Ghostwriters in the Sky
David S. Lifton
Ghostwriting is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with it,
per se.
In writing Helter Skelter, Vince Bugliosi availed himself of the services
of author Kurt Gentry, and the title page on the book reads by Bugliosi
"with Kurt Gentry." Those of us who knew Kurt Gentry know that he wrote
Helter Skelter. It was an honorable and overt ghosting job--overt in the
sense that Kurt's name was on the cover of the book.
Ghosting is done all the time, and it is not necessarily publicized.
Publishers are not running a CIA type operation. They can request--even
demand--that the writing contribution be kept secret; alternatively it may
be acknowledged right on the cover of the book, as in "by Joe Smith, with
Eric Jones."
Let's now turn to "Reclaiming History," which was originally titled "FINAL
VERDICT," and was advertised under that title for many years on Amazon.
Bugliosi's grew out of the role he played as "prosecutor" (opposite
Spence, as defense attorney) in the London Weekly Television "Trial of Lee
Harvey Oswald," which was produced by LWT's Mark Redhead, and broadcast
about 1985/86 (on SHOWTIME).
In the late 1980s, in the aftermath of the London Weekly Television "Trial
of Oswald", and then its broadcast on SHOWTIME, Bugliosi obtained a
contract from W W Norton for a hefty sum, reputed to be close to $1M. I
cannot vouch for this number. But its what I was told.
Soon thereafter, Bugliosi made an arrangement with a Los Angeles
writer--whether he would be called a ghostwriter or just a "writer" or a
"writing subcontractor"--is really besides the point. In many ways, it is
a "distinction without a difference," (as the lawyers might say.) The
writer was Fred Haines, and for years, Haines worked on the sections of
Bugliosi's book pertaining to the life of Oswald. In other words, he was
assigned the Oswald biography, the same area that was covered in the
Warren Report by Attorneys Jenner and Liebeler. (See Appendix 13 of the
WCR, the biographical appendix, or Chapter 7 of the WCR, for the
Jenner-Liebeler "chapter").
Haines received regular payments from W W Norton. (Those who save their
old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Those who
save check stubs will find payments made by Norton to Fred Haines. The
arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the book
would be "by" Bugliosi, but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to the
titling of Helter Skelter, which was "by" Bugliosi, but "with Kurt
Gentry." In other words, similar to the case with Gentry, Haines had a
separate contract with the publisher. In his acknowledgements, Bugliosi
gives a very generous credit to Fred Haines. He's a fine writer, a good
thinker, and a very polite man. Unlike Bugliosi, who engages in personal
insults and ridicule, Fred's a gentleman.
In mid-October 1999, Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" to W W Norton, and
I put the words in quotes, because there was a serious problem with it
being published in the form it was then in. Its easy to parody the
Bulgiosi situation at that point in time: there was "good news" and "bad
news". The "good news" was that he turned in 3000 pages, a very outsized
manuscript by ordinary publishing standards. The bad news: that was "part
1".
Bugliosi told Norton that this 3000 page manuscript was something that he
had worked on it for some ten years. He said that this manuscript was
"finished" and could be published on its own, and noted that it could be
divided into two books. That was up to the publisher. He said that as far
as he was concerned that was just "the first part of it", but that, if
Norton wanted to go for Part 2--which involved critiquing in some detail
all the different conspiracy theories--why then that would have to be
negotiated. In other words, another arrangement would have to be made.
Bugliosi's position was that he had now fulfilled his contract.
A new arrangement then evolved. In the aftermath of this, Bugliosi took a
much more direct role in the writing of the book, because, as one insider
told me, "Vince has the polemics. He's full of bombast." As the summer of
2001 approached, both Bugliosi and the same hired writer both had
contracts with Norton. The hired writer was receiving payments at least
through that time.
But not too long afterwards, the writer had to leave the project because
of medical problems. So now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about for
further editorial assistance, because the book was (a) not really
complete, in accordance with Bugliosi's grand design of criticizing all
the conspiracy theories; and (b) everything was complicated by the release
of a huge amount of archival material, after the ARRB shut down on
9/30/98.
Included in that material was significant new data about the medical
evidence, and a major amount of work done by the ARRB's Doug Horne. To put
it mildly, Bugliosi now had to face the fact that the record was loaded
with material, in the medical area, that was supportive of Best Evidence.
(Horne and I used to wonder about this: what was Bugliosi going to do with
all this "new evidence"? The answer, it turns out, is simple: included
would be his personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about
four times.) But let's not go there--at least, not yet.
This brings us to the next phase, and the next ghostwriter (or
subcontractor, or whatever term suits your fancy). Remember: Oswald was
done. The story of Oswald, the "killer" (as Bugliosi refers to him) was
complete. But that still left a lot of work, and one area was Dealey
Plaza. Another fact was that it was Bugliosi's goal to tackle all the many
conspiracy theories. Since he was apparently determined to comment upon,
and attempt to knock down, all other conspiracy theories--he had to become
knowledgeable about each and every one of them (or hire someone who was).
It is not very complicated to become knowledgeable about each and every
conspiracy theory--it just takes a lot of time.
Moreover, the problem is not made easier by the fact that Bugliosi does
not use a computer and is not conversant with the Internet. He writes in
longhand, and dictates, but does not do email. The most advanced level of
technology with which Bugliosi is comfortable is fax.
But let's return to Dealey Plaza.
ENTER GHOST-WRITER #2
Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired another writer--this time, one with
expertise in the area of the shots, the Single Bullet theory, the medical
evidence, and the acoustics.
Again, a formal contract was drawn up. Again, the credit on the book was
changed. This time, Bugliosi's book--which was titled "FINAL
VERDICT"--would now bear the authorial credit that it was written "BY
Vincent Bugliosi", but now "with" the second writer (or, using the
vernacular, the second ghostwriter, co-writer, or whatever term one
chooses to describe the situation).
Once again, Norton paid money--significant money--and a lot of work in the
Dealey Plaza area was done by this second person. In the process, a final
arrangement had to be made with the first writer---i.e., he had to be
"paid off" so there would be an equitable conclusion to his arrangement.
But then, another complication developed.
WRITER #2 LEAVES
The creative relationship between Bugliosi and Writer #2 proved
incompatible, and had to be dissolved. As a result, what can best be
described as "a literary divorce" was arranged, and another contract--the
"divorce"--had to be executed. That was done successfully, and one
provision of the "divorce" was that the party involved could
never--ever--mention that he was ever "married."
So now, by this point, Bugliosi was like a man who was married twice (in
the literary sense) over a period of some 15 years. Bugliosi had two
hired writers--each of which were to share the credit on this book. One
wrote much--if not all--of "the Oswald biography" (which is about 260
pages, as published). The other wrote sections on Dealey Plaza,
acoustics, etc.--i.e., much of the technical stuff.
Each had a signed contract, in which they would be named, on the title
page of the book. Each arrangement had to be dissolved; first, the
arrangement with Writer #1, when he had to leave the project; second, the
arrangement with writer #2, when he came on board, and then again, when he
left.
So far, in this narrative, I have mentioned TWO ghostwriters that Bugliosi
employed, in connection with writing his manuscript--one with regard to
Oswald (Fred Haines) and a second with regard to Dealey Plaza (Writer #2).
If you will look in his acknowledgements, you will see that much of this
is practically stated. Not only does Bugliosi give a generous
acknowledgement of Haines, he talks of his book in terms of its being "a
book of inserts." This is not insignificant, because when hires a writer
to do the original draft, or provides a sketchy outline, and tasks a
second party to do the actual writing, then the "inserting" process
becomes very important. "Inserts" represent the modifications, and the
place where the author injects himself. Maybe he'll modify a fact, or a
paragraph, or maybe he'll dictate a complete re-write into a recorder.
