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?
April 27, 2017, 09:53:55 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] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)  (Read 7222 times)
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52


On the London Education Forum, David Von Pein recently cited the existence of witnesses to someone firing a weapon from the SE corner 6th Floor window and challenged me to defend my position that, based on such evidence, I was wrong in asserting that President Kennedy was struck only from the front (which derives from my reading of the Dallas medical reports and testimony).  

Here is the reply that I wrote--written to DVP, but also directed at Bugliosi.

TO: DVP (and Vince Bugliosi, who I am sure will be reading this):

I do not think you (or your pal Vince Bugliosi) have ever understood what the Kennedy murder was all about. You both seem to view it as a simple homicide. But it was not. It was not simply about "killing the President"; It was about murdering the President and getting away with it.

That could not have been accomplished by simply firing shots and leaving the evidence undisturbed, because the evidence, in that case, would have pointed to the guilty party.

And by "the evidence," I am referring to the standard view of "the evidence" in this case. Surely you are familiar with that "evidence": The rifle, the shells, etc.

So that's  why, in this case, the evidence had to be altered,messed with, replaced, substituted, planted, choose your own terms; and that's why the standard techniques of investigation did not (and will not) work in this case. Critical evidence has been changed, and replaced with a false overlay, if you will.

Some of that was done before the actual shooting (and I'm referring here to the creation of the so-called "sniper's nest"); and some afterwards (e.g., the planting of a bullet on a stretcher, or bullet fragments in the presidential limousine).

Unfortunately for you and your pal, Vince Bugliosi (who I suspect vets most of your posts, assuming he does not provide actual draft materials for your posts) he views Dealey Plaza (and Oswald) as if he were retrying the Manson case. A madman was responsible; a psycho named Oswald.

But Oswald was not Charlie Manson, and Vince Bugliosi doesn't seem to understand that. And I doubt he ever will.

If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) --all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter.

Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage.

If the President's body was altered (i.e., if the wounds were altered, and bullets removed.) then there were two distinctly separate functions operative in this murder plot--the first, to kill the President; the second, to alter the medical data--i.e., the medical information--so as to change the legal facts as to how he died. The first has to do with the murder; the second, with the cover-up. The first has to do with Kennedy's shooting; the second, with a plan to carry out an elaborate scheme designed to obstruct justice. That's why I have said that in approaching the issue "what happened in Dallas?",  a collateral question must first be addressed: Was the body altered?   Was there a plan to deceive subsequent investigation?

Not: would I plan a crime this way? That is not the issue, DVP (or Mr. Bugliosi). No one cares how you would have planned the crime. That's irrelevant. Rather, the issue is: what happened in this case?

Do you (Bugliosi) think that what you "would have done" supercedes in importance the evidence of what actually happened in this case?

Someone like yourself, (DVP) or Vincent Bugliosi apparently cannot grasp this concept, and/or simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of the critically important evidence of body alteration (which is the tell-tale sign that there was a serious strategic deception employed in connection with this murder). That would be like refusing to face the fact, in a complex financial transaction, that certain key documents are forgeries, refusing to face the fact that an embezzlement occurred, and insisting on investigating the crime as a normal bank robbery.

But just because Buliogsi wants to play "deaf and dumb" to the contrary evidence does not mean we must follow him down that absurd path.

Why? Because he wrote Helter Skelter?

Why? Because he often behaves like a sneering bully?

So back to basics: what is the answer to this critically important question? Was the body altered? Or not?

That evidence is plentiful, and is the subject of my 32 chapter book Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of President Kennedy first released in January, 1981, and then re-published by three more  publishers in the years following. In all, Best Evidence was published by four publishers, was a New York Times best seller, and a Book of the Month Selection. It remained in print for 17 years (and will be published again).

Moreover, if you wish to go "beyond the text"  and judge the demeanor of the witnesses, then view the 37 minute documentary film that I produced in 1989: the Best Evidence Research Video, based on the witnesses responses to my questions put to the them over 30 years ago in interviews that were filmed in October, 1980, about a year after my original telephone interviews, and just prior to the January, 1981 release of my book.

In your post, you (or Bugliosi, perhaps) ask: "please. . explain to me what was going through the collective minds and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they deliberately tried to frame a guy in the depository by firing only from the knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake."

