Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Not surprisingly, I see that David Lifton is still desperately clinging to really bad information with respect to the "surgery of the head area" remark that appears on Page 3 of the 11/22/63 Sibert & O'Neill Report.

Mr. Lifton, however, knows full well that the co-author of that 1963 report—James W. Sibert—also made the following statement to the HSCA in 1978:

"When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection." -- James Sibert; October 24, 1978

So, Mr. Lifton, what about that 1978 statement by Jim Sibert? Was he lying when he made those comments to the House Select Committee? I guess you must think he was.

I'll also add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"In a 1999 telephone conversation from his retirement home in Fort Myers, Florida, Sibert told me that when the casket was opened in the autopsy room, "The president was wrapped in two sheets, one around his body, another sheet around his head." He said the sheet around the head was "soaked in blood," and when it was removed, Dr. Humes "almost immediately upon seeing the president's head—this was before the autopsy—remarked that the president had a tracheotomy and surgery of the head area." When I asked Sibert what Humes was referring to when he used the word surgery, he said, "He was referring to the large portion of the president's skull that was missing." When I asked him why he was so sure of this, he replied, "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to."" -- Page 1060 of "Reclaiming History"

And after I utilized the above Bugliosi quote at a JFK forum in May 2013, I followed up the quote with these remarks:

"Why conspiracy theorists continue to cling to inaccurate information is anyone's guess--but they do it--all the time. Sibert and O'Neill merely wrote down what Dr. Humes said at the start of the autopsy. And that information was proven to be wrong. And even most CTers know and think it was wrong--because there are very few CTers who are idiotic enough to actually believe David Lifton's theory about there being "surgery" done to JFK's body before the autopsy." -- DVP; May 5, 2013
 

That's not true at all. You posted once earlier this year; and you posted dozens of times in 2018.

 

Well, David L., you'll have to forgive me if I choose not to follow you down your "Body Alteration" and "Body-centric Plot" roads. (And I doubt there are more than a couple of conspiracy theorists at this forum who buy into your fantastically impossible version of events either.)

And what is truly "comical" is that Mr. Lifton seems to be implying that it's only me who believes in Lee Oswald's lone guilt....and it's only me who thinks the evidence is legitimate throughout the JFK case. When, in reality, there are millions of "Lone Assassin believers" in the world. I'm certainly not in the LN boat all by myself.

And, YES!, of course I'm going to "cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin". What Lone Assassin believer wouldn't be citing that Carcano rifle as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if not THE most important)? Get real, David L.!

Here's a rifle-related question I have repeatedly asked conspiracy believers over the last several years:

"At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner, LEE HARVEY OSWALD? .... For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November 22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza? On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on November 22 (or any other day of the year). If conspiracy theorists think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace (or anyone else) to have been up on that sixth floor using Oswald's gun on 11/22/63, they've got a huge hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD." -- DVP; November 18, 2007

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Who is more likely to have used Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 on 11/22/63 (or any other day of the year)? The owner of the gun (Lee Harvey Oswald)? Or some stranger who didn't purchase the weapon? Based on those "odds", alone, the Anybody But Oswald kooks are cooked. And when we start adding in all the other stuff that incriminates Sweet Lee, it's Katie, bar the door (e.g., Oswald leaving the building immediately; Oswald killing Tippit; Oswald's actions and statements within the Texas Theater, which practically amount to Oswald confessing to some horrible act; plus those fingerprints on the rifle's trigger guard, identified as being Oswald's prints by Vincent Scalice in 1993). This case is a prosecutor's wet dream." -- DVP; September 18, 2012

ALSO SEE:

The-Oswald-Never-Ordered-The-Rifle-Myth-Logo.png

And, yes, I'm also going to cite the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limousine (which came from OSWALD'S rifle) as strong evidence that is was, indeed, OSWALD who was firing that rifle at President Kennedy on November 22nd. Again, what LNer wouldn't be citing such incredibly incriminating physical evidence of Oswald's guilt?

You, David S. Lifton, actually seem to think it's surprising that a person (like me) who strongly believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK would dare to assert that the various pieces of ballistics evidence associated with JFK's murder are actually legitimate (i.e., non-phony) pieces of evidence in this case—such as the C2766 Carcano rifle and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the President's car.

And despite the popular trend among JFK conspiracists to believe that virtually all of the physical evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases is fake and worthless, there hasn't been a speck of PROOF to substantiate that ANY of that evidence was actually manufactured, planted, or fraudulent (including the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the two front-seat bullet fragments).

And the last time I checked, the massive amount of SPECULATION and ACCUSATIONS and WISHFUL THINKING being done by JFK conspiracy theorists does not come close to rising to the level of PROOF.

