A question to David Lifton

[Ray Mitcham]

Francois, what is you take on the conversation between Valerie Giscard D'Estaing and Gerald  Ford?

 

"

On the evening of May 19, 1976, President Valery Giscard d’Estaing of France visited President Gerald Ford in Washington. Giscard, a calculating centrist, had come for a state visit. Ford, the former Michigan congressman, had succeeded the disgraced Richard Nixon. Both men were new to their high offices.

In the limousine ride to the state banquet at George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Giscard asked Ford about a sensitive issue: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy 13 years before.

‘Here is an indiscrete question, Giscard said, “You were with the Warren Commission. What was your take?’

Ford, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives in 1963, served on the Warren Commission, which investigated Kennedy;s assassination and concluded there was no conspiracy.

Former French president Valery Giscard D’Estaing

Publicly, Ford defended the lone gunman finding. Privately, he offered a different opinion, according to Giscard.

‘It is not satisfactory,” Ford replied according to Giscard. “We first concluded that it was not an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure that it was organized. But we were unable to find out by who it was organized’

Giscard told the same story to Le Parisienmagazine in 2013.

He said Ford told him, “We came to the conclusion that this assassination had been prepared. There was a conspiracy. But we were not able to identify which organization had sponsored it. ”

 

[François Carlier]

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Francois, what is you take on the conversation between Valerie Giscard D'Estaing and Gerald  Ford?

 

"

On the evening of May 19, 1976, President Valery Giscard d’Estaing of France visited President Gerald Ford in Washington. Giscard, a calculating centrist, had come for a state visit. Ford, the former Michigan congressman, had succeeded the disgraced Richard Nixon. Both men were new to their high offices.

In the limousine ride to the state banquet at George Washington’s home in Mount Vernon, Giscard asked Ford about a sensitive issue: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy 13 years before.

‘Here is an indiscrete question, Giscard said, “You were with the Warren Commission. What was your take?’

Ford, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives in 1963, served on the Warren Commission, which investigated Kennedy;s assassination and concluded there was no conspiracy.

Former French president Valery Giscard D’Estaing

Publicly, Ford defended the lone gunman finding. Privately, he offered a different opinion, according to Giscard.

‘It is not satisfactory,” Ford replied according to Giscard. “We first concluded that it was not an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure that it was organized. But we were unable to find out by who it was organized’

Giscard told the same story to Le Parisienmagazine in 2013.

He said Ford told him, “We came to the conclusion that this assassination had been prepared. There was a conspiracy. But we were not able to identify which organization had sponsored it. ”

 

Hello,
Yes, I have read that article. I have no opinion whatsoever, since I have made no research and have not verified anything. But I shall try to talk to Giscard d’Estaing and ask him. I'll let you know.

[Micah Mileto]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

No. It isn't.

 

You really think there was an entry wound in JFK's RIGHT FOREHEAD??? You must be joking. No such wound exists---in the photographs or otherwise.

Neuropathologists Dr. Joseph Riley and Dr. Michael Chesser didn't say the official x-rays show a small hole in the forehead? Looks more like a hole than anything cowlick entry theorists have brought to the table.

Edited July 13, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

No, it isn't. It's a CTer invention. Nothing more.

The autopsy proves there was ONE bullet hole of entry in JFK's cranium----in the back of the head.

 

Model skull showing the lower mark(s) where the autopsy pathologists placed the small head wound, versus the upper mark where the government WISHES it was: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0062b.htm

 

[W. Niederhut]

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Sylvia Meagher, source, book, article?

I think I read about this in Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact.

As I recall, when the FBI ballistics experts tried to reproduce the "Lone Nut"/Oswald in the TSBD theory by shooting a cadaver in the right parietal-occipital skull, from the TSBD, (using a Mannlicher Carcano rifle) the bullet blew off the entire right half of the (cadaver's) face.

(And, as I recall from reading Richard Belzer's Hit List, a number of FBI forensic team experts died, mysteriously, around the time that they were supposed to be questioned by the Church Committee.)

Edited July 13, 2018 by W. Niederhut

[David Andrews]

‘It is not satisfactory,” Ford replied according to Giscard. “We first concluded that it was not an isolated crime, it was something organized. We were sure that it was organized. But we were unable to find out by who it was organized’

Giscard told the same story to Le Parisienmagazine in 2013.

He said Ford told him, “We came to the conclusion that this assassination had been prepared. There was a conspiracy. But we were not able to identify which organization had sponsored it. ”

+ + +

I wonder about an assertion like Ford's  You would think this implies that some investigation was made by the FBI and a preliminary conclusion for conspiracy reached by the WC, but then abandoned, with the investigation and conclusions subsequently taking their familiar lone-nut course.  But what if the "organizations" suspected were just the usual pro-Castro suspects, and their investigation was dropped for political reasons?  Ford may be just blowing smoke and saying nothing in his remarks, and we don't see it because we're not accustomed to subtlety in the man.

[James DiEugenio]

FC in reply to me: As for Joe Smith, please. First of all, I hope that you have read "The man who wasn't there" by Chris Mills. 

Mike Griffith is one of the unsung heroes of the JFK case.  Not many people know of him and he does not frequent these forums.  (From DVP and FC, I can see why.)  He just plods along doing the best work he can, which is quite good.

Apparently FC is not aware that the above essay he suggested to me as being definitive was pretty much harpooned by Mike.  This is the kind of work FC does. This is the kind of researcher he is.

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

 

[Cliff Varnell]

10 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I really don't see the value in engaging these guys. They are just given the opportunity to shuck and jive and repeat their falsehoods with subtle nuanced changes (sound familiar?).

Meanwhile, worthwhile debate, study, debate and research time is missed.

Michael, welcome to the John F. Kennedy Assassination Question of Conspiracy Parlor Game!

