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 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I said "I stand corrected" on the Garrison investigation.


I applaud Cliff for that. FWIW.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I applaud Cliff for that. FWIW.

 

I got it wrong.

What more can I say?

 

Share this post


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

I got it wrong.

What more can I say?

 

Now about those holes in the clothes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, PT, two can play your game"

 

Answer this question, yes or no:  

Did Ruth Paine's sister work for the CIA in 1963?

Answer this question yes or no:

Did Ruth visit her sister in late summer of 1963, just before heading down to New Orleans to meet up with the Oswalds?

Answer this question yes or no:

When Garrison questioned her before the grand jury, did he not ask Ruth who her sister worked for, and did Ruth not reply that she did not know?

Again, answer yes or no:

When Garrison tried to find out where Sylvia lived, did Ruth not mislead him on this point?

Again, yes or no:

Within just three weeks of meeting Marina, way before the pregnancy, way before New Orleans, did Ruth Paine compose a letter to Mrs. Oswald asking her to come live with the Paines?

I await your reply to these simple and direct questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I applaud Cliff for that. FWIW.

 

I got it wrong.

What more can I say?


Join the club.

Just yesterday I had to admit I'd been wrong every time I'd said it was impossible for a bullet to have passed by the knot of Kennedy's tie without putting a hole in it or destroying it. Because I found a photo of Kennedy that showed it might be possible under certain circumstances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Harold Weisberg interviewed Charles Carrico. (Post Mortem P. 598) He infored him that the nurses who were initially with him in Trauma room 1 ( before everyone else entered the room ) made those nicks on the shirt. He witnessed these cuts being made. I believe it may have been Diana Bowron. I understand a scalpel was used.

It does look like a scalpel cut. When cutting the tie the scalpel also cuts into the button hole part of the shirt and mekes it deepest cut there. The scalpel continues to damage the button side of the shirt, but this time it is a lighter and smaller cut.

I understand scissors is now the preferred method for removing clothes, but these do not look like scissor cuts. Like the damage to the shirt, it looks more like a knife (scalpel) has been used to cut it.

Bottom line. Unless there is reason to contradict Carrico - he states the these cuts were made under his supervision.

James.

Edited by James R Gordon
Reference not supplied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Jim,  I think that is what Weisiberg said in his letter to the Washington Post.

This was pretty powerful stuff.  It caused the other side to now claim that the bulliet exited above the collar.

Share this post


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

Sandy,

Harold Weisberg interviewed Charles Carrico. (Post Mortem P. 598) He infored him that the nurses who were initially with him in Trauma room 1 ( before everyone else entered the room ) made those nicks on the shirt. He witnessed these cuts being made. I believe it may have been Diana Bowron. I understand a scalpel was used.

It does look like a scalpel cut. When cutting the tie the scalpel also cuts into the button hole part of the shirt and mekes it deepest cut there. The scalpel continues to damage the button side of the shirt, but this time it is a lighter and smaller cut.

I understand scissors is now the preferred method for removing clothes, but these do not look like scissor cuts. Like the damage to the shirt, it looks more like a knife (scalpel) has been used to cut it.

Bottom line. Unless there is reason to contradict Carrico - he states the these cuts were made under his supervision.

James.


James,

I believe there had to have been a misunderstanding regarding the tie being cut and the slits in the shirt being made. Here's why...

By looking at the ends of the tie there the cut was made, it can be seen that the cut wasn't made with one or two straight slices. Whoever cut the tie did so by hacking away at it. If you've ever used a scalpel to cut something other than flesh, you'd know that the raggedness of the cut ends is indeed consistent with a scalpel being used, and not a good pair of scissors.

So I do believe the person used a scalpel to cut the tie.

However, I don't believe the person would have hacked away at the tie unless it were pulled away from the body. The risk of making cuts into the body -- the neck in this case -- would have been close to 100% IMO. Anybody with a little common sense would have pulled the tie away from the neck while making the cut.

But let's suppose the person held both the shirt and the tie away from the body during the cutting procedure. And held the two together for some unfathomable reason. I can't imagine any practical way that the blade would have penetrated the shirt just once while hacking away at the tie. Surely if the scalpel would have penetrated the shirt multiple times, and the blade would not have hit the same slit every time.

If you guys want to believe that those slits were accidentally made as a result of cutting through the tie, be my guest. But in my mind it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I believe that the witness (Carrico?) likely did see the cutting of the tie just as he said, but not the making of the slits. I believe that there was some miscommunication between him and Weisberg on that point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2017 at 6:27 PM, Micah Mileto said:

Didn't Michael Paine lie on that TV special and say that Oswald personally showed him the backyard photos?

Micah:

I don't believe Michael Paine lied.

To the contrary: he told the TV show exactly what he told me (in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass)--and we went through it in considerable detail.

Here's what Michael did not do.  He did not (as far as I recall) relate that incident to the WC, when he testified.

If I'm wrong, point me to the page of the WC deposition where he tells them, but I don't think he ever did.

Puzzled?  Here's what's going on. . . :

LHO was, in effect, "strutting his stuff" and "bragging" about what a great revolutionary he was.

Paine elected not to tell that to the WC, but it was a vivid memory, it actually happened, and he started telling that years later.

Many JFK researchers jumped on that because it contracted their view that LHO couldn't possible have possessed the back yard photos in March or April 1963. . because they believe these pictures were fabricated much later, i.e., after JFK was murdered.

 Well, they're wrong; and their whole model of "conspiracy"--if its built around that --is incorrect. Seriously incorrect.

