Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A question to David Lifton

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Dear Mister Lifton,
I have a question for you.
As you know, you have presented a whole theory in your book "Best evidence", that claims that Kennedy's corpse was taken off its coffin, and then the president's body was altered (wounds were changed), as part of a conspiracy.
People such as John McAdams, or Gerald Posner, or Vincent Bugliosi have written articles or books saying that you are completely wrong : the body was never taken off the coffin, and the wounds were never altered.
I listened to your Black-Op-Radio 2008 interview in which you complained about Bugliosi's book, because, as you said, he criticized your theory without really addressing important issues. You even said : "Who is he kidding ?". In other words, you were saying that his arguments against your theory were not valid because they were incomplete and he did not really have an answer for some particular and important points that you had raised.
Is that a fair description ?
Well, I have thought about it for a long time and have a question for you. What if you were both wrong and right ? What if the corpse was indeed taken off the coffin (which would explain the blood evidence and other witness accounts that you gathered) but only for security purposes (which would support Bugliosi's contention that there was never a conspiracy) ?
Here is my supposition (and I use the word "supposition" on purpose). We all know how the President's body left Parkland hospital. The Secret Service agents were rolling the casket towards the exit when they were blocked by Dr. Rose. The physician told them that there should be an autopsy performed right there because the homicide had happened in Dallas County. But the Secret Service agents forced their way at gun point. Then they all rushed to the presidential plane, at Love Field. And that's what is important.
I can imagine the frantic state they were in. It's a terrible mess. No one knows really what is going to happen. Even the Kennedy party (Jackie and all) didn't know that Lyndon Johnson was in their aircraft and was waiting to be sworn in. I can imagine the Secret Service agents rushing from Parkland, fearing of being followed by the police and who knows, maybe a judge would rule that Kennedy's corpse must be autopsied in Dallas ? So they decide, as a desperate "security" measure, to take the corpse out of the coffin. That way, they figure that if the Dallas police decide to "impound" the coffin, well, by the time they get back to Parkland hospital with the coffin, open it and realize that it is empty, Air Force One, with the Kennedy party and the President's body will have already taken off. So someone in charge, possibly Roy Kellerman, decides to open the coffin. It's only a spur-of-the-moment thing. I mean, he may have vomited at the sheer thought of what he was doing. He decided it offhand, in the heat of action. They figured what mattered was to bring the president's corpse along with them, despite the law by which the Dallas authorities wanted to abide.
I mean, it was a crazy situation, arguably the craziest half hour in the history of the United States. At that precise moment, you had zero president, no one knew exactly who was in charge, nor where the danger might come from, nor whom to trust. The picture of Secret Service agents openly going against the law and fleeing from the local Police Department with the dead body of the President of the United States !! I mean, that's totally unique. Therefore, in their frantic state of panic, it might be conceivable that Secret Service agents decided at some point to "hide" the president's body from the local authorities, if only for a few minutes, in order to secure it and make sure it would be taken to Washington with Lyndon Johnson and Jackie Kennedy.
I might agree to believe that.
That would explain the blood on Kellerman's shirt (if there was blood. I don't know that. I am just going along with what you have said about your upcoming book).
And of course, despite all their efforts to be discreet and not tell anybody, they couldn't prevent people from noticing strange activity, which might explain Dennis David's account or other accounts.
But there was never any conspiracy. No plot. Nothing sinister. No pre-autopsy surgery at all. Nothing. (Maybe some bones moved a bit when the body was hastily moved around, that's all).
Do you understand my point ? Or, rather, my supposition ?
In a nutshell, could there have been just a simple (if one could use that term in such a situation) attempt by the Secret Service to temporarily "hide" the body from the Dallas police (after they had fled at gun point), with absolutely no desire to take part in any conspiracy or cover-up, no foul play, no unhealthy move, no malicious intent whatsoever ? It was indeed a bad decision in retrospect, but only that.
That might reconcile some of your findings (that can sometimes be hard to explain away) with the arguments of the defenders of the official version (who, you have to admit it, have good reason to doubt your – may I say - farfetched conclusions about pre-autopsy surgery and a we-shall-fire-from-the-front-with-a-patsy-being-behind-and-take-the-body-unnoticed-and-change-the-wounds conspiracy (which even other conspiracists don't believe in).
What do you think ?

 

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a gathering of the Little Bit Guild of merry nutters -- Litwin, Carlier and Parnell to cheerlead Von Pein.

A little bit...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we-shall-fire-from-the-front-with-a-patsy-being-behind

It was supposed to look like a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JFK was shot in the back at T3.  The round didn't exit.  No round was found in the body during the autopsy.

He was shot in the throat from the front.  No exit.  No round found at the autopsy.

Those are the root, unchallenged (Von Pein admits JFK's jacket was elevated "a little bit") historical facts of the JFK assassination.

The historical record indicates two possibilities:

1)  JFK was hit with high tech rounds that didn't leave a trace.

2)  The rounds were removed prior to the autopsy.

JFKA 101.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 4:39 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

JFK was shot in the back at T3.  The round didn't exit.  No round was found in the body during the autopsy.

He was shot in the throat from the front.  No exit.  No round found at the autopsy.

Those are the root, unchallenged (Von Pein admits JFK's jacket was elevated "a little bit") historical facts of the JFK assassination.

The historical record indicates two possibilities:

1)  JFK was hit with high tech rounds that didn't leave a trace.

2)  The rounds were removed prior to the autopsy.

JFKA 101.

