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, 09:53:33 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 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 30
Lifton to DiEugenio - You're a conspiracy nut!  (Read 30252 times)
Super Member
*****

Posts: 1475


Bump for Mr. David Lifton, whose silence speaks volumes.  

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

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.
 

Quote
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.
 

Quote
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.


Quote
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.
 

Quote
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?
 
 
Quote
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].
 
 
Quote
I stand by that analysis, and by my conclusions.

Yes, I understand that you still believe your faulty reasoning.
 
 
Quote
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?
 
 
Quote
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.
 
 
Quote
 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.


Quote
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.
 
 
Quote
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.
 
 
Quote
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.
 
 
Quote
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*.
 
 
Quote
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.
 
 
Quote
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.  
 
 
Quote
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.
 
 
Quote
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.
 
Quote
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.
 
 
Quote
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.


Quote
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,

Hank



-------------------------
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 08:42:12 PM by Hank Sienzant »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 16715


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
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
DiEugenio continues to spread misinformation/disinformation at his new home base, the Deep Politics forum of CT absurdity.

A couple of these are real howlers (even for a conspiracy-happy nutjob like DiEugenio):

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


Of course Dave,  Oswald also admitted to buying the gun that he used on Tippitt.  That's not good enough for DiEugenio!   As arguably the leading expert about the evidence from the CT side, he's quite the embarrassment.  He deserves no respect nor will he get any.

Please show where he admitted to buying the gun "that was used on Tippit".


It's not "proof", but here goes...

Oswald admitted to Fritz (according to Fritz' notes) that he indeed purchased the revolver, admitting ownership.

Jim Leavelle said that he spoke with Oswald when Oswald was first brought in for the murder of J.D. Tippit (before Leavelle knew that Oswald would be a suspect in the murder of the President):

"Lee, you strike me as an individual who has a lot of sense, very intelligent.  You know that we can take the bullet that killed the officer and run tests on your pistol that you had on you when you was arrested in the theater and match it up and prove that it came from your gun.  You understand that, don't you?"

Leavelle said Oswald's reply was:  "Yea, I do.  But you just gotta do it."

Leavelle then went on to say that he took Oswald's reply to mean:  "In other words, you might convict me or you might send me to the electric chair or to the penitentiary for life, but I'm not going to help you do it."

Oswald did not deny ownership of the revolver.


Yet, many CT's believe that Oswald never owned the revolver that was supposedly taken from him at the theater.  Many CT's believe that Fritz' notes were "made up" to help frame Oswald.  Many CT's believe that Leavelle "made up" the conversation that he had with Oswald, regarding ownership of the revolver.

We see nothing in Fritz' notes where Oswald admitted ownership of the rifle.  My question is, if these conspirators were framing Oswald using both the rifle and the revolver, why wouldn't they also "make up" stories about Oswald admitting ownership of the rifle?


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

   ReplyReply
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 52


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
DVP has given an excellent rebuttal to DSL's theory on body alteration.  Simple, direct, specific in detail.  There is so much evidence contrary to this theory that reasonable credible individuals can only shake their heads.  I believe most people who have followed this case, whether CT or LN have or had a high regard for JFK.  This is what makes the issue of his death so emotional.  For DSL to accuse DVP of having no respect for JFK is insulting.  While I believe DSL has promoted a theory right out of a Hollywood Sci Fi movie, I have no doubt he too respects JFK. 

More "clean-up" to DVP's garbage. He writes:
"Any casket that arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:35 PM EST quite obviously did NOT and could NOT have contained the body of John F. Kennedy. Any such 6:35 casket entry must have been associated with some other case entirely. Especially if it involved a plain "shipping casket"."

The casket that arrived at 6:35 PM obviously contained the body of John F. Kennedy, because:

(a) The report that it arrived at 6:35 PM is that of USMC Sgt Roger Boyajian, whose ten-man team was assigned to the morgue specifically for the purpose of providing morgue security, in connection with the arrival of the President's body.

(b) THe document was found because of another at the Gerald Ford Library stating that Boyajian's unit had been nominated for a commendation for the good work they had done.

(What do you think, DVP: That they wrote a report about the arrival of another body??  what kind of assinine position is that?)

(c ) The group that actually carried the casket into the morgue included Donald Rebentisch, and they were organized by Dennis David. I interviewed both men. They carried the casket they were told contained President Kennedy's body to the morgue entrance.

(d) Inside the morgue, that casket was received by Bethesda medical technician Paul O'Connor, and opened by him and others.

(e) Inside the casket was a body bag.

(f) That body bag was opened by O'Connor.

(g) Inside the body bag was the body of JFK.

(h) When Humes was asked, under oath, by the ARRB when he first saw the body, he said approximately 6:45 PM.

