Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bethesda autopsy witness Richard Lipsey


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"under Military Orders" ...

while i agree with most everything you said, in all sincerity, what could that possibly mean to someone who is no longer in the military? except in intelligence matters, i would presume - the military has no further jurisdiction over any veteran who has resigned or retired, i'm fairly sure.

just wonderin'... (bein' a veteran and all...)

It's an interesting question, Glenn. You're a veteran, so you would know the level of jurisdiction beyond resignation and retirement; yet did you also have a special security clearance? A high one? Do people with high security clearances ever age beyond military jurisdiction?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HSCA deposition material is very interesting, Vince.

However, I think Lipsey is holding back here and there.

He begins by saying "he never left the body" -- from the time it arrived at Andrews AFB thru the time they loaded it in the back of Bethesda Hospital, there at the morgue loading dock.

But by that, he means "the casket." Sometimes he says "casket" and sometimes he says "body" but he means the same thing -- he strongly believes the body was inside the casket.

He was TOLD it was inside the casket, by men who were very intelligent and powerful. He had no reason to doubt them.

His orders were to stand by the body -- that is, the casket. That is exactly what he did. "Until," he said, "General Wehle came back."

So, I don't find any solid contradiction of David Lifton's claims -- or the claims of Dennis Duane David, who says that the Navy hearse didn't truly have JFK inside it, as Lipsey believed.

Aside from that -- I didn't believe Lipsey's story about eating hamburgers right there in the autopsy room, with the smell of formaldehyde everywhere. I think he was kidding us with that.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"under Military Orders" ...

while i agree with most everything you said, in all sincerity, what could that possibly mean to someone who is no longer in the military? except in intelligence matters, i would presume - the military has no further jurisdiction over any veteran who has resigned or retired, i'm fairly sure.

just wonderin'... (bein' a veteran and all...)

Also being a vet, don't the powers that be control his pension and other benefits?

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"under Military Orders" ...

while i agree with most everything you said, in all sincerity, what could that possibly mean to someone who is no longer in the military? except in intelligence matters, i would presume - the military has no further jurisdiction over any veteran who has resigned or retired, i'm fairly sure.

just wonderin'... (bein' a veteran and all...)

Also being a vet, don't the powers that be control his pension and other benefits?

Well, that's right Ray. Yet even more pressing, people with high security clearances are never really free from them, IMHO, no matter how old they get. Military secrets are forever -- until formally released in writing.

Notice the first question that Lipsey asked his HSCA interviewer -- 'Am I free from that contract I signed back then?'

The HSCA interviewer had no clear answer to that question; he only replied, 'Consult your own attorney.'

If that was the response to me, I would quickly conclude, "Nope, I guess I'm not free from it." At that point, if it were me, I'd start at the beginning with the Pre-Fab story we worked out as a team.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"under Military Orders" ...

while i agree with most everything you said, in all sincerity, what could that possibly mean to someone who is no longer in the military? except in intelligence matters, i would presume - the military has no further jurisdiction over any veteran who has resigned or retired, i'm fairly sure.

just wonderin'... (bein' a veteran and all...)

Also being a vet, don't the powers that be control his pension and other benefits?

Well, that's right Ray. Yet even more pressing, people with high security clearances are never really free from them, IMHO, no matter how old they get. Military secrets are forever -- until formally released in writing.

Notice the first question that Lipsey asked his HSCA interviewer -- 'Am I free from that contract I signed back then?'

The HSCA interviewer had no clear answer to that question; he only replied, 'Consult your own attorney.'

If that was the response to me, I would quickly conclude, "Nope, I guess I'm not free from it." At that point, if it were me, I'd start at the beginning with the Pre-Fab story we worked out as a team.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I was Naval Aviation and had a Secret clearance - but that's not nearly as special as some may presume. many had a Secret clearance.

when I said "except in intelligence matters" that's kinda what i meant, that obviously there are some resigned, retired Intel types who are "never really resigned" -

but i have to disagree with a few of those points. one, the powers that control our pensions are not of a particular branch of the military, i'm pretty sure. so for the Army to issue 'military orders' in my opinion is far removed from those who could cause pension and benefit problems - AND, if those people were so inclined, it's not as easy as it might sound to "eff" with a man's pension.

i can think of several old veterans in VA hospitals getting their benefits messed up and the news channels being all over it. xxxx like that gets attention.

if it were the case that talking too much would likely get some people dead even today, i'd have to say that there are several ex-CIA types (and others) who could be considered very curiously still alive, in light of things they've said (i'm thinking of the pilot who used to frequent this forum and the things he's publicized regarding his old flying habits).

In MY honest opinion, retribution isn't as easy as it used to be.

I agree, 'Consult your own attorney' sounds pretty fishy, and I'd have thought the same thing if it were me he was saying it to. But in all fairness, he could have just been giving the pro forma response to such a question. I'm not sure why the HSCA would even know if Lipsey was released from a Military order.

