Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Brad Milch said:

@David Von Pein & Paul:

In several debates (and in his massive book), Vincent Bugliosi emphasizes that JFK researchers, enthusiasts, historians, students, hobbyists & journalists that separate the evidence all make the same mistake. The segments are only a portion of the whole picture. All the evidence against LHO, when viewed as a whole, paints a picture of his guilt (according to Mr. Bugliosi). That is, if one finds the evidence credible.

I'm obviously as guilty of not looking at the whole evidence in the case against LHO as the next person that does the same.

Vince was a brilliant reasoner. I wonder if he's convinced the Creator that he doesn't exist or if Vince was right all along that we're all alone on this crowded rock...(if Vince is correct on THAT divinity issue, it means he doesn't have anyone to debate the issue (wherever Vince is).

(lol)

 

Respectfully & sincerely,

Brad Milch

I watched the entire David Lifton "Night Fright" episode on YouTube a while back.  I was at least expecting a coherent, intelligent discussion.  I was simply agog.  Is there not a point at which even those who are most favorably disposed toward an elaborate conspiracy have to say, "This has gone too far down the rabbit hole.  This is making us all look like complete fools.  This guy is just desperate to either (1) sell books, or (2) remain relevant."  (The host, I must admit, was priceless, well worth the price of admission as he gasped and popped his eyes at Lifton's revelations.)

What I do see is what you are suggesting about Bugliosi.  When one reads the Lone Nut literature, everything flows, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual evidence; the overall picture is entirely believable.  Some of it can seem implausible, but in the way events in the real world are implausible.  Did anyone follow the completely weird deaths of the healthy, happy, well-to-do Korkki sisters in the Seychelles a few months ago?  Or the well-to-do grandmother in a Hummer who, this week, was trying to steal stuff out of a charity donation box at 2:30 a.m., had the lid slam shut on her arms, and was found hanging and dead the next morning with her Hummer still running?  How much fun could a conspiracy theorist have with those events?  A substantial percentage of crimes have strange, almost inexplicable elements, but it doesn't mean the CIA or FBI was behind them.

The elaborate conspiracy theories, on the other hand, seem to be largely based on people (almost EVERYONE) not being who they seemed to be, on evidence (almost ALL OF IT) not being what it seems to be, on motives not being what they seem to have been, and on ALL of the gaps being filled and all of the dots being connected with conspiracy-oriented speculation.  This is why 15 or more different conspiracy theories seem or have seemed at various times to be plausible, because they rely so heavily on rank speculation.  It increasingly seems to me that the real explanation for the popularity of conspiracy theories is to be found in the psychology of the believers.  I would challenge some of the true believers to take a break and read something like Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America, https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Conspiracy-Culture-Paranoia-Postwar/dp/0801486068.  You might find more answers there than in Lifton's latest book.  As one who has been heavily involved in Weirdness himself, I think you have to make a genuine effort not to become a one-dimensional zealot, to step back and take a hard look at wild claims, and to force yourself to confront with an open mind the literature of those who oppose the wild claims; this is easy to say, but very difficult to do.

Just as FWIW addendum, here is how I currently view the assassination in descending order of likelihood:

The Assassination

1.  LHO acted alone, for motives unique to LHO.  (HIGHLY LIKELY)

2.  The above, but LHO made assassination-related statements during his trip to Mexico City and was "encouraged" by Cuban contacts there ("You'll be a hero to Fidel, and to true Marxists everywhere if you pull it off").  (FAIRLY LIKELY, BUT PURE SPECULATION)

3.  A limited conspiracy along the lines of what Larry Hancock has suggested.  (CERTAINLY POSSIBLE, AND SUPPORTED BY AT LEAST SOME THINGS RESEMBLING "EVIDENCE")

Post Assassination

1.  A scrambling cover-up to minimize the embarrassing fact that the CIA and FBI had failed to keep adequate tabs on LHO, perhaps coupled with legitimate fear about provoking a public outcry for an invasion of Cuba or even an attack on the USSR.  (HIGHLY LIKELY AND CONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE ASSASSINATION SCENARIOS)

2.  There was no cover-up, just bureaucratic fumbling and bumbling.  (POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY)

 

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 704
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 2/6/2017 at 3:52 PM, Alistair Briggs said:

Hi David,

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I think your book Best Evidence is a great read from start to finish. I do have to be honest enough to say that I am yet to be convinced on it all, but nevertheless I still hold your book in the highest of esteem...

