Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Brancato

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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Addressing the first part of your sentence—“The assassination was designed to look like exactly what it was, a military-style ambush”: that is not supported by the evidence, not at all.

 

David,

I guess I didn't express myself very well, since you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. 

When I said it was designed to look like a military-style ambush, I was not talking about what it looked like to the media. I was talking about the evidence that JFK was shot from the front, back, and (many believe) from the side (meaning the grassy knoll). From the evidence doesn't it certainly "look like" it was an ambush? Furthermore, a real autopsy would have certainly made it look like an ambush, because that's what it was, and there was no reason to cover up the fact that it was an ambush (there was no cover-up design or plan) until the arrest of Oswald caused the Castro-ambushed-JFK scenario to be aborted in favor of a lone-nut scenario. And as you are aware, they had a hell of a time making it look like the work of a lone shooter (based on evidence, not the media).

I'm sorry that I caused you to go to such lengths to refute what I was not trying to say.

 

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


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

David,

I guess I didn't express myself very well, since you have misinterpreted what I was trying to say. 

When I said it was designed to look like a military-style ambush, I was not talking about what it looked like to the media. I was talking about the evidence that JFK was shot from the front, back, and (many believe) from the side (meaning the grassy knoll). From the evidence doesn't it certainly "look like" it was an ambush? Furthermore, a real autopsy would have certainly made it look like an ambush, because that's what it was, and there was no reason to cover up the fact that it was an ambush (there was no cover-up design or plan) until the arrest of Oswald caused the Castro-ambushed-JFK scenario to be aborted in favor of a lone-nut scenario. And as you are aware, they had a hell of a time making it look like the work of a lone shooter (based on evidence, not the media).

I'm sorry that I caused you to go to such lengths to refute what I was not trying to say.

 

 

Ron:

Well, let me see if I can take another shot at this.

I appreciate your reply, but I think your elaboration has simply exposed further problems with your hypothesis.

Apparently, you subscribe to the view that there are multiple pro-Castro shooters located in Dealey Plaza.  In normal practice, each sniper usually has a spotter, and then, in this case, there probably also has to be a communications person.  And, in addition, and very possibly, one or more security persons protecting the  perimeter for the sniper. So, as a practical matter, each sniper would be part of a 3-person team, at least, and very likely each such position would have 5 people: again, the sniper, the spotter, a communications man, and perhaps two security persons.

Here’s the question I believe you must address: if you really believe this is a Castro ambush.  So please explain:            

     (a) your surmised locations for these different sniper teams; and

     (b) how it was arranged that they could (1) arrive at Dealey Plaza and set up their positions; and (2) shoot at the president and then (3) exit Dealey Plaza, and none of this would come to the attention of the Dallas Police or Sheriffs?

Alternatively: Are you implying that the Dallas Police Department offered protection, and then an exit strategy, for these multiple Castro ambush teams? That the Dallas Police  assisted them (somehow) so that they would remain concealed during the shooting, and then helped them get away afterwards?

    No you don't say that, but is that the implication?

So that  would be my first question - - you posit multiple (pro-Castro) sniper teams set up to shoot at Kennedy; teams that then actually do shoot at Kennedy, and murder him; and then they somehow exit Dealey Plaza under the nose(s) of the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas County Sheriff’s office, and there’s not a single trace in the record of any such activity.

Where are they located?  How come no one saw them shooting?  How did they exit?

            My second question concerns Oswald.  I don’t know what you position is on this question, but are you saying or implying that believe that Oswald was a shooter in this affair? If so, we part ways completely, because if you believe Oswald was an assassin--i.e., a pro-Castro sniper--then  you do not understand who he is, or his basic character.  He was not a fanatic at all, but a serious  admirer of Kennedy. He was quiet, and even meek.  As one of his fellow Marines once told me, he was very "Adlai Stevenson-ish."

     F inally, and perhaps most importantly, you seem to be promoting the idea that “there was no reason to cover up the fact that it was an ambush (i.e., there was no cover-up design or plan) until the arrest of Oswald.

    Oh really?

   Oswald was arrested at about 2 p.m. and brought to the police station by about 2:10.  But thirty minutes before, at least, a bullet had been placed on a Parkland Hospital stretcher that would link back to his rifle.

  No plan?

   I could cite you a lot of evidence that indicates otherwise.

   For example, according to Connally's posthumously published memoir, when he was wheeled up to surgery, a bullet dropped to the floor off his stretcher, too. (That item disappeared).

  No plan?

   But let's get more specific, and go to the first five minutes following the murder, and to the evidence on the Dallas Police tapes.

    There you will hear—within the first 5 minutes—three separate Dallas motorcycle officers radio-ing in their reports that the shots came from the Texas School  Book Depository, from the sixth floor, and finally, the third one--broadcasting at 12:37 P.M.-- actually specifies the window---the SE corner window on the sixth floor.

