Guest Tom Scully

Peter Janney interviewed by Dr. Jim Fetzer, new ground, or new low?

30 posts in this topic

Your review of Livingston stands or falls on its own merits

Fine, and I agree.

But to say that there is no relationship between the two in a mutual protection racket is just ignorance.

Daniel, let me ask you something:

Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?

If you do, you sure do hide it well.

My review of LIvingstone was quite complete and expansive and fair. Each section was labeled with whatever rubric was applicable. But because I didn't do a hatchet job on him, like Janney did, you are not satisfied. RIght?

DId you read Kaleidoscope?

Did you read my book?

Jim DiEugenio:

When you talk so disrespectfully to Dan Gallup, you really don't know who the heck you are dealing with.

Dan Gallup is a fine mathematician--who was close to the late Bernard Kenton, Ph.D. (in physics)-- one of my closest friends during the period Best Evidence was being researched and written (1976-1980). And, on the subject of who was involved, and when, I have to wonder: were you even interested in the Kennedy assassination, back then?

Moreover, your shallow comment--asking whether Dan Gallup is interested in the Kennedy assassination "outside of body hijacking and Z-film alteration"--gives away a mindset that is mind-bogglingly shallow and juvenile. The falsification of the Kennedy autopsy is fundamental to any critical study of the Kennedy assassination, and nothing could be more important than that issue, whether that falsification occurred because of outright perjury on the part of the autopsy doctors, the alteration of photos and/or X-rays, or whether the foundation of the falsification (as I believe, and have demonstrated in Best Evidence) derives from the actual alteration of wounds, pre-autopsy. Moreover, issues pertaining to the falsification of civilian movie film of this event are just as potentially important. So your statement, "Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?" . . is like asking a chemist: "Hey there: do you have any interest in chemistry outside of the elements listed in the Periodic Table? Here, let me show you the cookbook I use when I study (and teach) chemistry."

That kind of remark a give-away to your mental compass. Unlike you, and your foolish hero worship of Garrison--and the utter stupidity of believing, for example, such propositions that Kerry Thornley had anything to do with JFK's death, or your nonsense in believing that JFK and his brother were unaware of Castro plots, or your nonsense in believing that Ruth Paine was a "conspirator" in the Kennedy assassination, or your uninformed nonsense that Kennedy "really wanted" LBJ as his running mate--just where does it end? Is this some kind of comic book version of your personal "conspiracy theory"?

No, I'm not saying that everything in your book is that way--but far too much of it is.

I'm aware that I get a discount on certain goods if I go to a Target store, and an even deeper discount at Costco. But what kind of discount shall we apply to some of the nonsense in which you indulge?

For example: in one of your appearances on Black Ops radio, you indulged in the absurd speculation that the reason there were "two coffins" at Bethesda was that the naval ambulance that met Air Force One at Andrews, and which carried Jackie and AG Bobby Kennedy to Andrews "perhaps" made a stop en route. And a coffin-switch might have a occurred at that point.

Oh really. . ..

". . .made a stop between Andrews and Bethesda?. . " With Jackie and Bobby in the ambulance, with Greer driving, and SS agent Kellerman in the front seat, along with Dr. Burkley, and a full motorcycle escort from the local police. . and no one noticed?

Is that that your idea of responsible commentary?

My opinion: that comment is worthless, and can be discounted 100%.

There's also the matter of the way you went about "re-writing" your book, leading to a rather confusing mish-mash. Normally, when one rewrites an entire book, one has the intellectual courtesy of employing a different title. One does not engage in "bait and switch" shenanigans, putting an entirely different product between the same covers, as if this was a marketing ploy.

Moreover, when you go on and on, in the book, and on the Internet, about how no book written after the ARRB's work can be the same as anything written before--if that is true, then how come your new (and rewritten) book mentions nothing about THE major contribution of the ARRB, in calling the major autopsy witnesses? Did that escape your attention? Let me remind you: some of those witnesses were people whose accounts first appeared, in detail, in BEST EVIDENCE? (Do you have a problem with that?)

Do you have a problem with the fact that Doug Horne wrote an important memo showing that--in the case of President Kennedy--there were two brain exams? On two different dates? And employing two different specimens? Are you aware that Horne's memo received major media attention--including a major story in the Washington Post, by none other than George Lardner? Do you think that's not relevant?

Or is your problem with the fact that Horne read my book, and was obviously affected by it--as, I should add, was Jeremy Gunn? Yet I don't find Jeremy Gunn's name anywhere in your work, or Horne's name either--yet you have plenty of pages on Bill Boxley, the alleged infiltrator of Garrison's investigation, and time spent discussing Ho Chi Minh.

If you're going to write about me, then how about mentioning my book, which was published in 1981, and then by three more publishers since then, each time with a different Afterword?

Instead, your idea of "scholarship"--and your silly attempt to demonize me--is mentioning that I delivered a eulogy at Phelan's memorial service. You bet I did--I knew him since 1984, and I think I can speak to his character--and I say that while also stating that, when it came to the JFK case, I disagreed with Phelan on any number of matters. Unfortunately for you--and your band of true believers--Phelan had Garrison's number rather early on. Your sophomoric notion that because Phelan rented a house, and argued the "jet effect" to some reporters one evening, was the way the national media was "controlled" is juvenile, and childish. I used to argue the same points with him over lunch. Frankly, it doesn't pass my "So what?" test--yet for you, its somehow important and relevant. Part of the DiEugenio world view, I gather, about how the "national media" was "controlled." Oh pleez. . ..

Also, if you're going to "re-write" your book, what happened to the dozens of pages in your previous version in which you extolled John Armstrong, and some of his goofy hypotheses? Just disappeared, without a word, eh? I notice he's not mentioned anywhere in the index. Did you change your mind? Remember how he based so much of his thinking--about "two Oswalds" --on the account of Palmer McBride? Well, now I looked up McBride in your "second edition"--and, ooops. . he's gone too!

Let's see now, Jim. . . I just thumbed through the index of your most recent "second edition" to check on some other matters.

Any word of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who said that when the President's body arrived, it was "apparent" that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull"? Or that the doctors were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets?

Nope. No mention of that.

Any word about the fact that when I met with Liebeler, in October, 1966, and showed him what was in the FBI report, along with much data from the 26 Volumes supporting the notion that wounds had been altered, he decided to write a 13 page memorandum to Chief Justice Warren about the matter? A memorandum with copies to every member of the Warren Commission, and Robert Kennedy, and the White House—pointing out that the staff of the Warren Commission were unaware of this matter, and it ought to be investigated? So: Any mention (in your book) of this 13 page memo which called for a limited re-opening of the Warren Commission investigation in the medical area, to deal with this critical issue?

