Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A question to David Lifton

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.

 

There was enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States. 

And there was enough evidence to have David Ferrie and Eladio de Valle murdered on the very same day, before they could testify against Clay Shaw.

And there was enough evidence to cause Governors, like Ronald Reagan, to soil there pants and obstruct proper extradition requests.

David Von Pein. This is the stuff you are up against. This is the stuff you have spent your life justifying. How do you live with yourself?

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

There was enough evidence to convince a grand jury to indict Clay Shaw for conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States. 

And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?

Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?

Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.

That evidence, that supported a Grand Jory indictment, that caused David Ferrie and Eledio de Valera to be murdered and Ronald Reagan to refuse extraditions is a matter of public record. If you want to cover-up criminal activities and Capital offenses, then you should appraise yourself of the details, as well as the punishment, for such crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And what EXACTLY was that "evidence", Michael?

Fill me in on that evidence....because, as you know, I "do not know jack about New Orleans" or the Shaw case.

And you have been appraised of the accusations

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me add why that is so interesting.  Because, as Bill Davy found out, while prepping his fine book, Let Justice be Done,  the CIA had left a note saying that on some previous occasion they had already destroyed Shaw's "Y # file-33412".

If that is not interesting enough for you, how about the fact that, a few years ago, Joan Mellen discovered that, through the CIA's historical review program,  Shaw had been a highly paid, valuable contract agent for several years.

All of this new information utterly dissipates the  malarkey that Shaw told the public and under oath at his trial. Namely that he had no association with the CIA.  And also the junk that the CIA sold the HSCA that he was only part of their businessman's contact service program.  Because, as CIA analyst Marguerite Stevens wrote, besides those destroyed files, Shaw also had a covert security clearance.  When Bill Davy showed that Stevens document to Victor Marchetti, he told Bill that if you are only a DCS contact, there was not a need for a covert security clearance.  He suspected that this meant that Shaw was involved with the Domestic Operations Division of Clandestine Services.  Which was run by Tracy Barnes and used people like Howard Hunt. (Davy, p. 196)

What makes that so interesting is a letter I discovered many years ago from the late Gordon Novel. He had written to a prominent researcher that  the CIA had sent out an order quite early, that is several months after the assassination, that Shaw's true role inside the agency had to be camouflaged.  Novel wrote that letter in the mid seventies, before any of this newly declassified information had come to light. The declassified record would indicate he was correct.

Now, please add the above into the following new info:

1. The facts of the voluminous declassified record of Shaw being in the Clinton/Jackson area with Ferrie and Oswald in the late summer of 1963, which he lied about. under oath.

2. The overwhelming evidence that Shaw was Bertrand--there are now 14 witnesses on this issue;  and he had called Dean Andrews to defend Oswald, and  Martin Hay found out that Andrews later admitted Bertrand was Shaw. Shaw also lied about this key point under oath.

3. The numerous witnesses that Ferrie knew Shaw to the point he was in his office at the ITM (another issue he lied about).

4. All the discoveries about Permindex/CMC being just as bad as we all suspected--another issue that Shaw lied about.

5. The further eyewitness testimony by Woodrow Hardy that Oswald was seen at Shaw's house with Ferrie. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 216) 

6. Ferrie's two diagrams, one of a plot to kill Castro, one resembling what happened to Kennedy in Dallas, down to the point that Ferrie had written the words "Elm Street" on the diagram. (ibid)

Now, does that brief profile suggest an innocent man to anyone?    It didn't to Garrison and it does not denote innocence to any rational person I think.

People don't perjure themselves, to the point of going to jail for 20 years, nor does the CIA destroy files repeatedly,  if there is nothing to hide.

There was a lot to hide with Shaw, in direct relation to the JFK case. And the CIA knew it.  And Gordon Novel knew it because Allen Dulles himself hired him to infiltrate Garrison's office. (ibid, pp. 232, 33).  This is what I mean about DVP.  He is so ignorant about this stuff that he does not know he is jumping into a whirlpool. And there is no escape.

Then he wonders why people think he is being paid.

Do you understand what treason is, David Von Pein?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David Ferrie...murdered...

