David Lifton died on 12/6/2022

[Bob Ness]

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I wrote an Obituary of about 1500 words.

 

It will be up soon and anyone can post it around.

Cool sounds good Jim.

[David G. Healy]

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I wrote an Obituary of about 1500 words.

 

It will be up soon and anyone can post it around.

thank you...

[James DiEugenio]

Welcome to you both.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

As I said before a press release would be the best thing. I think he's newsworthy enough. The papers charge for obits and can be really expensive, but a press release is done as a news story.

Possibly @Chris Barnard could help out? I don't have the contact lists anymore - I worked at a PR firm for a few years doing in-house Avid editing and field production. That's what they would have done for a client.

Hi Bob, 

I am always happy to help out. I see Jim has taken up the responsibility. He is a great writer and I am sure he’ll do a fantastic job. David Lifton has done a lot for this cause and in the pursuit of justice. He dedicated so much of his precious time to it. I hope this epitaph honours him and serves as a record of everything he has done. 
 

Good on you @James DiEugenio.

 

 

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi Bob, 

I am always happy to help out. I see Jim has taken up the responsibility. He is a great writer and I am sure he’ll do a fantastic job. David Lifton has done a lot for this cause and in the pursuit of justice. He dedicated so much of his precious time to it. I hope this epitaph honours him and serves as a record of everything he has done. 
 

Good on you @James DiEugenio.

 

 

I thought you may have contacts for news orgs a press release can be sent to. Actually writing the obit  I'm sure Jim has handled but we used to have a book of contacts for this sort of thing. Possible?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I thought you may have contacts for news orgs a press release can be sent to. Actually writing the obit  I'm sure Jim has handled but we used to have a book of contacts for this sort of thing. Possible?

I use an agent in the UK, the field isn’t applicable for this, unfortunately. James, through his network would probably have more joy, particularly with his credentials on the topic. 

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I use an agent in the UK, the field isn’t applicable for this, unfortunately. James, through his network would probably have more joy, particularly with his credentials on the topic. 

Thanks Chris. I'm looking into my old company.

[Bob Ness]

5 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Thanks Chris. I'm looking into my old company.

My old PR Company is going to take a look.

[Micah Mileto]

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I wrote an Obituary of about 1500 words.

 

It will be up soon and anyone can post it around.

Throwback to a classic long David Lifton post: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17752-the-forward-head-movement-an-illusion/?do=findComment&comment=226765

 

You are absolutely correct, DVP, and that is why, if you argue with DiEugenio in this fashion, you will defeat him every time.

of course, your position is entirely false, however, because the debate really comes down to the condition of the body, at the time of autopsy.

Commander Humes is no doubt correct when he states that, at the time of autopsy, there was only one entrance wound (at the back of the head) and a much larger hole (which he designated the exit wound) forward of that. But that is definitely not the way the body looked in Dallas.

And, for the life of me--and putting aside (for the moment) the fact that DiEugenio ignores these basic facts--I fail to understand how you can do so.

Your entire argument (with regard to the head wound information you are quoting above) is based on the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy. Specifically, that what was observed at Bethesda (as reported by Humes) is an accurate reflection of the condition of the body (i.e., the head wounding) as it was at Parkland Hospital at Dallas.

Now surely you know better than to disengenously quote Humes in the manner you do.

Surely you do know--or ought to know--that the location and size of large hole in the President's head, at Dallas, was at the BACK of the head, in the occipital area. This is clear from the Dallas medical reports, and testimony--and from my own interviews with those doctors, decades ago.

Surely you do know that the wound, as described by (for example) Dr. Charles Carrico, was 7 by 5 cm, or 35 square centimeters; whereas the large hole described at Bethesda was, according to the diagram drawn by Dr. Boswell at the time of autopsy, a diagram whose authenticity is attested to by the fact that it even had the late President's blood on it, was listed as "10 x 17" or 170 sq. cm.

So that demonstrates a difference--between Dallas and Bethesda observations of the head wound--of more than 400%.

Surely you do know that NO DALLAS DOCTOR OR NURSE described any damage to the "top" of President Kennedy's head, whereas almost the entire top of President Kennedy's head, on the right hand size, was missing at the start of the official autopsy. Moreover, when Boswell testified to the ARRB, he drew a diagram that made that very clear.

Now. . let's turn to the supposed entry wound, as observed at Bethesda.

With regard to the supposed entry wound observed at Bethesda--the supposed "little hole" (actually, part of a hole) that was below the huge hole observed there. . surely you do know that NO Dallas doctor or nurse reported any such wound.

Now of course you surely know these things, and of course you surely must recognize this grotesque difference between the Dallas and Bethesda observations, and yet you blithely go along, quoting the Bethesda observations, when surely you do realize they don't provide valid informaiton as to how this shooting occurred. They simply constitute a verbal picture of the President's head wounding, as it appeared at Bethesda, some six hours after the shooting. But that's all it is--an "after" picture, so to speak. But not a valid picture of the way the head wounds looked at Parkland.

