Jump to content

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has anyone learned anything new?

Yes

Great, Lee!

What have you learned?

--Tommy "The Lazy "Researcher" O'Pepper :)

That a certain high profile researcher, who it is claimed is searching for the truth, thinks it a better use of our time to look into yellow paint than it is trying to corroborate the story of the man who says he was pumping an umbrella up and down right next to the President when he was shot and who then disappeared for 15 years.

And much, much more...

Mr. Farley:

As if often the case, your understanding as to what is relevant, and what is not, seems thoroughly out of focus:

1) Steve Witt is not someone who “disappeared for fifteen years.” Nor is he sinister. At all. He was apparently not sought out by the FBI (as was the case with other pertinent witnesses, who appear in photos, and whose identities are not known). But Witt’s identity was certainly known by his dentist, which is how I heard about him—in the 1970s. And co-workers of his knew about his story, which is how reporter Earl Golz and Penn Jones found him. Some “disappearance”, eh?

Moreover, and as I pointed out, he happens to be an important car-stop witness, which of course doesn’t happen to register with you, because your mental apparatus is apparently tuned to a different frequency. In a proper investigation, which would also have focused on anomalies pertaining to the Zapruder film, Witt’s account would have been highly significant, and would have led to the questioning of other witnesses—and it would have been immediately apparent that most witnesses by limo (e.g., the Newmans, both of whom I interviewed, in person, and at length, in 1971), insisted that the car stopped momentarily.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH: When I say "insisted," I mean that literally. In my in-person taped interview with Bill Newman (and his wife) at their home, in November, 1971, they didn't just say (in passing) that the car stopped; but when challenged (by me) pointing out to them that the Zapruder film at the U.S. National Archives (remember, this is four years before Groden was on Geraldo Rivera) showed no such stop, which I emphasized, Newman said that he didn't care what some film showed, there was no question in his mind but that it stopped, because he was right there, and saw it happen. His wife agreed. NOW CONTINUING WITH THE POST, as originally written. . .

Let me spell this out, so that even you can perhaps understand it: in a proper investigation, the multiple reports that the President’s limo stopped during the shooting would have been just as important (and potentially sensational) as the reports that President Kennedy suffered an entrance wound in the throat.

Both indicate conspiracy, but for different reasons. And the car-stop evidence immediately implicates the driver of the President’s limo. Furthermore, any Secret Service agent present either in the President’s car, or on the followup car would know whether the car stopped, and had Witt and others been called to testify, the focus could have easily shifted to the Zapruder film, and various issues of authenticity.

Yet you come along in 2011 and purport to instruct us as to what is relevant and (a) invest Witt with a sinister significance he does not have; and (b ) ignore what is crucially important that he is saying about the car stop.

If you’re going to start erecting a "conspiracy theory” about who was (and was not) called, then I would suggest that its far more plausible that certain high level folk perhaps knew very well that the President Kennedy's limo stopped momentarily during the shooting (and that the Z film had been altered to conceal all that), and that perhaps that is why critical certain witnesses (e.g., the Newman’s and Witt, and perhaps others) were not called to testify (and, in Witt's case, never even interviewed at all!). That “pattern” of why certain witnesses were not "found" or were not called is much easier to propose (and even defend) rather than to erect a conspiracy hypothesis centered around Witt, his supposed “disappearance” and his umbrella.

On a scale of "one to ten", what do you think is more important (and would have been more important, as a news story): that the President's car momentarily stopped, DURING the shooting, or that a man standing at curbside had an an umbrella, and was perhaps moving it up and down?

2) On a high quality copy of the Zapruder film—a digitized version of the frames made from a 35 mm copy made directly from the original-—these yellow segments are very noticeable. In other words, it is obvious that there are bright yellow segments—which appear to be fresh paint—on the curb, to the left of the JFK limo. The reproductions that have been produced so far in connection with any discussion on this forum do not do justice to the bright nature of the markings. Such markings are obviously not for any “loading zone”—that is ludicrous, and would be similar to someone arguing that Witt had an umbrella because it was “only raining on him.” And if you think these bright yellow markings are innocent, based on some hearsay from a taxi driver twenty years ago, then I’ve got some high quality swampland in Florida you perhaps may wish to purchase.

3) I think you should stick to your specialty, which seems to be dreaming up a conspiracy, where Mary Bledsoe is concerned—you know, that she wasn’t on the bus (at the point where Oswald boarded), that she didn’t see Oswald, that she wasn’t Oswald’s landlady, that a "second Oswald" ran into his rooming house, etc etc.

You offer this conspiracy hypothesis despite the fact that, as I demonstrated months ago (and as you apparently did not realize), Mary Bledsoe was interviewed 3 times by five different FBI agents in the 10 days following the assassination, the first time being the day after the assassination. So the notion that she was making all this up is highly implausible (to put it mildly).

It continues to amaze me that anyone who professes to be serious about studying this case can so consistently focus on the irrelevant, for which there is no evidence, and ignore what is important.

Remember what I said about the Stanford Law professor, and which I think perhaps applies to here: “Great trial lawyers have an instinct for the jugular; others has an instinct for the capillaries.”

Welcome to the land of the capillaries.

DSL

12/4/11; 3 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Has anyone learned anything new?

Yes

Great, Lee!

What have you learned?

--Tommy "The Lazy "Researcher" O'Pepper :)

That a certain high profile researcher, who it is claimed is searching for the truth, thinks it a better use of our time to look into yellow paint than it is trying to corroborate the story of the man who says he was pumping an umbrella up and down right next to the President when he was shot and who then disappeared for 15 years.

And much, much more...

Mr. Farley:

As if often the case, your understanding as to what is relevant, and what is not, seems thoroughly out of focus:

1) Steve Witt is not someone who "disappeared for fifteen years."

"The Umbrella Man remained anonymous until the committee distributed the pictures and issued a public appeal for information about him last July. Witt, a Dallas warehouse manager, saw the pictures and news stories and realized to his chagrin that he was the umbrella Man. 'Having no particular interest in the assassination case, I drifted along all these years without coming across any of these theories'." Daily Union, Sep 26, 1978

We know the above isn't quite true... he didn't give himself up... and despite what you say... he claims he never knew about any controversy, so therefore could not have discussed it with anyone prior to the coming of his "chagrin". What can be taken as true though is that he "remained anonymous" for 15 years - surely synonymous with "disappearing for 15 years".

Nor is he sinister. At all. He was apparently not sought out by the FBI (as was the case with other pertinent witnesses, who appear in photos, and whose identities are not known). But Witt's identity was certainly known by his dentist, which is how I heard about him

through third party hearsay - of which we only have your word since you continue to neglect to name names.

—in the 1970s. And co-workers of his knew about his story, which is how reporter Earl Golz and Penn Jones found him. Some "disappearance", eh?

Again - name the co workers.

Moreover, and as I pointed out, he happens to be an important car-stop witness, which of course doesn't happen to register with you, because your mental apparatus is apparently tuned to a different frequency. In a proper investigation,

You'd be the LAST person allowed within a 100 mile radius of a proper investigation.

which would also have focused on anomalies pertaining to the Zapruder film, Witt's account would have been highly significant, and would have led to the questioning of other witnesses—and it would have been immediately apparent that most witnesses by limo (e.g., the Newmans, both of whom I interviewed, in person, and at length, in 1971), insisted that the car stopped momentarily.

Let me spell this out, so that even you can perhaps understand it: in a proper investigation, the multiple reports that the President's limo stopped during the shooting would have been just as important (and potentially sensational) as the reports that President Kennedy suffered an entrance wound in the throat.

Let me spell this out: The HSCA had NO INTEREST in anything Witt had to say about the car or anything else. The SOLE purpose of his being there was to show the HSCA was "serious" about addressing the concerns of critics regarding TUM - without finding anything sinister. There are any number of ways Witt could have come by the information he gave about the car. NO ONE AT THAT TIME CARED ABOUT ANY STOP. I have looked at several contemporaneous stories on Witt's testimony without finding any mention of it.