Why not just shoot Kennedy from the 6th floor window in the first place and then there is no need to alter the body? That is the question I keep coming back to and is the stumbling block on which I am unable to convince myself on... no biggy though.

Really I just wanted to say kudos on your book.

The question you are posing sounds perfectly reasonable, at first; but if you take a closer look--and put yourself in the shoes of the plotters, whose intention was not just to kill the President, but--in addition--to *also* (and by "also" I mean "simultaneously)  manufacture a false story of how he died--the problem(s) with what you are suggesting  become manifest. 

Maybe it was my training in math, and my general exposure to systems engineering that brought this problem into focus, but its almost self evident: if one shoots from the back, then that will co-mingle two locations which (by design) one wants to be entirely separate: (A) The true source of the shots and (B) the location for the theatrical episode which is to be the foundation for the false narrative, which --in screenplay form--might as well be titled "The Man in the Building Who Shot the Man in the Car."

Can you imagine what would happen if you have an unwitting patsy in the building (a patsy you want to see "dead" asap) but also in the building (e.g., perhaps on a different floor)  the actual assassin(s)?  And then police --perhaps police who are completely innocent--start rushing to that location?  That really could lead to an out-of-control mess, with (innocent) police arresting the real assassins, and so forth.  For a better, more carefully stated explanation, I refer to Chapter 14 of Best Evidence. Also, and completely aside from these "theoretical" considerations, I can't overemphasize the fact that no one in the original 1963/64 medical records (i.e., from Parkland Hospital) saw any entry wound on the back of the body.  The first report that such existed is in the December 12, 1963 report by Dallas Times Herald science writer Bill Burrus.  That's the first supposedly "authoritative" account--from Dallas--that reported that JFK was struck from the rear (by a missile that exited at the front of the throat). 

FYI: I was able to contact Burrus in 1978 (in New York City, see B.E. p 156)), met him in a NYC bar, buy him a few beers, and talk to him for several hours (with a tape recorder between the two of us); and will give a complete report of that in Final Charade.  Bottom line: Burrus  was contacted the night before--i.e., late in the evening of 12/11/63--by a certain VIP, who slowly and carefully provided him with the autopsy conclusion regarding the non-fatal shot, emphasizing that it entered high on the back of the right thorax, transited the neck (back to front), emerged (undamaged, by implication) at the throat, etc etc. --in other words, although Burrus was unaware of it, he was being given a preview of the Single Bullet Theory.  He then carefully wrote the story, called back the VIP (to make sure he had every detail right) and then it was published in the Dallas Times Herald (page 1) the next day.  It was not carried on the wire (AP), because the persnickity wire service official wanted confirmation as to the source, and Burrus--to hide the VIP's identity --intended to (and did) "false source" the story as if it came from a "Bethesda pathologist" (but it did not).  All of this was the beginning of the "PR push" for the Single Bullet Theory, and this backstory will be described, in detail, in Final Charade.  I don't believe anybody can become acquainted with all of this and still credibly maintain a belief that Kennedy was shot in the back.  (Based on what. . . the "clothing holes"?) The whole thing is a fabrication. Again: IMHO.

Returning  now to your original question: I don't mean to diminish its importance. In fact, it was one of the most difficult questions that I confronted, on my book tour, because, quite frankly, it zeros in on a factor that is counter-intuitive, and difficult to explain, say, in the 30 sec or 1 min typically available on a radio talk show.   FWIW: I am proud to recall that in the weeks or months after the publication of B.E., this "counter-intuitive" proposition was the subject of a New York Times Quiz question (I must retrieve that item, frame it, and put it in near my work place).  And BTW:Many important propositions in life are counter-intuitive--whether its couples who seem to disagree on everything, but end up in 30 year marriages, or watching a physics professor stand on a piano stool, arms outstretched (and with weights in each hand) and as he brings them to his chest (and especially if he does so rapidly) he starts spinning on the piano stool. (Conservation of angular momentum).

I don't expect DVP to appreciate any of that--I'm not even sure he believes in evolution--but rest assured that "trajectory reversal" (spelled out in Chapter 14 of B.E.) is far less radical than many of the revelations of modern biology, or the wave-particle duality in physics.