It all depends.
QUOTING NOW from page 1514, the second page of Bugliosi's
Acknowledgements:
"In addition to transcribing, from my audio dictation, the contents of 72
sixty-minute and 8 ninety minute tapes. . . Rosemary (his secretary) had
to decipher and type at least a thousand (maybe many more ) inserts of
mine handwritten in pencil on yellow legal paper. Though resulting from
much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a
book of inserts. UNQUOTE
Bugliosi then goes on to explain the role these "inserts" played. He
states that the "first drafts" of various sections he wrote, and "which I
then dictated, were not overly long. But then they all increased far
beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts."
In writing what I have above, I have by no means put forth all the
knowledge I have pertaining to this situation. I have tried to stick to
what is relevant--and to rebut the false charge, coming from Bugliosi,
that implies that my statements are false. They are not. And so I do not
owe Mr. Bugliosi any apology. In fact, he really owes the public an "up
front" explanation of exactly how this book, with its strengths (and its
serious weaknesses) was created--because this is not some book on an
arcane subject, but rather a book on one of the most important events of
the 20th century.
If he wrote all of it, then kudos to him. But if, because of these
collateral arrangements, other were afforded the opportunity to express
themselves on his pages, and under the umbrella of a book bearing his name
as sole author, and in particular if those "others" include well known
lone nutters, then that should be known, too.
The subject is too important for such game-playing. The issue is
accountability. This is not a book about the weather, or a personal
memoir, where a busy person hires a writer to set down the story of his
life (a perfectly legitimate activity), but about the murder of a
president.
There is one other thing I'd like to say, and which gives the lie to just
what is in this book when it comes to Best Evidence, and Bugliosi.
BUGLIOSI AND BEST EVIDENCE (i.e., Bugliosi on camera)
On the "Reclaiming History" website, Bugliosi can be seen, in a filmed
interview, making false and reckless misrepresentation of what is in Best
Evidence.
Bulgiosi claims that I said that President Kennedy's body was removed from
the coffin in front of Jacqueline Kennedy--and, presumably, others in the
Kennedy party who were in the tail compartment of Air Force One. (See the
transcript below my typed signature). That is the purest garbage--and
Bugliosi shows a complete and reckless disregard for the truth by making
such statements, on camera, for world wide distribution.
Yes, I sure did say that the President's body was not in the coffin, when
the plane took off from Dallas at 2:47 CST. That statement, which I am
positive is true, is based on the military reports of when the body
itsself first arrived at Bethesda (6:35 PM) versus when the Dallas coffin
arrived.
The body first arrived at 6:35 PM, EST. It was in a shipping casket,
inside of which there was the body, in a body bag. That was a good 20
minutes prior to the time the Naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy
and RFK arrived from Andrews Air Force Base, arrived with the Dallas
coffin (6:55 pm,approx). So, if the first arrival is valid (and I have no
doubt that it is), there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the
Naval ambulance arrived with an empty coffin. The sequence is confirmed in
documents, and even Richard Lipsey, the aide to General Wehle (the CO of
Military District of Washington, whose team met AF-1 at Andrews) came to
realize--for the first time, when I interviewed him at his home in
1998--that two coffins and two ambulances were involved. To repeat:
President Kennedy's arrived, a good 25 minutes before the Dallas coffin,
and it was in a body bag, inside a shipping casket.
As to when this "separation" occurred--that is another issue. Because the
Naval Ambulance came directly from Andrews, nothing could have happened in
Washington D.C. But the Dallas "offload" is an entirely different matter.
Logic dictates that it must have occurred, but it certainly was not
accomplished in full view of Jacqueline Kennedy. That is absurd. To the
contrary, the Kennedy party was drawn to the front of the plane, because
of Johnson's false claim, after boarding AF-1 in Dallas (at about 1:40 PM,
CST) that RFK told him that he should be sworn in, prior to takeoff. RFK
never told that to LBJ, but that is another subject, and I don't choose to
debate that here. The simple fact is: I never said any such thing as Mr.
Bugliosi represents I did, and if Mr. Bugliosi doesn't know that, he is
either reckless, or a complete fool. Bugliosi's filmed statements on this
matter constitute an excellent example of what the words "reckless
disregard of the truth" are all about. (See excerpt below my typed
signature)
Second, Bugliosi's knowledge of the medical area is apparently so
slim--either that, or he is utterly incompetent--that he did not know that
Paul O'Connor, the Bethesda medical technician who opened the body bag
(and this is all in O'Connor's HSCA "Outside Contact Report") also said
that the President's body arrived with an empty cranium. Indeed, there are
three things that O'Connor said, and they usually have been stated, as a
"triplet", by O'Connor:
(1) That the body arrived in a shipping casket (2) That the body arrived
in a body bag (3) That the cranium was, essentially, empty
Now let me focus on the third allegation--that the body arrived with an
empty cranium; i.e., that there already had been work, done on the body,
prior to its arrival in the Bethesda morgue.
Putting aside, for the moment, whether that is true, I'd like to address
Bugliosi's knowledge on this point--i.e., what Bugliosi knew, and when he
knew it--because this is an important distinction. Why? Because it goes
to the heart of (a) whether Bugliosi knew (or knows) his subject and (b)
just who is the accountable party for what is said in the text, and the
serious error that was made, by Bugliosi, in this area.
BUGLIOSI'S FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT O'CONNOR--and BUGLIOSI's apology
At the trial of Lee Oswald, in London, circa 1985, Bugliosi tried to cross
examine O'Connor under the false and mistaken premise that O'Connor had
not told anyone on the HSCA about JFK's body arriving with an empty
cranium. Clearly, if someone makes an allegation of such significance, one
would hope that it would be made at the earliest possible time, and to the
proper authority. Certainly, one should not omit mention of such a thing,
and then tell such a "story" to a free-lance writer years later.
In O'Connor's case, his first opportunity to talk about this would have
been when first interviewed by reps from the HSCA, on August 25, 1977.
In fact, O'Connor had told the HSCA --in 1977-- exactly what he told me,
in our Aug 79 telephone interview, and again on Video, in October
1980---all of which was published in Best Evidence.
But Bugliosi, being a bit of a blowhard, and not being in command of the
facts, cross examined O'Connor aggressively, in London (circa, 1985) on
the mistaken premise that O'Connor had NOT told anyone any such
thing--prior to the time he told it to me. This is amazing, since his 1979
interview with me is spelled out in Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, and I
then filmed O'Connor in October 1980, and that interview appears in the
Best Evidence Video, which was distributed nationally. I think it is
self-evident that O'Connor is perfectly credible. But. . .
For whatever reason, Bugliosi approached O'Connor under the mistaken
premise, apparently, that he had told this information to me, but had not
mentioned it previously.
This is evident in transcripts of the London Weekly Television program
(and even in the Bugliosi chapter on Best Evidence) and it represents a
serious Bugliosi error. Why? Because O'Connor had in fact told the HSCA
interviewers all about the situation, and indeed, apparently told them
what he subsequently told me in August, 1979, in our very first interview.
(Moreover, after being interviewed back in 1977, O'Connor then told the
same thing to the local Florida newspaper).
But, when questioned in London by Bugliosi, O'Connor, flummoxed, answered
in a manner which was not accurate. In other words, asked by the
aggressive Bugliosi WHY he hadn't talked of this before, O'Connor went
along with Bugliosi's false premise; and essentially (and erroneously)
replied that well, he was under orders not to talk.
From this, Bugliosi drew the false inference that O'Connor had not in fact
mentioned any of this before. But Bugliosi was entirely wrong on this
point, because O'Connor had in fact told it all to the HSCA interviewers
back in 1977.
