JFK Assassination Forum 
Logo
Home Support The Forum The Robin Unger JFK Assassination GalleryYoutube JFK Assassination Video ChannelSearchNotepadLoginRegister

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2017, 04:18:20 AM
News: Posts and threads containing swear words, personal insults or crudities, content considered by Admin to be spamming, when reported or observed, may be edited or deleted.
The perpetrator of any offense may receive a posting suspension of a period to be determined by Admin in relation to the considered severity of the offense.
Questions relating to deletions or edits will not be answered by Admin via any communication method here or elsewhere.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 29
ED Forum falling apart!  (Read 34120 times)
Newbie
*

Posts: 6


Mr. Blenner,  Mr. Von Peon (and other contributors)

IPlease pardon the slightly off- topic nature of this post but I have noticed that there have been some valuable points made by both of you and Mr. Clifton that have made interesting reading. Sadly the last couple of responses have started to develop into the beginnings of ad hominem back and forth. Please try to exercise a little restraint - I think there are some excellent points being raised and the restraint in attacking people with differing views has been relatively good up to now. PLEASE don't let this thread degenerate into a slanging match. I know neither of you can stop others from doing so biting am fascinated by your exchange and want to see the debate stay on topic. My apologies if I have offended anyone. I am very much a learner here and havehardlyposted at all but you guys are clearly knowledgeable and people like me can learn a lot from BOTH of you.

Thanks for your time and attention.


-------------------------

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2412


Quote from: H. Blenner
Experts have authenticated the autopsy photographs from which members of two medical panels have described impossible wounds.

Cite please (for the TWO medical panels who cited "impossible wounds" in the autopsy photos). And if you think your previous quote from Page 7 of the Clark Panel report suits your purposes regarding so-called "impossible wounds", think again. Because that quote does no such thing (except maybe in your own mind).


-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:30:00 AM by David Von Pein »

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 7091


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote from: H. Blenner
Experts have authenticated the autopsy photographs from which members of two medical panels have described impossible wounds.

Cite please (for the TWO medical panels who cited "impossible wounds" in the autopsy photos). And if you think your previous quote from Page 7 of the Clark Panel report suits your purposes regarding so-called "impossible wounds", think again. Because that quote does no such thing (except maybe in your own mind).


During the late sixties, members of the Clark Panel who viewed the official autopsy photographs reported an ill-defined abrasion surrounding the hole in Kennedy’s scalp. However, a bullet striking a thin layer of scalp over the firm substance of the skull makes an especially prominent abrasion surrounding the bullet hole.

In the late seventies, the Forensic Pathology Panel described a transverse abrasion with dimensions of 7 mm by 10 mm  on the back of Kennedy. This wound surrounded features of a longitudinal bullet hole. In particular the more prominent portion of the abrasion resided on its right side while the inferior margin of the wound was abraded in a superior direction.  This 90-degree misalignment of features that normally align is evidence of an altered back wound.

Now, I invite you to explain why the medical panel who described the back wound as transverse with dimensions of 7 mm by 10 mm said nothing of the 4 mm by 7 mm longitudinal back wound originally described by Commander Humes in his WC testimony and autopsy report.

I posted my explanation at the following link.

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So what is your explanation?

Herbert



-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 03:55:32 AM by Herbert Blenner »

   ReplyReply
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52


Re your statement: "If not, then you and I are in the same boat -- i.e., not believing Lifton's theory but not knowing exactly what the explanation is for the contradictory witness statements either."

". . .not knowing exactly what the explanation is for the contradictory witness statements either. . " ?

DVP: Do you tell the officer who pulls you over--after clocking you at 25 miles above the speed limit: "Officer, I can't accept your conclusion that I was speeding. On the other hand, I really am in the position of not knowing exactly what the explanation is for why your radar has clocked me at such a high rate of speed. . . Write me a ticket, if you must, but when I go to court, I'm sure I'll come up with some 'explanation'."

That's what you sound like, DVP.

Well, at least your not denying you weren't speeding.

Congratulations on seeking "the explanation."

From what I have seen, that's what lawyers are frequently hired to do: come up with inventive "explanations" for evidence which, viewed by normal standards, would lead to a conviction of their clients of some crime.

Lawyers are then hired to "connect the dots" differently, and then sell that concoction to a jury.

Good luck.

