Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[François Carlier]

 

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

FC, I think that what Sandy is saying is that Baden was not aware of the twenty morgue witnesses who said they also saw the wound in the rear of JFK's skull, until Gary Aguilar showed him the statements released by the ARRB in, I think, 1995.

If I have this wrong, Sandy will correct me. But the evidence is in the chart that is in MIDP.  Its on page 199.  You say you have 200 books on the JFK case and you do not have that one?  I have less than that and I do.  As per your other point about Baden saying the wound was a mess, I dealt with that already. I do not buy it because of the specifics of the Dallas doctors memories, including the testimony about the cerebellum. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p.161)

But that argument collapses when one recalls what I also said: Bowron and Hinchliffe cleaned the body before it left Dallas. Believe me, their testimony does not support your side.  And then you have the 20 witnesses in Bethesda who saw the cleaned body. 

It gets a bit discouraging when it becomes clear that you and DVP and Lancie either do not read the right pieces of information in book form or documents, and then you just rattle on as if you do.

I do have somewhere around 200 books on the Kennedy assassination (it could be 175), but I do not have ALL of them.
There is one that I have been eagerly waiting to buy : David Lifton's new book.

[Ron Ecker]

27 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

There is one that I have been eagerly waiting to buy : David Lifton's new book.

What is your life expectancy?

 

 

[François Carlier]

12 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

What is your life expectancy?

 

 

That's funny 😁 😁
Mister Lifton, if you read this, please give your manuscript to your publisher now ! We've waited long enough.

[Guest]

OK, you've really thought through this Presidential assassination.  If all goes well, your shooters to the rear will get the job done and the whole package will be pretty tidy.  But you are sophisticated planners and you leave nothing to chance.  If all doesn't go well, your shooters in the front will blow his head off.  That's Plan B.  If you must activate Plan B, all sorts of things will flow from that, at least if you wish to preserve the guy on the sixth floor of the TSBD as your patsy.  You're going to have to do some wild scrambling.  You take JFK to a public hospital where all sorts of medical professionals who didn't get the memo say all sorts of dumb things about entry wounds to the throat and massive wounds to the back of the head.  So now you have to deal with them - and all the things their dumbass statements trigger.  You thought of Plan B, which was risky as hell from almost every angle, but you didn't think one second beyond Dealey Plaza.  It's possible that I'm not reading "the right pieces of information in book form or documents," but I keep bumping my head on common sense and logic.  I keep bumping my head on that "geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7-9, inept fools at steps 2-4-6-8" scenario.  Just thinking out loud, if my Plan B involved shooters at the front, I think I would've had a Plan B patsy there as well.

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

OK, you've really thought through this Presidential assassination.  If all goes well, your shooters to the rear will get the job done and the whole package will be pretty tidy.  But you are sophisticated planners and you leave nothing to chance.  If all doesn't go well, your shooters in the front will blow his head off.  That's Plan B.  If you must activate Plan B, all sorts of things will flow from that, at least if you wish to preserve the guy on the sixth floor of the TSBD as your patsy.  You're going to have to do some wild scrambling.  You take JFK to a public hospital where all sorts of medical professionals who didn't get the memo say all sorts of dumb things about entry wounds to the throat and massive wounds to the back of the head.  So now you have to deal with them - and all the things their dumbass statements trigger.  You thought of Plan B, which was risky as hell from almost every angle, but you didn't think one second beyond Dealey Plaza.  It's possible that I'm not reading "the right pieces of information in book form or documents," but I keep bumping my head on common sense and logic.  I keep bumping my head on that "geniuses at steps 1-3-5-7-9, inept fools at steps 2-4-6-8" scenario.  Just thinking out loud, if my Plan B involved shooters at the front, I think I would've had a Plan B patsy there as well.

 

Lance,

You mean you've ALREADY forgotten why it is the assassination plotters didn't care if a conspiracy was suspected by the authorities?? You revealed just a couple days ago that you'd figured that one out.

Truth is, the conspirators were doing all they could to make the shooting look like a conspiracy.... just not a conspiracy they were a part of.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Lance,

You mean you've ALREADY forgotten why it is the assassination plotters didn't care if a conspiracy was suspected by the authorities?? You revealed just a couple days ago that you'd figured that one out.