   No plan?

    This all unfolds in the first seven minutes; and all of this is laid out, in detail, in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence.

How do you explain this?  Do you think these DPD cycle officers were simply competent policemen doing their job?  That they all focused on the sniper’s nest at the sixth floor SE corner window, and somehow ignored all the other pro-Castro snipers you posit were present, at different locations on Dealey Plaza?  

Or: Do you believe they were deceived about the presence of the other shooters? (And if so, how?)

Alternatively, do you believe these Dallas Police officers, who made these radio transmissions pinpointing the TSBD, within the first 5-7 minutes  were part of the “supporting cast” of the pro-Castro ambush team assembled in Dealey Plaza for the murder of the President?  A "supporting cast" consisting of members of the Dallas Police Department?

Again. .  .no plan?

To wrap this up: No, I don’t think your “Castro-ambushed” Dealey Plaza theory is going to work, especially since (a) there is no evidence of the presence of other “pro-Castro” sniper teams in Dealey Plaza; and (b) I don’t see the Dallas Police Department playing a supporting role in such a major operation, one apparently designed (according to your political parameters) to support a group of pro-Castro assassins.

        Finally, my most important objection of all is your apparent belief that you can have a multiple-shooter Castro-arranged  ambush in Dallas, and that there would be no particular attempt to hide the reality of what was happening. Apparently you believe that, under such circumstances, that the Vice President would then accede to the presidency—and all of this would happen in accordance with the procedures for the presidential succession laid out in the U.S. Constitution.

    Politically, I do not think that would work.  At all.

      Essentially, you are positing that a network anchor such as Walter Cronkite would calmly tell 100 million Americans that a bunch of Castro assassins just shot the president in Dallas (and on the basis of what evidence, may I ask?); but not to worry, because Lyndon Johnson was being sworn in as president, so everything would be just fine.

     As someone we both know well would say, “That dog won’t hunt.”

I hope I have not gone to great lengths to, once again, "refute what you were not trying to say."

DSL

4/11/2017; 6:05 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

So that  would be my first question - - you posit multiple (pro-Castro) sniper teams set up to shoot at Kennedy; teams that then actually do shoot at Kennedy, and murder him; and then they somehow exit Dealey Plaza under the nose(s) of the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas County Sheriff’s office, and there’s not a single trace in the record of any such activity.

 

Where are they located?  How come no one saw them shooting?  How did they exit?

Why are you asking me these questions? Do you believe that Oswald was a lone shooter? If you believe, as I do, that there were multiple shooters, why don't you answer your own questions? Have you done so? Why are you putting the burden on me if we both believe there were multiple shooters? I suspect there was a shooter at the south end of the overpass (the fatal shot), one from the Dal-Tex Building, maybe one from the top of the Records building, but I don't know. Do you?

 

            My second question concerns Oswald.  I don’t know what you position is on this question, but are you saying or implying that believe that Oswald was a shooter in this affair?

I don't believe for a second that Oswald was a shooter. But I have to wonder if you do from your questions.

 

 

 

     Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you seem to be promoting the idea that “there was no reason to cover up the fact that it was an ambush (i.e., there was no cover-up design or plan) until the arrest of Oswald.

 

    Oh really?

I didn't mean to say there were no contingency plans. But covering up an ambush of the president in broad daylight would be a desperate contingency plan out of necessity. And the government later that afternoon and evening indeed seemed to be acting out of desperation. At least that's what it looks like to me.

To wrap this up: No, I don’t think your “Castro-ambushed” Dealey Plaza theory is going to work, especially since (a) there is no evidence of the presence of other “pro-Castro” sniper teams in Dealey Plaza; and (b) I don’t see the Dallas Police Department playing a supporting role in such a major operation.

Where did you get the idea that I think there were pro-Castro shooters? I have said that the ambush (IMO) was to be blamed on Castro. (Operation Northwoods Revised Edition.) I have no idea who the shooters were.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I agree with your comments, Steve. After JFK was murdered, Jackie became the ex President's wife, with no special privileges. 

Ray,

 

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

 

Jackie had all the "special privileges". As JFK's legal heir, no one else had any.

We know there was a pushing match in the hallway. We know that Jackie was standing right there.

We know that Earl Rose was saying, "No, it's Texas State Law..."

Who convinced Jackie to ignore that and how?

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Ray,

........

Who convinced Jackie to ignore that and how?

..........

 

Steve Thomas

I would say that that was easy, no convincing necessary. She wanted out of Dallas, toute de suite.

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

I just ask this out of curiosity and not for any other reason.

 

What do you think would have been the scenario?

 

A lengthy standoff?

A discovery of LHO hiding?

A shootout?  Doesn't seem like there would be enough bulletis in the rifle for a shootout.

Oswald rushing the police armed with?

