I am currently reading your book Crossfire, and I must say, very good it is too. As someone that has never studied the JFK assassination in any great
deal, but, has studied other subjects that on occasion have brushed up against it, your book has proved a huge revelation in terms of some of the
details. I could fill pages with the questions that are being raised in my mind, I will however give most of them a little more time to coalesce, and
finish the book before I go off all half-cocked.
One thing though that has been troubling me for a time, and that you mention in your book is the exhumation of Lee Harvey Oswald. From Wikipedia;
In October 1981 Oswald's body was exhumed at the behest of British writer Michael Eddowes, with Marina Oswald Porter's support. He sought to
prove a thesis developed in a 1975 book, Khrushchev Killed Kennedy (re-published in 1976, in Britain as November 22: How They Killed Kennedy and in
America a year later as The Oswald File).
Eddowes' theory was that during Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union he was replaced with a Soviet double named Alek, who was a member of a KGB
assassination squad. Eddowes' claim is that it was this look-alike who killed Kennedy, and not Oswald. Eddowes's support for his thesis was a claim
that the corpse buried in 1963 in the Shannon Rose Hill Memorial Park cemetery in Fort Worth, Texas did not have a scar that resulted from surgery
conducted on Oswald years before.
When Oswald's body was exhumed it was found that the plain, mole skin-covered pine coffin had ruptured and was filled with water, leaving the body in
an advanced state of decomposition with partial skeletonization. The examination positively identified Oswald's corpse through dental records, and
also detected a mastoid scar from a childhood operation. Contrary to reports, the skull of Oswald had been autopsied and this was confirmed
at the exhumation .
In particular, I was most intrigued to find that Oswald’s skull had been opened and presumably his brain examined during the autopsy and that this
information had been not only withheld but denied, up to the exhumation. I have a photograph of Oswald, following his autopsy, while it is clear from
the ‘Y’ incision that he has been internally examined I can detect no sign that his skull had been opened. As odd as I am going to sound, I have
looked at a lot of pictures of people post autopsy and it is usually easy to detect if the scalp has been lifted. There is absolutely no sign of this
having happened. I therefore presume that a second autopsy was carried out, after that picture was taken, one in which Oswald’s brain was removed
My first question therefore is why cover it up and or deny it? It is fairly commonplace for the brains of notorious criminals to be removed,
especially when they commit a violent act that would otherwise be considered out of character. In some cases, anomalies, like tumours have been
found, such as in the case of Charles Whitman. Surely, no one would have been overly surprised had pathologists removed Oswald’s brain for further
It reminds me, tangentally, of the Timothy McVeigh case, where it was publically stated that McVeigh had requested that no autopsy be carried out. He
was then of course cremated, we can not ever prove that an examination was carried out or not or whether his allegations that his mind had been
tampered had any organic origin. Or for that matter any inorganic basis. All very convenient.
I know you are aware of Projects Artichoke and Mockingbird, and presume that you know specifically the work of Dr Jose Delgado and Dr Ewen Cameron (I
haven’t got to that bit in your book if you cover it, and I think you mention in another thread by Memoryshock that you do). What interests me is,
do you think that the evidence that Oswald’s brain was examined, and the fact that that information was suppressed, may be indicative that his mind
was in some way tampered with, trauma based programming or some form of electronic device implanted?
If you are not able to answer my specific questions, I would still be very interested in any thoughts that you have on the matter.