Nope. Not a single word.

Hey Jim DiEugenio, let me ask you something: do you know of any other instance, in the 45 plus years since the Warren Report was issued, that a Warren Commission attorney called, in writing, for a limited re-opening of the investigation, based—in part—on new research and information presented to him by a JFK researcher? The answer is “no”—because what happened at that time was really rather extraordinary—but, apparently, not enough to interest Jim DiEugenio.

But let’s move on to other things which, based on a perusal of your book’s index, you chose to omit.

Any mention of the late Paul O'Connor, the subject of Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, and who said that the president's body arrived in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, and that the cranium was empty? He not only told that to the Florida newspapers, after he was interviewed by the HSCA, but he told it directly to the HSCA, and its in their documents, which were locked up until 2029 (and only released in 1993 as a consequence of the 1992 JFK Records Act). But, in January, 1981, I was touring the country with my filmed interview of O'Connor saying just that, while Blakey was attepting to tout his "mob theory" of the assassination. Any mention of O'Connor in your book--or the statements he made to HSCA, which were locked up for 50 years?

Nope.

Any mention of Dr. Humes, the autopsy surgeon? The guy who inserted the words "presumably" before "entry" and "exit,"--leading to such phrases as a wound being "presumably of entry" etc.-- clearly signaling his doubts about the validity of those wounds at the time the autopsy was drafted on 11/24/63 (or thereabouts). Any mention of him, or of that issue?

No.

Any mention of Dr. Humes' call to Perry, asking him "Did you make any wounds in the back?" Or Humes' other question to Dr. Perry: "Why did you do a tracheotomy?" And Paul O'Connor's similar statement, to me, that "you wouldn't do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain"--in other words, and in plain English: "I couldn't understand this whole business of a tracheotomy, because he had no brain!" Any mention of any of that?

Nope. Nothing about that either.

Any mention of navy man Hubert Clark, who was one of the members of the MDW tri-service casket team, and whose 1967 account is published in Chapter 16 of my book--detailing the subterfuge of two Navy ambulances at Bethesda, one called the decoy? (And what about James Felder, who corroborated what Clark had to say). Any mention of either of them?

No.

I must ask you, Jim DiEugenio: is this the way you teach history --or taught it--at Los Angeles High School? Just ignore the past, when dealing with it is an inconvenience? Is that how you advise your students to proceed?

So now, we have --in your "second edition"--such important facts (or "facts") as this, on page 294, which you list as "one more important aspect to what happened before the [shaw] trial"--at which point you tell us that "For instance, Richard Case Nagell had a grenade thrown at him from a speeding car in New York." And that "Nagell brought the remains of the grenade to Garrison and told him he did not think it wise for him to testify at Shaw's trial." Did that really happen? Did the grenade explode? Funny, but I never heard about that in any of the media.

No, Jim DiEugenio. . . I'm not saying that everything in your book is worthless.

But too much of it is just that. It borders on gossip and trivial anecdotes, with footnotes going back to some obscure issue of Probe, which is akin to saying, "Well, I said this before, umpteen years ago. . and here's the issue. Go buy it if you wish to check it out."

As I said, when I'm looking for a discount, I go to Costco, and I know I'm getting seriously discounted prices, but at least I'm getting value, and even "value added."

What about the content of your work? What discount should be applied--chapter by chapter, and subject by subject; and just what is the value?

No, its not all bad--but when someone writes, addressing a professor of mathematics, who writes textbooks on differential equations: "Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?" - - - I have to wonder what standards you have in the way you approach the JFK case, and whether you have any grasp at all on what is truly relevant, if not critically important.

DSL

4/28/13; 9:20 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had some time to read Jim DiEugenio's critique of Kaleidoscope, and wish to respond appropriately. JD divides his characterization of the book into the 1. Ugly; 2. Bad; 3. Questionable, 4. Careless; and 5. Valuable. The Ugly and the Bad most concern vituperative attacks on Lifton and Horne first, and Mary Ferrell and her foundation secondly. Also in the second section, the Bad, JD characterizes Livingston's thinking as "untidy." What is wrong is that Livingston, convinced as he is of a particular brand of conspiracy, engages in deductive thinking. JD more or less provides a good case that deductive thinking in the hands of an unstable individual usually leads to bizarre conclusions. But the instability in Livingston's mind tends much farther toward delusion, and JD provides fodder for this charge. The Questionable section contains points of view that Livingston maintains that are generally discredited by serious researchers. Included here would be the late timing of Connally's wounding, the timing of the first shot, interpretation of x-rays, issues of Z-film alteration, and most interestingly, Livingston's claim of secret FBI reports. The Careless section concerns Livingston's inadequate knowledge of Kennedy (and Eisenhower), his reliance on Madeline Brown, Billy Sol Estes, and Barr McClelland, and a reliance on a KGB report whose origin actually owes to the FBI. The Valuable part comes from Livingston's questioning the validity of the Boyajian report and the idea that the Dallas coffin was empty. JD :" As Livingstone explains, Boyajian did not pick up Kennedy’s casket ... 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." JD approves also of Livingston's explanation for the blood on Kellerman's shirt, and investigation into Air Force 1 and trap doors. Finally, JD scolds Livingston for failing to copy the example of (mostly) proper criticism (of Lifton) provided by Roger Feinmann in his essay Between the Signal and the Noise.

Analysis: The categories are a subjective construct open to question. I would regard the ugly not as the personal attacks on Lifton and Horne, egregious as they are, but the twisted and contorted delusional mind behind it. JD provides enough evidence to support the claim that Livingston is a mental minefield incapable of clear thinking analysis. Not that JD believes this. JD pulls his punches and calls his thinking "untidy," and is generally guarded and very specific with his criticism. With regard to a supposed KGB document, for example, JD rightly comments; "Anyone who can call this a smoking gun has questionable powers of textual analysis and evidence evaluation." But I as a reader have to be thinking: how can a man whose book is characterized as 1. Ugly 2. Bad 3. Questionable 4. Careless, then receive accolades for that part of the book that accords precisely with the reviewers own strongly held belief: that the casket off-loaded from Air Force 1 contained the body of the President? I find JD's facile agreement with Livingston just a little too convenient. Reviewers of Kaleidoscope have more than answered the objections Livingston (and JD) raise, IMO. The conclusion JD jumps to-- that the cheap shipping casket did not contain the president's body-- is pure hand-waving . As a math teacher I am well-aware of this device, to be used when proof for one's position is not forthcoming. I would welcome a thread devoted to the Boyajian report, but Livingston and JD have to know that the empty casket is backed by corroborative testimony from others at Bethesda and the truth of the matter does not stand or fall on one's opinion of Roger Boyajian and his report. Finally, I cringed upon reading that JD regards the late Roger Feinmann's essay as an example of (mostly) proper criticism. Having read that essay myself, I find Feinmann suffered from Lifton's disease almost as much as Livingston does. What is Lifton's disease? It is an irrational jealousy aroused when one reads Lifton and realizes this is a first rate mind capable of original thinking and clear writing far beyond that of the subject afflicted with this malady. I regarded Feinmann's writing as displaying an immature whiny-ness that was embarrassing to read. Even if I had utter contempt for Lifton's theories I would run a fast retreat from that essay in favor of a coldly rational look at the anomalies Lifton wrestles with in Best Evidence. I would welcome a thread on Feinmann's essay as well. That's enough for now; have to grade some tests.