Truth is, the conspirators were doing all they could to make the shooting look like a conspiracy.... just not a conspiracy they were a part of.

 

You’re wasting your time on this True Believer single bullet fraudster, Sandy.

Of course the murder was designed to look like a conspiracy!

A KGB/Castro conspiracy.

True believers can’t process information contrary to their deeply held belief system.

[François Carlier]

21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

True believers can’t process information contrary to their deeply held belief system.

You're talking about yourself, here, aren't you, Cliff ?

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy, I do not know if you have addressed this point yet, if not I will bring it up.

Many, many years ago, decades actually, Vince Salandria wrote a landmark article in two parts for Liberation magazine.  This was in 1965.  He had ordered the WC volumes and read the parts on the medical and ballistics evidence.  Now, there had been critiques of the WCR before this, by people like Joesten, Buchanan, and Staughton Lynd.  But Vince was a lawyer with an Ivy League JD. In those two articles he laid open the WR at its key point: Arlen Specter's single bullet fantasy and the medical evidence.  When I first read them back in 1990 at the UCLA Library, even at that late date, they were impressive to read, because no one would duplicate that withering blast until 1967.

Now, about five years later, after the trial of Clay Shaw, where Salandria saw just how much the CIA and FBI had done to thwart Garrison, including sending infiltrators into his camp, like Boxley, Salandria wrote a second essay.  I think it was published in 1969.  In that work he now said that the WR was designed to fall apart.  It was not possible for a prosecutor like Specter to have ever really believed that what he did was in any way forensically authentic.  So Vince now concluded that the assassination was done in the way it was to illustrate the fact that: So what? You know it was a conspiracy. So do we. 

 The assassination itself was easily discerned by anyone who was informed and had a moderate amount of intelligence and education as a plot.  The important thing was the cover up. In other words it was designed to deliberately weaken the whole concept of democracy and legitimacy of the US government.

Which it did.

The one thing I would add to Vince's thesis is that what the WCR did in its sordid cover up also enabled other such crimes to succeed--MLK and RFK.  Recall what the LAPD said in the hours after RFK's murder: We don't want another Dallas, we don't want another big conspiracy.

Edited December 28, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[François Carlier]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy, I do not know if you have addressed this point yet, if not I will bring it up.

Many, many years ago, decades actually, Vince Salandria wrote a landmark article in two parts for Liberation magazine.  This was in 1965.  He had ordered the WC volumes and read the parts on the medical and ballistics evidence.  Now, there had been critiques of the WCR before this, by people like Joesten, Buchanan, and Staughton Lynd.  But Vince was a lawyer with an Ivy League JD. In those two articles he laid open the WR at its key point: Arlen Specter's single bullet fantasy and the medical evidence.  When I first read them back in 1990 at the UCLA Library, even at that late date, they were impressive to read, because no one would duplicate that withering blast until 1967.

Now, about five years later, after the trial of Clay Shaw, where Salandria saw just how much the CIA and FBI had done to thwart Garrison, including sending infiltrators into his camp, like Boxley, Salandria wrote a second essay.  I think it was published in 1969.  In that work he now said that the WR was designed to fall apart.  It was not possible for a persecutor like Specter to have ever really believed that what he did was in any way forensically authentic.  So Vince now concluded that the assassination was done in the way it was to illustrate the fact that: So what? You know it was a conspiracy. So do we. 

 The assassination itself was easily discerned by anyone who was informed and had a moderate amount of intelligence and education as a plot.  The important thing was the cover up. In other words it was designed to deliberately weaken the whole concept of democracy and legitimacy of the US government.

Which it did.

The one thing I would add to Vince's thesis is that what the WCR did in its sordid cover up also enabled other such crimes to succeed--MLK and RFK.  Recall what the LAPD said in the hours after RFK's murder: We don't want another Dallas, we don't want another big conspiracy.