Both indicate conspiracy, but for different reasons. And the car-stop evidence immediately implicates the driver of the President's limo. Furthermore, any Secret Service agent present either in the President's car, or on the followup car would know whether the car stopped, and had Witt and others been called to testify, the focus could have easily shifted to the Zapruder film, and various issues of authenticity.

Yet you come along in 2011 and purport to instruct us as to what is relevant and (a) invest Witt with a sinister significance he does not have; and (b ) ignore what is crucially important that he is saying about the car stop.

If you're going to start erecting a "conspiracy theory" about who was (and was not) called, then I would suggest that its far more plausible that certain high level folk perhaps knew very well that the President Kennedy's limo stopped momentarily during the shooting (and that the Z film had been altered to conceal all that), and that perhaps that is why critical certain witnesses (e.g., the Newman's and Witt, and perhaps others) were not called to testify (and, in Witt's case, never even interviewed at all!). That "pattern" of why certain witnesses were not "found" or were not called is much easier to propose (and even defend) rather than to erect a conspiracy hypothesis centered around Witt, his supposed "disappearance" and his umbrella.

On a scale of "one to ten", what do you think is more important (and would have been more important, as a news story): that the President's car momentarily stopped, DURING the shooting, or that a man standing at curbside had an an umbrella, an was perhaps moving it up and down?

2) On a high quality copy of the Zapruder film—a digitized version of the frames made from a 35 mm copy made directly from the original-—these yellow segments are very noticeable. In other words, it is obvious that there are bright yellow segments—which appear to be fresh paint—on the curb, to the left of the JFK limo. The reproductions that have been produced so far in connection with any discussion on this forum do not do justice to the bright nature of the markings. Such markings are obviously not for any "loading zone"—that is ludicrous,

David, do try and get some things straight. Lee did not suggest it was a loading zone. That was me. I based it on the rather misleading description of the markers as "yellow stripes" (the international standard for loading zone markings) and uncertainty about the location. Jerry Dealey has since provided information about the nature of the markings, and I have pointed out that a survey map shows 8 of them. They are completely and utterly a non issue.

and would be similar to someone arguing that Witt had an umbrella because it was "only raining on him." And if you think these bright yellow markings are innocent, based on some hearsay from a taxi driver twenty years ago, then I've got some high quality swampland in Florida you perhaps will wish to purchase.

See above. You want to take issue with Jerry's information, do so. But don't prattle about hearsay evidence while using it yourself (what was the name of the person who knew the dentist again? What was the name of the dentist? What was the name of the person who phoned Jones?

3) I think you should stick to your specialty, which seems to be dreaming up a conspiracy, where Mary Bledsoe is concerned—you know, that she wasn't on the bus, didn't see Oswald, that she wasn't Oswald's landlady, that a "second Oswald" ran into his rooming house, etc etc.

It continues to amaze me that anyone who professes to be serious about studying this case can so consistently focus on the irrelevant, for which there is no evidence, and ignore what is important.

Remember what I said about the Stanford Law professor, and which I think perhaps applies to here: "Great trial lawyers have an instinct for the jugular; others has an instinct for the capillaries."

Welcome to the land of the capillaries.

You got there following the yellow brick road no doubt...

DSL

12/4/11; 3 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[snip]

((Quoting Lee Farley, in a sarcastic reference to me. . . )):

That a certain high profile researcher, who it is claimed is searching for the truth, thinks it a better use of our time to look into yellow paint than it is trying to corroborate the story of the man who says he was pumping an umbrella up and down right next to the President when he was shot and who then disappeared for 15 years.

And much, much more...

((Quoting Greg Parker [in burgundy] responding to my commentary about Witt and his statement about the car stop. . . )):

[snip]

. . .which would also have focused on anomalies pertaining to the Zapruder film, Witt's account would have been highly significant, and would have led to the questioning of other witnesses—and it would have been immediately apparent that most witnesses by limo (e.g., the Newmans, both of whom I interviewed, in person, and at length, in 1971), insisted that the car stopped momentarily.

Let me spell this out, so that even you can perhaps understand it: in a proper investigation, the multiple reports that the President's limo stopped during the shooting would have been just as important (and potentially sensational) as the reports that President Kennedy suffered an entrance wound in the throat.

Let me spell this out: The HSCA had NO INTEREST in anything Witt had to say about the car or anything else. The SOLE purpose of his being there was to show the HSCA was "serious" about addressing the concerns of critics regarding TUM - without finding anything sinister. There are any number of ways Witt could have come by the information he gave about the car. NO ONE AT THAT TIME CARED ABOUT ANY STOP. I have looked at several contemporaneous stories on Witt's testimony without finding any mention of it.

[snip]

DSL

12/4/11; 3 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Greg Parker,

I’m afraid you’re reasoning in a thoroughly circular fashion.

Steve Witt testified truthfully, as far as I’m concerned. Now you think he did not. So, to cast his testimony in doubt, you ascribe bad intention to the HSCA and its staff.

You write: “The SOLE purpose of his being there was to show the HSCA was "serious" about addressing the concerns of critics regarding TUM - without finding anything sinister.”

But suppose there was in fact nothing sinister about Witt and his umbrella? Then what are you left with? The answer: Nada. All you have, really, is your own belief that the HSCA and its staff was dishonest and somehow presented a lying witness. Apparently, you simply cannot get your arms around the idea that Steve Witt is exactly who he says he was.

Consider the opposite, just hypothetically: Suppose Witt had said:

QUOTING WITT (hypothetically):

“Now, I have given you my explanation for the umbrella, and how the umbrella represented the symbol of Prime Minister Chamberlain, etc., and I do hope the committee accepts my testimony. As corroboration, you can call my wife (or other family member) who had been well aware of my embarrassment over this, ever since this episode occurred some fifteen years ago.

“However, I do have one concern.

“When I was there, with the umbrella, I noticed the President’s car stopped suddenly, during the shooting. I was surprised by this. Because after all, shots were being fired, so why would the driver stop the car?

“I hope the Committee does look into this.”

END QUOTE

The fact is: Witt did not make such an explicit statement, but he certainly DID say the car stopped. There’s no question about that. So. . what is your response to that?

Quoting what you wrote, you again go back to psychology: “There are any number of ways Witt could have come by the information he gave about the car. NO ONE AT THAT TIME CARED ABOUT ANY STOP.”

Now please do explain: Just what do you mean, when you say: “No one at that time cared about any stop.”

Just who is “No one at that time. . .?

I certainly “cared about” the stop. I realized the car stop witnesses were in conflict with the film by 1969—that’s 42 years ago. Further, I went to Dallas in November, 1971 (that’s 40 years ago) with a TC-800 reel-to-reel tape recorder and interviewed five witnesses about it—four of them with a tape recorder: Mary Moorman, John Chism, Mr and Mrs. Newman, and Jack Franzen. Furthermore, I made no secret of my concerns—and I believe that another researcher called it to the attention of the Committee.

So what do you mean: no one “cared” about it. . . you base that on the fact that its not in some news stories? Apparently so. You write: “I have looked at several contemporaneous stories on Witt's testimony without finding any mention of it.”

Sorry, but that doesn’t pass my “so what?” test.

Let me tell you something about the HSCA, and its investigation, and I made two formal addresses to the committee, and had at least 10 telephone contacts and meetings with them. True, the Committee didn’t “care” about the car stop. But its worse than that. Nor did they “care” about the falsification of the autopsy via the alteration of wounds on the body.. They looked at “conspiracy” through the lens of the “second assassin.” Really, it was that elementary, that puerile. The notion that there was fraud in the evidence was something they could not—and would not (and did not)—comprehend. I know that personally from my experience in talking to no less than 5 members of the staff, and then having a one hour plus phone call with General Counsel Robert Blakey in October, 1978. (See Chapter 24 of Best Evidence)

They paid lip service to “looking for” a conspiracy, in that area, but wouldn’t really do what was necessary to pursue it.

