David Lifton Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) In other threads on this forum, two forum members have stated that they were going to start a thread “about Lifton’s theories.” The next sentence reads: “I won't be participating in the discussion - just starting it off. I'm going to begin with the two guys in the front seats of the Kennedy limousine. Lifton theorized that it wasn't really Kellerman and Greer - they were actually imposters.” This threat to “start a new thread” occurred after one of them was admonished for using terminology (about me) that was against forum rules. The post continues “Should get things started eh? I'm struggling as to what to choose after that but may go for the false trees that were placed in the Plaza...” The entire tone of this post is that—somehow—I’m going to be taught a lesson—-that I have something to hide; and that, by God, these two are going to teach me a lesson, to “fix my wagon” (as the saying goes). The poster involved is the one who has originated the theory that Oswald’s landlady—Mary Bledsoe—who, according to the Warren Report (and, I might add, according to all credible evidence) was on the bus with Oswald when he boarded McWatter’s bus, at around 12:40 PM, going west on Elm Street. Bledsoe filled out an affidavit that Oswald was on the bus she was riding (a bus ride established by the fact that Oswald himself said he took a bus, plus the fact that a bus transfer was found on his person). She was also interviewed extensively by the FBI, in the days immediately following Kennedy's murder, and related her story to these agents. In all, there were three separate FBI reports written on this matter, by a total of eight agents. Furthermore this poster asserts that not only wasn’t Bledsoe on the bus where he boarded, Ms. Bledsoe really wasn’t Oswald's landlady (!), for the week starting October 7, 1963, before the two had a spat and Oswald moved to 1026 North Beckley. The notion that Oswald wasn't on the bus goes against the best evidence. The notion that Bledsoe wasn't even Oswald's landlady is, imho, fanciful in the extreme. It is simply an auxiliary hypothesis to support the notion that Bledsoe is a xxxx--which I believe to be totally false. I have pointed out that (as noted above) Mary Bledsoe was interviewed by about eight FBI agents three different times, in the week to ten days following the assassination, in which she made clear she was on the bus. Furthermore, there is the sheer implausibility that this lady, who had a stroke, was part of a conspiracy to place Oswald on that bus. No matter. . this was his pet theory (along with the fact that it wasn't Oswald who was in Whaley's cab, and that it probably wasn't Oswald who ran into the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley)and of course he is entitled to it. The other poster runs a website which promotes the hypothesis that Oswald had a secret twin brother, and understanding that—and tracing the details—are the key to uncovering the truth about Dallas. (He refuses to take seriously anything about a falsified autopsy, but instead seems to focus on this matter of Oswald's twin). As I say, these two posters have publicly stated that they are going to start a thread “about Lifton’s theories.” The word they have omitted is “early”—that is, they are going back to between 42 and 45 years ago, and the period 1965- 1969, in the period following the time when I first became involved in the Kennedy case. Remember: as I write this, the year is 2012- - these folks are going back to the year 1967, that’s “44 plus” years ago, hunting around for my beliefs some 15 years before Best Evidence was published. At that time, just past the 3rd anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, and with the Kennedy case often in the news, and the publication of The Case For Three Assassins (my original piece that was a cover story in the January, 1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine), I was interviewed by Esquire Magazine for an article they were preparing called “25 Assassination theories.” The writer was John Berendt, then an Associate Editor of Esquire (and later the editor of New York Magazine) who won a Pulitzer Prize a few decades later for his much acclaimed “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” which was published in 1994, and spent a record breaking 216 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. (The book was subsequently made into a movie, by Clint Eastwood). John assembled a list of 25 theories about the Kennedy assassination, which was published in December, 1966. About six months later, he wrote a sequel titled “25 more theories.” Views of mine appeared in both articles—which also included various hypotheses by Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Vincent Salandria, etc. One of those theories was my own hypothesis which addressed the question of why, despite all the evidence of shots from the front, the eyewitness evidence was so skimpy—indeed, there is practically no evidence of anyone seeing any shooters. John reviewed with me my thoughts on the matter, and wrote it up in the form of a 350 word item, called “Theory #25. . the false knoll hypothesis.” I posited that Dealey Plaza had been booby-trapped, and that professional camouflage had been employed to hide shooters connected with the Kennedy assassination, and that’s where why there were no (or hardly any) eyewitness accounts--just some mysterious puffs of smoke, plus sounds that seem to come from the general area, but nothing specific. Although the ideas were solely my own, the two of us spent several hours on the phone, developing the exact wording for this proposition. Below my typed signature is the full account of what was published. Do I still believe today, in 2012, that what I speculated about in 1967 is completely accurate? Not entirely. Nearly a half century later, no, I don’t believe there was a “false knoll” (i.e., in the literal sense of that term); but I certainly have not ruled out the possibility that some professional camouflage was utilized to conceal assassins, because, although 40 plus years have passed, the same problem exists today, as existed then: the medical evidence indicates shots from the front, but there is hardly any eyewitness testimony of shots from the front, although puffs of smoke were seen coming from certain trees in Dealey Plaza, and one lady exclaimed rather hysterically (to a police officer) “They are shooting the President from the bushes!” However, I no longer focus on this particular matter because, after I discovered the evidence of body alteration—which became the basis for Best Evidence, published in January, 1981—my focus has been not on “who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body” (i.e., who "the shooters" were and exactly where “they” were hiding, etc.) but rather—and as I stated in Best Evidence, “who took them out.” In other words, I realized, after I made the discovery of post-mortem surgery (i.e., wound alteration), that the diagram of the shooting (legally speaking) had been changed. And so my focus, from that point forward, was threefold, and were the questions that would be addressed to any situation in which evidence was altered: (a) At Bethesda, exactly who was aware, when the President's body arrived, that it had been altered? (b ) Where (and by whom) had such alteration (or "mutilation") been performed? (c ) To what extent could it be established, through documents and normal journalistic interviews, that there was a full and complete break in the chain of possession of President Kennedy's body--thus invalidating it as legal evidence. These three issues are what my book, BEST EVIDENCE, published in 1981, addressed. Re (a) Chapter 12 of Best Evidence addresses the fact that two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, heard Dr. Bumes, the chief autopsy surgeon, state that when Kennedy's body arrived, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull. WC Attorney Wesley Liebeler, to whom I revealed this on 10/24/66, thought the matter sufficiently important that he wrote a 13 page memorandum focused on the issue of body alteration, to Chief Justice Warren (and his fellow Commissioners); the entire WC staff; Robert Kennedy, and President Johnson. (See Chapter 10 of Best Evidence) Re (b ): Chapter 13 addressed the issue that the head wound(s) had been altered; Chapter 11, that the throat wound had been altered; and, perhaps most serious of all, Chapter 18 (the Pre-Autopsy Autopsy) developed the evidence that prior to autopsy, there had been a crude "autopsy", which involved "smashing and bashing" of the President's head, in order to remove brain tissue, and bullets--and that accounts for the manner in which the Bethesda autopsy report is written. Re (c ): My chapters 16, and then 25-28, establish --via interviews with the casket team, and others at Bethesda, that President Kennedy's body left Dallas in one casket (a ceremonial casket) but arrived at Bethesda in another (a shipping casket); that it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, but arrived in a body bag; that it left Dallas with a brain, but arrived at Bethesda, according to at least one witness, with an empty cranium. Furthermore, I showed that documentary evidence established that there was more than one casket entry at Bethesda, and this has been widely discussed and elaborated on elsewhere on the Internet (see the series by Jacob Hornberger). In short, there is in fact no legally viable "chain of possession" on President Kennedy's body, and understanding that is an essential key to understanding the Kennedy murder case. The autopsy protocol at Bethesda Naval Hospital records how the President's body looked at Bethesda, some six hours after his murder. It does not reflect how the shooting actually occurred. Now the above represents a very brief recap of what is in Best Evidence; and anyone wishing to see a visual presentation of this material can view a copy of the 37 minute video documentary that I produced, "BEST EVIDENCE: The Research Video", based on critical filmed interviews I conducted in October, 1980. However, anyone who wishes to approach the JFK case from the standpoint of "Dealey Plaza" (rather than Bethesda, the site of the JFK autopsy) and is interested in what I advanced in 1966 can of course go to Esquire Magazine of May, 1967, and read it for themselves. It is posted on the Ken Rahn website at the University of Rhode Island, and