Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 5/22/2019 at 2:26 AM, David Lifton said:

I do not understand your question--and specifically, what you mean when you write ""whether a full chest tube procedure was performed".

Could you please clarify?    Thanks.  DSL

deleted

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 5/9/2019 at 11:16 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Everyone knows that the Magic Bullet made seven wounds, smashed two bones and then reverse trajectories out of JBC's leg.

We also know that the head shot, according to the WC ended up with two fragments in the front floor of the car.

But yet, there is the dented front chrome around the windshield , the cracked windshield itself, and the dented dashboard.

(Am I missing anything?) 

What made those because it certainly could not have been the Magic Bullet.

 

What is your source for a dented dashboard?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
On 5/22/2019 at 2:26 AM, David Lifton said:

I do not understand your question--and specifically, what you mean when you write ""whether a full chest tube procedure was performed".

Could you please clarify?    Thanks.  DSL

I made an expanded and updated version of my post regarding the chest tubes. https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/dojhuk/chest_tubes/

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
On 5/20/2019 at 8:21 PM, David Lifton said:

5/20/2019 - 11:20 PM EDT

Ron,

The way events evolved is not what was supposed to happen.

JFK's body was supposed to be altered, in Dallas, and then there was to be a Dallas autopsy.

But none of that happened, once Connally was unexpectedly shot.

The result: the focus shifted to getting JFK's body out of Texas, without an autopsy, and focusing on Connally's medical treatment, so that his unexpected shooting did not foul up "the best of well laid plans."

I'll be publishing about this soon. 

DSL

 

 

Final Charade is gearing up to be the Winds of Winter of JFK research 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
On 5/21/2019 at 1:10 AM, David Von Pein said:

Not surprisingly, I see that David Lifton is still desperately clinging to really bad information with respect to the "surgery of the head area" remark that appears on Page 3 of the 11/22/63 Sibert & O'Neill Report.

Mr. Lifton, however, knows full well that the co-author of that 1963 report—James W. Sibert—also made the following statement to the HSCA in 1978:

"When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection." -- James Sibert; October 24, 1978

So, Mr. Lifton, what about that 1978 statement by Jim Sibert? Was he lying when he made those comments to the House Select Committee? I guess you must think he was.

I'll also add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"In a 1999 telephone conversation from his retirement home in Fort Myers, Florida, Sibert told me that when the casket was opened in the autopsy room, "The president was wrapped in two sheets, one around his body, another sheet around his head." He said the sheet around the head was "soaked in blood," and when it was removed, Dr. Humes "almost immediately upon seeing the president's head—this was before the autopsy—remarked that the president had a tracheotomy and surgery of the head area." When I asked Sibert what Humes was referring to when he used the word surgery, he said, "He was referring to the large portion of the president's skull that was missing." When I asked him why he was so sure of this, he replied, "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to."" -- Page 1060 of "Reclaiming History"
 

These quotes cannot be used to debunk the "surgery of the head" statement from the Sibert & O'Neill report.

 

From Sibert’s notes on a 8/8/1990 phone call from David Lifton:

 

4. Discussed "surgery in head area" told him was Humes statement and that large piece of skull later came in which accounted for Humes original remark

 

Looking back maybe we should have asked him after piece of skull arrived

 

Does this piece of skull rule out your remark about surgery in head area?

 

(ARRB MD 216)

 

If Sibert said that “Looking back maybe we should have asked” if the late-arriving skull fragment ruled out pre-autopsy surgery, then this may discredit the 10/24/1978 affidavit where Sibert said that the surgery statement “was determined not to be correct following detailed inspection and when the piece of bone found in the limousine was brought to the autopsy room”. That could have been pure speculation of Sibert’s part, not something that was indicated to him by the pathologists.

And, from Bugliosi's own quote, Sibert did not actually say the pathologists indicated they were referring to the missing portion of skull. Sibert only said "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to".

 

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...