Edited by Daniel Gallup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

- - - I have to wonder what standards you have in the way you approach the JFK case, and whether you have any grasp at all on what is truly relevant, if not critically important.

DSL

4/28/13; 9:20 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

vintage David Lifton.... Hello David, hope all is well...

David Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hero worship of Garrison?

LOL

Deleted, to save space. . and yes, let's all laugh, because that's exactly the way you behave.

Jim DiEugenio:

In my post (#20 on this thread), I pointed to numerous deficiencies in your approach to the Kennedy case, and critical absences of relevant material in the “second edition” of your book—which is in fact a completely different book, which uses the same title.

I then listed one point after another after another.

Your reply doesn’t address a single point I raised.

Instead, you recycle the same old junk. . and you still (apparently) can’t get over the fact that I spoke at the memorial service of James Phelan, someone I knew for many years, and with whom I debated the Kennedy assassination much of the time. (We disagreed on that- - do you "get it"?)

So for that, I am now labeled as someone who, with regards to “what really happened in New Orleans,” who “tried to cover it up.”

What a dumb, asinine comment: is that the best you can do?

I do not want to waste time on your goofy post, but I can’t resist pointing to one of the many peculiar observations in your book. On page 293, in your chapter titled “Anticlimax: The Shaw Trial,” we have your potent observation: “The CIA also decided it needed not just wall to wall coverage of the trial, but coverage in real time.”

Now before going further—I hope you do realize what “coverage in real time” would mean: it would mean, for example, a wiretap or a secret movie camera inside the courtroom. Do you believe that the CIA wiretapped the courtroom where Shaw was being tried? (No.) Do you believe they put a secret camera in there, for "real time" coverage? (No.) So just then do you believe? So let’s proceed to your next sentence, because here we have on display Jim DiEugenio’s peculiar intellect and odd interpretation of reality.

QUOTING: “Declassified [CIA] internal memoranda reveal that the Agency subscribed to both local papers for the trial coverage: the State-Item and Times-Picayune. Hunter Leake of the New Orleans office would then forward clippings from the papers to Richard Helms’ assistant at CIA HQ.”

The footnote for this is to be found on page 437, and reads: “CIA routing sheet of Feb 12, 1969.”

Wow. . what a discovery! (The CIA subscribed to both New Orleans newspapers! Wow!)

Well, first of all, that is not—as noted above –“coverage in real time” would mean—so I think you should check in with your dictionary. But putting that aside, I wonder if you realize how nutty this sounds: do you really think its somehow nefarious that the CIA arranged to subscribe to the two local New Orleans newspapers, for coverage of the Shaw trial? Oh pleez. . .

FYI (in case you forgot): There was no Internet in 1969, and I know someone else who ordered both newspapers and had the delivered by mail: me. That’s right, I ordered both newspapers, and, as I recall, so did Pat Lambert, and so did Lilean Castellano—and probably many others. So save these “observations” for the gullible, or the witless, Jim.

And just so there is no misunderstanding: I was always interested in the medical witnesses who were called to testify or the Dealey Plaza witnesses, but when it came to the case against Clay Shaw, I hate to break it to you, DiEugenio, but you’re attempting to put lipstick on a corpse.

The man was acquitted within an hour, and no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him.

DSL

4/29/13, 5:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we soften the rhetoric, fellas?

It shouldn't come as news to either of you that different researchers have chosen to focus on different aspects of the assassination.

It only makes sense, then, that Jim's book would not repeat the information in David's book, and that David's book would not focus on the information in Jim's book.

It only makes sense, then, that Jim and David would each find their own book more relevant, and more groundbreaking, than the other's book.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hero worship of Garrison?

LOL

Deleted, to save space. . and yes, let's all laugh, because that's exactly the way you behave.

Jim DiEugenio:

In my post (#20 on this thread), I pointed to numerous deficiencies in your approach to the Kennedy case, and critical absences of relevant material in the “second edition” of your book—which is in fact a completely different book, which uses the same title.

I then listed one point after another after another.

Your reply doesn’t address a single point I raised.

Instead, you recycle the same old junk. . and you still (apparently) can’t get over the fact that I spoke at the memorial service of James Phelan, someone I knew for many years, and with whom I debated the Kennedy assassination much of the time. (We disagreed on that- - do you "get it"?)

................................

So there is no misunderstanding: I was always interested in the medical witnesses who were called to testify. . .but when it came to the case against Clay Shaw, I hate to break it to you, DiEugenio, but you’re attempting to put lipstick on a corpse.

The man was acquitted within an hour, and no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him.

DSL

4/29/13, 5:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Odds Favor Conviction Of Jim Garrison's Patsy .By .Ayneswort...

Pittsburgh Press - Feb 3, 1969

Clay Shaw has been nearly wiped out by the megalomaniacal Garrison, and many others have lost jobs, friends and all semblance of peace of mind.....

David, you, Weisberg, and a number of others including "journalists" who had priorities other than uncovering the secrets of the powerful, aligned with the wrong side. That is not Jim's fault. Your opinion quoted above, has to compete with this, and this.:

snapback.pngTom Scully, on 02 May 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

You're welcome, Joseph, and you are correct avout the RIF #. I found it here.:

5676987641_c3d6d9c368_b.jpg

(unquote)

The document displayed in the image above is signed by:

FREDERICK WM JANNEY

‎New York Times - Jan 20, 1979

Frederick Wistar M. Janney, director of personnel of the Central Intelligence Agency, died yesterday of a heart attack while playing squash at the Metropolitan .

