Author Topic: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)  (Read 8364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark Valenti

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3171
Re: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2013, 09:48:46 AM »
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.

Offline Herbert Blenner

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7091
    • Peeking into the World of H. D. Blenner
Re: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2013, 10:02:14 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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.

Perhaps you care to explain the discoloration of the denuded margins of the throat wound?

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 93

(262) There is a semicircular missile defect near the center of the lower margin of the tracheotomy incision, approximately in the midline of the neck, with margins which are slightly denuded and reddish-brown.

End of quotation.

The panel cited these features as telltale characteristics of the entry wounds.

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 84

(245) The Panel examined photographs of the upper right back with the body on its left side; these included 8 inch by 10 inch black and white negatives and prints Nos. 11 and 12 and 4 inch by 5 inch positive color transparencies and prints Nos. 38 and 39. (All photographs and X-rays were examined with and without the aid of a 10X magnifying lens.) Stereoscopic visualization of paired photographs Nos. 38 and 39 revealed a slight change in the position of the camera between the two exposures. Essentially the photographs consist of a view of the right upper posterior thorax (back), with the camera in a position such that it would be approximately horizontal to the body if the body were erect, or at right angles to the skin surface and parallel to a sagittal plane of the body. Within each photograph is a centimeter ruler which overlies the midline of the back, extending approximately 2.5 centimeters above the upper wound margin and 2 centimeters below the lower wound margin, with its edge approximately 2.5 centimeters medial to the wound margin. The ruler is in the plane of focus of the wound, enabling reasonably accurate measurement of the wound, which is oval, with one end of the long axis between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock and the opposite end between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock. The maximum wound diameter, determined by interpolation from the photos, is 0.9 [sic] by 0.9 [sic] centimeter. The midpoint is estimated to be 13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process, with the head and neck, as positioned within the photograph, 6 centimeters below the most prominent neck crease and 5 centimeters below the upper shoulder margin. (See fig. 4, a drawing of this wound, and fig. 5, a close-up photograph of it.)

(246) There is a sharply outlined area of red-brown to black around the wound in which there is dried, superficial denudation of the skin, representing a typical abrasion collar resulting from the bullet’s scraping the margins of the skin at the moment of penetration. This is characteristic of gunshot wounds of entrance and not typical of exit wounds. This abrasion extends around the entire circumference, but is most prominent between 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock about the defect (with the head at 12 o'clock). In addition, there are several small linear, superficial lacerations or tears of the skin extending radically from the margins of the wound at 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock. These measure 0.1, 0.2 and 0.1 centimeter respectively. Photographically enhanced prints of photographs Nos. 38 and 39 reveal much more sharply contrasted color determination and, to some degree, more sharply outlined detail of the abrasion collar described above.

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 103

(295) The panel examined photographs of the back of the head, including Black and white negatives and prints Nos. 15 and 16; color transparencies Nos. 42 and 43; and correspondingly numbered color prints of the back of the head. These were studied with both the naked eye and 10X magnification. The photographs again all appear to have been taken from approximately the same position, and stereoscopic visualization of the two 4 by 5 inch color transparencies enables three-dimensional perception. In the center of the photographs is a vertical centimeter ruler, which, by stereoscopic visualization, is demonstrated to be slightly closer to the camera than the adjacent skin surface. The upper portion of the ruler, which is in sharpest focus, is adjacent to a slightly oval scalp defect located in the "cowlick" area of the scalp just above or superior to a line drawn between the superior or upper margins of the area. (See fig. 13, a drawing of the back of the President’s head.) This defect is partially covered by hair and dried blood. This wound is located considerably above the occipital protuberance, slightly to the right of the midline, and approximately 13 centimeters above the most prominent neck crease. It has a maximum vertical diameter in the photograph of approximately 1.5 to 2 centimeters, and a maximum transverse diameter of approximately 0.9 centimeter.