I think Prouty and people like him were obviously still under a military thumb. but not so many people as to get as low as Lipsey.

The destruction of our US Constitution is mostly limited to the US Supreme court and their gavels - they get jealous and ornery if the lowly Army Generals try their hand at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I think Prouty and people like him were obviously still under a military thumb. but not so many people as to get as low as Lipsey...

Yet even at such a low level as Lipsey, Glenn, everything comes down to personal decision.

Some people might say, "Great, I get to tell everything I know about X, once I leave the US Military."

Other people might say, "I will always give the US Military the benefit of the doubt, even though I'm free to speak out. Also, new reporters and lawyers give me the creeps, so if push comes to shove, I will always side with the US Military and leave it at that."

Not necessarily a Company Man, just an ordinary guy who continued to favor the US Military even after he left; and who distrusted Congressional Committees. That's how Lipsey could be read.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's all well and good - i can't speak for how he thinks or even sounds, as i have read very little of his testimony - it does seem to me that the gravity of this particular situation - a cover up of some kind of the death of the POTUS - if he were to have witnessed something 'questionable', would override any loyalties to any agency.

I was speaking strictly to the phrase, idea of "Military orders" and how wide a circle that might cast.

i don't think anybody of any substance relishes the idea of contradicting the federal government even if it's to expose a corruption at that level. i don't think there's any "great, i get to" tell the government that i know the army is lying about the autopsy. I'd think of it more as a duty to the philosophy of truth and honor, and patriotism. quite uncomfortable, but necessary - which would be felt by both the loyal and the not-so-loyal. i can see how he can feel a distrust for Congressional Committees -

but my concern is simply the idea of whatever "Military orders" might mean. there's a tendency among some of us to over dramatize things, to cloak-and-dagger things that just don't wear it well. I'm not at all saying that that's what I think you've done. just saying i've never heard the term in any official capacity, (or unofficial, really), and don't think that there is such a thing outside of the 'inner-sanctum'.

no offense. just my little ol' thoughts.

at least you reply to my replies. and questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's all well and good - i can't speak for how he thinks or even sounds, as i have read very little of his testimony - it does seem to me that the gravity of this particular situation - a cover up of some kind of the death of the POTUS - if he were to have witnessed something 'questionable', would override any loyalties to any agency.

i don't think anybody of any substance relishes the idea of contradicting the federal government even if it's to expose a corruption at that level. i don't think there's any "great, i get to" tell the government that i know the army is lying about the autopsy. I'd think of it more as a duty to the philosophy of truth and honor, and patriotism. quite uncomfortable, but necessary - which would be felt by both the loyal and the not-so-loyal. i can see how he can feel a distrust for Congressional Committees -

but my concern is simply the idea of whatever "Military orders" might mean. there's a tendency among some of us to over dramatize things, to cloak-and-dagger things that just don't wear it well. I'm not at all saying that that's what I think you've done. just saying i've never heard the term in any official capacity, (or unofficial, really), and don't think that there is such a thing outside of the 'inner-sanctum'...

Well, Glenn, I remember the testimony of various Doctors at Bethesda, and they all said they received strict orders not to talk about what happened there -- to anyone -- ever.

How far that extends into post-Military life, I don't know -- yet Dr. Humes never changed his story his whole life long, despite the fact that David Lifton punched multiple holes in Humes' autopsy report.

Once a person takes a position -- especially if politics are involved -- they will rarely change that, IMHO.

The trouble with the JFK controversy is that loyalty to the "Lone Shooter" theory of J. Edgar Hoover was considered a litmus test of patriotism throughout the 1960's.

For men who were already middle-aged in the 1960's, the chance of them changing sides later in life was not high.

Jim Garrison was tremendously courageous to tackle the whole US Government in 1968 -- and he lost badly.

Not too many people are keen to suffer what Jim Garrison suffered, even if they know something.

There are exceptions, of course. Yet other people who came out with their bit of the Truth of the JFK murder have regularly been treated badly by the Media.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How far that extends into post-Military life, I don't know

that's pretty much what i'm saying. the irony is, by them saying that they're under strict orders to say nothing of the events fairly well implies sneakiness, cover-up when that's what was being asked about. so they were spared from sharing the details, but by pleading secrecy they admitted something.

i agree with what you've said here, mostly. my original question was simply of the validity of the phrase "Military orders," and in reality how far that extends and not all the extraneous stuff. i think being afraid to talk for fear of repercussion or being loath to talk in the interest of letting sleeping dogs lie, or whatever their reasoning, is a LOT different than what a phrase like "military orders" implies.

and by wearing out this little subtopic i now sound like i'm splitting hairs. never mind.

it was just my little ol' useless input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little background, fellas. The hospital's staff was sworn to a military order of silence in the days after the shooting. They were given a form stating as much. When the Warren Report was published, they were then re-contacted and told not to comment on the report, or speak to the press about what they'd witnessed. Most of these men left the military shortly after. When contacted by the HSCA's investigators 14 years later, however, most of these men still refused to talk, under the belief they were still sworn to silence, The HSCA then arranged for the military to rescind these orders.

