Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks, Paul.

But I still maintain that conspiracy theorists have little to nothing to offer in the way of "evidence" (particularly physical evidence).

Let's face it, Paul, all JFK conspiracy theories rely on nothing but speculation, guesswork, and unsubstantiated and questionable witnesses like Gerry Hemming.

Don't you wish you had just ONE solid piece of physical evidence to support your belief in a JFK conspiracy? Instead, you've got Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Don't you wish you had just ONE person who saw the body and agrees the entry wound in the head was at the cowlick?

Here's my physical evidence of a conspiracy: JFK's autopsy sheet, stained in his freakin' blood.

EOP wound = conspiracy.

 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micah:

Don't fall for this DVP ploy.  For those of us who understand who he is, and why he is here, we understand his modus operandi.

Instead, you should ask him what in the WC Report is unassailable, would have convicted Oswald, and would have stood up to competent cross examination?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

Then ask him what the real standard of proof is in a murder case.  Not the BS definition he made up for his godawful book which Martin Hay tore to shreds.

Case closed.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Micah:

Don't fall for this DVP ploy.  For those of us who understand who he is, and why he is here, we understand his modus operandi.

Instead, you should ask him what in the WC Report is unassailable, would have convicted Oswald, and would have stood up to competent cross examination?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

Then ask him what the real standard of proof is in a murder case.  Not the BS definition he made up for his godawful book which Martin Hay tore to shreds.

Case closed.

I mean, yeah, how would you feel if someone you cared about was convicted of murder with every single piece of evidence being a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And let's not forget, he was wrong on many of the points he argued. Some of which should have been obvious to him.

I guess his reasoning was clouded by his preconceived bias and his hatred for critics.

But I also think there was another factor at work.  As I wrote in my book, RP, Vince actually took that BS phony sideshow "trial" in London seriously.  When in fact, it and Spence were both a joke.  And one of the worst parts of his book is when he tries to convince the reader that it really was just a like a real trial.

LOL :lol:

When Vince started doing that in his book I realized it was not an honest effort.  No rational person could possibly think that the phony circus sideshow in London was commensurate to an actual trial.  Let alone a criminal lawyer.  I mean, it was not even good as a TV mock trial. The King mock trial took many more pains to be realistic than that piece of crap did.  

The absolutely incredible thing is that Vince took it seriously and he actually thought Spence put on a defense.  :D

I mean all you need to do is watch what Spence did with Dr. Petty, who was nothing a but a buffoon about the JFK case. He actually once said the JFK autopsy was done well. :P (Reclaiming Parkland, revised edition, p. 61)

This idiot actually said on the stand that it was not necessary for him to examine the brain since he had the photos and x rays. (ibid, p. 62)  And right there, Spence should have moved in for the kill.  He should have asked the following questions:

1. Doctor, can you explain to the jury what sectioning the brain at autopsy means, and can you explain to them the techniques used to do that?

2. Doctor, can you explain to the jury why that process is done in a homicide case where the cause of death is gunshot would to the skull?

3.  Doctor, can you explain to the jury what the results of that process were in the JFK case?

4.  It wasn't done?  But wasn't this a gunshot would to the head case?  How could you determine entrance and exit and path and direction without it?

5. Did you ask Dr. Humes why it was not done when he was before the HSCA?

6.  Why didn't you ask him?

7.  Well, can you then explain how you dissect the track of a back wound through the chest?

8.  What, you mean that was not done either?

I would have loved to have seen VInce's face as Petty was exposed as a charlatan to the jury.  Of course, Spence did not ask these questions, or if he did they were cut out.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

(6)  The nonsense that LHO shot JFK from the TSBD has been laid bare by the US Government itself.  The WC and its great supporters: Posner and Bugliosi -- are not the last word from the US Government, rather, the HSCA (1979) has the latest official word -- that "JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy." 

Paul, are you saying that the HSCA conclusion that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy helps back up your theory on what happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Paul, are you saying that the HSCA conclusion that JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy helps back up your theory on what happened?

Paul Trejo, like many other CTers I've talked to over the years, apparently wants to ignore the fact that the HSCA's "4th shot" evidence was completely debunked and invalidated in 1982. He talks as though the "acoustics evidence" is still upright and valid here in 2017. (Paul must be related to Anthony Marsh.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 6:21 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Does this mean you abandoned the throat alteration theory? As pointed out in another earlier thread, the ~3.5 centimeter estimation by the doctors could be a reference to the windpipe incision, but not the neck incision. The doctors might've not known you were really referring to the entire neck incision.