(296) Accurate reconstruction of the exact dimensions of the wound is difficult because the ruler and wound are in different planes of focus. The long axis of the wound more closely approximates a vertical angle than that depicted within the "Autopsy Descriptive Sheet." (See fig. 6.) The inferior margin of this wound, from 3 to 10 o'clock, is surrounded by a crescent-shaped reddish-black area of denudation, again presenting the appearance of an abrasion collar, resulting from the rubbing of the skin by the bullet at the time of penetration. From 12 to 3 o'clock, there is a suggestion of undermining, that is, tunneling of the tissue between the skin surface and the skull. Three small linear lacerations or tears of the skin, measuring less than 0.2 centimeter, in length, extend radially from the margins of the defect at 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 3 o'clock. (See fig. 14, a close-up photograph of this wound.)

End of quotations.


Offline David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
Re: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2013, 10:14:19 AM »
Quote from: James Gordon

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.

Oh, come now, James. You know darn well what Mr. Lifton was saying -- he was saying that he believes ALL the shots that hit anyone in the limousine came from the FRONT, with no shots hitting anyone from BEHIND the President's car.*

And he also implied an additional element of pre-assassination lunacy by actually saying that the assassins designed it that way--with the plotters knowing (well before Nov. 22, obviously) that they were going to attempt to frame a guy in the Depository, even though they had no intention at all of firing any shots at JFK's body from the place where they were going to frame the patsy--the 6th floor of the TSBD (even though they COULD have simply shot JFK with the useless "diversionary" rifle that the Oswald look-alike had in his possession in the Sniper's Nest). But the goofy plotters decided it was MUCH better to make things as difficult as possible for themselves--so they shot JFK from the FRONT only, and then framed Oswald in the REAR. (What a lovely plan--if your assassination team is comprised of nothing but morons, that is. Or comprised of weirdos who just wanted to keep the "Let's Plant Evidence" division of their organization super-busy after the assassination.)

* And although Lifton was careful to not specifically say that John Connally, too, was hit by no bullets fired from the rear (David's apparently going to save the "Connally bombshell" evidence for his future book release, "Final Charade"), it's pretty clear that Lifton also believes that no shots from behind struck Connally either -- otherwise, Lifton would have no reason to say that he thinks that Connally's injuries resulted in some kind of a "cover-up" too.

So, why sugar-coat the B.S. that David Lifton has forced upon us -- he thinks NO SHOTS FROM THE REAR struck Kennedy or Connally.

And that, of course, is a silly and ludicrous position to take. And you'd think that Mr. Lifton would be more than a little embarrassed to present such claptrap in public. But, evidently he's not embarrassed in the slightest. Go figure.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 06:34:13 AM
by David Von Pein

Offline David S Lifton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2013, 10:28:20 AM »
RESPONSE BY DSL TO DVP (and Bugliosi):


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.

DSL Response: No, in fact I am correct. That’s exactly what the Dallas doctors said to the media, and wrote in their reports—or, like narcissus, gazing into the pond, are you so enamored of your own beliefs you have forgotten what the legal and historical record states in this case?  The Dallas doctors—notably, Dr. Perry to the press, within an hour, and others to the media that afternoon and evening—specifically stated that the President was stuck in the throat from the front. Its all laid out in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence.  The first time the Dallas doctors heard that President Kennedy was (supposedly) struck from behind was when, on December 11, some Secret Service agents came to Parkland Hospital and, one by one, showed them the Bethesda autopsy report.

Secondly, they also believed—and said—that a missile (or fragment) exited at the rear of the President’s head. (Or have you forgotten about the “blowout” at the back of JFK’s head?)  Oh pleez. . . Go read the record. Its all there. (When you were a little boy, Vince, did you also refuse to eat your spinach?)  END DSL REPONSE

DVP/Bugliosi (contd)

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.

