A question to David Lifton

[François Carlier]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

FC: You also write "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting.
No, that's not true. That's one of the myths of the Kennedy assassination."

Dead Wrong:

 

 

As per the Parkland doctors not having their testimony massaged.  Again, this flies in the face of the declassified record, something that DVP and FC do not pay much attention to at all. Based on these records Gary Aguilar wrote that, after the assassination, Secret Service agent Elmer Moore spent a lot of time at Parkland. The Dallas doctors, up until about 12/11, had been talking to the press and they said that the throat wound was an entrance wound. But now Moore set up shop  in the place. With the official autopsy report in hand, he began to turn the tide.  For example, with Malcolm Perry.  He also began to get this story in the local papers, e.g. the DTH of December 12th.  That story said the throat wound was an exit wound and at a downward angle.  (LOL.)  Moore also got some SS agents to alter their testimony to the FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, in order to discredit their report, which was Specter's agenda also. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 167-68)

When Moore showed up to testify about his perfidy to the Church Committee, he had a lawyer in tow.  Why?  Because he understood that talking a witness out of his testimony in a criminal case was a felony.  As many have written, Moore then became Earl Warren's personal escort through the hearings, and he admitted he talked to him every day.  (ibid) FC would probably say it was about baseball or the weather. 

Final comment about Moore.  He despised Kennedy.  Said he was pink, and selling us out to the commies--he actually got scary talking about this issue. (ibid)  This is the kind of inquiry that the Warren Commission was.

With utterly wrong comments like the above, FC is showing why no one, except DVP, missed him. Here comes another Comedy of Errors.

Mister DiEugenio,
Hello.
(I have yet to answer your message on the other thread, I'm late, I know, I'll do it soon).
OK, please, let us not argue over semantics. I have studied the case for more than 28 years and have been to Dallas several times. Trust me, I have seen the pictures of Dealey Plaza…
I stand by what I previously wrote : it is not true to say that (I quote) "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting."
Let's go back to the picture that you used in your post, with the Len Osanic's video from his 50-years series.
First of all, NO, it wasn't immediately after the shooting. The whole motorcade had already gone.
Now, look at what I have highlighted :
In red are the women, most of them with their skirts and purses. I hope you don't really want to keep claiming that they wanted to catch the shooter ? Or maybe you think that they were all students of Bruce Lee, who taught them Jeet kune do ?
In yellow are people whom I clearly state are NOT running. Some of them are talking and not even moving.
In blue is one person running. One person ! Hardly "everybody".... And she is not even on the grassy Knoll !
So, again, the sentence : "everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting." is, at the very, very least, partially wrong !

As for the Len Osanic video, with comments by Robert Groden, they mostly show people in the central area of Dealey Plaza, not the grassy Knoll.

Then again, even if EVERYBODY had indeed RUSHED to the grassy Knoll at once, what would that prove ? At most, it would prove that they had heard noise (or shots) coming from there because of the echo. So what ? They went there and found nothing. And that's what is important. That they found nothing. But you always conveniently forget to remind us that.

The people who went to the grassy Knoll found nobody and nothing. The people who went to the sixth floor found the shells and the rifle and the shooter's prints. 
I suggest that you take that into account !

Now, it is true that I -- and I speak only for myself -- haven't studied the recently declassified records. But, come on : as if they held the key to the mystery… The facts can't be changed and we already know them perfectly well. I mean, you don't really hope to find a long-hidden, recently-declassified record that will show that Lee Oswald wasn't in Dallas that day, do you ?

Again, I can see that you are nitpicking, all the while loosing sight of the bigger picture. That's your donwfall !

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by François Carlier

[Rick McTague]

15 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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...👺

 

Where can one view these "Parkland ER photos"?

Thanks

[Rick McTague]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, in the film I posted above, take a look at the image at the 3:04 mark.

 

Does anyone know who the guy walking from R to L with the coat over his arm is?  

Good question, Jim.  I recall one witness saying they encountered a man in a quit with a coat over his arm with a shotgun (or other firearm) clearly visible.  I don't remember who it was though.  Maybe they encountered the guy you pointed out at 3:04?