Janney's sister:

http://www.legacy.co...gy&pid=99398209

MARGARET JANNEY PACE ("PEGGY")

passed away peacefully, at her home at 67 Hillside Road, Greenwich, on December 3, 2007. She was 92. Peggy had a long, active life dedicated above all to her family, as a devoted wife and mother, her community as a lifelong volunteer, and her church. Her late husband Frank Pace, Jr. was the former Director of the Bureau of the Budget and Secretary of the Army under President Truman, the first chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and founder and CEO of the International Executive Service Corps and the National Executive Service Corps. Peggy moved to Hillside Road in Greenwich with her husband and three daughters in 1954.

Peggy was the daughter of the late Walter Coggeshall Janney and Pauline Morris Janney of Bryn Mawr Pennsylvania. The fourth of six children, she remained closely connected to her family. Music, sports and international travel were part of the family fabric.....

Some are dismissive without fully allowing for the problem of finding the secrets fashioned and guarded by an agency committed to not being accountable, found out.

A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, And the ... - Page 143 - Google Books Result

http://books.google....ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

books.google.com/books?isbn=1574889737

Joan Mellen - 2005 - History

Personnel files were routinely purged, Whitten re- vealed. Even if the record stated that someone had retired or contacts with them had ceased, there could be “a

http://educationforu...09

......

I think it is a mistake to approach the Time-Life "purchase" of the Zapruder film and the TFX scandal as unrelated events. TFX was at the time the most expensive single government contract in the history of the world. Frank Pace and Maurice T. Moore were two of the most trusted Henry Luce associates. It was and is a fact it is impossible to determine the reach and the influence of LCN in our American society, so maybe it was just easier to ignore LCN taint on the FBI, DOJ, Supreme Court, WC, the U.S. presidency, the business community, and of defense contractors.

DID McNAMARA WEEP AT QUIZ?

Chicago Tribune - Mar 23, 1963

"My 12-year-old-son came home from school and asked me, 'When are you going to say to the people you are not a crook?'" McNamara's defense of the contract .

Maybe "Bob" should have been asked by senators during the McClellan inquiry how Patrick Hoy and Henry Crown of General Dynamics could have possibly been cleared for top security clearances by FBI or DOD investigators?

Did Roz Gilpatric knowingly saddle General Dynamics with the assetless shell of a company Atty. Harry Booth, in 1963 exposed LCN financier, Henry Crown's Material Service Corp. to actually be, in exchange for 20 percent of General Dynamics' stock?

Chicago Tribune - Nov 19, 1963

Gilpatric insists that his service with Dynamics dealt almost exclusively with its merger with the Material Service corporation of Chicago....

http://educationforu...ndpost&p=180439

...Crown was to grow up to become the greatest exponent of sand and gravel in the world— virtually

transforming sanitary district sand piles and quarries into gold mines.

"Henry Crown," said Booth, "views the Sanitary District as a small subsidiary of

Material Service Corporation." From the mid 1920s to the early 1940s, Crown purchased nearly 1000

acres of district land through nominees — Benjamin Z. Gould, general counsel of MSC,

and one Clarence R. Serb — without competitive bidding, paying an average of $64 an acre.

These vast holdings, plus another 420 acres held under long-term leases negotiated mostly in the 1950s, literally formed the foundation of MSC. These properties had mountains of earth and rock deposits on their surface (spoil banks rich in limestone used for crushed rock and cement) which were the residue from channel widening and deepening at the turn of the century. They saved MSC the expense of quarrying for years. In his complaint, Booth pointed out that "none of the leases approved by the Trustees authorized Material Service Corporation to engage in excavation of sand, gravel, or other materials from below the surface of the ground. On information and belief Material Service Corporation has engaged in extensive excavating operations and removed enormous quantities of sand, gravel, limestone and other materials from below the surface of the ground which it has sold. . .[obtaining] large revenues . . . and has unjustly and unlawfully enriched itself thereby.

. . . All such acts and operations . . .

are illegal and beyond the power granted . . . under the laws of the State of Illinois. ...

From time to time Material Service Corporation has also been granted sub-leases

and short-term leases also at inadequate rentals as well as buy the right to take other spoil banks at nominal prices. ....

Is it purely coincidence that Pat Hoy's mentor, Ernie Byfield, Jr. was married for nearly thirty years to a woman who shortly after Byfield's death, married the suddenly talkative, 88 year old Robert S. McNamara?

http://www.variety.c...w/VE1117920851/

This review was corrected on May 26, 2003.

...Widely admired for his creatively askew approach to unusual material, which sometimes but not always has socio-political currency, Morris was originally promised only an hour of interview time by McNamara and intended to do just a short television piece on the 85-year-old statesman/businessman, who has been interviewed countless times. But McNamara, often considered the architect of the Vietnam War, ended up giving Morris 20 hours, which gave the filmmaker enough not only to cover Vietnam but the entirety of McNamara's life, which began during World War I....

Former US defense chief, 88, gets married - World news -...

msnbc.com - Sep 16, 2004

ASSISI, Italy — Former US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara married Italian-born widow Diana Masieri Byfield in a private ceremony Thursday in St. Francis ...

McNamara career haunted by US role in Vietnam | Reuters

Reuters UK - Jul 6, 2009

"His age just caught up with him," his wife Diana told Reuters. ... at age 88, he married his Italian-born sweetheart, Diana Masieri Byfield in Assisi, Italy.

View PostTom Scully, on 15 December 2011 - 10:53 AM, said:

Only one, oh really?

https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=783

Frank Pace Jr. Joins Time Inc. Directors

Hartford Courant - Apr 25, 1960

Frank Pace Jr., chairman ot the board and chief executive officer ot General Dynamics ... A joint announcement from Time Inc. Editor-in-Chief Henry R. Luce and. ...

https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=783

Luce Aides: 'No Drastic Changes'; 3 He Picked to Run Empire...

New York Times - Mar 6, 1967

Luce last Monday, the day before he died in Phoenix, Ariz. ... Paul G. Hoffman, Samuel Meek, Maurice T. Moore and Frank Pace Jr. ' Mr. Luce, who was also on .

https://www.google.c...iw=1280&bih=781

Evidence Implies Order Expected by Dynamics

Hartford Courant - Nov 21, 1963

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate probers produced evidence Wednesday that a top executive of the General Dynamics Corp., claimed "reasonably strong indications" far in advance that the firm would win the huge, disputed TFX warplane... tract. Frank Pace, who has since resigned, was named as the . Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell L. Gilpatric, testifying before the Senate Investigations subcommittee, swor he had no idea where Pace could have received such information.