1993/1994: O'CONNOR'S 1977/78 STATEMENTS RELEASED
When, as a result of the 1992 JFK Records Act, many of the HSCA documents
were released in 1993/94, included was the Paul O'Connor interview, dated
August 25, 1977, in which said exactly that--that the cranium was, in
effect, empty.
Those O'Connor interviews (and there were two of them) were all released
about 1994. But Bugliosi, now writing about all this some 10 years (or
perhaps even 20 years) later, STILL did not know this. He STILL
mistakenly believed that O'Connor had NOT told the HSCA what was in Best
Evidence--which was based on my August, 1979 telephone interview with
O'Connor; and which was repeated, on camera, in October 1980, and is seen
on the Best Evidence Video. In my interview with him in August, 1979,
O'Connor makes clear that he didn't have to do any work to remove the
President's brain, because it was already gone. Further, the so -called
tracheotomy incision was also puzzling to O'Connor. As he told me, "You
wouldn't do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain."
But back to Bugliosi, and his major error in this area. When it came to
writing up his chapter pertaining to Best Evidence, either Bugliosi (or a
subcontractor, if another writer was involved) wrote it up incorrectly in
his book. Consequently, on the pages of Reclaiming History (See pp.
1068-1069), Bugliosi AGAIN tried to impeach O'Connor with the same old
false argument, the implication being that O'Connor made something up for
my benefit! To see how this played out, let's return to 1985, and
O'Connor's appearance at the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.
BUGLIOSI AND PAUL O'CONNOR--CIRCA, 1985
Here is a snippet of Bugliosi's 1985 questioning of O'Connor, as published
in Bugliosi's 2007 book:
QUESTION: The problem, Mr. O'Connor, is that on August 25, 1979, over a
year after you spoke to the investigators from the House Select Committee
on Assassinations, you were contacted by author David Lifton.
Answer: That's correct."
QUESTION: And you told me, and I hold you to it now, that he didn't ask
you either, but you volunteered it to him?"
Answer: "Yes."
QUESTION: And you're a big part of that book, right?"
Answer: "I have a chapter in it, yes."
The implication, from Bugliosi's 1985 cross examination, which was then
written in the text of his chapter about Best Evidence, was that Paul
O'Connor had not mentioned any of this, until he "volunteered" it to me.
This now set the stage for a first rate fiasco. Bugliosi's manuscript was
turned in and the process of setting it in type was well underway by the
time, presumably in early 2007, that Bugliosi learned of his error. I
would like to have been a fly on the wall when it all happened, because I
can just imagine his chagrin at realizing the major legal error he was
about to make:
(Speculating. . ): " OOOPS!. . .Oh my gosh! O'Connor DID mention it to
the HSCA after all. And I have only one of the two reports--the second
one! Yikes, what a mistake!" etc.
Indeed, there were TWO reports, and--for whatever reason--Bugliosi was in
possession of only one.
So now, the text having already been set in type, Bugliosi was forced to
apologize to O'Connor, in a lengthy footnote at the bottom of the page,
for having slammed him in the text!
So, turn to page 1069 of Bugliosi's book, and you will find an apology (to
O'Connor).
BUGLIOSI'S APOLOGY TO PAUL O'CONNOR
Quoting from page 1069, the footnote at the bottom:
"I am here to report that years later I came into possession of another
HSCA document containing an interview of O'Connor conducted by HSCA
investigators at an earlier time, August 25, 1977, in which O'Connor DID
tell them (emphasis in the original) that there was "nothing left in the
[president's] cranium but splattered brain matter" (HSCA Record 180 -
10107-10448].
Then he went on to explain how this bizarre situation had arisen,
attempting to cast the blame on Paul O'Connor.
CONTINUING WITH THE BUGLIOSI APOLOGIA:
"O'Connor, in London, had apparently forgotten he had told HSCA
investigators this earlier and hence DID NOT CORRECT ME DURING MY CROSS
EXAMINATION OF HIM. (my emphasis added--dsl).
Bugliosi then continues: "Though my misleading cross-examination of him in
London was unintentional on my part--only being in possession of his 1978
interview--I owe him an apology, which I am herein giving."
But then Bugliosi cannot leave well enough alone, and now he points the
finger at O'Connor (!):
Continuing: "But the point also has to be made that he [O'Connor] did not
reiterate (as he might be expected to do about such an incredible
discovery [no brain] that meant so much to him) his observation when he
was interviewed in 1978."
In other words, according to Bugliosi, it is not only the witness's
responsibility to speak up as soon as possible, but then to continue
making the same statement, again and again, just in case Mr. Bugliosi, or
his minions, don't have all copies of the statement; and then to "correct"
Mr. Bugliosi when the witness is incorrectly cross-examined!
Resuming now with my own commentary:
What apparently happened here is that someone, apparently at the last
minute (publishing wise), caught Bugliosi in a very serious error; the
text was already set in type and so it was too late to correct the text,
and so Bugliosi's apology was inserted at the bottom of the page. But
then, as I said, he could not leave well enough alone, and so Bugliosi
gracelessly uses the space allotted to him to further insult O'Connor:
QUOTING FROM BUGLIOSI'S APOLOGY: "Even before acquiring the 1977
interview, my overall sense of O'Connor is that is unquestioned error
about the president's brain being gone was more the result of confusion
than duplicity on his part. His recollection of of what took place on the
night of the autopsy is very poor, to say the least."
Of course, in making these inferences, Bugliosi ignores the fact that two
FBI agents present, who made notes during the autopsy, wrote in their
report that, at the time the body was unwrapped, it was "apparent" that
there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the
skull"--and this was backed up by my 1966 interview with Agent Sibert, who
told me that "the report stands," and FBI Director Hoover, himself, who
said, in November 1966, that FBI reports record "the oral statements made
by the autopsy doctors at the time of autopsy," contrasting that with the
"final conclusions" of the examination.
In short, Bugliosi has the audacity to STILL blame O'Connor (in the manner
of one who "blames the victim") for not "re-iterating" the "empty cranium"
statement, in a second interview.
On this subject of what Paul O'Connor said and when he said it: I once
counted up all the statements--the HSCA interview, and numerous stories in
the Florida newspapers, dating back to the time he was interviewed by the
HSCA (1977), and then again after my book was published (Jan 1981), in
which O'Connor made the statement that the President's body arrived in a
body bag, inside a shipping casket, and that there was an empty cranium.
I think there were about eight such statements, at least. O'Connor's
story never changed. And so the answer is: "Yes, Mr. Bugliosi, O'Connor
said that repeatedly. . "--whether you were ignorant of that fact or not!
BUGLIOSI AND THE "POST-MORTEM" APOLOGY
One other matter: normally, apologies are extended to "live" people.
Apparently, Bugliosi was unaware that O'Connor passed away in September
2006, before Bugliosi's final manuscript was turned in. However, if he
wishes to fly to Florida and find out where he is buried, and put flowers,
and perhaps a note, on his grave, I'm sure that the O'Connor family would
appreciate that. No one likes to see their next of kin slammed in a book,
by an author who had so little knowledge of the record that he didn't know
what the witness said in his very first interview with the Government, and
who's apology is threaded through with "blame the victim" terminology.