DSL
5/8/13; 9 PM PDT
Los Angeles, California


-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52


But Humes he didn't back down. Here's what he said, under oath, when he testified before the HSCA in September, 1978:

QUOTE:

I state now {that} those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes.  (I HSCA 327)




Of course you think its absurd..You are a Ct..You have nothing  to base that opinion on. You have no clue how many doctors out of 100 would be off by 4 inches under those circumstances. You need Humes to be correct in his guess so of course you are going to act like its impossible he could be off. If being off by 4 inches helped your cause you would be on here right now arguing that of course he could just be wrong by 4 inches..We see this stuff daily from you people.


Your quoted statement from Humes is laughable..All he is saying here is he did the best he could at the time to get it right..Really a pretty worthless statement. What did you want him to say that he didn't use the best of his abilities to try and guess correct? It says nothing at all about whether his guess was correct of not..

Brian:

Humes never implied, much less said, that he "guessed".

It is you who have changed the verb that he used.

Read what he said: "QUOTE: I state now {that} those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes.  (I HSCA 327)"

Now compare that to what you said that he said. Its entirely different.

He never said he guessed at anything. He used the verb "discern".

So essentially, you have erected a straw man, and are then knocking it around, or down.

I spoke to Humes--4 times: Twice in November, 1966, once in person at the 1978 HSCA hearings, and once--as I recall-in 1979.

Its all reported accurately in Best Evidence. Humes was a serious person, confronted with an extraordinary situation.

That was my opinion in November, 1966; it remains my opinion today.

At no point did Humes ever say, hint, or imply, that he "guessed" at anything.

He could have said that; but he never did.

That's your language, and reflects your theory. But that's not what he said.

DSL
5/8/13; 9:40 PM PDT
Los Angeles, California



-------------------------

   ReplyReply
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52


DVP:

I'm starting to think that I really was wrong in assuming Bugliosi was writing (or vetting) your text, because what passes for "reasoning" is so sophomoric it is truly an embarrassment.

Here are some comments on your latest attempts at rationalizing and explaining the record.

DVP:

But, James, in David Lifton's body-alteration theory, we are expected to accept as true something that is so outlandish and unlikely (and, per witnesses like Dave Powers, so physically impossible even), that I do not think it's unreasonable to reject that theory out of hand. Just as it's not unreasonable to reject similar "impossible" theories out of hand -- e.g., Brian David Andersen's theory of JFK not being killed at all (he thinks that JFK himself activated a "pyrotechnics device" that was attached to his head, which made it falsely seem like his head was exploding)....and the "Jackie Did It" theory which has recently been postulated by some nutty dame at the a.c.j. newsgroup.

Those are theories that are not "reasonable" theories. And I put Mr. Lifton's body-alteration theory in that same category.

DSL:

Your writing indicates you really do not function logically. My advice: stick to collecting (and posting) videos--but when you lift things off the air, and post them on your YouTube channel, you really ought to give proper credit as to the source--or have you forgotten the small matter of ethics?  But. . . putting that aside (for the moment). . .

There is nothing physically impossible about taking the President's body out of the casket and moving it elsewhere on the plane, especially if the order to do so comes from "higher authority."   What you seem to be avoiding is the fact that the body was in the coffin when the coffin was placed aboard Air Force One (at 2:18 CST) but could not possibly have been in the coffin when AF-1 landed (at 6 PM) because the body arrived at Bethesda, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, (at 6:35 PM) about 20 minutes prior to the Dallas casket, which arrived in the naval ambulance at 6:55 PM.

Instead of sputtering and filling the Internet with insults, why not address the evidence?

The answer is simple: You can't. All you can do is sputter: "But that can't be. That's impossible!"

I have news for you, DVP: That's not an argument. And you'd never get a passing grade in law school, or in moot court, if you behaved like that.

I can't even imagine a screenwriter, on Law and Order, or any other comparable show, telling his supervisor (much less a jury): "Gee, I can't figure this out. All I know is it cannot be! So. . .there must be some other explanation for this data!"

I can just imagine the opposing attorney saying, "Your honor, can we break for lunch now?  I'm getting hungry for some nourishment." And even: "Your honor, I know this violates normal procedure, but can we take up a collection, and send this guy to some night law school, or some classes in logic,or forensic debate, at a local Learning Annex?  Because, frankly, this is just plain boring!"

