Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. For JIm, Taken 11/23/63 between 01:15am-04:25am
  3. The 11/22/63 Belmont memo Doug Horne wrote about, and I wrote about in INTO THE NIGHTMARE, is a "smoking gun" document that disproves the Warren Report, since that bullet "lodged behind the President'e ear" was never entered into evidence. It is the shot that struck Kennedy in the right temple from the front and blew the brains out the back of his head. Various witnesses (including William Newman, Emmett J. Hudson, George Hickey, Sam Kinney, and Bobby W. Hargis) reported seeing Kennedy being struck in the right side of his head. Hurchel Jacks corroborated this after seeing Kennedy lying in the limousine, and Assistant White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointed to that area in his filmed press conference. I found this memo in 1985 and wrote an article about it then but couldn't get it published at the time. The memo also helps prove David Lifton's body alteration theory, but he missed it in his research for BEST EVIDENCE.
  4. Hinckley did not shoot Reagan. The shot that hit Reagan was fired from above. It was on a downward trajectory and hit the side of the car, flattened itself, and richocheted into his left underarm, lodging in his chest. Hinckley was firing diversionary shots, like Sirhan. I remember finding it odd that the government never issued a report on the shooting. Some details did not emerge until months later, in a book on James Brady. Judy Woodruff, then a network radio reporter, was among those at the scene of the gunfire who said a shot came from above, but in her autobiography she changed her story to fit the official story, which is why she gets the big bucks today. As Vonnegut used to put it, "So it goes." In an official White House color photograph taken during the shooting (which is available online), you can see a man in the balcony at top right with his arm protruding in what looks like a firing position.
  5. Not surprisingly, I see that David Lifton is still desperately clinging to really bad information with respect to the "surgery of the head area" remark that appears on Page 3 of the 11/22/63 Sibert & O'Neill Report. Mr. Lifton, however, knows full well that the co-author of that 1963 report—James W. Sibert—also made the following statement to the HSCA in 1978: "When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection." -- James Sibert; October 24, 1978 So, Mr. Lifton, what about that 1978 statement by Jim Sibert? Was he lying when he made those comments to the House Select Committee? I guess you must think he was. I'll also add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book: "In a 1999 telephone conversation from his retirement home in Fort Myers, Florida, Sibert told me that when the casket was opened in the autopsy room, "The president was wrapped in two sheets, one around his body, another sheet around his head." He said the sheet around the head was "soaked in blood," and when it was removed, Dr. Humes "almost immediately upon seeing the president's head—this was before the autopsy—remarked that the president had a tracheotomy and surgery of the head area." When I asked Sibert what Humes was referring to when he used the word surgery, he said, "He was referring to the large portion of the president's skull that was missing." When I asked him why he was so sure of this, he replied, "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to."" -- Page 1060 of "Reclaiming History" And after I utilized the above Bugliosi quote at a JFK forum in May 2013, I followed up the quote with these remarks: "Why conspiracy theorists continue to cling to inaccurate information is anyone's guess--but they do it--all the time. Sibert and O'Neill merely wrote down what Dr. Humes said at the start of the autopsy. And that information was proven to be wrong. And even most CTers know and think it was wrong--because there are very few CTers who are idiotic enough to actually believe David Lifton's theory about there being "surgery" done to JFK's body before the autopsy." -- DVP; May 5, 2013 That's not true at all. You posted once earlier this year; and you posted dozens of times in 2018. Well, David L., you'll have to forgive me if I choose not to follow you down your "Body Alteration" and "Body-centric Plot" roads. (And I doubt there are more than a couple of conspiracy theorists at this forum who buy into your fantastically impossible version of events either.) And what is truly "comical" is that Mr. Lifton seems to be implying that it's only me who believes in Lee Oswald's lone guilt....and it's only me who thinks the evidence is legitimate throughout the JFK case. When, in reality, there are millions of "Lone Assassin believers" in the world. I'm certainly not in the LN boat all by myself. And, YES!, of course I'm going to "cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin". What Lone Assassin believer wouldn't be citing that Carcano rifle