So that's the evidence, DVP. Of course, you can make a hobby of lying about these facts on the Internet, and be under the illusion (or delusion) that you are convincing someone. . but those are the facts.

Now please tell me whose body you think was delivered to the morgue at 6:35 PM if it wasn't Kennedy's?  Do you have a name?  Do you have any credible witnesses who will say that any other body was brought to the morgue?

Why don't you call up your pal --you know, you're "playpal" (rhymes with "paypal") and ask him for suggestions?

That's what lawyers are trained to do, you know: to sell evidence to juries, and to bend reality.

So if you think Kennedy's body wasn't delivered to the morgue, at 6:35 pm, in a shipping casket, as all the evidence clearly indicates, then tell us whose body was delivered?

DSL
7/1/13; 2:25 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California


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

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 601


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The casket that arrived at 6:35 PM obviously contained the body of John F. Kennedy,

David, 

Is such a timing realistic.

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

Doing  a search on the internet I see that the straight line distance between the two is 18 Miles as the crow flies.

However traveling by car is 28 mines.

Manchester states that the plane arrived at 6:05. From that time has to be added the time to off load and enter the cars and ambulance.

At best if you add 5 minutes, which is probably too short, to the change over you then have 28 miles to drive in 25 minutes.

Does that seem realistic to you?

James


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

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2412


@James Gordon,

And let's also remember, too, that according to David Lifton's theory, it's an ALREADY ALTERED BODY of John Kennedy that arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 PM EST.

Lifton doesn't think the "alterations" to JFK's body were performed at Bethesda, which means (unless Lifton has decided to crawl into bed with Doug Horne regarding WHERE the alleged body altertions were done) that the body had to be secretly removed from Air Force One by a team of conspirators at Andrews AFB (without a single person noticing this activity on the other side of the aircraft), and then the body had to travel to Walter Reed (or wherever) for the lickety-split wound alterations, and then after placing JFK into a casket that looks nothing like the expensive ornamental casket the plotters earlier removed JFK's body from (and also after putting JFK into a body bag, for some idiotic reason that only the bumbling plotters could possibly explain), they travel the XX miles to Bethesda. (How far is it from Walter Reed to Bethesda? I'm not sure and I really don't care, but David Lifton sure should.) *

And all of the above is accomplished, per David Lifton (unless he's changed his theory in the last few years), in roughly 20 to 25 minutes.

Can anybody say -- No way, Jose?!


* EDIT -- Distances (per Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", page 1063) ---

Andrews Air Force Base to Walter Reed Hospital -- 13 miles (by air).

Walter Reed Hospital to Bethesda Naval Hospital -- 5 miles.


-------------------------
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 04:02:16 PM by David Von Pein »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 2412


Quote from: David Lifton
The casket that arrived at 6:35 PM obviously contained the body of John F. Kennedy.

Impossible.

"Lifton's scenario couldn't possibly be more insane." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 1061 of "Reclaiming History"

Vince is right (as usual).


-------------------------
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 03:34:49 PM by David Von Pein »

   ReplyReply
Super Member
*****

Posts: 4128


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
The casket that arrived at 6:35 PM obviously contained the body of John F. Kennedy,

David,  

Is such a timing realistic.

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

Doing  a search on the internet I see that the straight line distance between the two is 18 Miles as the crow flies.

However traveling by car is 28 mines.

Manchester states that the plane arrived at 6:05. From that time has to be added the time to off load and enter the cars and ambulance.

At best if you add 5 minutes, which is probably too short, to the change over you then have 28 miles to drive in 25 minutes.

Does that seem realistic to you?

James

James, that's by car, however the scene changes if the shipping casket was taken by helicopter to Walter Reed and then onto Bethesda by ambulance


-------------------------
« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 03:42:20 PM by Ray Mitcham »

   ReplyReply

Super Member
*****

Posts: 601


As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
James, that's by car, however the scene changes if the shipping casket was taken by helicopter to Walter Reed and then onto Bethesda by ambulance

Yes, Ray I agree.

But that is the big "IF”.

Unlike some, I am not adverse to David's body alteration scenario. However I did not find his argument about the helicopter very persuasive. I always felt it was never fully tied down.

When the coffin is off-loaded it always looked to me as if it was a heavy load.

That said, I feel the point I have made is central to this problem. If the coffin can be proved that it did not travel by helicopter, then it had to travel by road.

And if it traveled by road there appears there was not time for it to get to Bethesda in time.

Basically, if it cannot be proved that it traveled by helicopter, then there is a serious question about the coffin arriving at 6.35. There simply does not appear to be time  for a car to get from Andrews to Bethesda in that time.


James


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

   ReplyReply
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 30


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