Phil Shenon's "Castro-did-it" theory - Anesthesia for the Mind

[David Lifton]

What follows is a post that I made yesterday to a private email chain (and in response to Shenon's recent article on POLITICO):

Post to Paul Hoch group – 10/8/15:

This round of posts (concerning Phil Shenon’s recent article in POLITICO [10/6/15]) causes me to recall an encounter I had with Shenon in November 2013 in Toronto, Canada. I had been flown to Toronto, to be on a Canadian Broadcasting Company program. The producer telephoned me at the Intercontinental Hotel to say that Philip Shenon was in town, and wanted to meet me. Time was limited, so I should go down to the lobby. We only had a few minutes.

A few minutes later, Shenon appeared, with the CBC producer (who stepped aside so we could have our privacy). We shook hands. And it was clear we only had a few minutes, so I got right to the point.

“I hope you realize” I said, that the proper interpretation of the events in Mexico City are a function of whether the autopsy on Kennedy’s body is valid; and specifically, on the validity of the medical and ballistic evidence.

“If the autopsy is a fraud, then there’s no valid connection between Oswald’s rifle and the crime; its all manufactured; and everything he is doing in Mexico City is simply role-playing, and he was under the guidance of a handler.”

I may have added (to Shenon) my belief that Oswald’s behavior in Mexico City was no more valid than the statements he made at the time of his October 1959 defection in Moscow; and were in fact an extension of (and elaboration of) the same “legend.”

The defection was phony; and the Mexico City behavior was the same; i.e., just as contrived. Oswald was a counterfeit Marxist. (I made clear that this was my opinion; and would be buttressed in my own book.).

“So you’re saying that the entire thesis of my book is wrong?” he said, somewhat incredulously; and looking right at me.

“Yes,” I replied, looking just as steadily at him: “You’re entire thesis is wrong.”

So: We just looked at each other.

I was dead serious. I believe the time has come to call a spade a spade. Have we really reached the point where someone is a Marxist because he says “I am a Marxist”? Perhaps that’s what they teach at the Jean Davison school of Foreign Affairs, but (unfortunately) we’re living in the world of James Angleton.

So, we just looked at each other, shook hands, and said our goodbyes. Shenon left for his schedule, and I went to the restaurant of the Intercontinental, where I ate a wonderful breakfast at CBC’s expense.

I don’t think much else was said—or needed to be said.

My making these statements was not a substitute for evidence that they were true, but I would really like to understand how its possible for an (ex) New York Times reporter to write a book at which Oswald’s behavior is taken at face value in 2013 (or worse, in 2015); especially in view of the massive amount of evidence that the autopsy in this case is unreliable at least, and a fraud at most. Where bullets fall off stretchers. Where the President’s body--which left Dallas in an expensive viewing casket—arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital six hours later in a body bag, inside a shipping casket. Where (based on documentary evidence) there were three entries of two caskets at Bethesda., which is at the heart of the deception (See Chapter 25 of Best Evidence [1981], which is recycled and amplified in Doug Horne's 5 Volume work, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board [2009]). Where prior versions of autopsy are burned; and in fact where we now know, from the pioneering work of the ARRB that the autopsy is—at best— a third version. Not the original (which was burned); not the second (the original of which went to Robert Kennedy). But the third!

And what about the fact that the coffin offloaded from Air Force One on its arrival at Andrews (at 6 p.m. EST) and placed in the waiting naval ambulance--an event nationally televised--was empty? And that the President's body was delivered to Bethesda--in the body bag--a good 20 minutes prior to the 6:55 p.m. arrival of the naval ambulance at Bethesda?

Does it take an advance degree in logic of math to understand the relationship between the false version of medical facts in this case (i.e., the forensic "story" told by the body of the deceased, in this case, the body of JFK) and the false and contrived behavior of Oswald? That this is a contrived "intersection"?

This is not exactly rocket science.

Those who subscribe to this oversimplified version of history based on the false autopsy (published in the Warren Report) and the contrived behavior of Oswald (his antics in New Orleans, in August of 1963) are promoting myth as history.

12/12/63 - THE FIRST PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE “FINAL” BETHESDA AUTOPSY FINDINGS

The final version of the autopsy was finally sent to the Commission on December 20^th, 1963 [CD 77, or CE 387]; but the original (and authoritative) news leak of the “final version” was provided to Dallas Times-Herald reporter Bill Burrus and published in the Times-Herald on December 12, 1963. Page one. Check it out. That article constituted the first authoritative statement that Kennedy was shot from behind, based on the not-yet-released Bethesda autopsy report. Further, that the wound at the front of the throat was an exit, not an entrance.

In 1978, I hunted down Burrus, and had a multi-hour in-person tape recorded meeting with him in New York City . Burrus revealed for the first time how he got to publish that story, which he falsely datelined “Bethesda, Maryland” in order to protect a source. (See Chapter 7, Best Evidence). Burrus described to me the multiple telephone calls he had with higher authority on the night of December 11 [1963], who first told him how to write his story that a bullet transited—undamaged from the back of Kennedy, entering through a wound “above the shoulder blade” and exiting at the front of JFKs neck, i.e., via the wound described by Dr. Perry (and others) as an entry. Unknown to Burrus, he was writing about the first segment of the Single Bullet Trajectory. But that’s just one aspect of a complex false façade, and a major strategic deception that ultimately led to the Single Bullet Theory, which appeared—full blown—in the Warren Report (Sept 1964).

A post on a discussion group is not the place to elaborate on this thesis, but have we really reached the point where everything is to be taken at face value, and we’re supposed to feel sorry for (WC attorney) David Slawson, who finally, age 83, has decided to state that well yes, there was a conspiracy, but he still thinks that Oswald was a (or “the”) shooter? (Really. . .in 2015? And despite all the evidence of falsification and fraud?).

The false story that Castro was responsible for Kennedy’s assassination does not (merely) originate with some sentences and some paragraphs in a CIA file; it starts with the way events unfolded on November 22, 1963. It starts with the falsification of the Bethesda autopsy to create the appearance that all the shots came from “above and behind” (i.e., from a "sniper's nest" found at the Texas School Book Depository) and that a counterfeit Marxist—who presented himself as pro-Castro and who made phony and provocative statements against Kennedy’s life in Mexico City some eight weeks earlier—was responsible for his assassination.

In writing this post, I am reporting my views, and my experiences, for what they are worth. I’ll have much more to say on all this in Final Charade.

Stay tuned.

DSL

10/11/15 - 4 A.M. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited October 12, 2015 by David Lifton

[Brian Schmidt]

More of the same in an article from Business Insider: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/were-learning-more-cia-cover-155047836.html

From the article:

"The CIA recently told Politico that the agency decided to declassify the report "to highlight misconceptions about the CIA's connection to JFK's assassination," including the infamous "Grassy Knoll" theory that asserts the CIA was behind the assassination."

LOL, what does that even mean?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Good for you, David.