Paul Brancato

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

744 posts in this topic

17 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why would there need to be shenanigans with the body?

The Castro conspiracy would have been in play with Oswald's accomplices at large.

 

Exactly. The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro. Body alteration became necessary only when Oswald was taken alive instead of almost immediately eliminated (as one of Castro's shooters), and the decision was quickly made to blame it all on Oswald, who therefore, according to official history, is now famous for pulling off a ridiculously impossible feat.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

 

How could it be an honest autopsy?  There were about 30 members of the military brass there, and that likely included LeMay according to Paul O'Connor and the snipped part of the AF One tapes.

I mean we know from various sources, e.g. Finck's testimony at the Shaw trial, and the HSCA review, and Jeremy Gunn's review, that there was a plethora of stuff that should have been done that was not done.  The most import  being that there was no dissection of either wound.  Therefore, there was no way to figure out directionality, and also if they were through and through wounds.  Plus there was no weighing of the brain, which is a real puzzler.  But even worse, there was no sectioning of the brain.

In Reclaiming Parkland, I spend 32 pages on the autopsy.  And I examine all of these terrible practices.   And examine all the lies that the pathologists told, and what a  farce the HSCA was.  But the two things I am most proud of are:

 1.) My exposure of the Second  Magic Bullet, due to the HSCA version of the elevated skull wound into back of the head- see pages 157-59, something almost no one here talks about.  I mean the possibility of having two magic bullets in six seconds in the same murder is so off the charts its risible.

2.) My examination of the evidence showing that the Ida Dox drawings cannot represent Kennedy's brain.  See pages 160-65.  After considering this evidence it is simply not possible.  And Stringer's testimony was the capper for me.   Plus the fact that in pummeling Horne, Bugliosi left this out.

So yes, it can be done.

And maybe people will get the title of the book right.

I think maybe you misunderstood my question to you when you opined that there was no need to control the autopsy, that controlling the pictures afterwards would be enough. I know that the Bethesda autopsy was controlled by military, and that Curtis LeMay was probably there. In fact, I posted long ago on another thread that it seemed that AF 1 tapes show frantic efforts by LeMay's aide to contact LeMay while the body was enroute. I think it was to let him know where the autopsy would be done. 

One of Lifton's points is that he believes the plan to control the autopsy was in place before the assassination. Do you think otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ron Ecker said:

Exactly. The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush, and it was to be blamed on Castro. Body alteration became necessary only when Oswald was taken alive instead of almost immediately eliminated (as one of Castro's shooters), and the decision was quickly made to blame it all on Oswald, who therefore, according to official history, is now famous for pulling off a ridiculously impossible feat.

 

My question for all the people that believe this is why didn't we invade Cuba? Those who believe this see Hoover and LBJ and others in the WH as not being part of the conspiracy. Indeed, some, like Trejo, find this to be an heroic decision. If the plotters wanted an invasion of Cuba, and planned a military style ambush without thought to cover that up, why fake the sniper's nest? I would have to presume that you, Cliff, Paul, Ron, and possibly others, think the sniper's nest was real. I sure don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2017 at 7:17 AM, Michael Walton said:

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.

 

Michael,

The military has admitted that the coffin by which Jackie stood (and she was not with it the whole time) was empty. The body was taken, apparently not by helicopter but by another ambulance, to Bethesda. There was a "decoy ambulance" used ostensibly for "security" purposes (as if someone was going to ambush the ambulance and steal the body between Andrews and Bethesda). It's not hard to guess the real reason for rushing the body to a morgue ahead of the Dallas casket.

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, do you have a source for that? I'd love to read it (not Best Evidence though but something on Ferrell or something like)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

18 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

My question for all the people that believe this is why didn't we invade Cuba? Those who believe this see Hoover and LBJ and others in the WH as not being part of the conspiracy. Indeed, some, like Trejo, find this to be an heroic decision. If the plotters wanted an invasion of Cuba, and planned a military style ambush without thought to cover that up, why fake the sniper's nest? I would have to presume that you, Cliff, Paul, Ron, and possibly others, think the sniper's nest was real. I sure don't. 

Oswald was supposed to be one of the shooters, therefore the sniper's nest was faked, since Oswald was actually somewhere drinking a Coke.

They didn't invade Cuba because it was decided not to blame it on Cuba, they had to blame it on Oswald after he got taken alive, therefore becoming the one and only shooter.

