JFK from Air Force 1 to Bethesda by helicopter

[Michael Walton]

MARTY: As do I... which is why I presented a hypothetical rather than a claim.

Really? So let me get this straight. You really believe, with no evidence to back it up, no statements by *anyone* who was there that day, that some how the body was thrown down into the cargo hold on 26000 and then snuck out the back of the plane and thrown onto a helicopter?

Or you also believe, with no evidence to back it up, no statements by *anyone* who was there that day, that some how the body was in the coffin that's seen coming out of the plane and is put into the hearse, in full view of the nation and live TV cameras and the widow, family and others, that upon leaving Andrews that the hearse pulls over and a decoy takes its place so that the hearse with Jackie and the body goes on somewhere so that mad doctors can start carving up the body?

That's the basis of your skepticism? You actually and truly believe that your skepticism would allow you to even take a step toward a ridiculous hypothetical?

BAWAWAHAHAHA! OMG!

[Martin Weidmann]

MARTY: As do I... which is why I presented a hypothetical rather than a claim.

Really? So let me get this straight. You really believe, with no evidence to back it up, no statements by *anyone* who was there that day, that some how the body was thrown down into the cargo hold on 26000 and then snuck out the back of the plane and thrown onto a helicopter?

Or you also believe, with no evidence to back it up, no statements by *anyone* who was there that day, that some how the body was in the coffin that's seen coming out of the plane and is put into the hearse, in full view of the nation and live TV cameras and the widow, family and others, that upon leaving Andrews that the hearse pulls over and a decoy takes its place so that the hearse with Jackie and the body goes on somewhere so that mad doctors can start carving up the body?

That's the basis of your skepticism? You actually and truly believe that your skepticism would allow you to even take a step toward a ridiculous hypothetical?

BAWAWAHAHAHA! OMG!

No, I believe know that you purposely misrepresent what I have been saying. You can make up as much as you like, but you only end up looking like a fool.

When all you have is "BAWAWAHAHAHA! OMG!" you actually have nothing at all. Your inability to formulate a basic, cohesive and coherent argument disqualifies you from any reasonable discussion.

It seems making up strawman arguments is more your thing than dealing with the actual evidence. Please stop wasting my time with your childisch BS and get back to me when you have a plausible explanation for how Kennedy's body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag in a shipping casket. Until then, you've got no credibility at all. 

[Michael Walton]

MARTY - No, I believe know that you purposely misrepresent what I have been saying. You can make up as much as you like, but you only end up looking like a fool.

Instead of discussing the merits here, you seem to keep dodging, hemming and hawing. Further, in order for this ridiculous theory to work, you can't just pick and choose from it and say "see - it happened!" So you think the body, wrapped in sheets as testified by the nurse in TX, was in a body bag later. Great! But that doesn't prove the body alteration story Lifton cooked up. And you can't stop there. You have to work backwards - how was the body wrappings changed? Who said it? Where is the proof of it?

You yourself said several posts above that Dave's ridiculous theory was "problematic." OK, great. You know there's problems with it. So instead of diving into it head first, why don't you list here the "problematic" aspects of this goofy theory and we can debate from there. Otherwise, you're simply dodging discussing the merits of this dumb theory.

[Martin Weidmann]

MARTY - No, I believe know that you purposely misrepresent what I have been saying. You can make up as much as you like, but you only end up looking like a fool.

Instead of discussing the merits here, you seem to keep dodging, hemming and hawing. Further, in order for this ridiculous theory to work, you can't just pick and choose from it and say "see - it happened!" So you think the body, wrapped in sheets as testified by the nurse in TX, was in a body bag later. Great! But that doesn't prove the body alteration story Lifton cooked up. And you can't stop there. You have to work backwards - how was the body wrappings changed? Who said it? Where is the proof of it?

You yourself said several posts above that Dave's ridiculous theory was "problematic." OK, great. You know there's problems with it. So instead of diving into it head first, why don't you list here the "problematic" aspects of this goofy theory and we can debate from there. Otherwise, you're simply dodging discussing the merits of this dumb theory.

This is even a worse reply than your previous "BAWAWAHAHAHA! OMG!"

Instead of discussing the merits here, you seem to keep dodging, hemming and hawing.

Coming from a guy who hasn't discussed one iota of the merits of anything, this is pathetically hilarious. And what merits are you on about, anyway?

Instead of discussing the merits, and telling us what you think, your entire post is about me. Why is that? Do you really think that a pathetic focus on me can obscure that fact that you have had nothing of any value to add to the discussion so far?

Further, in order for this ridiculous theory to work, you can't just pick and choose from it and say "see - it happened!"

