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

[Ron Ecker]

14 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I think the confrontation over the coffin is a strong indication that body alteration was not part of the primary plan. If the State actors showed strong enough resolve then the federal actors would have failed. A plan requiring such an unpredictable element is an excessively risky plan. The two-stage shot sequence, the coffin fight and Finck's testimony in the Garrison trial suggest to me we got the implementation of a backup plan.

I agree. I believe the primary plan was sabotaged by Oswald being taken alive. So making Oswald the lone shooter meant altering the body.

I would imagine there was an order to get the body out of Parkland as soon as word came that Oswald had been arrested. But offhand I don't know the timeline.

 

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

On 4/11/2020 at 3:58 PM, Paul Brancato said:

conspiracy theories that have the deliberate effect of giving the media a target to lump all conspiracy theories together as ridiculous. ... I remember that my first reaction to Best Evidence was exactly that. 

Me too. It's worth noting that the harm that something like Best Evidence can do doesn't depend on getting people to actually read the book. The coverage of the book in the print and broadcast media would have been enough to dissuade very many people, perhaps millions of people, from questioning the lone-nut doctrine. "They stole JFK's body from Air Force One and nobody noticed? Get outta here! Is that what these people believe? They're all tin-foil hat crazies!"

As well as allowing the media to equate any form of criticism with irrational belief in an absurdly unlikely conspiracy theory, Lifton's book helped the official case in another way. His theory implied that a crucial aspect of the Warren Commission's case was valid, when it wasn't. According to Lifton and the Warren Commission, the locations of the entry wounds in the rear of JFK's head and torso were consistent with a lone gunman firing from the sixth floor of the book depository.

Lifton's claim is that these wounds were carefully fabricated to show that a lone gunman could have done what the Commission said he did. Once the general public dismisses the faking of the wounds as a paranoid fantasy, they are left with the impression that the location of the wounds shows that the lone-nut theory is plausible. "This part of the Commission's case is rock solid! It must be, because there's this book by one of those conspiracy theorists we've been warned about, and even he says so. Looks like Oswald could have done it after all!"

In reality, the locations of the wounds are strong evidence against the official case. Although most of the general public probably wouldn't have known that the locations actually contradicted the lone-nut theory, Lifton must have known. Why did he misrepresent this evidence in a way that helped the official case?

Quote

And I can’t help but notice how he treats those that disagree with him.

Yes, I've heard one or two Lifton stories myself. He doesn't seem able to cope with criticism very well, does he?

Quote

Plus he still hasn’t answered my oft repeated question to him - where is the book he was promoting on this forum recently?

I wonder what Lifton's final charade will turn out to be. Maybe he is claiming that the rear sniper (you know, the one who fired a shot from the rear which can't have happened because all the shots were fired from the front) was hiding in a fake papier-mâché book depository.
 

[Andrej Stancak]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

"They stole JFK's body from Air Force One and nobody noticed? Get outta here! Is that what these people believe? They're all tin-foil hat crazies!"

Jeremy:

I wonder where does your aversion to David Lifton's Best Evidence comes from?

There are two layers of information in every research: 1) A layer of facts and evidence. 2) A layer of interpretations of the facts. You seem to question the interpretation part of Best Evidence and while this is all right if a reasonable and maybe even better interpretation can be suggested, a change in interpretation of evidence does not disprove Layer 1 - the facts and evidence.

Layer 1: Best Evidence is a fact-based book. It contains accurate data, those which are accessible to every researcher and can easily be verified, but especially those which are based on a number of interviews carried by David Lifton. It is well documented with footnotes and references. But there is something better than saying that the book provides wealth of novel data: the later independent research of medical evidence conducted by several researchers fully confirmed the data presented in Best Evidence, and the novel data, such as extended interview with the mortician Tom Robinson (ARRB) or the report of Sgt. Roger Boyajian (ARRB), are in full accord with Best Evidence findings of a surgery to the head (discovered by Lifton in Sibert and O'Neil's November 26, 1963 report) or an early arrival of a black ambulance (hearse?) with President's body at 1835. There is no better validation of a theory than that subsequently and independently acquired new data fit the data on which a theory has been based.