But furthermore, if the autopsy surgeons thought the throat wound was a trach the entire time, then what can we make of the witnesses who saw them probing the throat wound?

RESPONSE:  No, not at all.  I stand by what I wrote in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, titled: "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda."

As reported there, when I spoke with Dr. Perry on 10/27/66,  he told me that the incision he made was "2- 3 cm."  The autopsy description of the same defect was "6.5 cm" and Humes sworn testimony was "7 - 8 cm."  Furthermore, the autopsy described the "wound" (or defect, or whatever you wish to designate it) as having "widely gaping irregular edges," whereas one doctor after another (as described in Chapter 11, were surprised by my even questioning them on the wound edges and told me that they were "smooth" (of course, some added) because it was made with a knife.

It should be evident that there was a " 'before' and 'after' " situation on the so-called "incision."  What introduces significant confusion is the Bethesda doctors' claim that they didn't know that damage was done "over" a bullet wound.  That's the highly debatable point.  As I will spell out in Final Charade, Humes knew very well that the throat wound had been altered, from what it was in Dallas, and--because of that knowledge (and possibly because of his direct participation in the coverup)--was more complicit than I had imagined when I wrote Best Evidence. 

Those reading these posts and debating these matters should keep something else in mind: All of this was way above "Humes' 'pay grade.'"  So if he were instructed that there were international political considerations at stake, and he was to say (or write) such-and-so, and that that was the equivalent of an order, he would have said "yes, sir" and followed orders.  He was in no position to question orders delivered to him "under the color of authority"--whether the source was the White House, or Attorney General Robert Kennedy, or Sec Def McNamara (the latter two then situated on the 17th floor of Bethesda).

Also, and this, too, is important: I spoke with Humes four times--twice in November 1966, and then two more times--once by phone, and another time at the HSCA hearings, when I was at the microphone covering the HSCA heariing for WETA, the Washington, D.C. PBS affiliated.

Without doubt, the most dramatic encounter encountered were my two calls to him on 11/2 and 11/3, 1966, as described in Chapter 8 of Best Evidence. I was not writing a book at the time. I was simply calling in the spirit of a UCLA graduate student attempting to follow-up on my recent discovery of the lines in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report that when the body was unwraped at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  Humes was clearly astonished that (a) there was any such report and (b) at the passage I was reading to him.  My whole purpose, at that moment, was to tread carefully so that he wouldn't simply hang up on me and terminate the conversation.  So, attempting to depressurize the situation, I asked, as innocently as possible, if it was not the case that anything had been done to the body (such as the removal of a bullet, much less the alteration of any wounds). . . if he would have brought it to the attention of the Warren Commission. "I would certainly hope I would," he said, and then I started to speak (but immediately stopped, as I realized he was continuing) and he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done (pause) and when (pause) and where!".

There was no question in my mind, when I listened to Humes--in real time--that I had "made contact", and that he knew exactly what I was talking about.

One has to hear this tape to make a judgment about Humes demeanor.  I will attempt to get that recording digitized and posted on the net.

Simply reading the words, on the page, does not convey the emotional quality, and the effect that conversation had  on me, at the time.

Today, i realize that Humes is much more complicit than I had originally believed, when I wrote Best Evidence. But by "complicit" I am referring (more or less) to his state of knowledge, and to certain things that he did "after the fact"; i.e., his aweness of multiple coffin arrivals; his involvement in getting the FBI agents to leave the morgue "early" by announcing autopsy conclusions that were incorrect, etc.  And, just for the record,  I certainly do not believe that Humes performed any surgery --i.e., pre-autopsy surgery--on the president's head. (He was complicit, however, in "sewing up" the "trach incision" in the throat area.  Will explain in detail in Final Charade. Based on evidence discovered in January, 2014).

The President's body arrived already messed up, and with no brain inside the cranium.  Just watch the B.E. Research Video and see Paul O'Connor's account, which I filmed in October 1980, for yourself.  The late Jerrol Custer, the X-ray tech, practically corroborated O'Connor when he described--both on the phone (1979)and then again on camera (October 1980) that "I could stick both my hands inside the cranium" (from memory).

Furthermore, there is one other stunning piece of corroboration, and I'll get into this, in detail, in Final Charade, and concerns FBI Agent Francis O'Neill.

