that is a conclusive fact, as Dr. Humes said in his 1967 CBS interview, due to the inward bevelling/coning present on the skull.

Humes also said....

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; April 1992


So do you acknowledge that having the entry wound in the original EOP location is tantamount to saying Kennedy was shot in the head twice? And that the official autopsy report basically says that Oswald could not have possibly done all of the physical damage to Kennedy? And that the Warren Commission report, with its endorsement of the EOP location, also inadvertently supports at least two head shots (because apparently nobody working there realized the discrepancy between the skull damage and the brain damage)?

Most who were there say that red spot could just be a bit of blood, but Boswell indicated in his HSCA interview with Humes that the red spot was a tear in the scalp related to the large head wound. So the red spot could be something. Dr. Humes was coerced into testifying (as in, he could be prosecuted if he was found to be lying) that the red spot was the entry wound, only to quickly revert back to the original EOP location in his interviews with Livingstone, JAMA, and the ARRB. I've seen you take that information and make it seem like Dr. Humes was just being a confused old man, but surely by now you've seen the interview where HSCA staffer Andy Purdy tells the ARRB about Dr. Humes being berated for saying the entry wound was low in the head, and the corroboration of that story from Dr. Michael Baden as quoted in Pat Speer's book.

Again, the red spot and the cowlick fracture could indeed be defects related to the large head wound. It is just so unreasonable to say the entry wound was way up there. I'm no expert on X-rays, but I know how to read, and reading every autopsy professional and autopsy witness say the real hole was down there is enough for me. The large head wound could be tangential.


Well, Micah, I think it's quite clear from ALL the evidence in the case (including the Zapruder Film) that JFK was struck in the head by just one bullet. And this issue was investigated in great depth by the HSCA. So, should we now dismiss all 9 members of the Forensic Pathology Panel?

Quoting Dr. Baden:

"We, as the [forensic pathology] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978 HSCA Testimony



You are one of those who has a completely incorrect model of conspiracy, and is destined to end up in the dustbin of history.

Thanks for archiving all the material you have collected, but your analysis leaves much to be desired.

If there was an Internet back in 1859, when Origin of the Species was published, you would have been one of those with a massive website arguing against evolution, and saying. . . "Just look at all these dogs and cats that I have collected. . . and what about the apes and all the other animals in the zoo! You mean to tell me that all of this is somehow connected! That all these different species came about naturally! That's ridiculous! Darwin is nothing but a kook! All of this was created in about 7 days, and if you don't believe me, go to my Website, DarwinSucks.com."



Well, David Lifton, I think about the only thing a reasonable person needs to do in order to come to a firm conclusion that your theory is utter hogwash (not to mention impossible) is to read the following portion of this post of yours:

"The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter his body to change the story of how he died. If one has control of the body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the crime." -- David Lifton; Feb. 6, 2017

The key words written by David L. above are these words:

"The plan, from the outset, was to...alter his body."

Maybe we should all take a step back and just think about the above comment for a few moments. It shouldn't take very long, though, for any sensible person to fully appreciate just how ridiculous and far-out and nonsensical and impossible and downright crazy that comment by David S. Lifton truly is.

But I guess it does prove one thing: If a conspiracy theorist puts his mind to it, he can always manage to “improve” his fantasy theory—even a conspiracy fantasy that began 50 years ago.

Time for a Reality Check now. Here's something I said to Mr. Lifton in 2013, and it certainly applies here in 2017 as well:

"The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case.

Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists.

And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer.

Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful"."
-- DVP; May 4, 2013


Wow! Esteemed JFK authors/researchers David Lifton & David Von Pein take off the gloves here on EF [Education Forum]. Can it get any better than this?

In David Lifton's corner, I am looking forward to Final Charade explaining to me why Lee Oswald wasn't killed immediately after the ambush of JFK either in the TSBD or close proximity while allegedly 'on the run'. That explanation from early investigators would have made a lot of better, acceptable sense at the time: 'man in building shoots JFK & John Connally passing by in a car during a parade in Dallas, then man is killed after threatening police responders that entered the building. Man's rifle & spent shells are found next to his body after police took him out'.

I hope David Lifton explains why the JFK kill organizers risked Lee Oswald simply walking over to WFAA-TV, telling Program Director Jay Watkins [sic; Watson] he had important info about the attack on JFK & JBC & demand to be placed on the air. (Had LHO taken that route from the TSBD, he would have walked right past a parked bus at the intersection of Main & Houston streets that could have aided his 'escape' once traffic began moving again after the ambush). Would JFK kill organizers be so sloppy as to risk that?