DSL

2/09/2017; 11:30 a.m. PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2017 at 0:39 PM, David Von Pein said:

Well, David Lifton, I think about the only thing a reasonable person needs to do in order to come to a firm conclusion that your theory is utter hogwash (not to mention impossible) is to read the following portion of this post of yours:

"The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter his body to change the story of how he died. If one has control of the body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the crime." -- David Lifton; Feb. 6, 2017

The key words written by David L. above are these words:

"The plan, from the outset, was to...alter his body."

Maybe we should all take a step back and just think about the above comment for a few moments. It shouldn't take very long, though, for any sensible person to fully appreciate just how ridiculous and far-out and nonsensical and impossible and downright crazy that comment by David S. Lifton truly is.

But I guess it does prove one thing: If a conspiracy theorist puts his mind to it, he can always manage to "improve" his fantasy theory --- even a conspiracy fantasy that began 50 years ago.

Time for a Reality Check now. Here's something I said to Mr. Lifton in 2013, and it certainly applies here in 2017 as well:

"The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case.

Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists.

And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer.

Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful"."
-- DVP; May 4, 2013

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html

 

QUOTING DVP, QUOTE ON:

Well, David Lifton, I think about the only thing a reasonable person needs to do in order to come to a firm conclusion that your theory is utter hogwash (not to mention impossible) is to read the following portion of this post of yours:

"The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter his body to change the story of how he died. If one has control of the body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the crime." -- David Lifton; Feb. 6, 2017

The key words written by David L. above are these words:

"The plan, from the outset, was to...alter his body."  UNQUOTE

DSL RESPONSE: Yes, that was the plan. It didn't work out exactly as planned, but  I stand behind every word I wrote.

One other point, regarding your commentary:  "Maybe we should all take a step back and just think about the above comment for a few moments. It shouldn't take very long, though, for any sensible person to fully appreciate just how ridiculous and far-out and nonsensical and impossible and downright crazy that comment by David S. Lifton truly is."

DVP: I'm sorry to tell you the bad news, but your indiscriminate invoking of various adjectives will not save you from the logical consequences of the evidence.

DSL, 2/9/17; 11:40 a.m.

Los Angeles, Califoprnia

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I watched the entire David Lifton "Night Fright" episode on YouTube a while back.  I was at least expecting a coherent, intelligent discussion.  I was simply agog.  Is there not a point at which even those who are most favorably disposed toward an elaborate conspiracy have to say, "This has gone too far down the rabbit hole.  This is making us all look like complete fools.  This guy is just desperate to either (1) sell books, or (2) remain relevant."  (The host, I must admit, was priceless, well worth the price of admission as he gasped and popped his eyes at Lifton's revelations.)

What I do see is what you are suggesting about Bugliosi.  When one reads the Lone Nut literature, everything flows, makes sense, and is consistent with the actual evidence; the overall picture is entirely believable.  Some of it can seem implausible, but in the way events in the real world are implausible.  Did anyone follow the completely weird deaths of the healthy, happy, well-to-do Korkki sisters in the Seychelles a few months ago?  Or the well-to-do grandmother in a Hummer who, this week, was trying to steal stuff out of a charity donation box at 2:30 a.m., had the lid slam shut on her arms, and was found hanging and dead the next morning with her Hummer still running?  How much fun could a conspiracy theorist have with those events?  A substantial percentage of crimes have strange, almost inexplicable elements, but it doesn't mean the CIA or FBI was behind them.

The elaborate conspiracy theories, on the other hand, seem to be largely based on people (almost EVERYONE) not being who they seemed to be, on evidence (almost ALL OF IT) not being what it seems to be, on motives not being what they seem to have been, and on ALL of the gaps being filled and all of the dots being connected with conspiracy-oriented speculation.  This is why 15 or more different conspiracy theories seem or have seemed at various times to be plausible, because they rely so heavily on rank speculation.  It increasingly seems to me that the real explanation for the popularity of conspiracy theories is to be found in the psychology of the believers.  I would challenge some of the true believers to take a break and read something like Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Paranoia in Postwar America, https://www.amazon.com/Empire-Conspiracy-Culture-Paranoia-Postwar/dp/0801486068.  You might find more answers there than in Lifton's latest book.  As one who has been heavily involved in Weirdness himself, I think you have to make a genuine effort not to become a one-dimensional zealot, to step back and take a hard look at wild claims, and to force yourself to confront with an open mind the literature of those who oppose the wild claims; this is easy to say, but very difficult to do.

