Jump to content
The Education Forum

DiEugenio, Cranor, and the mole (my mole) - 3/31/20


Recommended Posts

It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul.  Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters:  autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy.

But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting:

  And each particular hair to stand on end,

  Like quills upon the fretful porcupine. 

  But this eternal blazon  must not be

  To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List!

  If thou didst ever thy dear father love—

  Hamlet.  O God!

  Ghost.  Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.

  Hamlet.  Murder!

  Ghost.  Murder most foul, as in the best it is,

  But this most foul, strange, and unnatural. 

A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016).  “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.”  She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would.  

I hoped she was right.  And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected.  Best Evidence  was published in January 1981.  After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected  Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was  briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981). 

(Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design).

Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio.  I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more).

In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good.  He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.”

But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!”

To what am I referring?

What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party.  Now. . who might that be?  Over the years I learned exactly who that was.

This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor.

Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception.

** ** **

I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor.

I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films).

So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states:

Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”.

Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture.  A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself.

C’mon Jim.  Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce.

Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”  No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase.  No matter:  this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.".

And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future.

Stay tuned.

DSL

3/31/2020 - 9 AM PST

Edited by David Lifton
Clarification; fixing syntax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What a truly bizarre, malicious thread.

I can understand the intellectual enmity between honest JFKA researchers and Warren Commission apologists like Bugliosi and Posner, but I naively assumed that the scholars in search of JFKA truth were all, more or less, in the same camp-- or, at least, fighting on the same side in the "war" against the perpetrators of the Crime of the 20th Century.

Perhaps Solomon was right when he wrote,  "All is vanity."   🤪

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Mili Cranor:

I’ve always said that any idiot could do my JFK work -- but I’m the idiot that did it. And I don’t like it when someone else takes credit for any of it. So why on earth would I write a long article --  then have Jimmy DiEugenio, or anyone else, take credit for it?  Yet, David Lifton states with mindless certainty that I am the author of Jimmy’s piece on Dylan’s latest. Is Lifton a good source of information? On anything?  I no longer correspond with him, but here are a few things I remember about him, and about his book, that you should know:

·         He unwittingly helped Warren Commission spread disinformation -- that Humes et al believed JFK’s throat wound was only a tracheotomy incision. (This was part of the “They did the best they could with what they had” tripe that was being spread by WC trolls.)

·         Claimed the throat incision was enlarged to resemble an exit wound -- but never told readers what a typical FMJ exit wound looks like: hint: it’s not a long horizontal opening; it’s star-shaped.

·         Provided a diagram of typical tracheotomy incision (short), but never provided diagram showing size of ER limited exploratory incision (not short) made in response to throat trauma, how big it had to be to allow surgeons room to repair internal damage, etc.

·         Tried to sell the notion that the back of JFK’s head was put back together to fool autopsists. (Reminds me of his previous theory, that gunmen hid behind bushes made of papier macier.)

·         Though I exposed the “jet effect” fraud, I tried to tell Lifton that bullets really do make brains “explode” as shown by diagrams created by medical ballistics experts. And I sent him articles on the subject. He claimed those articles were written just to refute his book. Brilliant! 

·         When I raised a legitimate question (originally asked by another researcher) -- what JFK’s ability to breathe (though with difficulty) indicated about the path of the bullet, whether or not it damaged the brain stem etc -- Lifton was so threatened by this question, he tried to get me fired by claiming I was using my employer’s financial resources to further my research. Fortunately for me, my employers were not fooled. They knew exactly what I was doing, and approved.

·         When I told of how he was harassing me, he claimed I was stalking him. Really. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

He unwittingly helped Warren Commission spread disinformation -- that Humes et al believed JFK’s throat wound was only a tracheotomy incision. (This was part of the “They did the best they could with what they had” tripe that was being spread by WC trolls.)

That disinformation was enabled by Dr. Pierre Finck. As the autopsy assistant who was most qualified to identify gunshot wounds, Finck never mentioned once considering a bullet through the throat until the day after the autopsy. Cranor's quarrel is with him, not David.

Quote

·         Claimed the throat incision was enlarged to resemble an exit wound -- but never told readers what a typical FMJ exit wound looks like: hint: it’s not a long horizontal opening; it’s star-shaped.

Paul O'Connor claimed that the trach incision was "teardrop-shaped", and questioned the validity of the photos showing the trach incision. He said that it was large enough for him to be able to see the esophagus. O'Connor said that his first impression of the incision was that it looked like a bullet exit wound. James Curtus Jenkins also once described the incision as "teardrop shaped".

Quote

·         Provided a diagram of typical tracheotomy incision (short), but never provided diagram showing size of ER limited exploratory incision (not short) made in response to throat trauma, how big it had to be to allow surgeons room to repair internal damage, etc.