" . . all just nuts. . .";  ". . only a total lunatic. . . " ?

Oh pleez. . .

Please spare us the histrionics. This constant hand-wringing. This "Oh my Gosh. . do you really mean it? ";  "Can you really believe this?";  "Oh my gosh. . please explain! " Etc etc.

Grow up and face the true legal record in this case--and what it really states, not what you or Bugliosi believe it ought to be were either of you planning President Kennedy's murder.

Now back to your anguished question(s) and your anguished appeal that I respond . . . :

Sorry, but I already did, in  Best Evidence, which was published in January, 1981. A book which was covered on two full pages in Time magazine, not as a book review, but as a news story. An article in the National Affairs section of Time which noted that this was the first time questions had been raised about the "the deceptive handling of the body."

You bet. (And that's a polite way of stating it.)

As to how and why it may have been planned that way, see my chapter laying it all out, and which is titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception"

There you can read the logic of such a plan. Its all laid out, simple enough for a child to understand. Simple enough even for anyone who went to law school to understand; and certainly simple enough for someone who tried Charlie Manson to understand.

There it is explained why it would be sensible to fire a weapon from one direction, while creating what is tantamount to a diversion designed to create a false public perception as to the origin of the shots. There it is laid out that support for this hypothesis comes from the existing record, where just about all the Dallas doctors, who saw the body before alteration, all said that the shots came from the front.  Moreover, there is also laid out the rather peculiar behavior of certain Dallas Police officers who, according to the DPD tapes, immediately (and rather prematurely) radio'd observations calling attention to the sniper's nest, yet (officers who) were never able to produce the identity of the supposed "witness" who provided that information.

You (and/or VB) can bluster and scream and wail and cry all you wish, but I suggest you stop throwing a tantrum, because it comes down to three questions that must be addressed:

(1) Was the body intercepted?

(2) Were the wounds altered?

(3) Was this planned in advance, or was it an ad hoc cover-up?

Here are the facts:

a) Was President Kennedy's body intercepted? Is there evidence of that?

Answer:

Yes, there certainly is such evidence and, in the words of an experienced investigative reporter who held a top position at CBS network news, said it was "courtroom quality evidence."

Read the chapters concerning all that in Best Evidence, or get a copy of the video and, in 37 minutes, watch the contrasting accounts of Aubrey Rike, who put the President's body, in a 400 pound ($4k) elegant bronze coffin in Dallas; versus the account of Bethesda witnesses who know that it arrived in a shipping casket;

Read the accounts (or see the video) that the body left Dallas wrapped in sheets, but arrived at Bethesda (inside that shipping casket) inside a body bag.

Really, I don't have the time to spoon feed you (or Bugliosi) evidence which has been published 30 years ago, and which has been filmed and even shown on YouTube.

So you can stop the hand-wringing, chest thumping, the raised eyebrows, the screams, the cries, and all the theatrical angst: those are the facts.

Furthermore, the time sequence (of arrivals at Bethesda Naval Hospital) proves the case.

It is a fact that the body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 P.M. EST, twenty minutes before the coffin (in the naval ambulance, which arrived at 6:55 PM): that is attested to by the accounts of Dennis David, Don Rebentisch, and the Boyajian document ("18:35," or 6:35 PM).
 
TV producer Stanhope Gould, who handled the Watergate coverage for Walter Cronkite at the CBS network, worked on this material, re-filmed much of it for a 60 minute documentary on KRON-TV (in San Francisco and its sister station in St Louis). He told the San Francisco newspapers in the fall of 1988 that David Lifton had developed --and filmed-- "courtroom quality evidence" that established that the President's body had been intercepted.

 Let me repeat that for the benefit of Mr. Vince Bugliosi: "courtroom quality evidence."

Do either of you understand what that means? Or are you both so self-involved, and so wedded to the "Oswald hypothesis" that you just are incapable of understanding what the evidence indicates in this case?

So please, DVP (and please, Vincent Bugliosi) you can cut out the histrionics, the squeals and cries of disbelief, and just examine the evidence.

Mr. Bugliosi: You're a lawyer, right?
You went to law school right?
You understand what a chain of possession is, and its importance?
And you think, in light of this evidence, that President Kennedy's body  was not intercepted?