A throwdown gun?  Planted by which likely culprit? 

 

Steve Thomas

Steve,

I think its likely that Oswald would have been shot dead in the building by a law enforcement officer who encountered him either on an upper floor, or on the stairway coming down.  Of course, I suppose its possible that Oswald would be discovered "hiding" somewhere, but I don't think that is likely.  

DSL

4/11/2017 8:55 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Share this post


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

Sandy,

Jackie Kennedy testified -- along with the Secret Service -- about the 11/22/1963 decision to rip JFK's body away from Parkland Hospital before an autopsy in Dallas as follows:

(1) After JFK was pronounced dead at 1pm, the Secret Service from Washington DC now considered Dallas a hell-hole; and uncertain whether this was a wider conspiracy, had one new duty -- to get LBJ out of Dallas ASAP, before LBJ himself might be assassinated.

(2) Jackie could not be left behind.  She had her own Secret Service men dedicated to her, and LBJ would not leave without her.  

(3)  The original plan at 1pm CST on 11/22/1963.was to leave JFK's body at Parkland and just hurry out of Dallas.

(4) HOWEVER -- Jackie absolutely refused to be separated from the body of JFK -- as a matter of personal emotion and family honor.

(5) THEREFORE -- to get LBJ and Jackie out of the Dallas danger-ground ASAP, the only compromise in this scenario was to insist -- forcefully  -- that the body of JFK had to fly to Washington with LBJ and Jackie (and the whole Secret Service staff) and obtain an autopsy back East.

(6) The Secret Service had to draw their pistols to rip JFK's body away from Parkland Hospital.  But protecting LBJ and Jackie was now job one.

(7) The Secret Service gave Jackie every convenience in this action -- they got a suitable casket for the body, first; although time was ticking away.  When the casket wouldn't fit into the doors of the airplane, they sawed the handles off -- quick.

(8) Then LBJ was sworn in at 2:38pm CST on AF1.   Then they began their flight back to Washington DC.

The following is my CT:

(9) At about 4pm EST somebody in Washington DC, likely J. Edgar Hoover, came up with the Lone Gunman theory of the JFK assassination (says David Wrone (2001)). 

(10) At about 6pm EST AF1 landed at Andrews AFB.  

(11) This two-hour gap, from 4pm to 6pm EST, was when a pre-autopsy autopsy was planned and begun -- to accommodate the Lone Nut theory.   Oswald alone would bear the full blame for the JFK assassination -- as US State Dogma.

It might seem a tight fit, but the US Government had nothing else to do but to coordinate the national response to this outrage.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

       So, after the Secret Service bungled their main objective(keeping the president alive) and disregarded their own policies and regulations...I.E. not travelling adequate speed for a convertible, letting windows be open along the route, coming to a near stop after drawing fire...they decided to kick it into hyper-drive once Jackie decided she couldn't be separated from the body? I guess the SS agents present knew they had screwed up pretty big, like Custer big, but I find this to be odd. Didn't they also immediately start wiping down the limo of all the blood and brain matter at Parkland?  

  Their actions come off as illogical, and that usually indicates something funky afoot. I agree Mrs. Kennedy was most likely in a state of extreme shock, but convincing her that it would be illegal to remove the body of her husband for the sake of a better chance at finding out who, what, and why quickly, should not have been impossible to the point where they drew their sidearms in some dramatic fashion. The first hours after a crime like that are crucial. Why would any agent of our government, especially law enforcement allow the victim's body to travel half way across the country during the opening hours of investigation? No matter who that person was, that shoots giant red flags all over the sky in my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

       So, after the Secret Service bungled their main objective(keeping the president alive) and disregarded their own policies and regulations...I.E. not travelling adequate speed for a convertible, letting windows be open along the route, coming to a near stop after drawing fire...they decided to kick it into hyper-drive once Jackie decided she couldn't be separated from the body? I guess the SS agents present knew they had screwed up pretty big, like Custer big, but I find this to be odd. Didn't they also immediately start wiping down the limo of all the blood and brain matter at Parkland?  

  Their actions come off as illogical, and that usually indicates something funky afoot. I agree Mrs. Kennedy was most likely in a state of extreme shock, but convincing her that it would be illegal to remove the body of her husband for the sake of a better chance at finding out who, what, and why quickly, should not have been impossible to the point where they drew their sidearms in some dramatic fashion. The first hours after a crime like that are crucial. Why would any agent of our government, especially law enforcement allow the victim's body to travel half way across the country during the opening hours of investigation? No matter who that person was, that shoots giant red flags all over the sky in my eyes.

Exactly, Jeffrey. How many of the SS men who "kidnapped" the President's body, against  the law, were charged with so doing?

Share this post


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

 

Your post makes reference to "Operation Northwoods Revised Edition." 

I know about Northwoods (I am familiar with Northwoods, but not the term "Revised Edition").  What is that? 