* * *
In writing the above, I have by no means exhausted my information on the
subject of ghostwriting. Nor do I have any real interest in figuring out
who wrote the original drafts of each and every chapter, or who may have
sent Bugliosi extensive research memoranda from which he dictated various
sections (because they do seem to be written in markedly different
styles). But since I know about two ghostwriting situations--with signed
contracts and payments in each case--one wonders how many other
"subcontractors" there are. No doubt, Bugliosi wrote some (and perhaps a
lot) of his own book--certainly, the bombast, ridicule, and insults which
are threaded through the book almost as "add ons" to what otherwise
appears to be sober writing, are all his. Calling people insane, and
unhinged is apparently his style. But I am just sick and tired of
Bugliosi misrepresentations about my own work, and the way he tries to
present himself publicly as an "expert" in all the different areas of the
JFK case. Further, this behavior emanates from a guy that repeatedly
red-baits the various critics (see his chapter on History of the Movement,
or on Mark Lane) and who compares the research community to microbes
("conspiracy theorists starting to multiply like bacteria"-p. 993) who
then receive "oxygen" when documents are released on the FOIA ("Moreover,
the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 guaranteed almost
perpetual oxygen to the movement. .[same page].
There is nothing honorable or nice about the way Bugliosi writes about
these issues, or addresses an adversary. To put it mildly, Bugliosi has an
"attitude" problem. He is going to solve it all--its as if his mantra is:
"Do not fear, now that Bugliosi is here."
* * *
The JFK assassination is a very complex problem. It can easily take a
committee to do the work, especially if one is tackling multiple aspects.
Do not forget that it took the WC about 14 attorneys 1 year to do the job.
So the WCR--whether they got it right or wrong--represents about 14 man
years of work. That's how complex the data base is, and that was in 1964,
when the Archives accepted "32 four drawer filing cabinets" as the
"archive" of the Warren Commission's records.
The NY Times reporter who interviewed me on the subject noted that Mr.
Bugliosi "is not an immodest man," an understatement if there ever was
one.
If, as Mr. Bugliosi says, "this is a book of inserts," then I believe I
know very well what that probably means. Substantial amounts of writing
were done by third parties, indicative of the two signed contracts
mentioned earlier. As was stated to me by one person who knew of the
situation, "Vince adds the bombast." That may mean his having dictated
thousands of words, perhaps tens of thousands, of words. It may mean the
process went on for years as his book is filled with bombast, personal
attacks, and ridicule, but it is not the same as writing all of the book
"from the ground up."
Normally, when an author writes a chapter in a non-fiction work, it comes
out of his brain, based on his research. Then there is re-writing, and
often plenty of it. But it does not start with a draft submitted by a
third party, to which the author adds "inserts", or something which is
very slim and sketchy, and in which paid writers then flesh out the
details, in accordance with some contract--the very existence of which is
to be kept secret.
I am sure that Bugliosi did a lot of work on this book. Even with all the
help he got, and perhaps driven by all the pent up anger of the lone
nutters who contributed (see his Acknowledgements, for details) I have
little doubt that he spent a good five years on the project. He was so
discouraged, at the end, that he talks of the Kennedy assassination as "a
bottomless pit." ("I can tell those who have not seriously studied the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy that it is a bottomless pit.. .
I found, as others also have, that there is no bottom to the pile in the
Kennedy case. It is endless. . [p. 1513]). But to claim that it is all
his own writing and, even more important, his own analyses--when the work
of third parties played such a serious role, and when there are signed
contracts with other writers, (contracts so serious that the book, in two
previous incarnations, was to be "by Bugliosi" but "with" another
writer)--is to misrepresent what this book is all about.
In my opinion--and I am entitled to that--Bugliosi's book is, in many
ways, a glorified anthology, assembled by a man with a huge ego, in large
part based on the research and thinking of others (research of course with
which Mr. Bugliosi agrees) and then threaded through with his own legal
"insights" but also his own insulting commentary. If Mr. Bugliosi wants
to make ad hominem attacks, then perhaps he should try submitting to the
nearest Op-Ed page; or distributing pamphlets from a soapbox. If he wants
to write about the JFK case, he should stick to the facts. Reclaiming
History was written (or perhaps "assembled," is a better word) by someone
who wants to take credit for it all, without acknowledging the truth about
how the book was written.
That's why I have referred to this book as "Helter Smelter."
DSL
* * * EXCERPT OF BUGLIOSI'S FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT BEST EVIDENCE* * *
. . . David Lifton , a meticulous researcher, I am sure he is a nice
fellow but he came up with this cockamamie theory - well, the President9s
body is being flown on Air Force One from Dallas, Texas to the Nation9s
Capital. And the casket is in the back of the plane and who is sitting
next to the casket - the whole trip - Jacqueline, the President's wife and
close members of JFK staff - they are there the whole trip. And according
to lifton some conspirators, he doesn't say who they are, but some
conspirators went back there, opened up the casket - I am not making this
up, you can't make up stuff like - this is too far out - open up the
casket, removed Kennedy's body from the casket without anyone noticing and
put the body in a baggage hold.
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
eca...@tx.rr.com
Three questions for you:
1) Regarding your close inspection of the Moorman
photograph: Since you described an extremely clear
image of a man off to the right side of the picture
- just behind Zapruder who was holding something
horizontal in his hands," why didn't you include
that image among the many photos in "Best Evidence?"
2) Has your opinion of the "head snap" now changed
since you wrote BE?
3) Is there any validity to the charge that you at
one time believed there were some sort of portable
bushes/foliage in DP?
Ed Cage
1457Jul607
David Von Pein
>>> "If he {Vincent Bugliosi} wants to write about the JFK case, he should
stick to the facts." <<<
Can David Lifton REALLY not see the astounding hypocrisy that resides
within the above statement.
Mr. Lifton has no more been able to "stick to the facts" in his book "Best
Evidence" than a snowflake could survive in Death Valley in August.
Absolutely incredible. (But hilarious.)
>>> "Reclaiming History was written (or perhaps "assembled," is a better
word) by someone who wants to take credit for it all, without
acknowledging the truth about how the book was written." <<<
I guess it's going to take that lawsuit (which Vince B. hinted at) to get
David S. Lifton to shut his trap about the ghostwriting crap after all.
But, like any good conspiracy-loving theorist, Lifton (whose
"ghostwriting" theory has already been totally debunked) will continue to
spin the story to his own perceived advantage for months or years to come.
Absolutely pathetic.
I'd remind Mr. Lifton to glance at pages 1514 and 1515 of "Reclaiming
History", where Mr. Bugliosi gives full credit to the "two people who made
noteworthy writing contributions" (VB's direct quote from pp. 1514-1515).
Those "two people" being Dale K. Myers and Fred Haines.
So much for not "acknowledging" their "noteworthy writing contributions".
A few more reminders for Mr. Lifton........
"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research for
everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not feeling
comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page 1516;
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY";
Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8594afea970a9462
~~~~~~
Culled excerpts from Rosemary Newton's response to Mr. Lifton's charges:
"This is in response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious and
contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book, 'Reclaiming History'.
.... I say, unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's book was
ghostwritten. How do I know? Simple. I was the one (as Mr. Bugliosi's
secretary for many years in the writing of this book) who transcribed a
great number of tapes of his dictation and, much more, and with no
exaggeration, thousands of yellow pad sheets of his handwriting as well as
his handwritten faxes on every single section of the book. I can vouch for
the fact that Vincent Bugliosi is a man of integrity, principle, and I
might add, a perfectionist with a capital "P".
"He is someone who has spent years researching this subject, as evidenced
by the over 10,000 citations in his book (perhaps the most heavily sourced
non-fiction book of any kind ever), which included not only his countless
telephone calls and letters, but personal interviews as well. Indeed, if
anyone looks at the 170 pages of citations (source notes) in the CD
endnote, you will see that at least 99% of the interviews upon which Mr.
Bugliosi's book was, in considerable part, written, were interviews of
witnesses he personally conducted. That, Mr. Lifton, if you are reading
this, is what an author of Vincent Bugliosi's caliber does.