DSL Response: Well then, maybe you shouldn’t say “anything more.”  Going by the Parkland record, there is not a single doctor or nurse who either wrote in their report or testified in any 1964 deposition that President Kennedy was struck from the front. I have already made a statement that Connally will be dealt with in Final Charade. But you are apparently oblivious to the fact that Connally said otherwise to certain persons he spoke with privately.

DVP/Bugliosi (contd):

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.  

DSL RESPONSE:  Not true.   Read what I just wrote above. And by the way, your use of the adverb “provably” does not make it so. (Or do you fancy yourself a religious figure, delivering a sermon?)  END DSL

DVP/Bugliosi. . . (contd)

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.


Re Dr. Robert R. Shaw:  Why? Because I interviewed him for about an hour in 1967, and you’ll see what he told me.

In addition, I interviewed Nurse Doris Nelson in 1982, just a few months before her death, and she emphasized that John Connally was shot in the  chest from the front. (FYI: She also said that in her report, written on 11/22/63--that Governor Connally “received a bullet in the chest.” But she clarified any ambiguity about that statement when we spoke in December, 1982. He was struck from the front, not the rear.  (And she expressed skepticism that any wound found at the rear was genuine.) END DSL RESPONSE

Re: “Felt like someone hit me with a balled up fist” –that’s right, Vince; but privately Governor Connally said it was like being “kicked in the ribs.”  

As I’ve said: You’ve bought a (legal) pig in a poke, and much of your behavior at the videotaped “London trial” is a video record of a very self-righteous gullible man, focused entirely on the so-called “sniper’s nest” and ignoring the evidentiary link between that sniper’s nest and the crime in the street below—i.e., John Kennedy’s body.  END DSL RESPONSE

DVP/Bugliosi (contd):

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.

DSL RESPONSE: Do you really believe that my book was #1 on the AP and UPI lists, and on the NY Times list for 3 months. . .and published by four separate publishers. . and was a Book of the Month Selection. . and that “not one” person believed what I had to say?  Mr. Bugliosi. . what are you smoking?

DVP/Bugliosi (contd):

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.

DSL RESPONSE: Oh, here we go again. The name calling—this time, disparaging the evidence. Why not address the record, DVP (or Mr Bugliosi, who I suspect actually vets your text). And since you contracted with Fred Haines to write over 200 pages of your book (on the subject of Oswald's biography, which you acknowledged), and since Dale Myers wrote, and/or rewrote, over 400 pages of your book, under contract with Norton, (again, acknowledged, but not the fact that an earlier agreement actually provided him with practically co-author credit) why do you need a surrogate on the Internet?  Why not just post under your own name?

But I digress. . .

Why do you not comment on the fact that Dr. Humes called Perry late that night or early the next morning and asked him these two questions:

   (1) Did you make any wounds in the back?
   (2) Why did you do a tracheotomy?

As I noted in my lengthy post, the first indicated skepticism that the back wound was genuine; the second, that one wouldn’t do a trach, on a man “without a brain” (O'Connor's language; or with such a serious head wound). END DSL RESPONSE

DVP/Bugliosi (contd):

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:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login



Yes, Mr. Bugliosi- - I know about the 2005 interview, but why don’t you address the questions I have raised, which ante-date the year 2005 by up to 40 years:

(1) Sibert re-affirmed to me November, 1966, as I read the report (and specifically the passage about “surgery of the head area”) back to him over the telephone, that his report was accurate.

(2) His FBI superiors then questioned him within weeks, and they wrote, in official documents, that Sibert’s report was accurate, and based on what Dr. Humes said. (Does that just go into your head, and then just disappear into some secret compartment in your cerebrum?)

(3) Sibert re-affirmed to me, in a detailed phone call in August, 1990, that the report as accurate. QUOTE: “I would swear on a stack of bibles that the doctor said there was surgery.”  

(4) Sibert testified in September, 1997, before the ARRB, and re-affirmed that he wrote that down, because that’s what the doctor(s) said.  END DSL INSERT

DVP/Bugliosi (contd):

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.


