Bump for Mr. David Lifton, whose silence speaks volumes.
You’re playing a shallow game of “gotcha,” and your logic is seriously faulty.
No, David. I demonstrated above, how seriously wrong your logic is in just *one footnote*. I really don't have the time or the inclination to go through your entire book that way. But it could be done. For example, you were confronted early on (as you describe in your book) with evidence that the Parkland doctors initial belief that the neck wound was one of entry was erroneous. Most people would understand that in conflicts like this, the eyewitness testimony is relatively low on the totem pole, and should be given lesser weight. You didn't do that, you treated it, and the autopsy evidence as *equally valid*. As far as I can tell, that is where your train of logic went off the tracks. Since they were equally valid, according to your thought processes, then there should be some way to reconcile the two disparate descriptions of the throat wound. You jumped the shark when you came up with the body alteration theory to explain it.
The evidence that Kennedy’s wounds were altered and bullets were removed prior to autopsy is quite independent of whether Connally’s medical treatment was entirely on the “up and up.”
Nope, as explained in my preceding posts in some detail, your argument is that all the shooters were in front of the President, and his wounds were altered to make it look like the shots came from behind. If the 'real shooters' were in front of the President, then Connally's wounds must be altered as well. Because they point to the rear as well. You cannot divorce the explanation for the assassination from the wounds to the governor.
Are you seriously suggesting that the architecture (or algorithm) which governed the alteration of President Kennedy’s wounds has to be the same as whatever happened to Connally (or even "if" anything happened to Connally) for the “Kennedy evidence” to be valid?
Oh pleez. . .
I'm seriously suggesting that your theory is flawed, as it has all the shooters in front of the President AND the Governor.
The alteration of Kennedy’s wounds is based on the data presented in Best Evidence.
You mean "The argument for
the alteration of Kennedy’s wounds is based on the data and faulty logic
presented in Best Evidence
I agree. And that argument is flawed by the fact that your argument puts all the shooters in front of the President. And in front of the Governor.
I have also presented in Best Evidence my belief as to the algorithm (or “blueprint”) that governed those alterations. Surely you are aware that nowhere in the Dallas medical reports or testimony is there any evidence of entry to the rear of President Kennedy’s body. That’s just a fact.
Hilarious. Confronted with the gaping head wound, and with their efforts to save the President's life ultimately in vain, they didn't take the time to examine back of the President at all. That is not evidence there was no wounds back there. That is evidence of faulty logic.
Question: If I didn't see the gunman at Patton & Tenth, does that mean there was no gunman at that location? Or does it mean I didn't see one there?
Likewise, if the doctors didn't turn the President over, and therefore didn't examine the President thoroughly, does that mean there was no wounds there, or does it mean they didn't see any wounds there?
Based on that data, I inferred that if the alteration of President Kennedy’s body was planned in advance (and was an integral part of the assassination plot, which I believe it was), then the over-all design was as described in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence, titled “Trajectory Reversal.”
You mean, "based on that faulty logic", [not data, David].
I stand by that analysis, and by my conclusions.
Yes, I understand that you still believe your faulty reasoning.
It is also a fact that Governor Connally was shot during the assassination. I hope you will agree that he was not a target of the assassins who shot President Kennedy. In other words, Governor Connally was shot unexpectedly.
The question then becomes: how did that happen?
Hilarious! The answer is simple -- a bullet designed to penetrate human flesh without deformation went through six inches of President's Kennedy's neck without deformation, and then struck Governor Connally, who was directly in the path of that bullet. That's how that happened. And you think this is complex, but your body alteration theory is the simple explanation?
I deliberately chose not to deal with the Connally shooting in Best Evidence, for a number of reasons.
Chief among them, no doubt, is the fact that to believe your theory means you must also believe the Governor's wounds were altered. And while arguing for the alteration of the dead President's wounds is one thing, arguing for the alteration of the living Governor's wounds is something else entirely. I see only two possibilities: Nellie altered them enroute to Parkland, or the Parkland doctors did it while pretending to operate on him to save his life. Let's hear your theory that explains this wound alteration to the Governor, as your theory of the shooting demands
, or admit you have nothing that sounds even half-way reasonable.
Let me assure you that I know quite a bit about it, and I do look forward to what others have to say—having myself interviewed two of the doctors who treated Connally (circa 1967), and two of the nurses (1982 and 1989, on camera).
So I think everyone should publish what they have, and then we’ll see who has connected the dots correctly.
Your theory makes no sense on its face, David. The necessary result of your theory is that the Governor's wounds were altered. Asked to explain it two decades ago, you punted. Asked to explain it now, you punt again. You can't score if you keep giving the ball away.
One thing I can assure you—and that is that your statement ( “So you either buy into the "Connally's wounds are altered" theory, or you understand his theory of the JFK wounds being altered likewise makes no sense.”) is illogical and, frankly, ridiculous.
No, David, your book makes it clear you think all the shooters were in front of the President. And therefore, in front of the Governor as well. It therefore follows from your own theory that the Governor's wounds MUST have been altered as well, since they point to a shooter above and behind the Governor. That is the necessary consequence of your own argument.
I know you think you’re the smartest kid in the class, but you’re going to lose. I stand by my statement that the shooting of Connally can be considered independently of the shooting of Kennedy.
Yeah, you said that already. But you haven't demonstrated in any fashion how they are independent, based on your own professed theory from BEST EVIDENCE.
There is no chapter in Best Evidence—which deals with the covert interception of President Kennedy’s body, and the alteration of the wounds—that requires that Connally’s wounds must have been altered.
