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

CV: 

My argument is that the personnel who took positions in Dealey Plaza weren't connected to the guys who framed and eventually killed Oswald, except both were controlled from the very top.

Garrison investigated the Oswald Kill Team; he wasn't allowed to get close to the JFK Kill Team.

 

The declassified record betray the opposite as the case.

Certain people on this board do to like to let the facts get in the way of their agenda driven theories.


 

Share this post


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

CV: 

My argument is that the personnel who took positions in Dealey Plaza weren't connected to the guys who framed and eventually killed Oswald, except both were controlled from the very top.

Garrison investigated the Oswald Kill Team; he wasn't allowed to get close to the JFK Kill Team.

 

The declassified record betray the opposite as the case.

Certain people on this board do to like to let the facts get in the way of their agenda driven theories.


 

  •  

What facts?

Care to cite them -- or are you content to merely repeat your self-aggrandizing conclusions over and over?

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I mean.

 

Here is a guy who not just has no knowledge of the declassified record, he has not even read the recent books based upon that record.  He is still back in the days of Oliver Stone's film and the paperback version of Garrison's book. Then he says, well what did I miss?

Let me ask you Cliffie, what was the basis for your original supposition?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

And every one of them is too silly to consider for more than two seconds.

The prosectors at the autopsy didn't think it was silly to speculate JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds.

The FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was silly when they called the FBI lab to inquire as to the existence of such weapons.

US Army Special Operations Division didn't think it was silly when they briefed the FBI on these weapons, saying they'd be brought in from outside the country.

The CIA didn't think it was silly when they commissioned the creation of weapons that wouldn't leave a trace in the autopsy.

The Church committee didn't think it was silly when they questioned Charles Senseney and William Colby.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

The silliness lies within you, David.

Share this post


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

This is what I mean.

 

Here is a guy who not just has no knowledge of the declassified record, he has not even read the recent books based upon that record.  He is still back in the days of Oliver Stone's film and the paperback version of Garrison's book. Then he says, well what did I miss?

Let me ask you Cliffie, what was the basis for your original supposition?

Intelligence agency tradecraft, the compartmentalization of intel operations.

What did Kennedy's killers "need to know" about the patsy?  Nothing.

What did Oswald's handlers "need to know" about the assassination other than time and place?  Nothing.

btw, re "Cliffie": Is there any way you can discuss this subject like an adult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

My argument is that Dulles in '63 was in a much more vulnerable position.

He took the blame for the BOP -- why not the hit on JFK?

Ron,

I think it probable that the folks who set up the Paines as Oswald handlers were the same breed of folks who set up Hinckley.

Untouchable WASP Skull & Bones types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Ron,

I think it probable that the folks who set up the Paines as Oswald handlers were the same breed of folks who set up Hinckley.

Untouchable WASP Skull & Bones types.

It seems almost incredible that they would choose a patsy from a family that was friends with the Bushes, Bush being the obvious beneficiary of the patsy's action.

I don't think the plotters would have chosen Hinckley on their own, I have to believe that Bush informed them of Hinckley's existence as a good patsy prospect, so they went ahead and used him (knowing they were going to get away with the operation regardless).  But who knows. This country's in good hands, isn't it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Intelligence agency tradecraft, the compartmentalization of intel operations.

What did Kennedy's killers "need to know" about the patsy?  Nothing.

What did Oswald's handlers "need to know" about the assassination other than time and place?  Nothing.

btw, re "Cliffie": Is there any way you can discuss this subject like an adult?

 in other words, you did not have any information at all about what Garrison was inquiring into with the murder of Oswald, except your own preconceptions.

That is what I thought.  

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

 in other words, you did not have any information at all about what Garrison was inquiring into with the murder of Oswald, except your own preconceptions.

That is what I thought.  

In other words, you don't have a case to make that Garrison's investigation into Oswald got anywhere near Kennedy's killers.

It's interesting that David Lifton makes his case with relish, while you repeat your conclusions over and over with resentment when someone doesn't buy them.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

"HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)?


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.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, first Cliffie says that JG only found out about the killers of Oswald.  Not of Kennedy.

I call him on this, and ask him how he knows it since its contrary to the declassified files.

He then responds with this classic piece of generic zerodom:

Intelligence agency tradecraft, the compartmentalization of intel operations.

What did Kennedy's killers "need to know" about the patsy?  Nothing.

What did Oswald's handlers "need to know" about the assassination other than time and place?  Nothing.

 

Meaning not only does he not know anything about Garrison's investigation of Ruby, he knows even less about what JG found out about the actual murder of Kennedy!  He then tries to conceal this with the above glittering cliches about spy craft.  

