Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton and Morningstar, nice but no cigar.


Recommended Posts

On 8/10/2012 at 12:10 AM, David Lifton said:

 

You interviewed McClelland on camera in 1989? Any others? Were these ever released to the public?

 

Also, any update on your alleged 1969 McClelland source where he suggests there was no trach incision?

(Comment 370888; comment 370979; comment 370991; comment 371024)

 

[...comment 370888]

 

11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound).

 

11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!).

 

[…comment 370979]

 

My answer: My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision. He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade). And then the following events occurred:

 

[…comment 370991]

 

[…] Furthermore, and as will be shown when I publish Final Charade, Dr. McClelland supported that account. He, too, said no incision was necessary: the tracheotomy tube was simply "pushed through" the pre-existing bullet hole.

 

[...comment 371024]

 

As to what Perry actually did (as distinguished from "what he said he did" [my quotes]: in Final Charade, I will be publishing an account from Dr. McClelland in which he (McClellan) states that Perry did not have to make an incision, and, by way of explanation, Mcclelland stated the following: that as Perry withdrew the endotracheal tube originally inserted by Dr. Carrico, Perry was then able to enter the trachea by inserting the tracheotomy tube through the pre-existing bullet wound, as soon as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn, and was at a location above that bullet wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 187
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

50 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

As to what Perry actually did (as distinguished from "what he said he did" [my quotes]: in Final Charade, I will be publishing an account from Dr. McClelland in which he (McClellan) states that Perry did not have to make an incision, and, by way of explanation, Mcclelland stated the following: that as Perry withdrew the endotracheal tube originally inserted by Dr. Carrico, Perry was then able to enter the trachea by inserting the tracheotomy tube through the pre-existing bullet wound, as soon as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn, and was at a location above that bullet wound.

Just to be sure (my English....) : het put it through the pre-existing bullet wound, but what was "above that bullet wound" ? Was the tube going upwards ?  I'm a little confused here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Just to be sure (my English....) : het put it through the pre-existing bullet wound, but what was "above that bullet wound" ? Was the tube going upwards ?  I'm a little confused here.

Kennedy was initially given an endotracheal tube through the MOUTH, and such a tube is supposed to go all the way down the trachea, but the doctor noticed that the throat wound interfered with his ability to push the tube all the way down and get a tight airflow, so the endotracheal tube was taken out of the mouth and a tracheostomy tube was instead used directly in the trachea.

 

That's the official story - - unless somebody wanted to suggest that the doctors tried using the same endotracheal tube from the mouth to also be inserted into the throat wound. A modern endotracheal tube is around 10-11 mm in diameter, while a tracheostomy tube is around 13-15 mm - - but that would probably involve the witnesses lying about using a tracheostomy tube to replace the endotracheal tube.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Kennedy was initially given an endotracheal tube through the MOUTH, and such a tube is supposed to go all the way down the trachea, but the doctor noticed that the throat wound interfered with his ability to push the tube all the way down and get a tight airflow, so the endotracheal tube was taken out of the mouth and a tracheostomy tube was instead used directly in the trachea.

 

That's the official story - - unless somebody wanted to suggest that the doctors tried using the same endotracheal tube from the mouth to also be inserted into the throat wound. A modern endotracheal tube is around 10-11 mm in diameter, while a tracheostomy tube is around 13-15 mm - - but that would probably involve the witnesses lying about using a tracheostomy tube to replace the endotracheal tube.

Thank you for the explanation.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2012 at 10:42 PM, Steven Skeen said:

By concensus, and I will quote sources if pressed, a team of leading plastic surgeons at the time could not have altered Kennedy's head in the way Lifton claims in the time period given. Morningstar's theory of Tippet being postop Kennedy is impossible. The hairlines are all wrong and couldn't be imitated today much less in 1963...absurd ideas that far too prominent theorists hang their hats on. The pictures of badgeman are absurd. The foreground objects are way out of perspective compared to more distant objects. Were all shots from the snipers nest obviously not the only ones, surely evidence proves it, the muddy water doesn't help at all!

You write as if I argued (in my book Best Evidence [1981, 1982, 1988, 1993]) that JFK's head --and its wounds, as observed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital autopsy -- had somehow been "sculpted" (in some sophisticated fashion) to tell a false story of the shooting. Not true, at all. At autopsy, JFK's head exhibited evidence of grotesque "smashing and bashing" (my words), which was confusing, at best, to the Naval pathologists assigned to perform an autopsy. (See Chapters 7 thru 9 of B. E.; also see Ch 18.)