In David Von Pein's corner, he pretty much has laid his Prosecutor's case out before: 'man in building shoots JFK & JBC, hides weapon between some boxes, is spotted in a lunchroom & questioned by a police responder, man's boss clears man, man walks out & makes his way to his rooming house to arm himself......encounters DPD officer Tippit & murders him...hides in the Texas theatre....etc....'

People globally have a tremendous amount of respect for both Davids (Lifton & Von Pein). I'm in that number. What they both say matters in this case that only has 3 possibilities: LHO did it alone, LHO did it with help, LHO was framed.

Sincerely & respectfully,

Brad Milch



I can't resist adding my own opinions here.

I think the reason LHO wasn't killed in the TSBD was because he escaped. People are still guessing about how he got out of the TSBD.


It doesn't really take too much "guessing". He just walked out the front door. He was seen by Mrs. Reid on the 2nd floor headed for the area where the front stairs were located. Those stairs dump you out right by the front entrance of the building. The building wasn't sealed by the police until about 12:37 PM, and Oswald likely walked out the front door at about 12:33, beating the "sealing off" time by four minutes. So, there's really no big mystery there.


LHO realized as soon as JFK was killed that the chances were high that he was being framed, since he had handed over his rifle to a trusted ally just that same morning. So, LHO calmly avoided people and got out of the TSBD as fast and as calmly as he could.


You seem to be making stuff up out of thin air, Paul. Please provide the citation/proof/testimony/verification that Lee Oswald "handed over his rifle to a trusted ally" on November 22, 1963. I'd like to see that proof. You wrote the above comment as if it were a proven fact, when, in actuality, you're just rewriting history and inventing conspiracy scenarios to suit your needs and/or wishes.


I think LHO was supposed to be killed at the site where J.D. Tippit was killed -- but LHO was faster on the draw.


More speculation. And nothing more. And you're implying that Officer Tippit was part of some plot to rub out Oswald, which (IMO) is irresponsible, since there's not a scrap of reliable evidence to even suggest that J.D. Tippit was involved in any way whatsoever with the murders that occurred on 11/22/63, other than as Oswald's second victim.


Thus, there is a fair chance that J.D. Tippit was Badgeman, and that Tippit was supposed to get rid of LHO later.


More ridiculous unsupportable speculation and conjecture.


There is also a chance that Tippit was driving the beep-beep car outside LHO's rooming house.


I bet Mrs. Marie Tippit just loves this kind of talk about her murdered husband. She must do nothing but shake her head back and forth in disgust all day long when she hears all the fantasy talk about J.D.

Some "horn-honking" talk can be found here.


The reason the JFK Kill Team believed they could (mildly) trust LHO not to run to the Newsmen to tell them what he knew, was because LHO was part of their conspiracy. Although, LHO had been told that the actual target of their plot was Fidel Castro (and LHO would have been paid a lot of money for his role in that plot, if it succeeded).

Also, Jeff Caufield (2015) believes that LHO might have been told that there was going to be a Fake Attempt to assassinate JFK that day, just to scare the public into attacking Fidel Castro and Cuba. If Caufield is right, then LHO was part of the plot, and he would have avoided the Newsmen, and played it cool (as he did at the DPD station).

It seems to me that the truth is closer to two options combined, i.e. LHO was framed, but he was an unwitting part of the Kill Team, and he handed his rifle over to them like an idiot.


What's the source for all of that junk, Paul? Jeffrey Caufield only?

Conspiracy talk can be fun to play around with, I guess. But when a whole bunch of evidence all points toward one single person (and one single rifle), then why pretend Oswald "handed over" his rifle to some co-conspirator, when a perfectly reasonable and sensible scenario—i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald himself shot the President—is right there on the table as well?

Should we over-complicate the evidence by interjecting "conspiracy", even though none of the physical evidence (or Oswald's own actions on November 21 or 22) requires the interjection of any conspiracy whatsoever?

EDIT -- To be fair to Paul Trejo, when re-reading Paul's post, which is knee-deep in speculation and guesswork, Paul did say these words to begin his post: "I can't resist adding my own opinions here." Key word there being "Opinions". :)



Thanks, Paul.

But I still maintain that conspiracy theorists have little to nothing to offer in the way of "evidence" (particularly physical evidence).

Let's face it, Paul, all JFK conspiracy theories rely on nothing but speculation, guesswork, and unsubstantiated and questionable witnesses like Gerry Hemming.

Don't you wish you had just ONE solid piece of physical evidence to support your belief in a JFK conspiracy? Instead, you've got Gerry Patrick Hemming.

David Von Pein
February 4-9, 2017