the link—and the text—are below. Prepare to enter a time machine, and “revisit the debate,” as it was in 1966 and 1967--when various researchers (including myself) were blowing up photographs of the grassy knoll, searching for "other" assassin. As second area which was also the focus of my suspicions (back in 1965-1969) was the behavior of certain agents of the White Detail of the Secret Service (persons who have long since passed away). I did not understand how there could be a motorcade assassination (and particular one which involved any degree of pre-planning) unless the driver of the car was involved; and agreed, in advance, to drive slowly, and certainly would not “step on the gas” and speed away until it was evident that President Kennedy was fatally wounded. I also wondered about his immediate supervisor,the agent in the front right seat, Kellerman. The Warren Commission staff also wondered about these same matters, and there are memos, written by either Warren Commission attorneys Eisenberg or Redlich, questioning the non-reaction of these two agents, as shown on the Zapruder film. In 1965, I telephoned Roy Kellerman and spoke with him for some 15 minutes. In 1967 I spoke with Greer for almost an hour. Then I flew to Washington, and spent several hours with Greer, in his home. When I left, the last thing he said to me, was: “Chief Rowley (then the Secret Service chief) would sure like to know what you’re doing.” I also have interviewed about 10 other SS agents, over the years. At some time in the future, I intend to publish my own thoughts about this situation. But back to the late 1960s: As a consequence of these interviews, I found it hard to believe that these (supposedly) loyal men were involved, and so I briefly entertained the notion that perhaps they was serious perjury before the Warren Commission—sanctioned by the highest levels of the U.S. Government—and that perhaps either or both of these two were not in the limousine (even though they testified they were). I discussed this once with Sylvia Meagher, and mentioned it briefly in a letter I wrote Meagher in 1969-that’s 42 years ago. And that’s really all there is to it. Here’s my question to these two posters, who have, in effect, threatened to reveal this matter, which they clearly view as some sort of terrible secret. My question: what on earth do these preliminary hypotheses –voiced in 1967 (in Esquire Magazine) and 1969 (in private correspondence with Sylvia Meagher), have to do with the current state of debate about the Kennedy assassination, in the year 2012? Do they have anything to do with the central issue in this case--which is the falsification of President Kennedy's autopsy, which is "the" central issue, and the major focus of my book, BEST EVIDENCE, published in 1981 --and then republished by three publishers since? Legally and historically, that is the key to the Kennedy assassination. Moreover, that is why I worked closely with Doug Horne and the ARRB to make sure that the matter was pursued by relevant witnesses under oath--and that is why, with Jeremy Gunn's approval, permission was granted to call about 10 "Bethesda witnesses' and closely question them under oath. In some of those cases, my original audio tapes, and filmed interviews were then used as the basis for further questioning. So that is where my focus has been, and where I believe the focus ought to be. But these two posters seem to have a different approach, going back to 1965-1967, and looking for what they seem to think are "hidden" secrets. I’d like to know how either of these posters would react if someone went back 45 years and look at their letters. But I speak in jest. Unfortunately, that’s not possible. You see, neither of them were yet born. But now, worldly wise (and hot shot investigators that they believe themselves to be), they have now “come of age” and, by God, are determined to “expose” my past. One of these posters has a website pushing his pet theory that Oswald had a twin brother; and that that is the key to the Kennedy assassination; the other, that Mary Bledsoe not only wasn’t on the bus, but wasn’t Oswald’s landlady. I don’t see that either of these hypotheses have any traction—or will ever gain any traction—with those that take evidence seriously. Below my typed signature is the Esquire Article about my camouflage theory. 1/02/12 3:15 PM PST: Spelling errors noted by other posters have been corrected. Thank you. 1/02/12, 5:40 PM: Additional editorial revisions to this post. DSL http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theories/Second_Primer/Second_primer.html 18. FALSE KNOLL THEORY Proponent: David Lifton, a U.C.L.A. engineering graduate student and coauthor of the three-assassins article in Ramparts which introduced Riddle’s analysis. (See No. 11.) Thesis: On the day of the assassination, three types of camouflage were employed by conspirators positioned beneath, on, and above the grassy knoll. Lifton reached this hypothesis after minute study of photographs of the area during and after the assassination. It answers the question why, despite the fact that eyewitness reports and the Head Movement Theory indicate shots came from the grassy knoll, nothing at all was found there immediately afterward. Underground camouflage: Lifton suggests that prior to the assassination, the grassy knoll was excavated from beneath and a system of tunnels and bunkers was built into it. Peepholes covered by grass-mesh camouflage were placed on the sloping surface of the knoll. Subterranean nooks would explain the statement of witness Garland Slack: “I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot had come from within a cave…” Lifton goes further to suggest that the puff of smoke seen by some people on the grassy knoll may have been the exhaust from a gas engine incorporated within the camouflage mechanization. Surface camouflage: Lifton finds alterations (“bulges”) in the wall and the hedgerow on the grassy knoll, netting in the bushes and faint images of heads. Borrowing support from deputy Constable Weitzman who ran toward the wall and who said, “I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steam pipes. I burned them,” Lifton points out that there are no steam pipes atop the wall. This might, he says, be an indication that things may have been altered for that day. Weitzman also says a witness told him that he saw somebody throw something through a bush. Elevated camouflage: Because a comparison of certain photographs taken during the assassination with others taken afterward indicates that some tree structures had been altered on the knoll, and because he sees images up in the trees in assassination photos, Lifton believes there was some camouflage in the trees. Eyewitnesses S. M. Holland, Austin Miller and Frank Reilly all state that shots seemed to have come out of the trees. Drawbacks: As even Lifton admits, the photo enlargements are of extremely grainy quality (they could not be reproduced properly here) and interpretations of them are questionable at best. Edited January 3, 2012 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 In other threads on this forum, two forum members have stated that they were going to start a thread “about Lifton’s theories.” The next sentence reads: “I won't be participating in the discussion - just starting it off. I'm going to begin with the two guys in the front seats of the Kennedy limousine. Lifton theorized that it wasn't really Kellerman and Greer - they were actually imposters.” This threat to “start a new thread” occurred after one of them was admonished for using terminology (about me) that was against forum rules. The post continues “Should get things started eh? I'm struggling as to what to choose after that but may go for the false trees that were placed in the Plaza...” The entire tone of this post is that—somehow—I’m going to be taught a lesson—that I have something to hide; and that, by God, these two are going to teach me a lesson, to “fix my wagon” (as the saying goes). The poster involved is the one who has originated the theory that Oswald’s landlady—Mary Bledsoe—who, according to the Warren Report (and, I might add, according to all credible evidence) was on the bus with Oswald when he boarded McWatter’s bus, at around 12:40 PM, going west on Elm Street. Bledsoe filled out an affidavit that Oswald was on the bus she was riding (a bus ride established by the fact that Oswald himself said he took a bus, plus the fact that a bus transfer was found on his person. Furthermore this poster asserts that not only wasn’t Bledsoe on the bus where he boarded. Furthermore, that she really wasn’t his landlady. I have pointed out that Mary Bledsoe was interviewed by about eight FBI agents three different times, in the week to ten days following the assassination, in which she made clear she was on the bus. Furthermore, it there is the sheer implausibility that this lady, who had a stroke, was part of a conspiracy to place Oswald on that bus. No matter. . this was his pet theory, and of course he is entitled to it. The other poster runs a website which promotes the hypothesis that Oswald had a secret twin brother, and understanding that—and tracing the details—are the key to uncovering the truth about Dallas. As I say, these two posters have publicly stated that they are going to start a thread “about Lifton’s theories.” The word they have omitted is “early”—that is, they are going back to between 42 and 45 years ago, and the period 1965- 1969, in the period following the time when I first became involved in the Kennedy case. Remember: as I write this, the year is 2012- - these folks are going back to the year 1967, that’s “44 plus” years ago. At that time, just past the 3rd anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, and with the Kennedy case often in the news, and the publication of The Case For Three Assassination (my original piece that was a cover story in the January, 1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine), I was interviewed by Esquire Magazine for an article they were preparing called “25 Assassination theories.” The writer was John Berendt, then an Associate Editor of Esquire, who won a Pulitzer Prize a few decades later for his much acclaimed “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” which was published in 1994, and spent a record breaking 216 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. John assembled a list of 25 theories about the Kennedy assassination, which