• 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

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

BUMPED yet again for James DiEugenio

This is the fourth time I've posed this simple question to you, James.  Why are you ducking it?

During the final week of September,1963, was Marina Oswald eight months pregnant, without health insurance, without money, without having seen a doctor yet, and with Lee Harvey Oswald out of work?

Yes or no?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Deleted 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

.........

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Yes, that problem does exist for both the SBT and an entrance bullet.

And I think you are probably right that most CTers ignore or avoid this inescapable fact.

However, there is one possibility that can explain the fact that the tie knot wasn't destroyed. And it's not that WC nonsense that somehow the bullet sneaked by the knot and only nicked it. The knot would have had to be pulled way to the side for that to happen. (Funny side note... The Zapruder film shows Kennedy's tie and knot to be in their normal positions early on before the shots. But they both disappear  just before the shot that made the throat wound! Check it out some time.)

The only answer to this problem is that the throat wound was 1) one of exit; and 2) the kinetic energy of the exiting projectile was nearly exhausted upon exiting the wound. So exhausted that it became fully depleted upon hitting the back of the knot and pulling it away from the neck.

I challenge anyone to offer any other feasible possibility.

(Note: What I've said here is based on the holes through the shirt, near the collar, being true bullet or projectile holes. The physical evidence indicates that to be the case.)

Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, Sandy. Thank you.

Also keep in mind that Oswald's SBT bullet was moving in a slightly right-to-left direction as it sliced through President Kennedy's upper back and neck. Thusly, it makes sense to me that the bullet could have conceivably "nicked" only the LEFT portion of the tie knot as it made its exit through JFK's throat. And it was, indeed, the left side of the tie knot that was damaged (or "nicked") during the shooting (from the tie wearer's POV).

BTW, I was just now looking through some of the very good NARA color photos of JFK's clothing at the Mary Ferrell website (including Kennedy's necktie), and I noticed this close-up picture of the tie (also shown below). And after I asked myself: Isn't that a HOLE in the tie?, I then did a little more refreshing of my memory by looking up this topic in Vincent Bugliosi's book, and I had my complete answer -- it's only a "tear" in the cloth, not a thru-and-thru "hole" (see the excerpt from "Reclaiming History" underneath the photo):

JFK-Tie.jpg

“Dr. Finck reported that the tie worn by Kennedy showed "a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt. The tie knot was not perforated but GLANCED by the bullet, which is indicated by the fact that the white padding of the tie is visible and . . . the blue cloth on the internal aspect of the knot is intact, which indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot." (AFIP Record 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Finck to Blumberg, p.7; also ARRB MD 28)

The tear to the tie was described by the FBI laboratory as a "small elongated nick" on the "left side of the knot of the tie" (CD 205, p.154; 5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89).

An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 8990; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).”
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)
 

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

But you're changing the topic, DVP.  You said that you never saw any CT's about the missing bullets from the throat and back wounds -- and I proved that some do exist.

Here's what I said to Sandy yesterday on that....

"Well, Sandy, my memory isn't as good as it once was (I'll admit that), so maybe I have encountered a few CTers over the years who are willing to put on the table their theory(ies) about where the two bullets went. But I normally just get the usual CT runaround and dodging of the question. I have heard of the theories Paul Trejo mentioned earlier, but the CTers I have argued with in the past usually prefer to scold me for even asking the question, rather than be embarrassed by placing their absurd "ice bullet" or "low-powered bullet" theories on the table for consideration."
 

Quote

Look -- Senator Connally was there.  He was in the limo.  He was actually shot himself.   And Senator Connally says the SBT theory is wrong.

John Connally was the Governor, not a Senator. :)

Anyway, Gov. Connally, in 1967, said the SBT was "possible". He still had great doubts about the validity of the SBT, but he said it was "possible" nonetheless:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOWi1leGJ3WkFKX3c/view

In addition, Connally was really the WORST possible witness in Dealey Plaza as far as being able to determine when KENNEDY was hit---because Connally never saw JFK during the critical "SBT" period....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-did-john-connally-see.html

 

Quote

What does it take for the LNer to get off the Warren Commission SBT?