Thanks

[Rick McTague]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Mister DiEugenio,
Hello.
(I have yet to answer your message on the other thread, I'm late, I know, I'll do it soon).
OK, please, let us not argue over semantics. I have studied the case for more than 28 years and have been to Dallas several times. Trust me, I have seen the pictures of Dealey Plaza…
I stand by what I previously wrote : it is not true to say that (I quote) "The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting."
Let's go back to the picture that you used in your post, with the Len Osanic's video from his 50-years series.
First of all, NO, it wasn't immediately after the shooting. The whole motorcade had already gone.
Now, look at what I have highlighted :
In red are the women, most of them with their skirts and purses. I hope you don't really want to keep claiming that they wanted to catch the shooter ? Or maybe you think that they were all students of Bruce Lee, who taught them Jeet kune do ?
In yellow are people whom I clearly state are NOT running. Some of them are talking and not even moving.
In blue is one person running. One person ! Hardly "everybody".... And she is not even on the grassy Knoll !
So, again, the sentence : "everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting." is, at the very, very least, partially wrong !

As for the Len Osanic video, with comments by Robert Groden, they mostly show people in the central area of Dealey Plaza, not the grassy Knoll.

Then again, even if EVERYBODY had indeed RUSHED to the grassy Knoll at once, what would that prove ? At most, it would prove that they had heard noise (or shots) coming from there because of the echo. So what ? They went there and found nothing. And that's what is important. That they found nothing. But you always conveniently forget to remind us that.

The people who went to the grassy Knoll found nobody and nothing. The people who went to the sixth floor found the shells and the rifle and the shooter's prints. 
I suggest that you take that into account !

Now, it is true that I -- and I speak only for myself -- haven't studied the recently declassified records. But, come on : as if they held the key to the mystery… The facts can't be changed and we already know them perfectly well. I mean, you don't really hope to find a long-hidden, recently-declassified record that will show that Lee Oswald wasn't in Dallas that day, do you ?

Again, I can see that you are nitpicking, all the while loosing sight of the bigger picture. That's your donwfall !

 

FC: would you at least admit there are many more people approaching the GN after the shooting than are approaching the TSBD?

[François Carlier]

9 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

FC: would you at least admit there are many more people approaching the GN after the shooting than are approaching the TSBD?

Yes, of course ! Who wouldn't ?

[David Von Pein]

A very good reason for dismissing EVERY witness who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll is an often ignored statistic concerning the number of those witnesses who said the shots came from MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

Edited July 12, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

A very good reason for dismissing EVERY witness who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll is an often ignored statistic concerning the number of those witnesses who said the shots came from MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/dealey-plaza-earwitnesses.html

It's basically trolling to cite McAdams.

[David Von Pein]

34 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

It's basically trolling to cite McAdams.

Do the math yourself then. What numbers do you come up with?

Per John McAdams' latest study, done in 2013, there were a mere THREE earwitnesses (Holland, Millican, and Landis) who reside in the "Shots Came From Two Directions" category.

Here's the witness-by-witness breakdown -----> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm

Edited July 12, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

This is utterly ridiculous.  

As Pat Speer has noted, there was never any kind of rigorous and systematic cataloguing of the ear witness testimony.   And to say there was is simply balderdash.  Pat has gone through the sourcing on this chart and exposed it for the unreliable and ersatz evidence that it is.

If the FBI had ever done a rigorous and systematic catalogue, then obviously the results would have been as the films show.  Or are  DVP and FC going to say, what you nutty people: you would believe your lying eyes over John McAdams' chart? 

Concerning the inane comment that the witnesses did not find anything on the GK, can the man be serious?

There were two tell tale signs of a crossfire.  First, the phony persons planted there as SS agents.  Which is why I asked about the man at the 3:04 mark and only Rick picked up on that.  There should have been no SS agents there.  And, Larry Hancock, among others, has found sources that explain how those credentials got there.

Secondly, there is the utterly memorable and compelling testimony of Sam Holland.  How anyone can discount what Holland told Tink Thompson back in 1966 is simply astounding.  It was one of the highlights of Six Seconds in Dallas. Made even more fascinating because Holland was reluctant to talk to Tink because of what the WC had done to his words.