Where does that "logic" --the kind you are promoting--come from?
Your own argument as quoted above says all the shooters were in front. Therefore, there is no way for the Governor to sustain legitimate wounds that point to the rear. Ergo, according to your own argument, his wounds must be altered, since his wounds point to a shooter above and behind the limo.
Even if there was a shooter behind President Kennedy, that would not change the fact that his body was intercepted and his wounds altered prior to autopsy.
Your own logic, previously quoted, shows that the conspirators would have a major issue with locating shooters behind the President, as they would have no way of knowing which bullets from which location made the entry wounds on the President or the Governor, and would have to retrieve those bullets.
That means, according to your logic, they would have to create fake exit wounds on the back to extract those bullets, and creating fake exit wounds on the back would point to a shooter from the front... so they couldn't have shooters behind the limo -- according to *your own argument*.
Look closely at what you are saying: it is logically flawed.
If Connally was indeed shot just the way the Warren Report states (“once from behind” etc.) that would not change in the least the evidence that President Kennedy’s body was intercepted and altered prior to autopsy.
Yes, it does. It exposes the whole argument as nonsense. I suspose Jame Tague also had his wound altered as well. Remember, he was far in front of the limo, and if he was struck by a bullet or a fragment of a bullet fired from in front of the limo, those shooters were some pretty lousy shots... or that was some serious deflection. Your theory makes no sense on a number of grounds, but right now we're just using the wounds to the Governor to expose it as complete nonsense.
If there was a shooter behind the Governor, your theory as advance in BEST EVIDENCE goes bye-bye, because you think the pre-autopsy alteration to the body was part of the planning for the assassination, and as you point out in the book, putting shooter(s) behind the President makes no sense if the plan was to alter the wounds.
Think about it: if there had been a trial of Lee Oswald, and the argument was made that the autopsy evidence could (and should) be thrown out because President Kennedy’s wounds had been altered, and so the autopsy could be impeached as evidence,
I'd love to see that argument advanced.
and if you appeared in such a trial as a hypothetical “friend of the court,” can you imagine what would happen if you stood before the judge and spoke your piece. Here's how it might unfold:
“But your honor. . I’m Hank Sienzant, Well Known Authority on All Matters Bearing on Kennedy’s Death. . . and I’m here to tell you that all this evidence that President Kennedy’s body was covertly intercepted, and the throat and the head wounds were altered. . your honor, it doesn’t mean a thing!
The Court: And why is that, Mr. Sienzant?
Sienzant: Because Governor Connally was shot from behind.
The Court: What’s that, sir?
Sienzant: Because Governor Connally was shot from behind!
The Court: But what does that have to do with whether Kennedy’s throat wound was altered? And whether Kennedy’s head wounds were altered?
Sienzant: Governor Connally was shot from behind! I insist on that!
The Court: Yes, I see that you do. But what is the relevance of that?
Sienzant: Don’t you see, your honor? If Governor Connally was shot from behind, then. . .
The Court: Then what? Mr. Sienzant? How does that change any of the data presented there that the Kennedy autopsy was fraudulent?
Sienzant: But I insist, your honor! Connally was shot from behind. Therefore. . .
The Court: Therefore what? Mr. Sienzant. Bailiff!! Will you please remove this man. He’s creating a disturbance.
* * *
Hilarious, David. I see you must mis-state my argument to try to rebut it. I also see you must stoop to ad hominem attacks on me instead of dealing with the evidence, and the arguments I present. Where I come from, straw arguments and ad hominems are two logical fallacies. But then, based on the content of your book, I didn't expect you to be able to utilize anything else to defend your argument of body alteration.
Anyway, Hank Sienzant, that’s my reaction to your argument about this matter. Its seriously flawed.
Yes, your argument and your reaction is seriously flawed (see how easy it is to advance a straw argument, David? Anyone can do it. I would expect you to cease and desist in the future from such nonsense.
FYI: These are two unrelated propositions. I agree: if Governor Connally was shot from the front, and if there was monkey business connected with his medical treatment, then yes, that would only strengthen the case that there was fraud in the case of President Kennedy’s medical treatment. No doubt about that. But even if Governor Connally’s medical treatment was absolutely fine and above board, that would NOT establish that there was no covert interception or wound alteration in the case of President Kennedy.
Your own argument, as advanced in your own book, argues for the contrary opinion -- that the only way the Governor's wounds could point to the rear is if his wounds were altered. If the Governor's wounds are legitimate and unaltered, then they expose your entire alteration theory as nonsense. According to your own argument, in your own book.
Do you understand the difference between a “necessary” and a “sufficient” condition? I suggest you study some math or logic text, before you continue to make this argument. Its simply not the “airtight” case that you seem to think it is.
Hilarious. This from a man who thinks the simple explanation for making the wounds look like they were inflicted from behind is to shoot him from the front and alter the President's body, instead of just shooting him from behind. Please, David, and with all due respect, with logic like that, you aren't the best person to be telling someone to brush up on their logic.
The validity of Best Evidence does not turn on whether or not Governor Connally was shot only from behind. Whatever my views are on Governor Connally's wounding, Best Evidence makes the valid case that President Kennedy's body was covertly intercepted prior to autopsy, and the wounds altered.
No, David. Your own book points out that all the shooters had to be in front of the limo. And therefore, that means the Governor's wounds must have been altered. That is a necessary consequence of your own argument.
As such, your own argument for body alteration is reduced to an absurdity.
All the best,