Paul Brancato Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 We've all read Best Evidence. Over the years I've heard many researchers and posters say that it's a mistake to think that the crime and coverup were run by the same people. I've disagreed, and it seems to me that Lifton's meticulous first hand research proves me right. How can we otherwise account for the change of plans in regards to the autopsy location, and the quick thinking in Dallas that led to the use of a dummy coffin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: We've all read Best Evidence. Over the years I've heard many researchers and posters say that it's a mistake to think that the crime and coverup were run by the same people. I've disagreed, and it seems to me that Lifton's meticulous first hand research proves me right. How can we otherwise account for the change of plans in regards to the autopsy location, and the quick thinking in Dallas that led to the use of a dummy coffin? The capture of the patsy. If Oswald had been killed within an hour of JFK's demise there would have been no need for subterfuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 I have a better question: When is the Oswald book being published? And why had it been announced and then pulled back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Paul, I agree and you comment about his "meticulous research" is for me the critical point and the reason I can accept ( or at least reserve my opinion ) on what would otherwise be outrageous theories. Those - and especially LN's - who openly criiticise his opinions have not undergone the nearly 50 years of primary research that he has conducted. That work deserves an unbiased hearing. And James, I agree the absence of the new volume is a mystery. I am assuming David is working on further evidence. However - that said - it is one of the books I am most looking forward to. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I read that book when I was 16 years old and said wow afterwards. But now not so much. I know the book is footnoted but so is the Harvey and Lee story and I think that story is a silly concoction. What does it for me is seeing Jackie Kennedy standing up on the forklift next to the coffin. She was with it the whole time including on the tarmac on live TV. The noises you hear are just aircraft coming and going. I've been on the tarmac at Andrews several times and it's a big place. But I just find it hard to believe that there was a secret team of autopsists with scalpels at the ready. Especially so because they didn't know what the official story was going to be until the SBT was invented once the lawyers got involved. Even by early 1964 when LIFE put its issue together and they tried to explain Kennedy turned all the way around to take the throat shot even then they're still trying to explain things. So we're expected to believe that they had to cut up the body Friday night and why? Doesn't make sense. Edited April 4, 2017 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: We've all read Best Evidence. Over the years I've heard many researchers and posters say that it's a mistake to think that the crime and coverup were run by the same people. I've disagreed, and it seems to me that Lifton's meticulous first hand research proves me right. How can we otherwise account for the change of plans in regards to the autopsy location, and the quick thinking in Dallas that led to the use of a dummy coffin? To all: I’m going to jump in here and present my view—which, by the way, I have already stated (to some extent) in my appearance at Bismarck, North Dakota in November 2013 (Google, David Lifton, Bismarck) and in the November 2016 Night Fright Show (with host Brent Holland), just a few months ago. In a nutshell: 1. This was not an “ordinary murder”; but rather, a political assassination accompanied by the deployment of a sophisticated strategic deception. The purpose of the deception was to change basic facts, and hide the truth about how Kennedy died (and who was responsible). 2. The basic concept: this was a body-centric plot –i.e., it was planned, in advance, to alter the body (as part of the crime); to change legal facts about the shooting, and promote a false story of how the president died. (Moreover: a key purpose of the autopsy falsification was to falsely connect the sniper’s nest at the sixth floor window with the crime which took place in the street below). 3. It was never intended that the body, at autopsy, would provide a true picture of the crime; and. . .(see next point). . . 4. It was never intended that there would be two medico-legal records: one from certain medical personnel who saw the body prior to alteration; and a second record emerging from those present at the official autopsy. 5. Fundamental mistakes were made which resulted in a botched execution of the crime, as planned: a. The unexpected shooting of Connally b. Oswald getting out of the TSBD alive; and then. . . c. Oswald being arrested (alive); and then. . d. Oswald making the statements about his innocence, which he did, during the two days he remained alive. 6. The existence of a “live Oswald” necessitated creating a plan to eliminate him. (That resulted in the murder of Oswald, by Ruby, which--of necessity--was broadcast on national TV). 7. The Tippit murder was never supposed to have occurred, and was not part of the original planning for the murder of Kennedy. It was an unexpected event that occurred as a consequence of 5b. If Oswald –qua “assassin”—had been murdered in the building, there would never have been: (a) any Tippit murder or (b) any professions of innocence coming from the mouth of the accused. Dead men don’t talk. 8. It was part of the original conception of the crime that the Attorney General of the U.S.—the President’s brother—be neutralized as part of the crime. That part worked. Essentially, Bobby made certain very muted (and cryptic) private statements, but by and large, he maintained the public posture that he believed the official version (See his appearance in Cracow, Poland, on 6/29/64, when he first announced this stance; which was front page news (cols 6 and 7, bottom half of paper) in the New York Times in the next day’s newspaper [6/30/64]). Robert Kennedy Says Oswald Acted on Own in Assassination The story, by Times reporter Arthur Olsen, continues on page 2, under this headline: KENNEDY LABELS OSWALD A MISFIT Opening paragraph (on page 1): Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy said today that his brother had been assassinated by Lee H. Oswald, “a misfit” who took out his resentment against society by killing the President of the United States. 