Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Yet please also admit that we can have two pieces of furniture -- a desk and a table -- and in passing call them both, "tables".

It's done quite a lot in English usage.  Two objects do not necessarily entail only two names.

That's fair.

If while reading her testimony, I find that Ruth is questioned about a "desk secretary" or a "dining table", should I conclude that it could mean either table or the specific table mentioned in the question and/or answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 853
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 11:13 AM, David Lifton said:

The alteration of President Kennedy's body--i.e., the removal of bullets and, as necessary , the alteration of certain wounds--was integral to Kennedy's assassination. It was central to the assassination planning, which is why I have said, repeatedly, that this was a "body-centric" plot.

In Final Charade, I will present (additional) evidence of that statement, very powerful evidence, that I cannot disclose at this time.

<snip>

THE "EXCUSE MAKERS"

So the plain and simple fact that the body was altered--and altered "afterwards" (because, of course, Kennedy's body could not be altered until after he was murdered--that idea of "afterwards"  somehow morphs into the wrong-headed and mistaken that the whole idea of "altering the body" -- that that entire concept was first "conceived of" later, that it was all "after the fact" and somehow inspired by (or connected with) a  "noble act" authorized by "higher authority" whose "enlightened" motive for this despicable alteration (this "obstruction of justice") was  to avoid a nuclear war.  In other words, a political theory, for which there is no real basis, is offered as an "explanation" or "justification" for what happened to JFK's body, after his death.

That's just bunk.  Codswallop.

Instead of facing the ugly reality of the crime, some people persist in looking for an "acceptable" (or "politically correct") explanation.

<snip>

DSL
4/19/2017 - 9 a.m. PDT

David,

First, I look forward to seeing how you will support your "body-centric" CT with "very powerful evidence."   Perhaps I will be persuaded.

However -- as of today -- I am not.  My CT -- that the JFK pre-autopsy autopsy was a rush job, conceived at 4pm EST on 11/22/1963 -- still has energy, IMHO.

You argue against my CT, calling it "Codswallop," which is an amusing old British term for "nonsense."   Nice English usage.

But the cleverness of your English is not an argument.  Let's look at your argument again.

1.  That the idea of altering JFK's body "after" he was dead "somehow morphs" into the mistaken idea that idea of "altering the body" later.

2.  That this idea of altering JFK's body "after the fact" was inspired by a "noble act" by Hoover and LBJ to avoid a nuclear war -- that this is NONSENSE.

3.  That this idea of avoiding nuclear war is "a political theory, for which there is no real basis."

Yet the truth begs to differ -- the idea of avoiding nuclear war in 1963 was a very real concern.  It had a very real basis.   Further, any move to lie to the American People in the interest of National Security (i.e. to avoid nuclear war) if it is truly legitimate, is most certainly a noble act, and deserves recognition, even a half-century later.

I assure you that I'm not faint-hearted in the least, and the idea of a brutal crime does not scare me away -- if (and only if) solid evidence is presented to make the case.

Finally, I made no "morph" of the fact of the alteration of JFK's body into a "mistaken idea" of the alteration.  JFK's body was altered after he was shot, and the only debate between us remains whether this alteration was planned weeks or months in advance (as you will argue in your new book, Final Charade), or whether it was a last minute decision to push a Lone Shooter theory of the JFK murder -- in order to prevent nuclear war -- as I argue here.

Perhaps you cannot say anything further on this question until after your book is published -- so I am content to wait until then to see whether I agree that you have indeed provided "very powerful evidence" to support your "pre-planned autopsy" theory.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

That's fair.

If while reading her testimony, I find that Ruth is questioned about a "desk secretary" or a "dining table", should I conclude that it could mean either table or the specific table mentioned in the question and/or answer?

Chris,

Why not just post here these questionable sentences that you find in Ruth Paine's WC testimony?  That way the reader doesn't need to guess at what you might have in mind.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2017 at 6:43 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Mr. JENNER - It did make you curious?