In some respects, this order of silence backfired. In 1966, Dr. Boswell spoke to the press to tell them the back wound was really on the neck, a la the drawings created for the Warren Commission, and not on the back, as shown on the face sheet. After being given a page of "talking points" prepared by the US Information Agency, Dr. Humes followed suit the next year, and told the same lie to Dan Rather. Neither man spoke again to the press prior to the rescinding of the orders of silence placed upon them. Well, the fact these men were sworn to silence at the time they were telling lies to the media speaks volumes, IMO. It suggests they'd been ordered to lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How far that extends into post-Military life, I don't know

that's pretty much what i'm saying. the irony is, by them saying that they're under strict orders to say nothing of the events fairly well implies sneakiness, cover-up when that's what was being asked about. so they were spared from sharing the details, but by pleading secrecy they admitted something.

i agree with what you've said here, mostly. my original question was simply of the validity of the phrase "Military orders," and in reality how far that extends and not all the extraneous stuff.

i think being afraid to talk for fear of repercussion or being loath to talk in the interest of letting sleeping dogs lie, or whatever their reasoning, is a LOT different than what a phrase like "military orders" implies....

Well, Glenn, Pat Speers suggests that the medical-military men at Bethesda were ordered to lie. So it's complicated.

I see your point, though; Military Orders may not be enough to explain post-Military behavior. I accept that point.

Even if Pat Speers is right, and they were ordered to lie -- what about those who left the Military? Do their orders still hold? Even after the HSCA had all such orders rescinded? Probably not in most cases.

So, it seems to me that these doctors who testified for the HSCA had a choice -- they could tell the Truth about the JFK murder, or they could continue the "Lone Shooter" lie.

As Pat Speers noted, most chose to continue the "Lone Shooter" lie -- and IMHO this was a free choice. Therefore I conclude that politics played a role in their decision.

When we regard this from the viewpoint of the "Lone Nutters," we must remember that they not only have the Establishment on their side, but they also have the circumstantial evidence:

1. Bullets from Oswald's (Hidell's) rifle matched bullets recovered from the JFK limo and from Parkland Hospital

2. The bullets matched Oswald's (Hidell's) rifle "to the exclusion of all other weapons".

3. Oswald was working in the TSBD at the time

4. Oswald fled the scene of the crime within minutes

Given only this circumstantial evidence, the case was "open and shut" from the start. Dallas DA Henry Wade said, "I've sent men to the gas chamber on less evidence than this."

Ordinary common sense says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Lone Shooter." We then add this fact to the plea from J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ for silence in the JFK murder for reasons of "National Security".

For some people -- and perhaps for most people who served in the US Military -- Hoover and LBJ are high authority. They would probably know things that most citizens don't know. If these high authorities called for "National Security," then Veterans would most likely give them the benefit of the doubt.

Thus, it would *appear* like they were "ordered to lie" in favor of the "Lone Shooter" theory, but there is also a good chance that they "lied freely" because of their patriotism.

IMHO, both Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi wrote their famous defenses of the "Lone Shooter" theory (even after the HSCA conclusion) out of an irresistible urge to show off their patriotism.

That's what the "Lone Shooter" doctrine means to me today -- old-fashioned (misplaced) patriotism. Nothing more. Yet 35 years ago, IMHO, these post-Miitary medical men thought it was patriotic.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what the "Lone Shooter" doctrine means to me today -- old-fashioned (misplaced) patriotism. Nothing more. Yet 35 years ago, IMHO, these post-Miitary medical men thought it was patriotic.

Reminds me of that great patriot George Will calling Oliver Stone's "JFK" an act of "contemptible citizenship." I've avoided reading anything by George Will ever since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what the "Lone Shooter" doctrine means to me today -- old-fashioned (misplaced) patriotism. Nothing more. Yet 35 years ago, IMHO, these post-Miitary medical men thought it was patriotic.

Reminds me of that great patriot George Will calling Oliver Stone's "JFK" an act of "contemptible citizenship." I've avoided reading anything by George Will ever since.

Yes, Ron, it's a political theme. George Will was calling Oliver Stone unpatriotic.

It's still a theme -- why don't we just admit that Hoover, Warren, LBJ and Dulles meant well (National Security) when they lied to us about Lee Harvey Oswald?

Then all our problems could be solved as we wait patiently for 26 October 2017.

But I can't wait patiently -- and I think that Oliver Stone (like Jim Garrison) was a great patriot in 1991.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
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...