9. Generally speaking: the JFK assassination was “elegant in conception, but bungled in execution.” That’s the reason why there are strong elements of an “after-the-fact” cover-up. Mistakes were made, and the result (in those cases) was improvisation and ad hoc solutions and “cover-up” events which, of necessity, occurred after he fact, and which were justified by allusions to “national security” or “preventing World War III.” That was all baloney. Generally speaking (and referring to many details): the assassination was not planned to unfold in the manner in which it did. Much went wrong, the result being akin to a boat which almost sank, but which—both through cleverness and desperation—was kept afloat. 10. Finally, and this is my personal opinion (which I will be writing about in Final Charade, or in an auxiliary essay): the original assassination, as planned, was for the fall of 1961. Certain unexpected events occurred which resulted in it being postponed until November 1963. This fact is important in properly interpreting certain historical data pertaining to the evolution of the event. DSL 4/04/2017; 6:20 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California Edited April 4, 2017 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Now I await the evidence for these ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) David S. Lifton said: 4. It was never intended that there would be two medico-legal records: one from certain medical personnel who saw the body prior to alteration; and a second record emerging from those present at the official autopsy. Which means that the people who arranged, "in advance, to alter the body (as part of the crime)", MUST have thought that after he was shot, President Kennedy would NOT be transported to any hospital in the Dallas area for medical treatment. Is that what you're suggesting, Mr. Lifton? But, just for the sake of argument, even if your theory is correct about a pre-planned "sophisticated strategic deception", how could the plotters who were planning such a complicated mission on 11/22/63 have possibly thought they could have totally concealed the FRONTAL gunshot wounds that these gunmen/conspirators knew were going to be sustained by JFK during the shooting in Dealey Plaza (since you think ALL shots that hit the President came from the FRONT and not the REAR)? How on Earth could such a crazy, backward plot to kill the President possibly be successful, given the fact that anyone with half a brain HAD to know that the injured President was most certainly going to be rushed to the nearest hospital immediately after the injuries were sustained -- i.e., well BEFORE any kind of covert body-altering surgery could have possibly been performed on the body of the President? I think only these four words need to be uttered at this point... It makes no sense! DVP 4/04/2017; 12:37 p.m. EDT Mooresville, Indiana USA http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html Edited April 4, 2017 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Walton Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) Just a few light rebuttals to David Lifton. I think the Tippit murder was planned. If we're to believe they found a wallet thrown down next to Tippit with LHOs ID in it to me that's a catalyst for DPD to shoot to kill LHO. I know this isn't based on evidence but it just seems too wild and unbelievable that they'd squirrel away the body, with Jackie right there, and onto a helicopter. The thrumming helicopter David uses as his evidence that that's the copter taking the body away, reminds me of the HL caper. In other words, some of the records are not 100% accurate so therefore there just has to be an LHO clone on the loose. Edited April 4, 2017 by Michael Walton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 5, 2017 Author Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) If Oswald was innocent, the sniper's nest is a fake. If one assumes these two propositions to be true, then there had to be plans for body alteration to make it look like the shots came from the TSBD. In this scenario, Mr. Lifton's suppositions about which things went wrong make sense. Removing JFK's body from Parkland before an autopsy could proceed was necessary at all costs, so guns were drawn and the body was wrested from Dallas authorities. The location of the autopsy had to be controlled. Aboard AF1 there was disagreement about where - Walter Reed or Bethesda. My reading of this has Kennedy aides assuming the former, whereas the Secret Service and McGeorge Bundy in the WH situation room insisted on Bethesda. Cliff - how would Oswald being killed within an hour of the assassination changed any of this? Edited April 5, 2017 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Why would it have to be body alteration instead of altering the photos and x rays? I mean dozens of witnesses saw the body before it got out of Dallas. And I find it hard to buy that the planners would not understand that in advance. I mean what did they think was going to happen? JFK would be pronounced dead in Dealey Plaza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: If Oswald was innocent, the sniper's nest is a fake. If one assumes these two propositions to be true, then there had to be plans for body alteration to make it look like the shots came from the TSBD. In this scenario, Mr. Lifton's suppositions about which things went wrong make sense. Removing JFK's body from Parkland before an autopsy could proceed was necessary at all costs, so guns were drawn and the body was wrested from Dallas authorities. The location of the autopsy had to be controlled. Aboard AF1 there was disagreement about where - Walter Reed or Bethesda. My reading of this has Kennedy aides assuming the former, whereas the Secret Service and McGeorge Bundy in the WH situation room insisted on Bethesda. Cliff - how would Oswald being killed within an hour of the assassination changed any of this? The obviously conspiratorial nature of the crime could be acknowledged with additional perps to be "discovered" later. The assumption David makes is that the crime was planned to be pinned on a single shooter. Dead patsy tells no tails, a patsy alive yells "I'm just a patsy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Cliff - how would Oswald being killed within an hour of the assassination changed any of this? No need for a shady Mob club owner to have to swoop in and shoot the patsy while he is under police guard. I think the 2 day lag in taking-out LHO changed history, mightily. We would be a far less suspicious and sceptical people. CTers might be few and far between. Cheers, Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 5, 2017 Author Share Posted April 5, 2017 Michael - I meant how would have changed the shenanigans with the body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted April 5, 2017 Author Share Posted April 5, 2017 jim - you mean an honest autopsy followed by alteration of the record? I can't see that as a possibility. Could you flesh that out?(no pun intended) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now