• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Paul Brancato

Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

854 posts in this topic

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a better question:  When is the Oswald book being published?

And why had it been announced and then pulled back? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by Paul Brancato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael - I meant how would have changed the shenanigans with the body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

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