Mrs. PAINE - It did make me curious. Then, later that day, I noticed a scrawling handwriting on a piece of paper on the corner at the top of my secretary desk in the living room. It remained there.  Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper folded at the middle. The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false. And for this reason I then proceeded--

I have a lot of posts in this thread about the inconsistencies which you've suggested are based on colloquialisms and Ruth's manner of speaking "in passing". Let's just look at some things you posted for now.

Does the Q&A above suggest that sometime in the afternoon or evening of Nov. 9th Ruth found the rough draft in her living room on the desk secretary?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2017 at 9:20 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Angleton and Harvey.

Dulles was on the back-up patsy chain in my view.

Most likely William Harvey, though he was soused in Italy at the time. DAP has an alibi with his Fidel obsession.

It's hard to excuse James Jesus Angelton, except that he started a Mole Hunt to catch whatever CIA Mole impersonated LHO in Mexico City.

Certainly David Morales who confessed, and E Howard Hunt, who also confessed.

As for General Ed Lansdale, as I recall, Larry Hancock defends him.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2017 at 1:53 PM, Chris Newton said:

I have a lot of posts in this thread about the inconsistencies which you've suggested are based on colloquialisms and Ruth's manner of speaking "in passing". Let's just look at some things you posted for now.

Does the Q&A above suggest that sometime in the afternoon or evening of Nov. 9th Ruth found the rough draft in her living room on the desk secretary?

Chris,

I've been posting a lot of quotations from WC testimony here.

Why not post the WC or FBI quotes that you have in mind, and end the guessing game?

As for your question above, there's not enough information there to decide whether Oswald moved his longhand page to another surface, or whether Ruth Paine described her desk as a table in certain sentences.

The WC attorney did not belabor the question you seem to belabor.

Why not just post the quote?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Most likely William Harvey, though he was soused in Italy at the time. DAP has an alibi with his Fidel obsession.

It's hard to excuse James Jesus Angelton, except that he started a Mole Hunt to catch whatever CIA Mole impersonated LHO in Mexico City.

Certainly David Morales who confessed, and E Howard Hunt, who also confessed.

As for General Ed Lansdale, as I recall, Larry Hancock defends him.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I put Lansdale (and Angleton and Phillips) on the Kill Oswald Crew.

I buy the Prouty/Krulak ID of the tramp photo. 

If Lansdale had been in on the Kill Kennedy Krew no way he'd be anywhere near Dealey Plaza after the hit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Why not post the WC or FBI quotes that you have in mind, and end the guessing game?

I don't know how more explicit I can get. I can see this is a total waste of my time engaging with you, again.

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

I put Lansdale (and Angleton and Phillips) on the Kill Oswald Crew.

I buy the Prouty/Krulak ID of the tramp photo. 

If Lansdale had been in on the Kill Kennedy Krew no way he'd be anywhere near Dealey Plaza after the hit.

I agree about Lansdale.   Larry Hancock doubts Prouty.  

IMHO, nobody was on the Kill Oswald Crew except the Dallas Police force, who pressured the pimp Jack Ruby into doing it.  

Kantor was right about Ruby.

The Dallas Police were supposed to rub out Oswald an hour after the JFK murder, and failed miserably.  J.D. Tippit was just about to shoot Oswald when Oswald (and/or Roscoe White) outdrew him.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2017 at 11:20 AM, Paul Trejo said:

David,

First, I look forward to seeing how you will support your "body-centric" CT with "very powerful evidence."   Perhaps I will be persuaded.

However -- as of today -- I am not.  My CT -- that the JFK pre-autopsy autopsy was a rush job, conceived at 4pm EST on 11/22/1963 -- still has energy, IMHO.

You argue against my CT, calling it "Codswallop," which is an amusing old British term for "nonsense."   Nice English usage.

But the cleverness of your English is not an argument.  Let's look at your argument again.

1.  That the idea of altering JFK's body "after" he was dead "somehow morphs" into the mistaken idea that idea of "altering the body" later.

2.  That this idea of altering JFK's body "after the fact" was inspired by a "noble act" by Hoover and LBJ to avoid a nuclear war -- that this is NONSENSE.