And where exactly, other than in your head, did I do that?

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that if the "body snatch on the plane" theory isn't correct, everything else about Lifton's theory isn't correct either. If that is indeed what you are saying then you are even more superficial and wrong as I thought you were. Even if it could be 100% proven that Kennedy's body wasn't removed from the ornamental casket on the plane, that still would not alter the fact that several witnesses have testified that Kennedy's body was removed from a shipping casket at Bethesda. In other words, there needs to be an explanation for that! And my hypothetical offers precisely such an explanation.

So you think the body, wrapped in sheets as testified by the nurse in TX, was in a body bag later. Great!

It's not important what I think. The fact is that the people who removed Kennedy's body from the shipping casket said it was in a body bag. So, don't make this about me. Respond to what the HSCA testimony of these men says.

But that doesn't prove the body alteration story Lifton cooked up.

I never said it did.... You seem to have got so many strawman arguments in your head that you haven't got a clue about what I actually have said. This might even confuse you more than you already are, but a decoy scenario like the body being removed from Parkland in a shipping casket doesn't have to have a nefarious motive.

And you can't stop there. You have to work backwards - how was the body wrappings changed? Who said it? Where is the proof of it?

Working backwards from what? Be more specific! I don't know who (or even if) the body wrappings were changed. The fact that Paul O'Connor and others found Kennedy's body in a body bag doesn't mean that the wrapping of towels around his head (because that's all it was) wasn't still there. You need to stop making up stuff and start dealing with the factual evidence instead.

You yourself said several posts above that Dave's ridiculous theory was "problematic." OK, great. You know there's problems with it

Sure, so what?

So instead of diving into it head first, why don't you list here the "problematic" aspects of this goofy theory and we can debate from there.

Why should I give you such a list, when I have not made any comments about the "body snatch on the plane" theory, beyond that it is problematic. There is nothing to debate. I'm not dancing to your music!

If we are to debate something it should be the hypothetical possibility I offered that Kennedy's body was already removed from the ornamental casket and placed in a shipping casket at Parkland Hospital, with the ornamental casket subsequently being used as a decoy. So far, you have stayed away completely from discussing this hypothetical possibility. Why is that? Could it be this one is less problematic than the "body snatch on the plane" theory and therefor more difficult for you to dismiss?

Otherwise, you're simply dodging discussing the merits of this dumb theory.

What dumb theory would that be? If it is the "body snatch on the plane" theory, I don't have to dodge discussing it, because there is nothing to discuss. I have stated that I feel it is a problematic theory for obvious reasons, and that's all I am going to say about that.

If it is the "body removed from casket at Parkland" theory, the only one dodging that one is you. Just like you have dodged my question about Kennedy's body arriving at Bethesda in a body bag in a shipping casket.

If you think (as you seem to) that Kennedy's body was in the ornamental casket all the way from Parkland Hospital to Bethesda, you need to explain how it can be that several witnesses, independently from eachother, saw Kennedy's body, in a body bag, being removed from a shipping casket at Bethesda. But as you have so far dodged doing so, I doubt I will get a plausible explanantion from you any time soon. 

[Michael Walton]

And the dodge continues...

You yourself said several posts above that Dave's ridiculous theory was "problematic." OK, great. You know there's problems with it

Sure, so what? - I'm still waiting for you to list the problematic aspects of Lifton's ridiculous theory. And by the way, there are plenty of articles out there about how Lifton asks leading questions to get the desired result.

[Martin Weidmann]

And the dodge continues...

You yourself said several posts above that Dave's ridiculous theory was "problematic." OK, great. You know there's problems with it

Sure, so what? - I'm still waiting for you to list the problematic aspects of Lifton's ridiculous theory. And by the way, there are plenty of articles out there about how Lifton asks leading questions to get the desired result.

Why are you so desperately trying to discuss the "body snatch on the plane theory", when there is no point whatsoever of having such a discussion with me. You can't possibly be so dumb that you don't understand you are talking to the wrong guy about the wrong subject, can you?

I'm not dodging anything. I'm just not playing along with your silly little game.

If you want to have a discussion, then try to explain how Kennedy's body ended up in a body bag being delivered to Bethesda in a shipping casket. It's either that or stop wasting my time.

[Michael Walton]

Don't take my word for it. Here you go:

Horne referred to it as the Boyajian report. Roger Boyajian was a Marine Sgt. on duty at Bethesda on the 22nd. He led a small detail of men that day called the Honor Guard.[66] According to Horne, Boyajian wrote a report the next day that proves that it was his detail that actually brought in Kennedy’s casket at the earlier time of 6:35. Therefore Lifton and his body switching idea are upheld. In my review of Horne’s series, I did not mention Boyajian or his report. This was supposed to be dealt with by Gary Aguilar in another review of Horne’s series. Unfortunately Aguilar was going through a long and complicated divorce process that entailed him having to relocate. So he never got around to writing his review.