Layer 2: We do not know exactly how and when and by whom the surgery to the head and neck had been carried out. Data allow an informed guess and by applying logical thinking and by eliminating certain improbable alternatives, one can suggest the most plausible interpretation of events. This is the process of "connecting the dots". Every author has the right and is actually expected to suggest an interpretation of findings. David Lifton saw in 1981 and still appears to see it in a way which assumes that the body had to be taken out from the bronze casket during the swearing in of Lyndon B. Johnson. However, there is no witness testimony or a late confession that would confirm this scenario. Also, David Lifton believes that Commander Humes was not the one performing the illegal surgery to President's head while Doug Horne, using the same data as David Lifton, seems to believe that the surgeries were performed by Humes. The interpretations, connecting the dots, may be different but the data presented in Best Evidence stand.

So, if you would like to question the facts and evidence, please say which piece of data in David Lifton's book is invalid. If you like to dismiss Best Evidence based on Layer 2 information, this misses the target  because every author is entitled to provide an interpretation of how events unfolded. The scenario can be discussed, improved or even changed if new data becomes available but it does not disprove the essence - data in Layer 1 and the conclusion that President's body had been altered before the start of the official autopsy.

Debates and disputes require tolerance and graciousness toward opponents and their work else a discussion comes to a halt.

 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

22 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I agree. I believe the primary plan was sabotaged by Oswald being taken alive. So making Oswald the lone shooter meant altering the body.

I would imagine there was an order to get the body out of Parkland as soon as word came that Oswald had been arrested. But offhand I don't know the timeline.

 

 

I don't agree with you on that point. I think the need for the second set of shots was the reason the plan had to change. I believe the throat wound is one of entry but subsequent events have shown that issue has been successfully obfuscated. What could not be obfuscated were the wounds caused around Z313. They needed surgery and bags of lies. 

[Ron Ecker]

7 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I don't agree with you on that point. I think the need for the second set of shots was the reason the plan had to change. 

Then we don't agree on the purpose of the killing, which IMO was not just to get rid of JFK but to do it by an ambush to be blamed on Castro for an invasion of Cuba. For the plotters any additional shots needed just meant the bloodier the better, all the more to enrage the country against "Fidel Castro and his beard" (quoting Bob Dylan).

 

 

 

[David Lifton]

On 4/11/2020 at 1:37 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I can't speak for others, but my own objection is to Lifton's theory. I'm agnostic on whether or not the body was tampered with, but if it was, it can't have been done the way Lifton claimed.

It's important to remember that Lifton wasn't just saying that the body was tampered with before the autopsy. His theory claimed that the body was altered in a specific way for a specific purpose.

Quite apart from the laughable notion that the body could be stolen from Air Force One without anyone noticing, two essential elements of Lifton's theory are clearly wrong. All the shots didn't come from the front, and the wounds which he claims were deliberately fabricated to implicate Oswald did the opposite. They exonerated Oswald and had the effect of convincing many people (including me) that the lone-nut theory was nonsense. Lifton's theory doesn't appear to take these facts into account. Perhaps he can tell us why.

If I've misunderstood Lifton's argument, or if he has found a way to reconcile his theory with the evidence I cited, I'm happy to be corrected.

It's good to be wary of disinformation, but it's a mistake to assume that any criticism of any conspiracy theory implies support for the lone-nut theory. There have been many ridiculous JFK assassination conspiracy theories over the years, some of them almost as ridiculous as Lifton's, and it's right to question all of them, not least because of the problem of guilt by association. The existence of the crazy theories supports the media's longstanding message that anyone who questions the lone-nut theory must be crazy.

