Audio of a 1966 phone interview of Dr. Humes by David Lifton

[Denis Morissette]

For people interested in David Lifton's work, I have approximately 64 audio tapes that are mostly phone interviews with Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza witnesses. There are 1971 interviews with people on the grassy knoll like Bill Newman and his wife, Mr. John Chism and Jack Frenzen. Also 1966 and 1979 interviews with Parkland and Bethesda staff members.

[Tom Graves]

For people interested in David Lifton's work, I have approximately 64 audio tapes that are mostly phone interviews with Parkland, Bethesda and Dealey Plaza witnesses. There are 1971 interviews with people on the grassy knoll like Bill Newman and his wife, Mr. John Chism and Jack Frenzen. Also 1966 and 1979 interviews with Parkland and Bethesda staff members.

Incompetent Dr. Humes!!!

[Benjamin Cole]

DM-Thanks for posting.

David Lifton did a lot of earnest work, and should be remembered for getting witnesses down on film or audio, back in an era when that was not so easy.

Like many, I have wondered how so many witnesses at Bethesda could have different views on the JFK wounds than those at Parkland.

Keep in mind, Humes and Boswell called in Finck to assist them, which would be odd if they were trying to cover something up.

"Finck was a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Medical Corps and the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). He had extensive experience with approximately 400 cases involving missile wounds and was specifically requested to assist the two Navy pathologists, James Humes and Thornton Boswell, due to his expertise."

If there was a large gaping avulsive wound in the rear of JFK's skull...then all three, Humes, Boswell and Finck chose to lie about it for the rest of their lives, and then also fake evidence, x-rays and photos, were ginned up.

I do not have a compelling answer to this mis-match between Bethesda and Parkland.

My guess is the wound at Parkland was deep and ugly, but as described by Pat Speer--from back to front, removing skull.

Outside of an autopsy setting, one might think it was an exit wound.

That's my best guess.

[Jarrett Smith]

DM-Thanks for posting.

David Lifton did a lot of earnest work, and should be remembered for getting witnesses down on film or audio, back in an era when that was not so easy.

Like many, I have wondered how so many witnesses at Bethesda could have different views on the JFK wounds than those at Parkland.

Keep in mind, Humes and Boswell called in Finck to assist them, which would be odd if they were trying to cover something up.

"Finck was a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Medical Corps and the Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP). He had extensive experience with approximately 400 cases involving missile wounds and was specifically requested to assist the two Navy pathologists, James Humes and Thornton Boswell, due to his expertise."

If there was a large gaping avulsive wound in the rear of JFK's skull...then all three, Humes, Boswell and Finck chose to lie about it for the rest of their lives, and then also fake evidence, x-rays and photos, were ginned up.

I do not have a compelling answer to this mis-match between Bethesda and Parkland.

My guess is the wound at Parkland was deep and ugly, but as described by Pat Speer--from back to front, removing skull.

Outside of an autopsy setting, one might think it was an exit wound.

That's my best guess.

I think it all boils down to they knew it was a conspiracy but hid it to prevent any escalation that could lead to war. The autopsy photos we see were most likely taken after the restoration of the head began.