 

"JFK was hit with high tech rounds that didn't leave a trace."
à Oh, really ? How convenient a theory for you. Next, will you suggest laser beams ?

"The rounds were removed prior to the autopsy."
--> Where ? When ? By whom ? How ? Aren't those questions important for you ? Apparently they aren't…

"The round didn't exit."
--> According to you, maybe. According to me, it did.

"He was shot in the throat from the front."
--> By someone who was nowhere !!!!
(the fact that not the slightest, not the tiniest evidence of a shooter from the front was ever found by anyone in 53 years doesn't seem to bother you.)

You're pleasing yourself. You're throwing a few short sentences without even bothering to check your statements, nor write a whole line of argument.
Most of all, you are distracting this thread, as your statements have nothing to do with my question to David Lifton, which is the topic of this thread.

I hope that David Lifton reads this thread and agrees to give us his opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

"JFK was hit with high tech rounds that didn't leave a trace."
à Oh, really ? How convenient a theory for you. Next, will you suggest laser beams ?

"The rounds were removed prior to the autopsy."
--> Where ? When ? By whom ? How ? Aren't those questions important for you ? Apparently they aren't…

"The round didn't exit."
--> According to you, maybe. According to me, it did.

"He was shot in the throat from the front."
--> By someone who was nowhere !!!!
(the fact that not the slightest, not the tiniest evidence of a shooter from the front was ever found by anyone in 53 years doesn't seem to bother you.)

You're pleasing yourself. You're throwing a few short sentences without even bothering to check your statements, nor write a whole line of argument.
Most of all, you are distracting this thread, as your statements have nothing to do with my question to David Lifton, which is the topic of this thread.

I hope that David Lifton reads this thread and agrees to give us his opinion.

the frontal throat wound is real history, and your statement that 53 years no evidence of it exists shows how ignorant you are. I hope Lifton doesn't dignify your question with an answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

the frontal throat wound is real history, and your statement that 53 years no evidence of it exists shows how ignorant you are. I hope Lifton doesn't dignify your question with an answer. 

There never was any frontal shot, and we'll probably have to wait another 53 years before you come up with any evidence for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

the frontal throat wound is real history, and your statement that 53 years no evidence of it exists shows how ignorant you are. I hope Lifton doesn't dignify your question with an answer. 

In other words, I ask a question to a well-known researcher, explaining my point in a long message, and you come to distract this thread by talking about some other topic and publicly stating that you hope that the researcher doesn't reply to me ?
Well, if that's how you like to "debate"...
I'd rather you ignored me altogether, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

The frontal throat wound is real history...

No, it isn't. It was merely a GUESS by one of the first doctors who treated JFK at Parkland (Dr. Perry). And Perry later admitted that the throat wound could have been "either" and entry or an exit wound.

Also....

From Page 6 of JFK's autopsy report:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

From the Clark Panel report:

"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Also....

It's kind of interesting to see---despite Dr. Perry's initial guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY---the media was (on Saturday, November 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound as well....

"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the Adam's Apple." -- The Boston Globe; 11/23/63 [article pictured below]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1287.html

https://drive.google.com/file/video/Interviews With Dr. Malcolm Perry In 1963 & 1967

The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

Photo Credit: Anthony Marsh

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

the frontal throat wound is real history, and your statement that 53 years no evidence of it exists shows how ignorant you are. I hope Lifton doesn't dignify your question with an answer. 

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

"JFK was hit with high tech rounds that didn't leave a trace."
à Oh, really ? How convenient a theory for you. Next, will you suggest laser beams ?
 

The authors of that theory were the autopsists, while the body was in front of them.

Looks like you have holes in your research.

As far as my argument goes -- I don't need one. 

Your boy David Von Pein screwed the pooch -- he told the truth.  He said JFK's jacket was only bunched up "a little bit" in the Croft 3 photo.  Since the bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound, the throat shot could only have come from the front.

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

The WC and the HSCA didn't see it quite that way, did they?

But we should just ignore the conclusions of the official investigations in favor of the conclusions of Cliff "Only The Clothes Matter" Varnell. Right?

Pfffttt. Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

No, it isn't. It was merely a GUESS by one of the first doctors who treated JFK at Parkland (Dr. Perry). And Perry later admitted that the throat wound could have been "either" and entry or an exit wound.

Also....

From Page 6 of JFK's autopsy report:

"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."

From the Clark Panel report:

"The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck."

Also....

It's kind of interesting to see---despite Dr. Perry's initial guesswork about the throat wound being one of ENTRY---the media was (on Saturday, November 23!) also theorizing about the throat wound being an EXIT wound as well....

"The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the Adam's Apple." -- The Boston Globe; 11/23/63 [article pictured below]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1287.html

https://drive.google.com/file/video/Interviews With Dr. Malcolm Perry In 1963 & 1967

The-Boston-Globe-11-23-63.jpg

Photo Credit: Anthony Marsh

 

Hey, look, folks, it's an artist's sketch published in the Boston Globe, so it must be accurate!  That pretty much nails it.

The Parkland ER photos showing the entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead must have been fakes...👺

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, David Von Pein said:

The WC and the HSCA didn't see it quite that way, did they?

But we should just ignore the conclusions of the official investigations in favor of the conclusions of Cliff "Only The Clothes Matter" Varnell. Right?

Yes, unlike you those investigations didn't tell the truth about JFK's jacket.

You set them straight, David "A Little Bit" Von Pein!

No further questions.

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

×