I am just now getting around to watching the multitude of JFK Assassination Anniversary specials which aired last month. Too many to watch live, so I recorded them for later viewing. And while most are the same tired old lies, some are almost fair in their presentation of both sides--conspiracy vs. Oswald did it. On the surface, "The JFK Assassination: The Definitive Guide," a History Channel presentation, appears to give serious researchers a fair hearing, but on second look, the program is cunningly and subtly biased. Each time a legitimate piece of evidence is mentioned, there is a quick cut to a disinformationist like Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi or Max Holland, for refutation. So while pro-conspiracy tidbits get the viewer tantalizingly close to a breakthrough, before the lead is explored in depth, in steps an establishment-approved and historically challenged idiot like John McAdams. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile viewing for the special it might have been.
Stunningly, there is even a mention of one of the most overlooked, yet significant, players in the drama (and, oh by the way, the villain of my book "The President's Mortician), John Liggett. Suspiciously his name is misspelled, as it appears fleetingly on the screen. There is no James Melvin Liggett, but at least they got the middle name right. Other key suspects, like George DeMohrenschildt, Ruth Paine, and Allen Dulles, are mentioned in passing...the message being that they are fringe and insignificant characters. At least "Definitive Guide" is not a complete whitewash like "Lee Harvey Oswald: 48 Hours To Live."
The most glaring cover-up was Posner's easy dismissal of the Dallas doctors' observations about JFK's wounds. At Parkland all medical personnel who attended to the President saw a fist-sized exit wound in the back of the head, near the right ear, in the occipital-parietal area of the head. But the autopsy doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital saw a completely different head wound, one that was more than three times the size of the Parkland wound, and one that stretched from the rear of the head all the way to the front of the head. In fact, the Bethesda wound was so large that the Bethesda doctors thought at first that surgery of the head area had been performed. Dr. Humes uttered the phrase, "Surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull, is indicated." He recognized that someone tinkered with JFK's head wound while his body was in transit from Parkland to Bethesda. Who would do such a thing, and why, and where? The answers to these questions are essential to solving the case for this simple reason: the Parkland wound indicated that JFK was shot from the front; the Bethesda wound indicated that JFK was shot from the rear. Or put another way, if JFK was shot from the front, there is no doubt that a conspiracy took his life because Oswald, the ostensible lone shooter, was behind the Presidential limo at the time of the shooting and could have only hit JFK from behind had he indeed fired a rifle from the Texas School Book Depository. If the wound was altered, there is little doubt that it was done to hide a conspiracy and frame Oswald as the lone assassin.
In his book "Best Evidence," JFK researcher David Lifton puts it succinctly: "The Dallas/Bethesda conflict regarding the fatal head wound was built into the records of the Warren Commission...its existence could not be denied. On November 22, 1963, two groups of doctors saw the President's head, and their descriptions diverged. Only three explanations seemed possible: 1) Parkland Was Right And Bethesda Was Wrong. In that case, the Bethesda autopsy surgeons falsely described a...wound...quadrupled its area, and incorrectly stated that half of the President's brain was clearly visible through the hole in his head. 2) Bethesda Was Right And Parkland Was Wrong. In that case, the many witnesses who saw the wound in Dallas somehow mistook a 6-inch hole at the top of the head as a much smaller hole at the right rear. 3) Both Groups of Witnesses Were Correct. In that case, their descriptions conflicted because the size and location of the wound had been altered during the time interval that separated the two groups of observations."
Astounding as it sounds, only the third option is viable. It is unreasonable to believe that either of two sets of doctors knowingly lied about the wounds of the most important patient they would ever tend to in their lifetimes. As Lifton puts it, "Of the three alternatives, only the third was plausible. President Kennedy's fatal wound must have been altered."
You can find out how, where, and when this was done, by reading my book.