Oh pleez. . .

But let's now move on to the next question. . .

(b ) Was the body altered--i.e., were the wounds altered? (Is there evidence of that?)
Yes, there is. Plenty of such evidence, both in the area of the head and neck.
And that, too, is laid out, chapter and verse, in Best Evidence.

In Chapter 11 ("The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda")  is laid out the evidence that the small penetrating wound of the neck, through which Dr. Perry made a "2-3 cm" trach incision, became --by the time the official autopsy commenced at Bethesda--a horizontal gash that Humes testified was "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges." By the time the body reached Bethesda, there was no evidence whatsoever of the underlying wound which had been there--that, according to the testimony of Commander James Humes, who conducted the autopsy.  All he had was that horizontal gash. There was no remaining evidence of the original ound that had been there, even though Dr. Malcolm Perry said publicly that he ahd left the wound "inviolate"!
 

In Chapter 13 ("The Head Wound: Dallas vs. Bethesda") is the evidence that the wound size dramatically increased by some 400% percent between Dallas and Bethesda. In Dallas, that wound was the size of “a hen’s egg” and located at the bottom of the back of the head. The cerebellum, at the underside of the brain, “protruded” through that wound. At Bethesda, the wound had increased dramatically in size, and extended all the way to the top and forward-right hand side of the head.  I’m well aware that some students of this case believe that this was the result of photo forgery—but I’ve interviewed the doctors who dealt with the body—not with photos of the body—and the descriptive discrepancy is rooted in two different views of President Kennedy’s body, regardless of whether photos were also altered in this case.

c) Was this planned in advance? Or was it an ad hoc coverup?

This requires some analysis; and it could go either way--at least that's what I thought when I first addressed this problem back in December, 1966.

In either case, it would be a horrific obstruction of justice.

Even if it was an ad hoc "after-the-fact" plan, it would still be awful and of course extremely important. But I don't believe it was ad hoc. Not at all. I didn't believe it when I wrote Best Evidence, and I don't believe it now. And my reasons are spelled out in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence - - "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception."

This chapter describes what, in effect, was tantamount to the "geometric algorithm" that could have been used to deceive future investigation--even if the precise details of the wounding was not known in advance.

In Best Evidence, I argued that case based on "wound geometry": specifically,  based on the medical records from 1963-64, not a single doctor or nurse, in Dallas, saw any back wound.  And  I can assure you with the publication of my next work, my analysis will go beyond "wound geometry," and the answer will still be "yes." Without a doubt: the alteration of President Kennedy's body was pre-planned, and an integral part of the overall assassination plot.

But for now, let's just briefly recap the way I approached the issue in Best Evidence.

The question really boils down to (c ): if there were no rear entries, then this was clearly planned in advance. Because If there were no rear entries, then this was a "designer shooting."  Based on the medical reports (and testimony) from JFK's treatment in Dallas, there were in fact no rear entries.  None, based on my interviews with the Dallas nurses: no wounds on the rear surface of Kennedy's body.

Re Governor Connally

 I am well aware that Connally was shot--and I believe that most students of this case would agree that his shooting was an unexpected event.  My research in the Connally area goes back to 1967, when I interviewed Dr. Charles Gregory (who was in charge of Connally's wrist surgery),  and Dr. Robert Shaw (who was in charge of his chest).  In addition, there is my in-person tape recorded interview (1982, about six months before her death) with Nurse Doris Nelson who was the first nurse to attend to Connally;  and, in addition, I have two interviews--one, an in-person taped interview, and another a detailed filmed interview--with  another nurse who played a significant role of the Connally medical treatment. No, I do not believe the official conclusion that Connally was shot "once from behind," and will be dealing with this whole matter in Final Charade.

The wounding of Governor Connally, and the cover-up that occurred in that area in no way affects my conclusions about the covert interception of JFK's body, the removal of bullets from his body, and the alteration of wounds--all of this done in order to create false autopsy conclusions about the gunshot trajectories in this case.

THE CONVERSATIONS Dr. HUMES (at Bethesda) HAD WITH PERRY (in Dallas) - 11/23/63:

Buttressing the case for medical alteration --and the Bethesda doctors keen awareness that this had occurred--is  what Dr. Humes asked Dr. Perry when he called him late that night: "Did you make any wounds in the back?"