It is true that neck incisions can be that long, and it is true that Dr. Perry told the WC that he cut through the strap muscles, which would seem to support the "6.5 centimeter" measurment in the autopsy protocol. But it is also true that on 11/23, Jimmy Breslin met with Perry, and Breslin described the incision as being "below" the throat wound. One could say that "below" means depth rather than vertical distance, but I may as well mention that Dr. Crenshaw also claimed that the incision was small and made laterally below the small hole in the throat. It is also true that Parkland staff member Dr. David Stewart described Perry telling him that "no incision was necissary" because the tube was "inserted into the pre-existing hole". And finally, In 1966, David called Drs. Perry, Carrico, and Baxter to ask them how long the trach incision was. All three said it was 2-4 centimeters, and none of them stopped for a second and said "wait, if you mean the incision on the skin of the neck, it was 6.5 centimeters". There was also Robert Groden's (questionable) story about interviewing Perry - Perry alledgedly questioned the stare-of-death picture and said "I left this wound inviolate". Later on, the Parkland doctors would say that the photos were how they remembered it.

Quote

·         Tried to sell the notion that the back of JFK’s head was put back together to fool autopsists. (Reminds me of his previous theory, that gunmen hid behind bushes made of papier macier.)

It isn't really David's fault that the FBI report said there was "apparent surgey to the head". And, unless there's any information to the contrary, it isn't his fault that there were so many different explinations for that passage, or different descriptions of caskets in the morgue, or the presence of an honor guard, or the presence of a brain in the cranium. And was the plot of Air Force 2 lying when he claimed to have seen a forklift tampering with the casket on the starboard side of Air Force 1?

 

Quote

·         Though I exposed the “jet effect” fraud, I tried to tell Lifton that bullets really do make brains “explode” as shown by diagrams created by medical ballistics experts. And I sent him articles on the subject. He claimed those articles were written just to refute his book. Brilliant! 

·         When I raised a legitimate question (originally asked by another researcher) -- what JFK’s ability to breathe (though with difficulty) indicated about the path of the bullet, whether or not it damaged the brain stem etc

 

Are we really sure that a body with so much brain damage couldn't make some spasm that resembled a breath of air?

Quote

· Lifton was so threatened by this question, he tried to get me fired by claiming I was using my employer’s financial resources to further my research. Fortunately for me, my employers were not fooled. They knew exactly what I was doing, and approved.

·         When I told of how he was harassing me, he claimed I was stalking him. Really. 

 

Yikes if true.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2020 at 3:43 PM, W. Niederhut said:

What a truly bizarre, malicious thread.

I can understand the intellectual enmity between honest JFKA researchers and Warren Commission apologists like Bugliosi and Posner, but I naively assumed that the scholars in search of JFKA truth were all, more or less, in the same camp-- or, at least, fighting on the same side in the "war" against the perpetrators of the Crime of the 20th Century.

Perhaps Solomon was right when he wrote,  "All is vanity."   🤪

Hi Mr Niederhut:  Set aside the entire discussion of the wounds. Simply focus on the issue of chain of possession of JFK's body.   Can there really be any question that JFK's body left Dallas wrapped in sheets,  inside a ceremonial casket;  but arrived at the Bethesda morgue, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket?  DiEugenio and Cranor (and their ilk) ought to get together, and seek treatment for denial. Their psychology resembles those in the Flat Earth Society.   The reason I tend not to wish to debate with them is that its largely a waste of time.  (And they present themselves s truth seekers)?    Pretty sad state of affairs. DSL

P.S. Another problem with some of these people is that they are so heavily invested in the idea that the WC  was part of a deliberate conspiracy, that there's no room in their thinking for the idea that the WC --whatever its flaws  (and there were many)-- was also up against a strategic deception.  So their fury about B.E is that they (mistakenly) believe that I'm an apologist for the WC -- which is nonsense.  