"What could possibly cause you, Mr. Lifton, to tell such an unmitigated
falsehood? ....
"I might add that I took notice of the fact that you did not dwell on the
content of Mr. Bugliosi's dealing with specific issues (e.g., autopsy,
acoustic, Zapruder film, etc.). Instead, you have made an allegation that
not only is totally false, but completely irrelevant to the merits of the
book. By the way, Mr. Lifton (if you're still reading this), you called
Vincent Bugliosi a "street bully" in his writing style. But I thought you
said ghostwriters wrote his book?"
/s/Rosemary Newton
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fbd56181ee3c6af1/?hl=en#
~~~~~~
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0de08844600b8c7a
Anthony Marsh
David S. Lifton wrote:
> Ghostwriting is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with it=
,=20
> per se.
>=20
>=20
> In writing Helter Skelter, Vince Bugliosi availed himself of the servic=
es=20
> of author Kurt Gentry, and the title page on the book reads by Bugliosi=
=20
> "with Kurt Gentry." Those of us who knew Kurt Gentry know that he wrote=
=20
> Helter Skelter. It was an honorable and overt ghosting job--overt in th=
e=20
> sense that Kurt's name was on the cover of the book.
>=20
> Ghosting is done all the time, and it is not necessarily publicized.=20
> Publishers are not running a CIA type operation. They can request--even=
=20
> demand--that the writing contribution be kept secret; alternatively it =
may=20
> be acknowledged right on the cover of the book, as in "by Joe Smith, wi=
th=20
> Eric Jones."
>=20
>=20
> Let's now turn to "Reclaiming History," which was originally titled "FI=
NAL=20
> VERDICT," and was advertised under that title for many years on Amazon.
>=20
> Bugliosi's grew out of the role he played as "prosecutor" (opposite=20
> Spence, as defense attorney) in the London Weekly Television "Trial of =
Lee=20
> Harvey Oswald," which was produced by LWT's Mark Redhead, and broadcast=
=20
> about 1985/86 (on SHOWTIME).
>=20
>=20
> In the late 1980s, in the aftermath of the London Weekly Television "Tr=
ial=20
> of Oswald", and then its broadcast on SHOWTIME, Bugliosi obtained a=20
> contract from W W Norton for a hefty sum, reputed to be close to $1M. I=
=20
> cannot vouch for this number. But its what I was told.
>=20
> Soon thereafter, Bugliosi made an arrangement with a Los Angeles=20
> writer--whether he would be called a ghostwriter or just a "writer" or =
a=20
> "writing subcontractor"--is really besides the point. In many ways, it=
is=20
> a "distinction without a difference," (as the lawyers might say.) The=20
> writer was Fred Haines, and for years, Haines worked on the sections of=
=20
> Bugliosi's book pertaining to the life of Oswald. In other words, he wa=
s=20
> assigned the Oswald biography, the same area that was covered in the=20
> Warren Report by Attorneys Jenner and Liebeler. (See Appendix 13 of the=
=20
> WCR, the biographical appendix, or Chapter 7 of the WCR, for the=20
> Jenner-Liebeler "chapter").
>=20
>=20
> Haines received regular payments from W W Norton. (Those who save thei=
r=20
> old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Those who=20
> save check stubs will find payments made by Norton to Fred Haines. The=
=20
> arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the b=
ook=20
> would be "by" Bugliosi, but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to th=
e=20
> titling of Helter Skelter, which was "by" Bugliosi, but "with Kurt=20
> Gentry." In other words, similar to the case with Gentry, Haines had a=20
> separate contract with the publisher. In his acknowledgements, Bugliosi=
=20
> gives a very generous credit to Fred Haines. He's a fine writer, a goo=
d=20
> thinker, and a very polite man. Unlike Bugliosi, who engages in persona=
l=20
> insults and ridicule, Fred's a gentleman.
>=20
> In mid-October 1999, Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" to W W Norton, a=
nd=20
> I put the words in quotes, because there was a serious problem with it=20
> being published in the form it was then in. Its easy to parody the=20
> Bulgiosi situation at that point in time: there was "good news" and "ba=
d=20
> news". The "good news" was that he turned in 3000 pages, a very outsize=
d=20
> manuscript by ordinary publishing standards. The bad news: that was "pa=
rt=20
> 1".
>=20
>=20
> Bugliosi told Norton that this 3000 page manuscript was something that =
he=20
> had worked on it for some ten years. He said that this manuscript was=20
> "finished" and could be published on its own, and noted that it could b=
e=20
> divided into two books. That was up to the publisher. He said that as =
far=20
> as he was concerned that was just "the first part of it", but that, if=20
> Norton wanted to go for Part 2--which involved critiquing in some detai=
l=20
> all the different conspiracy theories--why then that would have to be=20
> negotiated. In other words, another arrangement would have to be made.=
=20
> Bugliosi's position was that he had now fulfilled his contract.
>=20
> A new arrangement then evolved. In the aftermath of this, Bugliosi took=
a=20
> much more direct role in the writing of the book, because, as one insid=
er=20
> told me, "Vince has the polemics. He's full of bombast." As the summer =
of=20
> 2001 approached, both Bugliosi and the same hired writer both had=20
> contracts with Norton. The hired writer was receiving payments at least=
=20
> through that time.
>=20
>=20
> But not too long afterwards, the writer had to leave the project becaus=
e=20
> of medical problems. So now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about =
for=20
> further editorial assistance, because the book was (a) not really=20
> complete, in accordance with Bugliosi's grand design of criticizing all=
=20
> the conspiracy theories; and (b) everything was complicated by the rele=
ase=20
> of a huge amount of archival material, after the ARRB shut down on=20
> 9/30/98.
>=20
>=20
> Included in that material was significant new data about the medical=20
> evidence, and a major amount of work done by the ARRB's Doug Horne. To =
put=20
> it mildly, Bugliosi now had to face the fact that the record was loaded=
=20
> with material, in the medical area, that was supportive of Best Evidenc=
e.
>=20
>=20
> (Horne and I used to wonder about this: what was Bugliosi going to do w=
ith=20
> all this "new evidence"? The answer, it turns out, is simple: included=
=20
> would be his personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about=
=20
> four times.) But let's not go there--at least, not yet.
>=20
>=20
> This brings us to the next phase, and the next ghostwriter (or=20
> subcontractor, or whatever term suits your fancy). Remember: Oswald was=
=20
> done. The story of Oswald, the "killer" (as Bugliosi refers to him) wa=
s=20
> complete. But that still left a lot of work, and one area was Dealey=20
> Plaza. Another fact was that it was Bugliosi's goal to tackle all the m=
any=20
> conspiracy theories. Since he was apparently determined to comment upon=
,=20
> and attempt to knock down, all other conspiracy theories--he had to bec=
ome=20
> knowledgeable about each and every one of them (or hire someone who was=
).=20
> It is not very complicated to become knowledgeable about each and every=
=20
> conspiracy theory--it just takes a lot of time.
>=20
> Moreover, the problem is not made easier by the fact that Bugliosi does=
=20
> not use a computer and is not conversant with the Internet. He writes i=
n=20
> longhand, and dictates, but does not do email. The most advanced level =
of=20
> technology with which Bugliosi is comfortable is fax.
>=20
> But let's return to Dealey Plaza.
>=20
> ENTER GHOST-WRITER #2
>=20
>=20
> Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired another writer--this time, one w=
ith=20
> expertise in the area of the shots, the Single Bullet theory, the medic=
al=20
> evidence, and the acoustics.