And then there is the other question he asked him: "Why did you do a tracheotomy?" As [Bethesda medical technician] Paul O'Connor, who said the body arrived with an empty cranium, commented during a filmed interview: "You wouldn't do a craniotomy on a man without a brain."

 (DSL FYI: A craniotomy --i.e., a clinical craniotomy--is a surgical exploration of the head, done during life. A "pathological craniotomy" is surgery of the head done in death, e.g., in connection with an autopsy.)

In other words, O'Connor could not understand the anomalous state of the body--an empty cranium, plus a wide gash that was supposed to be trach incision (!). But how could that be? he wondered.   Why would anyone do a trach on a person without a brain?  Someone who was obviously dead? Etc. He was genuinely confused, and I captured all that on camera.

But of course, you would like to ignore all this. The evidence of interception, the evidence of wound alteration, the evidence of what was said when Dr. Humes first saw the body--all of it.  Like ostriches, the two of you insist on sticking your head(s) in the sand and pretending such evidence doesn't exist.

 

So of course the body was altered, and the doctors at Bethesda recognized that. Immediately. That's why Dr. Humes said--and this was written down by the two FBI agents witnessing the beginning of the autopsy--that it was "apparent" that there had been"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

 

No such "surgery" had been done in Dallas.

 

And when, later in the examination, someone showed up in the autopsy room and handed Dr. Humes a large piece of bone from President Kennedy's skull, the two agents recorded what was said to Humes at the time: that this had "been removed."  So yes, as JFK researcher Paul Hoch wrote decades ago, there was a perception in the autopsy room that there had been "surgery" prior to the commencement of the official autopsy.

But of course, you would like to ignore all this. The evidence of interception, the evidence of wound alteration, the evidence of what was said when Dr. Humes first saw the body--all of it.

Moreover, you would also like to ignore this critical data, even though the FBI internal documents I located (via FOIA) and quoted from in Chapter 12 of Best Evidence ("An Oral Utterance") confirm that, in 1966, agent James Sibert re-affirmed that what he (and O'Neill) wrote in the FBI report was a faithful and accurate account of what Dr. Humes said, at the outset of the autopsy. Still further, you persist in ignoring what is written there even though both FBI Agent Sibert and O'Neill were each called to testify before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1997, and re-affirmed, under oath, that that is what Humes said.

But you (DVP) and your pal (Bugliosi) don't like any of that, do you?

DVP: You note that I once called you a liar.  I'll make you a deal: stop making these grandiose sweeping (and completely false) statements that there is no "evidence" (when clearly there is), and I'll stop characterizing your statements in that fashion.   But if you insist on making these false statements that "2 and 2 equals 5," then don't expect me to believe you're reacting to the existing record with honesty and integrity.

But let's now return to what seems to be one of the "main points" of your post.

You ask: what about the witnesses who saw someone poking a rifle out of the sixth floor, or appearing to fire one?

What a pathetic rebuttal. (But so glad you asked, because the answer is perfectly clear--and already laid out in my book.  Did you bother to read it?)

If so, then you certainly know that I never denied any of that evidence.  To the contrary, I accepted it (and still do). And I have studied those accounts most carefully. Not only that, on one of my visits to Dallas, I interviewed Harold Norman, on site, in Dealey Plaza.

If the wounds were inflicted from the front (only), then what you're witnessing on the sixth floor of the TSBD is a diversion. Is that so difficult to grasp? (Are you so wedded to the idea that Oswald was a murderer that you cannot conceive of a plan to frame him for a crime he did not commit?)

Mr. Bugliosi: Are you so (hopelessly) wedded to your life experience (with regard to the Manson case) that you must view Oswald (and Dealey Plaza) through that lens?

But that's absurd.

Here's your choice: either one accepts that there's a gunman up there, or it's a decoy. Agreed? Its one or the other. Can't be both (agreed?)

To repeat: I have never rejected any of the witnesses. To the contrary, I have studied them carefully, and believe that they are truthful about what they saw.