FBI Agent Francis O'Neill --back in 1992--privately told a good friend of his that the cranium was empty.  He said this more than once, and insisted on that being true. Then someone clued him in that that would provide major support for B.E., and my work, and he didn't like me (or that idea) at all.  And so O'Neill then changed his story, equivocated, and said things like "Well, maybe there was half a brain."  (See His ARRB testimony, September 1997).  Sorry Charlie (as the saying goes), but the cranium was empty (as Paul O'Connor told the HSCA in 1977, and me in August 1979, and then again --on camera--in October 1980); and FBI Agent Francis O'Neill said the same thing, when queried by a close friend, who conveyed all of this to me, in 1992.

Gotta run.

DSL

2/10/2017 - 3:30 A.M. PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


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

RESPONSE:  No, not at all.  I stand by what I wrote in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, titled: "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda."

As reported there, when I spoke with Dr. Perry on 10/27/66,  he told me that the incision he made was "2- 3 cm."  The autopsy description of the same defect was "6.5 cm" and Humes sworn testimony was "7 - 8 cm."  Furthermore, the autopsy described the "wound" (or defect, or whatever you wish to designate it) as having "widely gaping irregular edges," whereas one doctor after another (as described in Chapter 11, were surprised by my even questioning them on the wound edges and told me that they were "smooth" (of course, some added) because it was made with a knife.

It should be evident that there was a " 'before' and 'after' " situation on the so-called "incision."  What introduces significant confusion is the Bethesda doctors' claim that they didn't know that damage was done "over" a bullet wound.  That's the highly debatable point.  As I will spell out in Final Charade, Humes knew very well that the throat wound had been altered, from what it was in Dallas, and--because of that knowledge (and possibly because of his direct participation in the coverup)--was more complicit than I had imagined when I wrote Best Evidence. 

Those reading these posts and debating these matters should keep something else in mind: All of this was way above "Humes' 'pay grade.'"  So if he were instructed that there were international political considerations at stake, and he was to say (or write) such-and-so, and that that was the equivalent of an order, he would have said "yes, sir" and followed orders.  He was in no position to question orders delivered to him "under the color of authority"--whether the source was the White House, or Attorney General Robert Kennedy, or Sec Def McNamara (the latter two then situated on the 17th floor of Bethesda).

Also, and this, too, is important: I spoke with Humes four times--twice in November 1966, and then two more times--once by phone, and another time at the HSCA hearings, when I was at the microphone covering the HSCA heariing for WETA, the Washington, D.C. PBS affiliated.

Without doubt, the most dramatic encounter encountered were my two calls to him on 11/2 and 11/3, 1966, as described in Chapter 8 of Best Evidence. I was not writing a book at the time. I was simply calling in the spirit of a UCLA graduate student attempting to follow-up on my recent discovery of the lines in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report that when the body was unwraped at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  Humes was clearly astonished that (a) there was any such report and (b) at the passage I was reading to him.  My whole purpose, at that moment, was to tread carefully so that he wouldn't simply hang up on me and terminate the conversation.  So, attempting to depressurize the situation, I asked, as innocently as possible, if it was not the case that anything had been done to the body (such as the removal of a bullet, much less the alteration of any wounds). . . if he would have brought it to the attention of the Warren Commission. "I would certainly hope I would," he said, and then I started to speak (but immediately stopped, as I realized he was continuing) and he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done (pause) and when (pause) and where!".

There was no question in my mind, when I listened to Humes--in real time--that I had "made contact", and that he knew exactly what I was talking about.

One has to hear this tape to make a judgment about Humes demeanor.  I will attempt to get that recording digitized and posted on the net.

Simply reading the words, on the page, does not convey the emotional quality, and the effect that conversation had  on me, at the time.

Today, i realize that Humes is much more complicit than I had originally believed, when I wrote Best Evidence. But by "complicit" I am referring (more or less) to his state of knowledge, and to certain things that he did "after the fact"; i.e., his aweness of multiple coffin arrivals; his involvement in getting the FBI agents to leave the morgue "early" by announcing autopsy conclusions that were incorrect, etc.  And, just for the record,  I certainly do not believe that Humes performed any surgery --i.e., pre-autopsy surgery--on the president's head.

The President's body arrived already messed up, and with no brain inside the cranium.  Just watch the B.E. Research Video and see Paul O'Connor's account, which I filmed in October 1980, for yourself.  The late Jerrol Custer, the X-ray tech, practically corroborated O'Connor when he described--both on the phone (1979)and then again on camera (October 1980) that "I could stick both my hands inside the cranium" (from memory).