Wow.  As I have said before, if you have nothing to say, then just don't say anything. 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Sure. But then we'd have to believe that that bullet just GOT LOST somehow, plus yet ANOTHER bullet GETS LOST too, don't forget. What are the odds? A billion to one against?

Isn't it time for conspiracy advocates to just accept the obvious truth? I.E., one bullet went clear through the man named John F. Kennedy and then went on to hit the man who was sitting in front of him (who was a man who also just happened to be wounded in the UPPER BACK by a bullet during the shooting that day).

And then there's the Z-Film evidence of the two victims reacting at precisely the same instant in time.

When all these factors are added together and assessed reasonably, what other logical conclusion can a sensible person come to other than: The SBT Is Correct?

I, for one, can't think of a single other "logical conclusion". Can you?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/sbt-clips.html

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Yeah right, I don't trust the FBI on what they found or didn't find in the limo. And where are those limo bone and hair fragments seen by Gies, Davis, and Hutch?

Oh and also you believe that crapola about the left profile autopsy photo showing the high back wound. Yeah I don't think the shirt was a foot above the ears lol. Was Kennedy doing his best Cornholio impression when he was hit in the back? The HSCA said it was in the back and the left profile Artwohl stuff is BS.

There's more reasons to believe a EOP-throat connection than a back-throat connection. 

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the way I understand it. Correct me if I am wrong, Jim.

Garrison was on the right track at the time he indicted Shaw. He correctly suspected the CIA was behind the shooting.

However, Garrison's choice for indictment was far less than ideal, as Shaw appears to have had at most an ancillary role in the assassination. Garrison did not know this at the time.

So while Garrison was on the right track, the best he could have done with Shaw would have been to get important information from him or the government, had his work not been impeded by the government.

 

Share this post


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

For the record, first Cliffie says that JG only found out about the killers of Oswald.  Not of Kennedy.

I call him on this, and ask him how he knows it since its contrary to the declassified files.

He then responds with this classic piece of generic zerodom:

Intelligence agency tradecraft, the compartmentalization of intel operations.

What did Kennedy's killers "need to know" about the patsy?  Nothing.

What did Oswald's handlers "need to know" about the assassination other than time and place?  Nothing.

James DiEugenio's research hasn't brought him to understand the concept of "compartmentalization" in intelligence operations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(information_security)

Quote

Meaning not only does he not know anything about Garrison's investigation of Ruby, he knows even less about what JG found out about the actual murder of Kennedy!  He then tries to conceal this with the above glittering cliches about spy craft.  

When asked to provide the facts upon which he drew his conclusions DiEugenio gets nasty, demanding I prove a negative (Garrison didn't get close to Kennedy's killers) rather than present a positive (the facts leading to the conclusion Garrison identified JFK's killers).

Most folks are more than happy to lay out their arguments -- but not DiEugenio.

His resentment in the face of a challenge is startling.

Quote

Wow.  As I have said before, if you have nothing to say, then just don't say anything. 

And as he's demonstrated, DiEugenio has nothing to say in support of his claim Garrison identified Kennedy's killers.

If we don;t take his "expert" view on the subject he resorts to slimy rhetoric.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, yours is not the point being debated but I will take both of them up.

First, Garrison did a pretty thorough investigation into Dealey Plaza.  Much better I think than the HSCA, and of course rocket miles above the WC.  If you look at Bill Davy's book, on the bottom of page 287, you will see that he had centered on the Cuban exiles as being part of the hit team in Dealey Plaza.  To the point of asking them during polygraphs if they had seen any of the weapons used during the assassination, prior to the assassination. Also, Bernardo De Torres, who the HSCA discovered had pictures of the assassination in a safe deposit box, was an early infiltrator into his inquiry, and was very likely involved in the death of Eladio Del Valle.

To sketch one last detail, Fruge found out that Santana and Arcacha Smith were the two guys with Rose Cheramie talking about killing JFK on the way to Dallas.  And that Smith had maps of the sewer system under Dealey Plaza in his apartment in Dallas.  I could go on with this even further.  And you can see more details that I have in my critique of Epstein at Kennedysandking.  But the point is, Garrison did do an investigation into how the actual mechanics of the murder of JFK worked. To any objective person, he went further than any other inquiry and came up with some real evidence and suspects.

To my knowledge and from what I have seen in his extant files, there was no corresponding inquiry into the death of Oswald.  Probably because that was out of his jurisdiction and located in Dallas.  As anyone can see from his attempt to get Sergio Arcacha Smith back, or even question him, the Dallas Police were quite hostile.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

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...