You are quoting Vincent Salandria, repeating his opinion.
He was not a member of the Warren commission, nor an investigator, nor a member of the Dallas police, nor did he ever meet Oswald.
What "firsthand knowledge" does he have ? None.
His opinion may be interesting but it is not evidence, nor proof.
Your weakness, Mister DiEugenio, will always be Lee Oswald's own actions. What he did most certainly tends to show that he was not part of a conspiracy, and there was no need to "cover-up" anything after he himself killed a policeman and tried to kill another, in front of witnesses !!!!!!!
And, like it or not, in my desire to be honest and open-minded, as far as Lee Oswald's guilt is concerned, I will always (and I should always) rank Robert Oswald's opinion (he knew him and talked to him and even met him at the DPD jail) way above your opinion (you didn't know him and never talked to him, let alone saw him when he was in the DPD jail).
Surely you understand my point.
(I'm not talking about the evidence, here, just the opinions of two people : there's no denying that Robert Oswald knows better than you do)

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, François Carlier said:

You {Jim D.] are quoting Vincent Salandria, repeating his opinion.
He was not a member of the Warren commission, nor an investigator, nor a member of the Dallas police, nor did he ever meet Oswald.
What "firsthand knowledge" does he have ? None.
His opinion may be interesting but it is not evidence, nor proof.

 

LOL

From this I can see that Francois' brain is designed to take the word of authorities at face value. Even if he did have an open mind, as he says he does, there is no way he would ever accept there was a coverup... simply because, by default, he implicitly trusts the words of the coverup artists over those of their critics.

 

4 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Your weakness, Mister DiEugenio, will always be Lee Oswald's own actions. What [LHO] did most certainly tends to show that he was not part of a conspiracy, and there was no need to "cover-up" anything after he himself killed a policeman and tried to kill another, in front of witnesses !!!!!!!

 

You don't know what LHO did Francois, you only know what the coverup artists want you to believe.

In contrast to you and other LNers, we CTer's actually READ and STUDY the evidence . We know, for example, that the Mexico City evidence paint LHO as engaged in a conspiracy with Castro and the KGB to kill Kennedy. That is revealed in declassified top-secret documents that you apparently are unaware of. That fact was well known by the top authorities but kept under wraps for decades. Ironically, further study by we CTers reveals that LHO wasn't even aware that he was in cahoots with the Cubans and Russians. In other words, LHO had been framed!

(P.S. When I say "we CTers" I am not talking about myself. Others have done the "heavy lifting," which I and others have benefited from. But I will note that I came in this with a truly open mind, studied the evidence that had been unearthed, and came to my own conclusions. They just happen to match those of many of the other CTers here.)

 

4 hours ago, François Carlier said:

And, like it or not, in my desire to be honest and open-minded, as far as Lee Oswald's guilt is concerned, I will always (and I should always) rank Robert Oswald's opinion (he knew him and talked to him and even met him at the DPD jail) way above your opinion (you didn't know him and never talked to him, let alone saw him when he was in the DPD jail).
Surely you understand my point.
(I'm not talking about the evidence, here, just the opinions of two people : there's no denying that Robert Oswald knows better than you do)

 

Oh, you mean the Robert Oswald who insisted (along with his mother) that LHO attended Stripling Junior High, whereas school records show him attending Beauregard Junior High? Oh yeah, he's someone whose story you can trust! LOL

 

[Joe Bauer]

Regards Robert Oswald's recounting his meeting with Lee at the jail and Lee's supposed non-responsive silence to Robert's questions ( paraphrasing but something like "what the heck is going on here Lee?") what would one expect from a person accused of a "capital punishment-death sentence " crime and who knew his interview with his brother was being listened to and probably recorded? And before Oswald even had legal council ? 

Of course Lee wouldn't speak except to express concern for his daughter getting some new shoes.

Yet, Captain Fritz didn't record his interrogations with Oswald? No stenographer present?

Fritz was known for this?

Obvious why Fritz did this. He could have used illegal interrogation methods on his suspects which may have worked in eliciting confessions, but could have been used to throw out some of those confessions.  Hence, don't have these recorded.

Look at what Fritz did to Buell Wesley Frazier in trying to intimidate him into confessing a conspiracy with Oswald? Took a swing at Frazier?  Frazier put up his own dukes and warned Fritz they was gonna have one hell of a dog fight if Fritz laid his hands on him.