as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if not THE most important)? Get real, David L.! Here's a rifle-related question I have repeatedly asked conspiracy believers over the last several years: "At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner, LEE HARVEY OSWALD? .... For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November 22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza? On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on November 22 (or any other day of the year). If conspiracy theorists think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace (or anyone else) to have been up on that sixth floor using Oswald's gun on 11/22/63, they've got a huge hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD." -- DVP; November 18, 2007 ~~~~~~~~~~~ "Who is more likely to have used Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 on 11/22/63 (or any other day of the year)? The owner of the gun (Lee Harvey Oswald)? Or some stranger who didn't purchase the weapon? Based on those "odds", alone, the Anybody But Oswald kooks are cooked. And when we start adding in all the other stuff that incriminates Sweet Lee, it's Katie, bar the door (e.g., Oswald leaving the building immediately; Oswald killing Tippit; Oswald's actions and statements within the Texas Theater, which practically amount to Oswald confessing to some horrible act; plus those fingerprints on the rifle's trigger guard, identified as being Oswald's prints by Vincent Scalice in 1993). This case is a prosecutor's wet dream." -- DVP; September 18, 2012 ALSO SEE: And, yes, I'm also going to cite the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limousine (which came from OSWALD'S rifle) as strong evidence that is was, indeed, OSWALD who was firing that rifle at President Kennedy on November 22nd. Again, what LNer wouldn't be citing such incredibly incriminating physical evidence of Oswald's guilt? You, David S. Lifton, actually seem to think it's surprising that a person (like me) who strongly believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK would dare to assert that the various pieces of ballistics evidence associated with JFK's murder are actually legitimate (i.e., non-phony) pieces of evidence in this case—such as the C2766 Carcano rifle and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the President's car. And despite the popular trend among JFK conspiracists to believe that virtually all of the physical evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases is fake and worthless, there hasn't been a speck of PROOF to substantiate that ANY of that evidence was actually manufactured, planted, or fraudulent (including the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the two front-seat bullet fragments). And the last time I checked, the massive amount of SPECULATION and ACCUSATIONS and WISHFUL THINKING being done by JFK conspiracy theorists does not come close to rising to the level of PROOF. Get real, DSL! You're the one beating the dead horse. Not me.
  6. The Reagan missile is missing, by the way. And as the medical team described it, was the size and thinness of a dime. Made a barely noticed slit entrance...not a ballistic entry hole. But who remembers that now.
  7. Maybe I am missing it but I don’t see a literature section. I wanted to open a discussion of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, but I don’t see a place for it.
  8. Andy walker made this start page, sometime back... http://www.educationforum.co.uk/forum.html and announced it on this thread. I see advertising on it, sometimes local. Is there some income associated with that page that has been overlooked? Again, I don’t mean to be nosey, and no answer is required. I am just trying to help. Also, that start page can be reconfigured such that any EF link takes the user to that page first, and instead of the various EF navigation links that are now on that page, a single single “continue” link could be created that would allow the user to continue on to the link that they initially followed. With one extra click, revenue could be generated,
  9. 5/20/2019 - 11:20 PM EDT Ron, The way events evolved is not what was supposed to happen. JFK's body was supposed to be altered, in Dallas, and then there was to be a Dallas autopsy. But none of that happened, once Connally was unexpectedly shot. The result: the focus shifted to getting JFK's body out of Texas, without an autopsy, and focusing on Connally's medical treatment, so that his unexpected shooting did not foul up "the best of well laid plans." I'll be publishing about this soon. DSL
  10. You touched on a subject I've wondered about for years. You probably know better than I but the magic, ricochet, trick shot was the last lucky frantic shot he made. He first wounded a Police Officer, a Secret Service Agent and Press Secretary Baker who died of his wounds years later. Hinckley was admitted as a Yale student, but I've never seen anything about him and skull and bones.