3.  That this idea of avoiding nuclear war is "a political theory, for which there is no real basis."

Yet the truth begs to differ -- the idea of avoiding nuclear war in 1963 was a very real concern.  It had a very real basis.   Further, any move to lie to the American People in the interest of National Security (i.e. to avoid nuclear war) if it is truly legitimate, is most certainly a noble act, and deserves recognition, even a half-century later.

I assure you that I'm not faint-hearted in the least, and the idea of a brutal crime does not scare me away -- if (and only if) solid evidence is presented to make the case.

Finally, I made no "morph" of the fact of the alteration of JFK's body into a "mistaken idea" of the alteration.  JFK's body was altered after he was shot, and the only debate between us remains whether this alteration was planned weeks or months in advance (as you will argue in your new book, Final Charade), or whether it was a last minute decision to push a Lone Shooter theory of the JFK murder -- in order to prevent nuclear war -- as I argue here.

Perhaps you cannot say anything further on this question until after your book is published -- so I am content to wait until then to see whether I agree that you have indeed provided "very powerful evidence" to support your "pre-planned autopsy" theory.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo:

I hardly have any time to debate these points on the Internet these days, but. . . :

Completely aside from new information that I will be offering in Final Charade--let's return to the "old evidence" and take a quick look at 3 factors that should not just "give pause" but make it rather evident that "body alteration" was central to the architecture of the crime--as it was carried out, according to the known historical record--and was therefore "planned in advance".  I refer to this as "old" evidence because it is all spelled out in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence:

1. The evidence on the Dallas Police Radio radio, regarding the pinpointing of the sniper's nest.

     This occurred starting within 3-4 minutes of the shooting of Kennedy. Three cycle officers call attention to "the building" with the third transmission, by DPD Cycle Officer Clyde Haygood, specified the exact location:  6th floor window, SE corner, etc.  If the sniper's nest was part of the "set-up,"it is highly unlikely that, as part of the set-up, provision was not made to falsify the autopsy, because the autopsy conclusions, based on the condition of the body, would have to be consistent with the location of the sniper's nest.

2.  The "early" planting of bullet 399

    This bullet was planted on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital within about 30 minutes of the arrival of JFK at Parkland.

    In the initial FBI reports, as you surely are aware, the explanation was provided that this bullet "fell out" of a back wound. The problem is: no back wound was observed at Parkland Hospital if you go by the original Parkland Hospital medical records and testimony. Not a single witness saw that wound--and yet, according to the Bethesda autopsy report, it was located "above" the shoulder blade. (I am deliberately ignoring H Livingstone's attempt, somehow, to hoke up a recording the early 1990s, that Diana Bowron saw such a wound. She was asked, under oath, if she saw any wound on JFK's body other than the throat (entry) and the back-of-head exit. She responded: No, no other wound.  If the bullet was planted on the stretcher, and the intention was to link it to a shallow back wound--which did not exist--then body alteration must have been planned in advance.  Further,as students of the case surely know, a similar incident occurred up in the Connally Operating room. A bullet fell to the floor, and went "clink". Connally described this in his posthumously published memoir. Moreover, those reading this should be aware: one of a quote from Elizabeth Wright, nursing chief at Parkland (and , yes, wife of O P Wright) spoke to a private JFK researcher some years later: " "I wish these people would quit putting these bullets on stretchers."

3. The fact that, according to the arrival sequence of the coffin(s) and JFK's body at Parkland Hospital, the coffin on board AF-1 was empty.

I develop this very carefully and with complete timelines, in Best Evidence, Chapters 25 and 28.  Bottom line: an empty casket on arrival at the Bethesda front entrance, means an empty casket on take-off from Dallas. If the body was "already" removed from the casket prior to take-off (which was at 2;47 p.m. CST, then the plan "to alter the body" occurred hours earlier than your analysis indicates.   Regardless of how you believe the coffin "became"empty--whether it was through chicanery at Parkland or chicanery aboard AF-1, prior to take-off--any  plan to get the body out of the coffin that "early" clearly implies a timetable for "altering the body" that is well before 4 pm EST.