Just as FWIW addendum, here is how I currently view the assassination in descending order of likelihood:

The Assassination

1.  LHO acted alone, for motives unique to LHO.  (HIGHLY LIKELY)

2.  The above, but LHO made assassination-related statements during his trip to Mexico City and was "encouraged" by Cuban contacts there ("You'll be a hero to Fidel, and to true Marxists everywhere if you pull it off").  (FAIRLY LIKELY, BUT PURE SPECULATION)

3.  A limited conspiracy along the lines of what Larry Hancock has suggested.  (CERTAINLY POSSIBLE, AND SUPPORTED BY AT LEAST SOME THINGS RESEMBLING "EVIDENCE")

Post Assassination

1.  A scrambling cover-up to minimize the embarrassing fact that the CIA and FBI had failed to keep adequate tabs on LHO, perhaps coupled with legitimate fear about provoking a public outcry for an invasion of Cuba or even an attack on the USSR.  (HIGHLY LIKELY AND CONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE ASSASSINATION SCENARIOS)

2.  There was no cover-up, just bureaucratic fumbling and bumbling.  (POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY)

 

Re your quote:  "As one who has been heavily involved in Weirdness himself. . . "

Could you be more specific?  What "weirdness" have you been "heavily involved in"?

DSL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alistair,

Although I am a believer and supporter of Lifton's wound alteration theory, I believe differently on a few points. Minor ones compared to what I do believe.

One thing is that I believe the reason there were shots from multiple locations was to make sure Kennedy was actually killed. Had something gone wrong at the TSBD, the shooting from there might not have happened.

As for the back wound.... okay, maybe Lifton is right about that and the bullet hole is man-made. That would certainly explain why no bullet or fragments were ever found, even though the bulk of the autopsy was spent looking for that bullet. (According to Lt. Lipsey.) But it's doubtful the hole was put there to support the SBT. It would have been placed higher had the SBT been in mind when the hole was made.

One possible explanation for the missing bullet that has been put forward by Robert Prudhomme on the forum is that it could have been a frangible bullet. I've hypothesized that the bullet could have fragmented prematurely and been deflected downward by a rib bone. But Lifton's theory may be right. I'm glad Lifton brought it up here because I'd forgotten about that possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SS Agent Glen Bennett wrote that JFK had been hit in the back on the night of 11.22.63 before the back wound had been discovered. 

“I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4” down from the right shoulder: a second shoot [sic] followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.”

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

Edited by Ray Mitcham
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

SS Agent Glen Bennett wrote that JFK had been hit in the back on the night of 11.22.63 before the back wound had been discovered. 

“I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4” down from the right shoulder: a second shoot [sic] followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.”

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

Oh yeah, good point Ray. I forgot about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning: Don't get LIfton started on Glen Bennett.

As to VInce Bugliosi who I know something about.  I agree that Vince was a very good reasoner under normal conditions.  For instance, his books on the Paula Jones case and the Bush vs Gore decision are quite valuable.  Especially the former.  And, unlike many others, I even liked his book on Bush's invasion of Iraq. Since I do think Bush should have been impeached over that.  

But not his JFK book.  I mean that is nothing but an argument by 1.) Invective and insult, and 2.) By sheer length and 3.) By decibel level.  It was simply a misguided assignment and he was warned about that in advance by Jesse Ventura.  But further, at the last Lancer Conference, an attorney friend of VInce's approached me.  He said, "Jim, your book Reclaiming Parkland was good, and I am glad you wrote it. But you don't know the half of it."

He then told me that Vince always had it in for the critics.  Vince made this clear to him in no uncertain terms.  He wanted to get down and dirty and personalize it, in order to caricature them and in effect marginalize them as much as he could.  And Vince said this to him more than once.  He argued against it, but to no avail.

BTW, in his literary life, Vince had a weakness for this.  Bob Tanenbaum told me that Vince sent him the first draft of his Simpson book.  Bob said that Vince went after Johnny Cochran mercilessly, and endlessly.  Bob told him this was not the best way to argue the case. In fact, it will weaken your arguments.  Vince took the advice on that one.