Its not that they couldn’t “handle” it; they truly couldn’t conceive of it. When I pleaded with them to focus on Greer and Kellerman, do you know what they did? A staffer called up Greer, at home, and had a brief conversation with him. He assured them that no one had tampered with the body. Can you believe that?

Do you think Blakey would have investigated the Mafia that way? (“Hi, I’m Robert Blakey. . Glad I got you at home sir. . I’d just like to ask you a question: Were you or your confreres by any chance involved in the murder of President Kennedy? . .. you weren’t? Oh, thank you so much sir. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.”)

That’s what they did with William Greer, the driver of the limo –when questioning him about the chain of possession of JFK’s body.

But now let’s turn to Witt’s testimony about the car stop, and its implications, and how the HSCA handled it. The Witt testimony is an excellent example. Here was a witness who volunteered critical evidence which implied that the Zapruder film was falsified, and it sailed right by.

And now, over three decades later, there are people on this forum who think of themselves as “serious” researchers—people who spend hours thinking about this case, and posting on this and that, who won’t deal with the same issue! They prattle on that they’re not concerned with Z film alteration, or that the area of the actual shooting may have been marked with two (not eight) yellow stripes. . . that’s all innocent they say (!). What counts (to them) is the movement of the umbrella, or whether Witt is some sort of imposter, or whether he talked to a Cuban; or the notion that Mary Bledsoe was not on the bus (at the point where Oswald boarded), that she was a xxxx; that she wasn’t even Oswald’s landlady! etc etc. This is their idea of “conspiracy.”

Here’s the bottom line: The government did not find the truth in this case because of fraud in the evidence. That’s why the normal investigatory functions of the government did not perform properly.

If you want to know why the Kennedy case is going nowhere fast, as the half century mark approaches, it’s the failure to distinguish what is significant, from what is largely irrelevant.

DSL

12/4/11; 5:25 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the bottom line: The government did not find the truth in this case because of fraud in the evidence. That’s why the normal investigatory functions of the government did not perform properly.

"The Committee's investigation was not adequate enough or honest enough to produce any firm conclusions about the nature of the conspiracy to kill President Kennedy." (Gaeton Fonzi)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

(quote name='David Lifton' date='04 December 2011 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1323005602' post='240068') http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18412&view=findpost&p=240068

...Its not that they couldn’t “handle” it; they truly couldn’t conceive of it. When I pleaded with them to focus on Greer and Kellerman, do you know what they did? A staffer called up Greer, at home, and had a brief conversation with him. He assured them that no one had tampered with the body. Can you believe that?

Do you think Blakey woiuld have investigated the Mafia that way? (“Hi, I’m Robert Blakey. . Glad I got you at home sir. . I’d just like to ask you a question: Were you or your conferes by any chance involved in the murder of President Kennedy? . .. you weren’t? Oh, thank you so much sir. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.”)

That’s what they did with William Greer, the driver of the limo –when questioning him about the chain of possession of JFK’s body. ....

(/quote)

David,

When I read your reference to "Blakey would have investigated the Mafia that way", I nearly broke out into hysterical laughter!

I suppose it matters little that Howard Willens, age 32 at the time he was appointed as one of three assistant counsels on the WC just below the level of J. Lee Rankin, happened to be the son of Joseph R. Willens, who happened to move in 1958, into the home directly next to the residence of Tony Accardo, or that Joseph's father was Pincus (Morris) Braver-Wilensky of Chicago, who we also know nothing about.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15205&pid=237868&st=0entry237868

If any of this was considered relevant by even a few in the assassination research community, wouldn't the info above be more widely known?

Since Earl Warren and Albert Jenner were certainly close to people whose names were included in FBI files related to investigations of members of the Chicago Syndicate, and Jack Ruby was from Chicago, and the WC was a small group with Warren, Willens, and Jenner all "serving" on the WC in influential positions, how many other key WC people with Chicago mob ties would be a quantity sufficient to attract more interest from researchers?

Albert E. Jenner, Jr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_E._Jenner,_Jr.#Controversy

Earl Warren http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy

(Linked Controversy Section was later removed from Warren bio.)

(quote)www.aarclibrary.org/publib/.../HSCA_Vol11_WC_3F2_Willens.pdf

.PDF Page 5 - (page 315)

JFK Exhibit No. 66

Warren Commission Organizational Chart

.PDF Page 7 - (page 317)

...Mr. BLAKEY. The basic division of the work of the Warren Commission

in the five substantive areas, and subsequently a sixth, I take

it, was as a result of a memorandum that you wrote. Is that correct?

Mr. WILLENS. One of the assignments I undertook in my first few

weeks with the Commission was to make a recommendation to Mr.

Rankin as to how the work of the Commission might be organized. I

did write a memorandum in either late December or early January

that proposed an organization very close to that reflected on this chart.

That was reviewed by Mr. Rankin and presented subsequently to the

Commission and did serve, with some amendment, as the organization

through which the Commission staff performed its duties.

Mr. BLAKEY. I wonder if you could share with us at this time your

rationale in dividing the basic work of the Commission into five areas

as designated on this chart.

Mr. WiLLExs. I keep thinking of six areas, as is reflected on the

chart. I believe the rationale is readily stated . In order to begin and

undertake a project of this dimension, there has to be some arbitrary

allocation of responsibilities. There is no way to do it that eliminates

overlap or possible confusion but this was an effort to try to organize

the work in such a way that assignments would be reasonably clear,

overlaps could be readily identified and coordination would be accomplished

among the various members of the staff.

It did seem to me and others who reviewed this chart that the

various areas here did lend themselves to separate treatment, at least

at the outset, when our principal task was to marshal the investigative

materials that were made available to the Commission, try to identify

those areas that needed additional investigation and to outline those

questions that had to be addressed by the staff and the members of

the Commission....(/quote)

(quote)http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=willens+%22Despite+all+the+loose+ends+spotlighted+by+Hubert%22&btnG=

The Ruby Cover-Up

books.google.com Seth Kantor - 1992 - 450 pages

...Despite all the loose ends spotlighted by Hubert and Griffin, "these Cuban pursuits represented some kind of bottomless pit and our overall investigation had to be wrapped up," Willens said.1 Other staff lawyers agreed with Willens.

Therefore, the Warren Commission never explored the possible links of Ruby's Cuban activities in 1959 with his FBI contacts that year and with Ruby's totally unexplained use of a safety deposit box at the time of his Cuban and FBI interests....

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=kantor+ruby+%22among+the+working-level+lawyers%22&btnG=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=kantor+%22*the+Ruby+detail.+Had+Ruby+acted+alone%3F+Did+Ruby%22&pbx=1&oq=kantor+%22*the+Ruby+detail.+Had+Ruby+acted+alone%3F+Did+Ruby%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=538l538l23l1573l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=38a0ddfd1ebc19a6&biw=811&bih=496

The Ruby Cover-Up

books.google.com Seth Kantor - 1992

...Oswald's Death . . .the Ruby detail. Had Ruby acted alone? Did Ruby have any connections leading to Oswald? Originally there were to be five areas of investigation, in descending importance.

The Ruby detail was considered the fifth and least significant. Hubert and Griffin were introduced to each other and deposited there. 6. Presidential Protection....

involving sensitive precautions taken and not taken by the Secret Service, FBI and Dallas police in advance of the President's trip to Dallas.

The Commission decided this category was essential and added it on. Rankin was placed in charge of it. Samuel A. Stern, 35, a Washington lawyer who had clerked for Chief Justice Warren eight years earlier, was the day- today counsel on the job.

The management would have had to reinforce the fifth floor walls of the building at 200 Maryland Avenue if these attorneys had elected to hang all their framed credentials as learned men on the walls. Yet despite that cumulation of certified intelligence, they often isolated themselves from each other. Some were pompous and didn't feel the need to hear what others on the staff were thinking. Some were too caught up with their own investigative projects to communicate with others.

