SMOKING TIME-CARD. . .REDUX (to correct 2 errors)
David S. Lifton
behind Judyth's latest fiction (the "I clocked him out" story, which
supposedly explains LHO's Reily exit times clustering around 5 or
5:30) dismisses it as a "windy recitation" that "proves nothing."
In fact, in demonstrating that there is nothing abnormal about this
checkout record, my analysis demonstrates that Judyth—once again—is
peddling fantasy as fact. And the fact that so many others have
jumped in with their comments establishes that, contrary to
Shackelford's latest attempt at his well known "shuffle," (as in The
Shackelford Shuffle), this is still another fertile area for comment,
and for debunking Judyth and her fictions.
As to the meaning of the evidence, that is very clear. Lee Oswald was
punctual, and the time card records demonstrate that. That, and
nothing more. But Judyth, a fantast who insists that the world of Lee
Oswald was really a world of "Lee and me" is (once again) meddling
with the record (and reality), and attempting to "insert herself"
where she doesn't belong. Into the several months of Lee Oswald's
life leading up to the JFK assassination.
If there were a 24-hour-a-day filmed record of Lee Oswald in New
Orleans, and special effects could be devised to depict what Judyth is
attempting to do, we would have Lee proceeding on his normal
routine—whether it was getting on a bus, or scanning a newspaper—and
then a little "Judyth graphic" that always light up (like on the
Microsoft Help menu) and exclaim: "Hey, but what about me?! Where do
I fit in? Lee, are you paying attention? What about me?"
Judyth, for whatever reason, has a serious case of the "What about
me?" problem.
Most of us read history to glean information; Judyth reads it to
insert herself into the record. A Marxist historian has said that
history is politics applied to the past. In the case of Judyth, it is
psychopathology applied to the past.
She's a walking talking revisionist historian—about her own life.
Judyth so desperately wants to be part of Lee's life. Too bad. The
record is clear: There is no room for her; there is no need for her.
In actuality, and with the exception of a possible passing "hallway
hello", she just wasn't (and isn't) there. It's all a fiction, but
one bought into by her two key enablers, the extraordinarily credulous
Martin Shackelford and the pompous and apparently over-educated Dr.
Howard Platzman (Ph.D in philosophy, summa cum laude, etc.), a man
for whom Judyth "is the sister I never had" and whose credentials in
philosophy apparently don't carry over to permitting him to
distinguish between fact and fiction.
But, having said that, I have a small mea culpa. There were two minor
errors in my original post—-two errors that have nothing to do with
the validity of the analysis. And so for the benefit of Shackelford
(and any others who think that is significant), I am re-posting here a
modified post, the same post only with those two errors corrected.
Again, to the main point: what this "smoking time-clock" business does
is illustrate just how Judyth probably went about fabricating this
fictional "Lee and me" story in the first place. She reads the record
and looks for "holes"—factual interstices—where she can "insert"
herself.
In this case, examining the time card check-out data (published in the
26 volumes), she thought she saw a "pattern" where non existed—-a
pattern of clock-out times that "needed explaining," and so she then
stepped forward and inserted herself into the story.
For Judyth, like the little icon that would appear in my hypothetical
LHO documentary, its always: "Hey, what about me?!" And the answer in
these time-clock records was: "Oh, I see. There IS room for me."
Ergo, the "I checked him out" story that appears in her account.
That's what this is all about, and not much more. And that's what her
whole false account is all about.
This is someone who apparently has studied many of the JFK records and
who—for whatever reason—apparently has a compulsion to inject herself
into the "reality of the event."
DSL
* * * * BELOW. . . a corrected version of my original account * * *
Judyth's Claim About LHO's Daily Routine At Reily
(the "I clocked him out" assertion, to "explain" the FBI time-card
data).
Oswald was employed at Reily between Friday, May 10, and Friday, July
19—ten weeks, plus one day—and every day he punched a clock. Since
there was no work on July 4, there are a total of 50 days of such
data.
The 50 days of time card data—"in" and "out"—was gathered by the FBI
in CD 75 (pp. 34-38) and published as Warren Commission Exhibit 1896
(Vol. 23, pp. 700-701). (See the end of this post for a complete
tabulation of this data, copied from those records.).
In the recently circulated outline for their "book"—a document titled
"Deadly Alliance" and authored by Baker and Howard Platzman—these two
foolishly claim that there is something suspicious (i.e. non-random)
about Oswald's checkout times clustering around "4:30 PM or 5:30 PM".
This, in turn, is cited as evidence that "Judyth covered for Lee's
activity, and for his daily absences from work, making sure to punch
him out at 4:30PM or 5:30 PM when he was no longer there, which was
almost always." (p. 4, Deadly Alliance, section titled "Judyth and
Lee").
This assertion offers an excellent opportunity to evaluate Judyth's
claims, and Platzman's (and Shackelford's) ability to evaluate—and
write accurately about—evidence.
To begin with, the authors have their data wrong. In Oswald's entire
10 weeks and 1 day at Reily, there are only two check-out times of
4:30, and those are on Friday, May 10, his first day of work; and
Friday, July 19, his last day of work. So that is for starters—these
two, in submitting a book proposal and (supposedly after years of
careful fact checking) don't even state the facts correctly when it
comes to a simple assertion about Oswald's check out times.
Now lets turn to their general theory. There are indeed many checkout
times of 5 and 5:30, but even that doesn't tell the whole story.
Because the records also show other clock-out times: 4:30 (the first
and last day, i.e., the two just mentioned), 5:01, 6:30, many at 5:30,
and one at 7:32.
So what is going on here? More precisely: is there anything unusual
about any of this? Is it really necessary to postulate a "Judyth" (or
anyone else, for that matter) checking out Oswald on the dot (at 5 or
5:30 pm), which Judyth (and Platzman) claim is "an impossibility since
there was a line to wait on and such precise time-outs could not occur
accidentally." ("Deadly Alliance" document, p. 4)
None of this is true; and it doesn't take a genius to figure out
what this data means. What is necessary is to use common sense,
instead of invoking an exotic (and provably false) explanation. To
begin with, it is necessary to understand that Lee Oswald was a very
punctual guy—in fact, punctuality is a personality trait of Lee's that
is commented upon by Marina, and appears several times in the McMillan
book. Lee was the kind of guy was not only "on time", he was often
"early."
So now, lets approach this time card data in a sensible fashion, and
keeping in mind Lee's punctuality.
Plainly, Lee wanted to work (and get paid for) a full eight hours
every day. So every day he came in early enough to put in his eight
hours, AND have his 30 minutes off for lunch. And he apparently
looked forward to getting out—either at 5, or 5:30 (but sometimes at
even later times).
On his very first day, he clocked in at 7:59, and clocked out at 4:30.
That gave him eight hours for work, 30 minutes for lunch, and one
minute extra. Nothing mysterious about that.
On the next day—and for many days thereafter—he came about one-half
hour early, and left promptly at 5pm. Notice: I said "about" one-half
hour early. Lee's "clock in" times that first week of work were:
8:24, 8:18, 8:23, 8:29 and 8:25 (Mon to Fri, respectively).
Each day, he clocked in –essentially—at 8:30, but provided himself
with a small cushion and then left promptly at 5pm. Nothing
mysterious about that. Also note: the "randomness" is in the clock-in
time, not the clock-out. Also note the cushion Lee provided himself:
to leave at 5 p.m., he had to arrive at 8:30, but Lee arrived early
in each case: 8:24, 8:18, 8:23, 8:29, and 8:25. Lee could clock OUT
on the nose, but the INcoming time is where he gave himself the
"margin."
Again: you have to know this much about Oswald: he was exceedingly
punctual. To leave at 5 pm, then he had to be at work "early", and the
clock-in records show he did just that. So what these Reily records
document is the evidence of Lee's personality trait of
punctuality—they are certainly NOT records which document Judyth's
fantasy version of events—that Lee Oswald clocked out repeatedly at 5
pm or 5:30 pm, because Judyth was there and she clocked him out.
Now let's turn to the second week: the same pattern applies, Monday
through Thurdsay (8:25, 8:22, 8:20, 8:24) with a clock-out time of 5
pm on Mon, Tues., and Wed, and 5:01 on Thursday.
On Friday (5/24), he came to work 90 minutes late (clocking in at
9:58) and then—following this same pattern (30 minutes for lunch, 8
hrs of work) clocked out at precisely 6:30 pm.
Now let's turn to the third week. This is the week Oswald got his New
Orleans Library card (on Monday), and also had business at the Jones
Printing Company (on Wedneday and Friday)—things which he apparently
took care of (or at least probably took care of) in the morning,
before arriving at work.
On this (third) week, he clocked in at 9:53, 8:50, 9:45, 9:00, and
9:53; put in his eight hours of work (plus his 30 minutes for lunch)
and clocked out (Monday to Friday, respectively) at: 6:35, 5:31,
6:30, 5:30 and 7:32.
To repeat: On Monday, he got his library card. And on Wednesday and
Friday correlates with his visits to the Jones Printing Company for
his FPCC fliers—Wednesday, to order them; Friday, to pick them up.
Nothing mysterious about that.
So much for Week #3. Now let's turn to Week #4. On Monday, 6/3, Lee
rented a PO Box, and ordered 500 FPCC application forms. On Tuesday
(6/4) he picked up hand bills at Jones printing. On Wed., 6/5, he
picked up FPCC application forms and membership cards.
The Reily data is completely consistent with this (i.e., with the
notion that during the first three days, he did a series of morning
errands before going to work). Specifically, starting on Monday, June
3, we have late clock in times (again, with a margin, so he can work
an eight hour day, and have 30 minutes for lunch) corresponding to
late clock-outs.
The clock-ins are (Monday to Friday): 9:47, 9:50, 9:58, 10:05 and
8:57.
The clock-outs are: 6:30, 6:30, 6:30, 6:30, and 5:30.
Again, in each case, Lee clocked out on the half hour, and on the
nose.
Now, let's go to Week #5. Here Lee clocked out every day (but Wed.)
at 5:30 on the nose (Wed. at 5:31) and every day he clocked in 8 hrs.
and 30 minutes earlier, plus a small margin. The clock-in times
(Mon-Fri, respectively) are: 8:52, 8:44, 8:56, 8:50 and 8:29.
Week #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10 show the same behavior—always leaving at
5 pm or 5:30 pm (on the nose) and clocking in a few minutes before
8:30 (to permit a 5:00 pm clock-out) and a few minutes before 9 am
(for the 5:30 pm clock-outs).
The data is very clear. Lee's "late" clock-ins correspond when we
know he had other things to do, thing he apparently did in the
morning. But there is no mystery relating clock-in and clock out
times. All of it constitutes documentary evidence of Lee's
punctuality—and his ability to plan ahead. His goal is to put in
eight hours. He wants to leave at 5 pm, so, he comes in between 8:20
and 8:30 am. OR: he wants to leave at 5:30 pm, so he comes in between
8:50 and 9 am.
So what's the big deal? Does anyone think that Oswald—who played
chess, and spoke Russian—couldn't figure this out??
Nothing mysterious. Nothing mysterious, that is, until this data is
exposed to the bizarre mind of Judyth Avery Baker, who then sees a
false pattern in the "check out" times, sees an opportunity to
"insert" herself in the record, and then does exactly that. This
time-card data is a perfect example of how she operates, and the
superficiality of what she does (and which mental health professionals
call "Pseudo-logia Fantastica"). She very cleverly inserts herself
into a pre-existing reality; she inserts herself into the story by
(first) spotting the cluster of "check-out" times; and (second)
claiming that SHE is the cause of the 5 pm and 5:30 pm checkouts.
The actually believes this nonsense! Then she sells this malarky to
Shackelford and Platzman. And next thing you know, it finds its way
into the book proposal (or some pitch to 60 Minutes). Here is what
Dr. Howard Platzman, Ph.D. (Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude, etc.)
writes of this fantasy:.
QUOTING (from the "Deadly Alliance" outline/pitch):
Judyth covered for Lee's activity, and for his daily absences from
work, making sure to punch him out at 4:30 PM or 5:30 PM when he was
no longer there, which was almost always.
EVIDENCE: The Warren Report shows precise time-outs on the half-hour,
an impossibility since there was a line to wait on and such precise
time-outs could not occur accidentally. It didn't occur to Judyth to
vary the time-out stamp.
Pardon my propensity to summarize, but here goes again. . .
DSL CRITIQUE:
First of all, this ignores the fact that the time-ins vary, in each
case fitting the pattern of getting to work a few minutes prior to
eight and a half hours early, so Lee could put in his 8 hours, and
have his half-hour lunch. This omission of the clock-in times is
serious, because it ignores the essence of the matter—there IS
"randomness" here; stated differently: there is nothing non-random
about any of this at all. The "non-randomness" in fact shows up in the
clock-in times. The punctuality of Oswald (a personality trait) is
documented in the consistency of the check-out times.
Second: Platzman/Shackelford ignore the fact that there is a distinct
variation between two clusters of check-out times—those at 5 and those
at 5:30. Their outline falsely states that Oswald was punched out "at
4:30 pm or 5:30 PM" when in fact the two primary clusters are at 5 pm
and 5:30 pm. Not a very good sign for two guys supposedly dealing
with the record—and a simple record at that: the "in" and "out" data
for 50 days, that is published in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes.
Third: In stating that "The Warren Report shows precise time-outs on
the half-hour, an impossibility since. . etc. etc." --they again
factually mis-state the record because, besides time-outs at 5 and
5:30, there are in fact checkout times at 6:30, 6:35, 7:20, and a
couple at 5:01. (Can't these guys read??)
Fourth: Platzman/Shackelford ignores the apparent correlation between
the "late" check ins and the dates that Lee had to get his New Orleans
library card, drop off printing, and pick up printing at Jones
Printing Company. The correlation is right there in the record, but
these guys would rather use the data to nourish their Judyth fantasy,
so it is ignored.
TO SUMMARIZE: Judyth Baker has (once again) injected herself into a
record –this time a time-card record of clock-ins and
clock-outs—claiming she is the cause for a pattern which she claims to
"see" in the data. In fact, her "pattern" is not there; nor is she the
cause. Once again, Judyth has inserted herself into the record where
there is no need for her, and, really, no "room" for her.
Her "insertion" in this case—as in the others—is pure poppycock. It
has nothing to do with reality.
Moreover, Platzman/Shackeford, in manufacturing this particular item
and using it in their "Deadly Alliance" pitch have done two things
that are seriously wrong. First, they have mis-stated the facts of the
record. They ignore checkout times that don't fit with their
hypothesis, and mis-interpret the data that is there. Specifically,
they don't comment at all on the varying check-in times—I repeat, of
the check-IN times—which in fact show the "randomness" they claim to
yearn for.
Second: they compound their error by making a serious error in their
so-called "analysis: claiming that that the check-OUT times show a
pattern that is completely "impossible"—a claim which is without
merit.
Just to get the full flavor or these multiple errors , I conclude by
returning (again) to their language, which both misstates the facts,
but also includes their silly hypothesis.
Quoting from their own document: "The Warren Report shows precise
time-outs on the half-hour, an impossibility since there was a line to
wait on and such precise- time-outs could not occur accidentally."
All of this is false and nonsensical.
Once again, Judyth is hung by her own petard—in this case, the actual
time card record of check-in and check-out times, gathered by the FBI
and published in the 26 volumes, all of which gives the lie to her
foolishness in attempting to "insert herself" into this record; and
which shows the utter ineptness and incompetence of her two
supporters, Platzman and Shackelford, in pushing such an absurd claim.
Judyth sure put in her time on the Reily documents, and what does she
have to show for it? First, a phony claim that she authored the
credit report (previously debunked); and now this "I punched him out"
claim regarding LHO's time cards. In each case, she has "inserted"
herself into the story. In each case, the actual data give the lie to
her story.
The record of Oswald's 10 weeks and 1 day (the first day was Friday,
5/10/63) at Reily are recorded in WCE 1896 (CD 75, pp. 34-38). Here
is that data:
DAY Date IN OUT COMMENT
(AM) (PM)
Fri 5/10 7:59 4:30 LHO's first day at Reily
WEEK #1:
Mon 5/13 8:24 5pm
Tues 5/14 8:18 5pm
Wed 5/154 8:23 5 pm
Thu 5/16 8:29 5pm
Fri 5/17 8:25 5pm
(and 9:57)
Week #2:
Mon 5/20 8:25 5pm
Tues 5/21 8:22 5pm
Wed 5/22 8:20 5pm
Thur 5/23 8:24 5:01 pm
Fri 5/24 9:58 6:30 pm.
Week #3:
Mon 5/27 9:53 6:35 LHO got library card;. (Yes, might have done so
in evening. But more likely, AM)
Tues 5/28 8:50 5:31
Wed 5/29 9:45 6:30 Jones Printing; order for flyers
Thurs 5/30 9:00 5:30
Fri 5/31 9:53 7:32 Jones Printing; pays $4 for flyers
WEEK #4:
Mon 6/3 9:47 6:30 Rents PO box; orders 500 FPCC application forms
Tues 6/4 9:50 6:30 LHO picks up hand bills at Jones printing
Wed 6/5 9:58 6:30 O picks up FPCC application forms and membership
cards
Thurs 6/6 10:05 6:30
Fri 6/7 8:57 5:30
WEEK #5:
Mon 6/10 8:52 5:30
Tues 6/11 8:44 5:30
Wed 6/12 8:56 5:31
Thurs 6/13 8:50 5:30
Fri 6/14 8:29 5:30
WEEK #6:
Mon 6/17 8:53 5:31
Tues 6/18 8:53 5:30
Wed 6/19 8:53 5:30
Thurs 6/20 8:52 5:30
Fri 6/21 8:53 5:30
Week #7:
Mon 6/24 8:57 5:30
Tues 6/25 8:58 5:30
Wed 6/26 8:54 5:30
Thurs 6/27 8:53 5:30
Fri 6/28 9:01 5:30
Week #8:
Mon 7/1 8:59 5:30
Tues 7/2 8:49 5:30
Wed 7/3 8:53 5:30
Thurs 7/4 ---- -----
Fri 7/5 8:53 5:30
Week #9:
Mon 7/8 8:47 5:30
Tues 7/9 8:49 5:30
Wed 7/10 8:54 5:30
Thurs 7/11 8:58 5:30
Fri 7/12 8:27 5:01
Week #10:
Mon 7/15 8:19 5:00
Tues 7/16 8:26 5:00
Wed 7/17 9:37 6:00
Thurs 7/18 8:26 5:00
Fri 7/19 8:22 4:30
(Terminated)
Magic Bullet
David S. Lifton <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:460446c1.01123...@posting.google.com...
> Martin Shackelford's response to my post demonstrating the fallacy
> behind Judyth's latest fiction (the "I clocked him out" story,
which
> supposedly explains LHO's Reily exit times clustering around 5 or
> 5:30) dismisses it as a "windy recitation" that "proves nothing."
>
> In fact, in demonstrating that there is nothing abnormal about this
> peddling fantasy as fact. And the fact that so many others have
> jumped in with their comments
ie... the usual gang of McAdam's stringers.
establishes that, contrary to
> Shackelford's latest attempt at his well known "shuffle," (as in The
> Shackelford Shuffle), this is still another fertile area for
comment,
> and for debunking Judyth and her fictions.
>
> As to the meaning of the evidence, that is very clear. Lee Oswald
was
> punctual, and the time card records demonstrate that.
Punctual????
Well, let's take a look at the meaning of word, shall we?
Main Entry: punc暗u戢l
Pronunciation: 'p&[ng]k-ch&-w&l, -ch&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, having a sharp point, from Medieval Latin
punctualis of a point, from Latin punctus pricking, point, from
pungere to prick -- more at PUNGENT
Date: 1675
: being on time : PROMPT
Did Lee have a sharp point? I guess that's moot, so you can only mean
he always arrived on time for work.
But do the time cards demonstrate that?
WEEK #1:
(and 9:57)
Week #2:
Week #3:
WEEK #4:
WEEK #5:
WEEK #6:
Week #7:
Week #8:
Week #9:
Week #10:
Doesn't look like he was very punctual at all while at Reily's, does
it?
And Judyth has said his hours were standard... something noone has
disputed.
This is a pattern not repeated in any other job... where he truly was
punctual.
That, and
> nothing more. But Judyth, a fantast who insists that the world of
Lee
> Oswald was really a world of "Lee and me" is (once again) meddling
> with the record (and reality), and attempting to "insert herself"
> where she doesn't belong. Into the several months of Lee Oswald's
> life leading up to the JFK assassination.
One certainly couldn't come to that conclusion from your clumsy
attempts to debunk.
> If there were a 24-hour-a-day filmed record of Lee Oswald in New
> Orleans, and special effects could be devised to depict what Judyth
is
> attempting to do, we would have Lee proceeding on his normal
> routine-whether it was getting on a bus, or scanning a newspaper-and
> then a little "Judyth graphic" that always light up (like on the
> Microsoft Help menu) and exclaim: "Hey, but what about me?! Where
do> I fit in? Lee, are you paying attention? What about me?"
All this shows is your own rather weird imagination... as amply
demonstrated in your previous fiction.
> Judyth, for whatever reason, has a serious case of the "What about
> me?" problem.
Judyth has her problems... they're part of the human condition. You
might want to look into that one day.
> Most of us read history to glean information; Judyth reads it to
> insert herself into the record. A Marxist historian has said that
> history is politics applied to the past. In the case of Judyth, it
is
> psychopathology applied to the past.
And your qualifications for the diagnosis are...?
> She's a walking talking revisionist historian-about her own life.
And you're a legend in your own lunchtime.
> Judyth so desperately wants to be part of Lee's life.
Either she is or she isn't. "Desperately" wanting anything to be,
won't make it so... certainly that was my experience with your
book.... desperately wanting it to make sense...
Too bad. The
> record is clear: There is no room for her; there is no need for her.
> In actuality, and with the exception of a possible passing "hallway
> hello", she just wasn't (and isn't) there. It's all a fiction, but
> one bought into by her two key enablers, the extraordinarily
credulous > Martin Shackelford
Tut tut. If Martin was credulous, he'd be a body-snatcher groupie.
> and the pompous and apparently over-educated Dr.
> Howard Platzman (Ph.D in philosophy, summa cum laude, etc.), a man
> for whom Judyth "is the sister I never had" and whose credentials in
> philosophy apparently don't carry over to permitting him to
> distinguish between fact and fiction.
Mr Pomp-ass himself as spoken!
> But, having said that, I have a small mea culpa.
No. You owe a fucking Godzilla sized one for your book.
And yet another one for not even knowing what "punctual" means.
And then when you're finished with those mea culpas, try understanding
this: forget the fact his time clock shows 8 hours with a half hour
break. According to Le Blanc, it was 8 to 5 which gives an HOUR lunch
break. He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
QUOTE
Mr Le Blanc
...And then after that a lot of times I would be looking for him and
the engineer would be looking for him, and on quite a number of
occasions when it would get to be a coffee break time, we usually go
next door to the Crescent City Garage to get a Coke, and there he
would be sitting in there drinking a Coke and looking at these
magazines.
Mr. Liebeler.
Did you have a regular break time?
Mr. Le Blanc.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
In the shop?
Mr. Le Blanc.
We had 9 o'clock in the morning and 1:30 in the evening. Each one of
them was a l0-minute break.
Mr. Liebeler.
What time did you usually start work in the morning?"
Mr. Le Blanc.
Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile when
he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty well stayed
those hours as long as----
Mr. Liebeler.
Oswald was there?
Mr. Le Blanc.
While Oswald was there.
Mr. Liebeler.
Except for the break periods, you were supposed to be at your job----
Mr. Le Blanc.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
In the plant?
Mr. Le Blanc.
In the plant That is right.
UNQUOTE
Martin is a gentleman. I'm not. The gloves are off.
greg
Karl Vissers
you all people are going to accuse someone of making up things? Aren't you the
dude who was trying to push the JFK body alteration theory?
viking8350
O.H. LEE
Greg, Oswald's staggered log-in times at Reily's certainly are not indicative
of a very punctual person, I agree. But to me, what makes judging the punctuality
of Oswald during the times he was employed difficult is the fact that he
was either always utilizing mass transit or rides with co-workers. In other
words, it would be far easier to gauge Oswald's punctuality if he used his
own car to get to work every day. But hell, Lee was always reliant upon buses
running on schedule in order to arrive at work on time. In any event, I would
imagine that Oswald was no more, nor less, punctual than any other employee
who wished to get credit for putting in a full work day.
Regards,
O.H. LEE
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Magic Bullet
O.H. LEE <ga...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3c30...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
OH, as far as I can tell, he managed to start on time everywhere else,
despite lack of personal transport. If you have evidence that the NO
bus service was notoriously unreliable, you *may* have something...
though it still doesn't address that fact that with an hour lunch, he
didn't make eight too often, if at all (I haven't done the math for
every single day).
Moreover, there are no shortages of other concerns surrounding
Reily's.
greg
> O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
John McAdams
In fairness to David Lifton, body alteration is his *theory.* I don't
think it's a very good one, frankly.
He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
conclusions.
But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Paul Seaton
> "Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> >And then when you're finished with those mea culpas, try understanding
> >this: forget the fact his time clock shows 8 hours with a half hour
> >break. According to Le Blanc, it was 8 to 5 which gives an HOUR lunch
> >break.
Greg, where does LeBlanc say LEE's hours were 8 to 5??
Just the quote will do.
( And not the one you give below, which refers to LEBLANC'S hours.)
> >Mr. Le Blanc.
> >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile when
> >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty well stayed
> >those hours as long as----
Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible attitude
towards start/finish times in itself.
(LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8 to 5, &
'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
>He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
> >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT WITH THE
BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???
( Why do people usually start work at 9am in coffee factories? RAT CANCER
PROJECTS, GREG!! THAT'S WHY. Ask anyone. Ask Judyth.)
The gun mags over at Alba's were full of CODED RAT CANCER INFORMATION.
Because, despite the fact that he was never there, being regularly clocked
out by his girl friend in full view of 30+ blind people, his supervisor had
been tipped off not to stick any complaints against Lee on his timecard, and
this was the ONLY WAY the personnel manager could possibly discover that Lee
was ever late, being apparently unable to read the time card itself.
The plant engineer failed to mention this to the FBI of course, having
forgotten all about it, or perhaps because his family were being held at
berylium syringe point.
And his supervisor forgot all about it too when specifically asked for 'any
further info of interest' by the WC. (Presumably for a similar reason).
Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff could be
found who was particularly keen on doing the prestigious & over-paid coffee
machine greasing & cleaning job Lucky Lee had so fortunately landed by
virtue of his outstanding CV ?
( Until they found some other twerp willing to do it & fired Lee pronto for
slacking. )
--
® Þ§
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/eop_entry/eop.htm
--
"Get your facts first, & then you can distort them as much as you please"
(Mark Twain)
Magic Bullet
Paul Seaton <paul....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a0qpke$r34$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> > "Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> > >And then when you're finished with those mea culpas, try
understanding
> > >this: forget the fact his time clock shows 8 hours with a half
hour
> > >break. According to Le Blanc, it was 8 to 5 which gives an HOUR
lunch
> > >break.
>
> Greg, where does LeBlanc say LEE's hours were 8 to 5??
> Just the quote will do.
> ( And not the one you give below, which refers to LEBLANC'S hours.)
So you're saying Le Blanc had an hour lunch break and Oswald only a
half hour? The start and finish times don't really matter. If Lee had
an hour lunch break, he never (or rarely) put in 8 hours.
Can you cite from the record what his hours were supposed to be?
> > >Mr. Le Blanc.
> > >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile
when
> > >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty well
stayed
> > >those hours as long as----
>
> Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible
attitude
> towards start/finish times in itself.
> (LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8 to
5, &
> 'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
Yep. Which gives him an hour lunch.
> >He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
> > >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
>
> BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT WITH
THE
> BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???
> ( Why do people usually start work at 9am in coffee factories? RAT
CANCER> PROJECTS, GREG!! THAT'S WHY. Ask anyone. Ask Judyth.)> The gun
mags over at Alba's were full of CODED RAT CANCER INFORMATION.>
Because, despite the fact that he was never there, being regularly
clocked> out by his girl friend in full view of 30+ blind people, his
supervisor had> been tipped off not to stick any complaints against
Lee on his timecard, and> this was the ONLY WAY the personnel manager
could possibly discover that Lee> was ever late, being apparently
unable to read the time card itself.> The plant engineer failed to
mention this to the FBI of course, having> forgotten all about it, or
perhaps because his family were being held at> berylium syringe point.
> And his supervisor forgot all about it too when specifically asked
for 'any
> further info of interest' by the WC. (Presumably for a similar
reason).
Ridicule all you like. It's all you can do really, isn't it Paulie?
You certainly can't point to the record to show where these problems
were ironed out by investigators.
Let me make this perfectly clear: the problems remain problems with or
without Judyth's involvement.
> Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff
could
Show where the record indicates Lee only had a half hour lunch break.
If you can't, then the best we can do is make a reasonable assumption
from Le Blanc's hours... that the lunch break was an hour long.
be> found who was particularly keen on doing the prestigious &
over-paid coffee> machine greasing & cleaning job Lucky Lee had so
fortunately landed by> virtue of his outstanding CV ?
>
> ( Until they found some other twerp willing to do it & fired Lee
pronto for
> slacking. )
Speaking from bitter experience?
Now where Lifton got to?
--
"Major, the big brass are going to yell their heads off about this,
and the Japanese aren't going to like it much either.
Have you got anything to say to them, sir?"
reporter to Marlon Brando from the movie "Sayonara"
Oz and the guiding hands
www.leftcoast-art.bc.ca/magicbullet
greg
David S. Lifton
behind Judyth's latest fiction (the "I clocked him out" story, which
supposedly explains LHO's Reily exit times clustering around 5 or
5:30) dismisses it as a "windy recitation" that "proves nothing."
In fact, in demonstrating that there is nothing abnormal about this
checkout record, my analysis demonstrates that Judyth—once again—is
peddling fantasy as fact. And the fact that so many others have
jumped in with their comments establishes that, contrary to
Shackelford's latest attempt at his well known "shuffle," (as in The
Shackelford Shuffle), this is still another fertile area for comment,
and for debunking Judyth and her fictions.
As to the meaning of the evidence, that is very clear. Lee Oswald was
punctual, and the time card records demonstrate that. That, and
nothing more. But Judyth, a fantast who insists that the world of Lee
Oswald was really a world of "Lee and me" is (once again) meddling
with the record (and reality), and attempting to "insert herself"
where she doesn't belong. Into the several months of Lee Oswald's
life leading up to the JFK assassination.
If there were a 24-hour-a-day filmed record of Lee Oswald in New
Orleans, and special effects could be devised to depict what Judyth is
attempting to do, we would have Lee proceeding on his normal
routine—whether it was getting on a bus, or scanning a newspaper—and
then a little "Judyth graphic" that always light up (like on the
Microsoft Help menu) and exclaim: "Hey, but what about me?! Where do
I fit in? Lee, are you paying attention? What about me?"
Judyth, for whatever reason, has a serious case of the "What about
me?" problem.
Most of us read history to glean information; Judyth reads it to
insert herself into the record. A Marxist historian has said that
history is politics applied to the past. In the case of Judyth, it is
psychopathology applied to the past.
She's a walking talking revisionist historian—about her own life.
Judyth so desperately wants to be part of Lee's life. Too bad. The
record is clear: There is no room for her; there is no need for her.
In actuality, and with the exception of a possible passing "hallway
hello", she just wasn't (and isn't) there. It's all a fiction, but
one bought into by her two key enablers, the extraordinarily credulous
Martin Shackelford and the pompous and apparently over-educated Dr.
Howard Platzman (Ph.D in philosophy, summa cum laude, etc.), a man
for whom Judyth "is the sister I never had" and whose credentials in
philosophy apparently don't carry over to permitting him to
distinguish between fact and fiction.
But, having said that, I have a small mea culpa. There were two minor
DSL
DSL CRITIQUE:
WEEK #1:
David S. Lifton
> think it's a very good one, frankly.
>
> He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
> things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
> sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
> conclusions.
>
> But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
>
> .John
John:
As you yourself state, I am indeed using "standard historical
sources."
I don't want to turn this into a "medical" thread, but let me point
out that you can't get much more standard (or better) evidence than:
(1) Two FBI agents who state that, the body arrived at Bethesda, there
had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.
(2) Conflicting medical reports, from the official records, Dallas
versus Bethesda, regarding the size and location of the head wound
(See Chapter 13, Best Evidence); plus a similar situation re the front
throat wound (See Ch. 11, B.E.). Ipso facto: the body was indeed
altered.
(3) Documentary evidence--supported by eyewitness interviews--for the
proposition that the body (a) left Dallas in sheets, and arrived at
Bethesda in a body bag; and (b) left Dallas in full size and very
fancy ceremonial coffin, and was delivered in a shipping casket. Ipso
facto: the body was indeed intercepted.
The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
connect someone's gun to the crime.
But this is not about John Doe; its about JFK. Many lone-nutters
refuse to take the evidence of autopsy falsification (via body
alteration) at face value, hence, the label "outlandish."
In my opinion, this represents a failure to think "outside the box."
Before 9/11, it was outlandish" to think that four airplanes could be
hijacked and two of them flown into the World Trade Center. Suddenly,
that is very much in vogue, and lengthy articles now appear in the
press as to all the "signals leading up to 9/11" that were "missed."
The same goes for the body alteration evidence in this case.
And another fact: Far from being "outlandish," a number of
lone-nutters have--in private conversaations--in effect conceded that
if this event didn't happen per the Warren Commission, then BEST
EVIDENCE presents the only reasonable and rational way to explain the
evidence -i.e., the record--in the case.
But at root, I still say, the problem is psychological.
There was a great cartoon in the New Yorker a few months ago. It
showed a patient, lying on a couch in a shrink's office. His body was
peppered with "dots."
And the doctor is telling him, "But you have to *want* to connect the
dots, Mr. Smith."
That's what I say about the evidence in this case.
If the key evidence in this case (i.e., autopsy report, ballistics,
etc.) is valid, then the official version prevails. Only if the key
evidence has been falsified--which is the thesis of Best Evidence--can
there be a logical and rational conspiracy explanation.
That is not outlandish; its plain logic.
The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
labeled "outlandish."
DSL
Magic Bullet
> behind Judyth's latest fiction (the "I clocked him out" story,
which
> supposedly explains LHO's Reily exit times clustering around 5 or
> 5:30) dismisses it as a "windy recitation" that "proves nothing."
>
> In fact, in demonstrating that there is nothing abnormal about this
> peddling fantasy as fact. And the fact that so many others have
> jumped in with their comments
ie... the usual gang of McAdam's stringers.
establishes that, contrary to
> Shackelford's latest attempt at his well known "shuffle," (as in The
> Shackelford Shuffle), this is still another fertile area for
comment,
> and for debunking Judyth and her fictions.
>
> As to the meaning of the evidence, that is very clear. Lee Oswald
was
> punctual, and the time card records demonstrate that.
Punctual????
Well, let's take a look at the meaning of word, shall we?
Main Entry: punc暗u戢l
Pronunciation: 'p&[ng]k-ch&-w&l, -ch&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, having a sharp point, from Medieval Latin
punctualis of a point, from Latin punctus pricking, point, from
pungere to prick -- more at PUNGENT
Date: 1675
: being on time : PROMPT
Did Lee have a sharp point? I guess that's moot, so you can only mean
he always arrived on time for work.
But do the time cards demonstrate that?
WEEK #1:
(and 9:57)
Week #2:
Week #3:
WEEK #4:
WEEK #5:
WEEK #6:
Week #7:
Week #8:
Week #9:
Week #10:
Doesn't look like he was very punctual at all while at Reily's, does
it?
And Judyth has said his hours were standard... something noone has
disputed.
This is a pattern not repeated in any other job... where he truly was
punctual.
That, and
> nothing more. But Judyth, a fantast who insists that the world of
Lee
> Oswald was really a world of "Lee and me" is (once again) meddling
> with the record (and reality), and attempting to "insert herself"
> where she doesn't belong. Into the several months of Lee Oswald's
> life leading up to the JFK assassination.
One certainly couldn't come to that conclusion from your clumsy
attempts to debunk.
> If there were a 24-hour-a-day filmed record of Lee Oswald in New
> Orleans, and special effects could be devised to depict what Judyth
is
> attempting to do, we would have Lee proceeding on his normal
> routine-whether it was getting on a bus, or scanning a newspaper-and
> then a little "Judyth graphic" that always light up (like on the
> Microsoft Help menu) and exclaim: "Hey, but what about me?! Where
do> I fit in? Lee, are you paying attention? What about me?"
All this shows is your own rather weird imagination... as amply
demonstrated in your previous fiction.
> Judyth, for whatever reason, has a serious case of the "What about
> me?" problem.
Judyth has her problems... they're part of the human condition. You
might want to look into that one day.
> Most of us read history to glean information; Judyth reads it to
> insert herself into the record. A Marxist historian has said that
> history is politics applied to the past. In the case of Judyth, it
is
> psychopathology applied to the past.
And your qualifications for the diagnosis are...?
> She's a walking talking revisionist historian-about her own life.
And you're a legend in your own lunchtime.
> Judyth so desperately wants to be part of Lee's life.
Either she is or she isn't. "Desperately" wanting anything to be,
won't make it so... certainly that was my experience with your
book.... desperately wanting it to make sense...
Too bad. The
> record is clear: There is no room for her; there is no need for her.
> In actuality, and with the exception of a possible passing "hallway
> hello", she just wasn't (and isn't) there. It's all a fiction, but
> one bought into by her two key enablers, the extraordinarily
credulous > Martin Shackelford
Tut tut. If Martin was credulous, he'd be a body-snatcher groupie.
> and the pompous and apparently over-educated Dr.
> Howard Platzman (Ph.D in philosophy, summa cum laude, etc.), a man
> for whom Judyth "is the sister I never had" and whose credentials in
> philosophy apparently don't carry over to permitting him to
> distinguish between fact and fiction.
Mr Pomp-ass himself as spoken!
> But, having said that, I have a small mea culpa.
No. You owe a fucking Godzilla sized one for your book.
And yet another one for not even knowing what "punctual" means.
And then when you're finished with those mea culpas, try understanding
this: forget the fact his time clock shows 8 hours with a half hour
break. According to Le Blanc, it was 8 to 5 which gives an HOUR lunch
break. He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
QUOTE
Mr Le Blanc
...And then after that a lot of times I would be looking for him and
the engineer would be looking for him, and on quite a number of
occasions when it would get to be a coffee break time, we usually go
next door to the Crescent City Garage to get a Coke, and there he
would be sitting in there drinking a Coke and looking at these
magazines.
Mr. Liebeler.
Did you have a regular break time?
Mr. Le Blanc.
Yes.
Mr. Liebeler.
In the shop?
Mr. Le Blanc.
We had 9 o'clock in the morning and 1:30 in the evening. Each one of
them was a l0-minute break.
Mr. Liebeler.
What time did you usually start work in the morning?"
Mr. Le Blanc.
Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile when
he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty well stayed
those hours as long as----
Martin Shackelford
is a distortion of the record, as was amply documented in the early 90s.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
person I know who can strut online.
You give yourself too much credit, as usual. Your windy recitation has
provoked as much criticism as "comment." The only real support you seem
to get is from the McAdams clique, not exactly highly regarded here.
You continue to promote your fictional theory that Judyth studied the
record and attempted to insert herself into it. In the past, your
arguments to that effect have included numerous anachronisms in which
the claimed effect has preceded the cause, so you omit those, and just
pretend your conclusion has been proven. Instead, we see six paragraphs
of sarcasm and rhetoric, with no factual support. Finally, in paragraph
ten, you insert a notion of caution: Judyth "probably" fabricated her
account. A little less certain, suddenly.
Then follow five more paragraphs of allegation and rhetoric, again
without further factual support. Not even good propaganda, David.
Martin
Paul Seaton
"Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$bzl8pg$u7j$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
>
> Paul Seaton <paul....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a0qpke$r34$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> >
> > > "Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > >And then when you're finished with those mea culpas, try
> understanding
> > > >this: forget the fact his time clock shows 8 hours with a half
> hour
> > > >break. According to Le Blanc, it was 8 to 5 which gives an HOUR
> lunch
> > > >break.
> >
> > Greg, where does LeBlanc say LEE's hours were 8 to 5??
> > Just the quote will do.
> > ( And not the one you give below, which refers to LEBLANC'S hours.)
>
> So you're saying Le Blanc had an hour lunch break and Oswald only a
> half hour? The start and finish times don't really matter. If Lee had
> an hour lunch break, he never (or rarely) put in 8 hours.
Grog,
Here the run down on 'breaks' at Reily:
<quote>
Mr. Le Blanc.
We had 9 o'clock [break] in the morning and 1:30 [break] in the evening.
Each one of them was a l0-minute break.
Mr. Le Blanc.
We had 11 and 11:30. Now at that time I don't know whether we just had the
11:30 or we had two breaks--I can't recall--but I think it was two breaks,
lunch breaks, 11 and 11:30.
<unquote>
Seems to me that 'breaks' at that place were a pretty flexible commodity - &
Lee's breaks seem to have been about every alternate 10 minutes.
And I see you gave up on your supposed quote. Good move.
>
> Can you cite from the record what his hours were supposed to be?
No. Can you?
Although we do have (courtesy Shinley) that 'late shift' material.
>
> > > >Mr. Le Blanc.
> > > >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile
> when
> > > >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty well
> stayed
> > > >those hours as long as----
> >
> > Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible
> attitude
> > towards start/finish times in itself.
> > (LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8 to
> 5, &
> > 'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
>
> Yep. Which gives him an hour lunch.
Well, LeBlanc says 'two lunch breaks'. (above).
Does that give LHO TWO hours lunch?
Crikey!!
Maybe these guys just took breaks more or less whenever they could get
away with it.
>
> > >He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
> > > >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
> >
> > BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT WITH
> THE
> > BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???
> > ( Why do people usually start work at 9am in coffee factories? RAT
> CANCER> PROJECTS, GREG!! THAT'S WHY. Ask anyone. Ask Judyth.)> The gun
> mags over at Alba's were full of CODED RAT CANCER INFORMATION.>
> Because, despite the fact that he was never there, being regularly
> clocked> out by his girl friend in full view of 30+ blind people, his
> supervisor had> been tipped off not to stick any complaints against
> Lee on his timecard, and> this was the ONLY WAY the personnel manager
> could possibly discover that Lee> was ever late, being apparently
> unable to read the time card itself.> The plant engineer failed to
> mention this to the FBI of course, having> forgotten all about it, or
> perhaps because his family were being held at> berylium syringe point.
> > And his supervisor forgot all about it too when specifically asked
> for 'any
> > further info of interest' by the WC. (Presumably for a similar
> reason).
>
> Ridicule all you like.
You don't have the time.
>It's all you can do really, isn't it Paulie?
No I play guitar, make love to 3 or 4 thousand women a day, play the stock
market, arrange mysterious deaths, change the baby's nappy, despair over
Australians with microscopia, do a spot of time travel.. just the ordinary
stuff really.
> You certainly can't point to the record to show where these problems
> were ironed out by investigators.
WHAT PROBLEMS ?
Christ, the Warren Report would still not be published if they were going to
spend weeks ironing out every single piece of total trivia you regard as
worthy of 'investigation'.
"He turned up for work at NINE!!!!"
"THEN INVESTIGATE !!! THERE MAYJUST BE A RODENT CANCER PLOT HERE.."
It's ludicrous.
Frankly.
>
> Let me make this perfectly clear: the problems remain problems with or
> without Judyth's involvement.
Then, again, good luck with your interminable micro-investigation.
>
> > Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff
> could
>
> Show where the record indicates Lee only had a half hour lunch break.
> If you can't, then the best we can do is make a reasonable assumption
> from Le Blanc's hours... that the lunch break was an hour long.
Try to get your facts straight.
It was TWO hours long, Greg.
One (one hour long) at 11am , one (ditto) at 11.30am, remember?
( Wierd place, Reily's. Flexible concept of time. )
And you definitely need a holiday, mate.
--
Magic Bullet
Seems to me you're full of shit. I thought you had some personal knowledge
of how factories worked?
Le Blanc was saying that the lunch break was staggered to limit the time
when noone would be there. Thus, some went to lunch at 11:00am, the others
at 11:30. Tea breaks were 9:00 and 1:30 for all. All standard practice
(except that the actual times are all earlier than in most places).
> And I see you gave up on your supposed quote. Good move.
What I said orignially was possibly incorrect on the face of it. But we
don't know, do we? You haven't shown what Lee's standard hours were. Not
that it matters. The main point was that it showed Le Blanc had an hour
lunch break. If that was true, then everyone did. If everyone did, there is
a problem because it shows Lee never (or rarely) worked a full 8 hours.
And talking about backing away... you did not even comment on Lifton's
assertion that Lee was "punctual" at Reily's. Do you agree with that
assertion, or not?
> >> > Can you cite from the record what his hours were supposed to be?
>
> No. Can you?
> Although we do have (courtesy Shinley) that 'late shift' material.
So?
> > > > >Mr. Le Blanc.
> > > > >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile
> > when> > > > >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty
well> > stayed> > > > >those hours as long as----
> > >
> > > Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible
> > attitude> > > towards start/finish times in itself.
> > > (LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8 to
> > 5, &> > > 'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
> >
> > Yep. Which gives him an hour lunch.
>
> Well, LeBlanc says 'two lunch breaks'. (above).
You can't be that thick, surely.
> Does that give LHO TWO hours lunch?
> Crikey!!
This is just a blatant misreading of what Le Blanc said. It shows you have
no interest in getting to the truth, only in helping to bury it.
> Maybe these guys just took breaks more or less whenever they could get
> away with it.
You don't believe that any more than I do. It's not even good guess work.
Suggest you look at the history of things like Flexible Work Hours within
that industry.
If you can show that such flexibility existed at Reily's as either part a
workplace agreement or an industrial award, I'll post an apology to Lifton.
> > > >He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
> > > > >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
> > >
> > > BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT WITH> >
THE> > > BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???
> > > ( Why do people usually start work at 9am in coffee factories? RAT
> > CANCER> PROJECTS, GREG!! THAT'S WHY. Ask anyone. Ask Judyth.)> The gun
> > mags over at Alba's were full of CODED RAT CANCER INFORMATION.>
> > Because, despite the fact that he was never there, being regularly
> > clocked> out by his girl friend in full view of 30+ blind people, his
> > supervisor had> been tipped off not to stick any complaints against
> > Lee on his timecard, and> this was the ONLY WAY the personnel manager
> > could possibly discover that Lee> was ever late, being apparently
> > unable to read the time card itself.> The plant engineer failed to
> > mention this to the FBI of course, having> forgotten all about it, or
> > perhaps because his family were being held at> berylium syringe point.
> > > And his supervisor forgot all about it too when specifically asked
> > for 'any
> > > further info of interest' by the WC. (Presumably for a similar
> > reason).
> >
> > Ridicule all you like.
>
> You don't have the time.
No. Or the patience, when the ridicule is merely to cover for a lack of
facts.
> >It's all you can do really, isn't it Paulie?
>
> No I play guitar, make love to 3 or 4 thousand women a day, play the
stock> market, arrange mysterious deaths, change the baby's nappy, despair
over> Australians with microscopia, do a spot of time travel.. just the
ordinary> stuff really.
You forgot about coming to the aid of body-snatchers... you could be Tonto
to Lifton's Lone Ranger... except I guess it would have to be your Burke to
Lifton's Hare.
Just hope you remember that Hare turned King's evidence against Burke to
save his own neck...
> > You certainly can't point to the record to show where these problems
> > were ironed out by investigators.
>
> WHAT PROBLEMS ?
> Christ, the Warren Report would still not be published if they were going
to> spend weeks ironing out every single piece of total trivia you regard
as
> worthy of 'investigation'.
> "He turned up for work at NINE!!!!"
Or later, consistently, and was known not to be there for long periods
during the day, yet was never docked in his pay. That is just not how
businesses operate - now or then. Are you claiming it was too difficult to
ask any of the employees they interviewed why he wasn't docked? One extra
question. How long could that take?
> "THEN INVESTIGATE !!! THERE MAYJUST BE A RODENT CANCER PLOT HERE.."
> It's ludicrous.
> Frankly.
No.You are being ludicrous in your attempts to explain alll this. Breaks
every ten minutes? Workers picking and choosing when they work? You are
really grabbing at straws.
> > Let me make this perfectly clear: the problems remain problems with or
> > without Judyth's involvement.
>
> Then, again, good luck with your interminable micro-investigation.
Aha. and how are things going with the medical evidence? Solved the case
yet?
> > > Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff
> > could
> >
> > Show where the record indicates Lee only had a half hour lunch break.
> > If you can't, then the best we can do is make a reasonable assumption
> > from Le Blanc's hours... that the lunch break was an hour long.
>
> Try to get your facts straight.
> It was TWO hours long, Greg.
> One (one hour long) at 11am , one (ditto) at 11.30am, remember?
> ( Wierd place, Reily's. Flexible concept of time. )
Not nearly as flexible as your concept of truth.
> And you definitely need a holiday, mate.
I'm taking one next month whether I need it or not.
Martin Shackelford
David Lifton doesn't actually say that truth is among his clientele, but
seems to want us to believe it.
If he could tell the truth, he might be more convincing.
Whether from fraudulence or ignorance, you refer to the time-card
account as "Judyth's latest," but it was in the original manuscript in
1998, along with every other key element of her account. I'm guessing
that you know that, and that your attempt to imply that she is
continually making up new tales is pure propaganda on your part.
You repeat your claim, then act as though your assertion of it makes it
a fact.
You are unhappy that I dismissed your earlier post as "a windy
recitation," and provide us with another rhetoric-filled windy
recitation that, yes, "proves nothing."
As Greg has pointed out, the "so many others" who you claim have
supported your assertions are the same tiny Team McAdams attack group
that has been frantically posting for months on this issue. That handful
can hardly be described as "so many others." What are you trying to tell
us, David? That there's "a great silent majority" out there supporting
you?
For the next twelve paragraphs, you repeat your rhetorical claims from
another post. Not evidence, David. Not a bit.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
absurd claim that no shots at all were fired from the rear.
Martin
David S. Lifton
He can't get around the fact that my book was a best seller, #1 on the
wireservice lists; a Book of the Month selection, a Pulitzer prize
nominee, published by four separate publishers--and that the video was
A-rated and sold about 50,000 copies.
He also can't get around any of this, nor the fact that Douglas Horne,
the senior person on the ARRB staff charged with analyzing the medical
evidence--and only one of 3 people in the world who was present at the
deposition of the 3 autopsy doctors--also believes my thesis, and
states that it has only been strengthened by the ARRB's work.
And what is Martyn stuck with? A second-rate fantasy, complete hokum,
in which he has invested at least three years of his life.
DSL
=keith=
dli...@earthlink.net says...
=keith=
--
When People Fear The Government There's Tyranny; When the Government
Fears the People There's Democracy
=keith=
ghos...@alberni.net says...
> In article <460446c1.02010...@posting.google.com>,
> dli...@earthlink.net says...
> > Poor Martyn:
> >
> > He can't get around the fact that my book was a best seller, #1 on the
> > wireservice lists; a Book of the Month selection, a Pulitzer prize
> > nominee, published by four separate publishers--and that the video was
> > A-rated and sold about 50,000 copies.
> >
> > He also can't get around any of this, nor the fact that Douglas Horne,
> > the senior person on the ARRB staff charged with analyzing the medical
> > evidence--and only one of 3 people in the world who was present at the
> > deposition of the 3 autopsy doctors--also believes my thesis, and
> > states that it has only been strengthened by the ARRB's work.
> >
> > And what is Martyn stuck with? A second-rate fantasy, complete hokum,
> > in which he has invested at least three years of his life.
> >
> > DSL
> >
> Toooot Tooooot, ah the sound of Little Lifton blowng his own Horne.
>
> =keith=
>
And them are real sour notes coming from the Lifton Horne.
Martin Shackelford
edition. Then I began to find out how much information you DIDN'T tell
us. How many people you managed to sell that bullshit to doesn't excuse
that.
If only someone besides Doug Horne fell for it, you could mention
someone else, instead of having to constantly repeat his name like a
pathetic mantra.
I'm content with how I've spent the past three years. In the long run, I
wonder what the judgement will be on how you've spent the last 35 years.
Martin
Dylan Oswald
howled like a banshee:
>In article <460446c1.02010...@posting.google.com>,
>dli...@earthlink.net says...
>> Poor Martyn:
>>
>> He can't get around the fact that my book was a best seller, #1 on the
>> wireservice lists; a Book of the Month selection, a Pulitzer prize
>> nominee, published by four separate publishers--and that the video was
>> A-rated and sold about 50,000 copies.
>>
>> He also can't get around any of this, nor the fact that Douglas Horne,
>> the senior person on the ARRB staff charged with analyzing the medical
>> evidence--and only one of 3 people in the world who was present at the
>> deposition of the 3 autopsy doctors--also believes my thesis, and
>> states that it has only been strengthened by the ARRB's work.
>>
>> And what is Martyn stuck with? A second-rate fantasy, complete hokum,
>> in which he has invested at least three years of his life.
>>
>> DSL
>>
>Toooot Tooooot, ah the sound of Little Lifton blowng his own Horne.
>
>=keith=
Of course, according to McNally's theory, that doesn't make Horne
gay...
Dylan
Joe Zircon
> > In fairness to David Lifton, body alteration is his *theory.* I don't
> > think it's a very good one, frankly.
> >
> > He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
> > things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
> > sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
> > conclusions.
> >
> > But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
> >
> > .John
>
> John:
>
> As you yourself state, I am indeed using "standard historical
> sources."
>
> I don't want to turn this into a "medical" thread, but let me point
> out that you can't get much more standard (or better) evidence than:
>
> (1) Two FBI agents who state that, the body arrived at Bethesda, there
> had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.
*Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
>
> (2) Conflicting medical reports, from the official records, Dallas
> versus Bethesda, regarding the size and location of the head wound
> (See Chapter 13, Best Evidence); plus a similar situation re the front
> throat wound (See Ch. 11, B.E.). Ipso facto: the body was indeed
> altered.
>
> (3) Documentary evidence--supported by eyewitness interviews--for the
> proposition that the body (a) left Dallas in sheets, and arrived at
> Bethesda in a body bag; and (b) left Dallas in full size and very
> fancy ceremonial coffin, and was delivered in a shipping casket. Ipso
> facto: the body was indeed intercepted.
My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
>
> The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
>
> If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> connect someone's gun to the crime.
It would be very clear?
No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
question. And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
theory. When & where did this happen?
Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
seriously incomplete.
And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons? From what I recall, some
of the most qualified in the field say it wouldn't fool anyone who
knew what they were doing, that the wounds inflicted after death look
nothing like wounds made when the person was alive. You don't really
address this issue at all in your nearly 800 page book, nor do you
address how Connally's wounds were suffered. In fact, you practically
ignore Connally's wounding entirely.
A minor oversight?
>
> But this is not about John Doe; its about JFK. Many lone-nutters
> refuse to take the evidence of autopsy falsification (via body
> alteration) at face value, hence, the label "outlandish."
>
> In my opinion, this represents a failure to think "outside the box."
>
> Before 9/11, it was outlandish" to think that four airplanes could be
> hijacked and two of them flown into the World Trade Center. Suddenly,
> that is very much in vogue, and lengthy articles now appear in the
> press as to all the "signals leading up to 9/11" that were "missed."
>
> The same goes for the body alteration evidence in this case.
>
> And another fact: Far from being "outlandish," a number of
> lone-nutters have--in private conversaations--in effect conceded that
> if this event didn't happen per the Warren Commission, then BEST
> EVIDENCE presents the only reasonable and rational way to explain the
> evidence -i.e., the record--in the case.
I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
assumes the evidence is falsified.
Jack White thinks all the Dealey Plaza photos are falsified, and
builds his arguments around the witnesses statements. But only the
convenient ones. The other witnesses are lying or intimidated. Etc.
Robert Groden says those photos are legit, but the autopsy photos are
falsified to hide the evidence of a back of head wound. Like White,
the convenient witnesses are telling the truth, the inconvenient ones
are lying or intimidated.
You think the witnesses are correct for the most part (but only, of
course, where they offer evidence convenient to your theory), and the
autopsy photos legit, but you merely introduce the falsification of
evidence at an earlier level, prior to the autopsy and prior to the
photos taken at the autopsy.
There's really no difference. You're all relying on arguments that the
evidence before us aint legit. And using eyewitness evidence to
attempt to overturn the hard evidence.
>
> But at root, I still say, the problem is psychological.
>
> There was a great cartoon in the New Yorker a few months ago. It
> showed a patient, lying on a couch in a shrink's office. His body was
> peppered with "dots."
>
> And the doctor is telling him, "But you have to *want* to connect the
> dots, Mr. Smith."
>
> That's what I say about the evidence in this case.
Respectfully, David, when I think of your theory, I think of another
psychological joke. The shrink shows the patient an inkblot, and asks
what he sees. "A naked lady", says the patient. He's shown another,
and again, he says, "A naked lady". A third inkblot gets the same
response. As does the fourth & fifth.
At this point the doctor says, "I think I know what your problem is,
you have a dirty mind".
And the patient responds, "Me? You're the one with the dirty
pictures!"
We don't see the stuff we should see, stuff that is readily apparent
to you. And you tells us it's our problem?
>
> If the key evidence in this case (i.e., autopsy report, ballistics,
> etc.) is valid, then the official version prevails. Only if the key
> evidence has been falsified--which is the thesis of Best Evidence--can
> there be a logical and rational conspiracy explanation.
>
> That is not outlandish; its plain logic.
And the evidence is that the evidence has not been falsified. For
example, you go from *apparent* surgery to *definite* surgery. You
introduced the concept of the bodybag to the witness, he didn't
mention it independently.
You go from simple conflicts in the memory of some witnesses
concerning the timing of the arrival of the body at Bethesda, etc., to
a massive conspiracy.
Sorry, no sale.
>
> The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
> said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
> strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
> labeled "outlandish."
>
> DSL
Or alternately, they aren't connected and shouldn't be connected. But
you are connecting them because you have a strong bias to do so, not
that they deserve to be connected.
Who rationally connects dots on a patient's body, anyway? That's not a
proper way to diagnose or treat a patient in any case I'm aware of.
You need a better analogy than this one, David. This one suggests you
are connecting stuff that doesn't deserve to be connected, which is
not your intent, I don't think.
JoeZ
AnthonyMarsh
>
> dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) wrote in message news:<460446c1.01123...@posting.google.com>...
> > > In fairness to David Lifton, body alteration is his *theory.* I don't
> > > think it's a very good one, frankly.
> > >
> > > He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
> > > things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
> > > sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
> > > conclusions.
> > >
> > > But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
> > >
> > > .John
> >
> > John:
> >
> > As you yourself state, I am indeed using "standard historical
> > sources."
> >
> > I don't want to turn this into a "medical" thread, but let me point
> > out that you can't get much more standard (or better) evidence than:
> >
> > (1) Two FBI agents who state that, the body arrived at Bethesda, there
> > had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.
>
> *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
>
Exactly. This is one of the problems with many researchers, not just
David. They are quite willing to take someone's statement or guess as if
it is an absolute proof.
BTW, the wording, IMHO, rules out a massive exit wound in the back of
the head. The exit wound was so massive that it appeared to have been
the result of surgery. That much bone was missing. There is only one
massive blowout exit wound and that it on the top of the head, not the
back of the head. The back of the head is fractured, but intact.
Lifton refuses to discuss the Connally back wound. We can see it
bleeding in later Zapruder frames. He also refuses to discuss how the
chrome topping was dented. These two points alone totally destroy his
position that absolutely no shots came from behind.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Paul Seaton
Greg,
(this post of yours slipped past my surveillance operation...)
> (except that the actual times are all earlier than in most places).
Right on, bro.
My point was really that LeB. is not exactly Mr. Clarity. His own lunch
hours may or may not be Oswald's.
We don't know.
We do know that LHO's shift's, according to the personnel manager, became
(by instruction, officially) irregular. Presumably meaning 'not the same as
everyone else's' or 'variable' or both.
>
> > And I see you gave up on your supposed quote. Good move.
>
> What I said orignially was possibly incorrect on the face of it.
Well, I'm going to light a cigar & quietly enjoy this rare moment of
beatitude.
> But we
> don't know, do we? You haven't shown what Lee's standard hours were. Not
> that it matters. The main point was that it showed Le Blanc had an hour
> lunch break. If that was true, then everyone did.
Okay, I agree it's possible that everyone had a one hour lunch break.
But if they did :
1) Judyth is wrong, because she says Lee had 1/2 hour. This doesn't enhance
her general cred.
2) She's also wrong about his start & finish times. (Unless Lee was on a 37
1/2 hr week. I haven't done the sums but I believe his hourly rate X 40
comes to what he was payed , gross.) This also doesn't do much for her cred.
If you want to say, well, Judyth doesn't know what she's talking about,
fine. But she DID work there. And if she's lying, she lying against her own
interest.
If everyone did, there is
> a problem because it shows Lee never (or rarely) worked a full 8 hours.
>
> And talking about backing away... you did not even comment on Lifton's
> assertion that Lee was "punctual" at Reily's. Do you agree with that
> assertion, or not?
>
> > >> > Can you cite from the record what his hours were supposed to be?
> >
> > No. Can you?
> > Although we do have (courtesy Shinley) that 'late shift' material.
>
> So?
The same source explains that Lee complained about the 'late' shifts he was
being asked to work.
The personnel manager said he would 'try' to get LHO back onto 'regular'
shifts.
Looks to me like that was just something he said to get rid of Lee.
>
> > > > > >Mr. Le Blanc.
> > > > > >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile
> > > when> > > > >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty
> well> > stayed> > > > >those hours as long as----
> > > >
> > > > Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible
> > > attitude> > > towards start/finish times in itself.
> > > > (LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8 to
> > > 5, &> > > 'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
> > >
> > > Yep. Which gives him an hour lunch.
> >
> > Well, LeBlanc says 'two lunch breaks'. (above).
>
> You can't be that thick, surely.
If you think I'm as thick as you apparently do, you must be even thicker
than you think I am.
Thick about it.
>
> > Does that give LHO TWO hours lunch?
> > Crikey!!
>
> This is just a blatant misreading of what Le Blanc said. It shows you have
> no interest in getting to the truth, only in helping to bury it.
Balls. Read what the guy said. Like I said, he is not Mr. Precision :
> > Mr. Le Blanc.
> > We had 11 and 11:30. Now at that time I don't know whether we just had
> the> 11:30 or we had two breaks--I can't recall--but I think it was two
> breaks,> lunch breaks, 11 and 11:30.
You tell me you think there were 'staggered' lunch breaks, remember? (below)
:
> Le Blanc was saying that the lunch break was staggered to limit the time
> when noone would be there. Thus, some went to lunch at 11:00am, the others
> at 11:30. Tea breaks were 9:00 and 1:30 for all. All standard practice
> (except that the actual times are all earlier than in most places).
You think Leblanc means there were two ONE hour breaks 'staggered' to 'limit
the time no-one was there'.
I suggest to you that if they were into limiting the time that 'no-one was
there' they could have done the job properly a & stuck the hands on a
general 1/2 hour break (as Judyth said), one at 11(?), one at 11.30(?) and
thus 'limited' the time when no-one would be there to exactly zero time at
all.
This is fully consistent with Judyth's 'half-hour' idea. Consistent with the
undisputed fact that she DID work there, and might even remember. Consistent
in that if she's lying about it she's lying against her own interest.
Consistent with the eternal nature of coffee production. And consistent with
Mr LeBlanc ( being a supervisor) grabbing a ONE hour lunch break for
himself, as is the way of all supervisors.
And (back to the real point of all this) you appear to be trying to get some
cast iron 'anomaly' into LHO's timekeeping which you can then claim to be
'suspect'.
So is Judyth, and it's Judyth were really talking about.
In attempting to salvage something from the wreck of her yarn, you find
yourself concluding that, to get YOUR (brand new australian) anomaly, JUDYTH
MUST BE LYING.
If you want to say 'ok Judyth is full of shit but I have a new angle that
will PROVE monkey business..' fair enough.
I don't think it would be difficult to demolish the idea.
But let's get Judyth out of the way first, ok?
>
> > Maybe these guys just took breaks more or less whenever they could get
> > away with it.
>
> You don't believe that any more than I do. It's not even good guess work.
> Suggest you look at the history of things like Flexible Work Hours within
> that industry.
!!!! I see which side of the tracks you come from, sport.
I don't get the info from web pages on the 'history of flexible working
hours'.
I get it from having seen guys fast asleep half the working day. Running
'errands' that should take 5 mins but which end up taking 45.
Taking 25 minute pees.
And if you want the financial bottom line, if the company can't find any one
else prepared to do the filthy job Joe Smith is doing, Joe Smith will get
away with a certain amount of murder till they do.
>
> If you can show that such flexibility existed at Reily's as either part a
> workplace agreement or an industrial award, I'll post an apology to
Lifton.
Ahahahahahahaha!!!!!
You really do have a sense of humour, don't you!!!
You mean, you want Reily's (written!) 'Policy On Acceptable Forms of Skiving
[revision 3.4] as drafted to accord with Sec. 10 para 3 of the U.N. Skivers
Charter 1957' !!!!
Greg, the guy was doing a shitty job for shitty money getting covered in
shit all day.
He took a little shit but escaped to Alba's whenever possible.
They had words.
They had more words.
In the end, they sacked him, presumably not before finding some other clown
to scrape hot gobs of burned on coffee, grease & oil off their machines.
>
> > > > >He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
> > > > > >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
> > > >
> > > > BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT WITH>
>
> THE> > > BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???
> > > > ( Why do people usually start work at 9am in coffee factories? RAT
> > > CANCER> PROJECTS, GREG!! THAT'S WHY. Ask anyone. Ask Judyth.)> The gun
> > > mags over at Alba's were full of CODED RAT CANCER INFORMATION.>
> > > Because, despite the fact that he was never there, being regularly
> > > clocked> out by his girl friend in full view of 30+ blind people, his
> > > supervisor had> been tipped off not to stick any complaints against
> > > Lee on his timecard, and> this was the ONLY WAY the personnel manager
> > > could possibly discover that Lee> was ever late, being apparently
> > > unable to read the time card itself.> The plant engineer failed to
> > > mention this to the FBI of course, having> forgotten all about it, or
> > > perhaps because his family were being held at> berylium syringe point.
> > > > And his supervisor forgot all about it too when specifically asked
> > > for 'any
> > > > further info of interest' by the WC. (Presumably for a similar
> > > reason).
> > >
> > > Ridicule all you like.
> >
> > You don't have the time.
>
> No. Or the patience, when the ridicule is merely to cover for a lack of
> facts.
The above piss-take is based entirely on ** Judyth's ** 'facts', Greg !!!
If you don't think Judyth's 'facts' are 'real' facts, or if you think they
are 'ridiculous', that's your problem, not mine.
It's ME who is arguing that she is fabricating, remember?
Not you.
Or did we switch sides or something?
If you'd rather argue that she's lying, fine.
I agree it's easier than the alternative.
But please don't throw her nonsense back at me and call it 'a lack of
facts', as if it was *me* that made it up.
>
> > >It's all you can do really, isn't it Paulie?
> >
> > No I play guitar, make love to 3 or 4 thousand women a day, play the
> stock> market, arrange mysterious deaths, change the baby's nappy, despair
> over> Australians with microscopia, do a spot of time travel.. just the
> ordinary> stuff really.
>
> You forgot about coming to the aid of body-snatchers... you could be Tonto
> to Lifton's Lone Ranger... except I guess it would have to be your Burke
to
> Lifton's Hare.
>
> Just hope you remember that Hare turned King's evidence against Burke to
> save his own neck...
I consider myself warned.
>
> > > You certainly can't point to the record to show where these problems
> > > were ironed out by investigators.
> >
> > WHAT PROBLEMS ?
> > Christ, the Warren Report would still not be published if they were
going
> to> spend weeks ironing out every single piece of total trivia you regard
> as
> > worthy of 'investigation'.
> > "He turned up for work at NINE!!!!"
>
> Or later, consistently, and was known not to be there for long periods
> during the day, yet was never docked in his pay. That is just not how
> businesses operate - now or then. Are you claiming it was too difficult to
> ask any of the employees they interviewed why he wasn't docked? One extra
> question. How long could that take?
Greg, when he was 'not there' he was found to be over at Alba's.
He was found there (from memory) about 4 times, overstaying his break.
These 'absences' do not show up on his time card.
The girls doing the time cards wouldn't know a thing about them.
What are Reilly's to do?
Cut two hours pay and risk him getting so pissed off he didn't turn up at
all next day, when there was no-one to replace him?
>
> > "THEN INVESTIGATE !!! THERE MAYJUST BE A RODENT CANCER PLOT HERE.."
> > It's ludicrous.
> > Frankly.
>
> No.You are being ludicrous in your attempts to explain alll this. Breaks
> every ten minutes? Workers picking and choosing when they work? You are
> really grabbing at straws.
Sorry. I didn't think you were so literal minded.
'Breaks every ten minutes' = 'he went for a veeryyyyyyyy loooooooong
shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit whenever possible'
And the evidence we now have says his SUPERVISOR chose the 'late'
'irregular' hours for him, & that Lee actually COMPLAINED about it.
>
> > > Let me make this perfectly clear: the problems remain problems with or
> > > without Judyth's involvement.
> >
> > Then, again, good luck with your interminable micro-investigation.
>
> Aha. and how are things going with the medical evidence? Solved the case
> yet?
Pretty good.
And let's just say there is even now an area of very well informed concensus
on the probable true explanation for a number of previously highly
intractable facts. : )
>
> > > > Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff
> > > could
> > >
> > > Show where the record indicates Lee only had a half hour lunch break.
> > > If you can't, then the best we can do is make a reasonable assumption
> > > from Le Blanc's hours... that the lunch break was an hour long.
IE you agree Judyth is lying?
Why would she do that, when her case would actually IMPROVE if she told what
you are convinced is the 'truth'?
> >
> > Try to get your facts straight.
> > It was TWO hours long, Greg.
> > One (one hour long) at 11am , one (ditto) at 11.30am, remember?
> > ( Wierd place, Reily's. Flexible concept of time. )
>
> Not nearly as flexible as your concept of truth.
O come on, for christ's sake!
Here's me having a little fun with LeBlanc's rather vague memory and you hit
me over the head with THE GREAT FUCKING COSMIC HAMMER OF ETERNAL =:
SERIOUSNESS :=
I think Judyth is probably right (she does seem to have worked there after
all) that there was (perhaps) one (half hour) break at 11am & one (half
hour) break at 11.30 am (so there would be no need to shut down the
grinderrrrs) but that any staff above (whatever) level got themselves
wangled a ONE hour break, probably 11-12.
The uber-bosses probably took 1 1/2 hours over lunch, and the UBER uber
bosses probably took about 8 .
> > And you definitely need a holiday, mate.
>
> I'm taking one next month whether I need it or not.
Well, I hope you still have a house standing when you get back. (Seriously.
I mean, an argument is one thing, but homelessness in another). I hear it's
pretty warm out there in places.
It's FUCKING FREEEEEEEZZZZING here.
In fact, time to get them huskies together & go hunt me some polar bear for
lunch.. yum yum....
Judyth V. Baker
me or not, the plain truth I must say-- and in this case, the plain
truth is that Lee DID have just a half hour lunch break. The half hour
lunch breaks were staggered in the plant. As for me, I had an hour for
lunch, but I was working for Mr. Monaghan, the vice president in
charge of finance and credit, as well as security -- as he was a
former FBI agent and considered experienced in that matter (therefore
Monaghan's duties also included assessing the company-ordered
background and credit checks on employees who were new hires, or who
were being considered for hire, or who were transferred over from
another sector of the company).
The shipping and packing-- and maintenance-- people had no
hour-long lunch privileges. I can't help it if it makes my testimony
look worse, it is the truth, and that's that. I am telling the truth
100% no matter if it does make my case harder to prove. I know what i
did. I was there. You were not..
===JUDYTH====
"Paul Seaton" <paul....@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<a1815t$48f$2...@knossos.btinternet.com>...
sefirot
why then did you tell your husband you were a clerk? or is the elevated
position you are giving yourself- one of your imaginative career titles,
such as Anthropologist and Linguist?
"Judyth V. Baker" <elect...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ba6b02a7.02010...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/eop_entry/eop.htm
Judyth V. Baker
Surely (or maybe not surely, considering the state of his memory) he
recalls my boss was Mr. William Monaghan, and that my work involved
credit and background investigations. I had to wear very nice clothing
because of it, and Robert's mother purchased several nice dresses for
me to wear there BECAUSE of my position. I also have a letter from
Robert's mother mentioning her pride that I held that position. Poor
Robert: he can't remember a thing. Better not ask him which name you
are presently using: he might not remember. Is it still Emma? or
Candace? Or is it Mary Rose? Rose? Oh, now it's 'Sefirot.' I didn't
do a single day of 'clerking.' Rose, unlike yourself, who dares to tag
me with your latest pet psychological disorder, when you do so without
any degree at all in the subject, I can back up my claims with plenty
of postgraduate credits and professional level activities in both
areas. I've presented papers in both subject fields at a number of
conferences. The U.S. government hires 'anthropologists' for field
work with a bachelor's degree who have my level of additional graduate
hours. My latest advanced anthropology credits were earned in medical
anthropology, including a study of folk healers in the Cajun
population of Louisiana. In linguistics, my most recent graduate level
research involved a sociolinguistic study of the forced English
education of aged Cajun females, over one hundred of them, who were
located in nursing homes in Cajun territory. I also recently conducted
psycholinguistic research at the graduate level, under Professor
Sherry Condon.. I also --most recently-- studied Old Norske and its
varieties while engaged in the translation, for more postgraduate
credit in linguistics, of portions of classic Nordic sagas, under the
guidance of world-famed linguist Dr. James Anderson. I've plowed
through Beowulf, El Cid, and a host of other ancient premodern
literary texts, and have the postgraduate college credit to prove it.
Go away, 'Sefirot.' Defame my character any more, and you'll hear from
my lawyer. ====Judyth===
"sefirot" <sefirot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<szZZ7.7688$Vz3.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Paul Seaton
Judyth,
Well, I have no reason not believe you, on the lunch break times.
( & I hope Greg is watching..... : )
--
--
® Þ§
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/eop_entry/eop.htm
--
"Get your facts first, & then you can distort them as much as you please"
(Mark Twain)
"Judyth V. Baker" <elect...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ba6b02a7.02010...@posting.google.com...
Magic Bullet
That's par for the course in this investigation.
His own lunch> hours may or may not be Oswald's.
Reading Judyth's latest post, she has confirmed Lee had a half hour. I
accept that this may have been the case. My problems in accepting it
immediately were based on my own knowledge and experience. Here, it would
not be acceptable in any workplace, for Supervisors to have longer lunch
breaks than those they are supervising.
> We don't know.> We do know that LHO's shift's, according to the personnel
manager, became> (by instruction, officially) irregular.
??? Officially irregular??? Where does Le Blanc say that?
Presumably meaning 'not the same as> everyone else's' or 'variable' or
both.
So show me from the records that this was stated.
> > > And I see you gave up on your supposed quote. Good move.
> >
> > What I said orignially was possibly incorrect on the face of it.
>
> Well, I'm going to light a cigar & quietly enjoy this rare moment of
> beatitude.
Not interested in face-saving... only getting to the facts.
> > But we> > don't know, do we? You haven't shown what Lee's standard
hours were. Not> > that it matters. The main point was that it showed Le
Blanc had an hour> > lunch break. If that was true, then everyone did.
>
> Okay, I agree it's possible that everyone had a one hour lunch break.
> But if they did :> 1) Judyth is wrong, because she says Lee had 1/2 hour.
This doesn't enhance> her general cred.> 2)
If she's wrong, she's wrong. But as above, she has reconfirmed what she has
said all along, and it is what everyone else insists was the case. I'm
happy to concede.
She's also wrong about his start & finish times. (Unless Lee was on a 37>
1/2 hr week. I haven't done the sums but I believe his hourly rate X 40>
comes to what he was payed , gross.)
How was she wrong about his start and finish times? Are you suggesting
because they don't conform to what his time cards show, that this shows her
to be in error? The only reasonable solution would be a comparison with the
person who preceded him, and the one who came into that job next.
This also doesn't do much for her cred.> If you want to say, well, Judyth
doesn't know what she's talking about,> fine. But she DID work there. And
if she's lying, she lying against her own> interest.
How can you think I support her story? She was a Mormon at the time.
> If everyone did, there is> > a problem because it shows Lee never (or
rarely) worked a full 8 hours.
> >
> > And talking about backing away... you did not even comment on Lifton's>
> assertion that Lee was "punctual" at Reily's. Do you agree with that> >
assertion, or not?
Still no comment?
> > > >> > Can you cite from the record what his hours were supposed to be?
> > >> > > No. Can you?> > > Although we do have (courtesy Shinley) that
'late shift' material.
> >
> > So?
>
> The same source explains that Lee complained about the 'late' shifts he
was> being asked to work.> The personnel manager said he would 'try' to get
LHO back onto 'regular'> shifts.> Looks to me like that was just something
he said to get rid of Lee.
I think you will find your use of the plural may be in error. If my memory
serves, it was one shift. Lee complained, and did not work that shift
again.
> > > > > > >Mr. Le Blanc.
> > > > > > >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For
awhile
> > > > when> > > > >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I
pretty> > well> > stayed> > > > >those hours as long as----
> > > > >
> > > > > Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible
> > > > attitude> > > towards start/finish times in itself.
> > > > > (LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8
to
> > > > 5, &> > > 'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
> > > >
> > > > Yep. Which gives him an hour lunch.
> > >
> > > Well, LeBlanc says 'two lunch breaks'. (above).
> >
> > You can't be that thick, surely.
>
> If you think I'm as thick as you apparently do, you must be even thicker
> than you think I am.> Thick about it.
Theaton, you're tho thatirical, I thplit my thides.
> > > Does that give LHO TWO hours lunch?
> > > Crikey!!
> >
> > This is just a blatant misreading of what Le Blanc said. It shows you
have> > no interest in getting to the truth, only in helping to bury it.
>
> Balls. Read what the guy said. Like I said, he is not Mr. Precision :
So that's a reason to twist his words into a ludicrous meanings?
> > > Mr. Le Blanc.
> > > We had 11 and 11:30. Now at that time I don't know whether we just
had> > the> 11:30 or we had two breaks--I can't recall--but I think it was
two> > breaks,> lunch breaks, 11 and 11:30.
>
> You tell me you think there were 'staggered' lunch breaks, remember?
(below)
> :
>
> > Le Blanc was saying that the lunch break was staggered to limit the
time> > when noone would be there. Thus, some went to lunch at 11:00am, the
others> > at 11:30. Tea breaks were 9:00 and 1:30 for all. All standard
practice> > (except that the actual times are all earlier than in most
places).
>
> You think Leblanc means there were two ONE hour breaks 'staggered' to
'limit> the time no-one was there'.
> I suggest to you that if they were into limiting the time that 'no-one
was
> there' they could have done the job properly a & stuck the hands on a
> general 1/2 hour break (as Judyth said), one at 11(?), one at 11.30(?)
and> thus 'limited' the time when no-one would be there to exactly zero
time at> all.> This is fully consistent with Judyth's 'half-hour' idea.
Consistent with the> undisputed fact that she DID work there, and might
even remember. Consistent> in that if she's lying about it she's lying
against her own interest.> Consistent with the eternal nature of coffee
production. And consistent with> Mr LeBlanc ( being a supervisor) grabbing
a ONE hour lunch break for> himself, as is the way of all supervisors.
It might be in less civilised societies. Not here.
> And (back to the real point of all this) you appear to be trying to get
some> cast iron 'anomaly' into LHO's timekeeping which you can then claim
to be> 'suspect'.> So is Judyth, and it's Judyth were really talking
about.> In attempting to salvage something from the wreck of her yarn, you
find> yourself concluding that, to get YOUR (brand new australian) anomaly,
JUDYTH> MUST BE LYING.
And as I've said. Doesn't matter. Even with a half hour break, he still
didn't work his 40 hours. Even McAdams has conceded that.
> If you want to say 'ok Judyth is full of shit but I have a new angle that
> will PROVE monkey business..' fair enough.
> I don't think it would be difficult to demolish the idea.
> But let's get Judyth out of the way first, ok?
As above.
> > > Maybe these guys just took breaks more or less whenever they could
get> > > away with it.
> >
> > You don't believe that any more than I do. It's not even good guess
work.> > Suggest you look at the history of things like Flexible Work Hours
within> > that industry.
>
> !!!! I see which side of the tracks you come from, sport.
> I don't get the info from web pages on the 'history of flexible working
> hours'.> I get it from having seen guys fast asleep half the working day.
Running> 'errands' that should take 5 mins but which end up taking 45.
> Taking 25 minute pees.> And if you want the financial bottom line, if the
company can't find any one> else prepared to do the filthy job Joe Smith is
doing, Joe Smith will get> away with a certain amount of murder till they
do.
If you think I have no personal experience in this, you're dead wrong. I've
worked in wide variety of jobs... sales, factory, construction, clerical,
welfare, and quasi-legal (deciding appeals against govt decisions as a last
step prior to the courts).
I know about slackers. Most I knew got away with it because they never got
caught. Those that did, weren't suffered long in the blue collar areas I
worked.
Hell, even in the Public Service, I got docked once for being late - and
that was the very first time, after many years of reliability.
> > If you can show that such flexibility existed at Reily's as either part
a
> > workplace agreement or an industrial award, I'll post an apology to
> Lifton.
>
> Ahahahahahahaha!!!!!
> You really do have a sense of humour, don't you!!!
> You mean, you want Reily's (written!) 'Policy On Acceptable Forms of
Skiving> [revision 3.4] as drafted to accord with Sec. 10 para 3 of the
U.N. Skivers> Charter 1957' !!!!
No. You seemed to be arguing earlier, that his start times (which jump all
over the place), are his agreed start times.
> Greg, the guy was doing a shitty job for shitty money getting covered in
> shit all day.
> He took a little shit but escaped to Alba's whenever possible.
> They had words.
> They had more words.
> In the end, they sacked him, presumably not before finding some other
clown> to scrape hot gobs of burned on coffee, grease & oil off their
machines.
So how does that explain his oh so irregular start times?
And as I've said before, all his other jobs (with the possible exception of
JBS) were similarly shitty... yet he was always on time, and was never
known to disappear from the job. Reily's was the only place his punctuality
in arriving is not apparent, and where he was not known to be a reasonably
dilligent and reliable employee.
You have no way around that. But I guess you can just keep ignoring it if
you want.
> > > > > >He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown>
> > > > > >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN
PAY?
> > > > >
> > > > > BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT
WITH>
> >
> > THE> > > BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???> > > > >
On noone's side. I have jump in when I see you guys twisting things, and
behaving like a pack of hyenas.
> If you'd rather argue that she's lying, fine.
> I agree it's easier than the alternative.
> But please don't throw her nonsense back at me and call it 'a lack of
> facts', as if it was *me* that made it up.
I don't know enough about her story to say it is all true.
I do believe she worked at Reily's and lived near Lee. I do believe
underground cancer research was taking place. I do believe their is
significance in the Queen of Spades.
> > > >It's all you can do really, isn't it Paulie?
> > >
> > > No I play guitar, make love to 3 or 4 thousand women a day, play the>
> stock> market, arrange mysterious deaths, change the baby's nappy,
despair> > over> Australians with microscopia, do a spot of time travel..
just the> > ordinary> stuff really.
> >
> > You forgot about coming to the aid of body-snatchers... you could be
Tonto> > to Lifton's Lone Ranger... except I guess it would have to be your
Burke> to> > Lifton's Hare.
> >
> > Just hope you remember that Hare turned King's evidence against Burke
to> > save his own neck...
>
> I consider myself warned.
Well, you know what they say... if you lay down with body snatchers, you'll
wake up in a deep freeze.
> > > > You certainly can't point to the record to show where these
problems> > > > were ironed out by investigators.
> > >
> > > WHAT PROBLEMS ?
> > > Christ, the Warren Report would still not be published if they were
> going> > to> spend weeks ironing out every single piece of total trivia
you regard> > as> > > worthy of 'investigation'.> > > "He turned up for
work at NINE!!!!"
> >
> > Or later, consistently, and was known not to be there for long periods
> > during the day, yet was never docked in his pay. That is just not how
> > businesses operate - now or then. Are you claiming it was too difficult
to> > ask any of the employees they interviewed why he wasn't docked? One
extra> > question. How long could that take?
>
> Greg, when he was 'not there' he was found to be over at Alba's.
> He was found there (from memory) about 4 times, overstaying his break.
Maybe. But at least on one of those occasions, (when he couldn't be found),
Le Blanc found him at Alba's when he went there on HIS break. So not only
overstaying his breaks, but also disappearing well before everyone else for
them.
> These 'absences' do not show up on his time card.
> The girls doing the time cards wouldn't know a thing about them.
No. Because noone noted it for them.
> What are Reilly's to do?
> Cut two hours pay and risk him getting so pissed off he didn't turn up at
> all next day, when there was no-one to replace him?
Oswald could not afford to risk being sacked. It appears it would have
affected his unemployment payments. Yet that risk seems to have been
overlooked by him.
> > > "THEN INVESTIGATE !!! THERE MAYJUST BE A RODENT CANCER PLOT HERE.."
> > > It's ludicrous.
> > > Frankly.
> >
> > No.You are being ludicrous in your attempts to explain alll this.
Breaks
> > every ten minutes? Workers picking and choosing when they work? You
are> > really grabbing at straws.
>
> Sorry. I didn't think you were so literal minded.
> 'Breaks every ten minutes' = 'he went for a veeryyyyyyyy loooooooong
> shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit whenever possible'
> And the evidence we now have says his SUPERVISOR chose the 'late'
> 'irregular' hours for him, & that Lee actually COMPLAINED about it.
So show Lee behaving similarly in all the other shitty jobs he had.
> > > > Let me make this perfectly clear: the problems remain problems with
or> > > > without Judyth's involvement.
> > >
> > > Then, again, good luck with your interminable micro-investigation.
> >
> > Aha. and how are things going with the medical evidence? Solved the
case> > yet?
>
> Pretty good.
> And let's just say there is even now an area of very well informed
concensus> on the probable true explanation for a number of previously
highly> intractable facts. : )
Until the next "breakthrough".
> > > > > Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff
> > > > could
> > > >
> > > > Show where the record indicates Lee only had a half hour lunch
break.> > > > If you can't, then the best we can do is make a reasonable
assumption> > > > from Le Blanc's hours... that the lunch break was an hour
long.
>
> IE you agree Judyth is lying?
> Why would she do that, when her case would actually IMPROVE if she told
what> you are convinced is the 'truth'?
You're very cofused, Paul. Go back and read again.
> > > Try to get your facts straight.
> > > It was TWO hours long, Greg.
> > > One (one hour long) at 11am , one (ditto) at 11.30am, remember?
> > > ( Wierd place, Reily's. Flexible concept of time. )
> >
> > Not nearly as flexible as your concept of truth.
>
> O come on, for christ's sake!
> Here's me having a little fun with LeBlanc's rather vague memory and you
hit> me over the head with THE GREAT FUCKING COSMIC HAMMER OF ETERNAL =>
SERIOUSNESS :=
Fun designed to confuse and distort.
> I think Judyth is probably right (she does seem to have worked there
after> all) that there was (perhaps) one (half hour) break at 11am & one
(half> hour) break at 11.30 am (so there would be no need to shut down the>
grinderrrrs) but that any staff above (whatever) level got themselves
> wangled a ONE hour break, probably 11-12.
> The uber-bosses probably took 1 1/2 hours over lunch, and the UBER uber>
bosses probably took about 8 .
>
>
> > > And you definitely need a holiday, mate.
> >
> > I'm taking one next month whether I need it or not.
>
> Well, I hope you still have a house standing when you get back.
(Seriously.> I mean, an argument is one thing, but homelessness in
another).
Not here. It's one place in the world where homelessness is an acceptable
form of living. 25% of the popluation are Aborignial and live
semi-traditional lifestyles under the stars. No winter... and plenty of
shelter to be found from monsoonal rains. A few anglos leave the rat-race
and join 'em occasionally. In fact, one of the regular camp spots is just
over the back of my place. I'll have no qualms about joining 'em if /when
it comes to that.
I hear it's> pretty warm out there in places.
> It's FUCKING FREEEEEEEZZZZING here.
> In fact, time to get them huskies together & go hunt me some polar bear
for> lunch.. yum yum....
Sounds great.
sefirot
not savvy about posting technology.
but anyhoot--
minor correction--Judy was not a Mormon at the time.
She was an Catholic want to be an atheist at the time. She converted to
Mormonism when her husband went to work in Houston for Exxon, after 1969.
"Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$d6pjpg$0bf$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
Magic Bullet
> how do you guys do the below? it is like you are having an online chat? i
am
> not savvy about posting technology.
> but anyhoot--
> minor correction--Judy was not a Mormon at the time.
> She was an Catholic want to be an atheist at the time.
I can understand that.
She converted to
> Mormonism when her husband went to work in Houston for Exxon, after 1969.
Well, thank you, Rose. But it doesn't matter. As long as she wasn't a
Quaker or Unitarian...
Was Mormonism compulsory at Exxon?
Which of the Sefirot ARE you, btw?
greg
sefirot
since it is sunday, let's see if rose is in.
no Mormonism wasn't compulsory at Exxon. But there were missionaries around
back in those days, and they did hand out copies of the Book of Mormon. One
of which J brought home. Dr. Baker converted after reading the "Pearl of
Great Price" and J converted along with him.
There isn't even a correlation between Exxon and Mormonism.
whoooh that was waayyyyyyyyyyyy off the NG subject.
rose
BTW which bullet are you? the silver one?news:newscache$xtqjpg$gdf$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
Magic Bullet
> that is just to cute--
> since it is sunday, let's see if rose is in.
In what? Full bloom?
Sunday? No it's not. It's Monday.
> no Mormonism wasn't compulsory at Exxon.
Well, it should have been.
>But there were missionaries around back in those days, and they did hand
>out copies of the Book of Mormon.
Why?
One> of which J brought home. Dr. Baker converted after reading the "Pearl
of> Great Price" and J converted along with him.
Ah, I see...
Mormons were part of the get Castro plot to, you know...
"For in those days there shall also arise false a Christs, and false
prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if
possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to
the covenant."
This was the blueprint for the idea of floating a giant JC just off-shore
of Cuba, all lit up like a Christmas tree. The idea was that, seeing this,
the populace, being deeply religious, would see it as a sign to rise up
against the Godless heathen, Fidel.
> There isn't even a correlation between Exxon and Mormonism.
They rhyme (but only if you add "ism" to Exxon, or take off the "ism" from
Mormonism).
And there may be other things of equal substance showing a correlation
beside this. But I sense a lack of interest in this subject. Oh well.
> whoooh that was waayyyyyyyyyyyy off the NG subject.
No. It's okay. I have us back on track.
> rose
> BTW which bullet are you? the silver one?
Only if a werewolf becomes the main suspect here.
Now... I answered yours....
there are 10 to choose from. So which one?
art guerrilla
greg with a bullet -
> My problems in accepting it
>immediately were based on my own knowledge and experience. Here, it would
>not be acceptable in any workplace, for Supervisors to have longer lunch
>breaks than those they are supervising.
firstly, while it may be so that such a
situation exists *now*, it remains to be
'proven' (not that that is necessary) it was
such a situation *then*... (60's)
(also, it seems that aussies are a
somewhat more egalitarian society in
practice than we yanks claim in theory...)
also, the facts are, management types
(especially in non-factory type jobs) will
engage in long lunch hours, goofing off,
running errands, etc, with near impunity
since *they* are not generally subject to
observation and tracking by their inferiors
in the hierarchy... (*they* are the
watchers, after all, not the watchees...)
hee hee hee
eye have no doubt that *theoretically* and
by the company policy book the managers
/executives/etc are *supposed* to have
the same time for lunch/etc; but in real
world practice, it just don't work that way
most of the time...
*some* managers may not really take
lunch breaks at all since they are running
around stamping out fires; but most of
the 'executive' types do what they want
for lunch (especially when so many of
them are purportedly 'bidness lunches',
entertaining clients, etc), and don't have
to answer to any lowlife peons if they
take a 2-3 hour lunch...
of course, that applies in general: 'rules'
which apply to the hoi polloi may
theoretically apply to the big cheeses,
but in reality *who* is policing if they
don't comply with the regulations ? ? ?
crap contrary to 'official policy' goes on
ALL THE TIME; it is ONLY when
something blows up that people start
pointing fingers; otherwise, it is just
bidness as usual in ignoring the rules
that apply to the little people...
ann don't-peon-me archy
eof
Magic Bullet
art guerrilla <digde...@aol.comoc.loa> wrote in message
news:20020107102405...@mb-cn.aol.com...
Art, it seems to me the only way to resolve it would be to take up the
suggestion of Stu Wexler... look at the records of others to match their
patterns of clock ins/clock outs against Oswald. Ideally, it should be
those of the person who Oswald replace, and the person who replaced him.
greg
Paul Seaton
> Reading Judyth's latest post, she has confirmed Lee had a half hour. I
> accept that this may have been the case. My problems in accepting it
> immediately were based on my own knowledge and experience. Here, it would
> not be acceptable in any workplace, for Supervisors to have longer lunch
> breaks than those they are supervising.
Greg,
I know what you mean. But who knows what arrangements were deemed acceptable
in 1960's N.O.?
Maybe there was some 'sweetener' the workers got to help them swallow this
bitter pill? Who knows?
In favour of the 'half hour' break we got Judyth, who all agree *did* work
there.
Also (assuming the point of the staggered breaks was to avoid having to shut
down the machinery) a half hour break fits the bill exactly.
>
> > We don't know.> We do know that LHO's shift's, according to the
personnel
> manager, became> (by instruction, officially) irregular.
>
> ??? Officially irregular??? Where does Le Blanc say that?
... We may be getting our LeBlancs mixed up with our Claudes here, but
anyway see below.
>
> Presumably meaning 'not the same as> everyone else's' or 'variable' or
> both.
>
> So show me from the records that this was stated.
<quote, emphasis added>
From: jpsh...@my-deja.com (Jerry Shinley)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Alfred Claude, LHO and Reily
Date: 31 Dec 2001 11:25:56 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 72
Approved: jmca...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <95eb686c.01123...@posting.google.com>
Return-Path: <ne...@google.com>
Warren Commission Exhibit 1940 23 H 734-735
On 11/26/63 at New Orleans, Louisiana
by SA G. Myrwin Alderson
Mr. ALFRED A. CLAUDE, JR........
..Mr. CLAUDE stated that .... he was in the * personnel department * of the
William B. Reily and Company, Inc.,........
......... also advised that the only argument he ever
had with OSWALD was *** when he put OSWALD on a late shift *** so
that the machines could be oiled and cleaned after they
had been used during the day and that OSWALD complained
that *** he did not like to work on the late shift *** and he was advised
by Mr. CLAUDE that he would see what arrangements could be
made to again *** place him on a regular shift ***.
<unquote>
Thus after learning more than I ever really wanted to learn about work
patterns at Reily, I still maintain that there is nothing in Lee's timecard
record that demonstrates that anything particularly peculiar was going on.
Reily were screwing with him, shiftwise.
He complained.
Nothing was done.
A few times he showed up even later than the 'late' shift. These times (as
Lifton has shown) correspond to his trips to the printers, and for all we
know they were agreed (say the previous day) with his supervisors.
He still got his 40 hours in.
But he still ended up getting sacked.
By this time he had built up enough credits to claim unemployment benefit -
which may indeed have been what Lee was after. Then he can do as he pleases
all day for (from memory) $33 dollars a week rather than work at Reily for
(from memory) $60 dollars a week.
There may be 'concerns' about the unemployment credits, I know very little
about that, but on the face of it it sounds like Lee was a master at
squeezing the last dime in unemployment benefit out of all available
sources.
If unemployment benefit was the best source the CIA could come up with as
'financial backing' for their assets, I'd say they've been vastly
over-estimated, intelligence-wise.
By this time I'm snowed under with posts from various sources to reply to,
but I'll try to deal with the rest of your post asap.
--
David S. Lifton
See comments below.
RE your statement:
> *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
>
> That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
>
COMMENT: It wasn't "apparent surgery"; it was "apparent" THAT THERE
HAD BEEN surgery". That's a big difference.
The quote: It was "apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as
well as SURGERY OF THE HEAD AREA, NAMELY, IN THE TOP OF THE SKULL."
YOUR STATEMENT:
> My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
>
COMMENT: Dead wrong.
Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
1980, during my filmed interivew.
Your "recollection" therefore is completely false, and so is the
negative implication you draw from it, about my work.
RE:
> > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> >
> > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > connect someone's gun to the crime.
>
> It would be very clear?
>
> No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
"outside the box."
>
> Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
>
> After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> question.
WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
in detail, but choose not to at this time.
RE:
And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
> that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
> front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
> back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
> same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
> he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
> means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
> theory. When & where did this happen?
>
> Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
> seriously incomplete.
RESPONSE: Please don't tell me that if I proved to you that JC's
medical data was falsified, you would suddenly come around on the
question of JFK's autopsy being false. The two are like skew-lines,
logically. You are trying to connect them, and thus use one issue to
avoid addressing the other.
RE:
> And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
COMMENT:
FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
RE:
>From what I recall, some
> of the most qualified in the field say it wouldn't fool anyone who
> knew what they were doing, that the wounds inflicted after death look
> nothing like wounds made when the person was alive. You don't really
> address this issue at all in your nearly 800 page book,
COMMENT: False. . that is why the microscopic slides are missing. See
chapter 18 of my book.
RE:
> I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> assumes the evidence is falsified.
FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
RE:
> Jack White thinks all the Dealey Plaza photos are falsified, and
> builds his arguments around the witnesses statements. But only the
> convenient ones. The other witnesses are lying or intimidated. Etc.
>
> Robert Groden says those photos are legit, but the autopsy photos are
> falsified to hide the evidence of a back of head wound. Like White,
> the convenient witnesses are telling the truth, the inconvenient ones
> are lying or intimidated.
COMMENT: Silly comparisions.
>
> You think the witnesses are correct for the most part (but only, of
> course, where they offer evidence convenient to your theory), and the
> autopsy photos legit, but you merely introduce the falsification of
> evidence at an earlier level, prior to the autopsy and prior to the
> photos taken at the autopsy.
>
> There's really no difference. You're all relying on arguments that the
> evidence before us aint legit. And using eyewitness evidence to
> attempt to overturn the hard evidence.
COMMENT: Wrong again. When there exists, for example, a pathological
slide that is labeled "from the line of transection of the spinal
cord," that is not relying on an eyewitesss recollection of the size
and shape of a wound.
Again, see Ch. 18 of B.E.
Apparently, you're in love with your own generalizations.
RE: your attempt to make a joke of the evidence that supports body
alteration.
> We don't see the stuff we should see, stuff that is readily apparent
> to you. And you tells us it's our problem?
COMMENT: Its not that you don't "see the stuff we should see." You
fail to see the "stuff" that is there. You shouldn't "see it" because
I say so; the subjective act is not mine; its your refusal to see what
is there.
RE:
> And the evidence is that the evidence has not been falsified. For
> example, you go from *apparent* surgery to *definite* surgery. You
> introduced the concept of the bodybag to the witness, he didn't
> mention it independently.
COMMENT: All these statements are based on multiple errors, as
outlined above.
>
> You go from simple conflicts in the memory of some witnesses
> concerning the timing of the arrival of the body at Bethesda, etc., to
> a massive conspiracy.
>
> Sorry, no sale.
COMMMENT: That's like saying: "you go from 4 planes hijacked by 19
people to a massive conspiracy. Sorry. . no sale."
> >
TO REPEAT WHAT I FIRST WROTE:
> > The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
> > said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
> > strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
> > labeled "outlandish."
> >
> > DSL
>
RE:
> Or alternately, they aren't connected and shouldn't be connected.
COMMENT: THis is YOUR problem is logic and perception, which you
project onto me. But the problem, let me assure you, is all yours.
AND:
"But
> you are connecting them because you have a strong bias to do so, not
> that they deserve to be connected."
SEZ WHO? You- - - who keeps getting the simplest facts wrong, as
ennumerate above??
RE:
> Who rationally connects dots on a patient's body, anyway? That's not a
> proper way to diagnose or treat a patient in any case I'm aware of.
COMMENT: Good Lord. . you do realize the NYer cartoon was a cartoon,
and was employing a metaphor, no?
>
> You need a better analogy than this one, David. This one suggests you
> are connecting stuff that doesn't deserve to be connected, which is
> not your intent, I don't think.
>
>
> JoeZ
COMMENT: To make these judgements, I suggest you go into the field of
psychiatry. In the world of logic and evidence, the dots I have
connected--i.e., the inferences I have drawn--are perfectly logical.
Unfortunately, for you and others, they happen to lead to conclusions
that are "politically incorrect," and that is the problem.
And not much more.
DSL
David S. Lifton
> At the time, David, I was happy it was a best seller. I bought every
> edition. Then I began to find out how much information you DIDN'T tell
> us. How many people you managed to sell that bullshit to doesn't excuse
> that.
> If only someone besides Doug Horne fell for it, you could mention
> someone else, instead of having to constantly repeat his name like a
> pathetic mantra.
Martin:
A post like this only confirms my opinion that you are. . . well,
let's put it this way, "evidence challenged."
I mean: do you think 100,000 people bought the hardcover because they
were all against the book? And I could go through the other editions.
Or the tens of thousand of people who have the video. (i.e.,
Martyn's idea of what the public buys: "Let's see, I really don't
believe this. . . so I think I'll buy it."
In your silly world, apparently, people buy books they DON'T agree
with---and poor Marytn, he's working with "the truth"--the "genuine
article" he calls it in a recent post-- but he just can't find a
publisher. (Of course, that couldn't have anything to do with the
credibility of the evidence with which he's dealing, or his talent at
putting together data.) And certainly it couldn't be related to the
fact that the chief witness on whom he relies for his version of
reality is a rather obvious whacko.
DSL
Martin Shackelford
Many people bought the book out of curiosity.
Some believed it after reading it, some didn't.
Others later discovered that there was more to it than you said there
was, and decided at that time they didn't believe your thesis.
And what kind of idiot assumes that selling 100,000 copies makes the
book true?
As for calling Judyth a "wacko," people who live in glass houses....
Martin
GMcNally
> Sorry, Joe, but you're wrong on all counts (as usual).
>
> See comments below.
>
> RE your statement:
>
> > *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
> >
> > That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
> >
>
> COMMENT: It wasn't "apparent surgery"; it was "apparent" THAT THERE
> HAD BEEN surgery". That's a big difference.
>
> The quote: It was "apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as
> well as SURGERY OF THE HEAD AREA, NAMELY, IN THE TOP OF THE SKULL."
David,
But, as the autopsists said the scalp was intact with the exception of
a defect at the top side, then, there couldn't have been surgery.
The doctors had to reflect the scalp, upon which the skull crumbled
enough to allow them to remove the brain without using a cranial saw.
Therefore, there could have been no surgery.
This body-alteration theory is your Judyth - something you bet your
career on and everybody else sees as ridiculous.
Jerry
AnthonyMarsh
>
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message news:<3C33E280...@concentric.net>...
> > At the time, David, I was happy it was a best seller. I bought every
> > edition. Then I began to find out how much information you DIDN'T tell
> > us. How many people you managed to sell that bullshit to doesn't excuse
> > that.
> > If only someone besides Doug Horne fell for it, you could mention
> > someone else, instead of having to constantly repeat his name like a
> > pathetic mantra.
>
> Martin:
>
> A post like this only confirms my opinion that you are. . . well,
> let's put it this way, "evidence challenged."
>
> I mean: do you think 100,000 people bought the hardcover because they
> were all against the book? And I could go through the other editions.
> Or the tens of thousand of people who have the video. (i.e.,
> Martyn's idea of what the public buys: "Let's see, I really don't
> believe this. . . so I think I'll buy it."
>
Just in case you haven't yet figured it out, many people buy books and then are
disappointed in them. And some people buy a book just for a couple of specific
sections, but disagree with the opinions of the author. For example, I always
buy Mortal Error for the excellent photos and diagrams, but the theory is
stupid. I might also remind you that millions of Americans bought the Warren
Commission Report, but 90% of them now know that it was a lie.
I have several copies of your book and always buy new ones when they end up on
the remainder shelves for 50 cents. You have some important things to
contribute, but your idea of body alteration is silly.
> In your silly world, apparently, people buy books they DON'T agree
> with---and poor Marytn, he's working with "the truth"--the "genuine
> article" he calls it in a recent post-- but he just can't find a
> publisher. (Of course, that couldn't have anything to do with the
> credibility of the evidence with which he's dealing, or his talent at
> putting together data.) And certainly it couldn't be related to the
> fact that the chief witness on whom he relies for his version of
> reality is a rather obvious whacko.
>
> DSL
Joe Zircon
> Sorry, Joe, but you're wrong on all counts (as usual).
>
> See comments below.
>
> RE your statement:
>
> > *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
> >
> > That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
> >
>
> COMMENT: It wasn't "apparent surgery"; it was "apparent" THAT THERE
> HAD BEEN surgery". That's a big difference.
>
> The quote: It was "apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as
> well as SURGERY OF THE HEAD AREA, NAMELY, IN THE TOP OF THE SKULL."
>
>From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
-- quote --
Main Entry: ap搆ar搪nt
Pronunciation: &-'par-&nt, -'per-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French aparent, from Latin
apparent-, apparens, present participle of apparEre to appear
Date: 14th century
1 : open to view : VISIBLE
2 : clear or manifest to the understanding
3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind
4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of
evidence that may or may not be factually valid <the air of
spontaneity is perhaps more apparent than real -- J. R. Sutherland>
- ap搆ar搪nt搖ess /-'par-&nt-n&s, -'per-/ noun
synonyms APPARENT, ILLUSORY, SEEMING, OSTENSIBLE mean not actually
being what appearance indicates. APPARENT suggests appearance to
unaided senses that is not or may not be borne out by more rigorous
examination or greater knowledge <the apparent cause of the accident>.
ILLUSORY implies a false impression based on deceptive resemblance or
faulty observation, or influenced by emotions that prevent a clear
view <an illusory sense of security>. SEEMING implies a character in
the thing observed that gives it the appearance, sometimes through
intent, of something else <the seeming simplicity of the story>.
OSTENSIBLE suggests a discrepancy between an openly declared or
naturally implied aim or reason and the true one <the ostensible
reason for their visit>. synonym see in addition EVIDENT
-- unquote --
Note the definitions. Especially this: APPARENT suggests appearance to
unaided senses *that is not or may not be borne out by more rigorous
examination or greater knowledge* <the apparent cause of the accident>
or this: <the air of spontaneity is perhaps more apparent than real>
Or try this: <The surgery of the head area you mention is perhaps more
apparent than real>. Get it yet?
Note some of the synonyms listed, David. Illusory, Ostensible,
seeming, evident.
What is 'apparent' or evident at first glance may or may not be true
when examined in detail. It may prove to be illusory. As is your whole
case.
What pathologist who examined the body that night has said there were
body alterations?
What pathologist who examined the extant autopsy materials has said
there were body alterations?
The answers are none, and none, right?
>
>
> YOUR STATEMENT:
>
> > My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> > mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
> >
> COMMENT: Dead wrong.
>
> Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
> interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
> volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
> then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
> telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
> 1980, during my filmed interivew.
Floyd Reibe, not Paul O'Connor:
Lifton: ...was he in any kind of bag or anything, or in a sheet?"
Reibe: I think he was in a body bag.
Lifton: A body bag.
Reibe: Yes, a rubberized bag..."(p 637)
You asked about the bag, first. Don't you know your own material?
>
> Your "recollection" therefore is completely false, and so is the
> negative implication you draw from it, about my work.
No, my recollection is absolutely accurate. I found the quote in
question, and it confirms that you mentioned the bag first.
>
> RE:
>
> > > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> > >
> > > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > > connect someone's gun to the crime.
> >
> > It would be very clear?
> >
> > No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
>
> To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
> "outside the box."
Not at all. I think Time-Travelers On Vacation killed JFK. This
apparently hasn't occurred to you because you have trouble thinking
outside the sphere which encircles the box. ;-)
Name one other case where body alterations were used to fool the
pathologists.
Otherwise, it's still an outlandish suggestion.
> >
> > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> >
> > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > question.
>
> WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> in detail, but choose not to at this time.
Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
tell us at this time.
The JFK assassin happened 38 years ago, David. If you won't tell us
now, when?
And what's the need for the big secret anyway?
>
> RE:
>
> And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
> > that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
> > front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
> > back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
> > same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
> > he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
> > means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
> > theory. When & where did this happen?
> >
> > Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
> > seriously incomplete.
>
> RESPONSE: Please don't tell me that if I proved to you that JC's
> medical data was falsified, you would suddenly come around on the
> question of JFK's autopsy being false. The two are like skew-lines,
> logically. You are trying to connect them, and thus use one issue to
> avoid addressing the other.
>
Nope. That pig won't fly. That's your dodge. You're the one avoiding
addressing the issue of Connally's back wound, remember? I brought it
up, you said you won't explain it.
They are logically connected by the fact that both men were shot in
the same assassination attempt. It's your argument that there were no
shooters behind the limo in that assassination attempt, that the real
shooters were in front of the limo, and JFK's wounds on the back
surface of his body were added later by conspirators. So Connally's
wounds, suffered in the same assassination attempt, which point to the
rear of the limo, must likewise have been added as well, according to
your theory, because they point to the rear of the limo too.
Explain when Connally's wounds were altered, David.
In the limo by Jackie & Nellie?
By Clint Hill who jumped onto the limo as it speed away from Dealey
Plaza? (I've always been suspicious of that activity myself).
Or at the hospital by his attending physicians?
Or do you want to change the subject and talk about JFK's wounds some
more?
> RE:
>
> > And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> > would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
>
> COMMENT:
>
> FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
> front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
> surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
>
You're quoting an FBI report, not the pathologists. Your quote is
hearsay, not evidence. And you're apparently misinterpreting what the
word apparent means, besides.
What pathologist(s) agrees with you, David? Can you name *ONE*?
I'm sorry, where in the autopsy report can I read that the body was
altered by pre-autopsy surgery, and the wound on JFK's upper back
added after death?
If they weren't fooled as you allege, surely they would have noted all
that, right?
And the pathologists who examined the extant materials later, for the
HSCA, they weren't fooled either, right? Where can I read in the HSCA
volumes of evidence that JFK's body was altered after death by surgery
to falsify the wounds? I must have missed that part.
But if the pathologists who examined the body and the materials said
it, I'm sure you'd be kind enough to offer a quote. But they never
said anything of the sort, did they, David?
In fact, you are taking a hearsay report and elevating it to
preeminence, and throwing out the statements by all the pathologists
who've examined the body and the autopsy materials, not one of whom
ever said anything remotely like your theory ever occurred. And two of
whom, in fact, said definitely that nothing remotely like your theory
could have occurred.
Isn't that right?
> RE:
>
> >From what I recall, some
> > of the most qualified in the field say it wouldn't fool anyone who
> > knew what they were doing, that the wounds inflicted after death look
> > nothing like wounds made when the person was alive. You don't really
> > address this issue at all in your nearly 800 page book,
>
> COMMENT: False. . that is why the microscopic slides are missing. See
> chapter 18 of my book.
Really? You just changed the subject entirely, didn't you? I spoke of
no pathologist agreeing with your theory, you talked about microscopic
slides.
No one here is fooled by that, David.
For example, Dr. Cyril Wecht said:
"Lifton gets away with crap, and no one challenges him. I could
assemble a
whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
accomplish in a
day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have never bought
his stuff.
It can't be done."
For example, Dr. Michael Baden said:
"Lifton just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a fantasy of
his. he
thinks he sees signs of surgery in some of the autopsy photos, but he
doesn't
know how to read those pictures. It's laughable. He's not a doctor
and it's
clear by his work that he doesn't understand what really happened.
He doesn't
even take into account rigor mortis, which starts two hours after
death.
Surgery on a corpse would look different than one on a living person.
His
theory of medical alteration is ridiculous"
Are you saying these doctors are actually lamenting how the
microscopic slides would prove you right if those slides were only
available?
I don't think so, but I could have trouble thinking outside the box.
Maybe if you took a tape of Baden saying all that above, and played it
enough times, it could start to sound like Baden was agreeing with
you. Why not? It worked for your tape of Humes, didn't it?
>
> RE:
>
> > I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> > advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> > It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> > assumes the evidence is falsified.
>
> FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
> that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
No, you present hearsay (the FBI memo), contaminated interviews
(Riebe) and minor disputes about time from recollections years after
the events (the casket entry) as the cornerstones of your theory.
That's what your book is all about.
You discard hard or better evidence like Oswald's rifle, like the
Z-film, like the autopsy conclusions, and like the subsequent review
of the autopsy.
That's what your book is all about. I could write a book justifying
Time Travelers On Vacation, if I get to throw out everything that
disagrees with me as falsified, and keep just the hearsay, the
contaminated interviews, and the recollections from years after the
event that I like.
>
> RE:
>
> > Jack White thinks all the Dealey Plaza photos are falsified, and
> > builds his arguments around the witnesses statements. But only the
> > convenient ones. The other witnesses are lying or intimidated. Etc.
> >
> > Robert Groden says those photos are legit, but the autopsy photos are
> > falsified to hide the evidence of a back of head wound. Like White,
> > the convenient witnesses are telling the truth, the inconvenient ones
> > are lying or intimidated.
>
> COMMENT: Silly comparisions.
Really? And you take a hearsay report by two FBI agents and tell us it
is better evidence than the autopsy conclusions, and all subsequent
examinations by pathologists, none of whom see any evidence for body
alteration.
Explain why we should believe your arguments over Groden's or Jack
White's, when all CT's arguments (yours included) reduce to taking
hearsay and eyewitness testimony over the hard evidence?
> >
> > You think the witnesses are correct for the most part (but only, of
> > course, where they offer evidence convenient to your theory), and the
> > autopsy photos legit, but you merely introduce the falsification of
> > evidence at an earlier level, prior to the autopsy and prior to the
> > photos taken at the autopsy.
> >
> > There's really no difference. You're all relying on arguments that the
> > evidence before us aint legit. And using eyewitness evidence to
> > attempt to overturn the hard evidence.
>
> COMMENT: Wrong again. When there exists, for example, a pathological
> slide that is labeled "from the line of transection of the spinal
> cord," that is not relying on an eyewitesss recollection of the size
> and shape of a wound.
>
> Again, see Ch. 18 of B.E.
>
And this slide confirms your theory exactly how? What pathologist
agrees with you on the value of this slide, David?
Anyone?
If you can't cite one expert who believes as you do, then you are
unconvincing. Instead, it looks for all the world that you're merely
misinterpreting the materials based on your own biases in this case,
and substituting your own interpretations for those of qualified
experts.
>
> Apparently, you're in love with your own generalizations.
>
>
> RE: your attempt to make a joke of the evidence that supports body
> alteration.
Which was in response to your silly citation of a cartoon, the
substance of which is that you're wrong for attempting to connect dots
that shouldn't be connected.
>
> > We don't see the stuff we should see, stuff that is readily apparent
> > to you. And you tells us it's our problem?
>
> COMMENT: Its not that you don't "see the stuff we should see." You
> fail to see the "stuff" that is there. You shouldn't "see it" because
> I say so; the subjective act is not mine; its your refusal to see what
> is there.
Or, you're seeing stuff that's not there. Since you're in the definite
minority here (most others involved in following the JFK
assassination, on both sides of the fence, agree with me that your
theory is untenable), what makes you think you're seeing stuff that is
there, particularly since many pathologists say it can't be done as
you claim it was done?
>
> RE:
>
> > And the evidence is that the evidence has not been falsified. For
> > example, you go from *apparent* surgery to *definite* surgery. You
> > introduced the concept of the bodybag to the witness, he didn't
> > mention it independently.
>
> COMMENT: All these statements are based on multiple errors, as
> outlined above.
Nope. You're not familiar with the appropriate definition of
'apparent', apparently. And you named the wrong witness. You mentioned
the bag first to Riebe.
> >
> > You go from simple conflicts in the memory of some witnesses
> > concerning the timing of the arrival of the body at Bethesda, etc., to
> > a massive conspiracy.
> >
> > Sorry, no sale.
>
> COMMMENT: That's like saying: "you go from 4 planes hijacked by 19
> people to a massive conspiracy. Sorry. . no sale."
There you go again! You've got what, about a half-hour conflict in
time - how many years later exactly? - over the arrival of the casket
at Bethesda, and you cite this conflict as if it's important evidence
(you must surely think so, you spend a lot of time on it in your
book). You now even compare this minor conflict with the 4 planes
bearing 19 hijackers. Not even close. Those two are not even on the
same plane in terms of evidence.
A better analogy would be a 800-page book, written 15 years from now,
trying to prove Muhammed Atta was innocent, based on interviews
conducted 5 or 10 years from now, based almost entirely on
recollections from his father that he talked to Muhammed Atta shortly
after the two planes crashed. With maybe a dollop of an interview with
one NY observer who said it was apparent to him the plane was out of
control, and accidentally crashed into the building.
That kind of argument isn't very convincing now, and it won't be 15
years from now either.
Neither is your book.
> > >
>
> TO REPEAT WHAT I FIRST WROTE:
>
> > > The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
> > > said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
> > > strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
> > > labeled "outlandish."
> > >
> > > DSL
> >
> RE:
>
> > Or alternately, they aren't connected and shouldn't be connected.
>
> COMMENT: THis is YOUR problem is logic and perception, which you
> project onto me. But the problem, let me assure you, is all yours.
>
Respectfully, I'm not the one with the theory that's viewed as
outlandish by most of the research community. And I'm not the one
relying on hearsay evidence (The S&0 memo) and contaminated interviews
where I introduced the concept of a bag to the witness.
> AND:
>
> "But
> > you are connecting them because you have a strong bias to do so, not
> > that they deserve to be connected."
>
> SEZ WHO? You- - - who keeps getting the simplest facts wrong, as
> ennumerate above??
You! You get the simplest facts wrong as enumerated above.
>
>
> RE:
> > Who rationally connects dots on a patient's body, anyway? That's not a
> > proper way to diagnose or treat a patient in any case I'm aware of.
>
> COMMENT: Good Lord. . you do realize the NYer cartoon was a cartoon,
> and was employing a metaphor, no?
Yes. And your analogy needs work. The dots in the cartoon *you cited*
shouldn't be connected, should they?
But you keep insisting we should connect the dots in the JFK case, and
you cited the cartoon.
Like I said, your analogy needs work. So does your evidence.
> >
> > You need a better analogy than this one, David. This one suggests you
> > are connecting stuff that doesn't deserve to be connected, which is
> > not your intent, I don't think.
> >
> >
> > JoeZ
>
> COMMENT: To make these judgements, I suggest you go into the field of
> psychiatry. In the world of logic and evidence, the dots I have
> connected--i.e., the inferences I have drawn--are perfectly logical.
And you brought up a cartoon that is funny precisely because the dots
shouldn't be connected.
This illustrates the problem far better than anything else I can say.
You are in the position of the doctor in that cartoon, telling the
patient to connect the dots. But the cartoon is funny precisely
because the dots shouldn't be connected, right?
Yet there you are, telling us to connect the dots that don't deserve
to be connected! Quote: "The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in
the New Yorker cartoon said, you have to want to connect them..."
Yes, you do. You have to want to connect them. Regardless of whether
they deserve to be connected or not.
Respectfully, David, this real-life analogy of you connecting dots
that shouldn't be connected, because you want to connect them, would
be funny too, if it wasn't so sad.
>
> Unfortunately, for you and others, they happen to lead to conclusions
> that are "politically incorrect," and that is the problem.
>
> And not much more.
>
The problem is that you draw conclusions from hearsay and witness
recollections, years after the fact, and discard the better evidence
gathered from the pathologists and the physical evidence. Your
conclusions are, as might be expected, therefore and quite simply,
erroneous.
> DSL
JoeZ
WinBear
head".
There's a word the doctors may have used perfectly innocently in their
conversation that might have caused the agents to think that surgery was
being discussed, when it wasn't.
The word is "sutures". To the average person, surgical thread. To a doctor,
both the thread, and the join lines between bony plates of the skull...
natural landmarks when used in a discussion of head wounds.
Did the agents write anything down as verbatim? Did they have medical
training?
WinBear
AnthonyMarsh
>
> IIRC this is based on something FBI agents overheard, about "surgery to the
> head".
>
Have you read the FBI agents' report? The context is quite clear. Someone,
probably Humes is in the process of removing President Kennedy's body from the
coffin. Someone notes the CONDITION of the body. Either the FBI agents saw or
someone said that it was APPARENT that there was surgery in the head area. That
is the qualifier that people forget about. It was not proven that there was
surgery to the head. It just appeared to be the case. As we have seen with other
aspects of the autopsy, what is apparent to the unqualified autopsy doctors is
often far from the truth.
> There's a word the doctors may have used perfectly innocently in their
> conversation that might have caused the agents to think that surgery was
> being discussed, when it wasn't.
>
No, that is a red herring. They were talking about the damage done to the
President.
> The word is "sutures". To the average person, surgical thread. To a doctor,
> both the thread, and the join lines between bony plates of the skull...
> natural landmarks when used in a discussion of head wounds.
>
No, the head had been put back together at Parkland and gaps in the skull had
been filled in with gauze strips. There is no way that any person could have
seen the skull until the autopsy started. Look at the photos of the body after
it had been removed from the coffin and before the autopsy started. You can't
see any skull sutures. Even worse, the coronal suture had been blow away and the
sagital suture which which was partially blown away was hidden by the scalp. The
lamboidal suture was hidden by the scalp.
Read the Sibert and O'Neill report to get the context and timing.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Sibert-ONeill.html
> Did the agents write anything down as verbatim? Did they have medical
> training?
>
Some of the words are verbatim as they heard them.
> WinBear
GMcNally
> WinBear wrote:
> >
> > IIRC this is based on something FBI agents overheard, about "surgery to the
> > head".
> >
>
> Have you read the FBI agents' report? The context is quite clear. Someone,
> probably Humes is in the process of removing President Kennedy's body from the
> coffin. Someone notes the CONDITION of the body. Either the FBI agents saw or
> someone said that it was APPARENT that there was surgery in the head area. That
> is the qualifier that people forget about. It was not proven that there was
> surgery to the head. It just appeared to be the case. As we have seen with other
> aspects of the autopsy, what is apparent to the unqualified autopsy doctors is
> often far from the truth.
>
> > There's a word the doctors may have used perfectly innocently in their
> > conversation that might have caused the agents to think that surgery was
> > being discussed, when it wasn't.
> >
>
> No, that is a red herring. They were talking about the damage done to the
> President.
>
> > The word is "sutures". To the average person, surgical thread. To a doctor,
> > both the thread, and the join lines between bony plates of the skull...
> > natural landmarks when used in a discussion of head wounds.
> >
>
> No, the head had been put back together at Parkland and gaps in the skull had
> been filled in with gauze strips.
Tony, if you could provide more detail or a source I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Jerry
David S. Lifton
You're another one who doesn't know what he's talking about well over
half the time.
DSL
P.S. You will not find a hardcover of B.E. selling on any remainder
shelf for 50c, unless its in your fertile imagination, or in
connection with the lemonade stand you personally run for a living in
your spare time.
David S. Lifton
and their psychologist apparently thought the same thing--only said so
in more polite language.
Get real Martyn.
You've had 29 years in the field. . . try to do something credible
towards the end of your career.
DSL
David S. Lifton
No time to debate this point just now, but. . the condition of the
head, as you quote the Bethesda autopsy report and testimony, simply
not the same as that of Dallas.
One flap was observed--and it was at the back.
See B.E., Ch. 13 (and 18) where I deal with this.
DSL
David S. Lifton
Re "apparent". . .
I know all about the dictioinary definition.
What I was addressing (and which you keep getting incorrect) is the
context.
It was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head
area"--that's what their report is saying. NOT: there was "apparent"
surgery.
See the different?
In one case (the way you persist in citing it--through a misread of
context--) it works in your favor.
But as the FBI actually wrote it, it works in mine. Because it is the
FACT of surgery is "apparent"--not something that "appears to have
been" surgery. Now that's my interpretation, and I believe it to be
the correct one, with regard to the way the FBI report is written.
* * *
> > YOUR STATEMENT:
> >
> > > My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> > > mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
> > >
> > COMMENT: Dead wrong.
> >
> > Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
> > interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
> > volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
> > then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
> > telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
> > 1980, during my filmed interivew.
>
You cite FLoyd Reibe, and you are correct that I asked a slightly
leading question. But my point was (and remains): O'Connor is the
chief body bag witness--he opened the darn thing. It is central to
his recollection of that night; and he said so to the Florida
newspaper, and to the HSCA reps that interviewed him year(s) before I
did.
Moreover, you can't erase what Reibe said, just because of the way the
quesiton was asked. And again I come back to the point: the case
rests on O'Connor--and, by the way, also on Capt. Robert Stover, CO of
the Navy Med School, who was there, and also confirmed to me there was
a body bag.
> > RE:
> >
> > > > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> > > >
> > > > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > > > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > > > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > > > connect someone's gun to the crime.
> > >
> > > It would be very clear?
> > >
> > > No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
> >
> > To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
> > "outside the box."
>
> Name one other case where body alterations were used to fool the
> pathologists.
> Otherwise, it's still an outlandish suggestion.
Re the above:
a. Its an awful standard by which to measure something.
b. Turn it around, and you'll see how unusual and original the plan
was.
c. The pathologists weren't "fooled" if they told the FBI, at the
outset, that it was "apparent" (that word, again) that there had been
"surgery of the head area. . "
d. Name one other person named Joe Zircon. . . etc.
> > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> > >
> > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > question.
> >
> > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
>
> Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> tell us at this time.
CORRECT TRANSLATION: I choose not to deal with that matter in this
e-mail post.
>
> The JFK assassin happened 38 years ago, David. If you won't tell us
> now, when?
May 5, 2004; at 10:30 am.
>
> And what's the need for the big secret anyway?
There's something I cannot discuss that will be occurring that May 5,
at 9:20 am, and which must remain confidential.
DSL
> >
> > RE:
> >
> > And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
> > > that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
> > > front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
> > > back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
> > > same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
> > > he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
> > > means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
> > > theory. When & where did this happen?
> > >
> > > Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
> > > seriously incomplete.
> >
> > RESPONSE: Please don't tell me that if I proved to you that JC's
> > medical data was falsified, you would suddenly come around on the
> > question of JFK's autopsy being false. The two are like skew-lines,
> > logically. You are trying to connect them, and thus use one issue to
> > avoid addressing the other.
> >
>
> Nope. That pig won't fly. That's your dodge. You're the one avoiding
> addressing the issue of Connally's back wound, remember? I brought it
> up, you said you won't explain it.
>
> They are logically connected by the fact that both men were shot in
> the same assassination attempt. It's your argument that there were no
> shooters behind the limo in that assassination attempt, that the real
> shooters were in front of the limo, and JFK's wounds on the back
> surface of his body were added later by conspirators.
But that doesn't absolve you of evaluating the JFK medical data
objectively (and separately). You can't say because there was another
victim in the shooting, that I must "solve" that crime to your
satisfaction, or you won't deal with the evidence of the primary
victim.
Yet you do just that. ..
Continuing with your "argument". . .
ZIRON (continued)
So Connally's
> wounds, suffered in the same assassination attempt, which point to the
> rear of the limo, must likewise have been added as well, according to
> your theory, because they point to the rear of the limo too.
>
> Explain when Connally's wounds were altered, David.
>
> In the limo by Jackie & Nellie?
>
> By Clint Hill who jumped onto the limo as it speed away from Dealey
> Plaza? (I've always been suspicious of that activity myself).
>
> Or at the hospital by his attending physicians?
>
> Or do you want to change the subject and talk about JFK's wounds some
> more?
I want you to understand that even if it were true that I had no
answer whatsoever to the JC medical issue--which is in fact not the
case at all--that would not absolve you of dealing with the JFK
evidence, and the evidence of wound alteration there.
If this were a twin bank robbery, Bank of America and Bank of Zircon,
and the D.A. prosecuted Shackelford and Platzman for robbing the Bank
of America, the defense could not be: "But you haven't proved they
also robbed Bank Zircon; ergo, and they ought to have done both, since
their offices were adjacent. . ergo, I argue that they are guilty of
neither."
That's my point.
> > RE:
> >
> > > And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> > > would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
> > front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
> > surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
> >
>
> You're quoting an FBI report, not the pathologists. Your quote is
> hearsay, not evidence. And you're apparently misinterpreting what the
> word apparent means, besides.
You are dead wrong, again. The FBI agents even testified before the
ARRB that Humes said there was surgery; and that's why they wrote it
down.
>
> What pathologist(s) agrees with you, David? Can you name *ONE*?
>
> I'm sorry, where in the autopsy report can I read that the body was
> altered by pre-autopsy surgery, and the wound on JFK's upper back
> added after death?
>
> If they weren't fooled as you allege, surely they would have noted all
> that, right?
HINT HINT. . . Humes called Perry the next morning, and asked: "Did
you make any woiunds in the back?" Do you think he was just making an
idle, purely out of context, inquiry??
>
> And the pathologists who examined the extant materials later, for the
> HSCA, they weren't fooled either, right? Where can I read in the HSCA
> volumes of evidence that JFK's body was altered after death by surgery
> to falsify the wounds? I must have missed that part.
You reveal yourself as someone who is hidebound to he voice of
authority.
>
> But if the pathologists who examined the body and the materials said
> it, I'm sure you'd be kind enough to offer a quote. But they never
> said anything of the sort, did they, David?
The HSCA tried to argue that the Dallas/Bethesda conflict was all a
result of the Dallas doctors being wrong in their perceptions. That
is an absurd argument. But you apparently believe that sort of thing,
because the HSCA sanctioned it.
>
> In fact, you are taking a hearsay report and elevating it to
> preeminence, and throwing out the statements by all the pathologists
> who've examined the body and the autopsy materials, not one of whom
> ever said anything remotely like your theory ever occurred. And two of
> whom, in fact, said definitely that nothing remotely like your theory
> could have occurred.
>
> Isn't that right?
THis has nothing to do with hearsay. It has everything to do with
logic.
BTW: Recently, Dr. Michael Baden was on talk radio out here in L.A.
He "explained" the headsnap by saying that the notion there is
anything wrong with the head going back after the fatal shot was the
result of people watching too many movies. That in reality, it happens
just the way its shown on the z film.
Would you believe that, too? If so, I look forward to your career as
a movie director. . . especially in westerns and war movies. . you can
always have scenes in which those hit by bullets fall *towards* the
line of fire. And if the screenplay calls for a scene in which the
victims are forced to dig a trench before they are shot, you will of
course have them stand on the "far side" of the trench because, per
Zircon, Baden, et al. . . bodies fall TOWARDS the gunfire.
My advice: Stop believing in authority. Look at the evidence.
DSL
> For example, Dr. Cyril Wecht said:
>
> "Lifton gets away with crap, and no one challenges him. I could
> assemble a
> whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
> accomplish in a
> day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have never bought
> his stuff.
> It can't be done."
Dr. Cyril Wecht mistated my argument. I never said the condition of
the head IN THE PHOTOS was as Humes saw it. In fact, in Chapter 20 I
make it quite clear that that is not so.
>
> For example, Dr. Michael Baden said:
>
> "Lifton just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a fantasy of
> his. he
> thinks he sees signs of surgery in some of the autopsy photos, but he
> doesn't
> know how to read those pictures. It's laughable. He's not a doctor
> and it's
> clear by his work that he doesn't understand what really happened.
> He doesn't
> even take into account rigor mortis, which starts two hours after
> death.
> Surgery on a corpse would look different than one on a living person.
> His
> theory of medical alteration is ridiculous"
RESPONSE: I daresay if you heard Dr. Baden going on and on about how
bodies fall towards the line of fire, you'd understand how laughable
his state of knowledge is--regardless of his credentials. THis is
also the same guy who was shown up on Current Affair when questioned
by former Assistant District atty. because he didn't realize, until
that interview, that there was NO WEIGHT given for the brain, in the
autopsy report!
Again I say: His competence in this area of the JFK case--regardless
of his credentials--is laughable.
>
> Are you saying these doctors are actually lamenting how the
> microscopic slides would prove you right if those slides were only
> available?
RESPONSE: No, they are not "lamenting" it. But had the slides been
avaialgble, they would indeed prove me right. Because that is the way
you tell an ante-mortem from a post-mortem wound.
DSL
RE:
> I don't think so, but I could have trouble thinking outside the box.
RESPONSE: I don't think you have trouble thinking outside the box. I'm
starting to conclude your problem is more fundamental. You have do
have appear to have trouble in the area of thinking.
> > RE:
> >
> > > I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> > > advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> > > It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> > > assumes the evidence is falsified.
> >
> > FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
> > that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
>
> No, you present hearsay (the FBI memo), contaminated interviews
> (Riebe) and minor disputes about time from recollections years after
> the events (the casket entry) as the cornerstones of your theory.
> That's what your book is all about.
>
> You discard hard or better evidence like Oswald's rifle, like the
> Z-film, like the autopsy conclusions, and like the subsequent review
> of the autopsy.
RESPONSE: Your problem, Zircon, is that you keep coming back to the
falsified evidence, and playing it and replaying it through your head,
like some kind of fairy tale you learned when your mother read it to
you so you'd have a good night's sleep. Maybe if you cleared out those
cobwebs, you could look at the evidence objectively. You're in love
with a view of this case that is as silly and mythological as the
story of the Three Bears--only with you, its the 3 shots.
Joe Z: That's what your book is all about. I could write a book
justifying
> Time Travelers On Vacation. . .,
DSL RESPONSE: OK. . I finally get it. . . .This is what this is all
about, isn't it. You're a frustrated author.
Instead of going round the barn like this, all you had to do is ask:
"David, If I write a book about Time Travelers, can you get me an
agent? And do you think you can help get me a movie deal?"
Just ask, Joe. I understand your problem. Of course I'll help you. .
. I'm always willing to lend a helping hand to beginners, and you
don't have to believe Best Evidence for me to help you with your book
about Time Travelers.
Now that part about you wanting it to be treated as a non-fiction
work. . hmmm. . . I think that might pose a problem.
DSL
Ritchie Linton
> Joe:
> > > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> > > >
> > > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
> >
> > Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> > altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> > necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> > tell us at this time.
++++
++++
There is no conflict once you realize how far around Connaly was
turned before he was hit.Start with teh famous Altgen's photo, and you
see Connally's back facing forward toward Altgen's camera.Thats been
reconciled to Z255.Return to the Zfilm and watch as Connally completes
his turn just after the lampost crosses your view.Then you see him
really react.
So no conflict.Connally was turned around nearly backward before he
was shot from the front;Kennedy's head snaps backward after being hit
from the front, and Mrs. Kennedy leaves by the rear.
The only problem is that the planted evidence against the patsy had
already been planted to the rear.Something had to be done to reconcile
the actual execution with the evidence planted in the plan...that
din't quite work as planned.David's evidence on what was done is quite
compelling...and Connally presents no conflict.
Ritchie
Ritchie Linton
> Joe:
> > > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
+++
No one.See below.
> > > >
> > > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
> >
> > Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> > altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> > necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> > tell us at this time.
+++
+++
There is no conflict once you see how far around Connally was turned
before he was actually shot.Start with the famous Altgens photo=you
can see Connally's back as it faces forward to Altgen's camera.Thats
been reconciled with Z255.Return to teh zfilm and see Connally keep
turning until the lampost crosses your view.Just after the lampost you
see Connally really react.
So-no conflict. Connally was turned aroun backward when shot from in
front; Kennedy snapped backward when shot from in front, and Mrs
Kennedy left by the rear in reaction.
Problem was the evidence left to frame the patsy had been left somehow
to the rear of the actual shooting as it unfolded=something went
wrong.Something had to be done about that=Lifton's evidence that
something was done is solid.
The only question is why. He thinks it was a part of the plan all
along=whereas when once you realize how far around Connaly turned
before he was hit=thats no longer the issue.
The fact remains that there was desecration of corpse=an "opening in
the back" they called it at autopsy=much needed since the already
planted evidence found against the intended patsy was still found to
the rear=even though all actual shots came from the front. Even
Connally, who had turned around backward at the time.
Ritchie
David S. Lifton
I meant to say "NO WEIGHT give for the brain, in the autopsy chart
that was filled out in the room that night, and attached to the
autopsy report.
SEE BELOW AT **
>
> RESPONSE: I daresay if you heard Dr. Baden going on and on about how
> bodies fall towards the line of fire, you'd understand how laughable
> his state of knowledge is--regardless of his credentials. THis is
> also the same guy who was shown up on Current Affair when questioned
> by former Assistant District atty. (whose name I forget. . but was the producer/questioner-of-Baden) because he didn't realize, until
> that interview, that there was NO WEIGHT given for the brain, in the
> autopsy report! ** (See errata notice above)
>
O.H. LEE
Ritchie, does a scenario in which "all actual shots came from the front"
account for Governor Connally's thigh wound?
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
O.H. LEE
Ritchie, does a scenario in which "all actual shots came from the front"
Vern Pascal
platter...Another point to remember is this: O'Conner worked in a
Funeral Home since he was a teenager- several years prior to 11-22-63, &
was in Vietnam after the Assassination, so he certainly knew the
difference between a gray slate rubber type Body Bag and a white sheet.
Also, as well an Ornate Ceremonial type casket weighing roughly 600
pounds and a cheap shipping type casket that weighs approximately 1/10th
of that... around 60 pounds.
Going from Baden to Worse- this is the same guy who testified for the
defense at the OJ trial, paraphrasing" that the murders took 10 minutes
to commit" or some ridiculus thing..implying that OJ couldn't fit the
timeline.Objective observers concluded Baden multipied the minutes by
almost 10....I suppose he's credible to those who believe OJ was framed,
we didn't go to the moon, or Oswald acted alone...JP
Ritchie Linton
Yes.Its pretty clear in the evidence that a single bullet wounded
Connally.After it exited his chest, it shattered his wrist, and
fragments from the shattered bullet entered his thigh.Doctor Shaw said
they dug out a couple of the shallow ones and left the other small
bits that were imbedded deeper but posed no threat.
Remember=the angle of the shot was dowmward from point of entry to
point of exit=thats how it hit his wrist as his arm crossed in front
of his lap as he turned around.Do you have a copy of the NOVA
documentary? If so, watch again the part where doctor Shaw
demonstrates quite vividly, as Shaw himself turns around on his
chair,crossing his arm over his lap as he turns.
Some of the actual tiny fragments from the shattering of the wrist
were later found on the floor of the limo=a couple were(as
above)imbedded in the thigh.
You might recall how some of the smaller bits found on the floor of
the limo confounded the specto-graphic tests and then the NAA test
when they attempted to rconcile them with exactitude to the planted
whole bullet found at the hospital.Thats why the results of both tests
were hidden away "secret"=and the best Rahn could do years later was
to try to apologize for the unreliability of sample.
Anyway=yes, in answer to your question.The shallow fragments in
Connally's thigh pose no conflict for a single bullet that hit
Connally from the front=once you understand how Connally turned.As I
say, look at the NOVA documentary, where his own Doctor Shaw
demonstrates.
RJ
>
>
> O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Ritchie Linton
> in which he has invested at least three years of his life.
+++
This we know-I mean anyone familiar with the record in evidence about
the murder case knows this.The murder case in evidence being the
important thing, I only question your judgment in responding to
irrellavancies.
Lets get back to the murder case=have you noticed how far around
Connaly was turned before he was shot? Reconcile Altgens at Z255=and
return to the Zfilm and watch for the lampost cross your view=then,
see Connally really react.
No need of body alteration plot in respect of Connally=since he was
turned around backward before he was hit=right? Watch for the lampost.
If we ignore the silly and keep to the points in the murder case=we
get somewhere.
Ritchie
>
> DSL
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Ritchie Linton
Sure.His hand crossed his lap as he turned around backward-see the
NOVA documentary where his Doctor Shaw explains and demonstrates.After
impact with the wrist, some small fragments went on to impact the
thigh.
RJ
>
>
> O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Joe Zircon
In front of the Governor! Right?
Can you diagram that magic bullet for us? Let's see, you have a
shooter somewhere in front of the limo (directly in front, or to the
left or right front? You don't say), and you have Connally twisted
around to look at JFK. But Connally's thigh would still be in front of
his wrist and trunk, so a bullet from the front would have to enter
Connally's back, exit his chest, and not strike the limo jump seat
he's sitting on, but do a 180 & turn around, strike his wrist, and
then strike his thigh.
Does that about sum up your scenario? Where specifically do you place
the shooter? And how can a shooter there account for Connally's thigh
& wrist wounds? Do you have a diagram showing the bullet path you
could share with us?
Joe Zircon
copies of your book, and I don't agree with your theory. I have no
doubt that Martin would own at least one copy as well.
So your argument here is nonsense, that the number of copies a book
sells lends credibility to it.
Remember that The National Enquirer and The Globe outsell other
periodicals like Newsweek and The Economist. Does that mean they are
more credible? I would think not, but then, I have trouble thinking,
as you profoundly noted in your last response to me.
My reasoning typically goes like this: "Let's see, I really don't
believe this. . . but it's on my favorite topic, the JFK assassination
. . . and my collection is already best measured in cubic yards . . .
I can always add another floor to ceiling wallshelf to my house just
to store my duplicate books on that subject . . . this one looks like
nonsense, but then so were Lane's and all of Weisberg's, and I bought
theirs . . . And I like to stay current so I can rebut the nonsense
that gets published nowadays . . . so I think I'll buy it."
dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) wrote in message news:<460446c1.02010...@posting.google.com>...
Joe Zircon
gets it published. And your book on Oswald, whenever that comes out.
And anything by Schackelford on this subject, etc. I doubt if any of
you will ever count me as a staunch defender of your beliefs.
-- previously posted --
David, I seldom find myself agreeing with Martin. But I own three
copies of your book, and I don't agree with your theory. I have no
doubt that Martin would own at least one copy as well.
So your argument here is nonsense, that the number of copies a book
sells lends credibility to it.
Remember that The National Enquirer and The Globe outsell other
periodicals like Newsweek and The Economist. Does that mean they are
more credible? I would think not, but then, I have trouble thinking,
as you profoundly noted in your last response to me.
My reasoning typically goes like this: "Let's see, I really don't
believe this. . . but it's on my favorite topic, the JFK assassination
. . . and my collection is already best measured in cubic yards . . .
I can always add another floor to ceiling wallshelf to my house just
to store my duplicate books on that subject . . . this one looks like
nonsense, but then so were Lane's and all of Weisberg's, and I bought
theirs . . . And I like to stay current so I can rebut the nonsense
that gets published nowadays . . . so I think I'll buy it."
dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) wrote in message news:<460446c1.02010...@posting.google.com>...
Joe Zircon
> Well Joe, You just got your head handed to you on a silver
> platter...
I would suggest that you read my rebuttal, but you've apparently made
up your mind already.
> Another point to remember is this: O'Conner worked in a
> Funeral Home since he was a teenager- several years prior to 11-22-63, &
> was in Vietnam after the Assassination, so he certainly knew the
> difference between a gray slate rubber type Body Bag and a white sheet.
Except Manchester notes that JFK was wrapped in a rubber bedsheet with
a zipper, as I recall, to help keep the casket clean of blood. How
dis-similar is that bedsheet to a bodybag?
> Also, as well an Ornate Ceremonial type casket weighing roughly 600
> pounds and a cheap shipping type casket that weighs approximately 1/10th
> of that... around 60 pounds.
>
There are no photos of such a casket in the JFK assassination. Right?
This relies entirely on the recollection of a witness, Paul O'Connor,
right?
> Going from Baden to Worse- this is the same guy who testified for the
> defense at the OJ trial, paraphrasing" that the murders took 10 minutes
> to commit" or some ridiculus thing..implying that OJ couldn't fit the
> timeline.Objective observers concluded Baden multipied the minutes by
> almost 10....I suppose he's credible to those who believe OJ was framed,
> we didn't go to the moon, or Oswald acted alone...JP
So he wouldn't know body surgery when he saw it? And neither would
Wecht? Is that right?
David S. Lifton
But then I have a question:
If you believe the official version (have I got that right?) then why
keep involved in the debate? What does it matter to you?
Second, and fyi: I received well over a thousand letters in the
aftermath of publication. The writers included: a high official in a
U.S. atty's office (on private stationary); a federal judge, a
professor of anatomy, and many many others.
It is the kind of support that Team Judyth will never get because
their story is total hogwash. But it was routine for me.
I'm not saying there is no debate--but it is an entirely different
kind of debate.
You can debate the process of interpretation, but I didn't make up my
data.
DSL
Joe Zircon
> Joe:
>
> Re "apparent". . .
>
> I know all about the dictioinary definition.
>
> What I was addressing (and which you keep getting incorrect) is the
> context.
>
> It was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head
> area"--that's what their report is saying. NOT: there was "apparent"
> surgery.
>
> See the different?
>
No. One of the definitions of Apparent means what appears to be, not
necessarily what proves to be:
"manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of
evidence that may or may not be factually valid".
> In one case (the way you persist in citing it--through a misread of
> context--) it works in your favor.
>
> But as the FBI actually wrote it, it works in mine. Because it is the
> FACT of surgery is "apparent"--not something that "appears to have
> been" surgery. Now that's my interpretation, and I believe it to be
> the correct one, with regard to the way the FBI report is written.
Precisely! It's your *interpretation* of the evidence. And I believe
it to be the wrong one. Now, since you're the one making the
extraordinary claims here, you're the one who needs the extraordinary
evidence. And you've already admitted that the cornerstone of your
book - the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Memo - is subject to varying
interpretations. So take that off the table. What else you got?
>
> * * *
>
> > > YOUR STATEMENT:
> > >
> > > > My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> > > > mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
> > > >
> > > COMMENT: Dead wrong.
> > >
> > > Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
> > > interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
> > > volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
> > > then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
> > > telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
> > > 1980, during my filmed interivew.
> >
>
> You cite FLoyd Reibe, and you are correct that I asked a slightly
> leading question. But my point was (and remains): O'Connor is the
> chief body bag witness--he opened the darn thing. It is central to
> his recollection of that night; and he said so to the Florida
> newspaper, and to the HSCA reps that interviewed him year(s) before I
> did.
Not talking about O'Connor. What do you have that confirms O'Connor's
recollections? How many years after the fact did O'Connor first
mention the body bag, by the way?
> Moreover, you can't erase what Reibe said, just because of the way the
> quesiton was asked.
Yes, you can. It's tainted evidence. You mentioned the bodybag first.
Any mention by him subsequent to this is bogus. You asked him about
this how many times, in how many ways, without getting the answer you
sought? So you resorted to mentioning it first. But he had plenty of
opportunity to mention it prior to you, and didn't. That is telling.
> And again I come back to the point: the case
> rests on O'Connor--and, by the way, also on Capt. Robert Stover, CO of
> the Navy Med School, who was there, and also confirmed to me there was
> a body bag.
How many years after the fact? And who mentioned the bodybag first?
And did really mean to say your case for body alteration rests on a
couple of people remembering a body bag instead of a rubber bedsheet?
That is beyond belief, and I don't think you mean it that way. That
is, however, what you wrote above.
>
>
> > > RE:
> > >
> > > > > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > > > > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > > > > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > > > > connect someone's gun to the crime.
> > > >
> > > > It would be very clear?
> > > >
> > > > No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
> > >
> > > To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
> > > "outside the box."
> >
Gee, David, what's the matter? You snipped entirely my retort about
you having a problem thinking outside the sphere that encircles the
box. No response?
>
> > Name one other case where body alterations were used to fool the
> > pathologists.
> > Otherwise, it's still an outlandish suggestion.
>
> Re the above:
>
> a. Its an awful standard by which to measure something.
Name one other case where this was attempted. You can't.
> b. Turn it around, and you'll see how unusual and original the plan
> was.
E.g. You agree it *was* outlandish! Unusual & original indeed!
> c. The pathologists weren't "fooled" if they told the FBI, at the
> outset, that it was "apparent" (that word, again) that there had been
> "surgery of the head area. . "
There is a big IF in the above, isn't there? And that word 'apparent'
is your cross to bear, not your savior.
It was *apparent* that there was surgery of the head area. Name one
pathologist who later determined this was 'true on the basis of
evidence that was factually valid'.
Name one!
>
> d. Name one other person named Joe Zircon. . . etc.
>
Hello? Why? What's that got to do with anything? JoeZ is my pen name,
so to speak. You may recall we met in Dallas at one of the ASK
conferences (I think '92, but it may have been '93, I honestly forget
which).
I asked you then how you explained Connally's wounds pointing to the
rear, if the shooters were in front of the limo. Your response was
classic, and should be framed: "That's a good question. What do you do
for a living?"
You never did tell me. 10 years later, and you still won't.
That's even funnier than wanting to connecting dots that shouldn't be
connected.
>
> > > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> > > >
> > > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
> >
> > Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> > altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> > necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> > tell us at this time.
>
> CORRECT TRANSLATION: I choose not to deal with that matter in this
> e-mail post.
Translation: You are stuck for a response.
> >
> > The JFK assassin happened 38 years ago, David. If you won't tell us
> > now, when?
>
> May 5, 2004; at 10:30 am.
> >
> > And what's the need for the big secret anyway?
>
> There's something I cannot discuss that will be occurring that May 5,
> at 9:20 am, and which must remain confidential.
>
Uh, huh. Judyth will reveal the inner workings of the conspiracy then?
There were two shooting victims in that limo. Both show evidence of
being shot from behind (Connally, in fact, testified he believed the
shots came from above and behind him, over his right shoulder. JFK had
no such opportunity to testify, of course). Both men have bullet
damage to their bodies consistent with a shooter above and behind the
limo. You allege JFK's wounds were planted to frame Oswald. But your
solution to this crime is woefully inadequate until you address
Connally's wounds too.
He and his doctors thought his bullet wounds were caused by one shot,
fired from above and behind him.
Let me know when you intend to address this.
>
> Yet you do just that. ..
>
> Continuing with your "argument". . .
>
> ZIRON (continued)
>
> So Connally's
> > wounds, suffered in the same assassination attempt, which point to the
> > rear of the limo, must likewise have been added as well, according to
> > your theory, because they point to the rear of the limo too.
> >
> > Explain when Connally's wounds were altered, David.
> >
> > In the limo by Jackie & Nellie?
> >
> > By Clint Hill who jumped onto the limo as it speed away from Dealey
> > Plaza? (I've always been suspicious of that activity myself).
> >
> > Or at the hospital by his attending physicians?
> >
> > Or do you want to change the subject and talk about JFK's wounds some
> > more?
>
> I want you to understand that even if it were true that I had no
> answer whatsoever to the JC medical issue--which is in fact not the
> case at all--that would not absolve you of dealing with the JFK
> evidence, and the evidence of wound alteration there.
I have dealt with the JFK evidence. I labelled the FBI memo hearsay -
which you did not contest. And pointed out that the vaunted mention of
surgery is only apparent, not necessarily real. In response, you
admitted that it was only your *interpretion* that the memo means
'real', not 'apparent'.
I also pointed out that your interview of Riebe was tainted by your
mention of the bodybag before Reibe.
Your entire book is built upon this kind of evidence.
>
> If this were a twin bank robbery, Bank of America and Bank of Zircon,
> and the D.A. prosecuted Shackelford and Platzman for robbing the Bank
> of America, the defense could not be: "But you haven't proved they
> also robbed Bank Zircon; ergo, and they ought to have done both, since
> their offices were adjacent. . ergo, I argue that they are guilty of
> neither."
>
> That's my point.
Sorry, you lost me.
You're the one suggesting Oswald is innocent, and that he shot neither
man. Since the physical evidence - including, but not limited to the
autopsy of JFK - indicates strongly he shot both men (as you yourself
admit in your book), then your job of getting Oswald off the hook is
only half done if you propose that JFK's wounds were altered to make
it look like he was shot from the rear by Oswald.
For Connally is another shooting victim. And you still need to explain
how the conspirators altered Connally's wounds to make it look like he
was shot from behind, when, according to you, all the shooters were in
front of the limo.
So you need to, to get Oswald off, explain how he didn't rob both
banks, in effect, when the evidence says he did. Your defense won't
get him free, because you haven't even addressed the other bank
robbery. And he's accused of both.
Right? And the evidence implicates him in both. As you note, the
defense can't get someone off for both by only dealing with one. But
that's precisely what you're doing. You didn't deal with the
implications of Connally's wounds in your book, and you refuse to deal
with those implications here and now.
>
>
> > > RE:
> > >
> > > > And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> > > > would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
> > >
> > > COMMENT:
> > >
> > > FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
> > > front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
> > > surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
> > >
> >
> > You're quoting an FBI report, not the pathologists. Your quote is
> > hearsay, not evidence. And you're apparently misinterpreting what the
> > word apparent means, besides.
>
> You are dead wrong, again. The FBI agents even testified before the
> ARRB that Humes said there was surgery; and that's why they wrote it
> down.
Hello? Do you understand what hearsay is? Regardless of whether they
type it in a memo, or write it out longhand, or testify to what they
heard, it's *still* hearsay!
Do you have an admission by the pathologists that they said there was
apparent surgery of the head area?
And it's still got that nasty word 'apparent' in there. Which, as you
admit, is subject to interpretation.
> >
> > What pathologist(s) agrees with you, David? Can you name *ONE*?
> >
> > I'm sorry, where in the autopsy report can I read that the body was
> > altered by pre-autopsy surgery, and the wound on JFK's upper back
> > added after death?
> >
> > If they weren't fooled as you allege, surely they would have noted all
> > that, right?
>
> HINT HINT. . . Humes called Perry the next morning, and asked: "Did
> you make any woiunds in the back?" Do you think he was just making an
> idle, purely out of context, inquiry??
>
Geez, David, you make it sound so suspicious. He had just learned that
Perry had made a wound in JFK's throat, for the trache, which
partially obscured a bullet wound. So why wouldn't he ask if Perry
made any other wounds, any where else?
If he didn't ask, critics like you would criticize Humes for doing a
half-assed job and not getting all the facts.
How should he have worded it, to suit your sensibilities and not
suggest something sinister? Serious question. What precisely should he
have asked?
>
> >
> > And the pathologists who examined the extant materials later, for the
> > HSCA, they weren't fooled either, right? Where can I read in the HSCA
> > volumes of evidence that JFK's body was altered after death by surgery
> > to falsify the wounds? I must have missed that part.
>
> You reveal yourself as someone who is hidebound to he voice of
> authority.
Translation: David can't cite one expert on pathology who agrees with
his outlandish - by his own admission, he called it "unusual and
original" which can be the poster-synonyms for outlandish - theory.
> >
> > But if the pathologists who examined the body and the materials said
> > it, I'm sure you'd be kind enough to offer a quote. But they never
> > said anything of the sort, did they, David?
>
> The HSCA tried to argue that the Dallas/Bethesda conflict was all a
> result of the Dallas doctors being wrong in their perceptions. That
> is an absurd argument. But you apparently believe that sort of thing,
> because the HSCA sanctioned it.
Gee, David, were we supposed to not notice that you just changed the
subject entirely?
I asked if any of the pathologists who examined the body or any of the
pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials agreed with
your assessment that the body was altered after death. You ignored the
question entirely, and changed the subject to what the doctors said
they saw.
Gee, we were supposed to not notice this blatant dodge?
> >
> > In fact, you are taking a hearsay report and elevating it to
> > preeminence, and throwing out the statements by all the pathologists
> > who've examined the body and the autopsy materials, not one of whom
> > ever said anything remotely like your theory ever occurred. And two of
> > whom, in fact, said definitely that nothing remotely like your theory
> > could have occurred.
> >
> > Isn't that right?
>
> THis has nothing to do with hearsay. It has everything to do with
> logic.
Translation: If DL wishes hard enough, he can even get Ruby slippers.
It has everything to do with hearsay, David. The cornerstone of your
case is a hearsay report by two FBI agents. Remember?
And it's subject to various interpretations, as you yourself admitted.
And knowledgeable experts (like Wecht and Baden) on the subject claim
your theory is ridiculous.
>
> BTW: Recently, Dr. Michael Baden was on talk radio out here in L.A.
> He "explained" the headsnap by saying that the notion there is
> anything wrong with the head going back after the fatal shot was the
> result of people watching too many movies. That in reality, it happens
> just the way its shown on the z film.
>
Curiously, you offer no direct quote or citation. What you are
offering here is *your* hearsay version of what Baden allegedly said.
Why am I not surprised by this?
Oh, maybe because you think hearsay is good evidence? You need to
learn that some of us disagree with that assessment.
> Would you believe that, too? If so, I look forward to your career as
> a movie director. . . especially in westerns and war movies. . you can
> always have scenes in which those hit by bullets fall *towards* the
> line of fire. And if the screenplay calls for a scene in which the
> victims are forced to dig a trench before they are shot, you will of
> course have them stand on the "far side" of the trench because, per
> Zircon, Baden, et al. . . bodies fall TOWARDS the gunfire.
>
> My advice: Stop believing in authority. Look at the evidence.
Been there. Done that. Which is why I could laugh out loud when I
first heard of your theory.
>
> DSL
>
>
> > For example, Dr. Cyril Wecht said:
> >
> > "Lifton gets away with crap, and no one challenges him. I could
> > assemble a
> > whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
> > accomplish in a
> > day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have never bought
> > his stuff.
> > It can't be done."
>
> Dr. Cyril Wecht mistated my argument. I never said the condition of
> the head IN THE PHOTOS was as Humes saw it. In fact, in Chapter 20 I
> make it quite clear that that is not so.
So, in your interpretation of the above, Wecht is agreeing with you
that JFK had pre-autopsy body alterations? Is that your view? I could
have sworn this meant something else entirely: "I could assemble a
whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
accomplish in a day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have
never bought his stuff. It can't be done." But then, I don't have your
ability to think 'outside the box'.
Face it, David, Wecht is saying - as an expert - that you don't know
what the hell you're talking about.
And your argument is based on hearsay, interpretation, and tainted
interviews.
> >
> > For example, Dr. Michael Baden said:
> >
> > "Lifton just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a fantasy of
> > his. he
> > thinks he sees signs of surgery in some of the autopsy photos, but he
> > doesn't
> > know how to read those pictures. It's laughable. He's not a doctor
> > and it's
> > clear by his work that he doesn't understand what really happened.
> > He doesn't
> > even take into account rigor mortis, which starts two hours after
> > death.
> > Surgery on a corpse would look different than one on a living person.
> > His
> > theory of medical alteration is ridiculous"
>
> RESPONSE: I daresay if you heard Dr. Baden going on and on about how
> bodies fall towards the line of fire, you'd understand how laughable
> his state of knowledge is--regardless of his credentials. THis is
> also the same guy who was shown up on Current Affair when questioned
> by former Assistant District atty. because he didn't realize, until
> that interview, that there was NO WEIGHT given for the brain, in the
> autopsy report!
Sorry, this is simply mis-direction. His lack of knowledge about the
specifics of the JFK case - which you've spent, by your own admission,
studying for nearly 4 decades, calls into question his credentials
where he is a recognized authority (pathology) exactly how?
He's an expert. And he says your "theory of medical alteration is
ridiculous".
He also says you failed to make note of the fact that wounds on a dead
body look different that wounds suffered while the person was alive,
and that such body alteration would fool no one.
Is it your interpretation that he is unqualified to render that
assessment?
>
> Again I say: His competence in this area of the JFK case--regardless
> of his credentials--is laughable.
> >
> > Are you saying these doctors are actually lamenting how the
> > microscopic slides would prove you right if those slides were only
> > available?
>
>
> RESPONSE: No, they are not "lamenting" it. But had the slides been
> avaialgble, they would indeed prove me right. Because that is the way
> you tell an ante-mortem from a post-mortem wound.
But it is curious that you cannot quote one qualified autopsist who
agrees with your assessment of the slides or your assessment of JFK's
wounds.
Not one. No one said the slides would change their view. Right? No one
said, 'ya know, that Lifton fellow, he is really on to something. Look
at this photo here…'
Right?
In fact, two of the best in the land said your theory was
'ridiculous', in essence. One used that word specifically. The other
said you were 'full of crap', which means roughly the same thing,
where I come from.
>
> DSL
>
> RE:
> > I don't think so, but I could have trouble thinking outside the box.
>
> RESPONSE: I don't think you have trouble thinking outside the box. I'm
> starting to conclude your problem is more fundamental. You have do
> have appear to have trouble in the area of thinking.
>
One other note. Where I come from, the first one to start calling
names loses.
It exposes their arguments as fundamentally unsound, that they have to
resort to name calling. You haven't seen me do it. And you won't. I
haven't once challenged your capacity to think. I have questioned your
theory - vigorously. This kind of rebuttal argument is beneath you,
David, unless you are conceding that you have no legitimate retort.
Then and only then, I can understand why you would resort to this sort
of rebuttal.
>
> > > RE:
> > >
> > > > I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> > > > advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> > > > It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> > > > assumes the evidence is falsified.
> > >
> > > FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
> > > that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
> >
> > No, you present hearsay (the FBI memo), contaminated interviews
> > (Riebe) and minor disputes about time from recollections years after
> > the events (the casket entry) as the cornerstones of your theory.
> > That's what your book is all about.
> >
> > You discard hard or better evidence like Oswald's rifle, like the
> > Z-film, like the autopsy conclusions, and like the subsequent review
> > of the autopsy.
>
> RESPONSE: Your problem, Zircon, is that you keep coming back to the
> falsified evidence, and playing it and replaying it through your head,
Nope. The problem here is you haven't demonstrated the evidence is
falsified. You believe it is. But your 'evidence' is by your own
admission nothing more than hearsay, interpretation, tainted
interviews, and the like.
> like some kind of fairy tale you learned when your mother read it to
> you so you'd have a good night's sleep. Maybe if you cleared out those
> cobwebs, you could look at the evidence objectively. You're in love
> with a view of this case that is as silly and mythological as the
> story of the Three Bears--only with you, its the 3 shots.
>
Thanks, David. I needed a laugh. In the final analysis, the 3 shot
scenario is the one supported by the most evidence. As always in this
case, conspiracy beliefs are exposed as built on hearsay, speculation,
and the like. The fairy tale of body alteration, in other words, is
all yours.
>
> Joe Z: That's what your book is all about. I could write a book
> justifying
> > Time Travelers On Vacation. . .,
>
> DSL RESPONSE: OK. . I finally get it. . . .This is what this is all
> about, isn't it. You're a frustrated author.
Nope. Not even close. You're the author, not me. I'm simply pointing
out that one can justify almost anything if one gets to throw out all
the evidence one doesn't like (as you throw out the autopsy
conclusions and all the hard evidence pointing to Oswald) and one gets
to use hearsay and speculation (you called it 'interpretation' above)
instead.
You're the author of that book. Not me.
>
> Instead of going round the barn like this, all you had to do is ask:
> "David, If I write a book about Time Travelers, can you get me an
> agent? And do you think you can help get me a movie deal?"
>
> Just ask, Joe. I understand your problem. Of course I'll help you. .
> . I'm always willing to lend a helping hand to beginners, and you
> don't have to believe Best Evidence for me to help you with your book
> about Time Travelers.
>
> Now that part about you wanting it to be treated as a non-fiction
> work. . hmmm. . . I think that might pose a problem.
Why? Your body alteration book got published, didn't it? But of
course, only after you put it in the first person. So it's less about
the JFK assassination and more an in-depth study of how one person can
go seriously, seriously wrong by refusing to accept the evidence that
is right in front of them. (In that way, it is an invaluable text).
Like when you went to - NY? - to view the original Z-film. You were
convinced going in - as your book reveals - that the z-film would
reveal the conspiracy. Right? Once you saw it, however, and saw no
evidence in it to confirm your beliefs, did you reassess your beliefs?
No!
You simply made the conspiracy bigger, and accepted that the Z-film
was altered, too.
That, more than anything else, explains exactly what the problem is.
You simply refuse to accept any evidence that points away from
conspiracy.
PS: Since you didn't respond on many of my other points, and in fact
snipped them entirely without noting you did that, like the carton you
cited being funny precisely because it is suggesting the patient needs
to connect the dots which *shouldn't* be connected (which makes your
citing it and telling us to connect the dots in the JFK assassination
all the funnier), should we assume you are now clear on how you went
wrong therein?
And does this mean you won't be citing that carton anymore?
Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> DSL
JoeZ
Ritchie Linton
Someone asked:
Yes.Thats what I said.First and foremost lets understand that this
answers the question raised about the idea that Connally's wounds had
to be altered, as Lifton has shown they were with Kennedy.Connaly's
wounds were not altered and did not need to be since he was not shot
in the back until after he turned around backward exposing his back to
the front.That was the point being dealt with.But you ask:
>
> Can you diagram that magic bullet for us?
See below about the doctor Shaw interview on NOVA=he was Connally's
doctor and he does as good a job of emonstrating with simplicity as
anything I have ever seen.
Let's see, you have a
> shooter somewhere in front of the limo (directly in front, or to the
> left or right front? You don't say), and you have Connally twisted
> around to look at JFK.
####
No.I haven't "twisted" Connally around backward=Connally did that for
himself.I explained that already where you start with the Altgen's
photo(known to reconciled with Z255) where you can already see
Connaly's exposed back facing forward toward Altgen's lense through
the windscreen.Return to the Zfilm and you see Connally continue his
turn rearward=watch for the lampost across your view.What way is
Connally facing by then? I certainly have not "twisted" him into that
position.You note:
But Connally's thigh would still be in front of
> his wrist and trunk,
###
Right
so a bullet from the front would have to enter
> Connally's back, exit his chest, and
###
go on to strike his wrist and blow up, with some fragments entereing
his thigh.You admit that by the turning around,"Connaly's thigh would
still be in front of his wrist and trunk"(trunk being the chest were
the bullet exited).So good=you have understood the trajectory in terms
of the turning around.
You seem confused about the jump seat:
not strike the limo jump seat
> he's sitting on, but do a 180 & turn around, strike his wrist, and
> then strike his thigh.
###
Not at all.They were small fold-away things, the jump seats=open to
either side when folded down=allowing leg clearance to eithere side.
> Does that about sum up your scenario? Where specifically do you place
> the shooter? And how can a shooter there account for Connally's thigh
> & wrist wounds? Do you have a diagram showing the bullet path you
> could share with us?
###
Like I said,look at the NOVA documentary.My first point was that
Connally's wounds do no destruction to Lifton's evidence about
alteration of Kennedy's wounds.About the results of the fragments from
Judyth V. Baker
going to give his answer until May 5th, 2004, at 10:30 AM. At last ---
a date you can count on? Or is this more evidence that Lifton is a
fantast? Keep challenging him to bring out evidence regarding
Connally NOW. And while he's at it, challenge him to bring out
evidence-- instead of personal attacks--regarding Judyth Vary and Lee
Oswald. May 5, 2004, will come and go, and Mr. Lifton's revelations no
doubt will be put off yet again. ........ ===j==
joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote in message news:<7f2b02a8.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) wrote in message news:<460446c1.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> > Joe:
<snip>
>
> >
> > DSL
>
> JoeZ
Joe Zircon
elect...@aol.com (Judyth V. Baker) wrote in message news:<ba6b02a7.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> ==Good question to ask Lifton, Mr. "Zircon." Mr. Lifton says he isn't
> going to give his answer until May 5th, 2004, at 10:30 AM. At last ---
> a date you can count on?
I expect it to come and go without much happening. I suspect DL pulled
the date out of his hat (or elsewhere).
> Or is this more evidence that Lifton is a
> fantast? Keep challenging him to bring out evidence regarding
> Connally NOW. And while he's at it, challenge him to bring out
> evidence-- instead of personal attacks--regarding Judyth Vary and Lee
> Oswald. May 5, 2004, will come and go, and Mr. Lifton's revelations no
> doubt will be put off yet again. ........ ===j==
>
I have a question for you, too, however. It's my understanding - correct
me if I'm wrong - that you have claimed to have punched Oswald out on a
near daily basis while he worked at Reily Coffee, and that he was provided
the job as a cover for other work by, as I recall, the CIA.
I asked you this question back on Jan 4th, 2002. Maybe you didn't see it
(I understand you were ill for a while), so I'll ask it again:
Why bother giving him a phony job at all, even? Why not just hand him $50
or $100 a week under the table, in cash?
This is unheard of in the CIA, right? Nobody ever did this?
Please advise, re: the necessity for a Reily job at all.
Jerry Shinley
> Hi. Glad to see you here.
>
>
> elect...@aol.com (Judyth V. Baker) wrote in message news:<ba6b02a7.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> > ==Good question to ask Lifton, Mr. "Zircon." Mr. Lifton says he isn't
> > going to give his answer until May 5th, 2004, at 10:30 AM. At last ---
> > a date you can count on?
>
> I expect it to come and go without much happening. I suspect DL pulled
> the date out of his hat (or elsewhere).
>
>
>
> > Or is this more evidence that Lifton is a
> > fantast? Keep challenging him to bring out evidence regarding
> > Connally NOW. And while he's at it, challenge him to bring out
> > evidence-- instead of personal attacks--regarding Judyth Vary and Lee
> > Oswald. May 5, 2004, will come and go, and Mr. Lifton's revelations no
> > doubt will be put off yet again. ........ ===j==
> >
>
> I have a question for you, too, however. It's my understanding - correct
> me if I'm wrong - that you have claimed to have punched Oswald out on a
> near daily basis while he worked at Reily Coffee, and that he was provided
> the job as a cover for other work by, as I recall, the CIA.
>
> I asked you this question back on Jan 4th, 2002. Maybe you didn't see it
> (I understand you were ill for a while), so I'll ask it again:
>
> Why bother giving him a phony job at all, even? Why not just hand him $50
> or $100 a week under the table, in cash?
>
> This is unheard of in the CIA, right? Nobody ever did this?
>
> Please advise, re: the necessity for a Reily job at all.
>
could have still paid their salaries by giving WGB Associates a
pretext contract, like investigating the theft of green glasses
by employees.
Jerry Shinley
Ritchie Linton
%%%%%%
> ++
> Sure.His hand crossed his lap as he turned around backward-see the
> NOVA documentary where his Doctor Shaw explains and demonstrates.After
> impact with the wrist, some small fragments went on to impact the
> thigh.
>
> RJ.....
> >
> >
> > O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)