Well, Livingstone deals with the issue at length here, and in my opinion he does a good job with it. It would appear that Horne oversold the document and Livingstone uses the opportunity to really pile onto Horne with a lot of invective. I wouldn’t go as far as he does in that regard but let us spell out some of the problems that the document has and that Horne did not elucidate very well.

First, the actual report does not say that the casket picked up by Boyajian’s men was President Kennedy’s.[67] In the one sentence that deals with the issue it is referred to only as “the casket”. As Livingstone properly notes, this is a serious fault with Horne’s claim. It is hard to believe that if Boyajian knew he was handling JFK’s casket, would he not write that down and specifically note that fact?

Further, there is a real problem of authentication as this report is not signed by Boyajian and there is no trace in the record as to why he did not sign it. There is a second page to the report that lists the ten men in the detail – none of which signed the document either. What makes it all a bit worse is that when the ARRB questioned Boyajian about whether he recalled picking up Kennedy’s casket, Boyajian couldn’t recall doing so.[68] In fact, he could not recall much at all about that day. And importantly, it does not appear that the report the ARRB had was the original document leading us to question as to whether or not that original was ever filed with the military.[69] All of this seems strange if the casket really was Kennedy’s.

Additionally, Livingstone shows, if one lives in the area, as he did, it is very hard to understand how Horne could buy into this idea without questions. After all, Horne did live in Washington while working for the ARRB. As Livingstone describes it, the route through downtown Washington from Andrews AFB to Bethesda is about 18 miles.[70] But yet for the Boyajian report to say what Horne declares it says, somehow this transport traversed the 18 miles in about 20 minutes.[71] Unless the driver was proceeding at a continuous 60 MPH on city streets, this does not seem possible.

AF1
There was no trap door near where the coffin was located on the return trip from Dallas on November 22, 1963. The square grille in the near foreground was directly under the bathroom in the Presidential suite in 1963. The space where a trapdoor was claimed to have been would have been all the way at the rear of the cargo hold in the middle. In addition, according to Boeing diagrams and blueprints, there are any number of control cables and wires running through the floor down the center aisle which would have precluded any kind of trap door being in that area. Boeing's diagrams from 1962 (when the plane was placed into service (in October, 1962)) do not show any trap door in the rear of the plane leading to the rear cargo hold. (Photo Courtesy Jamie Sawa)

As Livingstone explains, Boyajian did not pick up Kennedy’s casket. Bethesda is also a morgue. It did not stop being so just because Kennedy was being transported there that day. Other military men died that day. After all, America was involved in a war. Livingstone interviewed several people who identified another person’s body being delivered to the morgue that day. There was no autopsy done and his body was being stored in the “Cold Room” for burial at Arlington.[72] The weight of the evidence seems to dictate that it was this person’s body that Boyajian’s detail picked up.

There are other good points that Livingstone develops to counter some of the excesses in Horne’s books. For instance, the issue of Roy Kellerman having blood on his shirt aboard Air Force One does not mean that Kellerman was somehow performing surgery on JFK’s body in a secret compartment. Kellerman helped get Kennedy’s body out of the limousine and onto a gurney at Parkland. [73] And concerning the alleged secret compartment, Livingstone supplies some good photos illustrating the work of James Sawa showing that there was “no trap door leading from the rear baggage compartment up to the rear of the aircraft.” This vitiates one of the earlier theories Lifton had about secret surgery on board Air Force One.[74]

When I reviewed Horne’s series, I concluded that he needed a tough-minded editor to reduce the size and scope of the book to highlight the good things he had done. Livingstone says the same about Horne.[75] Yet he does not note the irony that this same criticism could be easily applied to Kaleidoscope. This book could effortlessly have been reduced in size by at least one half. Probably even more. And it would have been much more valuable and pointed. What is worse is Livingstone had a valuable model in front of him that he knew about – one that avoided all the conspiracy bantering about the JFK research community. The late Roger Feinman wrote The Signal and the Noise, a long critique of Best Evidence, back in the nineties. [76] It was much shorter than Kaleidoscope. But Feinman avoided most of the pitfalls that Livingstone did not. Livingstone, who much admired Feinman’s work, seemed to forget what made Roger’s critique valuable when he wrote Kaleidoscope.

Source - https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/livingstone-harrison-e-kaleidoscope