If you could explain, I'd appreciate that. If you wish to reply via private email, use: dsl74@cornell.edu

Thanks.

DSL

Share this post


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

Your post makes reference to "Operation Northwoods Revised Edition." 

I know about Northwoods (I am familiar with Northwoods, but not the term "Revised Edition").  What is that? 

If you could explain, I'd appreciate that. If you wish to reply via private email, use: dsl74@cornell.edu

Thanks.

DSL

I'll venture a guess... it's a non-official term.

Commie-Cuban Attacks on the East Coast

Revised to...

Commie-Cuban assassination of the President in Dallas.

After the fact, aborted and downgraded to

A deranged, lone-nut, American, Commie Sympathizer.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Your post makes reference to "Operation Northwoods Revised Edition." 

I know about Northwoods (I am familiar with Northwoods, but not the term "Revised Edition").  What is that? 

If you could explain, I'd appreciate that. If you wish to reply via private email, use: dsl74@cornell.edu

Thanks.

DSL

It's my way of saying they took Operation Northwoods off the shelf and revised it. A new idea for a terrorist act (kill the president) to blame on Castro and invade Cuba.

 

Share this post


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

 

Ron:  I'm too rushed to give this the time it deserves, but I don't think it was ever planned (or contemplated) to blame Castro publicly for Kennedy's assassination.  What was planned--IMHO--was to blame Oswald for JFK's death, and then, behind the scenes (so to speak) for Johnson (and certain others) to be able to hint broadly that there was a "darker" underside to the event, but it would have to remain secret to avoid war. Painting that picture was easy--there was all the pro-Castro data that was part of Oswald's activities, his trip to Mexico City, etc.   Returning to my prior--and more lengthy --post, I think the AP and UPI wire service records provide a very good evidentiary record of what was planned.  If some military  person(s) had the idea that they could launch a war against Cuba, I think that was shut down fairly quickly, by Johnson, whose position seemed to be: "Thanks very much for the presidency, but the party's over, so you can switch off the lights, and now we can get down to the ordinary business of running the country." Johnson had no interest in a war with Cuba; but what he had--imho--was an obligation to escalate in Asia. He managed to delay on that until about a month after he was re-inaugurated iin January 1965, after winning his "own term" as President, in the 1964 election.  Bobby Kennedy viewed Johnson as a usurper, but he couldn't prove it--or if he could, he chose not to go down that path (at least not publicly).  So . . .that's the kind of "transfer of power" that we had on November 22, 1963.  Completely in accordance with the presidential succession provisions of the U.S. Constitution, and with no "hard evidence" (at that time) that this was an "inside job."

DSL

4/11/2017; 7:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Johnson had no interest in a war with Cuba; but what he had--imho--was an obligation to escalate in Asia.

On that we agree. That's why Johnson told the folks in Dallas "you've got your man." Period. Which of course was ridiculous.

But they got away with what they did because of the stupidity of the American people and their government-lapdog media.

I admit that I was one of those stupid Americans for years, until I finally got around to peeking into books like Best Evidence. (The first time I saw your book, in a library, I looked at the subtitle and said, "Nah, that can't be true.") I ignored Mark Lane's early book Rush to Judgment, because a review in Time Magazine said it was a bunch of crap. If Time said it, it had to be true. 

Share this post


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

On that we agree. That's why Johnson told the folks in Dallas "you've got your man." Period. Which of course was ridiculous.

But they got away with what they did because of the stupidity of the American people and their government-lapdog media.

I admit that I was one of those stupid Americans for years, until I finally got around to peeking into books like Best Evidence. (The first time I saw your book, in a library, I looked at the subtitle and said, "Nah, that can't be true.") I ignored Mark Lane's early book Rush to Judgment, because a review in Time Magazine said it was a bunch of crap. If Time said it, it had to be true. 

Well, TIME covered the publication of  B.E. as a news story--giving it two full pages in the National Affairs section (in the January 19, 1981 issue). It ran under the title "Now, a Two-Casket Argument", a fine article by staff writer Ed Magnuson,  who wrote many TIME cover stories.  Further, I was told that B.E had a shot at becoming the cover story. (Wish it had!).  I'd be curious to know what year you finally read Best Evidence, because that's when you finally crossed the Rubicon into the world of "fraud in the evidence."  Most people cannot handle that.

DSL

4/11/2017 - 8:35 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

Now, a Two-Casket Argument -- TIME_ 1|19|81 copy.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

I'd be curious to know what year you finally read Best Evidence, because that's when you finally crossed the Rubicon into the world of "fraud in the evidence."  Most people cannot handle that.

 

I think the first JFK book I read was Crossfire, which was published in 1989. My brother had it and lent it to me. That prompted me to read BE and others. Probably in 1990. That was the year I made my pilgrimage to Dealey Plaza.

 

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...