Too bad Bob did not see his cinder block.  But I doubt if he would have even wasted his time reading it.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Alistair,

Although I am a believer and supporter of Lifton's wound alteration theory, I believe differently on a few points. Minor ones compared to what I do believe.

One thing is that I believe the reason there were shots from multiple locations was to make sure Kennedy was actually killed. Had something gone wrong at the TSBD, the shooting from there might not have happened.

As for the back wound.... okay, maybe Lifton is right about that and the bullet hole is man-made. That would certainly explain why no bullet or fragments were ever found, even though the bulk of the autopsy was spent looking for that bullet. (According to Lt. Lipsey.) But it's doubtful the hole was put there to support the SBT. It would have been placed higher had the SBT been in mind when the hole was made.

One possible explanation for the missing bullet that has been put forward by Robert Prudhomme on the forum is that it could have been a frangible bullet. I've hypothesized that the bullet could have fragmented prematurely and been deflected downward by a rib bone. But Lifton's theory may be right. I'm glad Lifton brought it up here because I'd forgotten about that possibility.

Sandy,

You are completely correct, and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding. If you will look in Best Evidence (under the "low/high"  conflict, when it appears in chapter 5, 6 and 7) I address this entire situation, which is indeed confusing.  Yes, the original plan (apparently) --and this is "IMHO"--was  to create a shallow hole in the back, and "pair it" with a bullet placed on a stretcher. That "pairing" of stretcher bullet and shallow back wound is exactly the way the original FBI Summary Report (the one dated Dec 9, 1963) is written.  But then,as events unfolded, two additional factors entered the picture, and had to be accounted for. They were:

    #1:THE THROAT WOUND   It became known that the throat wound, originally (and mistakenly) perceived to be "only" a trach incision (and nothing more) was not that at all.  Rather, it was a made  over a small bullet wound; and further, once that situation was recognized, that bullet wound had to be accounted for.

    #2: THE TIME FACTOR  At some point in time (and I believe it was likely 11/25 or shortly thereafter), it became clear that Kennedy and Connally were struck in less time that it took to fire the (prop) rifle twice (what I called the "42 frame constraint", in my "Case for 3 Asassins", written in July 1966, but published in Ramparts in Jan 1967); and so either an "additional shot" would have to be added to the "official explanation", or a pre-existing bullet strike would have to be said to have transited, so it could be the missile that struck JC.  Of course, there was also the Tague bullet that to be accoiunted for.  Yes, all of this is complicated, but I discussed it, in detail, in chapters 5 through 7.

Again, to repeat the major point: the bullet placed on the stretcher was (originally) to be "paired" with a shallow wound, and certainly the Single Bullet Theory did not emerge as the important necessity it turned out to be, until some days later. Meanwhile, a legal record had already been created establishing that that hole was "low."  So that's when the lies started as to exactly where that "back/neck" wound was actually located.

Hope this helps.

DSL

2/9/17 -5:55 p.m. PST

Los Angeles, CA

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

SS Agent Glen Bennett wrote that JFK had been hit in the back on the night of 11.22.63 before the back wound had been discovered. 

“I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4” down from the right shoulder: a second shoot [sic] followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.”

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce2112.htm

Ray:

You are correct, and if these reports--and their authors--had integrity, the time sequence you have cited would be of considerable importance.

BUT. . . . . : The "but" is (unfortunately) that some of the Secret Service officials were complicit --at the very least in the coverup of the President's assassination, and, very possibly, in aiding and abetting in the execution of the crime itself.  Once the single bullet theory became a legal and historical necessity, the reports of two agents--Glenn Bennet and George Hickey--were crafted so as to provide legal support for the (final) and supposedly "official" version of the autopsy.  Bennet's report states, as you note, that he saw the shot strike 4" down from the right shoulder (even though, in B.E., I noted, and published a photograph, showing that Bennet was looking off to the right). The Hickey report states --what I have always viewed as a "companion" false report--states that he "saw"a shot strike the top right hand side of the head (the "high" position, depicted in the autopsy photographs). IMHO: The whole thing is a scam and a sham. Notably, neither SS agent was called to testify. Nor was either agent interviewed by the FBI.  And instead, when some on the WC legal staff grew suspicious, there was a May 1964 communication between the WC and SS Chief Rowley saying, in effect, "And here are Glenn Bennet's handwritten notes proving that he was not lying because he wrote this on November 22. .. etc. ;  Is there anything else you'd like to see?" That's the sort of sophomoric investigation we had.  What was needed, of course, was a smart Special Prosecutor, but that was 1964, and there wasn't a chance of anything like that coming to pass.