When #3  joined with items #1 and #2, I think the case if very clear that "body alteration" was not a "4 p.m. (EST)" add-on to the murder.

Finally, and as I have said, I will be providing additional significant information that pushes the matter way over the border, and makes clear that autopsy falsification via body alteration is not some kind of conjecture or hypothesis, but is much closer to a historical fact; and that it was part of the original architecture of this murder.

DSL

4/30/2017 - 8:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

David, you make a compelling case for a Pre-Planned Pre-Autopsy but where we part company is the notion that PPPA was the preferred contingency.

No doubt the Lone Assassin Contingency was built on PPPA.

But Oswald was far from a lone nut, far from a lone patsy type.

"What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?"

No one has put more work into exploring this question than David Lifton.

That doesn't mean there wasn't another likely explanation.

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

Paul Trejo:

...1. The evidence on the Dallas Police Radio radio, regarding the pinpointing of the sniper's nest.

 This occurred starting within 3-4 minutes of the shooting of Kennedy. Three cycle officers call attention to "the building" with the third transmission, by DPD Cycle Officer Clyde Haygood, specified the exact location:  6th floor window, SE corner, etc.  If the sniper's nest was part of the "set-up,"it is highly unlikely that, as part of the set-up, provision was not made to falsify the autopsy, because the autopsy conclusions, based on the condition of the body, would have to be consistent with the location of the sniper's nest...

 DSL

4/30/2017 - 8:30 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

On this point we have a firm agreement.   Several eye-witnesses at the scene of the JFK assassination at Dealey Plaza had told Dallas Police that they saw a rifle emerging from a window in the upper floors of the TSBD building.  It cannot surprise us that the Dallas Police Radio would reflect this.

What is astonishing is that the Dallas Police did not begin to search the 6th floor of the TSBD for more than a half-hour later.  It was 42 minutes after the JFK assassination that the three bullet shells were found, and soon after the Oswald rifle.

The logical conclusion is that Dallas Police took extra time and care to construct the alleged sniper's nest.  This should tell us that the Dallas Police were neck-deep in the JFK assassination, as well as the effort to make Lee Harvey Oswald into the Patsy of the crime.

This Patsy-making effort was cinched when Lee Harvey Oswald himself handed over his rifle to a friend outside the TSBD that morning -- thinking this action was related to some other conspiracy.

The sniper's nest was indeed a central part of the long-term plot of the JFK Kill Team.   On that point, David, we solidly agree along with Professor Walt Brown (1995).

I look forward to your forthcoming book, Final Charade.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2017 at 9:30 PM, David Lifton said:

Sandy:

[...]

But now, let's return to the actual event, itself.  Oswald's contact with Kostikov (which, as I recall, was on Saturday, 9/28/63). 

My question to you: Have you read Oleg Nechiporenko's 1993 book, Passport to Assassination?

OSWALD'S MEETING WITH KOSTIKOV, AS DESCRIBED IN NECHIPORENKO'S 1993 BOOK

The meeting with Oswald involved three Soviet officials: Nechiporenko, Yatsov, and Kostikov.  [Question: Where was "Third Secretary" KGB officer Nikolai Leonov at the time? Gettin' ready to play volleyball with the boys (and to be interrupted by Oswald) the next day, Sunday the 29th?, like he said fairly recently in his Russian-language book and in his interview with National Enquirer magazine?  What's up with that?  I thought they played volleyball on Saturdays, not Sundays.]

Here's what happened (and this is approximate, and from my present recollection; I really have no time to fetch the book and start rummaging through it):

Oswald started crying.

He said he was being followed.

He said he was scared; that he was afraid of the FBI.
Then, quite dramatically, he took out of pistol, and laid it on the table.

One of the three individuals grabbed the gun, opened it, and emptied it of its bullets.

Bottom line: Oswald projected as an unstable person, a screwball.

Having performed this piece of theater on Saturday, 9/28 , Oswald then went to a bullfight the next day (Sunday, 9/29) and I believe was down there for two or three more days (Monday, 9/30, thru Tuesday 10/1--these dates, not certain), and then left Mexico City by bus on Wed., 10/2; and arrived back in Dallas on Thursday, 10/3.