There were conflicts and overlaps and jealousies and grievances and most of it was because there was no simple line of contact among the men on the fifth floor.

One of the contributing factors to the Commission's overall failures was its lack of communication from top to bottom and from side to side.

Rankin kept the up and down flow of information in the hourglass— between Commission members and staff— tightly controlled and limited through his office. It was all very formal and private. As a result the fifth floor took on an antiseptic atmosphere, with no system for a free exchange of facts among the working-level lawyers. For instance, "We never had any significant dialogue, any structured dialogue among the staff members on the question of conspiracy," says one of those lawyers who still is distraught because of that critical failure.

"There never were any series of hypotheses set up that we were

all supposed to check into. In fact, we never

really had a structured system of meeting and exchanging information so that various theories could be checked out.....

(/quote)

Bill,

Is a quote from Virginia Warren's daughter as reliable as something a ghost writer put in Hilton's "auto" biography?

How could even ten percent of these mob related "coincidences" even happen to such a small group of people as Earl Warren, Tom Clark, Howard Willens, and Albert Jenner, Jr. if even one of them was committed in any way to avoiding even the appearance of impropriety? Joke front men for a sham commission hard at work fabricating a cover up. Was Sam Stern blind? He was right in the middle of all of it, including knowing DeMohrenschildt's, "Mr. Green".

I can envision Katzenbach asking Willens...."Howard, your parents still live next door to Tony Accardo, right?"

Willens: "Yes, Nick, they still do."

Katzenbach: "Okay, kid, I'm sending you over to the WC to act as DOJ liason, and try to persuade Lee Rankin to let you design the organizational structure and the priorities of the WC investigation, and report back to me, regularly!"

(quote)http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/local/me-virginia-warren-daly6

Virginia Warren Daly dies at 80; popular socialite in New York and Washington

OBITUARIES

March 06, 2009

...Daly, who was rarely quoted in the news media, enjoyed traveling the world with hotel magnate Conrad "Connie" Hilton, her daughter said.

...................................................

aarc-fbi552-11_0002_0125

6186386869_0903edb6b0_b.jpg

Lee,

If you're gonna quote an interview with Stern, I think it is fitting to put his and other WC "baggage" on display, side by side with what you indicate is Stern's undermining of the WC and its "findings". IMO, Stern's 1978 interview was mostly about blowing more smoke into the prying eyes of CTs.

Consider that Stern was a clerk in Earl Warren's office in the same year Henry Crown's son John, was clerking for Tom C. Clerk, even though Clark is alleged to have told Drew Pearson in 1946, this about Henry Crown:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16673&st=60&p=207332entry207332

"...Some of the rulers of the underworld had become supposedly respected businessmen and politicians whose names were household words in Chicago. Some of them, it was stated, had reformed. Yet they still controlled the mob...."

Important because Earl Warren stated that the two men who vouched for Albert Jenner were Tom Clark and Dean Acheson.

Stern in all likelihood was aware that John Crown was a member of Albert Jenner's law firm

at the time he and his WC associates were singing songs about Jenner. If Stern was the shining light the CIA described him as being at the Mary Ferrell link below, he had to be aware when he was Warren's clerk in 1956 that Warren and his wife were close with mobbed up Crown partner, Conrad Hilton, and that Warren's daughter Virginia was a fixture on Hilton's arm.

When Stern was giving the 1978 interview you posted, he had to be aware that in the year follwing the publishing of the WC report, Earl Warren chose the son of organized crime principal, Paul Ziffren as Warren's law clerk.

The CIA combined its "investigations" of Stern with Howard Willens, described as number 3 in the U.S. DOJ, with a troubling past including an arrest in 1947 on the charge of breaking street lights. Willens's father, Joseph is of concern to the CIA because of his 1930 arrest on a minor charge, a 1940's accusation of mortgage fraud, and his travels to South America, the Soviet Union and several Soviet bloc countries.

Some how the CIA did not include in it s report, the fact that Willens's father purchased the residence next door to Tony Accardo's in 1958. :

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=110307&relPageId=3

Howard Willens designed the organizational structure of the WC and of its investigative priorities, minimizing the need to fully investigate Jack Ruby's Cuban connections:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15205&pid=237868&st=0entry237868

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18349&pid=237930&st=0entry237930

Samuel Stern is Anaconda Copper's counsel just 4 months before the coup in Chile that resulted in the death of the elected leader, Allende, and ushered in the 17 years long reign of terror of Gen. Pinochet.: .....(/quote)

(/quote)

http://www.google.com/search?q=warren+plane+hilton&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#q=warren+plane+hilton&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=e4s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&tbm=nws&prmd=imvnsb&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=m8vRTvqvIcS9tgfL0IW5DQ&ved=0CBMQpwUoCg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=2facffac0e408c2c&biw=1280&bih=783

AIRLINER TURNS BACK; Hilton Party on Plane Included Mrs....

- New York Times - Nov 29, 1958

The purpose of Mr. Hilton'sl !flight to Berlin was to open the newest Hilton hotel, the Berlin!Hilton. The plane s passengers included Mrs. Earl Warren, ...

Warren Tops Speakers for Bar Meeting

Pay-Per-View - Los Angeles Times - Dec 8, 1956

OFF TO MEXICO-Conrad Hilton, hotel magnate; Mrs. CD Clemente. center, ... of Chief Justice Warren, and Columnist Heddo Hopper wove as they board plane for ...(/quote)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=751672

ADMIN FOLDER-W8: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, LEE HARVEY OSWALD VOLUME X pg 123

Found in: FBI - HSCA Administrative Folders

type of charges he intended to press (77-72922) ALBERT E JENNER JR. Assistant to Rankin Jenner,.born 1907 Chicago Illinois is a lawyer We have not investigated him however files show he was a member of

RIF#: 124-10369-10006 (11/09/64) FBI#: 62-117290-ADMIN FOLDER-W8

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessionid=D3C687690C24B48F4B188D7063C1D623?docId=10111&relPageId=124

...Subsequent to Jenner's appointment to the staff of the president's commission, Jenner was ill and confined and confined to a hospital. Our Chicago SAC personally a report on our investigation of the assassination and at that time Mr. Jenner seemed most appreciative and indicated he was serving the Commission at the direct request of the Chief Justice Earl Warren. He expressed his very high regard for the Director and the FBI, indicating he became acquainted firsthand with the reports of the Bureau when serving on a Loyalty Committee in Washington years ago. He said that he had always noticed that our reports were completely impartial and factual...

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=donald+gibson+%22warren+said+he+had+checked+on+Jenner%27s+references*%22&btnG=#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=donald+gibson+%22Jenner+with+a+number+of+people+and+they+all+recommended+him.+Two+of+Jenner%27s+references+were+mentioned+by*%22+clark&pbx=1&oq=donald+gibson+%22Jenner+with+a+number+of+people+and+they+all+recommended+him.+Two+of+Jenner%27s+references+were+mentioned+by*%22+clark&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=19218l19218l2l20755l1l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=11ddc481b2828c55&biw=840&bih=433

The Kennedy assassination cover-up - Page 96

books.google.com Donald Gibson - 2000 - 306 pages - Google eBook - Preview

... and national groups working on legal issues.21 Warren said that he had checked on Jenner with a number of people and they all recommended him. Two of Jenner's references were mentioned by name. Tom Clark, former Attorney General of

The problem McAdams and the man at wikipedia who created McAdam's bio article there and "guards" the wikipedia article on LHO, is that there are just too many coincidences they don't permit to see the light of day.

How did thugs, both officers at General Dynamics, Crown and Hoy, obtain and retain the most expensive government contract ever awarded in the history of the world, the TFX fighter jet contract?