 

DSL

2/9/2017; 6:10 p.m.

Los Angeles, California

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

   #1:THE THROAT WOUND   It became known that the throat wound, originally (and mistakenly) perceived to be "only" a trach incision (and nothing more) was not that at all.  Rather, it was a made  over a small bullet wound; and further, once that situation was recognized, that bullet wound had to be accounted for.

 

Does this mean you abandoned the throat alteration theory? As pointed out in another earlier thread, the ~3.5 centimeter estimation by the doctors could be a reference to the windpipe incision, but not the neck incision. The doctors might've not known you were really referring to the entire neck incision.

But furthermore, if the autopsy surgeons thought the throat wound was a trach the entire time, then what can we make of the witnesses who saw them probing the throat wound?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

The question you are posing sounds perfectly reasonable, at first; but if you take a closer look--and put yourself in the shoes of the plotters, whose intention was not just to kill the President, but--in addition--to *also* (and by "also" I mean "simultaneously)  manufacture a false story of how he died--the problem(s) with what you are suggesting  become manifest.

At its root the plotters plan is to 'kill the President' - nothing more, nothing less. From that point they would have to work out the 'how'. If their one and only plan of 'how' was to shoot from the front only and manufacture a false story to implicate a shooter from behind by altering the body then talk about over-complicating matters. lol I'm sure it wasn't their first option! I'm sure they would have considered many other options first. If they eventually reached the conclusion that was their best option than so be it. It's just that, personally, I can think of so many other options that they could have done that could, and I repeat, could, have been succesful (as in they would have killed JFK and got away with it (maybe lol) without altering the body...

6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Maybe it was my training in math, and my general exposure to systems engineering that brought this problem into focus, but its almost self evident: if one shoots from the back, then that will co-mingle two locations which (by design) one wants to be entirely separate: (A) The true source of the shots and (B) the location for the theatrical episode which is to be the foundation for the false narrative, which --in screenplay form--might as well be titled "The Man in the Building Who Shot the Man in the Car."

Can you imagine what would happen if you have an unwitting patsy in the building (a patsy you want to see "dead" asap) but also in the building (e.g., perhaps on a different floor)  the actual assassin(s)?  And then police --perhaps police who are completely innocent--start rushing to that location?  That really could lead to an out-of-control mess, with (innocent) police arresting the real assassins, and so forth.  For a better, more carefully stated explanation, I refer to Chapter 14 of Best Evidence. 

In Chapter 14 you mention that the 'snipers nest' and 'gun' had to be "placed on the sixth floor beforehand, critical evidence in the President's murder, waiting to be found". Whilst the 'placing' could be done any time prior to the assassination, I think it is fair to say, mathematically, the closer to the time the better (else they, and in particular the gun, could be 'found' too soon before the assassination)...

As part of your triangular case against Oswald, (B) The Oswald-Victim Link, you mention the 'need' for the plotters "to have someone stand near the window, roughly of Oswald's height and weight, and appear to fire a gun at the President". The need to create such an appearance was to cover any 'eye-witnesses' that may look up...

Can it be said that whoever it was that set up the snipers nest etc was the same someone who stood near the window at the time of the assassination? Considering the 'risks' and the 'time' issue, I feel it would be fair to say that it was the same somebody and it must have happened (relatively) close to the time of the assassination (my personal preference would be to say no sooner than 30 minutes before). NB: The motorcade was late so presumably whoever it was that set all this up had to do so in time for the originally planned time of arrival!

What we seem to have then is someone taking the gun up to the 6th floor, creating the snipers nest, waiting about until the time the President passed, sticking the 'gun' out the window  but not actually shooting - for reasons you have stated both in your book and in your kind response to me, that makes sense.

Following on from that, I have considered the alternatives of who that could have been (whether it was an 'employee' of the TSBD or a 'stranger'), and it always leads me to more and more questions - too many to delve in to here. Suffice to say, I have considered a lot. ;)

Anyway, (I know I'm being a bit jumpy here. lol)

Question to self: Was Oswald an unwitting 'patsy'... define 'unwitting' - not aware of the full facts! - Aware of some of the facts? Part of the plot? To some extent, not complicit perhaps, but not 'innocent'! eg: must have brought rifle in! Someone else brought the rifle in? Who, not important at moment! Where did they get it from? When did they get it? How did they bring it in to the TSBD? Simplest answer? - Oswald brought it in! Passed it on to someone else? Only if he wasn't the one 'not actually shooting'...