LHO very likely --as Larry Schiller speculated to me, back in 1967--made those picture(s) himself (after Marina photographed him, but he did the fabrication, probably changing the rifle, etc). . but all of that took place during the period he was employed at Jaggars, and then he put copies of them in the family photo album, and had this particular copy in full  view, on a table or something, when Michael Paine picked him up to go to dinner at Ruths.

Bottom line: LHO "played" the Paines. both of them.

The great Trotskyist revolutionary.

I could add "IMHO", but I won't, because i truly believe that's what happened, and that's what's going on here.

DSL

4/25/2017 - 4:55 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:


James,

However, I don't believe the person would have hacked away at the tie unless it were pulled away from the body. The risk of making cuts into the body -- the neck in this case -- would have been close to 100% IMO. Anybody with a little common sense would have pulled the tie away from the neck while making the cut.
 

Sandy,

What kind of Scalpels are you accustomed to? "hacked away at the tie."

James.

Share this post


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

Ok, PT, two can play your game"

Answer this question, yes or no:  

Did Ruth Paine's sister work for the CIA in 1963?

Answer this question yes or no:

Did Ruth visit her sister in late summer of 1963, just before heading down to New Orleans to meet up with the Oswalds?

Answer this question yes or no:

When Garrison questioned her before the grand jury, did he not ask Ruth who her sister worked for, and did Ruth not reply that she did not know?

Again, answer yes or no:

When Garrison tried to find out where Sylvia lived, did Ruth not mislead him on this point?

Again, yes or no:

Within just three weeks of meeting Marina, way before the pregnancy, way before New Orleans, did Ruth Paine compose a letter to Mrs. Oswald asking her to come live with the Paines?

I await your reply to these simple and direct questions.

James,

I asked my question first. 

For the fifth time:

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

Yes or no?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Micah:

I don't believe Michael Paine lied..

LHO was, in effect, "strutting his stuff" and "bragging" about what a great revolutionary he was...

LHO very likely --as Larry Schiller speculated to me, back in 1967--made those picture(s) himself (after Marina photographed him, but he did the fabrication, probably changing the rifle, etc). . but all of that took place during the period he was employed at Jaggars, and then he put copies of them in the family photo album, and had this particular copy in full  view, on a table or something, when Michael Paine picked him up to go to dinner at Ruths.

Bottom line: LHO "played" the Paines. both of them.

The great Trotskyist revolutionary...

DSL

4/25/2017 - 4:55 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

I agree fully, and I will add that the Fake ID for Alek J. Hidell was also made during this same time on the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall photo equipment.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, James R Gordon said:

Sandy,

Harold Weisberg interviewed Charles Carrico. (Post Mortem P. 598) He infored him that the nurses who were initially with him in Trauma room 1 ( before everyone else entered the room ) made those nicks on the shirt. He witnessed these cuts being made. I believe it may have been Diana Bowron. I understand a scalpel was used.

It does look like a scalpel cut. When cutting the tie the scalpel also cuts into the button hole part of the shirt and mekes it deepest cut there. The scalpel continues to damage the button side of the shirt, but this time it is a lighter and smaller cut.

I understand scissors is now the preferred method for removing clothes, but these do not look like scissor cuts. Like the damage to the shirt, it looks more like a knife (scalpel) has been used to cut it.

Bottom line. Unless there is reason to contradict Carrico - he states the these cuts were made under his supervision.

James.

I agree that IMO a bullet did not go through the tie or the shirt, but went through the President's throat above both.

The President's jacket and the back of his shirt showed a bullet hole. The holes in the collar of the shirt were slits, not a bullet hole.

The slits in the shirt do not line up as they would if they were caused by a bullet. The one on the left of the shirt is higher than the one on the right of the shirt. If they had been caused by a bullet the left side would have overlapped the right side.

Dr Carrico said that the wound was above the where the tie was.

Nurse Bowron said that she saw a bullet hole in the throat as she was helping to get the President out of the limo.

Nurse Hinchcliffe said she saw a bullet hole in the President's throat.

Spectrographic examination showed that there were traces of copper, from the bullet, on the President's coat and the hole in the back of the shirt, but none on the slits in the collar.

 

 

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further indication that the cuts were caused by a scalpel rather than a bullet. The slit in the lower side of the shirt, i.e. the right half, is much smaller than the one on the left side of the shirt which would indicate less pressure on the lower side after the tie was cut off.

(How could a bullet or projectile make two different size holes in the same shirt?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSL:  Well, they're wrong; and their whole model of "conspiracy"--if its built around that --is incorrect. Seriously incorrect.

 

Funny, this is exactly what John McAdams always maintained. And so did Gus Russo.

 

And to PT, for the second time: 

Answer this question, yes or no:  

Did Ruth Paine's sister work for the CIA in 1963?

Answer this question yes or no:

Did Ruth visit her sister in late summer of 1963, just before heading down to New Orleans to meet up with the Oswalds?

Answer this question yes or no:

When Garrison questioned her before the grand jury, did he not ask Ruth who her sister worked for, and did Ruth not reply that she did not know?

Again, answer yes or no:

When Garrison tried to find out where Sylvia lived, did Ruth not mislead him on this point?

Again, yes or no:

Within just three weeks of meeting Marina, way before the pregnancy, way before New Orleans, did Ruth Paine compose a letter to Mrs. Oswald asking her to come live with the Paines?

I await your reply to these simple and direct questions.

 

 

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...