was published in December, 1966. About six months later, he wrote a sequel titled “25 more theories.” Views of mine appeared in both articles—which also included various hypotheses by Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Vincent Salandria, etc. One of those theories was my own hypothesis which addressed the question of why, despite all the evidence of shots from the front, the eyewitness evidence was so skimpy—indeed, there is practically no evidence of anyone seeing any shooters. John went over my thoughts on the matter, and wrote it up in the form of a 350 word item, called “Theory #25. . the false knoll hypothesis.” I posited that Dealey Plaza had been booby-trapped, and that professional camouflage had been used to hide shooters connected with the Kennedy assassination, and that’s where why there were no (or hardly any) eyewitness accounts. Although the ideas were solely my own, the two of us spent several hours on the phone, developing the exact wording for this proposition. Below my typed signature is the full account of what was published. Do I still believed today, in 2012, that what I speculated about in 1967? Not entirely. Nearly a half century later, no, I don’t believe there was a “false knoll,”—in the literal sense of the term—but I certainly have not ruled out the possibility that some very professional camouflage was used, because, although 40 plus years have assed, the same problem exists today, as existed then: the medical evidence indicates shots from the front, but there is hardly any eyewitness testimony of shots from the front, although puffs of smoke were seen coming from certain trees in Dealey Plaza, and one lady exclaimed, at the time, to a police officer, “they are shooting the President from the bushes!” However, I no longer focus on this particular matter because, after I discovered the evidence of body alteration—which became the basis for body alteration, and Best Evidence, published in January, 1981—my focus has been not on “who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body” (i.e., where “they” are hiding, etc.) but rather—as I stated in Best Evidence, “who took them out.” Nonetheless, anyone who is interested in what I advanced in 1966 can go to Esquire Magazine of May, 1967, and read it for themselves. It is posted one the Ken Rahn website at the University of Rhode Island, and the link—and the text—are below. Prepare to enter a time machine, and “revisit the debate,” as it was in 1966 and 1967. As second area which was also the focus of my suspicions were was the behavior of certain agents of the Secret Service (who have long since passed away). I did not understand how there could be a motorcade assassination unless the driver of the car agreed, in advance, to drive slowly, and certainly would not “step on the gas” and speed away, until it was clear that President Kennedy was dead. I also wondered about his immediate supervisor, the agent in the front right seat, Kellerman. The Warren Commission staff also wondered about these same matters, and there are memos, written by either Eisenberg or Redlich, questioning the non-reaction of these two agents, as shown on the Zapruder film. In 1965, I telephoned Roy Kellerman and spoke with him for some 15 minutes. In 1967 I spoke with Greer, for almost an hour. Then I flew to Washington, and spent several hours with Greer, in his home. When I left, the last thing he said to me, was: “Chief Rowley (then the S S chief) would sure like to know what you’re doing.” I also have interviewed about 10 other SS agents, over the years. At some time in the future, I intend to publish my own thoughts about this situation. But back to the late 1960s: As a consequence of these interviews, I found it hard to believe that these (supposedly) loyal men were involved, and so I briefly entertained the notion that perhaps they was serious perjury before the Warren Commission—sanctioned by the highest levels of the U.S. Government—and that either or both of these two were not in the limousine. I discussed this once with Sylvia Meagher, and mentioned it briefly in a letter I wrote Meagher in 1969-that’s 42 years ago. And that’s really all there is to it. Here’s my question to these two posters, who have, in effect, threatened to reveal this matter, which they view clearly view as some sort of terrible secret. My question: what on earth do these preliminary hypotheses –voiced in 1967 (in Esquire Magazine) and 1969 (in a private correspondence with Sylvia Meagher), have to do with the current state of debate about the Kennedy assassination, in the year 2012? Do they have anything to do with the central issue in this case--which is the falsification of President Kennedy's autopsy, which is the central issue, and the major focus of my book, BEST EVIDENCE, published in 1981 --and then republished by three publishers since? I’d like to know how either of these posters would react if someone went back 45 years and look at their letters. But I speak in jest. Unfortunately, that’s not possible. You see, neither of them were yet born. But now, worldly wise, and hot shot investigators that they believe they are, they have now “come of age” and , by God, are determined to “expose” my past. One of these posters has a website pushing his pet theory that Oswald had a twin brother; and that that is the key to the Kennedy assassination; the other, that Mary Bledsoe not only wasn’t on the bus, but wasn’t Oswald’s landlady. I don’t see that either of these hypotheses have any traction—or will ever gain any traction—with those that take evidence seriously. Below my typed signature is the Esquire Article about my camouflage theory. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theories/Second_Primer/Second_primer.html 18. FALSE KNOLL THEORY Proponent: David Lifton, a U.C.L.A. engineering graduate student and coauthor of the three-assassins article in Ramparts which introduced Riddle’s analysis. (See No. 11.) Thesis: On the day of the assassination, three types of camouflage were employed by conspirators positioned beneath, on, and above the grassy knoll. Lifton reached this hypothesis after minute study of photographs of the area during and after the assassination. It answers the question why, despite the fact that eyewitness reports and the Head Movement Theory indicate shots came from the grassy knoll, nothing at all was found there immediately afterward. Underground camouflage: Lifton suggests that prior to the assassination, the grassy knoll was excavated from beneath and a system of tunnels and bunkers was built into it. Peepholes covered by grass-mesh camouflage were placed on the sloping surface of the knoll. Subterranean nooks would explain the statement of witness Garland Slack: “I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot had come from within a cave…” Lifton goes further to suggest that the puff of smoke seen by some people on the grassy knoll may have been the exhaust from a gas engine incorporated within the camouflage mechanization. Surface camouflage: Lifton finds alterations (“bulges”) in the wall and the hedgerow on the grassy knoll, netting in the bushes and faint images of heads. Borrowing support from deputy Constable Weitzman who ran toward the wall and who said, “I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steam pipes. I burned them,” Lifton points out that there are no steam pipes atop the wall. This might, he says, be an indication that things may have been altered for that day. Weitzman also says a witness told him that he saw somebody throw something through a bush. Elevated camouflage: Because a comparison of certain photographs taken during the assassination with others taken afterward indicates that some tree structures had been altered on the knoll, and because he sees images up in the trees in assassination photos, Lifton believes there was some camouflage in the trees. Eyewitnesses S. M. Holland, Austin Miller and Frank Reilly all state that shots seemed to have come out of the trees. Drawbacks: As even Lifton admits, the photo enlargements are of extremely grainy quality (they could not be reproduced properly here) and interpretations of them are questionable at best. To err is human, to forgive, divine. But to ass is to be like David Lifton. Spelling and grammatical errors can be such joys, especially when David Lifton feels the need to clear the air, by giving us an attack of his vapors. He is amused that some people don’t like him. Gasp! Can you imagine? What horror! The most recent postings about Lifton are that Hood College the repository of Harold Weisberg’s research is too afraid, apparently, to scan and post online a folder with letters of correspondence between Weisberg and Lifton. Lifton supposedly threatened to sue them if they did. He doesn’t have a legal right to do so, the letters are not his property, they belong to Harold Weisberg, and/or his estate, and the person or people in charge of that estate can do with them as they please whether Lifton likes it or not. But, surprise he doesn’t address that issue. No he wants to attack his attackers. Fair enough, what’s he got? Well, one of his critics points out that Lifton at one time thought there were false trees on the grassy knoll and that Secret Service agents Kellerman and Greer were impostors. Well, Lifton goes awry right away, in an attempt to discredit the totally and thoroughly debunked story that Mary Bledsoe was ever on Cecil McWatters' bus, something that Lifton cannot comprehend or get out of his craw he writes this: "The poster involved is the one who has originated the theory that Oswald’s landlady—Mary Bledsoe—who, according to the Warren Report (and, I might add, according to all credible evidence) was on the bus with Oswald when he boarded McWatters' bus, at around 12:40 PM, going west on Elm Street. Bledsoe filled out an affidavit that Oswald was on the bus she was riding (a bus ride established by the fact that Oswald himself said he took a bus, plus the fact that a bus transfer was found on his person." As written this implies that “the poster,” and I think he’s talking about Lee Farley, created the notion of Mary Bledsoe being on Cecil McWatters bus, when in reality Lee Farley is a critic of such an idea, and though a very good one, not the first. Lifton is so engaged in trying to once again attack Lee that he interrupts his own train of though in mid sentence “The poster involved is the one who has originated the theory that Oswald’s landlady,” and doesn’t