If Oswald wasn't the one 'not actually shooting', that had to be someone else who was 'part of the plan'... wherever else Oswald was, the plotters have to have done something to make sure Oswald wasn't in a 'seen' position elsewhere at the time - they had to manage that somehow - they couldn't just rely on luck. (Note to self)... the most simple 'answer' - two birds with one stone - have Oswald be the one to be 'not actually shooting'... solves the problem of having to make sure he wasn't seen elsewhere at the time and solves the problem of having someone else do it 'unnoticed'. If that was the case then why did Oswald not say so under interrogation? Perhaps he would think doing so would not help him as he would thus be admitting to be part of the plot (conspiracy to commit murder!)...

Inference: Oswald was the person in the snipers nest at the window at the time of the assassination with his rifle 'not shooting at the President' just pretending!

*I have to step away from the computer for a while to gather my thoughts...

... thoughts gathered. ;)

If Oswald wasn't the one 'not shooting from the 6th floor', for the plot to work, Oswald can't be seen somewhere else at the time of the assassination or the plot fails. Logically, one of the plotters must have 'positioned' Oswald 'out of sight'. There must have been some kind of contact (whether directly or indirectly)...

... and if there was some kind of contact, why not position Oswald in a place outwith the building and isolated and then the plotters can shoot from their chosen location and not have to worry about altering the body!

If the plotters considered firing from the 6th floor window either too risky a shot to succeed or too risky a position to do it from themselves, and instead chose a different location, then why not do something to position Oswald 'out of sight' near there and shoot Kennedy with Oswald's gun from there and then there is no need to alter the body.

The above is somewhat rhetorical and was mostly me just pouring out some thoughts on the topic. ;)

It's just, to me, there seems to be countless options of what the plotters could have done to succeed and avoid the need to alter the body.

*I'll go out on a limb here and say that I reckon it would be easier to find someone willing to take the risk of being caught shooting from the TSBD than it would be to find people willing to alter the President's body. lol

6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

 All of this was the beginning of the "PR push" for the Single Bullet Theory, and this backstory will be described, in detail, in Final Charade.  I don't believe anybody can become acquainted with all of this and still credibly maintain a belief that Kennedy was shot in the back.  (Based on what. . . the "clothing holes"?) The whole thing is a fabrication. Again: IMHO.

I look forward to Final Charade 

Peace and kind regards. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:41 PM, David Von Pein said:

(1)  It doesn't really take too much "guessing". He just walked out the front door. He was seen by Mrs. Reid on the 2nd floor headed for the area where the front stairs were located. Those stairs dump you out right by the front entrance of the building. The building wasn't sealed by the police until about 12:37 PM, and Oswald likely walked out the front door at about 12:33, beating the "sealing off" time by four minutes. So, there's really no big mystery there.

(2) You seem to be making stuff up out of thin air, Paul. Please provide the citation/proof/testimony/verification that Lee Oswald "handed over his rifle to a trusted ally" on November 22, 1963. I'd like to see that proof. You wrote the above comment as if it were a proven fact, when, in actuality, you're just rewriting history and inventing conspiracy scenarios to suit your needs and/or wishes.

(3) More speculation. And nothing more. And you're implying that Officer Tippit was part of some plot to rub out Oswald, which (IMO) is irresponsible, since there's not a scrap of reliable evidence to even suggest that J.D. Tippit was involved in any way whatsoever with the murders that occurred on 11/22/63, other than as Oswald's second victim.

(4) I bet Mrs. Marie Tippit just loves this kind of talk about her murdered husband. She must do nothing but shake her head back and forth in disgust all day long when she hears all the fantasy talk about J.D.

(5)  What's the source for all of that junk, Paul? Jeffrey Caufield only?

(6)  Conspiracy talk can be fun to play around with, I guess. But when a whole bunch of evidence all points toward one single person (and one single rifle), then why pretend Oswald "handed over" his rifle to some co-conspirator, when a perfectly reasonable and sensible scenario -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald himself shot the President -- is right there on the table as well?