Furthermore, there is one other stunning piece of corroboration, and I'll get into this, in detail, in Final Charade, and concerns FBI Agent Francis O'Neill.

FBI Agent Francis O'Neill --back in 1992--privately told a good friend of his that the cranium was empty.  He said this more than once, and insisted on that being true. Then someone clued him in that that would provide major support for B.E., and my work, and he didn't like me (or that idea) at all.  And so O'Neill then changed his story, equivocated, and said things like "Well, maybe there was half a brain."  (See His ARRB testimony, September 1997).  Sorry Charlie (as the saying goes), but the cranium was empty (as Paul O'Connor told the HSCA in 1977, and me in August 1979, and then again --on camera--in October 1980); and FBI Agent Francis O'Neill said the same thing, when queried by a close friend, who conveyed all of this to me, in 1992.

Gotta run.

DSL

2/10/2017 - 3:30 A.M. PST

Los Angeles, California

Thanks for your comment -- It is certainly a big deal if the body's chain of custody is in question. But Dr. Perry's Warren Commission testimony says that he severed the exterior strap muscles in the neck-- that's a far bigger job than making an incision in the windpipe that's only a couple of centimeters. Also, couldn't the widely gaping irregular edges come from the metal trach tube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey:

This is why you have the reputation you do.

The acoustics evidence has not been discredited.  Don Thomas has taken on that 1982 review more than adequately.

It is still controversial, I grant you that.  But its not discredited.

But I will add one more thing.  There is a creditable writer/researcher who is working on this right now.  Besides Thomas.

You will not like the results.  And he/she will demolish further the 1982 review. 

 

Share this post


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

Paul Trejo, like many other CTers I've talked to over the years, apparently wants to ignore the fact that the HSCA's "4th shot" evidence was completely debunked and invalidated in 1982. He talks as though the "acoustics evidence" is still upright and valid here in 2017. (Paul must be related to Anthony Marsh.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

 

Who cares?

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

David, you admit the jacket wasn't significantly elevated on Elm St. due to the normal amount of exposed shirt collar in the Elm St. photos.

That's the ball game, whether you can bring yourself to admit it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares?

Yes, my thoughts exactly.  There's no way clothing with holes in them that low can somehow point *upward* when they supposedly were shot *downward* and then go on to wound JBC.

Although this video is on a different topic look at the end of it, of the government's own reenactment:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxa3NqTEpScWNQZnc

The image you see of looking through the scope had to have been taken before they came up with the SBT.  Look how you can see the accurate marking on the stand-in's coat for the back wound.

Remember David - I didn't take this photo, nor Cliff, nor Jim DiEugenio, nor any other "crazy" CT-er.  It was taken by the side that you so dearly and loyally support - the government's and the same side Vince B supports as well...no questions asked.  Can you not tell us that just looking at that image alone would have created doubt in a jury of our peers if LHO had gone to trial?

Share this post


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

Thanks, Paul.

But I still maintain that conspiracy theorists have little to nothing to offer in the way of "evidence" (particularly physical evidence).

Let's face it, Paul, all JFK conspiracy theories rely on nothing but speculation, guesswork, and unsubstantiated and questionable witnesses like Gerry Hemming.

Don't you wish you had just ONE solid piece of physical evidence to support your belief in a JFK conspiracy? Instead, you've got Gerry Patrick Hemming.

David,

I think you underestimate the works of David Lifton, who shows how the JFK autopsy data -- which are material evidence -- make a strong case for conspiracy.

The HSCA also found DPD radio-recordings -- which are material evidence -- which make a good case for conspiracy (admittedly disputed, but still standing).

Also -- many of the WC witnesses claimed that they heard shots come from the Grassy Knoll -- which also makes a strong case for conspiracy.

Once it is clear that there was more than one shooter, the various theories suggest themselves.  So this is far from mere guesswork and speculation, David.  

Logic is involved, and the details must be guessed at, precisely because the US Government openly withheld (and continues to withhold) thousands of documents relating to the JFK assassination from us.  So, of course speculation enters into the theories at this point.

Yet it is precisely the MATERIAL EVIDENCE in the first place that belies the original mythology of the "Lone Nut" shooter at JFK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


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

Excellent vid, Michael!