In addition info to my other posts on this thread, there is more related info here.L

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17731&pid=235601&st=30entry235601

(quote)http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/581391292.html?dids=581391292:581391292&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Feb+25%2C+1963&author=&pub=Chicago+Tribune&desc=Excpect+Big+Vote+Tomorrow&pqatl=google

Excpect Big Vote Tomorrow

WEATHER IS KEY; NEW DATA IN FIO RITO CASE Seek Typewriter, Quiz Hotel Official 2 New Leads Found by FioRito Probers

SANDY SMITH

Feb 25, 1963

Sheriff Richard B. Ogilvie disclosed two new developments last night in his investigation into the eligibility of Michael L. FioRito, 51, an attorney, to be the Democratic candidate for alderman in the

1st ward. 1. A search was pushed for a typewriter which was used in certifying that FioRito was a permanent resident of the Con- rad Hilton hotel, in the ward. 2.

The sheriff di s co vered police records which showed that FioRito won dismissal of drunken driving charges in October against Robert Leo White, 42, of 1484 Winnemac av., assistant manager of the hotel.

Ogilvie said that the records showed White was arrested in north Lake shore drive by Policeman Frank Schneider at 3:50 am on Oct. 4 and re- fused to take a sobriety test. He was charged with drunken driving.

White told sheriff's police last night that the charges against him were dismissed when he appeared in Traffic court Oct. 29.

Ho said that a friend, whom he refused to identify, suggested he retain FioRito as his lawyer.

The 1st ward Democratic organization revealed FioRito as its write-in candidate Thurs- day night.

Previously two other nominees, Ald. Johri D'Arco and State Senator Anthony J. De - Tolve, were forced out of that race, reportedly by the crime syndicate. The interrogation of White by sheriff's police interrupted the search in the hotel for

the type- writer with pica style letters and a worn ribbon. If the type- writer can be found, Ogilvie said,

it might reveal "signifi- cant evidence to challenge Fio- Rito's eligibility to run for office."

The elegibility of FioRito aE a candidate is based on the vot- ing residence he claims to established in the 1st ward hote on Jan. 26. According to the sheritt, the typewriter was used to add the names of FioRito and his wife, Margaret, to the Jan. 28 affi- davit in which a Conrad Hilton executive had listed 57 perma- nent residents of the hotel. The affidavit was questioned in a report to the sheriff by Robert C. Goldblatt, a type- writer identification expert. The affidavit was filed with the Chi- on page 4, col. 41 by FioRito Probers cago board of election commis- sioners on Jan. 28 by Thoma $ J. McNamara, the hotel man- ager. Goldblatt told the sheriff the typewriter with the worn rib- bon was used to list the Fio Ritos on the affidavit as the 58th and 59th permanent resi- dents of the hotel. The names of 57 other residents were writ- ten on the affidavit with an elite style typewriter, Goldblatt said. The sheriff's detectives ob- tained specimen writing from typewriters in hotel offices that were opened yesterday. The specimen, Ogilvie said,, would be compared by experts with the typing of the FioRito names on the questioned affidavit. The sheriff announced that three teams of detectives would continue the search for the typewriter today in the hotel and in the 1st ward democratic headquarters, 100 N. La Salle st., and the City hall offices of the election board. on Saturday,

Ogilvie charged that the election board was "ig- noring possible fraud" in the Conrad Hilton affidavit. It was reported yesterday that the shock waves from the political turmoil in the Ist ward had caused a shakeup in the hierarchy of the crime syndi- cate. The crime syndicate king, Sam [Moe] Giancana, 53, an ex- convict, reportedly dictated the "dumping" of D'Arco and De- Tolve as aldermanic nominees of the Ist ward Democratic organization. FouI' syndicate gambling chiefs in the Ist ward report- edly suffered a loss of under- world power in December when they were unable to persuade Giancana to sanction the candi - dacy of D'Arco. The four are Gus [slim] Alex and Frank [strongy] Ferrara, the overlords of gambling in the ward; Louie Briatta, a former city payroller who is D'Arco's brother-in-law; and Nick [Mousiel Garambrone, a mob enforcer in the Loop. (/quote)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=1451973

NO TITLE pg 2

Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: Gus Alex

EXPENSES A D THAT HER JOB AS A CLERK AT THE CONRAD HILTON HOTEL IS ONLY A FRONT TO KEEP HER OCCUPIED DURING THE DAY ALEX ARMED AND DANGEROUS WITH SUICIDAL TENDENCIES .RECEIVED

7:12 AM MN ter If the

RIF#: 124-10209-10118 (02/13/62) FBI#: 92-3182-434

Displaying two of the seven pages.:

Highlights: (Richard Cain is also involved in the "investigation".)

It begins with mobsters talking about the first paragraph of the above article, related to White and the dismissed drunken driving charge.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=136523&relPageId=2

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6176/6191263194_9b48b0d708_b.jpg

Sid Korshak is instructed to contact Pat Hoy, General Dynamics V.P. to contact the Hilton and instruct employees there not to cooperate with the investigation.:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=136523&relPageId=76191268060_4797b45b1e_b.jpg

In 2004, the suddenly talkative Robert S. McNamara married the widow of Ernest L. Byfield, Jr. Byfield had been Patrick Hoy's longtime boss and business partner.:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14538&view=findpost&p=169286

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I continue to be baffled by your willingness to accept the most dubious witnesses and claims which bolster the official story, while simultaneously believing that powerful forces tampered with the President's body and altered the film record. Again, I'm open to the body alteration theory, and can certainly believe that at least some of the films were tampered with.

I'm curious- exactly who do you think was involved in the conspiracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

David,

I continue to be baffled by your willingness to accept the most dubious witnesses and claims which bolster the official story...

Really, Don? Still?

You really don't it?

I think if you asked David Lifton WHO he thinks murdered John Kennedy, he would tell you very high level members of the US government or even a very high level *former* member of an US government agency did it. And Lifton certainly believes in a massive government cover up of the JFK assassination and that it was a coup d'etat.

Lifton does not agree with Lee Farley's theories on Oswald movements from 12:30 PM 11-22-63 until 1:50 PM. That is not the same thing as being a flack for the coup d'etat, something which David Lifton certainly is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I continue to be baffled by your willingness to accept the most dubious witnesses and claims which bolster the official story, while simultaneously believing that powerful forces tampered with the President's body and altered the film record. Again, I'm open to the body alteration theory, and can certainly believe that at least some of the films were tampered with.

I'm curious- exactly who do you think was involved in the conspiracy?

The plot to remove President Kennedy from office was centered around a vicious scheme to murder him in Dealey Plaza, and then remove bullets from his body and alter wounds to create the false appearance that the President had been shot by Lee Harvey Oswald, an ex-Marine and returned defector who (by plan) was situated nearby in a building on Dealey Plaza.

The fact that Oswald, one of about 15 “ex-defectors” –in a nation of 140 million—happened to be located at Dealey Plaza, should be the tip-off that something most unusual was going on.

In connection with this scheme, plans were also made to control civilian imagery, as necessary.

This plot scheme could not have been implemented without the involvement of certain Secret Service agents, and they, in turn, could not have been involved without the involvement of higher level SS officials, so “up the ladder” it goes. None of this could have happened if there was not high level political antipathy to Kennedy and his policies, and local hatred of Kennedy which was exploited to permit some group to implement the basic plan.

IMO: Steve Witt and Mary Bledsoe had nothing to do with this crime.

The former is an eccentric who ended up in Dealey Plaza, waving his umbrella at the President, because this was his version of a “political” protest. It turns out that he happens to be (ironically) a strong car-stop witness. The latter was an Oswald landlady who happened to be on the bus Oswald boarded, when –somewhat miraculously—he managed to exit the TSBD alive, even though the original plan called for him to die in the building, and certainly never live to proclaim his innocence, much less explain who he really was. Because Bledsoe said some negative things about Oswald, she has been dragged over the coals by some who do not have a proper explanation for Oswald’s movements in the 15-30 minutes after Kennedy was shot.

The two key pieces of evidence in this case are the body of President Kennedy, and the critical imagery of the Zapruder film.