  11. The SS got JFK's body and the limo out of Dallas in a hurry. E.G. the gun confrontation with the coroner at Parkland. I have to wonder if three-four-five of them might have known before the assassination that such would be necessary afterwards.
  12. Jodie should have been impressed. How many guys can shoot the front side of a car and make the bullet ricochet at a perfect right angle, go in between the open back door and door jamb, and hit the intended target. (And to add to this trick shot, Reagan didn't even feel the bullet hit till he was inside the car!)
  13. C'mon Ron. Hinckley was just trying to impress Jodie Foster, right? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1965234-the-hinckley-bush-reagan-connection
  14. The legal (and historical) record in this case clearly establishes a serious bifurcation in the record (i.e., the medical record) between the wound observations at Parkland Hospital and what was reported at Bethesda, at the time of autopsy. The fact that the two FBI agents present (Sibert and O’Neill) would report that, when JFK’s body was laid out on the autopsy table, it was “apparent” that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull,” should afford a rather clear explanation as to what the explanation is for this bifurcation: the wounds had been altered, somehow, in the six hour period between the time of the Parkland observations and the official start of the Bethesda autopsy. All of that was established and spelled out in my 1981 book Best Evidence. If the body was altered, then—as I have said—this was a body-centric plot: that is, the alteration of the body and the concomitant planting of ammunition linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was the basic modus operandi of this crime. Let me remind those reading this post of the basic definition of that important term: “modus operandi” - - “a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established.” I haven’t visited the London Forum in years, and perhaps it should come as no surprise that David Von Pein is still at it, beating a dead horse, basically denying the evidence that JFK’s wounds were altered prior to autopsy; in other words, the President’s body was a medical forgery by the time of autopsy. But Von Pein, ignoring all that, and employing “kindergarten logic,” basically argues that since ammunition found in the presidential limo ballistically matched Oswald’s rifle, that that somehow validates the case against Oswald. I can only speculate as to what would happen if DVP were involved in a card game and it turned out, from simple card-counting, that there were two “Ace of spades” or three Jack of Diamonds? Would he continue to play? Or would he understand that the game was permeated with fraud? As I have stated in public lectures, JFK’s body was akin to the sun in the solar system of evidence. Once its established that the body was altered, the evidence that there was fraud in the evidence (and that the Dallas sniper’s nest evidence was a source of artifacts, not legitmate “facts”) becomes “the” major issue; and has logical consequences. Von Pein doesn’t seem to understand that. He wants to keep dealing the cards, and keep playing the game, with the stacked deck; i.e., even though there’s clearly fraud in the evidence. His attempt to focus on the limousine, and cite one of the two fragments (that matched Oswald’s rifle) as legitimate evidence is both pathetic and illogical. Von Pein doesn’t seem to understand that once fraud is established in the most basic evidence in this case—i.e., the body of the deceased, which was the basis for the Naval autopsy—the entire legal case is kaput. It is almost comical to see him, all these years later, focusing on one of the two “Oswald fragments” recovered from the limousine, and attempting to use that as the basis for arguing that the sniper’s nest evidence is legitimate because. . .because why? Because (of course, in DVP’s world!) Oswald assassinated the President! By that flawed methodology and absurd logic, why stop with the fragments? Why not cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin; ergo, the body was not altered (to create that false appearance)! If this is the way DVP “reasons,” I can only image what would have happened if he had displayed this sort of reasoning in a mathematics class or one on basic geometry. DSL
  15. Don't forget the attempted coup in 1981 when Reagan was shot with another magic bullet but was too dumb to die. (Who happened to be VP?)
  16. Paul: That interview is with W, not HW. But I agree its fascinating. HW was at a luncheon meeting in Tyler Texas at the Blackstone Hotel. There were about a hundred people there.