Former Legal Adviser

Gilpatric is a former legal adviser to General Dynamics whose role in the TFX contract negotiations is under senatorial fire. He described Pacej as his close friend. Earlier in the day. Chairman John L. McClellan. D-Ark., told Gilpatric that he should have disqualified himself from having anything to do with the contract award, to avoid any possible allegations of conflict of in-i terest. I The subcommittee is investi-. gation whether favoritism' steered the contract to General Dynamics last December. Gilpatric and others in the Defense Department's civilian command overruled military I evaluations that a rival design and bid by the Boeing Co. of Seattle promised a better, cheaper version. Costly Project

The Pentagon estimates the TFX project will cost between $5 billion and $7.5 billion. This would make it the largest in Pentagon history .

I The subcommittee produced a! document dated "July 1961" in! which Pace, top official of Gen-; eral Dynamics' Fort Worth, \ Tex., division, told its top management: "There are reasonably strong

indications that Fort Worth's proposed -: ration offers the only approach] that can satisfy both Air Force and Navy requirements" for (or the TFX. ! McClellan said this was "a, month and seven days" before

the Pentagon had even complet-1 ed a statement of design re-! " Where," he demanded, "was the source of these reasonably strong indications?

..........................................

So, how did we get from this situation:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?

ON ECONOMICS: -- How Kennedy Assassination Affected Some Stock ...

http://articles.sfga...ral-contracts/3

Nov 18, 1996 – A postscript for assassination buffs: No individual stood to lose more from the TFX scandal than Chicago investor Henry Crown, who owned 20

David, you fashioned your own legacy more than forty years ago, and you confirmed it in the portion of your post I quoted, "no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him." Shout it from the mountain, you're unrepentant. Shooting the messenger will not erase the still developing record which doesn't seem to be lining up in your favor.

Edited by Tom Scully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hero worship of Garrison?

LOL

Deleted, to save space. . and yes, let's all laugh, because that's exactly the way you behave.

Jim DiEugenio:

In my post (#20 on this thread), I pointed to numerous deficiencies in your approach to the Kennedy case, and critical absences of relevant material in the “second edition” of your book—which is in fact a completely different book, which uses the same title.

I then listed one point after another after another.

Your reply doesn’t address a single point I raised.

Instead, you recycle the same old junk. . and you still (apparently) can’t get over the fact that I spoke at the memorial service of James Phelan, someone I knew for many years, and with whom I debated the Kennedy assassination much of the time. (We disagreed on that- - do you "get it"?)

................................

So there is no misunderstanding: I was always interested in the medical witnesses who were called to testify. . .but when it came to the case against Clay Shaw, I hate to break it to you, DiEugenio, but you’re attempting to put lipstick on a corpse.

The man was acquitted within an hour, and no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him.

DSL

4/29/13, 5:40 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Odds Favor Conviction Of Jim Garrison's Patsy .By .Ayneswort...

Pittsburgh Press - Feb 3, 1969

Clay Shaw has been nearly wiped out by the megalomaniacal Garrison, and many others have lost jobs, friends and all semblance of peace of mind.....

David, you, Weisberg, and a number of others including "journalists" who had priorities other than uncovering the secrets of the powerful, aligned with the wrong side. That is not Jim's fault. Your opinion quoted above, has to compete with this, and this.:

snapback.pngTom Scully, on 02 May 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

You're welcome, Joseph, and you are correct avout the RIF #. I found it here.:

..........................................

David, you fashioned your own legacy more than forty years ago, and you confirmed it in the portion of your post I quoted, "no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him." Shout it from the mountain, you're unrepentant. Shooting the messenger will not erase the still developing record which doesn't seem to be lining up in your favor.

Tom Scully:

In my opinion—and I have believed this for years—the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a major political plot, and one result was the escalation of the Vietnam War. Because of what happened in Dallas, Lyndon Johnson became president under circumstances that appeared to be a quirk of fate—but that was just a superficial appearance. In fact, it was (in the vernacular) an “inside job.”

I knew this was true once I discovered the evidence that the body had been altered, and that was the key to how the Kennedy autopsy was falsified. From that point forward (as I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE), I felt that "there was a pirate flag flying over the White House."

So for all practical purposes--and even if I didn't have all the details--as of 1967, I believed we had what was tantamount to a coup.

Now along came Garrison in February, 1967, and he seemed to be saying something similar. And that’s why I got in touch with him, and in fact met with him alone, for several hours. One thing I learned fairly early on—he was a blowhard, and a publicity-seeking demagogue.

Now here’s the issue Tom Scully: do you think I could support someone who mouthed these wonderful generalities (about conspiracy) but who, when it came to specifics, accused innocent people of murder?

You’ve got to be kidding, right? (But no, unfortunately, you’re not).

You talk about being on the right side of history. . . but what happened to justice?

Solving the assassination of President is not a public relations problem. It’s a matter of paying attention to data and evidence.

The falsification of the Bethesda autopsy is the key to understanding Dallas.

When you use language that I’m “unrepentant” and that I’m the “wrong side” of history, I have to wonder about your judgment--and your grasp of the particulars of the evidence in this case.

The reason I, and Sylvia Meagher, and others, became disillusioned and disgusted with Garrison, rather early on, is that it became evident that he could “talk the talk” and “walk the walk” but in the end, he was accusing innocent people of murder, perjury, and other crimes.

No, I’m not on the wrong side of history, nor was I then.

To the contrary, I was on the right side—and was interested in truth and justice, and not your version of being “politically correct.”

There's a relationship between means and ends, and you can't get to a proper end, via corrupt means.

It was Garrison who was on the “wrong side,” apparently thinking he could surf the waves of public discontent with the Warren Report, but never produce credible evidence that would be believed by a jury, when it came to specifics. He couldn't produce "the evidence" because he was leveling accusations at innocent people.

If you're a math professor, you can’t solve a math problem by cluttering up the blackboard with impossible to read inanities, waving your arms, and expecting your students to somehow “understand.” And the same goes for attempting to solve a homicide, when you don’t have credible evidence.

So that’s right, Tom Scully: I’m “unrepentent" --as you have stated. I was correct about Garrison (back in 1968)—and the conclusions I arrived at after meeting with him alone, for several hours, remain my conclusions today. And regardless of whether he subscribed to a number of “conspiracy theories" (which, in a general sense, I too subscribed to) or whether he was a good writer (which he was), that’s no excuse for charging innocent people with murder.

Or have you forgotten what our court system is all about? Indeed, what this country is all about?