The group which removed President Kennedy from office and made his murder appear to be a quirk of fate did so by controlling the body after he was shot, and also controlling imagery, as necessary, of the event itself. Control in both these areas was planned in advance, and implemented--perhaps sloppily, but ultimately successfully.

Don, you expressed yourself candidly about why you were baffled. Let me employ the same language. To paraphrase: I continue to be baffled by the willingness of many people who fancy themselves “assassination researchers” yet who tend to be focused on the irrelevant--who fail to understand (much less come to grip with) what is truly important: the falsification of critical evidence which is at the heart of the official story, and which shaped the public perception of this event.

Understanding that there is "fraud in the evidence," and how that came about, is the key to this case.

As to Oswald: This case is not just about the injustice done to an individual; it is how that individual’s life (and his pretense at being a Marxist) was used to “sell” a false story to the American public and the world.

The fact that, very likely by accident, he lived long enough to proclaim his innocence does not change anything I have written above.

P.S.: Also in the "Are you kidding me?" department is anyone who tries to suggest that, in making these distinctions—between what is critical (and what is largely irrelevant)—I am somehow denying the existence of a high-level plot or am involved in a “cover-up” of JFK’s murder.

DSL

12/6/11 1 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Mmmmm.... delicious cherries, did you pick them? It is great to read that the old guard is still keeping the faith....earnest WC, FBI, and CIA officials, avoiding impropriety, or even the appearance of impropriety, and you can take that to the bank!

...Its not that they couldn’t “handle” it; they truly couldn’t conceive of it. When I pleaded with them to focus on Greer and Kellerman, do you know what they did? A staffer called up Greer, at home, and had a brief conversation with him. He assured them that no one had tampered with the body. Can you believe that?

Do you think Blakey woiuld have investigated the Mafia that way? (“Hi, I’m Robert Blakey. . Glad I got you at home sir. . I’d just like to ask you a question: Were you or your conferes by any chance involved in the murder of President Kennedy? . .. you weren’t? Oh, thank you so much sir. Thank you for taking the time to speak with me.”)

That’s what they did with William Greer, the driver of the limo –when questioning him about the chain of possession of JFK’s body. ....

David,

When I read your reference to "Blakey would have investigated the Mafia that way", I nearly broke out into hysterical laughter! ...

JFK: What we Know Now that we Didn't Know Then, Part 5

....Those implications, I might add, are substantial in their impact upon alternative theories of the assassination.

xcuej8.jpg

Lee said it was his face imposed on someone else's body--and he was right!

The mafia, for example, would not have been able to extend its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of medical officers of the US Navy, agents of the Secret Service, and the president’s personal physician....

Dr. Jim,

You're as big of a comedian as David Lifton!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18412&view=findpost&p=240072

And...:..................

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=61488&relPageId=71

.It was also developed during the 1961 investigation that Joseph Robert Willens (Howard Willen's father) had, since 1958, resided next door to Tony Accardo, prominent Chicago hoodlum.

....Joseph Robert Willens admitted that Tony Accardo's residence is immediately south of his home in River Forest, Illinois,....and he hopes that the proximity of his residence with that of Accardo would not cause anyone to believe that he approves of Accardo or any of his associates.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=110307&relPageId=4

...instead, the CIA background report included this :

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=110307&relPageId=5

...Howard Willens...was arrested for breaking street lights on January 9, 1947...

+Ricca%2C&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#q=Detectives+offer+as+evidence+of+Varelli%27s+stature+in+the+mob+the+fact+that+he+is+a+next+door+neighbor+of+Paul+[The+Waiter]+Ricca,&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=mgj&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&tbm=nws&prmd=imvns&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=0F3dTtKuCI3Btgeb-MS9BQ&ved=0CA4QpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=4f245506e279ec01&biw=1280&bih=781"]https://www.google.com....

Mob Home Swindle Bared

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Mar 12, 1966

....Detectives offer as evidence of Varelli's stature in the mob the fact that he is a next door neighbor of Paul [The Waiter] Ricca, elder statesman of the Chicago Mafia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Steven Witt shenanigans are simply the latest in a long line of topics that have given him the opportunity to shout down anybody who believes something different to him. Duke Lane posted a reply yesterday to David Von Pein, I was most impressed in what Duke had to say and how he articulated it, but the fact that what he wrote could also be applied to David Lifton was not lost on me either.

Lee, I'm not even sure why he wants to use Witt as one of his key witnesses. David Lifton, as far as I can tell, believes shots were fired during the time the car was stopped.

But Witt testified that he was not a witness to any of the shots - he was unsighted to what was happening because of the umbrella. His testimony was that he saw the car stationary AFTER the shooting finished.

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.

I think I'm on record as stating that I don't want anyone to believe me about Bledsoe, McWatters and Jones, I expect people to look at what was presented and decide for themselves and if anyone, other than David Lifton, wants to engage with me over the evidence that was produced and tell me that they disagree - then I'm all ear and open to debate.

Now why would you want to exclude a poisoned apple from the barrel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity - are there any other members here who believe that the following investigations into the Dallas events were all hoodwinked by fraud in the evidence:

The autopsy

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Dallas Police Department

Secret Service

The Warren Commission

The Clarke Panel

The Rockefeller Commission

The House Select Committee on Assassinations

All of the above were blindsided by fraud in the evidence? No corruption, no cover-up, just simply given fraudulent evidence and had the wool pulled over their eyes? Really?

David Lifton has been at this for nearly 50 years. How much closer are we through his efforts?

His own theory on body alteration still has gaping holes in it that he hasn't ever addressed

He backs complete Zapruder film alteration without the foggiest idea as to how it was accomplished

He constantly gives the impression that only he can discern what is false/fake evidence and what is not

He uses the same tactics that critics are currently blasting John McAdams for

He is willing to accept virtually everything that Marina Oswald has ever said concerning this case (with a handful of exceptions that go against his beliefs/theories)

He had Michael Paine state, on the record, that he lied about what he knew and when he knew it regarding the rifle and he let it slide

He thinks that Ruth Paine is an innocent, charitable housewife

He tried, and failed at, using every trick in the book (some taken from the McAdams book of best practice) to undermine what was presented about the meticulous moving of Mary Bledsoe from one bus stop to another

He claims the evidence is so chock full of fraud that it hoodwinked no fewer than 8 official investigations but then presents FBI documents that have blatantly been changed to dismiss things he does not like

He still believes Oswald ordered the rifle and revolver

He still believes Oswald was up on the Sixth Floor with the rifle and possibly fired a shot or shots

He believes that Oswald was supposed to be killed in the School Book Depository with no evidence to back it up

He believes the bus transfer is genuine

He believes the taxi journey happened and ignores the jumping through hoops by David Belin to continually get the taxi moving faster and closer to the Beckley rooming house whilst in the process making a xxxx out of the driver

He believes Oswald got a lift from the Beckley rooming house to 10th & Patton (by person or persons unknown) and was actually at the Tippit murder scene

He believes Oswald shot at General Walker

He believes Oswald wanted to try and shoot Richard Nixon

He must believe all of the police dispatches are genuine for him to believe much of the above

But he is a critic. He is a crusader for truth. The fact that he made a xxxx load of money out of all of this we must simply ignore and we also must ignore his strange friendships, his reluctance to share his billion interviews, his relunctance to name some of his sources, the fact that most of the other critics not only distrusted him but outright hated him, that he is only willing to accept evidence that props up his own theories, that he has always been more interested in proving other people wrong than looking at the evidence with an open and supportive mind.

I could list dozens and dozens of people who have contributed massively to the understanding of this case who also downright distrusted this man and what he claimed he represented. He is an obsessive on many different levels and it leaks and leaks every time he posts here at this forum.

The Steven Witt shenanigans are simply the latest in a long line of topics that have given him the opportunity to shout down anybody who believes something different to him. Duke Lane posted a reply yesterday to David Von Pein, I was most impressed in what Duke had to say and how he articulated it, but the fact that what he wrote could also be applied to David Lifton was not lost on me either.