Oswald had been through the interrogation ringer before he met with Robert.

Robert was Lee's brother, but that didn't make him any better or more knowledgeable of a witness in implicating Lee and his guilt or innocence. In fact, his personal bias's toward Lee and ignorance of Lee's New Orleans activities actually made him a bad witness.

 

Edited December 28, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Cory Santos]

On 12/27/2018 at 1:37 PM, François Carlier said:

You're talking about yourself, here, aren't you, Cliff ?

No fc.  I think he was clear on that.  You misread the statements... again.

[Cory Santos]

21 hours ago, François Carlier said:

You are quoting Vincent Salandria, repeating his opinion.
He was not a member of the Warren commission, nor an investigator, nor a member of the Dallas police, nor did he ever meet Oswald.
What "firsthand knowledge" does he have ? None.
His opinion may be interesting but it is not evidence, nor proof.
Your weakness, Mister DiEugenio, will always be Lee Oswald's own actions. What he did most certainly tends to show that he was not part of a conspiracy, and there was no need to "cover-up" anything after he himself killed a policeman and tried to kill another, in front of witnesses !!!!!!!
And, like it or not, in my desire to be honest and open-minded, as far as Lee Oswald's guilt is concerned, I will always (and I should always) rank Robert Oswald's opinion (he knew him and talked to him and even met him at the DPD jail) way above your opinion (you didn't know him and never talked to him, let alone saw him when he was in the DPD jail).
Surely you understand my point.
(I'm not talking about the evidence, here, just the opinions of two people : there's no denying that Robert Oswald knows better than you do)

Jim why do you waste your time? Lol.  FC solved the case based on Robert Oswalds opinion because as FC notes he knew LHO and you didnt.  I guess FC conveniently again forgets evidence  namely that LHO's mother and wife claimed LHO was innocent.  So by FC logic I guess their opinions should be higher but it seems that w fc facts and logical arguments are always conveniently ignored.  Jim ignore him.

[François Carlier]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You don't know what LHO did Francois, you only know what the coverup artists want you to believe.

Whatever do you mean ? Yes, I know what Lee Oswald did on November 22, 1963. He took his pistol. He killed a policeman in public. Then he tried to kill another policeman. Then he lied when he was interrogated, while being accused of assassinating the President of the United States !
Would you do that ? I know that I wouldn't.
Anybody who tries to kill a policeman (or any man, for that matter) is NOT a hero to me, and NOT someone whom I want to paint as a poor scapegoat.

[François Carlier]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh, you mean the Robert Oswald who insisted (along with his mother) that LHO attended Stripling Junior High, whereas school records show him attending Beauregard Junior High? Oh yeah, he's someone whose story you can trust! LOL

 

Oh, come on !
Please.
Please don't resort to slander, or defamation of character.
Please have respect for a honest, decent man.
Haven't you watched the numerous intervews (mostly in documentaries, over the years) that Robert Oswlad agreed to answer to ? Haven't you seen him cry ?
Haven't you seen him say this :

"After all these years, I think more than anything else, if I had an opportunity, had the facts that said Lee was innocent, I would be out there shouting it loud and clear. It is my belief, my conviction, no one but Lee was involved, period." [ The Kennedy assassination, beyond conspiracy, ABC News, 2003. ]

Robert Oswald was a decent man. He would have loved to say that his brother was innocent but he was honest enough to acknowledge the evidence and he had to admit that his brother was guilty.

As you know, I am willing to debate. I even accept the contempt that you sometimes display against me. I am going to keep on debating about the medical evidence and the medical personnel accounts.
BUT, I state unequivocally that as much as I welcome criticism and disagreements, I totally decline to have any type of conversation here with members who show a lack of respect for decent people or insult or slander or libel honest people. I think of Robert Oswald and Ruth Paine. Recently a member of this forum, whose name I forgot, slandered Ruth Paine and accused her of all types of ridiculous actions. I really despise that.
I don't mind debating and arguing with people who disagree with me. But I won't bother to even acknowledge members who come here only to slander, libel, or vomit on decent people !