Von Pein and a legion of CT Pet Theorists are practiced in ignoring the physical evidence in the JFK murder case.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 6:27 PM, Alistair Briggs said:

At its root the plotters plan is to 'kill the President' - nothing more, nothing less. From that point they would have to work out the 'how'. If their one and only plan of 'how' was to shoot from the front only and manufacture a false story to implicate a shooter from behind by altering the body then talk about over-complicating matters. lol I'm sure it wasn't their first option! I'm sure they would have considered many other options first. If they eventually reached the conclusion that was their best option than so be it. It's just that, personally, I can think of so many other options that they could have done that could, and I repeat, could, have been succesful (as in they would have killed JFK and got away with it (maybe lol) without altering the body...

In Chapter 14 you mention that the 'snipers nest' and 'gun' had to be "placed on the sixth floor beforehand, critical evidence in the President's murder, waiting to be found". Whilst the 'placing' could be done any time prior to the assassination, I think it is fair to say, mathematically, the closer to the time the better (else they, and in particular the gun, could be 'found' too soon before the assassination)...

As part of your triangular case against Oswald, (B) The Oswald-Victim Link, you mention the 'need' for the plotters "to have someone stand near the window, roughly of Oswald's height and weight, and appear to fire a gun at the President". The need to create such an appearance was to cover any 'eye-witnesses' that may look up...

Can it be said that whoever it was that set up the snipers nest etc was the same someone who stood near the window at the time of the assassination? Considering the 'risks' and the 'time' issue, I feel it would be fair to say that it was the same somebody and it must have happened (relatively) close to the time of the assassination (my personal preference would be to say no sooner than 30 minutes before). NB: The motorcade was late so presumably whoever it was that set all this up had to do so in time for the originally planned time of arrival!

What we seem to have then is someone taking the gun up to the 6th floor, creating the snipers nest, waiting about until the time the President passed, sticking the 'gun' out the window  but not actually shooting - for reasons you have stated both in your book and in your kind response to me, that makes sense.

Following on from that, I have considered the alternatives of who that could have been (whether it was an 'employee' of the TSBD or a 'stranger'), and it always leads me to more and more questions - too many to delve in to here. Suffice to say, I have considered a lot. ;)

Anyway, (I know I'm being a bit jumpy here. lol)

Question to self: Was Oswald an unwitting 'patsy'... define 'unwitting' - not aware of the full facts! - Aware of some of the facts? Part of the plot? To some extent, not complicit perhaps, but not 'innocent'! eg: must have brought rifle in! Someone else brought the rifle in? Who, not important at moment! Where did they get it from? When did they get it? How did they bring it in to the TSBD? Simplest answer? - Oswald brought it in! Passed it on to someone else? Only if he wasn't the one 'not actually shooting'...

If Oswald wasn't the one 'not actually shooting', that had to be someone else who was 'part of the plan'... wherever else Oswald was, the plotters have to have done something to make sure Oswald wasn't in a 'seen' position elsewhere at the time - they had to manage that somehow - they couldn't just rely on luck. (Note to self)... the most simple 'answer' - two birds with one stone - have Oswald be the one to be 'not actually shooting'... solves the problem of having to make sure he wasn't seen elsewhere at the time and solves the problem of having someone else do it 'unnoticed'. If that was the case then why did Oswald not say so under interrogation? Perhaps he would think doing so would not help him as he would thus be admitting to be part of the plot (conspiracy to commit murder!)...

Inference: Oswald was the person in the snipers nest at the window at the time of the assassination with his rifle 'not shooting at the President' just pretending!

*I have to step away from the computer for a while to gather my thoughts...

... thoughts gathered. ;)

If Oswald wasn't the one 'not shooting from the 6th floor', for the plot to work, Oswald can't be seen somewhere else at the time of the assassination or the plot fails. Logically, one of the plotters must have 'positioned' Oswald 'out of sight'. There must have been some kind of contact (whether directly or indirectly)...

... and if there was some kind of contact, why not position Oswald in a place outwith the building and isolated and then the plotters can shoot from their chosen location and not have to worry about altering the body!

If the plotters considered firing from the 6th floor window either too risky a shot to succeed or too risky a position to do it from themselves, and instead chose a different location, then why not do something to position Oswald 'out of sight' near there and shoot Kennedy with Oswald's gun from there and then there is no need to alter the body.

The above is somewhat rhetorical and was mostly me just pouring out some thoughts on the topic. ;)

It's just, to me, there seems to be countless options of what the plotters could have done to succeed and avoid the need to alter the body.