Come up with something MORE REASONABLE and MORE SENSIBLE than the SBT. That'd be a good place for conspiracists to start, don't you think?

 

Quote

Even Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren himself said that the truth was being withheld for 75 years.  Don't you get it?

Oh, my gosh! You aren't still promoting the crazy "75 years" myth, are you Paul?

https://app.box.com/s/3if3887c39w7dg4d6iri

Also see Pages 129-130 of Endnotes in Vince Bugliosi's book. He totally destroys the "Not In Our Lifetime" myth dredged up by CTers.

 

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when does a bullet cause slits in a shirt rather than holes? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein quoted:

An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89–90; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).” -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)

I had not been aware that Bugliosi had made that comment. All credit to him, the usual description is a through-and-through whole. However it does raise a problem that I would like you to address David.

The slit in the shirt - which I understand is the exit point for the bullet - is acutally behind the tie. It is just slightly to the right of the shirt's top button when the shirt is buttoned up - as JFK's top shirt button was at the time of impact. ( I am referring to JFK's right. )

My point is that this slit is behind the knot in the tie. And so if there is no through-and-through hole in the tie ( as you have reported Vincent Bugliosi stating ) then how can this bullet continue its exit path after the tear in the shirt if it does not continue its path through the knot in the tie?

I can see no means for it to do that.

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

If there is no through-and-through hole in the tie ( as you have reported Vincent Bugliosi stating ) then how can this bullet continue its exit path after the tear in the shirt if it does not continue its path through the knot in the tie?

I can see no means for it to do that.

I have a feeling that the mystery could be cleared up quickly if we could (somehow) see the configuration of the tie damage while the tie was still in a knot, rather than only being able to examine the tie in an unknotted condition, like in this NARA photograph. The picture of the tie in Commission Exhibit No. 395, however, isn't very clear and doesn't really help to clear up this "mystery" very much.

In a quote I presented earlier, Dr. Pierre Finck said that the tie was only "GLANCED by the bullet", and that a "tangential path" was taken by the bullet in order to cause that kind of damage, rather than going straight through the fabric of the necktie.

I think that Dr. Finck's explanation makes sense when we view this composite photo I created today (an alternate version is seen below, with the pic of the tie turned 90 degrees for better orientation), which helps us to envision such a "nick" (or maybe "grazing" would be an even better word to use) on the far left side of the knot in President Kennedy's tie while JFK is wearing that tie (blue circle). When the tie is in a tied and knotted configuration, I can now easily envision the type of non-penetrating "nick" (or "grazing") damage being done to the tie that the FBI's Robert Frazier testified about.

Note --- When looking at the area within the blue circle in the picture below, I don't want anyone to jump to the conclusion that I am saying that I know for certain that the tie damage was located in that exact area of the tie knot. I cannot possibly know that for sure. But I do think that the area I have circled is very close to the damaged area we can see in the NARA color photo on the right side of this composite photograph:

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YMUTss087d8/WP3j6pAg0wI/AAAAAAABLts/G6D2_4H_C-oNRflzA5Q4_RMRDm4urLbIgCLcB/s1600/JFK-And-His-Necktie.jpg

JFK-And-His-Necktie.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Come up with something MORE REASONABLE and MORE SENSIBLE than the SBT. 

Heh heh heh. He said "reasonable" and "sensible" about the SBT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

From what I can see you blue circle is way out. As I remember it the cut is on the button side of the shirt - not the button hole side. Your circle - if anything - should be on the other side. However - as I recolect - when the shirt is buttoned up the hole is essentially in the center of the shirt.

Fropm what I can see if this nick was caused by the bullet then it appears to me that in order to create this damage the bullet has to pass through the knot of the shirt.

Shirt_zpsucuuqedg.jpeg

Tie_Close_zpsf04a3e54.png

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Does anybody really think that the above slits were caused by a bullet? The position of the slots doesn't even match.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Anyway, Gov. Connally, in 1967, said the SBT was "possible". He still had great doubts about the validity of the SBT, but he said it was "possible" nonetheless:

Come up with something MORE REASONABLE and MORE SENSIBLE than the SBT. That'd be a good place for conspiracists to start, don't you think?