  17. Yesterday
  18. Jim, Is there a reference link about Dubya's 11/22/63 alibi? I've never read any thing about Dubya's account of his whereabouts on 11/22/63-- or comments from his Andover classmates.
  19. Yes, it's truly frightening to see how readily our mainstream U.S. media has been playing along with the latest Gulf of Tonkin stunt in the Persian Gulf. It's the same epic failure of American journalism that we saw in August of 1964 and March of 2003. And, unfortunately, those who cannot remember the past are destined to make all of us repeat it. Good article on the subject at The Intercept a few days ago. https://theintercept.com/2019/05/17/us-media-journalists-iran-coverage/
  20. Yes, I agree Jim. Their intent or hope was to blame "Oswald" as the shooter. But, important as that was, it was NOT the most important consideration for the plotters, nor even the second most: the overriding, absolutely imperative, nothing-else-matters-if-this-fails objective was to kill JFK. JFK had to be dead before the limo left Dealey Plaza, and if that meant an artillery strike had to be called in on the limo, then so be it. For the plotters, a living JFK would head an investigation that would, beyond any doubt, find out who did it. And they would all hang. The second most important consideration for the plotters was to get the sixth floor impersonators/shooters/team out of the TSBD. You and I agree that the passenger elevator escape theory is viable, if not proven beyond doubt. That team had to escape successfully. The third most important aspect was to blame a dead "Oswald". Only a dead "Oswald" could be patsified. Remember, even J. Edgar Hoover admitted in his phone call to LBJ on Saturday evening that "the evidence against this man is not very strong." Within 24 hours that changed. Had the FBI suddenly discovered more "evidence"? No, merely the patsy was now dead, and his widow could now be coerced into saying literally anything against him. And, of course, she did. Yes, they all wanted to wrap it up with "Oswald" as the shooter, but the other three considerations were even more important to the conspirators.
  21. Douglas Valentine: CIA, Drug Trafficking, and the JFK Assassination (2011) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1hzoVhMU8c&feature=share
  22. Jim, You may be right, but it is mighty interesting that this same George W. Bush (43, not 41) was pressuring Billy Lord beginning in September of 1976 to tell all he remembered about his trip across the Atlantic back in 1956 with "Oswald". Lord was so worried about the intense coercion/threats/"terror tactics" that he wrote to President Carter! This demonstrates that certain very powerful people were very interested in talking to/influencing/intimidating/silencing every single person on earth who ever talked to "Oswald" - and doing so just before the HSCA really got rolling.
  23. Paul, But then why was such an effort made to frame "Oswald" as a shooter? All those appearances at the Sports Drome rifle range, The Irving Furniture Mart and Dial Ryder referral (for the scope that eventually wasn't needed), the 4-foot long package while hitch-hiking with Ralph Leon Yates, that brown paper package mailed to "Lee Oswald" with 12-cent overdue postage notice delivered to Ruth Paine. These elements of the set-up, all prior to the assassination, sure sound like trying to make "Oswald" appear to be a shooter, not a ringleader.
  24. John, Are you still in touch with Jeff Belmont? I'd like to know more about Alan H. Belmont and any anti-Nazi stories Jeff might have from the 1940's in NYC. Did Belmont ever cross paths in the 1940's with either Allen Dulles or John J. McCloy? How did Belmont feel about President Kennedy's policies, particularly his foreign policies? Did Belmont have an opinion about Kennedy's proposed plan to end the Cold War with the Soviet Union? On 11/22/63, was Belmont in touch with anyone from outside the FBI? How about in the next several days? Does Jeff have any anecdotes at all about how his uncle recalled the JFK assassination? Did his uncle feel that a "no-conspiracy" solution was foisted upon him, or did he naturally believe that was the sole path to follow? Has Jeff read (or can he get a copy of) his uncle's typescript "As I Recall It! Incidents in the life of a G-man"?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...