What do you think is the better evidence, Vincent Bugliosi: what I have just cited above, or something he said in 2005?    END DSL INSERT


(Bugliosi and/or DVP speaking. . . ):

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.


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.


Let’s be precise, shall we?  A receipt was issued for “a misle” recovered from the body. That receipt was typed up by Navy man Boyers and signed by Sibert and/or O’Neill.  By the time those two agents left the morgue, the glass jar they left with contained two tiny fragments, the two pencil sized slivers.  But the receipt  –as far as I’m concerned—is important evidence that what was originally removed was, in fact, characterized as “a misle.”  

Furthermore, if you will look in the HSCA interviews of Paul O’Connor, you will find a sentence indicating that after he was asked to leave the room, and then returned, he was told that a missile or a large fragment had been removed from the rear of the thorax.  I have never said that Sibert and/or O’Neill left the morgue with a bullet in the jar.  So please do not misrepresent what I said.  Any missile removed was probably removed through the “opening” in the back, reported by Sibert and O’Neill, and into which Humes stuck his finger, and tried to claim was the entry point for a bullet. As you may know—or certainly ought to know—the Clark Panel, looking at the autopsy photographs, said that the only visible whole was “too small to permit the insertion of a finger”; and hen the photographs were taken, a ruler covered the general area where Sibert and O’Neill reported the “opening in the back.” So please don’t tell me that everything was normal and “kosher” with this autopsy.  Finally, remember what Dr. Humes asked Perry—either out of curiousity, or as a CYA maneuver: “Did you make any wounds in the back?”


DVP/BUGLIOSI (continuing. . . ):

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.

DSL RESPONSE: Oh pleez. . in view of all the data I have cited above?

DVP/BUGLIOSI:  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.

DSL RESPONSE: If it “never did,” then why was the Navy technician Boyers asked to type up a receipt that used the language clearly implying that it did.  Personally, I don't believe a whole bullet was removed from JFK's head, but Dr. Clark told the NY Times (Tuesday, 11/26, as I recollect) that a bullet entered at the throat and "ranged downward and did not exit." If something was removed from JFK's body prior to the start of the "official" autopsy, it was that missle.

DVP/BULGIOSI (continuing):

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.

DSL RESPONSE:  Nonsense.
   The 2005 Sibert interview does no such thing, because it is superceded, in importance, by the previous record that I have cited above: from 1966, 1990, and, perhaps most important, Sibert (and O’Neill) when under oath before the ARRB in 1997.

Really, what kind of nonsense are you peddling?  Do you think you can wiggle out of the record of prior statements I have cited by going to a statement from 2005, and ignoring the prior record?

Remember what they taught you in law school, Vince, about the importance of the "earliest recorded recollection"? (And if this text was actually written by you, DVP, then perhaps you should take some time off from your "day job" and take a class at a nearby law school on "evidence.")

DVP/BUGLIOSI (continuing). . . :

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".

DSL RESPONSE: An absurd argument.  But typical of Vince (the magician) Bugliosi.  My book is based on much more than a single statement in an FBI report.  You have conveniently (and dishonestly) omitted the following “other” evidence. Shall I recap, so you won't forget?

First of all, the wound size changes. . :

   (a) The very clear evidence of a complete change in the size of the head wound, between Dallas and Bethesda (as laid out in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, and briefly recapped in my original post above)

   (b) The very clear evidence of a complete change in the size of the trach incision, from Dallas (where Dr. Perry –and Dr. Carrico—both told me it was “2 – 3 cm”) to Bethesda, where Dr. Humes testified  it was “7 – 8 cm” and with “widely gaping irregular edges.”

Second: the clear evidence of covert interception of the body, as laid out in my book, and recapped in the post above:

   a) The body left Dallas wrapped in sheets; it arrived at Bethesda in a body bag
   b) The body left Dallas in an expensive 400 pound viewing casket; it arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket.

