Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton- the start of this video will shock you


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

 Well said!

OK, Vince, you know I like you, but I don't think you can just write people off for being swayed by the same WC/Bugliosi arguments you quite publicly embraced, if only for a brief period. 

Unfortunately, I think the CT/LNT divide is mostly tribal, where many LNTs will continue to believe Oswald acted alone (no matter what the evidence) and many CTs will continue to believe JFK was killed by a widespread conspiracy (no matter what the evidence). I mean. let's face it, IF a noted mobster produced a file showing that he had contracted with Giancana or Trafficante or whomever, to kill JFK, and he had a contemporaneous diary and receipts proving his presence in Dallas, and even had photos of his hit team preparing for the assassination, and photos of them afterwards smiling while holding up a newspaper proclaiming Kennedy had been killed on a Dallas street, and could point out several members of this hit team in photos taken in the aftermath of the shooting, and even had a print matching the one incorrectly ID'ed as belonging to Malcolm Wallace, well, you know and I know that a large segment of the CT population would immediately conclude this was all part of a plan to let the CIA off the hook--"a limited hangout". 

It reminds me of that old joke. Upon entry into heaven a long-time CT asks God who killed JFK. God then looks him straight in the eye and says it was Oswald acting alone. The CT then says to himself "Huh, the conspiracy goes higher than I thought!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

OK, Vince, you know I like you, but I don't think you can just write people off for being swayed by the same WC/Bugliosi arguments you quite publicly embraced, if only for a brief period. 

Unfortunately, I think the CT/LNT divide is mostly tribal, where many LNTs will continue to believe Oswald acted alone (no matter what the evidence) and many CTs will continue to believe JFK was killed by a widespread conspiracy (no matter what the evidence). I mean. let's face it, IF a noted mobster produced a file showing that he had contracted with Giancana or Trafficante or whomever, to kill JFK, and he had a contemporaneous diary and receipts proving his presence in Dallas, and even had photos of his hit team preparing for the assassination, and photos of them afterwards smiling while holding up a newspaper proclaiming Kennedy had been killed on a Dallas street, and could point out several members of this hit team in photos taken in the aftermath of the shooting, and even had a print matching the one incorrectly ID'ed as belonging to Malcolm Wallace, well, you know and I know that a large segment of the CT population would immediately conclude this was all part of a plan to let the CIA off the hook--"a limited hangout". 

It reminds me of that old joke. Upon entry into heaven a long-time CT asks God who killed JFK. God then looks him straight in the eye and says it was Oswald acting alone. The CT then says to himself "Huh, the conspiracy goes higher than I thought!"

Pat, do you believe that Oswald acted alone? I don't think you can do, but, I wonder what the driving force for your reply to Vince is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

OK, Vince, you know I like you, but I don't think you can just write people off for being swayed by the same WC/Bugliosi arguments you quite publicly embraced, if only for a brief period. 

Unfortunately, I think the CT/LNT divide is mostly tribal, where many LNTs will continue to believe Oswald acted alone (no matter what the evidence) and many CTs will continue to believe JFK was killed by a widespread conspiracy (no matter what the evidence). I mean. let's face it, IF a noted mobster produced a file showing that he had contracted with Giancana or Trafficante or whomever, to kill JFK, and he had a contemporaneous diary and receipts proving his presence in Dallas, and even had photos of his hit team preparing for the assassination, and photos of them afterwards smiling while holding up a newspaper proclaiming Kennedy had been killed on a Dallas street, and could point out several members of this hit team in photos taken in the aftermath of the shooting, and even had a print matching the one incorrectly ID'ed as belonging to Malcolm Wallace, well, you know and I know that a large segment of the CT population would immediately conclude this was all part of a plan to let the CIA off the hook--"a limited hangout". 

It reminds me of that old joke. Upon entry into heaven a long-time CT asks God who killed JFK. God then looks him straight in the eye and says it was Oswald acting alone. The CT then says to himself "Huh, the conspiracy goes higher than I thought!"

Hi, Pat! I must admit: your comment put me in my place. You make some valid points, indeed! I like the old joke at the end, too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Vince:  Nothing shocks me anymore.  DSL (5/11/22 - 1 PM PDT)

Good to hear from you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It reminds me of that old joke. Upon entry into heaven a long-time CT asks God who killed JFK. God then looks him straight in the eye and says it was Oswald acting alone. The CT then says to himself "Huh, the conspiracy goes higher than I thought!"

The version I heard was three CT's went to heaven. They are told one of the perks of entering the Pearly Gates is they get to ask one question of the Almighty. The big moment arrives and they ask the bearded, aged Creator of the Universe, Who killed JFK? A pause, then the answer, "Well I've got a theory about that..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I like your latest collages Vince, but honestly I've seen all the clips before except in this one where I don't recall Robert Mac Neal quite so graphically explaining JFK's head wounds. Obviously there is expected to be a lot of confusion at the beginning.

Much has been speculated about O'Neill backing off on his conspiracy notions. But in this clip a few years back he accounts the events of the day as a young reporter very descriptively and there's a little apertif   for the prayer man people in the end. The guy does quite a job of recounting a lot of detail.