The assassination of President Kennedy does not pose a “P.R.” problem—as your language seems to suggest. Nor is it a theological issue (as your use of the word "repentent" suggests). Nor should those who support the prosecutor be having a religious or cult-like experience.

Its about solving a complex crime, that was the result of a high level plot, and the key issue, to solve it, is to recognize the falsification of certain key evidence.

Or have you forgotten that in your zeal to get to the finish line, and be “on the right side of history”?

DSL

4/29/13; 8:15 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If come November, and we are talking about Z film alteration, and trajectory reversal and secret compartments on AF One, then we might as well just throw in the towel right now.

:clapping

I've been saying this for years. These wild and whacky theories that have absolutely no basis in reality will be the death of us all. They already make it easy for Warren apologists to lump us in with moon hoaxers and UFO enthusiasts.

Frankly, John Kennedy deserves better.

Yes, folks, let's all join hands with Gary Mack and the Sixth Floor Museum and really celebrate the authenticity of the Z-fake come the fiftieth.

After all, Garrison's unquestioning acceptance of its veracity opened so many media doors to him, and quieted all hostile coverage in a thrice.

Er, it did, didn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If come November, and we are talking about Z film alteration, and trajectory reversal and secret compartments on AF One, then we might as well just throw in the towel right now.

:clapping

I've been saying this for years. These wild and whacky theories that have absolutely no basis in reality will be the death of us all. They already make it easy for Warren apologists to lump us in with moon hoaxers and UFO enthusiasts.

Frankly, John Kennedy deserves better.

Martin Hay:

Your commentary is foolish, and displays a mindset that is sure to lead nowhere when it comes to making progress towards finding the truth.

The bottom line in the Kennedy assassination is not whether “Oswald was guilty” (he wasn’t) or whether he “acted alone” etc. The bottom line is whether, in connection with President Kennedy’s assassination, a strategic deception was employed (perhaps “deployed” is a better word) to hide the truth and create a false solution to the crime.

I am referring,of course, to the notion that the President’s murder was simply the result of a person firing three shots from a bolt action rifle from a sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Either that is the truth, or it is a construct fabricated as part of a sophisticated strategic deception.

Ultimately, that's what this case is all about--and, in the long light of history, that's the way it will be viewed.

In other words, the bottom line is whether it was planned in advance to falsify the key evidence so as to frame a pre-selected scapegoat, and create a false reality which was then fed to the media in real time, and then went into the main arteries of all subsequent investigations.

Remember what Lee Oswald himself said to his brother in their brief jailhouse meeting on 11/23/63: "Do not form any opinion on the so-called evidence." (1 WCH 468) And you might also be interested in what he told Marina (that same day), although this does not appear in her testimony: "There's been a mistake."

The shallow labeling and sophomoric ridicule you employ reveals a shallow intellect that –apparently—is incapable of understanding the critical concepts to which I'm referring. Without them, you are bound to a futile and endless debate about such things as the single bullet theory, or whether Oswald could fire three shots fast enough, and a host of other irrelevancies.

In other words, Martin Hay, you’re swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool, and you will always lose that debate, because, in this particular case—i.e., the murder of the President of the United States—the best evidence has been falsified, and your opponents will always be able to cite that evidence and boast that they have found "the truth."

Continue swimming there, if you must, and splash around there all you want. I hope you enjoy your “kiddie debate.”

On one thing we agree: President Kennedy deserves better.

DSL

4/30/13; 2:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul:

Whether you know it or not, the jury demanded to see the Z film 9 times at the Shaw trial.

It convinced them it was a conspiracy.

That night, Lifton's buddy Jim Phelan knew he had a big problem. So in his nightly spin control meetings at a rented house with the media reps in town to cover the trial, he trotted out the jet effect. He had to since the media now also felt it was a conspiracy. (Destiny Betrayed, 2nd edition, p. 289) I strongly suspecthe did this through his FBI backers with say someone like say Hoch's buddy, Alvarez, in tow.

You should read the book Paul, its full of informative details like that, which apparently, Lifton somehow missed. I would to, since I really hang out his good buddy Phelan to dry.

As I also note in the book, it was the public showing of that film that created a firestorm and caused the creation of the HSCA. (ibid, p. 325)

As I note in Chapter 15, the reason the HSCA fizzled was not because of the Z film. It was because the behind the scenes maneuvering by the CIA and FBI managed to depose Sprague and Tanenbaum. I actually have that from my interview with Tom Downing at his office in Newport News. Anyone else here ever interview him one on one?

The Z film was very effective at both the trial of Shaw and in the public viewing. Its what happened behind the scenes that was the root of the problem. Which enumerate at length in my book.

Jim DiEugenio,

You’re behaving like a juvenile attempting to constantly link me to Phelan and “spin control.” The "package deal" you're promoting by innuendo is sophomoric and doesn't become your profound training as a historian.

Are you running for Senator McCarthy’s seat in cyberspace?

Please produce a single quote from the media coverage of the Shaw trial in which the jet effect was mentioned. (I don’t remember any). What I do recall are stories emphasizing the importance of the head snap.

Can you produce stories to the contrary? If so, please do so.

In my cover story for Ramparts Magazine (“The Case for Three Assassins”) published in January 1967, when you were a teenager—I featured a UCLA physicist in a major piece about the headsnap, and dealt with these arguments—the “jet effect,” the equally incorrect “neuromuscular reaction” etc.. My article was the first in a major national publication featuring and emphasizing the head snap, from a physicist, and it appeared a year or more before even Tink Thompson’s book.

No sooner than I published in Ramparts that Professor Liebeler recruited a physicist to argue the "jet effect" and of course he distributed that particular item to anyone who was interested.

Are you really sophomoric enough to think that Jim Phelan “controlled” the media by renting a house and giving his contrary opinion about these matters?

Is that part of the same mentality where you said (in your book) that the CIA had “real time coverage” of the Shaw trial by subscribing to the New Orleans Times Picayune and States-Item?

“. . real time coverage. . “ eh? By reading the newspapers?

Oh pleez. . Jim DiEugenio. .. get real. .

The Zapruder film headsnap—mentioned in Lane’s Ruth to Judgement, and by Salandria, and featured by me in Ramparts, and then broadcast by Robert Groden in March, 1975—was a major force in causing a pubic outcry that led to a new investigation. (And I spend a chapter on it in BEST EVIDENCE, including my face-off with former CIA Director Allen Dulles). But the real power behind a new investigation came from the June, 1976 Shweiker-Hart report –i.e. the Schweiker-Hart Subcommitte of the Church Committee--officially stating that there had been a cover-up.