>=20
>=20
> Again, a formal contract was drawn up. Again, the credit on the book w=
as=20
> changed. This time, Bugliosi's book--which was titled "FINAL=20
> VERDICT"--would now bear the authorial credit that it was written "BY=20
> Vincent Bugliosi", but now "with" the second writer (or, using the=20
> vernacular, the second ghostwriter, co-writer, or whatever term one=20
> chooses to describe the situation).
>=20
> Once again, Norton paid money--significant money--and a lot of work in =
the=20
> Dealey Plaza area was done by this second person. In the process, a fi=
nal=20
> arrangement had to be made with the first writer---i.e., he had to be=20
> "paid off" so there would be an equitable conclusion to his arrangement=
.
>=20
>=20
> But then, another complication developed.
>=20
>=20
> WRITER #2 LEAVES
>=20
>=20
> The creative relationship between Bugliosi and Writer #2 proved=20
> incompatible, and had to be dissolved. As a result, what can best be=20
> described as "a literary divorce" was arranged, and another contract--t=
he=20
> "divorce"--had to be executed. That was done successfully, and one=20
> provision of the "divorce" was that the party involved could=20
> never--ever--mention that he was ever "married."
>=20
> So now, by this point, Bugliosi was like a man who was married twice (i=
n=20
> the literary sense) over a period of some 15 years. Bugliosi had two=20
> hired writers--each of which were to share the credit on this book. One=
=20
> wrote much--if not all--of "the Oswald biography" (which is about 260=20
> pages, as published). The other wrote sections on Dealey Plaza,=20
> acoustics, etc.--i.e., much of the technical stuff.
>=20
> Each had a signed contract, in which they would be named, on the title=20
> page of the book. Each arrangement had to be dissolved; first, the=20
> arrangement with Writer #1, when he had to leave the project; second, t=
he=20
> arrangement with writer #2, when he came on board, and then again, when=
he=20
> left.
>=20
>=20
> So far, in this narrative, I have mentioned TWO ghostwriters that Bugli=
osi=20
> employed, in connection with writing his manuscript--one with regard to=
=20
> Oswald (Fred Haines) and a second with regard to Dealey Plaza (Writer #=
2).
>=20
>=20
> If you will look in his acknowledgements, you will see that much of thi=
s=20
> is practically stated. Not only does Bugliosi give a generous=20
> acknowledgement of Haines, he talks of his book in terms of its being "=
a=20
> book of inserts." This is not insignificant, because when hires a write=
r=20
> to do the original draft, or provides a sketchy outline, and tasks a=20
> second party to do the actual writing, then the "inserting" process=20
> becomes very important. "Inserts" represent the modifications, and the=20
> place where the author injects himself. Maybe he'll modify a fact, or a=
=20
> paragraph, or maybe he'll dictate a complete re-write into a recorder. =
=20
> It all depends.
>=20
>=20
> QUOTING NOW from page 1514, the second page of Bugliosi's=20
> Acknowledgements:
>=20
>=20
> "In addition to transcribing, from my audio dictation, the contents of =
72=20
> sixty-minute and 8 ninety minute tapes. . . Rosemary (his secretary) ha=
d=20
> to decipher and type at least a thousand (maybe many more ) inserts of=20
> mine handwritten in pencil on yellow legal paper. Though resulting from=
=20
> much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a=20
> book of inserts. UNQUOTE
>=20
Hey, that's not fair. You are actually quoting the author himself to=20
prove that he is a liar. He keeps going around claiming that he wrote=20
the entire book on yellow legal pads. He says nothing in his public=20
speaking engagements about the standard author process of dictating into=20
a recorder and adding written corrections.
>=20
> Bugliosi then goes on to explain the role these "inserts" played. He=20
> states that the "first drafts" of various sections he wrote, and "which=
I=20
> then dictated, were not overly long. But then they all increased far=20
> beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts."
>=20
>=20
> In writing what I have above, I have by no means put forth all the=20
> knowledge I have pertaining to this situation. I have tried to stick to=
=20
> what is relevant--and to rebut the false charge, coming from Bugliosi,=20
> that implies that my statements are false. They are not. And so I do n=
ot=20
> owe Mr. Bugliosi any apology. In fact, he really owes the public an "up=
=20
> front" explanation of exactly how this book, with its strengths (and it=
s=20
> serious weaknesses) was created--because this is not some book on an=20
> arcane subject, but rather a book on one of the most important events o=
f=20
> the 20th century.
>=20
>=20
> If he wrote all of it, then kudos to him. But if, because of these=20
> collateral arrangements, other were afforded the opportunity to express=
=20
> themselves on his pages, and under the umbrella of a book bearing his n=
ame=20
> as sole author, and in particular if those "others" include well known=20
> lone nutters, then that should be known, too.
>=20
>=20
> The subject is too important for such game-playing. The issue is=20
> accountability. This is not a book about the weather, or a personal=20
> memoir, where a busy person hires a writer to set down the story of his=
=20
> life (a perfectly legitimate activity), but about the murder of a=20
> president.
>=20
>=20
> There is one other thing I'd like to say, and which gives the lie to ju=
st=20
> what is in this book when it comes to Best Evidence, and Bugliosi.
>=20
>=20
> BUGLIOSI AND BEST EVIDENCE (i.e., Bugliosi on camera)
>=20
>=20
> On the "Reclaiming History" website, Bugliosi can be seen, in a filmed=20
> interview, making false and reckless misrepresentation of what is in Be=
st=20
> Evidence.
>=20
>=20
> Bulgiosi claims that I said that President Kennedy's body was removed f=
rom=20
> the coffin in front of Jacqueline Kennedy--and, presumably, others in t=
he=20
> Kennedy party who were in the tail compartment of Air Force One. (See =
the=20
> transcript below my typed signature). That is the purest garbage--and=20
> Bugliosi shows a complete and reckless disregard for the truth by makin=
g=20
> such statements, on camera, for world wide distribution.
>=20
>=20
> Yes, I sure did say that the President's body was not in the coffin, wh=
en=20
> the plane took off from Dallas at 2:47 CST. That statement, which I am=20
> positive is true, is based on the military reports of when the body=20
> itsself first arrived at Bethesda (6:35 PM) versus when the Dallas coff=
in=20
> arrived.
>=20
>=20
> The body first arrived at 6:35 PM, EST. It was in a shipping casket,=20
> inside of which there was the body, in a body bag. That was a good 20=20
> minutes prior to the time the Naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kenne=
dy=20
> and RFK arrived from Andrews Air Force Base, arrived with the Dallas=20
> coffin (6:55 pm,approx). So, if the first arrival is valid (and I have =
no=20
> doubt that it is), there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the=
=20
> Naval ambulance arrived with an empty coffin. The sequence is confirmed=
in=20
> documents, and even Richard Lipsey, the aide to General Wehle (the CO o=
f=20
> Military District of Washington, whose team met AF-1 at Andrews) came t=
o=20
> realize--for the first time, when I interviewed him at his home in=20
> 1998--that two coffins and two ambulances were involved. To repeat:=20
> President Kennedy's arrived, a good 25 minutes before the Dallas coffin=
,=20
> and it was in a body bag, inside a shipping casket.
>=20
>=20
> As to when this "separation" occurred--that is another issue. Because =
the=20
> Naval Ambulance came directly from Andrews, nothing could have happened=
in=20
> Washington D.C. But the Dallas "offload" is an entirely different matte=
r.