Furthermore, surely you know that there is direct evidence, from the two FBI agents attending the autopsy, that there was surgical intervention of some sort between Dallas and Bethesda, which explains these divergent descriptions.

Surely you do know that FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, wrote in their report, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

Surely you do know that when both FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill testified before the ARRB in September, 1997, they both stood behind their report.

Surely you know that Sibert testified, just as he told me in November, 1966, "The report stands."

Surely you know that when Sibert appeared before the ARRB, he brought with him handwritten notes that talked of this huge hole in the President's head--WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN DALLAS, and noted that "brain had been removed from head cavity."

And, as he told me in our August, 1990 telephone conversation, "That's haunted me for years. . this surgery of the head. . you could look right in there."

Now Mr. DVP, you can play all the games you want with DiEugenio--who apparently doesn't have the insight to realize that the body is the best evidence in a murder case, and to structure any debate with the likes of you accordingly. But you can't play those games with me.

Obviously, because of the way you are utilizing Humes statements, in your "debate" with DiEugenio, its clear that you DO indeed have an appreciation of the body as "best evidence" (even if HE does not).

And so I would just suggest to you, not only in the name of telling the truth, but also to preserve your own credibility, that you stop ignoring the massive amount of evidence that clearly indicates that President Kennedy's wounds --and specifically, the configuration of his head wounds--were altered in the six hour period between his murder and the autopsy.

Also, in responding to this post, try not to engage in insults and name calling, as you do on at your blog site. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates the head wounds were altered--just as I have described above, and as is set forth, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates that the throat wound was also altered--just as I have described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence; with Dr. Perry's trach incision--which he told me, in October, 1966--was "2-3 cm", became a wide gash of "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges."

Surely you are aware of this data, right?

The fact of the matter is that there is clear, incontrovertible, and credible evidence that the President's body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, just as I have described in Best Evidence: it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag; it left in a ceremonial casket, and arrived in a shipping casket.

Mr. DiEugenio, who relies on certain of his "medical advisors" for his data and his ideas, apparently doesn't want to use this data in dealing with you. Apparently, he'd rather avoid all this by simply subscribing to some hypothesis that the Bethesda doctors simply lied. But you, who obviously recognize the primacy of the body as evidence (at least you appear to, from the way you rely on that CBS interview of Humes) have a responsibility, it seems to me, to tell the full and complete story of the body, and not just quote the part that suits your fancy.

Mr DVP: You cannot have it both ways.

If you are going to cite the body as "best evidence" and utilize the Bethesda description to refute DiEugenio's arguments, then you must recognize that the Bethesda description does NOT comport with the Dallas description; you must recognize that it does not describe the way the President's body looked in Dallas.

It is as simple as that.

Contrast those descriptions and its very clear what happened here: someone altered the President's wounds.

By citing Commander Humes' interview with Dan Rather as you did, you have already demonstrated that you have a keener appreciation of what is important concerning the medical evidence than does DiEugenio.

You understand that it all comes down to the President's body.

Now please demonstrate that you can apply that same appreciation of what is relevant to the most important evidence in the case--the President's body, and just HOW it looked immediately AFTER the shooting, when it was in Parkland Hospital, lying there before a group of doctors and nurses.

I invite you step up to the plate and confront the Dallas/Bethesda discrepancies.

I know you can do it, Mr. DVP.

In doing so, you will have to look at the facts, and surmount the name calling and ignorance of your hero, Mr. Vince Bugliosi. Try setting aside all that, and just look at the facts

I know you can do it.

Just follow the best evidence.

Its the memorial day weekend. . give it your best shot.

Make my day.

DSL

5/28/11 4:35 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited December 20, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[David Von Pein]

........

Edited December 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Bob Ness]

Deleted

Edited December 20, 2022 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Welcome to you both.

Sent an email to K&K info.

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

You are absolutely correct, DVP, and that is why, if you argue with DiEugenio in this fashion, you will defeat him every time.

of course, your position is entirely false, however, because the debate really comes down to the condition of the body, at the time of autopsy.

A backhanded compliment?  You can only win by lieing?  

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

I have an idea. Why don't you keep this crap off of a thread meant to honor or in remembrance of Lifton.

It's real clown show stuff and you've been around enough to know better.

You're right, Bob. I previously said I was going to keep this thread "clean" and not say anything negative about Mr. Lifton in this thread. So I'll delete my previous post. Sorry.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Bob Ness]

13 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You're right, Bob. I previously said I was going to keep this thread "clean" and not say anything negative about Mr. Lifton in this thread. So I'll delete my previous post.

 

Thanks David. I'll delete the scolding haha.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Bob Ness