When the media were looking for a JFK assassination book to promote in the early 80s, they wouldn't have been looking for one which offered a credible explanation for the assassination, or one which was representative of accepted critical thinking. Instead, the sort of book that would serve their purposes would be one which had the effect of undermining rational criticism of the lone-nut theory. They chose Best Evidence.

As for disinformation and David Lifton, the excellent researcher Martin Hay has something interesting to say on that subject:

http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/11/send-in-clowns-fetzer-and-lifton.html
 

Kennedy’s body was not “stolen” (as Bojczuk alleges).  The transfer of Kennedy’s body from the Dallas coffin to the forward luggage area was apparently done under the color of authority —specifically, under the authority of senior Secret Service agent in charge, Roy Kellerman.  There is nothing “laughable” about that.  Had there been a proper investigation (in 1963/64, by the FBI), the removal of Kennedy’s body from the ceremonial (Dallas) casket (and its subsequent transfer to a body bag)  would have been properly investigated in the course of the Warren Commission investigation.  Instead, O’Connor—and the other Bethesda medical technicians—were ordered to sign military “orders not to talk,” agreeing that if they talked, they could be court martialed.

Only because of the inadequate investigation, someone like Bojczuk can come along years later and— through ignorance—proclaim that the body was not put in a body bag, which (in fact) is the way it arrived at the morgue of Bethesda Naval Hospital, where the autopsy was performed.   Furthermore, the fact that it arrived in a body bag is a fact reported in the report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (July 1979)  reported there by Bethesda Medical Tech Paul O’Connor (who opened the body bag, and helped place JFK's body on the autopsy table). Upon reading that —again, summer of 1979—I telephoned  O’Connor, conducted a detailed interview (Aug. 1979, see Chapter 26 of B.E.) and then —two months later, in October 1980) -- conducted the filmed interview of O’Connor that anyone can view via the Best Evidence Research Video. (Please use Google, to locate its web address).

Anyone who has read Chapter 26 of B.E. or viewed my filmed interview of the late Paul O’Connor (Oct., 1980) understands that this was a serious matter, and not a “laughable notion.”  

Shame on you, Jeremy Bojczuk, for your arrogance and sneering dismissal of important evidence establishing that President Kennedy’s body was covertly intercepted prior to autopsy.  Your foolish (and absurdly biased) reaction, however, does not constitute evidence of impeachment.  Rather, it goes to the question of whether you (and your so-called “criticism”) is valid, and deserves to be taken seriously.

Edited April 15, 2020 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 4/11/2020 at 1:37 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I can't speak for others, but my own objection is to Lifton's theory. I'm agnostic on whether or not the body was tampered with, but if it was, it can't have been done the way Lifton claimed.

It's important to remember that Lifton wasn't just saying that the body was tampered with before the autopsy. His theory claimed that the body was altered in a specific way for a specific purpose.

Quite apart from the laughable notion that the body could be stolen from Air Force One without anyone noticing, two essential elements of Lifton's theory are clearly wrong. All the shots didn't come from the front, and the wounds which he claims were deliberately fabricated to implicate Oswald did the opposite. They exonerated Oswald and had the effect of convincing many people (including me) that the lone-nut theory was nonsense. Lifton's theory doesn't appear to take these facts into account. Perhaps he can tell us why.

If I've misunderstood Lifton's argument, or if he has found a way to reconcile his theory with the evidence I cited, I'm happy to be corrected.

It's good to be wary of disinformation, but it's a mistake to assume that any criticism of any conspiracy theory implies support for the lone-nut theory. There have been many ridiculous JFK assassination conspiracy theories over the years, some of them almost as ridiculous as Lifton's, and it's right to question all of them, not least because of the problem of guilt by association. The existence of the crazy theories supports the media's longstanding message that anyone who questions the lone-nut theory must be crazy.