 

In this video you shared, MacNeil doesn't talk about the head wound, Do you mean DAN RATHER in ***my***video collage? Or do you mean when MacNeil is describing the wounds to a puzzled Frank McGee?

Edited by Vince Palamara
FORGOT SOMETHING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

That's not true Vince. Do you seriously think that?

It seems like your goal is to nitpick and debunk everything. I thought you were in cahoots with Parnell LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The version I heard was three CT's went to heaven. They are told one of the perks of entering the Pearly Gates is they get to ask one question of the Almighty. The big moment arrives and they ask the bearded, aged Creator of the Universe, Who killed JFK? A pause, then the answer, "Well I've got a theory about that..."

THAT version I have in my latest book :) Greg, I am actually waiting for you to have a post "Can we really be sure God would say something like that???"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Pat, do you believe that Oswald acted alone? I don't think you can do, but, I wonder what the driving force for your reply to Vince is?

I was just reminding Vince that when Bugliosi put out Reclaiming History, he (Vince) was so impressed with Vincent Bugliosi's lawyerly arguments that he briefly said he'd been swayed. 

It's easy to understand, really. At the time, the most prominent alternative to Bugliosi was probably Fetzer. And Fetzer had a throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks attitude towards the truth...that turned a lot of people off, and made someone like Bugliosi sound like the voice of reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I was just reminding Vince that when Bugliosi put out Reclaiming History, he (Vince) was so impressed with Vincent Bugliosi's lawyerly arguments that he briefly said he'd been swayed. 

It's easy to understand, really. At the time, the most prominent alternative to Bugliosi was probably Fetzer. And Fetzer had a throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks attitude towards the truth...that turned a lot of people off, and made someone like Bugliosi sound like the voice of reason. 

Ah ok - makes sense - I was a bit confused as I have seen plenty of your posts. I am glad Bugliosi has been exposed now in some respects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I was just reminding Vince that when Bugliosi put out Reclaiming History, he (Vince) was so impressed with Vincent Bugliosi's lawyerly arguments that he briefly said he'd been swayed. 

It's easy to understand, really. At the time, the most prominent alternative to Bugliosi was probably Fetzer. And Fetzer had a throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks attitude towards the truth...that turned a lot of people off, and made someone like Bugliosi sound like the voice of reason. 

Pat, you nailed it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

In this video you shared, MacNeil doesn't talk about the head wound, Do you mean DAN RATHER in ***my***video collage? Or do you mean when MacNeil is describing the wounds to a puzzled Frank McGee?

No Vince. I was talking about your video. That's Mac Neal at :49 talking about the "brain wound at the top of the head involving a great loss of blood and brain tissue". and then he goes on to describe the throat wound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

No Vince. I was talking about your video. That's Mac Neal at :49 talking about the "brain wound at the top of the head involving a great loss of blood and brain tissue". and then he goes on to describe the throat wound.

Thanks! :) Once I posted my comment, I then thought that is what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2022 at 4:36 PM, Pat Speer said:

Unfortunately, I think the CT/LNT divide is mostly tribal, where many LNTs will continue to believe Oswald acted alone (no matter what the evidence) and many CTs will continue to believe JFK was killed by a widespread conspiracy (no matter what the evidence). I mean. let's face it, IF a noted mobster produced a file showing that he had contracted with Giancana or Trafficante or whomever, to kill JFK, and he had a contemporaneous diary and receipts proving his presence in Dallas, and even had photos of his hit team preparing for the assassination, and photos of them afterwards smiling while holding up a newspaper proclaiming Kennedy had been killed on a Dallas street, and could point out several members of this hit team in photos taken in the aftermath of the shooting, and even had a print matching the one incorrectly ID'ed as belonging to Malcolm Wallace, well, you know and I know that a large segment of the CT population would immediately conclude this was all part of a plan to let the CIA off the hook--"a limited hangout".

This sums up quite a number of personal conversations I've had about the case for the past two years. I know of at least two decent researchers who have all but quit doing anything with the case - a case they care about deeply and personally - because they have no interest in being the public target of the CIA Primacy crowd that rests atop of the hierarchy in the Kennedy assassination research community. It's an odd thing to observe when a community founded on the idea that "the establishment media needs to look into this with a much more open mind" is a community that has planted their flags into their own theories and refuses and refutes anything that doesn't support that flag. Anyone who disagrees is "a disinformationist," "untrusted," and the tiresome "discredited," while those who do agree with them are characterized as "careful researchers" who have done "valuable," "important," and "noteworthy" work. I continue to tell young (under 50 in this case... lol) researchers that anytime you read that someone has been "discredited," you've probably found a writer with a fragile ego who has to circle the wagons and destroy the outsiders to validate their own needed sense of importance. And yes, they'll use "limited hangout," as Pat pointed out," just as they'll use "discredited." Both phrases cause the same near-ripping of the optic nerve from the eye roll they deserve and usually describe the fragility of the descriptor better than its target. Well said, Pat. 

Edited by S.T. Patrick
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...