Have you read the Schweiker-Hart report? Do you understand that it explicitly said that?

That made major headlines in late June, 1976.

In your book, you mention Schweiker and Hart “here and there” but never once do you state the importance of their Senate report in creating the legislative foundation for a new look at the Kennedy assassination.

Which makes me wonder whether you have any fundamental grasp as to how these events occurred—which, as I say, occurred when you were in your teens. And way before you became such a keen analyst of the record that you now promote such profound insights that Jim Phelan’s rental of a house in New Orleans led to some sort of “sinister control” of the national media.

Is this the sort of thing you taught in your history classes at Los Angeles High school?

Heaven help us.

DSL

4/30/13; 6:15 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lifton: "No sooner than I published in Ramparts that Professor Liebeler recruited a physicist to argue the "jet effect" and of course he distributed that particular item to anyone who was interested."

Was this physicist Luis Alvarez? Or some other physicist?

Luis Alvarez promoted the ridiculous jet effect theory: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=luis+alvarez+jet+effect&oq=luis+alvarez+jet+effect&gs_l=hp.3..0.178.1620.1.1871.10.4.0.6.6.0.166.517.2j3.5.0...0.0...1c.1.11.psy-ab.MSRhF1EdO38&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45921128,d.b2I&fp=43f5c2643d67d669&biw=1239&bih=886

It just goes to show you that in the JFK assassination, the tyranny of power, as Vince Salandria calls it, was able to warp and distort everything - up becomes down, white becomes black, crazy becomes physicist certified. Academia and scholarship just another trick in a whorehouse.

I wonder just how many government grants Alvarez got directly or indirectly in his career. I do know he used to attend Bohemian Grove and that is where the elites mingle. The elites, of course, are the group that has fought hardest to cover up the JFK assassination. The Bushes go to Bohemian Grove. Loud mouthed, bully lone nutter Chris Mattews has attended Bohemian Grove.

And here is this nugget: on p. 203 in the book "Discovering Alvarez" there is a photo of President Lyndon Johnson presenting Luis Alvarez with the National Medal of Science in 1963 ... so it would have most likely been in December of 1963. I guess that relationship came in handy when the government needed an in-house sophist to counter the unfortunate reality of "back and to the left."

http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Alvarez-Selected-Commentary-Colleagues/dp/0226813045/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367383539&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=discovering+alrarez

Edited by Robert Morrow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am referring, of course, to the notion that the President’s murder was simply the result of a person firing three shots from a bolt action rifle from a sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Either that is the truth, or it is a construct fabricated as part of a sophisticated strategic deception.

And as part of this "sophisticated strategic deception", the conspirators decided it was a good and sensible idea to make it as difficult as humanly possible to hide the conspiracy by deliberately firing all of the shots at President Kennedy from the FRONT, while firing ZERO shots from the rear (which is where they planted their one and only patsy named Oswald). Is that correct, David L.? (Not to mention the difficulty that the plotters deliberately set up for themselves regarding the altering of the President's wounds after the shooting.)

I think we can take out the word "sophisticated" in David Lifton's above quote and replace it with "idiotic". Because that latter word is much more appropriate.

Please, David Lifton, explain to me what was going through the collective minds of those silly conspirators in the days and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they DELIBERATELY tried to frame a guy in the DEPOSITORY by firing ONLY from the Knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision? I doubt that you can reasonably explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking, and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake.

In addition -- How do you, David L., explain away witnesses like Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Bob Jackson, and Mal Couch -- each of whom said they saw with their own eyes a rifle sticking out of the sixth-floor window on the southeast end of the Book Depository at the exact time when the President was being shot with rifle bullets on Elm Street?

Did those witnesses merely see a person who was only PRETENDING to fire a gun at JFK? You don't think that sixth-floor rifleman fired ANY shots from that gun seen by those witnesses?

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/mal-couch.html

And what about Harold Norman? Was he lying when he said he HEARD the rifle being fired from directly above him in the Depository? Is Harold yet another one of the many people you must call a xxxx in this case, DSL?

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/harold-norman.html

But, then again, what does silly old DVP know about logic? I'm merely, according to David Lifton,

"a garden variety xxxx" who is "committed to a false reality".

(Anybody got a really big "POT/KETTLE" icon I can use? I need one here badly.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lifton: "No sooner than I published in Ramparts that Professor Liebeler recruited a physicist to argue the "jet effect" and of course he distributed that particular item to anyone who was interested."

Was this physicist Luis Alvarez? Or some other physicist?

Luis Alvarez promoted the ridiculous jet effect theory: https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=luis+alvarez+jet+effect&oq=luis+alvarez+jet+effect&gs_l=hp.3..0.178.1620.1.1871.10.4.0.6.6.0.166.517.2j3.5.0...0.0...1c.1.11.psy-ab.MSRhF1EdO38&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45921128,d.b2I&fp=43f5c2643d67d669&biw=1239&bih=886

It just goes to show you that in the JFK assassination, the tyranny of power, as Vince Salandria calls it, was able to warp and distort everything - up becomes down, white becomes black, crazy becomes physicist certified. Academia and scholarship just another trick in a whorehouse.

I wonder just how many government grants Alvarez got directly or indirectly in his career. I do know he used to attend Bohemian Grove and that is where the elites mingle. The elites, of course, are the group that has fought hardest to cover up the JFK assassination. The Bushes go to Bohemian Grove. Loud mouthed, bully lone nutter Chris Mattews has attended Bohemian Grove.

And here is this nugget: on p. 203 in the book "Discovering Alvarez" there is a photo of President Lyndon Johnson presenting Luis Alvarez with the National Medal of Science in 1963 ... so it would have most likely been in December of 1963. I guess that relationship came in handy when the government needed an in-house sophist to counter the unfortunate reality of "back and to the left."

http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Alvarez-Selected-Commentary-Colleagues/dp/0226813045/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367383539&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=discovering+alrarez

Robert Morrow:

In answer to your question: the physicist was B. K. Jones of the U.C.L.A. physics department. Professor Liebeler met him (I don't know how) and got him to write a report laying out the "jet effect". I believe this occurred sometime in late 1966 or early 1967. Jones wrote out his analysis, and I recalled it was put inside an official looking UCLA binder. Liebeler showed it off in class, and it became the subject of some debate. I am sure that I chimed in stating that there was no reason to believe that so much matter thrown forward fast enough to account for the backwards snap--but I don't recall the details.