So the coroner of New Orleans is part of the "cover up" too, eh? He said Ferrie died of natural causes. But you've decided that Ferrie was "murdered", despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion.

Is that about the size of it?

Do you understand what sheer speculation is, Michael Clark?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

So the coroner of New Orleans is part of the "cover up" too, eh? He said Ferrie died of natural causes. But you've decided to call Ferrie's death a "murder", despite the lack of evidence for such an assertion, correct?

More Weasling by David Von Pein....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

More Weasling by David Von Pein....

How do you know David Ferrie was "murdered", Michael Clark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of chief Chief Exececutives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.

How does it feel to be David Von Pein?

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of Chief Executives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.

How does it feel to be David Von Pein?

And the 2018 Academy Award winner for Best Actor In A Fictional Drama Series is....

[...envelope please...]

Michael Clark

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And the 2018 Academy Award winner for Best Actor In A Fictional Drama Series is....

[...envelope please...]

Michael Clark

You have avoided every salient point in this dedate. The question remains....

48 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, you are covering-up for the murders of witnesses, the failure of chief Chief Exececutives to extradite witnesses, and ignoring the salient points in the indictment and prosecution of the accused in the assassination of the President.

How does it feel to be David Von Pein?

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

How do you know David Ferrie was "murdered", Michael Clark?

Good question ! I wish Mister Michael Clark would agree to answer (if he can, that is…)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most fascinating discussions I ever read on this subject.  A real physician makes two anti Garrison critics look silly.

 

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t166-dr-pittelli-vs-david-reitzes-friends

 

(BTW, as is his penchant, Retizes is misrepresenting my position on the issue.  I have never stated that Ferrie was murdered.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, get real, Dawn! There are a whopping TWO (maybe three) LNers posting here. And one of those LNers (Francois Carlier) hadn't posted here in 8 years prior to this month. That's hardly "so many lone nut voices". It's not even close to a level playing field. CTers outnumber LNers 20 to 1 (at least).

And, anyway, why is it "sad" to have a few LNers posting, Dawn? Are you against free speech? We all know you've totally banned all LNers at the all-CTer forum you control at DPF, but that doesn't mean that Kathy Becket, James Gordon, et al, have to exhibit that same kind of censorship here at EF.

"We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; Feb. 20, 2014

DPF-Post-February-20-2014.png

Indeed. It is called Deep Politics Forum for a reason.  Lone nutters know zero about the study of the Deep State.  By choice we believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again, everybody,
This thread started with a question to David Lifton.
I don’t know whether he took the time to come and read this thread. At any rate, he never bothered to answer.
Still I would love to have some feedback / opinion / comment from people whom I consider both knowledgeable and reasonable, namely David Von Pein, Fred Litwin, W. Tracy Parnell, Paul Baker and Lance Payette.
Be honest. Tell me whether my hypothesis might have some probability or validity, or whether it is unrealistic or just plain silly…
Here was my question to Lifton :
Mister Lifton, 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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francois Carlier said:

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 malicious intent whatsoever? It was indeed a bad decision in retrospect, but only that.
That might reconcile some of your [David Lifton's] 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?

Hi Francois,

While I don't think the scenario you laid out above actually happened on 11/22/63, I will say that your scenario is definitely more believable (and doable) than the outlandish "pre-autopsy autopsy" conspiracy theory put forth by David Lifton.

For the sake of argument, however, I'm wondering something....

If your "The Secret Service Took JFK's Body Out Of The Casket" scenario were true, then why did every single person who would have witnessed such an event decide to lie about it and say that the President's body was never removed from the casket at all? (That would include all of the Secret Service agents who would have been involved in such an action, plus many Kennedy aides, such as Ken O'Donnell and David Powers, plus Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy (who never said anything about such an extremely odd---albeit non-conspiratorial---event occurring aboard Air Force One on November 22nd.)

I would think if the situation were the benign and innocent event that you propose, then the truth of that event would likely have surfaced (at least many years later, if not sooner) via at least one or two of the people aboard the plane that day.

But I like the general idea that Francois has brought forth here --- that is, the idea that even some of the wildest and outrageous conspiracy theories could conceivably have a non-sinister and non-conspiratorial explanation after all.

Edited by David Von Pein

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...