 As the Bethesda autopsy surgeon (Navy Cdr. Humes) exclaimed to me in 1966 (when I first spoke with him, and confronted him with these medico-legal facts), "I'd like to know by whom it was done!  And when! And where!" (approx, fr memory; See B.E., Chs. 7-9  for exact quotes).  The two FBI agents in attendance at Bethesda, Agents Sibert and O'Neill, made careful notes of what the naval pathologists said as they conducted their examination; and they wrote that, based on the anatomical damage that they witnessed (and by what was said by the naval pathologists as they performed their examination), it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  Of course, there had been no such "surgery of the head area" in Dallas, and Commander Humes (at Bethesda) did not perform any such (post-mortem) medical procedure at Bethesda. But the President's head was (IMHO) such a mess, that that was their initial impression; and that's what they said at the time.

"plastic surgery"?

Steven Skeen's introduction of the term "plastic surgery" has nothing to do with the medico-legal realities of November 22, 1963, nor with anything I wrote in B.E.  What it does reveal is that (apparently) Skeen does not understand the basic facts laid out in Best Evidence; and how, viewed objectively, they add up to one undeniable conclusion: that, sometime during the 5-6 hour period between Dallas and Bethesda, JFK's wounds were altered.  IOW: Skeen has jumped into deep waters he apparently  barely understands, and has unnecessarily confused an already complex situation by introducing the term "plastic surgeons," which has everything to do with his misunderstanding,  but nothing to do with the data carefully presented in my book.

My advice is twofold: (a) he should reread --carefully reread -- Chapter 18 of B.E.; (b) he should view the 35 minute video documentary (available on the Internet) which I made in 1981 (and used on my 1981 book tour, and then again in 1988 and 1993), titled "Best Evidence: The Research Video"  (DSL, 10/29/22 -9:20 AM PDT).   Nobody that I know has ever argued for the existence of "plastic surgery" on 11/22/63. What is plainly evident --plain as day --is that JFK's wounds were crudely altered sometime during the six- hour period between the time the body was observed by the Dallas medical staff (at Parkland Hospital) -where JFK was pronounced dead at 1 PM PST -- and 8 PM EST, the time of the start of the official autopsy, at Bethesda Naval Hospital; where it was reported -- by the two attending FBI agents-- that there had been (as in "already had been") "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  (10/29/22 -9:40 AM PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
clarification (more).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • David Butler changed the title to Lifton and Morningstar, nice but no cigar.
On 7/28/2012 at 8:44 AM, James R Gordon said:

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

My comments:

The Sibert and O’Neill FBI report (“S&O report”) —written by the two FBI agents present at the autopsy — was based on what the two FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy heard  (and saw) as they witnessed the autopsy proceeding; and made detailed notes on what they heard (or were told, or personally observed).

Why do I say that?  Because --in Nov. 1966, a few days after the third anniversary of the assassination -- Director Hoover issued a clarifying statement:

Around November 26th 1966, and in response to reporters and citizens inquiries, (then) FBI Director Hoover issued a detailed statement — published in the Washington Star (and then the NY Times) — that spelled out just what was the basis for  statements in the S&O FBI report.  Hoover’s statement — prepared by the Washington Field Office of the FBI —received considerable media attention.

Hoover’s statement said:  “FBI statements record the oral statements made at the time of autopsy; the Bethesda autopsy recorded the actual conclusions of the autopsy.” (approx, from memory).

This distinction —between what was said at the time of autopsy (i.e., actual words spoken), and the final conclusions of the autopsy report (dated 11/24/63, two days later) —is crucial.  

 Basically, Director Hoover was saying: “We don’t know the full story, but here’s what we do know as of this date”; and he then focused on (and made an important distinction between)  “words spoken” at the time of autopsy (what he properly called an “oral utterance”) and the “final conclusions” of the autopsy (dated 11/24/63). In other words, Hoover was focusing on the distinction between what his agents heard at the time of the autopsy they attended, and the conclusions of the autopsy, as stated in the Naval autopsy report dated two days later (on 11/24/63).