I have no doubt that Liebeler used the "B K Jones report" whenever necessary to rebut the backwards-and-to-the-left headsnap shown on the Zapruder film. The headsnap, remember, was the subject of the UCLA's Dr. James Riddle's statement, which was featured in "The Case For Three Assassins," which I co-rote, and which was published in the January, 1967 issue of Ramparts. (Also note: the entire text of The Case for Three Assassins was also published in a special edition of the UCLA Bruin, on November 22, 1966, the third anniversary of JFK's assassination).

As I recall, Liebeler was proud of this report because, to anyone listening to a debate about the Zapruder film, it reduced the issue of the backward headsnap from something that had been viewed as dispositive to "an argument between experts."

I have no doubt that Liebeler provided copies to any reporter who was interested, and I'm sure that a copy ended up with Jim Phelan.

Assuming that to be true, I can easily imagine Phelan, before a group of fellow journalists, espousing the argument of B. K. Jones, and using that by way of rebuttal when the Zapruder film was screened--multiple times--at the Shaw trial in New Orleans.

However (and as I have noted in an earlier post on this thread), I do not remember it becoming the source of any comment in the national media at the time. (Its possible I am wrong--that was 40 years ago).

When the Rockefeller Commission was created (Spring of 1975, to look into CIA abuses such as mail opening), the staff also re-examined the Kennedy assassination (up to a point). At that time, the B. K. Jones report was submitted and may have been admitted in evidence. I know that Robert Groden was present during a screening of the Z film when David Belin jumped out of his chair, and was shouting "Neuromuscular reaction!).

When Liebeler testified before the ARRB, he brought with his "old reliable"--yes, you guessed it, the B. k. Jones report.

According to the record of my 9/17/96 ARRB testimony, Liebeler brought up the B K Jones report when he appeared. And I made the following comments about that:

QUOTE ON:

Liebeler appeared here this morning and put the B.K. Jones report, a fellow from UCLA, on the table here and his

contributing it. Thank you very much Professor Liebeler; we already have that in the Archives. That was contributed 15

or 20 years ago with the Rockefeller Commission when that was already submitted to try to explain the backward snap

of the head. But in anyway it's being resubmitted and I suppose there's no real danger in recycling that sort of thing. UNQUOTE

So that's all I know about the B K Jones report. It was, as I experienced it, Professor Liebeler's way of challenging the Zapruder film headsnap, and reducing the impact of the argument and transforming it into an "argument between experts."

DSL

5/1/13; 8:40 PM PDT

Edited, 5/2/13; 12:30 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein, on 01 May 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

David Lifton said:

I am referring, of course, to the notion that the President’s murder was simply the result of a person firing three shots from a bolt action rifle from a sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Either that is the truth, or it is a construct fabricated as part of a sophisticated strategic deception.

And as part of this "sophisticated strategic deception", the conspirators decided it was a good and sensible idea to make it as difficult as humanly possible to hide the conspiracy by deliberately firing all of the shots at President Kennedy from the FRONT, while firing ZERO shots from the rear (which is where they planted their one and only patsy named Oswald). Is that correct, David L.? (Not to mention the difficulty that the plotters deliberately set up for themselves regarding the altering of the President's wounds after the shooting.)

I think we can take out the word "sophisticated" in David Lifton's above quote and replace it with "idiotic". Because that latter word is much more appropriate.

Please, David Lifton, explain to me what was going through the collective minds of those silly conspirators in the days and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they DELIBERATELY tried to frame a guy in the DEPOSITORY by firing ONLY from the Knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision? I doubt that you can reasonably explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking, and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake.

In addition -- How do you, David L., explain away witnesses like Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Bob Jackson, and Mal Couch -- each of whom said they saw with their own eyes a rifle sticking out of the sixth-floor window on the southeast end of the Book Depository at the exact time when the President was being shot with rifle bullets on Elm Street?

Did those witnesses merely see a person who was only PRETENDING to fire a gun at JFK? You don't think that sixth-floor rifleman fired ANY shots from that gun seen by those witnesses?

And what about Harold Norman? Was he lying when he said he HEARD the rifle being fired from directly above him in the Depository? Is Harold yet another one of the many people you must call a xxxx in this case, DSL?

But, then again, what does silly old DVP know about logic? I'm merely, according to David Lifton,

"a garden variety xxxx" who is "committed to a false reality".

(Anybody got a really big "POT/KETTLE" icon I can use? I need one here badly.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why? Because he wrote Helter Skelter?

Why? Because he often behaves like a sneering bully?

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

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

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

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

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

Oh pleez. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Was the body intercepted?

(2) Were the wounds altered?

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

Here are the facts:

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

Answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a fact that the body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 P.M. EST, twenty minutes before the coffin (in the naval ambulance, which arrived at 6:55 PM): that is attested to by the accounts of Dennis David, Don Rebentisch, and the Boyajian document ("18:35," or 6:35 PM).

TV producer Stanhope Gould, who handled the Watergate coverage for Walter Cronkite at the CBS network, worked on this material, re-filmed much of it for a 60 minute documentary on KRON-TV (in San Francisco and its sister station in St Louis). He told the San Francisco newspapers in the fall of 1988 that David Lifton had developed --and filmed-- "courtroom quality evidence" that established that the President's body had been intercepted.

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

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

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

Mr. Bugliosi: You're a lawyer, right?

You went to law school right?

You understand what a chain of possession is, and its importance?

And you think, in light of this evidence, that President Kennedy's body was not intercepted?

Oh pleez. . .

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

(b ) Was the body altered--i.e., were the wounds altered? (Is there evidence of that?)

Yes, there is. Plenty of such evidence, both in the area of the head and neck.

And that, too, is laid out, chapter and verse, in Best Evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re Governor Connally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No such "surgery" had been done in Dallas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that's absurd.

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

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

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

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

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

FACTS VERSUS ARTIFACTS

The facts are that the body was altered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have to address the authenticity of the evidence.

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

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

THINKING CONCEPTUALLY. . .

A lecturer is standing before the class, and he begins his lecture...

He says, "There were three men in a boat. . . ";

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

Yes, he really asked that: which boat?

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

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

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

Try thinking conceptually.

Try thinking abstractly.

AN EXERCISE TO PONDER

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

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

Think about it, fellas.

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

What it means is that this was no ordinary murder.

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

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

Is that so hard to comprehend?

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

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

Is that a concept too hard to grasp?

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

"Which boat?!"

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

That's what happened in this case.

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

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

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

You swallowed all that hook, line and sinker.

Stop ignoring the evidence, Vince.

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

This was a body-centric plot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have not done that at all.

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

DSL

5/2/13; 4 AM PDT

Revised and corrected, 5/3/13, 8 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now