DVP:

Which means that the discrepancies in the testimony between the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses MUST have an alternate explanation to resolve them--other than the most extreme explanation of "body alteration" and "casket switching", etc.

What all of those alternative explanations are, I'll admit, I cannot say. But I truly think that the "multiple body arrivals" at Bethesda can be explained -- those witnesses, such as Dennis David, merely saw OTHER (non-JFK) caskets entering the Bethesda morgue. Does David Lifton have knowledge of there being absolutely NO other casket arrivals at Bethesda on the night on Nov. 22 OTHER than JFK's casket? If so, what is that proof?


The only explanation that makes any sense at all to me regarding the multiple casket entries is that those other caskets just simply had other (non-JFK) bodies in them.

DSL RESPONSE

Since I know you're an excellent collector of video and audio, and I can see what you're seeking, I thought I'd provide a description of what I think you're looking for, in the various audio and video archives. Mind you, I haven't located anything like it yet, but perhaps, with these helpful hints I'm now going to supply, you may yet find it.

WALTER CRONKITE: This is Walter Cronkite at CBS news headquarters in New York, and we've just received what appears to be breaking news at Bethesda.  So now I want to switch to Nancy Hotstuff, at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Take it away, Nancy.

NANCY HOTSTUFF: Yes, Walter. We're here at the rear of Bethesda Naval Hospital, and we wanted to clarify what appears to be some confusion.  The crowd at front is awaiting the arrival of the naval ambulance, which left Andrews Air Force Base at 6:10, an ambulance carrying Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, and the the Dallas coffin which was offloaded from Air Force One. And that ambulance is due to arrive in about 20 minutes.  But here at the rear of Bethesda, a black hearse has arrived, containing some half dozen men in civilian clothes, who have identified themselves as Secret Service agents, and they just brought in a shipping casket to the morgue.  The men were told this was President Kennedy's body. And that this deception was ordered just in case "anybody tried to hijack the body."

CRONKITE: But Nancy, couldn't this simply be a situation in which another coffin has arrived at Bethesda, with someone else's body, for another burial?

NANCY HOTSTUFF: Well, we looked into that, but there are no other burials scheduled at Arlington this weekend, and the CO at Bethesda says there are no other bodies scheduled to arrive.  But  there's a witness inside the morgue, a Paul O'Connor, and he says that the body in that casket was that of President Kennedy!

CRONKITE: Nancy, I don't know what to say, but for this kind of extraordinary case, I'm calling in our special correspondent, David Von Pain, the third. He specializes in cases like this.  Von Pain. . .are you there?

VON PAIN: Yes, I'm here Walter, and of course, I just want to say, it doesn't really matter what these people are witnessing.  The world is cluttered with these reports of things that just cannot be. You know, my grandfather, Samuel Von Pain, ran into this decades ago.

CRONKITE: Yes, tell us about that. It had to do with the sinking of the Titanic, am I not correct?

VON PAIN: Yes, that's correct. So many people were under the illusion that the world's greatest passenger ship was struck by an iceberg, but of course he knew that couldn't be true, and he presented his analysis at the time.

CRONKITE: Well, now what do you think of this evidence.

VON PAIN: It just cannot be true.   I just know it. I feel it in my bones.

CRONKITE: I'm sorry I have to cut you off, but we have another report from Bethesda. Take it away, Nancy Hotstuff.

NANCY Hotstuff: Yes, Walter. Well, we've just got another report here, from inside the morgue. And it seems that that coffin that was brought to the morgue was opened by the crew there, and we've received a report from a Navy medical technician, one Paul O'Connor, and he says it was President Kennedy's body, all right, and that it was inside a body bag.

CRONKITE: Von Pain, what do you think of that?

VON PAIN: Impossible, Walter. The body was wrapped in sheets, at Parkland Hospital. So that just can't be, Walter. This really does remind me of those silly peope who thought the Titanic was hit by an iceberg.  Perhaps there  is some other explanation for why a witness would say something like that.

CRONKITE: I hate to interrupt you, Von Pain, but we've got more breaking news from Bethesda. Take it away, Nancy Hotstuff.

Nancy: Yes, Walter; well now we've received reports that when the body bag was opened, and the President's body was placed on the table, it was clear that the brain had been removed; and also, according to two FBI agents, a source informs us that the two autopsy doctors have said that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

CRONKITE: Von Pain, what do you think of that?

