Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[Michael Clark]

10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Now that's an interesting theory. I'd love to hear of any evidence pointing to that.

Though the Mexico City thing makes me think that the perps were interested primarily in war (with Russia) in Cuba. Not Vietnam.

 

Yes, the anti-Castro Cubans wanted a war to free Cuba, The Far-Right and Industrialists wanted war in Vietnam. The Far-Right and Industrialists had no interest in being cosy with dark, Spanish-Speaking, Catholic Cubans, nor were they interested in giving off-shore resorts and Casinos back to the mob, so The AC Cubans and mob got double-crossed with the LN scenario. 

It can explain why evidence for LHO in MC was generated, but obfuscated, buried and confused, after the fact.

But, I am repeating myself here. I have opened another thread on this.

Cheers,

Michael

[Micah Mileto]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Micah,

I'm trying to follow what you are saying here. The problem is that I can't find a back wound photo that shows the cranial opening. (The uncropped version of the photo, I guess.) Can you point me to one?

 

There is a version of the back wound photograph floating around where you can see the cranial opening and scalp incision in clear view.

From David Mantik's Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits:

 

From researcher Martin Shackelford:

 

There are some questions I have about the cranial opening as seen in this photo.

1. Doesn't this show the skull opening extending to the left of the midline? If so, then the depressed cowlick fracture was within the skull bone removed. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the cranial opening was enlarged to remove the brain, so how could he see this hypothetical entry wound in the depressed cowlick fracture unless this whole time he forgot to mention that he only saw it when skull fragments were pieced together?

2. Why does this photo appear to show the skull flap hinge above and behind the ear when other BOH photographs appear to show it above and somewhat forward the ear?

3. If the open-cranium photograph depicts the posterior skull and not the forehead, how does the irregular pattern of missing bone relate to the clean-cut opening in this photo?

4. What's with that patch of hair right under the head opening? Does that have any relation to the patch of hair on the BOH photographs? Is it "parted" or "combed"?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Micah,

The Zapruder film, IMHO, shows the whole side of JFK's head being torn off.

The orange sized hole in the back was only the final phase.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo 

The red blob on the Zapruder Film is supposed to be a bone flap, not brains excruciating from the temporal area.

[Gerry Simone]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Gerry,

Yes, I vaguely remember that, yet Pat Speer offers a fuller explanation with video aides.  

Regards 

--Paul Trejo 

We can rest assured that Pat Speer will find the devil in the detail.  I will check those video aides in due course.  Thanks Paul.

[Gerry Simone]

58 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

The red blob on the Zapruder Film is supposed to be a bone flap, not brains excruciating from the temporal area.

You mean on his right side above and forward his right ear.  Yes.

[Gerry Simone]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

There is a version of the back wound photograph floating around where you can see the cranial opening and scalp incision in clear view.

From David Mantik's Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits:

 

From researcher Martin Shackelford:

 

There are some questions I have about the cranial opening as seen in this photo.

1. Doesn't this show the skull opening extending to the left of the midline? If so, then the depressed cowlick fracture was within the skull bone removed. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the cranial opening was enlarged to remove the brain, so how could he see this hypothetical entry wound in the depressed cowlick fracture unless this whole time he forgot to mention that he only saw it when skull fragments were pieced together?

2. Why does this photo appear to show the skull flap hinge above and behind the ear when other BOH photographs appear to show it above and somewhat forward the ear?

3. If the open-cranium photograph depicts the posterior skull and not the forehead, how does the irregular pattern of missing bone relate to the clean-cut opening in this photo?

4. What's with that patch of hair right under the head opening? Does that have any relation to the patch of hair on the BOH photographs? Is it "parted" or "combed"?

All I can say with these photos above is that the BOH or occipital area looks unnaturally dark, like someone colored in the photo with a black marker.  Guess that's a redaction too (lol).

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Yes, the anti-Castro Cubans wanted a war to free Cuba, The Far-Right and Industrialists wanted war in Vietnam. The Far-Right and Industrialists had no interest in being cosy with dark, Spanish-Speaking, Catholic Cubans, nor were they interested in giving off-shore resorts and Casinos back to the mob, so The AC Cubans and mob got double-crossed with the LN scenario.

The casinos in Havana were fronts for dope smuggling and money-laundering.

Are you sure there was no faction of "industrialists" who didn't have keen interest in those activities?

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The casinos in Havana were fronts for dope smuggling and money-laundering.

Are you sure there was no faction of "industrialists" who didn't have keen interest in those activities?