I think I'm on record as stating that I don't want anyone to believe me about Bledsoe, McWatters and Jones, I expect people to look at what was presented and decide for themselves and if anyone, other than David Lifton, wants to engage with me over the evidence that was produced and tell me that they disagree - then I'm all ear and open to debate.

Just don't threaten to sue me if you don't like what I have to say.

All expressed in my humble opinion - backed up by stacks of facts and evidence.

Mr. Farley:

Chill out. The smoke is pouring out of your head--and if you were Jewish, its so hot up there it might set fire to your Yarmulke.

If you wish to criticize my ideas, fine. But you ought to cut out the personal insults, or you don't belong on this forum.

Second, it would help if you had gone to law school, and perhaps taken a course on evidence (not to mention a course in logic, or critical thinking) because it seems obvious that you do not understand how a legal investigation works, and why the falsification of key evidence can lead the process astray. The concept of "leverage' in this area seems to be beyond you. As a consequence, your "conspiracy model" is cumbersome, unwieldy, and does not work, and further, you often posit "conspiracy" where none exists.

Third; you repeatedly misrepresent my position--and candidly, I don't have the time to argue with you.

Your post starts by naming eight--count 'em--EIGHT investigatory bodies that you claim I state were all deceived. But I never said any such thing. And furthermore, its obvious, both from my book, and from my postings on this forum, that these glib, blanket statements, of yours, are simply false.

Where did I ever say that the entire Dallas police should be exonerated?

And what about the Secret Service. . where does that come from? (Your imagination, I suppose).

And what about the House Select Committee, and the experiences I personally had, between 1976 and 1979, and which are spelled out in my book, and in recent posts? Where did you get that from---some recent dream experience, or a swami?

What have you been smoking, Mr. Farley?

Like your hypotheses concerning Ms. Bledsoe, your statements are way off base.

I think I've made my position very clear. It seems to me you are stuck in some kind of a time warp, where everything is "after the fact" and "the conspiracy" consists of hundreds (if not thousands) of liars. You really don't understand the various deception mechanisms which lay at the heart of how this plot functioned, and so you are apparently comfortable in dragging "everybody" into it (and you also, it seems to me, over-identify with Oswald).

If that's your belief, all very well. Write a book, publish it. I look forward to reading your "everybody must have been involved" thesis.

By Lee Harvey Farley.

Let's see how far it goes.

DSL

12/6/11; 6:20 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you ought to cut out the personal insults, or you don't belong on this forum.

Give it a rest...

As far as addressing your point about the Secret Service - did the conspiracy go all the way up and all the way down the chain of command in the SS? Did everyone know about it?

And tell everybody who within the Dallas Police Department shouldn't be exonerated? Give us some names, David. And the name of Witt's dentist wouldn't go amiss either.

Yes, tho possibly for different reasons, it could be interesting to know.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

David,

I have to agree with you. Whatever our differences may be in relation to other matters, we are on the same page with regard to JFK. I have found here and on the Deep Politics Forum an astounding degree of ignorance about the assassination and the cover up, especially in relation to the medical evidence. Not only did you do the pioneering research on the theft of the body from Parkland, its covert transference to military control, the removal of slugs from the body and the alteration of the wounds, but the Herculean efforts of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), which Doug Horne has chronicled in INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), have vindicated your early insights in spades. On virtually every page of this forum, I am sorry to have to say, I find posts that reflect massive ignorance and unfamiliarity with even the most important evidence related to the alteration of the film.

However much we may conflict from time to time, I want you--and the members of this forum--to know that, in my opinion, you were the one who blazed the trail that David Mantik, Robert B. Livingston, David Healy, Jack White, John Costella and I have followed. I have on more than one occasion observed that I regard our three books--ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), to which you also contributed--as sequels to BEST EVIDENCE (1980). That there are so many here who know so little is a reflection of these sad times, where reading and reasoning have become lost arts. I want you to know that you deserve much better--and that many of us acknowledge our debt to you. When I first became serious about JFK, I learned more from BEST EVIDENCE than I did from any other source. I greatly admire your work.

Jim

Just out of curiosity - are there any other members here who believe that the following investigations into the Dallas events were all hoodwinked by fraud in the evidence:

The autopsy

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Dallas Police Department

Secret Service

The Warren Commission

The Clarke Panel

The Rockefeller Commission

The House Select Committee on Assassinations

All of the above were blindsided by fraud in the evidence? No corruption, no cover-up, just simply given fraudulent evidence and had the wool pulled over their eyes? Really?

David Lifton has been at this for nearly 50 years. How much closer are we through his efforts?

His own theory on body alteration still has gaping holes in it that he hasn't ever addressed

He backs complete Zapruder film alteration without the foggiest idea as to how it was accomplished

He constantly gives the impression that only he can discern what is false/fake evidence and what is not

He uses the same tactics that critics are currently blasting John McAdams for

He is willing to accept virtually everything that Marina Oswald has ever said concerning this case (with a handful of exceptions that go against his beliefs/theories)

He had Michael Paine state, on the record, that he lied about what he knew and when he knew it regarding the rifle and he let it slide

He thinks that Ruth Paine is an innocent, charitable housewife

He tried, and failed at, using every trick in the book (some taken from the McAdams book of best practice) to undermine what was presented about the meticulous moving of Mary Bledsoe from one bus stop to another

He claims the evidence is so chock full of fraud that it hoodwinked no fewer than 8 official investigations but then presents FBI documents that have blatantly been changed to dismiss things he does not like

He still believes Oswald ordered the rifle and revolver

He still believes Oswald was up on the Sixth Floor with the rifle and possibly fired a shot or shots

He believes that Oswald was supposed to be killed in the School Book Depository with no evidence to back it up

He believes the bus transfer is genuine

He believes the taxi journey happened and ignores the jumping through hoops by David Belin to continually get the taxi moving faster and closer to the Beckley rooming house whilst in the process making a xxxx out of the driver

He believes Oswald got a lift from the Beckley rooming house to 10th & Patton (by person or persons unknown) and was actually at the Tippit murder scene

He believes Oswald shot at General Walker

He believes Oswald wanted to try and shoot Richard Nixon

He must believe all of the police dispatches are genuine for him to believe much of the above

But he is a critic. He is a crusader for truth. The fact that he made a xxxx load of money out of all of this we must simply ignore and we also must ignore his strange friendships, his reluctance to share his billion interviews, his relunctance to name some of his sources, the fact that most of the other critics not only distrusted him but outright hated him, that he is only willing to accept evidence that props up his own theories, that he has always been more interested in proving other people wrong than looking at the evidence with an open and supportive mind.

I could list dozens and dozens of people who have contributed massively to the understanding of this case who also downright distrusted this man and what he claimed he represented. He is an obsessive on many different levels and it leaks and leaks every time he posts here at this forum.

The Steven Witt shenanigans are simply the latest in a long line of topics that have given him the opportunity to shout down anybody who believes something different to him. Duke Lane posted a reply yesterday to David Von Pein, I was most impressed in what Duke had to say and how he articulated it, but the fact that what he wrote could also be applied to David Lifton was not lost on me either.

I think I'm on record as stating that I don't want anyone to believe me about Bledsoe, McWatters and Jones, I expect people to look at what was presented and decide for themselves and if anyone, other than David Lifton, wants to engage with me over the evidence that was produced and tell me that they disagree - then I'm all ear and open to debate.

Just don't threaten to sue me if you don't like what I have to say.

All expressed in my humble opinion - backed up by stacks of facts and evidence.

Mr. Farley:

Chill out. The smoke is pouring out of your head--and if you were Jewish, its so hot up there it might set fire to your Yarmulke.

If you wish to criticize my ideas, fine. But you ought to cut out the personal insults, or you don't belong on this forum.