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ollie,

There's a brilliant video quartet by our own Pat Speer at www.patspeer.com which explains how the large hole in the lower back right of the skull was very simply faked to appear at the top front right of the skull.

The HSCA surgeons simply turned the X-ray sideways!   Honestly -- just sideways!

That was shown, IMHO, brilliantly by Pat Speer.

It is an elegant confirmation to the original work done by David Lifton in the 1970's, and completely validates his pre-autopsy autopsy hypothesis with regard to the JFK assassination.

My only difference with David Lifton today is with regard to my Benign Theory of the pre-autopsy autopsy, which I outlined here this morning.

Regards
--Paul Trejo

Thanks Paul.  I agree that Pat Speer has done excellent work on interpreting the evidence in a way that explains away a lot of the anomalies and doesn't require that the Z film and autopsy report, photos and Xrays were all faked.  Thus, according to Occam's Razor, his theory is better than a lot of others'.  But if you look at the slide deck titled "A New Perspective on the Shot that Killed Kennedy" at PatSpeer.com he concludes that JFK was not hit by a shot from the front.   In addition to the back wound, there was a bullet hole of entrance in the occiput which travelled down the nect and a tangential shot whose bullet impacted around the cowlick, caused the head to explode and continued forward, impacting the chrome strip above the rear view mirror.  You'll recall that the two major fragments from that bullet were found to have human skin tissue attached.

The two shots to JFK's head from the rear are supported by the trail of small lead particles seen in the lateral and AP Xrays which start around the cowlick and proceed forward to just behind the frontal bone.  The back and to the left motion of JFK's body is preceded by a sharp down and forward motion of the head which other researchers concluded came from two almost simultaneous bullets but Speer concludes the head moved down and forward and bounced off JFK's chest and then travelled rearward.

So Speer concludes no damage to JFK from a shot from the front.  There is evidence that there was a shot from the grassy knoll: smoke, smell of gunpowder, etc.  Could have been a diversionary shot to deflect attention from the TSBD in order to allow the conspirators to escape.

Edited by Ollie Curme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The military has admitted that the coffin by which Jackie stood (and she was not with it the whole time) was empty. The body was taken, apparently not by helicopter but by another ambulance, to Bethesda. 

Ron, nowhere in his statement does it say the coffin that Jackie was with was empty. Yes, they used a decoy ambulance to divert the crowd at the front of Bethesda and unloaded the body in private in the rear. But to stick to the point of this thread, Lifton claims they squirreled away the body on a helicopter, which is untrue. So I'm going to stick to my belief that "mad scientists at the ready doing surgery on the corpse" is not true.

Thanks for the link.

As for the rear wound, I made this composite.  It's an animated GIF - a large file - but wait for it to load and then watch how one photo is blended into the other. You can see the beveled outshoot in the rear. This is my interpretation of it:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

The large hole in the occiput—as observed at Parkland Hospital—did not “[go] away”. Rather, its existence was cleverly incorporated into the description provided by Humes of the “large” defect in President Kennedy’s skull, as described in the Bethesda autopsy report (drafted by Humes).   The final typed draft, as accepted in evidence as Warren Commission Exhibit 387, reads: ““There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions.  In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.”

Please focus on the words “extending somewhat” and “into the. . occipital regions.”  By the use of this kind of language, Humes was able to incorporate the Dallas “occipital” wound into his official description of the “large” (in fact, much larger) Bethesda wound that was present at the time he examined Kennedy's body.

This language—from the Bethesda autopsy report, and describing how the body looked to Humes—provided the legal basis for the Warren Commission conclusion that President Kennedy was struck fatally from “above and behind.”

 

I'm not sure I can agree with you David that Hume's vague description of the location of the large head wound allow him to be describing the blowout in the back of the head as described by the Parkland doctors.  For the same autopsy report describes a small 15mm by 6mm hole in the occiput, slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance.  How can you have a small 15mm by 6 mm hole in the same spot where there's a hole the size of a small orange?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Ron, nowhere in his statement does it say the coffin that Jackie was with was empty. Yes, they used a decoy ambulance to divert the crowd at the front of Bethesda and unloaded the body in private in the rear.

What?