Are either of you saying you cannot conceive of that? That as the presidential limousine proceeded down Elm Street, a diversion was carried out with regard to the sniper's nest, while the real shots were fired from another location?  (Please do tell me, because if the answer is “yes,” I’ll try looking up some old Western’s on the Internet, which show how ambushes work, and which I will commend for you to study. .  .to raise your level of awareness. . . Let's see. . . "Hopalong Cassidy". .  the Lone Ranger. . even John Wayne. . surely you know how ambushes often work--not only in old western movies, but in real-life military situations.  (Do you need instruction in such matters?  If so, let me know; and I'll find you a tutor.)

 

I think your problem, Vince Bugliosi (but also DVP) is a failure to think conceptually.

Because if you did, you would tone down the incredulity, tone down the histrionics (and name calling) which pervade your book (and, DVP, your web site(s)) and perhaps be able to understand and differentiate between facts, and artifacts in this case.


FACTS VERSUS ARTIFACTS

The facts are that the body was altered.

The artifacts are primarily the elements of the phoney sniper's nest.

 

As CBS-TV producer Stanhope Gould stated to the media, circa 1988 (after going over the ground covered in Best Evidence and re-filming the same witnesses): David Lifton has developed "courtroom quality evidence" on that point.

To those reading this post: someone I know took a law class from Mr. Bugliosi some decades back, at a small West Los Angeles law school before he became "rich and famous" as a result of the Manson case. His observations:

"He's no dummy, but he's not that smart, either. He was very anal, and very linear. A 'by the book' kind of guy."

I tend to agree. And its easy to see how he became involved with the JFK case.

First, there was Helter Skelter (not exactly a profound mystery as to who as responsible); and then Vince was offered the job of being the prosecutor on "Trial of Oswald", in London, and distributed by Showtime here in this country.

 

So there he was, "prosecuting" Oswald, and on national TV (via Showtime) day after day, week after week.

Unfortunately, for Vince B., and when it came to Dallas: he was attracted to the appearance, not the reality; to the artifacts, and so he missed the facts.

The artifacts, for the most part, are those items --really "props"--that create the appearance that Oswald shot the President. And they certainly qualify as "artifacts" if the President's wounds were altered, and the autopsy results falsified. (And by "autopsy results," I'm referring to bullet trajectories).

To get beyond the artifacts, and to the facts, you have to think conceptually.

You have to address the authenticity of the evidence.

You have to look at the evidence critically, take into account all the data, and grasp the fact that a disguise was in force at the time of the assassination.

A philosophy instructor whose lecture I once attended once tried to explain what that means. He offered the following illustration.

THINKING CONCEPTUALLY. . .

A lecturer is standing before the class, and he begins his lecture...
He says, "There were three men in a boat. . . ";

A student raises his hand, interrupting, and shouts, "Which boat?"

Yes, he really asked that: which boat?

When I first heard that, I burst out laughing. What a great example.

Perhaps the two of you can benefit from that example, because I sometimes wonder about your collective ability to grasp abstractions.

All to often, you both behave like the guy that stands up and proudly advertises his inability to think conceptually by shouting "Which boat?"

Try thinking conceptually.

Try thinking abstractly.

AN EXERCISE TO PONDER

Here's an exercise to ponder: you want to shoot the President.

How are you going to do it, and get away with it?

Think about it, fellas.

And then consider all the evidence that, in this case, the body was altered.

What it means is that this was no ordinary murder.

I shouldn't have to tell you that, but it bears repeating.

Someone came up with the idea of falsifying the facts of the case.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Nothing's easy, but it can be done (and apparently was done, in this case).

That means killing the President and then changing the facts about how he died.

Is that a concept too hard to grasp?

Stop approaching this case like the guy that raises his hand, in class, and exclaims:

"Which boat?!"

The President was killed and the truth is not known because bullets were removed and wounds altered prior to autopsy.

That's what happened in this case.

 The victim’s body—the most critical evidence in this case (or in any murder),  evidence that normally could (and would) be relied upon to provide a fount of reliable data and a legal foundation for ascertaining the basic facts—was corrupted.

That's why an old and decrepit rifle the police recovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD appears to be the murder weapon.