VON PAIN: Impossible, Walter, these doctors are just confused.

CRONKITE: But an FBI source informs us that they wrote down what one of the doctor's said.

VON PAIN: I  know, but this goes back to the confusion with the Titanic. Listen, I have a source that tells me that one of the doctors had just returned from the barber that afternoon, and when he entered the morgue, the other one --Humes, I think his name was said, "I say there Boswell, that's some hair cut.  Quite a severe hair cut there, my friend. Looks like you've had some "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of your skull!"   You see, Walter, these FBI agents are not very well trained, they just make notes about what they heard, so all this is just one big misunderstanding.

CRONKITE: Like the Titanic.

VON PAIN: Yes, just like the Titanic.

CRONKITE: Well thank you, David Von Pain, and now we're going to back to Bethesda, and now to the front of the hospital, where the naval ambulance has arrived with the Dallas coffin.  But Nancy, just a minute. . didn't the body already arrive?

END OF TRANSCRIPT

DSL (contd): So you see, DVP, this is the sort of thing you should be looking for, and when you find it, I do hope you will post it on your YouTube site.  And you will go down in history, as having shown that all of the data about multiple coffins is just one big misunderstanding. . . you know, like the Titanic.


And now, I'll let you have the last word, DVP, because you spout so much wisdom.

DVP:  And I'd also have to ask -- If the plotters KNEW that Kennedy's body had been taken out of an expensive ornamental casket in Dallas (and they surely knew that, right?), then why on Earth would they have placed JFK in some el-cheapo pinkish-gray "shipping" casket for the entry at Bethesda? Didn't the plotters think anybody would notice the (huge) difference in casket types? Or didn't they think anybody would care--or report the differences?

DSL: Well, no David, I guess they weren't that bright. Or maybe things had gone wrong, and they were improvising under some extreme conditions.  

DVP:  The same logical question must also be asked about the body wrappings -- Why would anyone place JFK's body into a zipped body bag, when they knew he had been wrapped only in sheets when they swiped the body off of Air Force One in Dallas?

DSL . . Ah yes. . these questions you are asking are oh so profound.

DSL
5/9/13; 2:35 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California




-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 10:53:13 PM by David Lifton »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2412


Bumped for James G.:

Quote from: James Gordon
Although I have not listed the quote by you, you do refer to the essence of the problem. David Lifton, having studied the case for nigh on 50 years has come across such discrepancies that the only rational answer he can come to is that at some point there had to be some intrusion into the case.

That is a very rational argument. It is an argument that you acknowledge. However your answer is that “there must be some other explanation for this contradiction.” And nothing more than that!!!!!

Well, James, let me ask you this question:

Do you believe that Mr. Lifton's "body alteration" and "casket switching" theories are true?

If not, then you and I are in the same boat -- i.e., not believing Lifton's theory but not knowing exactly what the explanation is for the contradictory witness statements either.


-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 12:47:44 PM by David Von Pein »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2412


Quote from: David S. Lifton
I'm starting to think that I really was wrong in assuming Bugliosi was writing (or vetting) your text, because what passes for "reasoning" is so sophomoric it is truly an embarrassment.

Why on Earth anyone would be silly enough to think that Mr. Bugliosi writes or "vets" my Internet posts is anyone's guess. But it's a really stupid suggestion, David. Vince doesn't have the slightest idea what I'm writing on the Internet. And I haven't a clue as to why you would think he does (or ever has). ~big shrug~

Maybe you should ask Pat Lambert. After all, she's another person you were 100% wrong about when it comes to the topics of "writing for other people" and "ghostwriting" and "Vincent Bugliosi".

For those who aren't aware of this hilarious story -- David Lifton, on As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, decided to go on Len Osanic's Black Op (Conspiracies 'R Us) Radio show and claim that "False Witness" author Patricia Lambert had practically written all (or certainly most) of Vincent Bugliosi's 90-page chapter about the Jim Garrison case and Oliver Stone's movie.

After learning about Lifton's crackpot "ghostwriting" charges, Pat Lambert made a statement in early July 2007, in which she said she had not written a single sentence (or word) of Mr. Bugliosi's book. AFAIK, however, Mr. Lifton has never offered up a public apology to Ms. Lambert.