*I'll go out on a limb here and say that I reckon it would be easier to find someone willing to take the risk of being caught shooting from the TSBD than it would be to find people willing to alter the President's body. lol

I look forward to Final Charade 

Peace and kind regards. :)

 

Alistair Briggs: Thanks much for the time and effort you  put into your post, and the fact that you obviously paid close attention to Chapter 14 of B.E., and in particular, my Figure 26, which is titled "Case Against Oswald Viewed as a Triangle."  That's a critically important diagram, and if one compares what happened on 11/22/63 to a "screenplay," that's the schematic explaining the structure of the screenplay.  There's a myriad of details one can discuss and debate, but that diagram encapsulates  (and displays) the structure.  Although B.E. was largely written between 1977 and April 1980, the thinking (and analysis) expressed in Chapter 14, and displayed in that diagram, reflects my thinking as of December 1966, about two months after I discovered the evidence of body alteration (10/23/66), and about a month after Liebeler sent out his 11/8/66 memo to Chief Justice Warren and the rest of the WC legal staff  (transmitted on 11/16/66, via a letter available at the Ford Library).  The bottom line: if my analysis is correct, then on 11/22/63 and in the days immediately following, the country was the target of a major strategic deception that lay behind the transition of power from Kennedy to Johnson.  That triangle is a pictorial representation--in effect, a blueprint--of  the fabrication of the false (Oswald-did-it) narrative, that lay at the heart of that deception. 

Your post tells me that you have given serious thought to how this deception might have been synthesized, and how its "moving parts" might have worked.  Good, that's exactly why I wrote Chapter 14.  FWIW, and if I can take you back to the period Oct-Nov-December 1966: In the first couple of weeks, I was simply horrified and disgusted at what appeared to have happened to JFK's body (and I tried to capture all of that in my narrative).  Then came a few weeks intensely devoted to the details (See Chapters 11, 12, 13, 18 etc.)) Then came a lot of questioning and cogitation, and attempting to answer the question(s): "What the heck is going on here?  What does all of this mean?" 

During that period, I had a number of discussions with Professor Liebeler, but also with his top law student (and the person who later became his wife), Susan Liebeler.  In the very beginning, I failed to appreciate the full extent of what I had discovered, and thought of body alteration was akin to some sort of "magic trick" by which clever plotters had concealed the "second assassin" (e.g., the one on the knoll).    But these early conversations with Prof. Liebeler, and Susan W. set me straight, and made me realize the full extent of the corruption--the systemic (political and "legal") corruption--with which I was dealing.  A key phrase--and a key concept---was the notion of "fraud in the evidence"; and that, to some extent, was a jumping off point to a wider concept: strategic deception.    But. . .to what end?  Answer: To promote a false narrative, one which would facilitate the smooth operation of the presidential line of succession. 

I remember one conversation where one (or both) of them said to me: "Don't you 'get it'?  This isn't about a 'second assassin'!"  Well, at the very beginning, I didn't get it.  But it wasn't too long before (finally) I "got it."  Today, in 2017, there are still people who come to the Kennedy case sort of like a weekend hobby, and think they will find some error or glitch in the Warren Report, that will prove there was a "second assassin." Then they can go back to work on Monday morning, and feel they have accomplished something. I think the reason Bugliosi was so furious with Best Evidence (and with me) is that it challenged the underpinnings of his entire professional career.  Everything he had learned in law school was at stake; if my analysis was correct, what he had learned had proved useless (in finding the truth) and the country had been deceived by the falsification of the "best evidence":  a false autopsy, a planted murder weapon, some bullet fragments--do all that with some verisimilitude, and you can change the occupant of the Oval Office. 

Again, thanks for paying attention to the diagram --Figure 26 (in Chapter 14).  I'll be having a lot more to say about all of that in Final Charade.

DSL

2/10/17 - 5:55 p.m. PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aaa

6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Thanks for your comment -- It is certainly a big deal if the body's chain of custody is in question. But Dr. Perry's Warren Commission testimony says that he severed the exterior strap muscles in the neck-- that's a far bigger job than making an incision in the windpipe that's only a couple of centimeters. Also, couldn't the widely gaping irregular edges come from the metal trach tube?

It seems to me that the opening in the skin (3 cm wide) could simply have been "slid" around as required to gain access to the strap muscle. I just tried to move the skin of my throat around and it moves very easily. Though only to a point, of course.

Regardless of that, there is little doubt that the wound was messed around with given the jaggedness of it. It really should have been quite clean.

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

×
×
  • Create New...