Moreover, in the area of the intercept—my publisher advanced the funds necessary to film the witnesses in October, 1980, and so you can view the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO and see these accounts for yourself. Do you think this was all made up?

Who do you think you are—Bugliosi (or proxy, Mr. DVP): Do you think you can ignore this kind of evidence, simply because you have an exaggerated sense of your self importance?  Didn’t anyone ever teach you, in law school, that you were supposed to pay attention to the evidence, or do you think you can simply call the other side names, and so the jury will believe you?  END DSL INSERT

DVP/BUGLIOSI (contd). . .

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?

There is nothing “impossible” about the conclusions I have presented. They are grounded in the evidence—evidence rooted (a) in the medical data coming from Parkland Hospital and (b) the serious contradiction between what the “Dallas data” shows, and what is reported in the Bethesda autopsy protocol.  

Moreover, the President’s body was not “secretly stolen off of Air Force One.” On the order of higher authority, it was removed from the coffin and taken out of the main fuselage of the plane.  

DVP/Bugliosi . . continuing. . . :

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.

DSL RESPONSE (responding similarly):  The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people—especially an egotistical and self-involved prosecutor who had become so well known because of HELTER SKELTER—the book co-written by himself and the very talented writer, Kurt Gentry—that, when dealing with the Kennedy assassination, he was naturally attracted to the evidence as if it needed “to be molded and crafted” using the same template that he used to convict Charles Manson.  Unfortunately, Lee Oswald was not Charles Manson. Lee Oswald was a very intelligent guy who had gone to Russia for 2-1/2 plus years, who happened to greatly admire President Kennedy, and who became the pre-selected scapegoat in this affair.  But the prosecutor of Charles Manson apparently was duped and was so “full of himself” that he thought he could recycle the same methodology, use the same “legal template”, and then “expect the masses to fall at (his) feet and give thanks to this expert “prosecutor” who was duped by falsified evidence.”   This same prosecutor has—because of the London trial—left an extensive video record of his self righteousness and gullibility, which will surely outlive his time.  Someday, when this case breaks wide open—and it will—the kinds of things he said, and the foolish certainty with which he said them, will leave people saying: “Just look at that. . even Vincent Bugliosi believed that case.” END DSL RESPONSE


(Oh gee whiz. . here comes Vince Bugliosi with the "bah. . humbug"! argument.)

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.

DSL COMMENT: Body alteration. .casket-switching (which is the evidence of a covert intercept). . bullet planting (which is the evidence of ballistic falsification). . “diversions” in the sniper’s nest (which is the evidence of a rather clever scheme). . all of this is the signature of a clever plot destined to (a) murder the president and then (b) change the “legal facts” about ho he died.  Oswald was nothing but a patsy (which will be unquestionably proved, in the long light of history. . . ---all of this will someday be cited as elements of a serious plot to take Kennedy’s life, and disguise his murder as a quirk of fate.

DVP/BUGLIOSI (contd). . .

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.

And, incredibly, all over the above evidence, indicia of a sophisticated covert operation, sailed right past the mind of Vincent Bugliosi, and others like him, who took the evidence at face value; who (in the case of Vincent Bugliosi) apparently got their attitudes, formative experiences, and mental templates, from trying Charles Manson, rather than paying attention to real history, and perhaps reading Shakespeare.  END DSL


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".

DSL RESPONSE: Somebody please provide Mr. Bugliosi with a refresher course on evidence (and particularly on the importance of the concept of the "chain of possession"; and, in addition, and perhaps even more importnat, with some real history, as to what has gone on over the past 1000 years, and perhaps a tutor in some good literature—e.g., Shakespeare—so he will learn about human motivation and real history, while he is still around, so as not to leave us all with the impression that his education and “historical insights” are limited to what he learned from the Manson trial.

Good day, sir! . . er "sirs".