return to the idea to finish the thought. No, he goes right into a summation of the Mary Bledsoe story as the Warren Commission would have you believe it. That Lifton, of all people should stridently, almost religiously, believe this Bledsoe story, one of but many, many, stupid, false, ridiculous on its face, farcical stories in the Warren Commission report does not serve him well, rather it invites criticism of the good work he has done. For the record, I do believe that Lifton has made a valuable contribution to the case. I do believe he was right when he found the Sibert and O’Neill report and followed it up. I do believe there was post mortem surgery of the head. But, where Lifton goes awry is when he guesses and theorizes that such surgery occurred prior to JFK’s arrival in the morgue at Bethesda. I think Doug Horne corrects and modifies Lifton’s thesis. The post mortem surgery takes place at Bethesda. All the necessary equipment and people are there. People were ordered to leave rooms and ordered not to talk about anything they heard, saw, or took part in, which is exactly what happened. This order of secrecy had to be lifted by the HSCA. That there was such an order of secrecy is proof enough of a government wide conspiracy to coverup. But, Lifton being correct in some aspects of the medical evidence does not give him absolute credibility or permission to be a bullying pain in the ass to comment and criticize other JFK assassination researchers and aspects of this case he does not comprehend at all as is the case with Mary Bledsoe, for example. Returning to his clearing the air post Lifton writes this: “I have pointed out that Mary Bledsoe was interviewed by about eight FBI agents three different times, in the week to ten days following the assassination, in which she made clear she was on the bus. Furthermore, it there is the sheer implausibility that this lady, who had a stroke, was part of a conspiracy to place Oswald on that bus.” This are more lies, distortions, and misrepresentations in these two sentences than in the two administrations of George W. Bush. Why does Lifton play a numbers game? If an FBI agent interviews you and writes a report it is supposed to be gospel? Well, BS! Anyone worth a damn in this case has read enough FBI reports to know that the vast majority of them are not worth the paper they’re printed on, or the cost to photocopy them. That FBI reports were thought to be absolute truth was used by Hoover to attack people, ruin their lives, cost them their jobs, etc. He used them to blackmail presidents, including JFK. If one FBI report is supposed to be gospel truth are 2 even more so? So, if you got 8, wow, that means what? You can’t get voted off the island? Does Lifton put so much credence in FBI reports because the Sibert and O’Neill report is an FBI report? And if even one FBI report is total BS, like the FBI 5 volume report on the assassination, Warren Commission Document #1, which doesn’t even mention that Gov. Connally was also shot, then that would open up criticism to his Best Evidence thesis and therefore he must defend all FBI reports? Is that what’s going on? Back to Lifton’s posting, and I have to wonder does stupidity have a shelf life? “As I say, these two posters have publicly stated that they are going to start a thread “about Lifton’s theories.” The word they have omitted is “early”—that is, they are going back to between 42 and 45 years ago, and the period 1965- 1969, in the period following the time when I first became involved in the Kennedy case. Remember: as I write this, the year is 2012- - these folks are going back to the year 1967, that’s “44 plus” years ago.” So, if something stupid was said more than 40 years ago, ignore it. MY GOD, LIFTON HAS SOLVED THE JFK ASSASSINATION!!! The Warren Commission report is more than 40 years old. So, just ignore it. Boom! Done! The case is solved! More: “At that time, just past the 3rd anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, and with the Kennedy case often in the news, and the publication of The Case For Three Assassination (my original piece that was a cover story in the January, 1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine), I was interviewed by Esquire Magazine for an article they were preparing called “25 Assassination theories.” The Case for Three Assassins, not Three Assassination. He goes on and on defending he early beliefs. So, what? Big deal? Without doing a proper investigation, reading everything you could get your hands on, and without going to Dealey Plaza you hypothesized. That’s not what they’re criticizing. But the best misspelling is in this paragraph: “Do I still believed today, in 2012, that what I speculated about in 1967? Not entirely. Nearly a half century later, no, I don’t believe there was a “false knoll,”—in the literal sense of the term—but I certainly have not ruled out the possibility that some very professional camouflage was used, because, although 40 plus years have assed, the same problem exists today, as existed then: the medical evidence indicates shots from the front, but there is hardly any eyewitness testimony of shots from the front, although puffs of smoke were seen coming from certain trees in Dealey Plaza, and one lady exclaimed, at the time, to a police officer, “they are shooting the President from the bushes!” 40 years have assed. Yes, ass is now a verb. And who demonstrates that better than David Lifton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 (edited) Can't we all just get along? Seriously, despite David's annoying condescension, it's clear that he's trying to meet his antagonists halfway. I suggest that Lee, Greg, and others do the same and avoid the rabid replies and the 100-reply threads that weigh this forum down. David clearly wants bygones to be bygones so let's PLEASE move on and focus on evidence, not egos. Tom, David does not want "bygones to be bygones". He proved that by yet again lying about my website and what I believe. He knows it is not true. He knows most people here know it's not true - yet he continues to state it. He is being deliberately antagonistic with malice aforethought. But all I can do is keep repeating - I have no malice towards him. I EXPECT him to behave like this. He can't help it. My target is the moderation team who allow him to continue to behave like this and then censor me for calling a spade a spade instead of their own chosen euphemism for one. While ever he is allowed to behave in this manner, I will continue to take matters into my own hands and deal with him - and them in the manner I feel is warranted. I don't care about being kicked off as a result. The forum will get along in it's usual manner, with or without my presence because it's bigger than me. It remains to be seen whether it is also bigger than Lifton's ego.and a moderation team that accommodates it - and the lies that help keep it so inflated. If you seriously think this is an attempt at meeting anyone half way then I'm sorry to say, he's playing you like a fiddle. Edited January 2, 2012 by Greg Parker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 Can't we all just get along? Seriously, despite David's annoying condescension, it's clear that he's trying to meet his antagonists halfway. I suggest that Lee, Greg, and others do the same and avoid the rabid replies and the 100-reply threads that weigh this forum down. David clearly wants bygones to be bygones so let's PLEASE move on and focus on evidence, not egos. Lee, --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 2, 2012 Share Posted January 2, 2012 JOE ''40 years have assed'' Your not kidding imo, right now i am thinking that certainly more than 40 years have assed re the assassination and the research that's a positive......thanks.for a grin in the middle of all the stress....b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) [snipped. . to save space] [snipped] Joe, Two things: (1) I neglected to give you credit for your original article on the Mary Bledsoe situation, published (as I recall) in the Third Decade. (Email me with the correct info, and I'll modify my post). (2) FWIW: I believe that most of those who wrote about Bledsoe, years ago--e.g., Sylvia Meagher, et al--were unaware that Bledsoe had been interviewed three times by the FBI in the eight days following the assassination. So this hypothesis of Mary Bledsoe supposedly lying to the authorities wasn't a matter of a falsified Dallas Police report. To the contrary: she then would have to lie 3 more times to FBI agents in the eight days following the assassination. These FBI interviews are in CD 5 (toward the back) and I believe the first time that (for example) Sylvia Meagher ever saw them was around 1969, when I provided them as part of my (approximately 2000 page) Available But Not Published (ABNP) collection which both she and Mary Ferrell subscribed around that time. I think that when those three FBI interviews of Bledsoe are factored into the equation, the balance tips in favor of Bledsoe's credibility, regardless of whether she talked haltingly when under oath (because of her stroke) or because some entertain problems with regards to the bus transfer. Personally, I think it highly unlikely--to the point of being absurd--to believe that this elderly lady was involved in a conspiracy that involved multiple lies told to multiple interviewers, including lying 3 times in interviews with FBI agents in the eight days following the Kennedy assassination--all (supposedly) in the service of some hypothetical scheme to place Oswald on a bus in which he was not actually riding. I know that there are those who are wedded to that hypothesis (just as there are those who cannot give up on the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are sinister); but I don't think this situation--what I shall call here "the Mary Bledsoe" hypothesis--is particularly credible. Now that's my opinion, and of course I realize there are those who will disagree. DSL 1/2/12; 7 pm PST Los Angeles, California Edited January 3, 2012 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 For the record, I do believe that Lifton has made a valuable contribution to the case. I do believe he was right when he found the Sibert and O’Neill report and followed it up. I do believe there was post mortem surgery of the head. But, where Lifton goes awry is when he guesses and theorizes that such surgery occurred prior to JFK’s arrival in the morgue at Bethesda. I think Doug Horne