It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Autopsy of Lee Harvey Oswald.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 08:26 AM
Mr Marrs

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.[114] Contrary to reports, the skull of Oswald had been autopsied and this was confirmed at the exhumation .[115]

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 and examined.

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 examination.

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.

Many thanks

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:39 PM
Hmmm...the pages you indicated did indeed cover the meat of my questions although I have to admit I am none too the wiser as to the answers, but that does appear to be the way with this particular kettle of fish.

I would be very interested in any further insight that you may have, and more specifically, did Marina Oswald ever get that tape of the second autopsy back?


posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 05:12 PM
Since this thread received no reply in more than a year, I'll add my somewhat educated 2 cents.

It's my understanding (from The Men Who Killed Kennedy) that when the vault was unearthed and the coffin opened for DNA testing, the head was no longer attached to the body. Sometime after the original burial, persons unknown dug up the vault and substituted the head of Harvey, which was still attached to the body at burial, with the head of Lee Harvey Oswald. When the coffin was opened, the head of LHO was found loose (unattached) along with the headless body of Harvey. This is stated as fact by the funeral director and his son who placed Harvey's body in the coffin and buried his "sealed" vault in 1963.

No mention was made of this observation by any authority. Anyone surprised???.

Of course when DNA samples were taken from the unattached head in the coffin, the mastoid scar located, it proved that the loose head inside the coffin belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Therefore, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald met his demise at some time after Harvey was murdered in the basement of the Dallas Police Department, November 24, 1963, and before the unearthment of the vault some 30 years later.

So when Harvey said he was "just a patsy", he was telling the truth.


log in