Go around and around with prevaricators over endless minutia, the prevaricators win.

Quote the prevaricators' own words -- "JFK's jacket was bunched up a little bit on Elm St." -- which destroys the SBT, establishes the throat wound as an entrance, proves the Fox 5 autopsy photo is fake -- and all the prevaricators can do is sputter a little and then STFU.

 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

FC in reply to me: As for Joe Smith, please. First of all, I hope that you have read "The man who wasn't there" by Chris Mills. 

Mike Griffith is one of the unsung heroes of the JFK case.  Not many people know of him and he does not frequent these forums.  (From DVP and FC, I can see why.)  He just plods along doing the best work he can, which is quite good.

Apparently FC is not aware that the above essay he suggested to me as being definitive was pretty much harpooned by Mike.  This is the kind of work FC does. This is the kind of researcher he is.

http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

 

The Man Who Wasn't There?

I never read the book, but I saw the Coen brother's movie.   👺                   

Edited July 13, 2018 by W. Niederhut

[Rick McTague]

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

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.

 

Jim,

I found the testimony I was looking for regarding the main in the suit over at http://www.jfklancer.com/ManWho.html

"Malcolm Summers ran to the knoll moments after the shooting. He related the following in the 1988 documentary "Who Murdered JFK?":

"I ran across the--Elm Street to right there toward the knoll. It was there [pointing to a spot on the knoll]--and we were stopped by a man in a suit and he had an overcoat--over his arm and he, he, I saw a gun under that overcoat. And he--his comment was, "Don't you all come up here any further, you could get shot, or killed," one of those words. A few months later, they told me they didn't have an FBI man in that area. If they didn't have anybody, it's a good question who it was. " (Anderson 14)"

I bet that guy at 3:04 was the man Summers encountered.  I wonder if someone could get a picture of that guy's face and run it through some kind of facial recognition software?

Thanks

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Apparently FC is not aware that the above essay he suggested to me as being definitive was pretty much harpooned by Mike.  This is the kind of work FC does. This is the kind of researcher he is.

And if a fellow conspiracy theorist "harpoons" anything, then the CTer has GOTTA be the one who is 100% correct....right?

IOW, no LNer could POSSIBLY hope to fight the all-knowing Michael Griffith. Right, Jim?

Edited July 13, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

No, there have been many times when i have approved of and welcomed such matters. 

Sometimes I have done it myself.  For instance, the whole Shane O'Sullivan JM WAVE guy, Morales and Johannides at the Ambassador Hotel.

It was also good when the Roscoe White imbroglio was negated.

But the difference is this:  I don't separate out people into CT vs LN categories.  I have always used the WC zealots vs critics rubric. For the simple reason that the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964.  Anybody who says it was does not know the case or has an axe to grind about a football field long e.g. McAdams with that phony chart.

The Warren Commission was simply a combination joke and travesty.  The very fact that, as Rick points out, we don't know who that guy is in the film is just one indication of how bad their inquiry really was.

The real beginning of an inquiry was when the critical books and essays began being published from about 1965, that is when the true outlines of the crime began being outlined. The fact that the case was not professionally investigated at the time is what caused all this uncertainty and doubt.  That plus the fact that those opposed to putting  all the evidence on the table were successful up until the JFK Act.  And thanks to Trump, after the JFK act.  I mean when you cannot put everything out there 55 years later, then we know that something is rotten in Denmark.

Except you and FC of course.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

...the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964.

I hope you don't mind if I fervently disagree with you on this point, Jim.

In fact, I think your above quote is one of the silliest things you've ever uttered. And that's really a major accomplishment, considering the items that are contained within "The DiEugenio 22", which I never get tired of highlighting.

I know this will come as a massive shock to you, James, but I actually agree with Vincent T. Bugliosi on this (please don't faint)....

• "In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxxii of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Co.) (AD 2007)

Edited July 13, 2018 by David Von Pein

[W. Niederhut]

28 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I hope you don't mind if I fervently disagree with you on this point, Jim.

In fact, I think your above quote is one of the silliest things you've ever uttered. And that's really a major accomplishment, considering the items that are contained within "The DiEugenio 22", which I never get tired of highlighting.

I know this will come as a massive shock to you, James, but I actually agree with Vincent T. Bugliosi on this (please don't faint)....

• "In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxxii of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (W.W. Norton & Co.) (AD 2007)

Utter nonsense.

     Allen Dulles opened the Warren Commission sham "investigation" by telling the Commissioners that all Presidential assassinations in American history had been committed by lone nuts.   I think it was Hale Boggs who blurted out, "What about Lincoln's?  Wasn't that a conspiracy?"

     Sylvia Meagher, and others, debunked the validity of the Warren Commission Report "investigation" decades ago.  That much is quite obvious.  The WCR systematically suppressed all of the evidence that refuted Dulles's "Lone Nut" narrative, and altered a great deal of evidence to support it.

     Vincent Bugliosi did the same thing, as Mr. DiEugenio has shown, in great detail, in his analyses of Reclaiming Parkland.  The WCR is massive, as is Reclaiming Parkland.  In both cases, the authors hoped that the public would equate mass with validity.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

I couldn't disagree more strongly, W. Niederhut.

The Warren Commission (and Vince Bugliosi) actually had something that conspiracy theorists can only dream about having ---- that is: HARD EVIDENCE to work with—e.g., Oswald's guns, bullets and fragments and shell casings from Oswald's guns, Oswald's lies, the Tippit murder witnesses, Oswald's unusual actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, etc.

Whereas CTers have nothing that even comes close to matching the Lone Assassin/Oswald evidence. And the likely reason for that is --- No such hard "conspiracy" evidence exists. And never did.

 

Edited July 14, 2018 by David Von Pein