corrects and modifies Lifton’s thesis. The post mortem surgery takes place at Bethesda. All the necessary equipment and people are there. People were ordered to leave rooms and ordered not to talk about anything they heard, saw, or took part in, which is exactly what happened. This order of secrecy had to be lifted by the HSCA. That there was such an order of secrecy is proof enough of a government wide conspiracy to coverup. I'm sorry, but Horne's hypothesis makes even less sense than Lifton's - if that's possible. Why the frack would the autopsy surgeons NEED to conduct an illicit pre-autopsy enlargement of the head wound? They're the ones who are gonna be writing the autopsy report so who the hell are they trying to fool? Themselves? The entire basis for Horne's silliness is Tom Robinson's statement that the autopsy photos showed "what the doctors did", that they "cut this scalp open and reflected it back in order to remove bullet fragments." (ARRB MD 180) Well, of course they did - that's what happens in an autopsy involving gunshots to the head. There is nothing suspicious about this at all. Horne also sees something suspicious in the fact that Robinson and and Ed Reed recalled Humes using a saw even though Humes admitted he did in his Warren Commission testimony: "To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skill by this injury. We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it." (2H354) Humes said "virtually no work with a saw" which, of course, does not mean "no work with a saw" it means "very little". So where's the suspicious activity? Oh how depressing. To come on here and attack Lifton for his bullying behavior and have someone make Lifton look good by comparison by not grasping the obvious. Surely, you understand that if you're going to write an autopsy report that says X, Y and Z you have to produce the evidence that proves it. Surely, you understand that you can't write an autopsy report that is in conflict with the photographs and X-rays of the body? Surely, you understand that if you falsify the wounds in the body to tell a false story, an then "document" that with the autopsy report then it looks like you just did your job? Surely, you understand that the tampered with body would support the autopsy report? That that was the plan all along? That they were supposed to be supportive of each other? And surely, you understand that the whole purpose of an autopsy report is to bully any witness who would claim to have seen something the autopsy report doesn't support? If you think there was no post mortem surgery then explain this color autopsy photo and the 90 degree angle of the wound especially when looking at the top left of the head as viewed when looking at this. And if no image appears on here I'm referring to the image I have on my blog with this post: http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2009/12/doug-horne-makes-astounding-claims-on.html You would understand this better if you bothered to understand that we're talking about two events, not one, a pre-autopsy autopsy to alter the nature of the wounds then you have an autopsy with the other people in the room so that now everyone thinks they are at THE autopsy, the one and only one, the first one (when it's really the second) now you have everyone seeing what you want them to see, a falsified body that will align with a lone assassin firing from above and behind. What Tom Robinson described is what he saw at the pre-autopsy autopsy, when Dr. Humes was altering the wounds, (Inside the ARRB Vol II p. 629.) Robinson, it should be pointed out was a member of the Gawler's Funeral team so that may be why he was not ordered out of the room as Ed Reed and Jerrol Custer were. He was not a member of the Navy or of any Bethesda staff. Humes really didn't have any command authority over him. Suspicious activity? How about this line from 2H349 Specter - Tell us who else in a general way was present at the time the autopsy was conducted in addition to you three doctors, please? Humes - This, I must preface by saying it will be somewhat incomplete. My particular interest was on the examination of the President and not of the security measures of the other people who were present. Suspicious activity? How about X-rays having already been performed on JFK when Jackie and Bobby and presumably the hearse with JFK's body in it are only just arriving at the front of Bethesda? Suspicious activity? How about arriving in a body bag? And a multitude of other irregularities documented in Best Evidence? Where's the suspicious activity? Are you kidding me? Suspicious activity? Not allowing Humes to see or use the photographs but having drawings of them made both in 1964 for the WC and in 1978 for the HSCA. Suspicious activity? Humes - The photographs, to go back a moment the photographs and the X-rays were exposed in the morgue, of the Naval Medical Center on this night, and they were not developed, neither the X-rays or the photographs. They were submitted to the, and here, if I make a mistake I am not certain, to either the Federal Bureau of Investigation or to the Secret Service, I am not sure of those. 2H351 Yeah, there was suspicious activity. Quite a lot really. Joe Backes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Can't we all just get along? Seriously, despite David's annoying condescension, it's clear that he's trying to meet his antagonists halfway. I suggest that Lee, Greg, and others do the same and avoid the rabid replies and the 100-reply threads that weigh this forum down. David clearly wants bygones to be bygones so let's PLEASE move on and focus on evidence, not egos. Tom, David does not want "bygones to be bygones". He proved that by yet again lying about my website and what I believe.** He knows it is not true. He knows most people here know it's not true - yet he continues to state it. He is being deliberately antagonistic with malice aforethought. **DSL Interjection: See my commentary addressing this specific assertion below. But all I can do is keep repeating - I have no malice towards him. I EXPECT him to behave like this. He can't help it. My target is the moderation team who allow him to continue to behave like this and then censor me for calling a spade a spade instead of their own chosen euphemism for one. While ever he is allowed to behave in this manner, I will continue to take matters into my own hands and deal with him - and them in the manner I feel is warranted. I don't care about being kicked off as a result. The forum will get along in it's usual manner, with or without my presence because it's bigger than me. It remains to be seen whether it is also bigger than Lifton's ego.and a moderation team that accommodates it - and the lies that help keep it so inflated. If you seriously think this is an attempt at meeting anyone half way then I'm sorry to say, he's playing you like a fiddle. DSL RESPONSE: Mr. Parker: Below is a copy of the text at your website from a recent viewing. Its not that easy to read, much less understand, but it seems obvious to me that you are in support of the notion that Oswald had a twin. Candidly, I don't want to spend any more time attempting to translate this gibberish, but below find a copy of what you wrote. If you wish to clarify or elaborate, then go right ahead. * * * EXCERPT FROM THE GREG PARKER WEBSITE IN WHICH HE COMMENTS ON THE MATTER OF HARVEY AND LEE, AND RICHARD GILBRIDE'S MODIFICATION(S) TO ARMSTRONG'S THEORY . . .WHICH HE (PARKER) SEEMS TO APPLAUD (ORIGINALLY POSTED IN FEB 2011) * * * Post by greg parker on Mon 07 Feb 2011, 8:25 pm Richard [Gilbride], you know I break out in a nasty rash whenever "Harvey and Lee" is introduced into the subject. Having them as twins makes a hellava lot more sense though,then one being a Good 'Ol Southern Boy and the other being a New York born son of Hungarian commies; one being a 6 footer at 12 and the other being a midget; one being a jock and the being a nerd etc etc etfreakin'cetra. It's not so much a CIA plot as a Vaudeville act... Abbott & Costello, Crosby & Hope, Laurel & Hardy, Harvey & Lee... You know Dr Henry Kloepfer used to ride around New Orleans on a motorbike visiting twins to study...? I don't rule out a doppleganger -- but I don't think there was one on McWatter's bus, either. ((DSL Interjection: Then just who was on McWatters' bus, as witnessed by Mary Bledsoe (who had been his landlady for a week, just a month before, starting on 10/7/63)--or was that part of a Mary Bledsoe hallucination? Or (alternatively) all that part of a nefarious scheme in which Bledsoe deliberately lied, so that (in the official story) Oswald would appear to have transportation to the next point on the "official" timeline, i.e., his ride with taxi driver William Whaley? --which is also denied by the "Bledsoe lied" proponents, who apparently believe that Oswald (a) wasn't the passenger in Whaley's cab, and (b ) wasn't the person who ran into the Beckley Street rooming house, at approximately 1 pm). No matter how you "slice and dice it," these folks all believe in some variant of the "double Oswald" theory. END OF DSL INTERJECTION)) I think Sean Murphy may have nailed the shooter in the Hughes film. I'll be blowed if he doesn't match the wanted description given out, along with witness descriptions - Geez, he also looks Eastern European --- may be even Hungarian... but do I think he was part of some longstanding CIA operation involving himself and Oswald, or that he ever called himself Harvey and had a "mother" who pretended to be Marguerite? Not a chance in hell... Your twins theory holds more water than Armstrong's potpourri of every Oswald sighting ever made, regardless of how silly or impossible, and meshed into the Frankenstein's Monster of all theories... We're even in the same ballpark... Korea... fear and loathing... brainwashing...exaggerated gaps... CIA counter-measures... Oswald being sucked into the vortex at 13 through family members **... Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations... rocketry and missiles... overflights... Ike's foreign policy... Pax Americana... radar... backdoor diplomacy... **DSL Interjection: Am I to understand that you entertain the notion that Lee Oswald was involved in some kind of counter-intelligence operation at age 13? . . when, if he was Jewish, he would just have had his Bar Mitzvah?. . .Oh pleez. . . END OF DSL INTERJECTION It's the Greatest Story Never Told. greg parker Admin[instrator] DSL COMMENT: As I say, if you can translate all this and clarify your thought(s), perhaps that would be useful. All of this reminds me of a button I once saw someone wearing at a party: "Does your train of thought have a caboose?" DSL 1/02/12; 7:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Edited January 3, 2012 by David Lifton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) [snipped. . to save space] [snipped] Joe, Two things: (1) I neglected to give you credit for your original article on the Mary Bledsoe situation, published (as I recall) in the Third Decade. (Email me with the correct info, and I'll modify my post). (2) FWIW: I believe that most of those who wrote about Bledsoe, years ago--e.g., Sylvia Meagher, et al--were unaware that Bledsoe had been interviewed three times by the FBI in the eight days following the assassination. So this hypothesis of Mary Bledsoe supposedly lying to the authorities wasn't a matter of a falsified Dallas Police report. To the contrary: she then would have to lie 3 more times to FBI agents in the eight days following the assassination. These FBI interviews are in CD 5 (toward the back) and I believe the first time that (for example) Sylvia Meagher ever saw them was around 1969, when I provided them as part of my (approximately 2000 page) Available But Not Published (ABNP) collection which both she and Mary Ferrell subscribed around that time. I think that when those three FBI interviews of Bledsoe are factored into the equation, the balance tips in favor of Bledsoe's credibility, regardless of whether she talked haltingly when under oath (because of her stroke) or because some entertain problems with regards to the bus transfer. Personally, I think it highly unlikely--to the point of being absurd--to believe that this elderly lady was involved in a conspiracy that involved multiple lies told to multiple interviewers, including lying 3 times in interviews with FBI agents in the eight days following the Kennedy assassination--all (supposedly) in the service of some hypothetical scheme to place Oswald on a bus in which he was not actually riding. I know that there are those who are wedded to that hypothesis (just as there are those who cannot give up on the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are sinister); but I don't think this situation--what I shall call here "the Mary Bledsoe" hypothesis--is particularly credible. Now that's my opinion, and of course I realize there are those who will disagree. DSL 1/2/12; 7 pm PST Los Angeles, California David, Two things, 1.) USE A GOD DAMN SPELL CHECKER! Scroll down and use the "Preview Post" button once in awhile. 2.) I don't know why you give such a huge crap about the Mary Bledsoe story and feel the need to rush to its defense. Nor why you use it to bash anyone in the JFK case that annoys you but this nonsense has to stop. The Mary Bledsoe story is 100% FAKE! I am more confident of that than I am of knowing what my own name is. I will go over every bit of testimony, cross referencing all of it, I will go over every word, every version of every story told by every witness. I'll go over it street by street. I'll take you by the hand and walk the whole damn bus route with you if you want the next time your in Dallas for a JFK conference. You have got to get it into your head its made up xxxx. They boxed themselves into a corner making an amalgamation of two completely different women, neither of whom was Bledsoe, to give credibility to the story of Oswald's escape via public transport, and to give credibility of the story D.A. Henry Wade told Sunday night, after Oswald was dead, that Oswald laughed when he told a woman that the president was shot. When examined carefully the entire story of LHO ever being on McWalters bus falls apart. Everything destroys it. The witnesses destroy each other, simple geography destroys it. Only a total fool would believe it. They needed a woman who normally took that bus, who would know Oswald, and recite back a story told to her. They found Mary Bledsoe. They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her. There is no evidence that she really was Oswald's landlady. None. No mail for Oswald was redirected there. There's no receipt for the rent. No independent eyewitness ever saw him at Bledsoe's. There's nothing, except Bledsoe let slip the idea that he left some of his luggage behind. And the WC guys zero in on that. And even that goes nowhere. Even she wants to scream stop asking me about his damn luggage. The idea that Mary Bledsoe having had a stroke now makes he story more credible to you is a sick joke. Strokes do not improve memory or brain function. A stroke kills a part of the brain. As a medical expert in this case you should know that. I believe you posted the FBI reports you think rescue her story. I'll look at them again. But, I assure you they do not. It's not a theory David. It's very simple cross examination of the evidence. It's fact. Oswald was not on that bus. Nor was Bledsoe. Instead of examining the evidence in an intelligent, logical fashion you've got it stuck in your craw that Bledsoe is actively lying, that she came forward to lie, that she is part of a conspiracy. No. She is used by idiots to tell a story they want told, period. Bledsoe couldn't tell you what day it was without f-ing it up, even if you told her what day it was and gave her 20 chances to get it right. McWatters couldn't tell you what his name was without saying, "In other words..." These are poor, working class, blue collar, uneducated people. They are being used and they don't know it. Bledsoe isn't some kind of evil genius. She's a moron. But unlike McWatters they don't give up on her. She's the only way out for them for this impossible story. Joe Backes Edited January 3, 2012 by Joseph Backes Removed the F word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Joe, That is probably the single best account of what likely happened that I have read. Simple, yet adequate to the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Backes Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Joe, That is probably the single best account of what likely happened that I have read. Simple, yet adequate to the evidence. Thanks Gregg. I tried to keep it short. I could go on and on for days explaining everything, every scrap of info of the Bledsoe story. I could probably do it in 3 or 4 hours to walk people through it. Lifton hasn't bothered to do the work of cross examining everything with the Bledsoe story like he did with the medical evidence vis-a-vie Parkland vs. Bethesda. If he did he'd see its total bunk. But what's really galling is not only did he cheat and take a shortcut that it's insane to believe Bledsoe is lying and that she's a conspirator, which is deliberate, dishonest misdirection, but he bullies people with his total inability to work the evidence in the Bledsoe story. It's totally unacceptable. He's been doing it on this forum for some time and it's got to stop. Joe Edited January 3, 2012 by Joseph Backes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) [snipped. . to save space] [snipped] Joe, Two things: (1) I neglected to give you credit for your original article on the Mary Bledsoe situation, published (as I recall) in the Third Decade. (Email me with the correct info, and I'll modify my post). (2) FWIW: I believe that most of those who wrote about Bledsoe, years ago--e.g., Sylvia Meagher, et al--were unaware that Bledsoe had been interviewed three times by the FBI in the eight days following the assassination. So this hypothesis of Mary Bledsoe supposedly lying to the authorities wasn't a matter of a falsified Dallas Police report. To the contrary: she then would have to lie 3 more times to FBI agents in the eight days following the assassination. These FBI interviews are in CD 5 (toward the back) and I believe the first time that (for example) Sylvia Meagher ever saw them was around 1969, when I provided them as part of my (approximately 2000 page) Available But Not Published (ABNP) collection which both she and Mary Ferrell subscribed around that time. I think that when those three FBI interviews of Bledsoe are factored into the equation, the balance tips in favor of Bledsoe's credibility, regardless of whether she talked haltingly when under oath (because of her stroke) or because some entertain problems with regards to the bus transfer. Personally, I think it highly unlikely--to the point of being absurd--to believe that this elderly lady was involved in a conspiracy that involved multiple lies told to multiple interviewers, including lying 3 times in interviews with FBI agents in the eight days following the Kennedy assassination--all (supposedly) in the service of some hypothetical scheme to place Oswald on a bus in which he was not actually riding. I know that there are those who are wedded to that hypothesis (just as there are those who cannot give up on the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are sinister); but I don't think this situation--what I shall call here "the Mary Bledsoe" hypothesis--is particularly credible. Now that's my opinion, and of course I realize there are those who will disagree. DSL 1/2/12; 7 pm PST Los Angeles, California David, Two things, 1.) USE A GOD DAMN SPELL CHECKER! Scroll down and use the "Preview Post" button once in awhile. 