Edited July 12, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let me excerpt from my review of the godawful Inside the Target Car for the factors that indicated a crossfire from witnesses in the Plaza on the GK:

Clearly, something was happening behind the stockade fence. All you have to do is review the record. Let's begin with the startling testimony of Lee Bowers, a worker in the rail yard adjacent to it and behind. From his vantage point in a 14-foot tower, he talked about the three cars he saw driving behind the fence about 25 minutes before the assassination. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 75) The first car looked like it was searching for a way out or checking the area. (ibid, p. 76) A second car came in about ten minutes later. The driver looked like he was speaking into a phone or a mike since he held something up to his mouth. This car probed a little deeper into the area than the first car. Then a third car came in: it was muddy up to the windows. It was occupied by what appeared to be a white male. This car spent a little more time in the area and then cruised back toward the Texas School Book Depository. At the time of the shooting Bowers saw two men standing between his vantage point and the mouth of the triple underpass. This would seem to approximate the spot, which I described in part one as being the best shooting venue. We all know what Bowers described next: "At the time of the shooting, in the vicinity of where the two men I have described were, there was a flash of light or ... something I could not identify ... some unusual occurrence—a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel that something out of the ordinary had occurred there." (ibid p. 77)

It is interesting—compelling actually—to couple this testimony with that of Sam Holland. In a 1966 interview that will live as long as people study this case, Josiah Thompson talked to Holland in Irving, Texas. He was reluctant to talk to Thompson. Why? Because as I mentioned in part one of this review—and what Gary Mack leaves out—many witnesses complained about what the FBI or Warren Commission did with their testimony. Holland is one of them. He told Thompson that the Commission "had not transcribed his testimony as he had given it." (Thompson, p. 83) So now, three years later, he told Thompson his whole story. While standing in Dealey Plaza, he acted out what he did on 11/22/63. And those photos are memorialized in Six Seconds in Dallas. To anyone looking at them, they become almost seared into one's sub-conscious. Holland told Thompson that he was originally standing on the overpass as he watched the motorcade come toward him. He then heard four shots, with the last two very close together. (ibid) Holland said the third shot sounded like it was from a different class of weapon than the others. Holland also said he saw a puff of smoke beneath some trees on the knoll area. (ibid, p. 121) Thompson then notes seven other witnesses who saw a puff of smoke in that area. (ibid) Three of these—Holland, James Simmons, and Richard Dodd—were so sure the shots came from over there that they ran off the overpass to an area behind the fence. When Holland got there, he could see scores of footprints in the soft ground behind a car. Looking at their pattern, it didn't make sense to him. Why? Because they were all concentrated in a very narrow area, like a lion pacing in a cage. (ibid, p. 122) To cap this fascinating story, Thompson noted another witness named J. C. Price. Price saw someone running from this area with something in his hand, which he said could have been a headpiece. (ibid p. 123) This reminds us of the driver of the car Bowers saw, holding what he thought was a phone or a mike.

Need more? A woman told Dallas Patrolman Joe Smith that the shots came from the bushes up on the knoll. Smith ran behind the fence and smelled gunpowder. While he was there he had his gun pulled. As he was replacing it a man in the area showed him Secret Service credentials. Yet, as Thompson notes, every Secret Service agent had gone to Parkland Hospital with the motorcade. (ibid, p. 125) So who was this guy?

Was one the guy in the film at the 3:04 mark?

Edited July 12, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

Conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is a fact to be observed, not a question to debate.

[B. A. Copeland]

21 hours 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

Photo Credit: Anthony Marsh

 

David we must not forget Agent Elmer Moore and his apparent unfortunate interaction with Dr Perry.

Edited July 12, 2018 by B. A. Copeland

[David Von Pein]

48 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

David, we must not forget Agent Elmer Moore and his apparent unfortunate interaction with Dr. Perry. 

Well, B.A., since I don't for an instant believe that ANYBODY (Elmer Moore or anyone else) was involved in any kind of a cover-up in order to conceal a conspiracy in JFK's death, then any conversation that Moore might have had with Dr. Malcolm Perry was, IMO, most certainly NOT sinister or underhanded in any way at all, and any such conversation was certainly not an attempt by Mr. Moore to cover up the true facts in the JFK case. (And that's because the "true facts" indicate that Oswald was the lone assassin....and, ergo, Dr. Perry was, indeed, mistaken when he initially said the throat wound was a wound of entrance.)

The same thing applies to the FBI's "midnight call" to Darrell Tomlinson as well. The details of the FBI's mindset at the time of that call are not known either. Conspiracy theorists, however, are more than eager to assume that "cover-up" and "conspiracy" must be involved in there someplace when it comes to that telephone call. But that doesn't have to be the case at all. And the same goes for Moore/Perry.

------------------

Darrell C. Tomlinson [July 25, 1966]: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock - uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning - after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.