5/5/13; 2:10 AM PDT
Los Angeles, California
« Last Edit: May 06, 2013, 01:08:34 AM
by David Lifton

Offline David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
Re: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2013, 10:41:33 AM »
David L.,

You can stop calling me Vince any time now. Mr. Bugliosi has no control over what I write--and never has. Vince, AFAIK, still doesn't even own a computer, and the only contact I have ever had with Vince is via his secretary through e-mails passed back and forth. (And not even any of those in the last 2 or 3 years.) But I'm pleased to know you think I'm Vince. No greater compliment could be bestowed upon me. Thank you.

As for your last post of evidence-mangling and distortion of the known facts surrounding JFK's murder, I think one word can sum that up nicely (and excuse me for repeating myself):


And if someone thinks that David Lifton, in his last two posts, HASN'T totally distorted and misrepresented and misinterpreted the evidence in the JFK case, they'd better think again. Because ANYONE who has the nerve to claim that John Kennedy and John Connally were struck by ZERO bullets fired from behind the limousine doesn't even deserve a place at the "Assassination Research" table. He should be UNDER the table. And I don't care whether his book won 6 Pulitzers and a Grammy and the Best Picture Oscar for 1980 -- his theories are still provably BUNK. Period.

And if anyone wants a refresher course on still more bunk being spouted by David Lifton, I invite them to gaze upon the webpage below. I hope your bladders can handle the punishment, because this IS hilarious:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

5/5/13; 5:41 AM EDT
Mooresville, Indiana
« Last Edit: May 05, 2013, 12:59:20 PM
by David Von Pein

Offline James Gordon

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
Re: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2013, 11:06:10 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh, come now, James. You know darn well what Mr. Lifton was saying -- he was saying that he believes ALL the shots that hit anyone in the limousine came from the FRONT, with no shots hitting anyone from BEHIND the President's car.*

Actually, David, I do not know exactly what David Lifton is exactly saying. I believe he may well be preparing the ground for his new book. All I did was read carefully what he said and did not jump to conclusions. I seriously doubt that David Lifton was suggesting that no bullets emanated from the rear. I fully appreciate your viewpoint and position. And yes, such suggestions as David is making will be anathema to you. But something can be anathema and can also be right. I will await David’s work and see what conclusions his  new research has led him to.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
* And although Lifton was careful to not specifically say that John Connally, too, was hit by no bullets fired from the rear (David's apparently going to save the "Connally bombshell" evidence for his future book release, "Final Charade"), it's pretty clear that Lifton also believes that no shots from behind struck Connally either -- otherwise, Lifton would have no reason to say that he thinks that Connally's injuries resulted in some kind of a "cover-up" too.

As regards the “Connally bombshell”, as you refer to it – well there again you are in error. The “Connally bombshell” will come from me in a couple of weeks time. You have no idea what is about to be posted on this forum as well as the Education Forum in the not too distant future….and I am certain you are nowhere near prepared for it or have any idea how to counter it.

When I started serious JFK research, around three years ago, I told friends “I am going to change history.” I was incredibly foolish and within weeks I knew that a minor researcher from Scotland is not going to change 50 years of history….and who is he kidding to think he will.

Well I do not see how anyone is going to be able to challenge what I am shortly going to post. And if I am right – as I believe I am – then you are going to have to re-think your Single Bullet Theory; and all that, that entails.


Offline David Von Pein

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2398
Re: My Response to Bugliosi (via a response to Von Pein)
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2013, 11:25:45 AM »
Quote from: David Lifton
Remember what they taught you in law school, Vince, about the importance of the "earliest recorded recollection"?

Well, then, let's listen to the earliest POSSIBLE statement by Dr. Robert R. Shaw concerning Gov. Connally's wounds--this video is from Shaw's 11/22/63 news conference at Parkland, right after Shaw operated on Gov. Connally. Let's see DSL wiggle out of this 1963 statement, with DSL favoring some 1967 Shaw interview instead:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login