2.) I don't know why you give such a huge crap about the Mary Bledsoe story and feel the need to rush to its defense. Nor why you use it to bash anyone in the JFK case that annoys you but this nonsense has to stop. The Mary Bledsoe story is 100% FAKE! I am more confident of that than I am of knowing what my own name is. I will go over every bit of testimony, cross referencing all of it, I will go over every word, every version of every story told by every witness. I'll go over it street by street. I'll take you by the hand and walk the whole damn bus route with you if you want the next time your in Dallas for a JFK conference. You have got to get it into your head its made up xxxx. They boxed themselves into a corner making an amalgamation of two completely different women, neither of whom was Bledsoe, to give credibility to the story of Oswald's escape via public transport, and to give credibility of the story D.A. Henry Wade told Sunday night, after Oswald was dead, that Oswald laughed when he told a woman that the president was shot. When examined carefully the entire story of LHO ever being on McWalters bus falls apart. Everything destroys it. The witnesses destroy each other, simple geography destroys it. Only a total fool would believe it. They needed a woman who normally took that bus, who would know Oswald, and recite back a story told to her. They found Mary Bledsoe. They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her. There is no evidence that she really was Oswald's landlady. None. No mail for Oswald was redirected there. There's no receipt for the rent. No independent eyewitness ever saw him at Bledsoe's. There's nothing, except Bledsoe let slip the idea that he left some of his luggage behind. And the WC guys zero in on that. And even that goes nowhere. Even she wants to scream stop asking me about his damn luggage. The idea that Mary Bledsoe having had a stroke now makes he story more credible to you is a sick joke. Strokes do not improve memory or brain function. A stroke kills a part of the brain. As a medical expert in this case you should know that. I believe you posted the FBI reports you think rescue her story. I'll look at them again. But, I assure you they do not. It's not a theory David. It's very simple cross examination of the evidence. It's fact. Oswald was not on that bus. Nor was Bledsoe. Instead of examining the evidence in an intelligent, logical fashion you've got it stuck in your craw that Bledsoe is actively lying, that she came forward to lie, that she is part of a conspiracy. No. She is used by idiots to tell a story they want told, period. Bledsoe couldn't tell you what day it was without EDIT it up, even if you told her what day it was and gave her 20 chances to get it right. McWatters couldn't tell you what his name was without saying, "In other words..." Joe, he hasn't got that stuck in his craw at all. He is trying to convince everyone else that that is what me, Lee, you and others believe in order to make our case look less credible. He is trying a similar tactic with his copy and paste from my site. He simply cannot help himself, and the more he is allowed to get away with the lies, the more emboldened he will get and the bigger the lies will become. These are poor, working class, blue collar, uneducated people. They are being used and they don't know it. Bledsoe isn't some kind of evil genius. She's a moron. But unlike McWatters they don't give up on her. She's the only way out for them for this impossible story. Mary seems to have slid down the social ladder somewhat - and she certainly wasn't very bright - at least by the time of the assassination. But (with apologies to Tommy for the poor start to a sentence) her father was actually a doctor, so she didn't start life "blue collar". FWIW. Joe Backes Edited January 3, 2012 by Kathy Beckett removed F word from quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lifton Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Joe, That is probably the single best account of what likely happened that I have read. Simple, yet adequate to the evidence. Thanks Gregg. I tried to keep it short. I could go on and on for days explaining everything, every scrap of info of the Bledsoe story. I could probably do it in 3 or 4 hours to walk people through it. Lifton hasn't bothered to do the work of cross examining everything with the Bledsoe story like he did with the medical evidence vis-a-vie Parkland vs. Bethesda. If he did he'd see its total bunk. But what's really galling is not only did he cheat and take a shortcut that it's insane to believe Bledsoe is lying and that she's a conspirator, which is deliberate, dishonest misdirection, but he bullies people with his total inability to work the evidence in the Bledsoe story. It's totally unacceptable. He's been doing it on this forum for some time and it's got to stop. Joe Joe, I did not "cheat and take a shortcut" etc. etc. The fact that Mary Bledsoe was (supposedly) a deliberate xxxx is exactly what I believed the chief proponent of this theory (in his many posts on the London Forum) has said, time after time. Now its very likely that you and he have different views on this situation--that I don't know. But rest assured that I went through all this months ago, that I reviewed it carefully, that I even found one or more newspaper accounts of interviews with bus driver McWatters (and sent one of them to the chief proponent of this "Bledsoe lied" hypothesis); and, finally that my views are all laid out, in detail, one one or more threads, and that I do not believe that Mary Bledsoe lied (or was used). I believe Mary Bledsoe was on the bus, that her original statement is truthful, and that her re-statement of the same facts, in three subsequent FBI interviews, with five different agents over the next 8 days, is also truthful. Yes, I am the person who dug up, and posted, the links to the three Mary Bledsoe FBI interviews. Here, from a memo I wrote for my own files last July, is a list of the three FBI interviews, along with the dates, the identities of the agents, and the links: Three FBI interviews of Mary Bledsoe - - From CD 5 and CD 7 (“first day evidence”) CD 5 –original interviews –two of them First FBI interview, 11/23/63, by FBI Agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, 340-341) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=329103&imageOnly=true 2nd FBI interview; 11/28/63; by FBI Agent Bardwell Odum; (CD 5, 342-344) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=347 3rd interview: 12/4/63; by FBI agents Brown and Butler (CD 7, pp 302 – 303) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=330120 CD 7 About the shirt (but she goes through it again, that she saw him enter the bus); 12/4/63 It is my understanding that the chief proponent of this hypothesis did not know of these 3 FBI interviews at the time he advanced the hypothesis (and I have to wonder whether you, too, were aware of them). Absent these three FBI interviews, and focusing instead on the halting (and somewhat quirky) way Bledsoe testified (partially due to a stroke) I think has contributed to false and incorrect interpretation of her credibility, and her testimony. As for Bledsoe supposedly not being Oswald's landlady (for a week, starting on 10/7/63), I totally reject that notion. Had the FBI done a more complete and meticulous investigation in this area, I don't think there would be any wiggle room whatsoever to argue that she was telling anything but the truth. For example, a simple check of phone records, I believe, would have established that one or more calls were made from Ruth Paine's residence to Bledsoe's residence. (Certainly, she heard Oswald speaking a foreign language, and he even showed her pictures of his wife and child). Anyway, and FWIW, I complete reject the notion that Bledsoe lied, and I completely reject the notion that I did not go over this area carefully. To the contrary: I closely reviewed the original article you wrote, studied carefully the maps of the area, did not agree with the hypothesis "way back when" (i.e., when it was first published in the Third Decade)--and then went through the whole process of review again last spring. What surprised me at the time was that the person advancing the hypothesis here on the London Forum apparently did not know about these 3 FBI interviews of Mary Bledsoe--but there they are, and they further attest to her credibility. Also, when I began a careful review of FBI files, I found press reports from November or December 1963 of interviews with McWatters--from the Philadelphia newspapers, as I recall. These press interviews made clear that, although he was originally confused, he subsequently agreed that Oswald was the person who boarded his bus. Anyway, as I'm sure you would agree, McWatters is not the key witness, if or no other reason than that he was (at least initially) confused. The key fact is that Oswald himself said he took a bus, that a bus transfer was recovered and was identified as being the one issued by McWatters; and, finally, that Bledsoe identified Oswald--firmly, and immediately. I completely reject the hypothesis that she was a tool, or a fool, and manipulated by third parties in the Dallas law enforcement community. To counter all this, the chief proponent of this hypothesis postulates that Mary Bledsoe lied when she said that Oswald was her tenant, for the week commencing 10/7/63. I don't agree with any of that, either, and consider it an "auxiliary hypothesis" of sorts, not supported by the evidence. These are my views. I think Mary Bledsoe was on the McWatters bus when Oswald boarded, recognized him instantly (just as she told the FBI), and then watched him leave when he departed the bus a few minutes later. Those are my views, and I have considered--and re-considered--this matter most carefully. DSL 1/02/12; 11:15 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Here is the link to the post David has copied, http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t103-general-discussion It was in reply to RG's theory that, "Harvey & Lee were fraternal twins, with one of them given up to an adoption agency/relief society upon birth by the newly-widowed Marguerite." Saying that one theory makes more internal sense than another does not connote belief in, or support of that theory. David, you know that very well. It is just more attempted sly deceit from you as a deflection - which will no doubt not only be let stand - but will be applauded by at least one moderator. Thanks for the opportunity to give the site a plug though! Unfortunately for you, most here know exactly where I stand on the issue of two Oswalds, and if they go to the link and peruse the rest of my site, it will only reinforce that knowledge. <EDIT>. You have to be. It is the only explanation for continually <EDIT> about something so easily exposed. It does make you oh so predictable though... Can't we all just get along? Seriously, despite David's annoying condescension, it's clear that he's trying to meet his antagonists halfway. I suggest that Lee, Greg, and others do the same and avoid the rabid replies and the 100-reply threads that weigh this forum down. David clearly wants bygones to be bygones so let's PLEASE move on and focus on evidence, not egos. Tom, David does not want "bygones to be bygones". He proved that by yet again lying about my website and what I believe.