Raymond Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it--period.

Edited July 12, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

This is one of the last bastions of the shameless defenders of the Warren Report.

See, there really was no cover up, by anyone.  Even when they admit it, like Moore did.  Even when the words came out of their own mouths and a credible witness was there.  Even when the guy brings a lawyer to the Church Committee  because he knows what he did was a felony.  

This is what I mean by the rarified air channel in which FC and DVP exist, its somewhat similar to the air pressure over the Bermuda Triangle.

As per the FBI not being involved with a cover up, I mean pulease.   Even Hale Boggs said such was the case.  Recall that quote, "Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission."  (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 233)  But nothing is ever enough for DVP, FC or the late Bugliosi.

One of the most mendacious sentences in Bugliosi's tree killer waste of a book was when he said that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the proposition of an FBI cover up in the JFK case.  (ibid, p. 246)  I actually thought he meant that in a satiric way; yes Vince there is a mountain of evidence to indicate such was the case.  But the lawyer was trying to avoid a huge logical problem for himself and his book.  If he admitted what Hoover had done, then this made it very unlikely the WC could be correct since the Bureau did by far the largest part of the inquiry.  So therefore, he told a huge prevarication about the FBI's performance in this case.

But not only that, he did a pretty drastic make up job on Hoover. Including deodorant. I mean by this time, there had been at least five full length exposes of just how bad Hoover was.  Bugliosi kept the worst from his readers.  As do all the WC zealots:  DVP, Davison, FC, McAdams etc.  They never want to admit just how bad Hoover was since it would be a natural reflection of what he did in this case.

So I really took Vince to task on this whole issue, since he made it easy for me to do so.  I spent 37 pages exposing just how much Bugliosi left out of both his portrait of Hoover and the diddling of the FBI with the evidence in this case.   I especially liked it when I could use actual FBI agents who were so sick of what Hoover had done in the JFK case, since they saw that event as the beginning of the end of the Bureau's reputation with the public.  So I used witnesses like Bill Turner and Don Adams.  But really all one has to do is recall this key fact:  The FBI report was so bad that  the WC failed to compile it as part of the volumes.  And Hoover never swallowed the Magic Bullet.  In fact he literally tried to erase it from history with a patch over the curb to hide the Tague hit. I really had fun with that one. So will everyone, except DVP and FC. (ibid, pp 250-54)

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

They never want to admit just how bad Hoover was since it would be a natural reflection of what he did in this case.

Bull****.

J. Edgar Hoover was, let's face it, utterly clueless about many things that he shouldn't have been clueless about as of 11/29/63. But, nonetheless, he was.

Do you, Jim, think Hoover was just feigning his ignorance when he uttered these nonsensical "facts" to President Lyndon Johnson during their telephone conversation on November 29th, 1963?....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html

J. EDGAR HOOVER -- "He [JFK] was hit by the first and the third [shots]. The second
shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet, and wasn't
shattered; and that rolled out of the President's head, and tore a
large part of the President's head off. And in trying to massage his
heart at the hospital, they apparently loosened that, and it fell onto
the stretcher."

[Rolled out of the President's HEAD??? Hoover is completely daffy here! Even SEVEN DAYS after the crime! Incredible ignorance! And yet, per James DiEugenio, this bumbling fool name J. Edgar is supposedly orchestrating the biggest (and most successful) "cover-up" in history.

It's just a good thing Hoover had good [i.e., non-clueless] investigators like Bob Frazier and Sebastian Latona working for him.]

-----------------------------

HOOVER -- "All three [shots were fired] at the President....and we have them."

[Hoover, in the above quote, is saying to LBJ that the FBI had in its possession ALL THREE BULLETS that Oswald fired. Again, this is complete ignorance on the part of Mr. Hoover. Not conspiracy. Not cover-up. Just a lack of accurate information concerning the physical evidence in the case.]

[More of Hoover's 11/29/63 idiocy and ignorance below...]

-----------------------------

HOOVER -- "Those three shots were fired within three seconds."

[ ]

-----------------------------

LBJ -- "If Connally hadn't been in his way..."

HOOVER -- "Oh yes....yes. The President no doubt would have been hit [a third time]."

LBJ -- "He [JFK] would have been hit three times."

HOOVER -- "He would have been hit three times."

[Director Clueless outdoes himself with the above gut-buster.]

 

Edited July 13, 2018 by David Von Pein