This distinction —and its implications —bears directly on the question of “What Director Hoover knew, and when he knew it”; and is discussed in detail in Chapter 12 of Best Evidence (titled, “An Oral Utterance”). (DSL 10/29/22_ 12:30 PM PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2012 at 8:44 AM, James R Gordon said:

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

According to a statement issued by FBI Director Hoover about 11/26/66 (and published in the NY Times at the time), the statements in the FBI report about the Bethesda autopsy (i.e., in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report) were made by the autopsy doctors at the time of the Bethesda autopsy. (10/29/22 - 1 PM PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
Adding to clarity. Further data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2012 at 7:35 PM, Daniel Gallup said:

Perhaps I should have put quotes around the word "jogging" when I described Toni Foster, the "running woman." Then you would have seen more clearly I was not attempting to describe the speed at which she was moving. Then you conclude that I pick and choose what I want to about the Z-film. Let me be very clear about something, Mike. Since the limo stop has been excised, and the ejecta from the back of the head excised, and whatever else may have happened during the limo stop, I do not appeal to the Z-film for any information about how the shooting occurred, unless it is corrobrated by eye-witness testimony, and hopefully multiply corroborating eye-witness testimony. But since the central part of the film has been edited, I find it best not to appeal to the film at all, but rather to Clint Hill's description of the wound as he climbed aboard("I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing..."), Jackie's description of what she saw ("from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back youi could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.") and the Parkland doctors and nurses observations, all of which form a consistent picture. So no, I do not pick and choose with the Z-film. That piece of fraud is too dirty to lay a foundation for any decisive knowledge of the shooting.

Who "busted" the limo-stop "myth," Mike, and how did they do it? I'd be interested in your take on this.

Re the car-stop:  The limo came to a brief halt - it stopped completely --and then sped off.  How do I know this? Because I interviewed the Newmans, in person,  back in 1971 (or 1972).  Some years later, I raised the money to do filmed interviews, and returned to Dallas, and went over this same subject, now with a fully professional 16mm film crew.  (As I recall, the cost for each such filmed interview-- travel expenses, and all -- was between $3K and $5k).  The Newmans said the car stopped; more important, Mary Moorman --in her FBI interview of 11/24/63, published in the WC's 26 volumes --said the car stopped. If memory serves, Vince Palamara did significant research in this area, compilimg a comprehensive list of witnesses who said the car stopped.   Depending on how one defines "car stop", the number of "car-stop witnesses" ranges between 16 (at least) to nearly 60. 

I first discovered the "car-stop witnesses" some decades ago, when the late Pat Lambert and I embarked on a project to review all the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and tabulate their recollections by category.  Pat and I had at least a dozen categories (focusing, for example, on how many shots were heard, from where, etc.)  It was during this joint research effort that I had the sudden realization that one witness after another mentioned the "car-stop," almost in passing.  Pursuing this insight, It was at this time that I discovered --right there on page one (of Chapter one) in Sylvia Meagher's book, Accessories After the Fact (1967) -- that one witness after another mentioned the car stop (!).  Prior to my insight, no one gave it any particular emphasis, but I sure did.  I immediately realized that if the car stopped --however momentarily --then the Zapruder film (which showed no stop whatsoever_ must have been falsified   But (I asked myself). . .how was that possible?  How could a motion picture film be falsified?  (At that time, I knew little about film alteration).

Some Notes Re my Own Path of Discovery

Fortunately, I was living in West L.A., UCLA was just minutes away, and I immediately went to the UCLA film library at the Melnitz Film School (again, these details are from memory).  Within 30 minutes, I was looking at bound volumes of a professional journal, the American Cinematographer, devoted to editing and optical printing. (Name may be slightly incorrect.)  That's when I learned all about "optical printers"  --the basic tool for "special effects" photography --and that's when I went into full immersion mode as to how these machines work. 

CBS Producer Robert Richter loaned me a rather special item --his own personal 35 mm copy of the Zapruder film. (Another person who provided important assistance was producer Haskell Wexler). 

Subsequently, I raised about $10,000 (from, among several others, Mary Ferrell, and my own family) to rent time (using that 35 mm Z film) on an Oxberry Optical Printer so as to really have some first hand experience on the subject. (Interested readers should Google "optical printer").