I bring up these details because, according to the account in Nechiporenko's book, Oswald was not involved in any plotting; nor was he behaving like an "agent." Just a mixed up very emotional and scared American.

Furthermore, and perhaps you're not aware of this, either Nechiporenko or Kostikov (or both) attended the 1993 ASK conference in Dallas, and John Newman and I (and very likely Peter Dale Scott) actually spent time with one or both of these persons.  I'd have to consult my own chronological records for details, but I'm bringing this up because I want you to know that I don't subscribe to the view that Oswald was impersonated, at the Saturday (9/28) meeting; and I don't think that John Newman did either, back then. Furthermore, and this is from recollection, Jefferson Morley omitted the 9/28 (and/or LHO's behavior at that meeting) --as described by Nechiporenko--from his own narrative, in Our Man In Mexico (all of this subject to verification against his book, and I'll gladly correct this if I'm wrong).

The bottom line, for me: I think much too much has been made of the fact that those who sent LHO to Mexico City deployed him there, having in mind a rather sinister agenda, and then the WC "edited all of that out." 

So what?  That's the sort of thing that the Warren Commission did.

[...]

DSL

4/14/2017 - 9:20 p.m. PDT; revised, edited, 4/15/17 7:50 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

 

bumped with my questions and comments in blue

--  Tommy :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2017 at 9:23 AM, Thomas Graves said:

David,

What, then, are we to make of KGB officer (and Third Secretary at the Soviet Embassy) Nikolai Leonov's claim in his Russian-language book (and in National Enquirer magazine, of all places) that Oswald showed up at the Embassy on Sunday, September 29, while (5' 6") Leonov and The Boys were playing volleyball at the Embassy ( ... On a Sunday? -- I thought they played on Saturdays ...) , and that he alone met with revolver-packin' n' - cryin' Oswald?

Just more fake news from one of Putin's supporters who nowadays sits in the Russian parliament?  But to what end?  Is the "Blond Oswald" trying to hide something?

Below Left:  Leonov, as photographed near the Soviet Embassy on October 2, 1963.  Right:  Leonov interpreting for Castro and Mister K. in Moscow

Image result for "nikolai leonov"

--  Tommy :sun

edited and bumped for Sandy Larsen and maybe even DSL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking into consideration my last two posts on this thread, it seems to me that "former" KGB officer Nikolai Leonov's (fairly) recent pronouncements are an attempt to dissuade us from believing Golitsyn's contention that Oswald, having been a "defecting" U. S. military man, would automatically have been interviewed by the KGB's Department 13 in while Oswald was in the Soviet Union.

In the immortal paraphrased words of "defector" Yuri Nosenko: "Because ..... you know ......uh ...... Oswald was ...... uh ... uh .... unstable ..... you know ....... and uh .....  therefore, the ... uh ... KGB had absolutely no ....... uh ..........interest ..... uh ....... in him, what ...... uh ..... so ..... uh ..... ever!"  

Yeah right, Yuri Baby.

But wait!  Hasn't Oswald's "emotional instability" already been sufficiently "established" by, you know, Neporoshenko's (unfortunately, highly-regarded) recounting of the revolver-on-the-table meeting that had (allegedly) taken place on Saturday 9/28/63 with that "highly unstable" crybaby, Oswald?

I mean, I mean, I mean ... Does this seem like to y'all to be confusing, implausible, "overkill" by Leonov, or could it be an attempt by him to do three things in one fell swoop -- 1 ) emphasize Oswald's emotional "instability" / propensity for violence (e.g., his alleged threatening to kill the people who were watching him and following him in Mexico City) , 2 ) like Sandy Larsen pointed out today on another thread, an attempt by Leonov to obviate the possibility that he, short, thin, blond, very thin-faced, 35 year-old Nikolai Leonov, had himself been the "Blond Oswald" that Duran and Azcue had dealt with on Friday, September 27, and 3 ) perhaps most importantly -- further confuse and confound JFK assassination researchers and students?  

Hmm?

--  Tommy :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...