>=20
>=20
> Logic dictates that it must have occurred, but it certainly was not=20
> accomplished in full view of Jacqueline Kennedy. That is absurd. To the=
=20
> contrary, the Kennedy party was drawn to the front of the plane, becaus=
e=20
> of Johnson's false claim, after boarding AF-1 in Dallas (at about 1:40 =
PM,=20
> CST) that RFK told him that he should be sworn in, prior to takeoff. R=
FK=20
> never told that to LBJ, but that is another subject, and I don't choose=
to=20
> debate that here. The simple fact is: I never said any such thing as Mr=
.=20
> Bugliosi represents I did, and if Mr. Bugliosi doesn't know that, he is=
=20
> either reckless, or a complete fool. Bugliosi's filmed statements on t=
his=20
> matter constitute an excellent example of what the words "reckless=20
> disregard of the truth" are all about. (See excerpt below my typed=20
> signature)
>=20
I would submit that it goes beyond being merely reckless. It was a
deliberate misrepresentation intended to defame you. Bugliosi can not
debate the facts, so he demonizes his opponents.
>=20
> Second, Bugliosi's knowledge of the medical area is apparently so=20
> slim--either that, or he is utterly incompetent--that he did not know t=
hat=20
> Paul O'Connor, the Bethesda medical technician who opened the body bag=20
> (and this is all in O'Connor's HSCA "Outside Contact Report") also said=
=20
> that the President's body arrived with an empty cranium. Indeed, there =
are=20
> three things that O'Connor said, and they usually have been stated, as =
a=20
> "triplet", by O'Connor:
>=20
Here I disagree slightly. You can't say that someone is unaware of the
evidence just because he does not happen to agree with your particular
theory and does not believe a particular witness.
>=20
> (1) That the body arrived in a shipping casket (2) That the body arrive=
d=20
> in a body bag (3) That the cranium was, essentially, empty
>=20
>=20
> Now let me focus on the third allegation--that the body arrived with an=
=20
> empty cranium; i.e., that there already had been work, done on the body=
,=20
> prior to its arrival in the Bethesda morgue.
>=20
>=20
> Putting aside, for the moment, whether that is true, I'd like to addres=
s=20
> Bugliosi's knowledge on this point--i.e., what Bugliosi knew, and when =
he=20
> knew it--because this is an important distinction. Why? Because it goe=
s=20
> to the heart of (a) whether Bugliosi knew (or knows) his subject and (b=
)=20
> just who is the accountable party for what is said in the text, and the=
=20
> serious error that was made, by Bugliosi, in this area.
>=20
>=20
> BUGLIOSI'S FALSE STATEMENTS ABOUT O'CONNOR--and BUGLIOSI's apology
>=20
>=20
> At the trial of Lee Oswald, in London, circa 1985, Bugliosi tried to cr=
oss=20
> examine O'Connor under the false and mistaken premise that O'Connor had=
=20
> not told anyone on the HSCA about JFK's body arriving with an empty=20
> cranium. Clearly, if someone makes an allegation of such significance, =
one=20
> would hope that it would be made at the earliest possible time, and to =
the=20
> proper authority. Certainly, one should not omit mention of such a thi=
ng,=20
> and then tell such a "story" to a free-lance writer years later.
>=20
>=20
> In O'Connor's case, his first opportunity to talk about this would have=
=20
> been when first interviewed by reps from the HSCA, on August 25, 1977.
>=20
>=20
> In fact, O'Connor had told the HSCA --in 1977-- exactly what he told me=
,=20
> in our Aug 79 telephone interview, and again on Video, in October=20
> 1980---all of which was published in Best Evidence.
>=20
>=20
> But Bugliosi, being a bit of a blowhard, and not being in command of th=
e=20
> facts, cross examined O'Connor aggressively, in London (circa, 1985) on=
=20
> the mistaken premise that O'Connor had NOT told anyone any such=20
> thing--prior to the time he told it to me. This is amazing, since his 1=
979=20
> interview with me is spelled out in Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, and I=20
> then filmed O'Connor in October 1980, and that interview appears in the=
=20
> Best Evidence Video, which was distributed nationally. I think it is=20
> self-evident that O'Connor is perfectly credible. But. . .
>=20
But this is just symptomatic of Bugliosi's neurological inability to
concentrate on details.
>=20
> For whatever reason, Bugliosi approached O'Connor under the mistaken=20
> premise, apparently, that he had told this information to me, but had n=
ot=20
> mentioned it previously.
>=20
>=20
> This is evident in transcripts of the London Weekly Television program=20
> (and even in the Bugliosi chapter on Best Evidence) and it represents a=
=20
> serious Bugliosi error. Why? Because O'Connor had in fact told the HS=
CA=20
> interviewers all about the situation, and indeed, apparently told them=20
> what he subsequently told me in August, 1979, in our very first intervi=
ew.=20
> (Moreover, after being interviewed back in 1977, O'Connor then told the=
=20
> same thing to the local Florida newspaper).
>=20
>=20
> But, when questioned in London by Bugliosi, O'Connor, flummoxed, answer=
ed=20
> in a manner which was not accurate. In other words, asked by the=20
> aggressive Bugliosi WHY he hadn't talked of this before, O'Connor went=20
> along with Bugliosi's false premise; and essentially (and erroneously)=20
> replied that well, he was under orders not to talk.
>=20
>=20
> From this, Bugliosi drew the false inference that O'Connor had not in f=
act=20
> mentioned any of this before. But Bugliosi was entirely wrong on this=20
> point, because O'Connor had in fact told it all to the HSCA interviewer=
s=20
> back in 1977.
>=20
In defense of Paul O'Connor maybe what he meant was not making it public,
but giving private interviews, as per the orders.
>=20
>=20
> 1993/1994: O'CONNOR'S 1977/78 STATEMENTS RELEASED
>=20
>=20
> When, as a result of the 1992 JFK Records Act, many of the HSCA documen=
ts=20
> were released in 1993/94, included was the Paul O'Connor interview, dat=
ed=20
> August 25, 1977, in which said exactly that--that the cranium was, in=20
> effect, empty.
>=20
>=20
> Those O'Connor interviews (and there were two of them) were all release=
d=20
> about 1994. But Bugliosi, now writing about all this some 10 years (or=20
> perhaps even 20 years) later, STILL did not know this. He STILL=20
> mistakenly believed that O'Connor had NOT told the HSCA what was in Bes=
t=20
> Evidence--which was based on my August, 1979 telephone interview with=20
> O'Connor; and which was repeated, on camera, in October 1980, and is se=
en=20
> on the Best Evidence Video. In my interview with him in August, 1979,=20
> O'Connor makes clear that he didn't have to do any work to remove the=20
> President's brain, because it was already gone. Further, the so -calle=
d=20
> tracheotomy incision was also puzzling to O'Connor. As he told me, "You=
=20
> wouldn't do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain."
>=20
>=20
> But back to Bugliosi, and his major error in this area. When it came t=
o=20
> writing up his chapter pertaining to Best Evidence, either Bugliosi (or=
a=20
> subcontractor, if another writer was involved) wrote it up incorrectly =
in=20
> his book. Consequently, on the pages of Reclaiming History (See pp.=20
> 1068-1069), Bugliosi AGAIN tried to impeach O'Connor with the same old=20
> false argument, the implication being that O'Connor made something up f=
or=20
> my benefit! To see how this played out, let's return to 1985, and=20
> O'Connor's appearance at the Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>=20
>=20
> BUGLIOSI AND PAUL O'CONNOR--CIRCA, 1985
>=20
>=20
> Here is a snippet of Bugliosi's 1985 questioning of O'Connor, as publis=
hed=20
> in Bugliosi's 2007 book:
>=20
>=20
> QUESTION: The problem, Mr. O'Connor, is that on August 25, 1979, over =
a=20
> year after you spoke to the investigators from the House Select Committ=
ee=20
> on Assassinations, you were contacted by author David Lifton.
>=20
>=20
> Answer: That's correct."