Skipping many details and applying the lessons I learned to Dealey Plaza and the JFK assassination, certain insights became rather obvious (at least to me): one was that you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president, unless you also planned in advance to alter the medical evidence (i.e., the body) --via wound alteration and bullet removal -- so as to fabricate a false story about how the President had died.  Another insight: you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president (and control all civilian films) unless you arranged in advance to confiscate the key films, and be prepared to do some serious editing (again, using an optical printer).  On this point, see the essay  that I wrote years ago (on this subject) called "Pig on a Leash."

Bottom line: murdering JFK and preparing to fabricate a false story about his death could not be done without controlling at least two important pieces of evidence:  (a) his body; and (b) all bystander films.  Had I not majored in Engineering Physics at Cornell (and then later, more of the same at UCLA), I would not have had the "intellectual tools" to properly analyze (and address) this situation. (Yes, a smart "english major" might be able to "figure it out" but it took the 5 years of applied math, at Cornell, to really have the mathematical tools to understand and properly analyze the situation).

My Experiences with John Tunheim

There is much more to the story.  But one incident --and my recollection of it --stands out.  I had some detailed interaction with Judge Tunheim (of the ARRB).  After reading some written analyses that I had sent to him, he completely grasped what had (possibly) been done to the Zapruder film, and the problem(s) that presented to any future investigation.  At one of the ARRB hearings (which was nationally televised), Tunheim began his own brief remarks by publicly thanking me --on national TV  (!) --for my contribution with their work. I was in my apartment, attending to my own housekeeping chores and with the TV on, watching the nationally televised hearings; and was flabbergasted when I heard Judge Tunheim mention my name, and compliment me in that fashion.

** ** ** ** **

Its amazing to me that, all these years laters, there is still any serious dispute as to whether the JFK limo stopped --ever so briefly-- during the shooting, or the full implications of that fact; i.e., the implication of that fact on another key issue: the authenticity of the Zapruder film; which is-- after all -- the "time-clock" of the JFK assassination.  (DSL, 10/29/22, 3:20 PM PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
Adding to clarity. Further data.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2012 at 8:44 AM, James R Gordon said:

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

Changing the subject slightly:

Re: 

Daniel,

"Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was."

My answer (DSL answer): When I first interviewed Nurse Audrey Bell -- on camera - in 1971 (approx.)  We went over this point --repeatedly-- because I was fully cognizant of its importance.

Edited by David Lifton
Clarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Changing the subject slightly:

Re: 

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

My answer (DSL answer): When I first interviewed Nurse Bell -- on camera - in 1971 (approx.)  We went over this --repeatedly-- because I was fully cognizant of its importance.

... to add on the source of Audrey Bell's statements on the location of the head wound, here is an excerpt from Dr Aguilar's chapter from "Murder in Dealey Plaza" book edited by J. Fetzer (2000):

"The Globe immediately refuted that speculation, reporting. "But others, like (Dr. Richard Dulaney) and (neurosergeon Dr. Robert) Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, therefore exposing the head wound". Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn't see JFK's head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry. "Where was the wound?", Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound". During sworn interviews with the ARRB in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported , "(anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.) Jenkins said, "Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you'd better step up here and look at his brain." And so at that point  I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President's head...". The ARRB's Gunn inteviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, M.D. on March 21, 1997. reporting, "He (Grossman) and Kemp Clark (Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland) (sic) together lifted President Kennedy's head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President's head." (page 193).

Quoted from Aguilar, G, The converging medical case for conspiracy, In: Murder in Dealey Plaza, J. Fetzer (ed.), Chicago Press, 2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Bottom line: murdering JFK and preparing to fabricate a false story about his death could not be done without controlling at least two important pieces of evidence:  (a) his body; and (b) all bystander films.

Many speculate that the murder of JFK was supposed to implicate the Cuban government in the triangulated fire with a few participants and that it was after-the-fact that the conspiritors changed the plan to then implicate a lone wolf.

If the original plan was to implicate the Cuban government, then controlling the body and all bystander films would not have been necessary.

So, I'm going to guess that those things were not planned in advance and were done in great haste after-the-fact.

What are your thoughts on that DL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

So, I'm going to guess that those things were not planned in advance and were done in great haste after-the-fact.