DVP,

Governor Connally repeated often that he did not accept the SBT, and so did Mrs. Connally -- who was sitting right next to him. 

Of course, the WC Lawyers browbeat Connally -- like they browbeat Marina Oswald -- and literally anybody who doubted the Lone Nut scenario.  At one point, to stop the browbeating, Governor Connally admitted that it was at least POSSIBLE that he was shot by the same bullet that went through JFK's back, through his throat, and caused five wounds in Connally.  (In the same say, it is POSSIBLE that pigs could fly.)

The Lone Nut scenario was literally a matter of National Security -- and to make it stick one had to insist -- against all evidence -- upon the Single Bullet Theory.

The SBT is so ridiculous, that the only justification for defending it is to show some loyalty to the US Government as represented by the Warren Report.  This Posner and Bugliosi do very well -- so they get their patriotic pins.  The only problem is that the US Government changed its mind in 1979 with the HSCA Report.

Because -- it wasn't just Governor Connally and Mrs. Connally, it was also a spreading number of the WC principals themselves, including Senator Richard Russell,  Senator John Cooper, Congressman Hale Boggs.  The Secret Service men in the JFK limo also agreed with Governor Connally.

It's just beating a dead horse, DVP. to insist upon the SBT in 2017.

But please -- let's get back to the theme of Paul Brancato's thread -- which is David Lifton's Best Evidence (1981) and the post-autopsy autopsy.  There are plenty other threads in the FORUM that repeat the SBT arguments and counter-arguments.

The real question is whether the back of JFK's head was blown off or not.  IMHO, the Zapruder Film itself is proof that the final head shot came from the front, and tore out the back-right part of JFK's head.  There is plenty more evidence.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

jfk_headCast3_200x200.jpg

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

David,

From what I can see[,] [your] blue circle is way out. As I remember it[,] the cut is on the button side of the shirt - not the button hole side. Your circle - if anything - should be on the other side.

That's not correct, James. It's very clear from the testimony and statements made by Dr. Finck and Robert Frazier (the ones I previously posted) that the "nick" in the tie was positively on the LEFT SIDE of the knot in the tie, from the perspective of the person wearing the tie. So my blue circle is in the perfect position, based on the testimony of Finck and Frazier (repeated below, with emphasis added by me).

And also don't forget about the slight (but important) RIGHT-to-LEFT trajectory of Oswald's bullet, which he fired into Kennedy's body from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building:

DR. PIERRE A. FINCK -- "...a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt...indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot."

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side."
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Von Pein has done a usual hijack job on the thread, didn't Harold Weisberg do a very nice job on this shirt topic in  a letter to the Washington Post about the time that Stone's movie came out?

If anyone has The Book of the Film, its included in that volume.  In fact, as I recall, it was so convincing that the other side retreated to the position that the bullet came through above the collar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As for CV and his silliness about the evidence I advanced being "idle speculation",  look when you have testimony that directly relates to exhibits that witnesses saw, then sorry Cliffie, that is not "idle speculation".

 That constitutes evidence from which one can create an investigatory hypothesis.  This is the way that prosecutors build cases.  Once they reach a tipping point, then this constitutes what they call proof of the crime and the perpetrators. This usually comes about when they can explain the crime in no other way.

Your quote above with Joe Pesci from Stone's movie is pretty silly.  For the simple reason that scenarists are allowed a modicum of dramatic license.  To my knowledge and study, Ferrie never actually said what Pesci said about a riddle being wrapped in an enigma.

And if you read what I wrote in regards to Mr. Epstein and Mr. Carpenter over at Kennedysandking.com, you would have seen the actual evidence JG had on him at the time.  Which makes it an error by him not to have indicted him.  Especially in light of what happened to Ferrie shortly after.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Since Von Pein has done a usual hijack job on the thread...

I wasn't the one who first brought up the topic of "JFK's NECKTIE". Sandy Larsen did -- in this post. I merely responded to Sandy's post.

But I do apologize for playing a part in taking a thread "off topic" (again). It seems almost inevitable that JFK Forum threads will go off topic at some time or another. It always seems to happen. Sorry. (Should I commit hari-kari now?) :(

Edited by David Von Pein

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