Get real, DSL! You're the one beating the dead horse. Not me.
 

DSL RESPONSE: I spoke with FBI agent James Sibert at length some years later (in the early 1990s, but I will try to determine the exact date),  At that time, he told me (and he was quite emphatic on this point): "I would swear on a stack of bibles that the doctor (referring to the autopsy surgeon) said there had been :surgery of the head area.."  So I'm not making any of this up.  Furthermore (and I did not discover what follows until years later): when, during the "latter stages" of the autopsy, a bone fragment was brought to the autopsy room and handed to Humes (the autopsy surgeon), Humes --according to the two FBI agents--was "instructed" that this "had been removed" from the President's skull."  Note the FBI agents choice of words: not "blasted" away; not "found in the street"; not "found in the car" etc.  Rather: that this bone fragment had been "removed" from JFK's skull.  Again, another strong indication that, at the time of autopsy, it was the perception in the Bethesda autopsy room that there had been pre-autopsy surgery on JFK''s body--i.e., on his wounds.  DSL, 5/21/2019 (3 PM EDT)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the photo Adam.  Is that in the WC volumes?  Does it have an exhibit number?

 

Has anyone ever heard os the windshield swipe?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The circle on the rear view mirror.

What is that highlighting?

A dent on the back of this?

Also we are told that the crack with webbing on the windshield was made from the inside by a bullet fragment.

If so, it was a remarkable path for this fragment.

It had to have exited JFK's skull on an almost straight forward plane, gone slightly over the Connally's heads yet just under the bubble top support bar then barely missed hitting the rear view mirror head on and/or hitting the back of driver Bill Greer's head.

And did the second fragment make the dent with upraised metal edges on the windshield frame facing inward?

Just wanted to understand the basics about these cracks, dents and the JFK skull exiting fragments.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

...this bone fragment had been "removed" from JFK's skull.  Again, another strong indication that, at the time of autopsy, it was the perception in the Bethesda autopsy room that there had been pre-autopsy surgery on JFK''s body--i.e., on his wounds.

That's extremely weak, David. It's embarrassingly weak for you. Especially after reviewing the comments made later by both James Sibert and Dr. Humes.

You are desperately searching for justification so that you can continue to believe in the "surgery" that never happened.

Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information?

1992-JAMA-Quote-By-Dr-James-Humes.png

 

Bonus Quotes....

Excerpt-From-Dr-Humes-JAMA-Interview.png

 

http://history-matters.com / Complete 1992 Interview With Dr. James J. Humes

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

That's extremely weak, David. It's embarrassingly weak for you. Especially after reviewing the comments made later by both James Sibert and Dr. Humes.

You are desperately searching for justification so that you can continue to believe in the "surgery" that never happened.

Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information?

<propoganda snipped>

spoken by someone whose entire life is immersed in the 1964 Warren Commission Report. Doesn't get more rich than that!

tsk-tsk!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm writing this additional "P.S." to highlight the serious difference between FBI Agent Sibert's statement in 1978 (cited by DVP) and what Sibert told me some years later.  Sibert's statement quoted by DVP derives from an affidavit he was asked to sign by HSCA General Counsel Blakey, after I had spoken to Blakey for well over an hour, giving him a serious preview of the manuscript I was writing, which presented the evidence that JFK's body was altered prior to autopsy. Blakey listened--again, this conversation was at least an hour--and assured me that he understood what I was saying, and that he would "look into it," (my quote).   As far as I can see, what Blakey then did was prepare an affidavit for Sibert to sign that said that the "surgery of the head area" quote was determined not to be true, etc.  So that's the kind of "investigation" that Blakey conducted.   But when I spoke to Sibert, as I have stated in my prior "DSL Response," Sibert told me that he would "swear on a stack of bibles" that (based on his recollection) the autopsy doctor (referring to Humes) said it was "apparent"  that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull."

DVP writes (quote on):  And, YES!, of course I'm going to "cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin". What Lone Assassin believer wouldn't be citing that Carcano rifle as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if not THE most important)? Get real, David L.!" QUOTE OFF

After all his years of study and analysis, DVP still has not advanced beyond the point of citing the Carcano rifle "as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if to THE most important)."