I definitely do not have the expertise that many on the forum possess, especially DSL, but I think the plot was like an onion and like most all CIA operations.  It was compartmentalized.  The actual planners knew exactly what result they wanted (JFK dead).  In order to carry that plan out however, they motivated individuals and groups by means of the old carrot on a stick.  To them, it did not matter what particular groups or individuals thought they were doing or why, only that they carried out their parts.  By doing this, it makes the overall operation much more secure and one layer of players doesn't even know the real reason for some of the actions they are/have taken.  It also makes it almost impossible to comprehend the entirety and tie things together.  It also leads to many dead ends if trying to piece it all together with one cohesive track.  Consider it this way:  Each layer was being manipulated by another and only those at the source really had to know the full plan.  This would explain the many so called errors/clean up operations which seem at odds with each other.  Each layer of the group, had their own motivations/sources/methods which were being covered up, but for different reasons which often did not match up with the overall plan.  The few at the top of the plan would have only to drop a few breadcrumbs to steer investigators where they wanted them, or at least away from the true direction to the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

David has suggested that altering medical evidence and the Z film was planned in advance.  If the assassination was to look like the Cubans did it, there would have been no need to do the alterations, and so not planned in advance.  The fact that these alterations were done, makes me think that the alterations weren't planned in advance and were hastily done.

I'm just wondering what David thinks about that idea.

15 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Skipping many details and applying the lessons I learned to Dealey Plaza and the JFK assassination, certain insights became rather obvious (at least to me): one was that you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president, unless you also planned in advance to alter the medical evidence (i.e., the body) --via wound alteration and bullet removal -- so as to fabricate a false story about how the President had died.  Another insight: you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president (and control all civilian films) unless you arranged in advance to confiscate the key films, and be prepared to do some serious editing (again, using an optical printer). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, I too want to hear David's thoughts on this.  I may be wrong, but I think I am agreeing with David.  I now think the Zapruder film was part of the plan (known by only those at the topmost level).  I think the reason the things looked hastily done, even haphazard, is that the planners at the top level(s) knew the desired result but sent orders down the chain as reaction to the events as they were occurring.  These planners knew the whole scope of operations in play and had control of enough levers to make things go in the direction they needed by simply inserting puzzle pieces as needed and leaving out those not needed.  This allowed for a messy (but controlled) scenario with people at various levels within the plot tripping over the unused puzzle pieces and failing to find the inter-connections.  The pieces were there to work within many puzzles, but only those needed for the "true" picture as laid out by the top echelon were allowed to be developed.  Since no plan goes exactly as plotted, the people at the top had already reckoned for "on the fly" corrections, which I think goes all the down to the survival of Oswald and his killing by Jack Ruby.  Since only these few people knew all the interconnections, they knew where to direct the various orders to the correct people/groups without a straight line connection up the chain.  Some of the anomalies came into play because of people involved (and even some not involved) made decisions within their scope of authority on their own or under direction from their chain of command which was not part of the top level planning, but WAS controllable nevertheless.  The true planning was like the drawing of interconnected circles (Venn Diagram).  The center connects to all circles individually, but some of the circles can be connected to others without necessarily having intervention from the center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Price said:

Paul, I too want to hear David's thoughts on this.  I may be wrong, but I think I am agreeing with David.  I now think the Zapruder film was part of the plan (known by only those at the topmost level).  I think the reason the things looked hastily done, even haphazard, is that the planners at the top level(s) knew the desired result but sent orders down the chain as reaction to the events as they were occurring.  These planners knew the whole scope of operations in play and had control of enough levers to make things go in the direction they needed by simply inserting puzzle pieces as needed and leaving out those not needed.  This allowed for a messy (but controlled) scenario with people at various levels within the plot tripping over the unused puzzle pieces and failing to find the inter-connections.  The pieces were there to work within many puzzles, but only those needed for the "true" picture as laid out by the top echelon were allowed to be developed.  Since no plan goes exactly as plotted, the people at the top had already reckoned for "on the fly" corrections, which I think goes all the down to the survival of Oswald and his killing by Jack Ruby.  Since only these few people knew all the interconnections, they knew where to direct the various orders to the correct people/groups without a straight line connection up the chain.  Some of the anomalies came into play because of people involved (and even some not involved) made decisions within their scope of authority on their own or under direction from their chain of command which was not part of the top level planning, but WAS controllable nevertheless.  The true planning was like the drawing of interconnected circles (Venn Diagram).  The center connects to all circles individually, but some of the circles can be connected to others without necessarily having intervention from the center.

Let's be clear. In saying you think the Z-film was part of the plan, are you proposing that Zapruder was somehow "in on it"?

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...