Second, it would help if you had gone to law school, and perhaps taken a course on evidence (not to mention a course in logic, or critical thinking) because it seems obvious that you do not understand how a legal investigation works, and why the falsification of key evidence can lead the process astray. The concept of "leverage' in this area seems to be beyond you. As a consequence, your "conspiracy model" is cumbersome, unwieldy, and does not work, and further, you often posit "conspiracy" where none exists.

Third; you repeatedly misrepresent my position--and candidly, I don't have the time to argue with you.

Your post starts by naming eight--count 'em--EIGHT investigatory bodies that you claim I state were all deceived. But I never said any such thing. And furthermore, its obvious, both from my book, and from my postings on this forum, that these glib, blanket statements, of yours, are simply false.

Where did I ever say that the entire Dallas police should be exonerated?

And what about the Secret Service. . where does that come from? (Your imagination, I suppose).

And what about the House Select Committee, and the experiences I personally had, between 1976 and 1979, and which are spelled out in my book, and in recent posts? Where did you get that from---some recent dream experience, or a swami?

What have you been smoking, Mr. Farley?

Like your hypotheses concerning Ms. Bledsoe, your statements are way off base.

I think I've made my position very clear. It seems to me you are stuck in some kind of a time warp, where everything is "after the fact" and "the conspiracy" consists of hundreds (if not thousands) of liars. You really don't understand the various deception mechanisms which lay at the heart of how this plot functioned, and so you are apparently comfortable in dragging "everybody" into it (and you also, it seems to me, over-identify with Oswald).

If that's your belief, all very well. Write a book, publish it. I look forward to reading your "everybody must have been involved" thesis.

By Lee Harvey Farley.

Let's see how far it goes.

DSL

12/6/11; 6:20 AM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"[D]iscussion of your hypothesis even within the small group of people who are working with the same objective as yours has a demoralizing and divisive effect and should be avoided. If friends and co-workers feel such violent antipathy, the effect on those who are committed to the Warren Report can be easily imagined. Premature discussion or disclosure, in the absence of conclusive proof, will do incalculable harm and will expose all attempts to reopen the investigation to the cruelest ridicule and vicious denunciation."

(Meagher, Sylvia. Letter to David Lifton, November 2, 1965)

Says it all really doesn't it? Z-Film alteration, hijacked bodies, pre-autopsy surgery, empty coffins, concrete trees, camouflaged assassins, duped investigations...

A veritable feast for the general public to easily understand the assassination.

After nearly 50 years, Mr. Lifton, more than anyone else, has created more division than any other "critic." But it's not him. It's everyone else...

You're crying about me misrepresenting you and your opinions on the investigations - so I assume I'm right on the money concerning the concrete trees in Dealey Plaza? You still believe this crapola?

Your post is "Exhibit A" as to why some people will always have trouble understanding, or coming to grips with, the assassination of President Kennedy.

Its obvious that after all these years, you still don’t understand the central role of a strategy of deception, nor do you know where the line is to be drawn between the deceiver and the deceived. So rather than posit deception, you follow a different route: in your over-simplified world, where the audience (you seem to think) are a bunch of dummies--everything is “after the fact.” No one is deceived. Everyone (with whom you disagree) is just a xxxx. Consequently, you have hundreds—if not thousands—of people involved in your silly and unworkable “conspiracy.”

They’re all liars, of course. In your world, everyone is involved in a conspiracy--everyone, that is, who doesn’t see “the facts” the way you do. But “the facts” are all right there (you seem to think, in typically oversimplified fashion), just plain as day. Its just that all these other folks, these people who are not wearing the same "rage colored" glasses that you do, don’t see “the facts” as you do. And so they’re to be accused and vilified. That's your response to fact-based research. To accuse the author of any analysis with which you disagree as being part of a scheme to "mislead" the "research community".

And that’s your idea of Kennedy assassination research?

You not only don’t “get it”—you’re almost proud of the fact that you don’t get it.

You’re out of control, Mr. Farley. Besides the illogical nature of the various hypotheses you do propose--most of which involve leveling false accusations against the innocent (e.g., Witt, Bledsoe, etc.)--you also have a penchant for cursing and name calling which doesn’t belong on this forum. (Why don't you go to a bar, if all you want to do is to scream and shout and curse?)

If the best you can do is quote a letter from over 45 years ago, you’ve got a lot to learn. Your bio states that “Growing up I used to visit my Grandma’s house every Sunday after church. . “ and so that’s how your interest in Kennedy started.

So now you belong to. . . to what? The Church of the True Believer?

I guess so, because that‘s what your posts sound like. Someone who’s “looking for religion” only in “all the wrong places.”

You seem to "know" that the Zapruder film is unaltered, but have you ever actually sat down and talked to--seriously talked to--the car-stop witnesses? I did --years before you were born. But of course, you "know it better." You haven't even spoken to the key witnesses, but (somehow) you know the truth. How, might I ask? Did it come to you in some dream?

Are you aware that on the very first page of Sylvia Meagher's book, Accessories after the Fact, Sylvia starts with the puzzling fact that certain witnesses saw the car stop, and yet the Zapruder film doesn't show that? In many ways, she was a very logical person, but she didn't understand why this was so, and so she incorrectly concluded--right there on the page--that here was a case where witnesses must have been mistaken. I read that page, and immediately realized that the car stop witnesses could be the key to understanding that films had been altered. (I'm not faulting her for her lack of understanding, back in 1966; but I am pointing to a difference in perspective. And as an example of what happens when one has the wrong paradigm).

In your bio, you spell out your chief interest: “I am most interested in Lee Oswald. His background, his relationship with Marina (whom I am very suspicious of . . “

Oh, I see. . you're "suspicious" of her, eh? Well, what is to be done about that? What shall we do with your "suspicions"? In terms of actual data, do these suspicions of yours suffice to be the basis to mount a personal attack against Marina, or anyone else for that matter? Apparently so: You’ve been on this forum and explicitly calling her a xxxx. . (with double and triple exclamation points, so we don't miss your profound thinking). . and you've done it repeatedly. . but that’s your style, correct? (Why bother with evidence, when you can fulminate?)

Do you think name-calling is a substitute for evidence? Do you think you’re a one-man grand jury? Who anointed you?

That’s the difference between an out-of-control accuser (with an anger management problem, or so it would appear), and a researcher. Decades ago, I got to know Marina Porter, quite well, as a matter of fact. You sit around, cursing and name calling, and labeling. . but when challenged to get down to specifics (or should I say, “attempt to get down to specifics"), what do you actually come up with? Here's what: you come up with such nonsense as Mary Bledsoe, Oswald's landlady, as being part of a conspiracy. Or Steve Witt being part of your “plot”.

And further, it would appear, you go into a fulminating rage over these matters.

Is that your idea of “research”??

Oh pleez. . .

Do you have any viable political theory? Backed by any serious line of analysis, and what--even in your world--might pass for "reasoning"?

You m.o., it seems, is to try to whip up hysteria. . and personal animus against those with whom you disagree. There was a famous U.S. senator who once operated that way. . his name was Joe McCarthy.

Spouting off and publicly exhibiting your rather obvious anger management problem is not a substitute for reasoned analysis.

Get real.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you aware that on the very first page of Sylvia Meagher's book, Accessories after the Fact, Sylvia starts with the puzzling fact that certain witnesses saw the car stop, and yet the Zapruder film doesn't show that? In many ways, she was a very logical person, but she didn't understand why this was so, and so she incorrectly concluded--right there on the page--that here was a case where witnesses must have been mistaken.

David, Sylvia was a LOGICAL PERSON AND SHE CORRECTLY concluded

that the witnesses were mistaken.

the limo slowed abruptly -- thanks to Greer -- but it did not come to a complete stop,

even though some witnesses thought it did.

the vp follow-up car DID come to a complete stop, which created the impression.

there is a mountain of scientific literature

on the unreliability of eyewitness memory,

as I AM SURE YOU MUST BE AWARE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...