Can it the case that DVP does not realize how absurdly shallow this sort of "reasoning" is?  Can it be that all it takes to deceive DVP is to have placed a rifle mail ordered to LHO's post office box up there on the sixth floor?  I could understand him reasoning in this fashion if this was December 1963, or into the first half of 1964.  But. . . for G_d's sake- - this is 2019!  We now know that the JFK wound descriptions (as reported in Dallas) were entirely different than the wound descriptions at Bethesda.  We now know that there was a serious break in the chain of custody on JFK's body--that it left Dallas  wrapped in sheets, and in a 400 -plus pound expensive ceremonial casket, and arrived at Bethesda inside a body bag, which was inside a shipping casket.  All of this is spelled out in great detail, and with great clarity, in Best Evidence.   We now know, that (as I have cited above) that when Humes (the autopsy surgeon) was handed a piece of bone, the FBI agents reported what he was told: that he was "instructed" that this had been "removed" from the President's skull. It should be very obvious, at this late date, that (a) the President's body was altered (i.e., his wounds were altered); and (b) there was no valid chain of possession.  

Is it possible that, despite all the contrary evidence, all it takes to deceive DVP is for Oswald's rifle to have been placed among some cartons on the sixth floor; and so, ipso facto, that's enough for him to accept Oswald's guilt as "the assassin."

Is he really  that credulous?

If so, that's rather sad.

DSL

5/21/19 (7 PM EDT)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David G. Healy said:

spoken by someone whose entire life is immersed in the 1964 Warren Commission Report. Doesn't get more rich than that!

tsk-tsk!

Another brilliant say-nothing retort by the King Of Say-Nothing Retorts.

~yawn~

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Is it possible that, despite all the contrary evidence, all it takes to deceive DVP is for Oswald's rifle to have been placed among some cartons on the sixth floor; and so, ipso facto, that's enough for him to accept Oswald's guilt as "the assassin"[?]

Well, David, I think I'm relying on just a tad bit more than just the rifle. Or had you forgotten about all of this other "Oswald Did It" evidence? (You're not going to totally ignore all of this stuff too, are you DSL?)....


XX.+Oswald+Is+Guilty+Blog+Logo.png
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP scolds me, writing "Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information?

How ironic.  This is written by DVP who sincerely believes--and promotes---a completely false view of what happened on 11/22/63, because he is wedded to a simplistic belief in falsified evidence.  

DSL; 5/21/19 (7:15 EDT)

 

Share this post


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

5/20/2019 - 11:20 PM EDT

Ron,

The way events evolved is not what was supposed to happen.

JFK's body was supposed to be altered, in Dallas, and then there was to be a Dallas autopsy.

But none of that happened, once Connally was unexpectedly shot.

The result: the focus shifted to getting JFK's body out of Texas, without an autopsy, and focusing on Connally's medical treatment, so that his unexpected shooting did not foul up "the best of well laid plans."

I'll be publishing about this soon. 

DSL

 

 

I've been wondering what you think about the difference between Parkland and Bethesda over whether a full chest tube procedure was performed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

DVP scolds me, writing "Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information?"

How ironic.  This is written by DVP who sincerely believes--and promotes---a completely false view of what happened on 11/22/63, because he is wedded to a simplistic belief in falsified evidence.

It's all a matter of POINT OF VIEW and BELIEFS.

DSL believes that there's a ton of "falsified evidence" in this case. (Despite the fact that he's got no definitive PROOF that even ONE PIECE of evidence against Oswald was "falsified".)

DVP does not share DSL's belief.

And the JFK Assassination merry-go-round continues to perpetually spin....

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

5/20/2019 - 11:20 PM EDT

Ron,

The way events evolved is not what was supposed to happen.

JFK's body was supposed to be altered, in Dallas, and then there was to be a Dallas autopsy.

But none of that happened, once Connally was unexpectedly shot.

The result: the focus shifted to getting JFK's body out of Texas, without an autopsy, and focusing on Connally's medical treatment, so that his unexpected shooting did not foul up "the best of well laid plans."

I'll be publishing about this soon. 

DSL

 

 

I can see the possibility of whoever set the whole thing up having someone ready in place in Dallas to alter the wounds, even a place ready to have done such.  But it's hard to see how they would have controlled the autopsy there and in particular the Callas coroner to the extent they did Humes and Co. at Bethesda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I've been wondering what you think about the difference between Parkland and Bethesda over whether a full chest tube procedure was performed?

I do not understand your question--and specifically, what you mean when you write ""whether a full chest tube procedure was performed".

Could you please clarify?    Thanks.  DSL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

1992-JAMA-Quote-By-Dr-James-Humes.png

 

This quote from the doctor who botched the coverup so badly -- having the head-shot bullet both enter and exit the back of the head -- that the next coverup team had to move all the wounds.

Though in all fairness, Dr. Humes was given little time to deceive.
 

BTW, is Dr. Humes defending his autopsy or the one performed sans-body by the HSCA? And does that mean that the other one doesn't obey the laws of physics? It must be given that "everything else is hogwash" according to Dr. Humes."

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

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...