"One of the hearses went right up to the front door." (IOW the one with Jackie and the Dallas casket.) All of the crowd, of course, rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back where the morgue was and we unloaded it."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Ollie Curme said:

Thanks Paul.  I agree that Pat Speer has done excellent work on interpreting the evidence in a way that explains away a lot of the anomalies and doesn't require that the Z film and autopsy report, photos and Xrays were all faked.  Thus, according to Occam's Razor, his theory is better than a lot of others'.  But if you look at the slide deck titled "A New Perspective on the Shot that Killed Kennedy" at PatSpeer.com he concludes that JFK was not hit by a shot from the front.   In addition to the back wound, there was a bullet hole of entrance in the occiput which travelled down the nect and a tangential shot whose bullet impacted around the cowlick, caused the head to explode and continued forward, impacting the chrome strip above the rear view mirror.  You'll recall that the two major fragments from that bullet were found to have human skin tissue attached.

The two shots to JFK's head from the rear are supported by the trail of small lead particles seen in the lateral and AP Xrays which start around the cowlick and proceed forward to just behind the frontal bone.  The back and to the left motion of JFK's body is preceded by a sharp down and forward motion of the head which other researchers concluded came from two almost simultaneous bullets but Speer concludes the head moved down and forward and bounced off JFK's chest and then travelled rearward.

So Speer concludes no damage to JFK from a shot from the front.  There is evidence that there was a shot from the grassy knoll: smoke, smell of gunpowder, etc.  Could have been a diversionary shot to deflect attention from the TSBD in order to allow the conspirators to escape.

Ollie,

I agree that Pat Speer isn't right about everything.  I maintain a shot from the Grassy Knoll.

Yet Pat Speer's video quartet shows how the hole in the lower back right skull was forged in HSCA testimony to appear to be in the upper front right skull.  Pat was clear, concise and elegant on that single point.  Very well done, I say.

The countless eye-witnesses at the scene who testify to a shot from behind the picket fence and Grassy Knoll area are just too overwhelming, IMHO.

The basics of ballistics that I've read -- that the exit wound is almost always larger than the entry wound -- matches the evidence of a massive hole in the lower back right skull, as shown in the X-ray, properly viewed.

IMHO his argument is conclusive.  I don't see how Pat Speer himself could argue against a frontal shot.   The eye-witnesses alone demand it -- and the exit wound in the head demands it -- and so on.

That's all I wanted to say.  I wasn't attempting to sell Pat Speer as the new Mark Lane or anything like that.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Ollie Curme said:

I'm not sure I can agree with you David that Hume's vague description of the location of the large head wound allow him to be describing the blowout in the back of the head as described by the Parkland doctors.  For the same autopsy report describes a small 15mm by 6mm hole in the occiput, slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance.  How can you have a small 15mm by 6 mm hole in the same spot where there's a hole the size of a small orange?

Ollie,

If I correctly grasp your question -- IMHO there was more than one shot to JFK's head -- there was first a shot from the back and then instantly a shot from the front.  

This was another reason that the pre-autopy autopsy was a major failure -- it was too difficult to support the late, brand new State Dogma of a "Lone Nut," because of the clear evidence of multiple ballistics -- at least two types of bullets -- in JFK's brain.

Too much time was wasted picking out shards of a frangible bullet -- it was useless.  The brain itself had to be withheld as evidence in its entirety.

This means there was both a small entry wound in the back of the head, as well as a massive hole, "the size of an orange" in the lower back of the skull. 

By the way -- I count at least seven shots in Dealey Plaza -- IMHO.

That's my reading so far.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Oswald was supposed to be one of the shooters, therefore the sniper's nest was faked, since Oswald was actually somewhere drinking a Coke.

They didn't invade Cuba because it was decided not to blame it on Cuba, they had to blame it on Oswald after he got taken alive, therefore becoming the one and only shooter.

Ron,

I agree that the sniper's nest was faked -- by the Dallas Police and Deputies; they had obtained possession of LHO's rifle early in the morning.   

Yet you evaded the central question, IMHO, namely, WHY IN THE WORLD was it that the JFK Killers "decided not to blame it on Cuba"?!?

After spending MONTHS of sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in a Fake FPCC in New Orleans -- using newspaper, radio and TV -- and after linking Oswald's name with KGB assassin Kostikov in Mexico City -- after all that tremendous effort to make Oswald out to be a Red --

then just, out of the blue, "it was decided not to blame it on Cuba"?!

That doesn't make sense to me.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

What?

"One of the hearses went right up to the front door." (IOW the one with Jackie and the Dallas casket.) All of the crowd, of course, rushed over there. The one with the body in it went around to the back where the morgue was and we unloaded it."

 

 

Ron we all know there was a decoy hearse, but that is not what you said.

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