Your 1500 page book , Vince, is a monument to your obstinacy, your ego, and, unfortunately, your gullibility; because you have accepted falsified evidence as real. Because of that, you took seriously the false version of history that was created on 11/22/63, by Kennedy's murderers, to hide the truth about how he died; falsified evidence which then became legal foundation for concluding that Lee Oswald was Kennedy's assassin.

You swallowed all that hook, line and sinker.

Stop ignoring the evidence, Vince.

Stop behaving like someone standing up and exclaiming: "Which boat?!"

This was a body-centric plot.

President Kennedy was a person to be killed; and then his body was treated like a target to be altered.

That's why Commander Humes called Dr. Perry that night and asked: "Did you make any wounds in the back?"

That's why Dr. Humes said--in front of two FBI agents--that when the body as first viewed, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

That’s why the FBI also reported that the autopsy doctors, when they first examined the body, “were at a loss to explain” why “they could find no bullets.”

All of this sailed right by the Warren Commission and that's why their conclusions are wrong, even though they are based, supposedly, on the "best evidence."

They did their work in 1964, and I can understand why they may have been deceived.

But you came along years later. Many years later. Four years after the 1981 publication of Best Evidence.

Why can't you "get it"? The issue is not who put the bullets into the President's body, but who took them out.

If you persist in ignoring the plentiful evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted and altered, and that's how the autopsy results in this case were falsified, you will persist in making false pronouncements about this case.

You will persist in bragging about the "50 plus things" that prove Oswald was guilty, always turning away from the truth, and blind to the fact that your entire edifice is built --legally speaking--on  a foundation of sand.

You will persist in failing to recognize the importance of the evidence of interception.

You will persist in failing to recognize the serious obstruction of justice that followed the President's murder.

You will fail to understand that by the time the President's body arrived at Bethesda, and certainly by the start of the official autopsy, a second crime had occurred, a serious obstruction of justice.

You will persist in claiming that Oswald shot the President, which is both silly and false.

You will not have "reclaimed history" at all, and you are seriously self-deluded if that's what you think you have accomplished.

To the contrary: you will go down in history as a prosecutor who became famous because of the Manson case, but who, in the case of President Kennedy (which is far more complex) was duped by a disguise. Someone who, viewed historically, became an enabler of the plotters.

Let me remind you of the cautionary note spoken by Lee Oswald, to his brother, during their brief jailhouse visit, the day before he was murdered while in police custody:

"Do not form any opinion on the so-called evidence."  (1 WCH 468)

That is advice you ought to heed while you sit on your porch in retirement, smug and comfortable in your waning years, while you believe you have arrived at the truth.

You're under a serious misapprehension if that's what you think you have accomplished.

You have not done that at all.

You have simply demonstrated that, with all your training in the law (or perhaps because of it?), you were incapable of distinguishing the false from the real.

DSL
5/4/13 7 PM
Los Angeles, California[/s]


-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 08:39:41 AM by David Lifton »

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 7091


You have used a special control charter, left bracket, s and right bracket , that begins strikethrough of all following text until the [/s] construction.

I suggest that you replace left bracket, s and right bracket by (s).

Herbert







-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 03:15:50 AM by Herbert Blenner »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 4446

"The human mind is our fundamental resource." JFK


 thumbs1xx

Bravo

 Mr. Lifton


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

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2412


Quote from: David Lifton
If the wounds were inflicted from the front (only), then what you're witnessing on the sixth floor of the TSBD is a diversion. Is that so difficult to grasp?

But David Lifton seems to totally ignore the VERIFIABLE FACT that he is DEAD WRONG about the wounds only being inflicted from the FRONT.

The idea that NO shots struck either the President or Governor Connally from behind is so unbelievably wrong, false, and utterly STUPID, I don't really need to say anything more.

And it's not just JFK who was PROVABLY struck TWICE from behind with rifle bullets, but it's also John Connally too, who was PROVABLY struck one time from BEHIND.

Why do you, David Lifton, feel the need to totally ignore Dr. Robert R. Shaw's statements and testimony? And what about Gov. Connally HIMSELF? Connally never once even HINTED that he was shot from any other direction than FROM BEHIND. He felt a bullet hit him in the upper back and he always said it "felt like someone hit me with a balled-up fist" -- IN THE BACK, which had to have come FROM BEHIND the Governor at the time he was hit.

