Article 2820 of alt.conspiracy.jfk:
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Path: cbnewsl!jad
From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Subject: Part VIII, PACIFICA RADIO Investigates the Murder of President Kennedy
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: North America
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1992 12:50:12 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Sep22.125012.13133@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Keywords: researchers' revelations about the assassination of President Kennedy
Lines: 140


        I made the following transcript from a tape recording 
        of a broadcast by Pacifica Radio station
               WBAI-FM (99.5)
               505 Eighth Ave., 19th Fl.
               New York, NY 10018       (212) 279-0707

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
                        (continuation)
GARY NULL:
Alright.  We're going to be speaking with Paul O'Connor in just a
few moments. We have him on the show, as well, because we wanted
indidividuals who could corroborate your information.

But right now, we're going to ask you to remain on hold. We're in
the midst of a WBAI fund-raising [period] ....

.... My show is on the air five days a week bringing programs to
you that will give you insights. Like right now we're doing a
whole series on Government agendas and hidden agendas, and the
conspiracies. We're targetting, right now, the [John] Kennedy
Assassination, just because that assassination is something that 
everyone would agree had a major national impact. The trouble is,
what we were told is the OFFICIAL position doesn't blend with what
other researchers and first-hand observers are suggesting were the
actual cases. And then, we have to ask: Why would someone cover-up
this information?  Why?  Why would the media not report it?  Why
would the Government not investigate it?  Why would the Warren
Commission not explore it?  So we're looking at that.

Right now, on our program (and I want to thank our guests for
being patient and for standing by) is David Lifton, the author of
BEST EVIDENCE. He is suggesting that there were two caskets, one
body; and that the body arrived without a brain; and that the
brain that we were told was President Kennedy's brain may have,
indeed, been someone else's; that there was a gaping hole large
enough to put a fist through when it arrived in Washington; and
that therefore, there had been alterations. 

Now, let us see what other corroboration we could have for this.
We have, on the conference phone right now, Dr. Charles Crenshaw.
Dr. Crenshaw, who graduated from the Parkland Memorial Hospital in
Dallas, Texas, who specializes in general surgery, is presently
the chairman and director of the Department of Surgery at Saint
Peters-Smith Hospital, in the Fort Worth area. He is a professor
of clinical surgery at the University of Texas, Southwestern
Health Center's Science Center in Dallas. Welcome to our program,
Dr. Crenshaw.

DR. CRENSHAW:
Thank you.

GARY NULL:
By the way, Dr. Crenshaw is also the author of a very important
work on the Kennedy Assassination called, JFK: THE CONSPIRACY OF
SILENCE, which right now, I believe, is number one on the New York
Times bestseller list. Isn't it?

DR. CRENSHAW:
Yes, it is.

GARY NULL:
And, by the way, THREE other books on the top-ten bestseller list
are also about this assassination, so CLEARLY there is interest.
Would you be good enough to explain to us the inconsistencies
between your EYEWITNESS account and the official report upheld by
the Warren Commission?

DR. CRENSHAW:
That day, on November the 22nd, 1963, all of the surgeons at
Parkland believed that our President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was
shot at least once from the front. We saw two wounds there. Both
of them were from the front. The head wound was tangential in
nature, coming in over the right side, above his ear, and leaving
a large exit area, a vulsed[?] area in the right-rear part of the
head. There was loss of part of the parietal, temporal and most
of the occipital lobe of the right cerebral hemisphere, with
exposure of the cerebellum. It was about two-and-a-half to two-
and-three-fourths inches in diameter. It was more or less
circular. And in the photos from the National Archives -- which
are so damaging -- this wound had completely vanished. There was
no wound seen in the exhibits that are marked "B" and "E" in the
book. This wound, that ALL of the physicians at Parkland
described, was completely gone. The second wound was in the
anterior part of the neck. It was about three to six millimeters
in size and with an arc the size of your little finger. It was
clearly demarcated as round and relatively clean-cut. Then the
tracheal tube that had been put down was ineffective. And then
Dr. Perry performed a tracheostomy through the entrance wound.
The incision was sharp with smooth edges, and about an inch to
and inch-and-a-half long. It was no longer than the flange on the
tracheostomy tube, which was one-and-three-fourths inches. Not
only that, after the nurses had removed this tracheostomy tube
before we placed him in the coffin, it was brought back again.
The edges were still smooth and very sharp. And in the autopsy
photographs that I first saw in looking for the head wound, this
wound was widely gaping, it was irregular, and it was now about
two-point-five to three inches long. So there was CLEARLY a
change between these wounds, that I saw at Parkland, and the
wounds that we saw on the autopsy pictures that were given from
the National Archives.

GARY NULL:
Why didn't you or others at the scene later complain or even make
an issue or an affidavit showing that this was an alteration?

DR. CRENSHAW:
We never saw the photos. The first time I saw these was in early
1991. The Parkland physicians were never given this opportunity.
They were only told about the additional wounds (which I doubt
whether there was another wound in the back of the head, because
I looked there) and were never told or shown any other evidence.
We were told only about the autopsy. And we, like most people,
felt that they would have had the best forensic minds in our
country to examine our President. However, obviously, [from] what
has been discussed and what we now know, [that assumption] was wrong. 
And so, we had no other knowledge other than the description by the
Secret Service.

GARY NULL:
So if you had the description by the Secret Service, by an 
extension of this logic, the Secret Service or someone would have 
had to participate in this cover-up, or this obstruction of
information. Would that be a reasonable assumption?

DR. CRENSHAW:
I think that's a very reasonable assumption.
                      (to be continued)
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

      If you agree that this story deserves broad public attention, please
      assist in disseminating it by posting it to other bulletin boards,
      and by posting hardcopies in public places, both on and off campus. 
      As evidence accrues concerning the corporate mass media's thirty-year
      cover-up of the corporate CIA's coup d'etat against the People of 
      the United States, the necessity of citizen reportage becomes
      ever more striking.

      John DiNardo