** He knows it is not true. He knows most people here know it's not true - yet he continues to state it. He is being deliberately antagonistic with malice aforethought. **DSL Interjection: See my commentary addressing this specific assertion below. But all I can do is keep repeating - I have no malice towards him. I EXPECT him to behave like this. He can't help it. My target is the moderation team who allow him to continue to behave like this and then censor me for calling a spade a spade instead of their own chosen euphemism for one. While ever he is allowed to behave in this manner, I will continue to take matters into my own hands and deal with him - and them in the manner I feel is warranted. I don't care about being kicked off as a result. The forum will get along in it's usual manner, with or without my presence because it's bigger than me. It remains to be seen whether it is also bigger than Lifton's ego.and a moderation team that accommodates it - and the lies that help keep it so inflated. If you seriously think this is an attempt at meeting anyone half way then I'm sorry to say, he's playing you like a fiddle. DSL RESPONSE: Mr. Parker: Below is a copy of the text at your website from a recent viewing. Its not that easy to read, much less understand, but it seems obvious to me that you are in support of the notion that Oswald had a twin. Candidly, I don't want to spend any more time attempting to translate this gibberish, but below find a copy of what you wrote. If you wish to clarify or elaborate, then go right ahead. * * * EXCERPT FROM THE GREG PARKER WEBSITE IN WHICH HE COMMENTS ON THE MATTER OF HARVEY AND LEE, AND RICHARD GILBRIDE'S MODIFICATION(S) TO ARMSTRONG'S THEORY . . .WHICH HE (PARKER) SEEMS TO APPLAUD (ORIGINALLY POSTED IN FEB 2011) * * * Post by greg parker on Mon 07 Feb 2011, 8:25 pm Richard [Gilbride], you know I break out in a nasty rash whenever "Harvey and Lee" is introduced into the subject. Having them as twins makes a helluva lot more sense though,then one being a Good 'Ol Southern Boy and the other being a New York born son of Hungarian commies; one being a 6 footer at 12 and the other being a midget; one being a jock and the being a nerd etc etc etfreakin'cetra. It's not so much a CIA plot as a Vaudeville act... Abbott & Costello, Crosby & Hope, Laurel & Hardy, Harvey & Lee... You know Dr Henry Kloepfer used to ride around New Orleans on a motorbike visiting twins to study...? I don't rule out a doppleganger -- but I don't think there was one on McWatter's bus, either. ((DSL Interjection: Then just who was on McWatters' bus, as witnessed by Mary Bledsoe (who had been his landlady for a week, just a month before, starting on 10/7/63)--or was that part of a Mary Bledsoe hallucination? Or (alternatively) all that part of a nefarious scheme in which Bledsoe deliberately lied, so that (in the official story) Oswald would appear to have transportation to the next point on the "official" timeline, i.e., his ride with taxi driver William Whaley? --which is also denied by the "Bledsoe lied" proponents, who apparently believe that Oswald (a) wasn't the passenger in Whaley's cab, and (b ) wasn't the person who ran into the Beckley Street rooming house, at approximately 1 pm). No matter how you "slice and dice it," these folks all believe in some variant of the "double Oswald" theory. END OF DSL INTERJECTION)) I think Sean Murphy may have nailed the shooter in the Hughes film. I'll be blowed if he doesn't match the wanted description given out, along with witness descriptions - Geez, he also looks Eastern European --- may be even Hungarian... but do I think he was part of some longstanding CIA operation involving himself and Oswald, or that he ever called himself Harvey and had a "mother" who pretended to be Marguerite? Not a chance in hell... Your twins theory holds more water than Armstrong's potpourri of every Oswald sighting ever made, regardless of how silly or impossible, and meshed into the Frankenstein's Monster of all theories... We're even in the same ballpark... Korea... fear and loathing... brainwashing...exaggerated gaps... CIA counter-measures... Oswald being sucked into the vortex at 13 through family members **... Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations... rocketry and missiles... overflights... Ike's foreign policy... Pax Americana... radar... backdoor diplomacy... **DSL Interjection: Am I to understand that you entertain the notion that Lee Oswald was involved in some kind of counter-intelligence operation at age 13? . . when, if he was Jewish, he would just have had his Bar Mitzvah?. . .Oh pleez. . . END OF DSL INTERJECTION It's the Greatest Story Never Told. greg parker Admin[instrator] DSL COMMENT: As I say, if you can translate all this and clarify your thought(s), perhaps that would be useful. All of this reminds me of a button I once saw someone wearing at a party: "Does your train of thought have a caboose?" DSL 1/02/12; 7:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Edited January 3, 2012 by Kathy Beckett the word "liar" is banned from the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Okay, where do we start.... As a moderator, I would like to state first of all that too many posters on this forum are showing a total lack of respect for the moderating team. As you may know, I probably disagree with most of the other moderators much of the time on the issues discussed here, but I cannot find fault in their attempts to moderate what often degenerates into a juvenile shouting match. How do you moderate what is in effect a seventh grade food fight in the cafeteria? As I've stated before, I don't believe in heavy handed moderation. I have always thought that posters on an internet forum like this one ought to be able to conduct themselves as responsible adults. How many times do we have to beg you to stop the personal attacks, the name calling and the general nastiness? Our words appear to have had little effect on any of you. Also, when you are debating Pat Speer, Tom Scully or any other moderator, there is no need for you to bring up the subject of their moderation, especially when you are ridiculing it, unless it is connected directly to the discussion at hand, which it rarely is. What are we to do at this point? If we moderated all who have technically violated forum rules, we'd be left with very few regular posters. What makes it all the more frustrating is the fact that the most egregious offenders here are also some of the most knowledgable and interesting posters. Without you all, the discussions would be less educational in nature and the flow of information would be diminished. No one wants that. However, none of us wants the general lack of courtesy towards others to continue, either. There is no excuse for some of the behavior that has been exhibited here recently. Belittling others, bashing moderators- is this the way responsible adults should be conducting themselves on any internet forum? If this were a gaming forum or something, populated primarily by teens and those in their twenties, then perhaps we should expect this kind of stuff. But this is supposed to be a forum dedicated to discussing the assassination of President Kennedy. People from all over the world read what we write here. Do you really feel comfortable with some of the bile that's being posted under your actual names? David Lifton- you have developed a disturbing tendency to attack the messenger more than the message. It's irrelevant to any discussion at hand, that Greg Parker's web site postulates any particular theory, or that he may believe in an Oswald twin. What Martin Hay or any other poster on this forum does for a living is just as irrelevant to any discussions. Any alleged personal issues regarding Robert Charles-Dunne are most certainly off limits here- don't you sense the irony of you complaining about others bringing up similar things, when you are guilty of doing it yourself? And are you regularly in the habit of alluding to legal action at the drop of a hat? Eventually, people are just going to stop talking to you if they sense that. Lee Farley- You seem to have a personal animosity towards David Lifton that goes beyond the disagreements many of us have with him on several issues. There is an easily detectable venom in your posts that turns many of us off, even when you are making a logical argument (which you usually are). Greg Parker- The same can be said for you- you clearly don't like David Lifton and feel comfortable in ridiculing him. Martin Hay- Again, like Lee and Greg, some of your posts strike me as attempts to "bait" Lifton into something, and he predictably usually accepts the bait, and returns the nastiness. What was the point in passing along the observations of someone who works with Weisberg's papers, that amounted to nothing more than malicious gossip? Anyone that knew Weisberg knows how much he bad mouthed all the other critics. His personal observations regarding Lifton or anyone else don't pack much credibility because of this. Joe Backes- Do you read the posts on this forum? What makes you think that it's acceptable to drop the "F" bomb and other words of profanity into your arguments? Is this how you normally discuss things? Injecting your own nasty tone into the discussions at hand have accomplished the almost impossible task of making a bad situation worse. So much more could be said, but I wanted to single out the most egregious offenders and let them know how I view things. I am disappointed at having to keep posting things like this, but most of you simply won't try and reform yourselves. Think of this forum as someone's home- would you act so beligerantly, attacking those you disagree with personally, calling names- if you were their guest? PLEASE start showing everyone respect, even those you strongly oppose on each and every issue. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior from people as educated and well spoken as all of you are. You can all make your arguments more effectively if you stop the name calling, the references to other posters' occupations, lack of qualifications, avator photos, etc. If you want a heavy, hands on moderation team, then you're doing everything you can to get that. I don't think anyone would benefit from that, but you can't expect even the most tolerant team of moderators to continue to ignore what's been going on here. John Simkin provides a place for us all to express ourselves and communicate with others from around the world. If you can't or won't respect what I'm saying, or the moderation team in general, try to recognize that it is John's forum, and conduct yourselves as mature adults who know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now