Question for Mr. Lifton -- Has even ONE other human being on the face of this planet called "Earth" said they agree with your theory about NO shots at all striking JFK or John Connally FROM BEHIND? If one such other person exists on this planet, please provide his name, because I've never heard about him.


Quote from: David Lifton
So of course the body was altered, and the doctors at Bethesda recognized that. Immediately. That's why Dr. Humes said--and this was written down by the two FBI agents witnessing the beginning of the autopsy--that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

The "surgery of the head area" crap is yet another myth that Mr. Lifton, like a child named Linus who can't bear the thought of getting rid of his trusty security blanket, refuses to let go of.

Perhaps you, Mr. Lifton, haven't heard the 2005 C-Span interview below with James W. Sibert, who was one of those two FBI agents who witnessed portions of JFK's autopsy at Bethesda:

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

Of particular interest during the interview are several portions of Mr. Sibert's detailed re-telling of the things he witnessed during President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda, such as when Sibert talks about the "surgery of the head area" remark made by lead autopsy surgeon James J. Humes, with Sibert laying to rest the incorrect speculation about this remark.

And there's also the important details revealed by Sibert concerning the bullet fragments that he saw that night in 1963, i.e., the two very small metal fragments that were removed from President Kennedy's brain and then handed over to Sibert and placed in a glass jar.

The size of these small fragments, as repeated by Sibert during the 2005 interview, measured 7x2 millimeters and 3x1 millimeters.

The verbatim quote shown below should put to rest the erroneous idea that any whole (or nearly-whole) "missile" was recovered during any part of JFK's autopsy on 11/22/63 (regardless of the word "missile" appearing in a report filed by Sibert and fellow FBI agent Francis X. O'Neill after the autopsy):

"There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during this autopsy that was found." -- James W. Sibert; June 30, 2005

The so-called "missile" handled by Sibert & O'Neill on Nov. 22 consisted of very small FRAGMENTS of metal removed from JFK's head -- fragments only. How do we know this for an absolute ironclad fact? Two reasons:

1.) Dr. Humes, et al, were searching desperately during the autopsy for a bullet (or bullets)--ANY signs of a bullet or bullets!--inside JFK's body. They found NONE. Zero. Zilch. Only the small fragments in the head. Nothing else. Nothing.

And:

2.) No whole "bullet" (or nearly-whole bullet) was entered into evidence by Sibert, O'Neill, or anybody else connected in any way to JFK's autopsy. The only whole bullet in the entire case is CE399. Period. And that wasn't found at Bethesda.

If a whole "bullet" (or "missile") had been found at Bethesda, then that bullet would be part of the evidence on the table in this case TODAY. The reason that none of the three autopsists testified to seeing a whole bullet during the autopsy is because no such "bullet" exists....and never did.

The 2005 interview with Sibert also pretty much (all by itself) destroys the credibility of David Lifton and his fairy-tale book "Best Evidence", inasmuch as Lifton relied very heavily on the observations of FBI agent Sibert to try and support a good chunk of the nonsensical "body alteration" assassination theory that appears in that book.

But, as Sibert explains in no uncertain terms during his 2005 interview, the "surgery of the head area" remark made by Dr. Humes was not referring to any type of covert "surgery" done by evil conspirators prior to the Bethesda autopsy (which is covert surgery that Mr. Lifton firmly believes did take place, in order to alter the wounds on the President's body). Listen to the 2005 interview and hear Sibert's explanation for the "surgery" remark.

So much for Mr. Lifton's "Best Evidence".


Quote from: David Lifton
(Are you so wedded to the idea that Oswald was a murderer that you cannot conceive of a plan to frame him for a crime he did not commit?)

To reciprocate:

Are you, David S. Lifton, so wedded to the impossible notion that Jack Kennedy's body was secretly stolen off of Air Force One and his wounds altered by an unknown group of conspirators on November 22, 1963, and so wedded to the additional foolish belief that every shot that hit the two limo victims came from in FRONT of the car, that you cannot even conceive (for even a moment) that your outlandish theories just MIGHT be inaccurate?

The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be MOLDED and CRAFTED into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case.

Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists.

And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer.

Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful".