When the media were looking for a JFK assassination book to promote in the early 80s, they wouldn't have been looking for one which offered a credible explanation for the assassination, or one which was representative of accepted critical thinking. Instead, the sort of book that would serve their purposes would be one which had the effect of undermining rational criticism of the lone-nut theory. They chose Best Evidence.

As for disinformation and David Lifton, the excellent researcher Martin Hay has something interesting to say on that subject:

http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.com/2013/11/send-in-clowns-fetzer-and-lifton.html
 

"

[Joseph McBride]

Douglas Horne proves when the surgery was done and gives details.

[Micah Mileto]

17 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Douglas Horne proves when the surgery was done and gives details.

The statements of Tom Robinson, John Van Hoesen and Floyd Riebe should not be taken as evidence for a pre-autopsy craniotomy. Humes' himself said in his WC testimony that "We had to do VIRTUALLY no work with a saw to open the skull wide enough to remove the brain". Then, in his ARRB deposition, he said "I guess he did have to cut a little bone to remove the brain". So, it's no big deal if an autopsy witness recalled some sawing of the skull.

[Robert Montenegro]

deleted by author

Edited April 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much Mr. Montenegro, great name by the way.

[Robert Montenegro]

deleted by author

Edited April 19, 2020 by Robert Montenegro

[Rob Couteau]

5 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

FYI, I loved your series with Dave Emory, that was like the Twilight Zone on steroids

I second that emotion.

By the way, Jim, there are rumors floating around that you and Milicent Cranor are actually one and the same person, Maurice Bishop-like. Also, contradictory rumors: That, Popkin-like, there may be more than one James DiEugenio; lookalikes and dopperlgangers who are locked up, deep in a bunker, churning these screeds. Else, how explain all the in-depth essays that appear Mary Poppins-like? Could one man really do all that all by himself? Or is it conspiracy?

Edited April 15, 2020 by Rob Couteau

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

As a soldier who has witnessed in combat, living men, women and children shot in the head, I can tell all of the persons on this forum, from graphic, first-hand eyewitness experience, I never saw anything like what is shown on the C.D. Jackson Time-Life copy of the "Zapruder Film".

Brains have the same consistency of plasticine. They go in the direction the supersonic metal warhead is going.

If President Kennedy was shot at from behind, from the right rear, in a moving vehicle, his brain matter, skull, cerebrospinal fluid, scalp and hair (and judging by the purported flight-path of a bullet from the sixth floor, some of President Kennedy's teeth, nose and left eye socket) would have been all over the backs of Idanell "Nellie" Brill Connally, William Robert Greer and the damn windshield of SS-100-X.

Period.

Keep on truckin' Mr. DiEugenio, you are correct.

 Dr. James J. Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell were scared xxxxless and said and did whatever their handlers wanted them to say.

"Jet-effect" my ass.

Bingo.  I forget which witness with a good close view when told of the shots coming from behind said words to the effect of "of all the deer I've shot I never had one fall Towards me".  I've considered before that if shot from the right rear it should have exited the left front part of the head.  But not really that the blood, dura matter and other should have sprayed Nellie, Greer and the windshield instead of the trunk and Hargis. 

[Rob Couteau]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

"of all the deer I've shot I never had one fall Towards me". 

In Jean-Pierre Melville's gangster / gambler drama, Bob Le Flambeur (1956), there's a famous scene at the end of the film when the gangsters have a shoot-out with the police.  According to an interview featured on the Criterion Collection disk, Melville was widely criticized when he first portrayed gun battles in the way he does here because, unlike most cinematographers who preceded him, he had the victims falling backwards when they were shot from in front, instead of falling forward, toward the oncoming bullets. Of course, the film critics were all wrong about this being "unrealistic." Melville was an active member in the French Resistance, and he knew what he was doing behind the camera. Apparently, the way that gun battles were portrayed changed once Melville's work took off. (Joe McBride, if you are there, tell me if I am remembering this correctly.)

Edited April 15, 2020 by Rob Couteau