(7) Should we over-complicate the evidence by interjecting "conspiracy", even though none of the physical evidence (or Oswald's own actions on Nov. 21 or 22) requires the interjection of any conspiracy whatsoever?

EDIT -- To be fair to Paul Trejo, when re-reading Paul's post, which is knee-deep in speculation and guesswork, Paul did say these words to begin his post: "I can't resist adding my own opinions here." Key word there being "Opinions". :)

David Von Pein,

I will answer by the numbers:

(1) You say that LHO just walked out the front door.   Yet with all the photographic evidence produced on the TSBD in the minutes after the JFK shooting, nobody has yet produced any photograph of LHO anywhere near the front door of the TSBD at that time.  The sworn testimony of the TSBD workers who were at or near the front door when JFK was shot is unanimous -- LHO was not anywhere in sight.

(1.1)  Mrs. Reid saw LHO on the 2nd floor -- not the 1st floor -- and Roy Truly and Officer Baker also saw LHO on the 2nd floor.  Yet that is near the north (rear) side of the TSBD, and there are several exits closer to Mrs. Reid's desk than the front door.  So, you are making assumptions that are hasty.

(2) As for Lee Oswald "handing over his rifle to a trusted ally" on November 22, 1963, that was presented by A.J. Weberman in NODULE 23, from information given to him by Gerry Patrick Hemming (1979).  I don't say it was a proven fact -- only that I myself am not the source on this CT.  Gerry Patrick Hemming is one of the most suspicious persons in the JFK saga, IMHO. 

(3) As for the possibility that Officer Tippit was part of a plot to rub out Oswald, I'm not the source; I rely here on Jeff Caufield, and even Jeff wasn't the first.  You say there's no "scrap of evidence," but that overstatement leaves you wide open -- you must explain why J.D. Tippit died with his weapon drawn and in his hand when he died.  There is no way to avoid your own opinion on that critical point.

(4) The theory that J.D. Tippit was Badgeman is already fairly old -- and it is based on a continual analysis of the Badgeman photograph.  You may be unaware of fairly technical book, A Deeper, Darker Truth: Tom Wilson's Journey into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, which was published by Donald T. Phillips in 2009.  Among other points, Phillips uses special photographic techniques to reveal that Badge Man resembles J.D Tippit down to the pox mark on Tippit's left cheek.  Tippit was a known associate of Roscoe White, and Roscoe's wife and son were not above speaking of Roscoe White as one of the JFK conspirators.

(5)   Jeff Caufield thinks that LHO outdrew Tippit in a fair fight, but professor Walt Brown cites witness Mike Robinson -- a boy at the time -- who claims that he overheard Roscoe White confess that he killed J.D. Tippit.  Don Phillips presents photographic evidence to show that Badgeman was not alone, but surrounded by many wearing DPD uniforms.  Dallas Deputy Roger Craig said that the parking lot behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll was actually reserved for Dallas County Jail workers, with a single entry/exit accessible only by padlock.  This CT still has plenty of energy.  

(6)  The nonsense that LHO shot JFK from the TSBD has been laid bare by the US Government itself.  The WC and its great supporters: Posner and Bugliosi -- are not the last word from the US Government, rather, the HSCA (1979) has the latest official word -- that "JFK was probably killed as the result of a conspiracy." 

(7) The reason that the CT community still has energy, 50 years later, David, is that all of the physical evidence fails to support the "Lone Nut" theory that was promoted by J. Edgar Hoover starting at 3pm CST on 11/22/1963; which, before the day was over, was supported by LBJ, and became a US dogma and an urban legend ever since. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

But not his [Bugliosi's] JFK book.  I mean that is nothing but an argument by 1.) Invective and insult, and 2.) By sheer length and 3.) By decibel level.

And let's not forget, he was wrong on many of the points he argued. Some of which should have been obvious to him.

I guess his reasoning was clouded by his preconceived bias and his hatred for critics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Paul.

But I still maintain that conspiracy theorists have little to nothing to offer in the way of "evidence" (particularly physical evidence).

Let's face it, Paul, all JFK conspiracy theories rely on nothing but speculation, guesswork, and unsubstantiated and questionable witnesses like Gerry Hemming.

Don't you wish you had just ONE solid piece of physical evidence to support your belief in a JFK conspiracy? Instead, you've got Gerry Patrick Hemming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...