Hi Cliff, while searching this issue, I have seen your posts regarding the drug trade as it related to my working pet-theory. I am thinking that the Far-Right and Indurial and oil concerns were not interested in the drug trade angle at that time. I think that the Mafia got left in the cold on that.

I assume you have a solid basis for your assertion that Castro's Cuba was a drug hub. I find that surprising. To be sure, I have not yet delved into that being a possibility. It seems to me that drug hubs can, and probably should be shifted around. My limited knowledge tells me that those hubs did, over the next decades, shift around, quite a bit (Montreal, Arkansas?). 

So, no I think that if the drug angle did have a play in the decision making, the results would testify that the winners were glad to see a drug-hub develop somewhere other than Cuba.

Cheers,

Michael

[Gerry Simone]

On 4/4/2017 at 8:53 PM, Paul Brancato said:

If Oswald was innocent, the sniper's nest is a fake. If one assumes these two propositions to be true, then there had to be plans for body alteration to make it look like the shots came from the TSBD. In this scenario, Mr. Lifton's suppositions about which things went wrong make sense. Removing JFK's body from Parkland before an autopsy could proceed was necessary at all costs, so guns were drawn and the body was wrested from Dallas authorities. The location of the autopsy had to be controlled. Aboard AF1 there was disagreement about where - Walter Reed or Bethesda. My reading of this has Kennedy aides assuming the former, whereas the Secret Service and McGeorge Bundy in the WH situation room insisted on Bethesda. 

Cliff - how would Oswald being killed within an hour of the assassination changed any of this?

I thought Jackie had also something to do with the choice for Bethesda since JFK was in the navy.

[Michael Clark]

Just now, Gerry Simone said:

I thought Jackie had also something to do with the choice for Bethesda since JFK was in the navy.

That is what I have read.... she made that decision.

[Ron Ecker]

27 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

 It seems to me that drug hubs can, and probably should be shifted around. My limited knowledge tells me that those hubs did, over the next decades, shift around, quite a bit (Montreal, Arkansas?). 

There were certainly some crooks in Arkansas who could facilitate drug smuggling.

[Gerry Simone]

22 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

The HSCA testimony of Richard Lipsey.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/Lipsey_1-18-78/HSCA-Lipsey.htm

 

I never read this before.  Thank you very much.

[Gerry Simone]

6 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ron,

We agree on only one item in your list -- the decision to blame LHO "would require a mess of an autopsy."   That is, the decision for the pre-autopsy autopsy (Lifton, 1981) was a LATE decision -- made only after the JFK assassination itself.

Otherwise, we disagree on almost everything.   You say, "The plan to blame it on Cuba was abandoned when Oswald, a patsy to be identified as one of the Castro shooters, was taken alive."  But that makes no sense.  WHY abandon the Cuba invasion simply because Oswald was taken alive?  Surely Oswald would be dead in a few hours anyway.  There was no NEED to abandon the Cuba invasion on that basis -- which was the WHOLE POINT of the JFK assassination in the first place.

Finally, you say:  "Who knows what all factors went into the decision?"  That argument merely allows you to claim that there was such a decision without explaining it.   You are presuming what you should be proving.  You haven't answered my question -- Why Sheep-Dip Oswald as a Red for six solid months, and then suddenly opt for a Lone Nut Oswald?

The answer I propose is more rational -- namely -- that the JFK Cover-up Team was different and even opposed to the JFK Kill Team.   That's the logical answer -- the :"Lone Nut" Oswald dogma was designed to prevent the US invasion of Cuba.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I agree with all of the above, except that the whole point of the JFK Assassination was not just about invading Cuba. Cuba could've been the so called "patsy" for an excuse. Cuba leads back to the Soviets.  Oswald allegedly contacted a Soviet official in MC I believe (further incrimination).  VietNam is also still important.  There were a few reasons why hardliners (in intelligence, military and business circles as well as the Mob) wanted JFK to go away.  In essence, the JFK Assassination may have started as a false flag operation to reverse JFK's policies of peace around the world, since there were many foes to deal with (not just Cubans).  The WH was not about to declare war.  Money had to be made in VietNam.  LBJ and Hoover could go on with their careers on their own terms.

[Ron Ecker]

26 minutes ago, Gerry Simone said:

I never read this before.  Thank you very much.

You might also be interested in the after-action report written by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian to his Commanding Officer on 11/26/63.

According to his report, "the casket" was received at the morgue at 6:35 pm, some 20 minutes before the Dallas casket arrived in front of the hospital.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md236/html/md236_0005a.htm

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Gerry Simone said:

I never read this [Lipsey testimony] before.  Thank you very much.

There's also this Richard Lipsey interview....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOSXJlbmhHT2xuaFU/view