-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 08:44:49 AM by David Von Pein »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2925


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


To reciprocate:

Are you, David S. Lifton, so wedded to the impossible notion that Jack Kennedy's body was secretly stolen off of Air Force One and his wounds altered by an unknown group of conspirators on November 22, 1963, and so wedded to the additional foolish belief that every shot that hit the two limo victims came from in FRONT of the car, that you cannot even conceive (for even a moment) that your outlandish theories just MIGHT be inaccurate?

The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be MOLDED and CRAFTED into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case.

Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists.

And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence is this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer.

Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful".



thumbs1xx

Absolutely. Does anyone believe the David Lifton stuff? Its been 50 yrs...I for one, do not.


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

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 7091


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


To reciprocate:

Are you, David S. Lifton, so wedded to the impossible notion that Jack Kennedy's body was secretly stolen off of Air Force One and his wounds altered by an unknown group of conspirators on November 22, 1963, and so wedded to the additional foolish belief that every shot that hit the two limo victims came from in FRONT of the car, that you cannot even conceive (for even a moment) that your outlandish theories just MIGHT be inaccurate?

The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be MOLDED and CRAFTED into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case.

Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists.

And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence is this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer.

Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful".



thumbs1xx

Absolutely. Does anyone believe the David Lifton stuff? Its been 50 yrs...I for one, do not.

Does anyone believe the Clark Panel stuff? Its been 45 yrs...I for one, do not.

Source: Clark Panel Report - page 7

Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head, the contours of which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the underlying calvarium. There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. (See description of X-ray films.) The long axis of this wound corresponds to the long axis of the skull. The wound was judged to be approximately six millimeters wide and 15 millimeters long. The margin of this wound shows an ill-defined zone of abrasion.

Source: Clark Panel Report - page 8

There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body.
A well defined zone of discoloration of the edge of the back wound, most pronounced on its upper and outer margins, identifies it as having the characteristics of the entrance wound of a bullet. The wound with its marginal abrasion measures approximately 7 mm. in width by 10 mm. in length. The dimensions of this cutaneous wound are consistent with those of a wound produced by a bullet similar to that which constitutes exhibit CE 399.

End of quotations.

According to these reports a bullet entered the scalp at a 66-degree incidence angle and another bullet entered the back at a 45-degree angle of incidence.

Herbert




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

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 601


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote from: David Lifton
If the wounds were inflicted from the front (only), then what you're witnessing on the sixth floor of the TSBD is a diversion. Is that so difficult to grasp?

But David Lifton seems to totally ignore the VERIFIABLE FACT that he is DEAD WRONG about the wounds only being inflicted from the FRONT.

The idea that NO shots struck either the President or Governor Connally from behind is so unbelievably wrong, false, and utterly STUPID, I don't really need to say anything more.

And it's not just JFK who was PROVABLY struck TWICE from behind with rifle bullets, but it's also John Connally too, who was PROVABLY struck one time from BEHIND.

Why do you, David Lifton, feel the need to totally ignore Dr. Robert R. Shaw's statements and testimony? And what about Gov. Connally HIMSELF? Connally never once even HINTED that he was shot from any other direction than FROM BEHIND. He felt a bullet hit him in the upper back and he always said it "felt like someone hit me with a balled-up fist" -- IN THE BACK, which had to have come FROM BEHIND the Governor at the time he was hit.

David,

You did not properly read what David Lifton said. the crucial sentence - which you correctly quoted - was prefaced with the word “if.”

David Lifton's point is that the critical shots were fired from another source, other than the back. You suggest that that those shots, fired from the back and referred to as a “diversion” - did not fire live rounds.

That is not what was said. David Lifton did not say live rounds were not fired from the rear: he simply said that the shots fired from that direction were a diversion to keep attention from the main source of shots.

In effect he is saying that shots were fired from both front and back - and that the most critical of those two sources were the shots being fired from the front.

I have no problems with that analysis.

If I have correctly understood what David Lifton has said, then it is clear you have misunderstood what he said.

James


-------------------------
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 09:34:37 AM by James Gordon »

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 3178


Until someone can come up with a plausible location for a front shooter, none of this matters, it's merely an intellectual exercise in possibilities. The GK, the sewer, these are dead ends.


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

   ReplyReply
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


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