I believe we had a coup in 1963-- the operation of the presidential  line of succession, disguised as a quirk of fate.  Does DiEugenio think this was engineered by David Ferrie?   Maybe he can teach that to some sixth grade class, but that won't fly historically.   As for Milicent Cranor,  she's very bright, but I think she mostly suffers from a "Not Invented Here" complex.  If B.E. is correct, what's left for her to do? Study microphotographs of ant colonies?  Or daydream about coffee dates with Gary Aguilar? (Just speculating, of course). I think she should collect her writings, and publish a book.  If she has an overall (political) view of the JFK case, I'd like to know what it is. DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Testimony substantiating the removal of JFK's brain and replacement with another brain has emerged from multiple sources, such as in the testimony of the Bethesda doctor who said the brain easily came out in his hands without his having to cut the spinal cord.  The substitution could have been achieved amid the claimed multiple coffin arrivals at Bethesda and the claimed pre-autopsy work on the body before the autopsy before an audience began -- and not aboard Air Force One.  David Lifton has discovered many provocative contradictions and unknown events, such as the forklift action on the side of Air Force One not visible to the press.  But in the chain of witness testimony and research questions that has developed over the years, Lifton no longer has proprietary control of the record -- in the end, no one does in history, only in fictional creations.  The fact is that Bob Dylan could have gotten the single line he devotes to body alteration from any number of sources.  We should be grateful to David for being the first and the earliest on the scene, when witness recollections were fresh and unjaded, and for alerting us to the probability of body alteration at a plausible time and place.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Testimony substantiating the removal of JFK's brain and replacement with another brain has emerged from multiple sources, such as in the testimony of the Bethesda doctor who said the brain easily came out in his hands without his having to cut the spinal cord.  The substitution could have been achieved amid the claimed multiple coffin arrivals at Bethesda and the claimed pre-autopsy work on the body before the autopsy before an audience began -- and not aboard Air Force One.  David Lifton has discovered many provocative contradictions and unknown events, such as the forklift action on the side of Air Force One not visible to the press.  But in the chain of witness testimony and research questions that has developed over the years, Lifton no longer has proprietary control of the record -- in the end, no one does in history, only in fictional creations.  The fact is that Bob Dylan could have gotten the single line he devotes to body alteration from any number of sources.  We should be grateful to David for being the first and the earliest on the scene, when witness recollections were fresh and unjaded, and for alerting us to the probability of body alteration at a plausible time and place.

That sounds like a Review Most True. But can you refresh my memory on the "forklift action"? I don't recall that.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

That sounds like a Review Most True. But can you refresh my memory on the "forklift action"? I don't recall that.

 

 

It's mentioned in Micah Mileto's post above.  The "JFK coffin" was removed from the lighted press side of the plane, but a forklift removed something else from the dark side.  I don't recall the sequence of events.

A trash bin or chemical toilet box?  A pilot witnessed the removal.  Maybe David Lifton will provide details.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Hi Mr Niederhut:  Set aside the entire discussion of the wounds. Simply focus on the issue of chain of possession of JFK's body.   Can there really be any question that JFK's body left Dallas wrapped in sheets,  inside a ceremonial casket;  but arrived at the Bethesda morgue, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket?  DiEugenio and Cranor (and their ilk) ought to get together, and seek treatment for denial. Their psychology resembles those in the Flat Earth Society.   The reason I tend not to wish to debate with them is that its largely a waste of time.  (And they present themselves s truth seekers)?    Pretty sad state of affairs. DSL

P.S. Another problem with some of these people is that they are so heavily invested in the idea that the WC  was part of a deliberate conspiracy, that there's no room in their thinking for the idea that the WC --whatever its flaws -- was also up against a strategic deception.  So their fury about B.E is that they (mistakenly) believe that I'm an apologist for the WC -- which is nonsense.  

I believe we had a coup in 1963-- the operation of the presidential  line of succession, disguised as a quirk of fate.  Does DiEug think this was engineered by David Ferrie?   Maybe he can teach that to some sixth grade class, but that won't fly historically.   As for Milicent Cranor,  she's very bright, but I think she mostly suffers from a "Not Invented Here" complex.  If B.E. is correct, what's left for her to do? Study microphotographs of ant colonies?  Or daydream about coffee dates with Gary Aguilar? (Just speculating, of course). I think she should collect her writings, and publish a book.  If she has an overall (political) view of the JFK case, I'd like to know what it is. DSL

         I can't speak for Mr. DiEugenio, but I have studied his work in some detail.  It accurately describes a vast array of historical and forensic data about JFK's assassination and the ensuing cover up of the Crime of the 20th Century.  It's a "forest," and the autopsy material is one tree in that forest-- a premise with which Bob Dylan, himself, would, doubtless, agree.

        Dylan's dirge seems to incorporate a broad array of the JFKA research.

        As for the WC conspiracy, are you suggesting that Allen Dulles and J. Edgar Hoover (with assistance from Gerald Ford) did not conspire to withhold critical evidence from the WC, and actively intervene with the "investigation," to "conclude" that JFK was assassinated by a Lone Nut with a Carcano rifle?

       As I recall, Dulles opened the WC "investigation" by erroneously telling the Commission that all Presidential assassinations in U.S. history had been committed by Lone Nuts.

       I think it was Hale Boggs who replied, "Wasn't there a conspiracy in Lincoln's assassination?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...