What was that you were preaching to me in your last post, DSL -- about "ethics"? (Geesh.)

More on Lifton's "Ghostwriting" follies here ---> As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Now, let's see what other comic antics "Mr. Body Alteration" has in store for Davey tonight.....



Quote
Your writing indicates you really do not function logically.

Says the guy who thinks it's MORE "logical" to think that President Kennedy was shot by NO BULLETS FROM BEHIND and also believes JFK's body was pilfered RIGHT OFF OF AIR FORCE ONE by unknown plotters and the BODY ALTERED.



Please continue, Mr. Alteration.....



Quote
There is nothing physically impossible about taking the President's body out of the casket and moving it elsewhere on the plane, especially if the order to do so comes from "higher authority."  What you seem to be avoiding is the fact that the body was in the coffin when the coffin was placed aboard Air Force One (at 2:18 CST) but could not possibly have been in the coffin when AF-1 landed (at 6 PM) because the body arrived at Bethesda, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, (at 6:35 PM) about 20 minutes prior to the Dallas casket, which arrived in the naval ambulance at 6:55 PM.

Oh, my weak bladder!!

And the funniest part about all this is -- David L. really believes it!





Quote
Instead of sputtering and filling the Internet with insults, why not address the evidence?

Says the man who thinks Kennedy WASN'T SHOT FROM BEHIND AT ALL.

Yeah, David S. Lifton of Los Angeles really knows how to "address the evidence" in the JFK case alright.

(I had no idea Mr. Lifton was a drinking man. But after reading this post of his--including the Cronkite/"Hotstuff"/"Von Pain" simulation, I have no choice but to think that his cupboard is brim full with empty Jack Daniels bottles. Gee, and I thought I had a lot of free time to write stuff on the Internet. Since joining Duncan MacRae's forum, Lifton's got everybody beat in the "free time" category, it would seem.)





Quote
So you see, DVP, this is the sort of thing you should be looking for, and when you find it, I do hope you will post it on your YouTube site.  And you will go down in history, as having shown that all of the data about multiple coffins is just one big misunderstanding. . . you know, like the Lusitania.

Was your Walter Cronkite/Comedy Central routine supposed to offer some kind of PROOF that no other casket entries were made at Bethesda on the night of November 22, 1963, David? If so, I must have missed that "proof".

And didn't you say the other day (and perhaps even in your book, "Best Evidence") that you think perhaps a THIRD casket entry occurred at Bethesda that night? Care to go for four?

What was in the third (and fourth?) casket, David? Kennedy's brain? Luncheon snacks for Humes and Company? What?

In closing, let's bask in the Pot/Kettle nature of this gem penned this evening by one David S. Lifton on the west coast:

"Your writing indicates you really do not function logically." -- DSL; 5/9/13

Now, after having read the above comment, can anyone here even begin to imagine the gall and monster-sized gonads it would take for someone who claims that President Kennedy was not shot by ANY BULLETS FROM BEHIND to make the statement I just quoted above?

Absolutely mind-boggling.

BTW -- Does anybody wonder how David Lifton reconciles the Main Street curb damage and James Tague's slight cheek injury within a theory that has ALL of the shots coming from the FRONT of the President's car? (Not to mention the limo damage done to the windshield and the chrome strip.)

But, maybe Lifton can now backpedal a little bit and claim that a shot WAS fired from the "rear", and that this "missed" shot hit Tague and the Main Street curb.

Or, maybe DSL thinks that the "real killers" on the Knoll were really wanting to kill James T. Tague down by the Underpass. I like that theory myself. Maybe DSL can postulate that one sometime. Because you gotta wonder how any Grassy Knoll shooters could be such lousy shots as to hit Tague by the Underpass when they were supposedly aiming at Kennedy in the middle of Elm Street.

No worries, though -- David S. Lifton must certainly have a very good (and ultra-logical) theory to account for the Tague wounding, within his current theory of "JFK & Connally Suffered No Injuries From Any Rear Gunmen".

Anyway, I think it's quite obvious by this time that Mr. Lifton belongs in the "Pot/Kettle" Hall-of-Fame (based on just the last quote I cited above--all by itself) -- right next to James DiEugenio, also of Los Angeles. How fitting.


-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 02:02:09 PM by David Von Pein »

   ReplyReply
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 29


Jump to:  

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963

JFK Assassination Photographs Gallery

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines