E-Mail Exchange With David S. Lifton
David Von Pein
DAVID LIFTON SAID (VIA E-MAIL):
It seems to me that, when it comes to the Newmans, DVP is just a flat
out liar. (Would you not agree?)
FYI: In November, 1971, I was in Dallas and spent an evening with the
Newmans--both of them. I had a SONY tape recorder. There was no
question in their minds that the shots came from "above and behind"
them--and by that they were talking about the area directly behind
where they were standing, just as they indicated in their original
interviews.
Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality, and will bend the
English language to support their misconception.
I really do believe he's just a garden variety liar.
DSL
==============================
DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:
David "ALL SHOTS CAME FROM THE FRONT" Lifton,
I take offense at being labelled a "garden variety liar" by you. If
either one of us has mangled the truth in the JFK case, it's certainly
not me. It's you.
Take a look at the Bronson slide. At the time of the head shot, what
location is "directly behind" the Newmans?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TO9FedxO-jI/AAAAAAAAHDA/ce0zVWhjdKY/s530/Bronson%2BSlide.jpg
Answer: the pergola/peristyle area -- NOT the famous Grassy Knoll/
picket fence shooting location that you conspiracy kooks love so well.
William E. Newman is on record (within 25 minutes of the
assassination) saying that he thought there were TWO shots, with both
of those shots coming from "behind" him from the direction of the
"garden" behind him, which is not the picket fence area (like it or
not).
And Newman is even more specific in his 11/22/63 affidavit, when he
said that the "shot" had come from "directly behind me". And there's
no doubt that his "directly behind me" remark was referring to the
HEAD SHOT, and Mr. Newman even confirms that fact in his 2003
interview at the Sixth Floor Museum.
And during that 2003 interview, Newman goes into even more detail
about his observations (Part 2, linked below, at the 6:20 mark), when
Bill Newman says that his opinion about the direction from which the
head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on
me more so than the noise".
Newman saw the right side of JFK's explode, and he immediately
interpreted that VISUAL experience as having being caused by a bullet
that struck the President in that right-front area of his head. And
Newman explicitly says that very thing in this 2003 interview:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/GayleN
So, Mr. Lifton, is Bill Newman lying in the above video when he states
that it was more what he SAW than what he HEARD which caused him to
believe that the head shot had come from "behind" him?
DVP
7/17/11
pjsp...@aol.com
> DAVID LIFTON SAID (VIA E-MAIL):
>
> It seems to me that, when it comes to the Newmans, DVP is just a flat
> out liar. (Would you not agree?)
>
> FYI: In November, 1971, I was in Dallas and spent an evening with the
> Newmans--both of them. I had a SONY tape recorder. There was no
> question in their minds that the shots came from "above and behind"
> them--and by that they were talking about the area directly behind
> where they were standing, just as they indicated in their original
> interviews.
>
> Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality, and will bend the
> English language to support their misconception.
>
> I really do believe he's just a garden variety liar.
>
> DSL
>
> ==============================
>
> DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:
>
> David "ALL SHOTS CAME FROM THE FRONT" Lifton,
>
> I take offense at being labelled a "garden variety liar" by you. If
> either one of us has mangled the truth in the JFK case, it's certainly
> not me. It's you.
>
> Take a look at the Bronson slide. At the time of the head shot, what
> location is "directly behind" the Newmans?
>
You shock me, DVP. In your laundry list of Newman statements, you left
out his testimony in the 86 mock trial, in which he marked a map of
Dealey showing the area from which he assumed the shots had been
fired.
Shame, shame. VB would be disappointed.
David Von Pein
>>> "You shock me, DVP. In your laundry list of Newman statements, you
left out his testimony in the 86 mock trial, in which he marked a map of
Dealey showing the area from which he assumed the shots had been fired."
<<<
Pat Speer,
You mean you actually want to BELIEVE something that somebody said at that
mock trial in '86, a trial that virtually all CTers think was nothing but
a "sham" and a "farce"? You shock me, Pat. :)
I'm also a little confused about your post in another sense, Pat -- Was
your post about Newman's 1986 map supposed to be a "dig" at me? I.E., did
you think you were actually supporting a "Grassy Knoll" gunman in your
Newman post?
Because if that is what you were attempting to do, you'd better go back
and look at Newman's map again -- because Newman marked that map in a
place where NO conspiracy theorist believes any shots came from. He marked
it in an area that is to the EAST of the pergola that was behind him when
the shooting occurred.
He certainly didn't mark the traditional "picket fence" or "Grassy Knoll"
areas of the Plaza. Not even close. Here is where Newman marked the map,
which is a point in the Plaza that would have been located to the
LEFT-rear (or northeast) of William Newman:
When all of Bill Newman's testimony and interviews over the years is
assessed, it's pretty obvious that Newman is NOT a really good
"conspiracy" or "Grassy Knoll" witness at all. He heard TWO shots, both
from "directly behind me" (per his 11/22/63 affidavit), and he admitted in
his Oral History interview in Dallas in 2003 that he was basing his
determination about a gunman being "behind" him more on a VISUAL sense
rather than the SOUND of the gunshot(s).
And then we have him marking a map in 1986 that would have a shooter
located near the Elm Street service road at the FAR-EAST side of the
pergola, which isn't even close to the popular Grassy Knoll area.
Conspiracy theorists, of course, love to distort things. And it appears to
me that they've done just that when it comes to the comments made by
William E. Newman. (And Lee Bowers too.)
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/william-newman.html
Hank Sienzant
> DAVID LIFTON SAID (VIA E-MAIL):
>
> It seems to me that, when it comes to the Newmans, DVP is just a flat
> out liar. (Would you not agree?)
>
> FYI: In November, 1971, I was in Dallas and spent an evening with the
> Newmans--both of them. I had a SONY tape recorder. There was no
> question in their minds that the shots came from "above and behind"
> them--and by that they were talking about the area directly behind
> where they were standing, just as they indicated in their original
> interviews.
>
> Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality, and will bend the
> English language to support their misconception.
>
> I really do believe he's just a garden variety liar.
>
> DSL
>
> ==============================
>
> DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:
>
> David "ALL SHOTS CAME FROM THE FRONT" Lifton,
>
> I take offense at being labelled a "garden variety liar" by you. If
> either one of us has mangled the truth in the JFK case, it's certainly
> not me. It's you.
>
> Take a look at the Bronson slide. At the time of the head shot, what
> location is "directly behind" the Newmans?
>
Ask Lifton who altered Connally's wounds. When I asked him that
question at the 1992 or 1993 ASK conference, he said "I will cover
that in my next book."
I'm still waiting for an answer.
As you know (and reference above -- referring to Lifton as 'David "ALL
SHOTS CAME FROM THE FRONT" Lifton', it's Lifton's theory that all the
shots came from the front of the limo, and JFK's wounds were altered
later to point to and frame a shooter from behind (Oswald). If that
theory of Lifton's is true, then since Connally's trunk wound at a
minimum points to the rear, then it stands to reason Connally's wounds
must have been altered, like JFK's, to point to a shooter from behind
the limo.
Further, I'd sure like to know how the conspirators planned to alter
the wounds of Connally and JFK had they both survived (and of course,
there was no guarantee JFK would be dead after the assasssination
attempt, so the conspirators would have somehow had to have planned to
work body-alteration surgery on two wounded but still living men - or
risk the whole conspiracy house of cards come tumbling down in the
first few hours.
That means at least some of the Parkland doctors had to be recruited
into the conspiracy prior to the shooting and had to be willing to
alter wounds of JFK and Connally on the fly, as who else would be
expected to be treating those two men?
Let me know if Lifton wants to tackle those softball questions. I'd
sure like to hear his answers.
Hank
Anthony Marsh
Only because he did not remember the word "knoll." He was not therefore
the first witness to say "grassy knoll."
> from "directly behind me" (per his 11/22/63 affidavit), and he admitted in
> his Oral History interview in Dallas in 2003 that he was basing his
> determination about a gunman being "behind" him more on a VISUAL sense
> rather than the SOUND of the gunshot(s).
>
> And then we have him marking a map in 1986 that would have a shooter
> located near the Elm Street service road at the FAR-EAST side of the
> pergola, which isn't even close to the popular Grassy Knoll area.
>
Maybe he thought the shot came from inside or behind the pergola. The
important thing is that he did not think the shot came from a high building.
Like many witnesses his initial impression was changed when the WC came out.
Anthony Marsh
And I was at the Chicago conference where he said that. The only one out
of about 500 attendees. And I was one of the first to corner him that
night and ask about shots other than Kennedy. He refused to discuss
Connally's wounds and denied that the Zapruder film shows the pool of
blood on the back of his coat.
He could not explain how the dent of the chrome topping could have been
caused by a shot from the front, so he claimed the dent was already been
there and had been there for several years as Rowley claimed.
> Further, I'd sure like to know how the conspirators planned to alter
> the wounds of Connally and JFK had they both survived (and of course,
> there was no guarantee JFK would be dead after the assasssination
> attempt, so the conspirators would have somehow had to have planned to
> work body-alteration surgery on two wounded but still living men - or
> risk the whole conspiracy house of cards come tumbling down in the
> first few hours.
>
I guess part of that is explained away by incompetence. No one at
Parkland saw the back wound while they were trying to save his life. A
nurse saw it when she cleaned his body, but she could be easily ignored
as just another hysterical woman.
But the other wounds were seen by so many people, not just the doctors,
that he can't claim all the wounds were in the front of the body.
> That means at least some of the Parkland doctors had to be recruited
> into the conspiracy prior to the shooting and had to be willing to
> alter wounds of JFK and Connally on the fly, as who else would be
> expected to be treating those two men?
>
And for his theory to work they would need to create false wounds on the
bodies before they got to the hospital.
> Let me know if Lifton wants to tackle those softball questions. I'd
> sure like to hear his answers.
>
I heard his answers in person.
> Hank
>
WhiskyJoe
Looking at Don Roberdeau's map:
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2192/dpupdated110110.gif
the location indicated by Mr. Newman is, on Don's map, above and to the
left somewhere of the structure marked 'Cupola Shelter # 4'.
This location is roughly 40 degrees away from the sniper's nest in the
Texas School Book Depository and roughly 100 degrees away from the spot
labeled on the map in red as 'GKS' (Grassy Knoll Shooter).
I guess that any direction that does not point directly to the Texas
School Book Depository building is, for all practical purposes, pointing
at the Grassy Knoll. I think that Pat Speer would have been a natural to
be holding the map in the 'Blair Witch Project'.
WhiskyJoe
By the way, when comparing Don Roberdeau's map:
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2192/dpupdated110110.gif
to the map marked by Mr. Newman:
the Newman map needs to be rotated 90 degrees
counter clockwise, to have the same alignment
as Roberdeau's map.
********************
The essential points made so far is that CTers
imply that Mr. Newman indicated the bullets
that passed right over him came from the
Grassy Knoll. David Von Pein said, no,
his statements indicate a position near
the 'pergola/peristyle', that is near the
'Cupola Shelter # 4' area on Don's map.
Lifton disagreed with Von Pein. And Pat Speer
disagreed with Von Pein as well, urging him to
check out the map marked by Mr. Newman in the
1986 trial. The same map was shows a mark not
for the Grassy Knoll, but on the
'pergola/peristyle' area, the area David Von Pein
has been talking about all along.
And this pergola/peristyle area is closer to
being in the direction of the sniper's nest
in the TSBD than it is to the Grassy Knoll.
40 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees.
Anthony Marsh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fPpLegSn1k
Forget the direction. LISTEN to what Newman said. He said the headshot
came from the "knoll, I don't know what you call it . . . up on top of
the hill, the mound of ground with the garden." That area does not sound
like the TSBD to me.
pjsp...@aol.com
> >>> "You shock me, DVP. In your laundry list of Newman statements, you
>
> left out his testimony in the 86 mock trial, in which he marked a map of
> Dealey showing the area from which he assumed the shots had been fired."
> <<<
>
> Pat Speer,
>
> You mean you actually want to BELIEVE something that somebody said at that
> mock trial in '86, a trial that virtually all CTers think was nothing but
> a "sham" and a "farce"? You shock me, Pat. :)
>
> I'm also a little confused about your post in another sense, Pat -- Was
> your post about Newman's 1986 map supposed to be a "dig" at me? I.E., did
> you think you were actually supporting a "Grassy Knoll" gunman in your
> Newman post?
>
> Because if that is what you were attempting to do, you'd better go back
> and look at Newman's map again -- because Newman marked that map in a
> place where NO conspiracy theorist believes any shots came from. He marked
> it in an area that is to the EAST of the pergola that was behind him when
> the shooting occurred.
>
> He certainly didn't mark the traditional "picket fence" or "Grassy Knoll"
> areas of the Plaza. Not even close. Here is where Newman marked the map,
> which is a point in the Plaza that would have been located to the
> LEFT-rear (or northeast) of William Newman:
>
>
> When all of Bill Newman's testimony and interviews over the years is
> assessed, it's pretty obvious that Newman is NOT a really good
> "conspiracy" or "Grassy Knoll" witness at all. He heard TWO shots, both
> from "directly behind me" (per his 11/22/63 affidavit), and he admitted in
> his Oral History interview in Dallas in 2003 that he was basing his
> determination about a gunman being "behind" him more on a VISUAL sense
> rather than the SOUND of the gunshot(s).
>
> And then we have him marking a map in 1986 that would have a shooter
> located near the Elm Street service road at the FAR-EAST side of the
> pergola, which isn't even close to the popular Grassy Knoll area.
>
> Conspiracy theorists, of course, love to distort things. And it appears to
> me that they've done just that when it comes to the comments made by
> William E. Newman. (And Lee Bowers too.)
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/william-newman.html
David, you keep forgetting who you're dealing with. I am that rarity,
a conspiracy theorist whose research led him to conclude that no shots
were fired from behind the picket fence. I have argued this point with
Fetzer, Lifton, et al, for years now. I have even posted links to
Newman's mock trial testimony while doing so. Which is why I was
surprised that you did not...
My shock was not real, by the way. It was mock shock for a mock trial.
As far as Newman, he has never wavered and has claimed from the very
beginning that he thought the shots came from behind him, in the
pergola/garden area, and not from the picket fence to his right.
Anthony Marsh
>
> By the way, when comparing Don Roberdeau's map:
>
> http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2192/dpupdated110110.gif
>
> to the map marked by Mr. Newman:
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J-9dQKSBxDg/TiQ8lcoouoI/AAAAAAAAc8A/v9sv1iXhi98/s1600/William-Newman-Map-1986-Mock-Trial.png
>
> the Newman map needs to be rotated 90 degrees
> counter clockwise, to have the same alignment
> as Roberdeau's map.
>
So what? Roberdeau only used that orientation because I was limited on
the Commodore 64 to a screen width of 640 pixels and wanted to get in
both the face of the TSBD and the curb of Main Street. That distance is
exactly 300, but I cheated a little bit to show more detail of the TSBD
so I could not show the center line of Main Street. That is the reason
for that particular orientation. Someone creating it from scratch on an
IBM or Mac would not have that limitation. It took me a couple of years
to find a program to convert the GeoPaint bitmap into a GIF which is
universal for all computers and perfect for online viewing.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Dealey.gif
> ********************
>
> The essential points made so far is that CTers
> imply that Mr. Newman indicated the bullets
> that passed right over him came from the
> Grassy Knoll. David Von Pein said, no,
> his statements indicate a position near
> the 'pergola/peristyle', that is near the
> 'Cupola Shelter # 4' area on Don's map.
>
> Lifton disagreed with Von Pein. And Pat Speer
> disagreed with Von Pein as well, urging him to
> check out the map marked by Mr. Newman in the
> 1986 trial. The same map was shows a mark not
> for the Grassy Knoll, but on the
> 'pergola/peristyle' area, the area David Von Pein
> has been talking about all along.
>
> And this pergola/peristyle area is closer to
> being in the direction of the sniper's nest
> in the TSBD than it is to the Grassy Knoll.
> 40 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees.
>
Fine, but the pergola is not the TSBD. It is a different place, a
different direction from the TSBD. And I think there was actually some
kook about 10 years ago who had a theory that the shooter was firing
from behind the pergola through an opening. A good hiding spot. How
about the tool sheds as a place to hide the rifle?
David Von Pein
>>> "David, you keep forgetting who you're dealing with. I am that rarity,
a conspiracy theorist whose research led him to conclude that no shots
were fired from behind the picket fence." <<<
Thanks for the clarification, Pat.
And, yes, I often forget that you, Pat, are that very rare breed of CTer
who thinks no shots came from the "Knoll". Maybe I should have that info
tattooed on my forearm, so that I'll remember it, as my memory has been
getting worse in recent years, which drives me nuts. Thank goodness for
archived posts. :)
Anyway, thanks for pointing out Newman's map from the '86 trial. It
provides just one more thing I can utilize when arguing with conspiracists
who keep wanting to insist that William Newman somehow corroborates and
buttresses the "Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence Shooter" theory.
And I've added an addendum to my Newman article at my JFK-Archives
website. So, thanks for that reminder, Pat.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html
Anthony Marsh
Billy Newman did not pinpoint a specific location for the shooter. He
indicated a general area. You can argue that he thought the shots came
from the pergola. That's fine with me. The essential point is that the
pergola is not the TSBD so that means he thought the shots came from
some place other than the TSBD.
bobr
In a very narrow sense you are correct. There were no shots fired from
behind the wooden fence but there was one shot fired from in front of
the picket fence.
Hank Sienzant
And the pergola is not the picket fence area of the knoll so that means he
thought the shots came from some place other than the picket fence area of
the knoll.
And that means we both believe Newman was wrong about where the shots were
coming from, doesn't it, unless you believe the pergola was the source of
the shots.
You think shots came from the TSBD and the knoll (I believe, correct me if
this wrong), I believe they all came from the TSBD.
I don't think either of us believe the shots came from the pergola.
Newman said that was where he thought they came from.
Hank Sienzant
>
You mean right next to the serviceman who brought his camera to Dealey
Plaza, surrendered it to a cop, then left for Alaska (sorrty his name
escapes me at the moment - he is featured in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy".
It's a wonder he would shoot from there, don't you think? In front of the
picket fence? About 20 feet from Zapruder's camera? Is that right?
Anthony Marsh
No, he did not say pergola. He said the knoll.
A geological feature. An area. Not a structure.
Hank Sienzant
> On 7/21/2011 5:26 PM, HankSienzantwrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
lol. Don't you remember writing this on 7/19?
-- quote --
You can argue that he thought the shots came from the pergola. That's fine
with me. The essential point is that the pergola is not the TSBD so that
means he thought the shots came from some place other than the TSBD.
-- unquote --
And, as I pointed out, the pergola is not the knoll. So if it is truly
fine with you (as you claimed above) to argue that 'he thought the shots
came from the pergola', then it should be equally fine with you that he
didn't think the shots came from the knoll or the TSBD.
Remember how he marked the map.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html
His marking is also closer to the TSBD than the knoll, is it not?
Hank
Clubking01
Gordon Arnold
Anthony Marsh
English please. I just don't care if you want to say silly things. I don't
have to believe them.
> And, as I pointed out, the pergola is not the knoll. So if it is truly
> fine with you (as you claimed above) to argue that 'he thought the shots
> came from the pergola', then it should be equally fine with you that he
> didn't think the shots came from the knoll or the TSBD.
>
The pergola is indeed ON the grassy knoll. The grassy knoll is the entire
hill to the north of Elm Street. Not just the parking lot. I don't care
where you argue he said the shots came from. He didn't say the TSBD so
that means a second direction, ergo conspiracy.
> Remember how he marked the map.
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html
>
> His marking is also closer to the TSBD than the knoll, is it not?
>
Silly. It is ON the knoll.
Knoll means hill.
He said up on top of the hill.
> Hank
>
>
>
>
Hank Sienzant
Tony, you should be a stand-up comedian. You crack me up. Maybe it is
unintentional, but you say some of the funniest things.
1. From your definition of the knoll, Newman could be a knoll shooter.
That is not where a shooter on the knoll is typically located, is it? So
when I wrote 'the pergola is not the knoll' above, I was using shorthand
to refer to the typical location in the conspiracy literature of a shooter
behind the picket fence and constrasting it with where Newnam said he
thought the shots came from. You know this, but you have no valid points
in rebuttal, so you have to go for the capillaries, instead of the
jugular. Go ahead, correct my spelling or something.
2. In addition, it appears you are arguing that there is a conspiracy and
multiple shooters in any case (not just the JFK case) if one or more
witnesses says he heard shots from a different different than where the
police found a rifle. That of course is nonsense.
Do you think there was a shooter behind the pergola? No, you don't, and
you therefore think that Newman is mistaken about the source of the shots.
True or false? I think, from what I've read over the past 10+ years here,
you would answer true, but please be kind enough to answer this.
And if you think he is mistaken about the source of the shots and that it
is indeed true no shots were fired from behind the pergola, why can't I
likewise think he is mistaken about the source of the shots? While you
move the source to Newman's right, and claim the picket fence is where the
shots came from, I move it to Newman's left and say it was the TSBD.Now,
which position has the most physical evidence evidence to support it?
You do believe all the shots came from the picket fence, don't you? What's
that, you DON'T? Well then, you are claiming Newman is a bad witnesss and
definitely wrong when he said the shots all came from the pergola area,
aren''t you, and he was mistaken about all three, confusing and merging
two or more shots from the TSBD *and* a shot from the picket fence at the
top of the knoll into three shots from the pergola. Is that a witness you
would feel confident putting on the stand to provide evidence of a second
shooter?
Is that your final answer here?
>
> > Remember how he marked the map.
> >http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html
>
> > His marking is also closer to the TSBD than the knoll, is it not?
>
> Silly. It is ON the knoll.
> Knoll means hill.
> He said up on top of the hill.
He marked the area behind the pergola. Do you think any shots came
from there? You do not. Correct?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html
bobr
Newmans affidavit tells exactly where he thought the shot came from.
from the little garden directly behind me. He is refering to the area
behind the retaining wall, the same area that Sam Holland referred to
as the little plaza.
"Then the car sped away and everybody in that area had run upon [sic]
top of that little mound. I thought the shot had come from the garden
directly behind me, that it was on an elevation from where I was as I
was right on the curb."
David Von Pein
>>> "Newman's affidavit tells exactly where he thought the shot came from
-- from the little garden directly behind me. He is referring to the area
behind the retaining wall." <<<
No. Bill Newman is certainly not referring to the "retaining wall" to his
right.
Here's where Newman thought the shots came from:
And Skinny Holland's "smoke" isn't anywhere near Newman's gunman.
bobr
> >>> "Newman's affidavit tells exactly where he thought the shot came from
>
> -- from the little garden directly behind me. He is referring to the area
> behind the retaining wall." <<<
>
> No. Bill Newman is certainly not referring to the "retaining wall" to his
> right.
>
> Here's where Newman thought the shots came from:
>
>
> And Skinny Holland's "smoke" isn't anywhere near Newman's gunman.
Before I would accept ANYTHING you provide as evidence I would need to
know where the picture came from and the context of that picture.
bobr
>
> -- from the little garden directly behind me. He is referring to the area
> behind the retaining wall." <<<
>
> No. Bill Newman is certainly not referring to the "retaining wall" to his
> right.
>
> Here's where Newman thought the shots came from:
>
>
> And Skinny Holland's "smoke" isn't anywhere near Newman's gunman.
I just watched the video of William Newman in the mock trial.
It is obvious to me that William Newman was not represented by an
adequate attorney.
He obviously did not point to a location directly behind him and a
location that was consistent with his sworn statement on November 23
1963 that the shot came from the little garden directly behind him. He
said he did not look in the direction of the TBSD he looked in the
vicinity of the little garden.
An attorney who was familiar with the facts would have questioned
Newman if the location he marked on the map was indeed the location he
was referring to in sworn statement.
An attorney who was famiiiar with the facts would have used Mr Newmans
sworn statement to make sure he marked the correct location on the
map.
All you have shown is just how absolutely pitiful that mock trial was.
I was not aware at how pitiful it was until now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIJcLU5NQ64&feature=view_all&list=PL974A39F551630434&index=18
Hank Sienzant
> >>> "Newman's affidavit tells exactly where he thought the shot came from
>
> -- from the little garden directly behind me. He is referring to the area
> behind the retaining wall." <<<
>
> No. Bill Newman is certainly not referring to the "retaining wall" to his
> right.
>
> Here's where Newman thought the shots came from:
>
>
> And Skinny Holland's "smoke" isn't anywhere near Newman's gunman.
Can you add to that map that Newman marked where Newman was standing
along Elm? I think it would illustrate the issue a bit better.
Thanks.
David Von Pein
DAVID LIFTON SAID:
David:
You are one of those who has a completely incorrect model of conspiracy,
and is destined to end up in the dustbin of history.
Thanks for archiving all the material you have collected, but your
analysis leaves much to be desired.
If there was an Internet back in 1859, when Origin of the Species was
published, you would have been one of those with a massive website arguing
against evolution, and saying. . . "Just look at all these dogs and cats
that I have collected. . . and what about the apes and all the other
animals in the zoo! You mean to tell me that all of this is somehow
connected! That all these different species came about naturally! That's
ridiculous! Darwin is nothing but a kook! All of this was created in about
7 days, and if you don't believe me, go to my Website, DarwinSucks.com."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, David Lifton, I think about the only thing a reasonable person needs
to do in order to come to a firm conclusion that your theory is utter
hogwash (not to mention impossible) is to read the following portion of a
post you wrote at The Education Forum today:
"The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter
his body to change the story of how he died. If one has control of the
body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change
the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the
crime." -- David Lifton; Feb. 6, 2017
The key words written by David L. above are these words:
"The plan, from the outset, was to...alter his body."
Maybe we should all take a step back and just think about the above
comment for a few moments. It shouldn't take very long, though, for any
sensible person to fully appreciate just how ridiculous and far-out and
nonsensical and impossible and downright crazy that comment by David S.
Lifton truly is.
But I guess it does prove one thing: If a conspiracy theorist puts his
mind to it, he can always manage to “improve” his fantasy
theory—even a conspiracy fantasy that began 50 years ago.
Time for a Reality Check now. Here's something I said to Mr. Lifton in
2013, and it certainly applies here in 2017 as well:
"The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David
Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something
that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In
plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's
lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the
masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers"
like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence
in this case.
Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in
the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and
"Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of
JFK conspiracists.
And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka:
hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE
REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL
explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe
that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated
and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in
this case says he was --- a double-murderer.
Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he
evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like
"Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful"." -- DVP; May 4, 2013
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1229.html
mainframetech
anything, just collect things that say JFK on them. There is not a single
ounce of proof there, only opinion, and expects the reader to use only
opinion as well in agreeing with him. A "sensible person" would want to
look into the proofs and determine if they have validity, rather than
simply decide if they sound rational or not.
In fact, there was a 42 minute time interval at Bethesda morgue
beginning at 6:35pm (documented) where Humes and Boswell were able to
accomplish 2 things, first to look for bullets or fragments in the body
that might prove there were multiple shooters, and remove them, and
second, to alter the body as best they could in the time allowed to make
it look a bit more like the kill shots came from above and behind. There
is proof of that when there were Naval staff (Jerrol Custer, Edward Reed
and Tom Robinson) sitting in the gallery watching as Humes and Boswell
went about their clandestine work on the body. At one point they were
kicked out, but Mortician Tom Robinson stayed the whole time. Naturally
DVP, there's not much choice you'd look into the statements of those
people, because it would prove how wrong you have been for years now.
The autopsy was scheduled for 8:00pm, and began about that time, but
the clandestine work began to show and Humes tried to make a joke about it
and go past it. Humes joked that the brain just "fell out into my hands"
when he pulled it out. But the brain could NOT do that unless someone had
cut the brain stem and the optic nerves and some other arteries as well.
So the clandestine work showed that it had been done.
Further proof is that the body had wounds described as being at the BOH
and about the size of an orange, and it was at about the right rear of the
BOH. When Humes and Boswell got through wit the body, the 'large hole' in
the BOH had been expanded around the right side and a bit of the top as
well. No plastic surgery was done, only an expansion of the BOH wound.
> But I guess it does prove one thing: If a conspiracy theorist puts his
> mind to it, he can always manage to “improve” his fantasy
> theory—even a conspiracy fantasy that began 50 years ago.
>
you run away from it? I can supply cites and links for the above
statements. Proof, not the usual LN fantasies.
> Time for a Reality Check now. Here's something I said to Mr. Lifton in
> 2013, and it certainly applies here in 2017 as well:
>
> "The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David
> Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something
> that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In
> plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's
> lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the
> masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers"
> like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence
> in this case.
>
lack of knowledge of the case. I'm interested in "all the evidence" that
you think you have, since I've heard that list from bd and it amounted to
less than a hill of beans, none of which put Oswald on the 6th floor, and
did not put him in a window with a rifle.
> Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in
> the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and
> "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of
> JFK conspiracists.
>
solid evidence is behind them? No, you just have your opinions, which
prove nothing.
> And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka:
> hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE
> REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL
> explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe
> that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated
> and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in
> this case says he was --- a double-murderer.
>
does, list what you think proves it and I'll take it apart piece by piece
as you list them. I've already done it on bd's little list of nothing.
> Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he
> evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like
> "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful"." -- DVP; May 4, 2013
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1229.html
will wait to see if DVP can come up with his list of evidence that proves
Oswald Killed JFK.
Chris