>=20
>=20
> QUESTION: And you told me, and I hold you to it now, that he didn't ask=
=20
> you either, but you volunteered it to him?"
>=20
>=20
> Answer: "Yes."
>=20
>=20
> QUESTION: And you're a big part of that book, right?"
>=20
>=20
> Answer: "I have a chapter in it, yes."
>=20
>=20
> The implication, from Bugliosi's 1985 cross examination, which was then=
=20
> written in the text of his chapter about Best Evidence, was that Paul=20
> O'Connor had not mentioned any of this, until he "volunteered" it to me=
.
>=20
>=20
> This now set the stage for a first rate fiasco. Bugliosi's manuscript w=
as=20
> turned in and the process of setting it in type was well underway by th=
e=20
> time, presumably in early 2007, that Bugliosi learned of his error. I=20
> would like to have been a fly on the wall when it all happened, because=
I=20
> can just imagine his chagrin at realizing the major legal error he was=20
> about to make:
>=20
>=20
> (Speculating. . ): " OOOPS!. . .Oh my gosh! O'Connor DID mention it to=
=20
> the HSCA after all. And I have only one of the two reports--the second=
=20
> one! Yikes, what a mistake!" etc.
>=20
>=20
> Indeed, there were TWO reports, and--for whatever reason--Bugliosi was =
in=20
> possession of only one.
>=20
>=20
> So now, the text having already been set in type, Bugliosi was forced t=
o=20
> apologize to O'Connor, in a lengthy footnote at the bottom of the page,=
=20
> for having slammed him in the text!
>=20
Footnotes are sometimes used that way, especially if there is a publishing
deadline. Not enough time to entirely rewrite the book, but easy to change
on a CD.
>=20
> So, turn to page 1069 of Bugliosi's book, and you will find an apology =
(to=20
> O'Connor).
>=20
>=20
> BUGLIOSI'S APOLOGY TO PAUL O'CONNOR
>=20
>=20
> Quoting from page 1069, the footnote at the bottom:
>=20
>=20
> "I am here to report that years later I came into possession of another=
=20
> HSCA document containing an interview of O'Connor conducted by HSCA=20
> investigators at an earlier time, August 25, 1977, in which O'Connor DI=
D=20
> tell them (emphasis in the original) that there was "nothing left in th=
e=20
> [president's] cranium but splattered brain matter" (HSCA Record 180 -=20
> 10107-10448].
>=20
>=20
> Then he went on to explain how this bizarre situation had arisen,=20
> attempting to cast the blame on Paul O'Connor.
>=20
>=20
> CONTINUING WITH THE BUGLIOSI APOLOGIA:
>=20
>=20
> "O'Connor, in London, had apparently forgotten he had told HSCA=20
> investigators this earlier and hence DID NOT CORRECT ME DURING MY CROSS=
=20
> EXAMINATION OF HIM. (my emphasis added--dsl).
>=20
Bugliosi does not allow anyone to correct him.
>=20
> Bugliosi then continues: "Though my misleading cross-examination of him=
in=20
> London was unintentional on my part--only being in possession of his 19=
78=20
> interview--I owe him an apology, which I am herein giving."
>=20
>=20
> But then Bugliosi cannot leave well enough alone, and now he points the=
=20
> finger at O'Connor (!):
>=20
>=20
> Continuing: "But the point also has to be made that he [O'Connor] did n=
ot=20
> reiterate (as he might be expected to do about such an incredible=20
> discovery [no brain] that meant so much to him) his observation when he=
=20
> was interviewed in 1978."
>=20
>=20
> In other words, according to Bugliosi, it is not only the witness's=20
> responsibility to speak up as soon as possible, but then to continue=20
> making the same statement, again and again, just in case Mr. Bugliosi, =
or=20
> his minions, don't have all copies of the statement; and then to "corre=
ct"=20
> Mr. Bugliosi when the witness is incorrectly cross-examined!
>=20
>=20
> Resuming now with my own commentary:
>=20
>=20
> What apparently happened here is that someone, apparently at the last=20
> minute (publishing wise), caught Bugliosi in a very serious error; the=20
> text was already set in type and so it was too late to correct the text=
,=20
> and so Bugliosi's apology was inserted at the bottom of the page. But=20
> then, as I said, he could not leave well enough alone, and so Bugliosi=20
> gracelessly uses the space allotted to him to further insult O'Connor:
>=20
>=20
> QUOTING FROM BUGLIOSI'S APOLOGY: "Even before acquiring the 1977=20
> interview, my overall sense of O'Connor is that is unquestioned error=20
> about the president's brain being gone was more the result of confusion=
=20
> than duplicity on his part. His recollection of of what took place on =
the=20
> night of the autopsy is very poor, to say the least."
>=20
>=20
> Of course, in making these inferences, Bugliosi ignores the fact that t=
wo=20
> FBI agents present, who made notes during the autopsy, wrote in their=20
> report that, at the time the body was unwrapped, it was "apparent" that=
=20
> there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the=20
> skull"--and this was backed up by my 1966 interview with Agent Sibert, =
who=20
> told me that "the report stands," and FBI Director Hoover, himself, who=
=20
> said, in November 1966, that FBI reports record "the oral statements ma=
de=20
> by the autopsy doctors at the time of autopsy," contrasting that with t=
he=20
> "final conclusions" of the examination.
>=20
As I told you before, we now know why Humes thought that there had been
surgery to the top of the head. He saw the gauze squares packed into the
massive head wound and thought they were left over from an operation at
Parkland.
>=20
> In short, Bugliosi has the audacity to STILL blame O'Connor (in the man=
ner=20
> of one who "blames the victim") for not "re-iterating" the "empty crani=
um"=20
> statement, in a second interview.
>=20
>=20
> On this subject of what Paul O'Connor said and when he said it: I once=20
> counted up all the statements--the HSCA interview, and numerous stories=
in=20
> the Florida newspapers, dating back to the time he was interviewed by t=
he=20
> HSCA (1977), and then again after my book was published (Jan 1981), in=20
> which O'Connor made the statement that the President's body arrived in =
a=20
> body bag, inside a shipping casket, and that there was an empty cranium=
. =20
> I think there were about eight such statements, at least. O'Connor's=20
> story never changed. And so the answer is: "Yes, Mr. Bugliosi, O'Connor=
=20
> said that repeatedly. . "--whether you were ignorant of that fact or no=
t!
>=20
>=20
> BUGLIOSI AND THE "POST-MORTEM" APOLOGY
>=20
>=20
> One other matter: normally, apologies are extended to "live" people.=20
> Apparently, Bugliosi was unaware that O'Connor passed away in September=
=20
> 2006, before Bugliosi's final manuscript was turned in. However, if he=20
> wishes to fly to Florida and find out where he is buried, and put flowe=
rs,=20
> and perhaps a note, on his grave, I'm sure that the O'Connor family wou=
ld=20
> appreciate that. No one likes to see their next of kin slammed in a boo=
k,=20
> by an author who had so little knowledge of the record that he didn't k=
now=20
> what the witness said in his very first interview with the Government, =
and=20
> who's apology is threaded through with "blame the victim" terminology.
>=20
>=20
> * * *
>=20
>=20
> In writing the above, I have by no means exhausted my information on th=
e=20
> subject of ghostwriting. Nor do I have any real interest in figuring o=
ut=20
> who wrote the original drafts of each and every chapter, or who may hav=
e=20
> sent Bugliosi extensive research memoranda from which he dictated vario=
us=20
> sections (because they do seem to be written in markedly different=20
> styles). But since I know about two ghostwriting situations--with signe=
d=20
> contracts and payments in each case--one wonders how many other=20
> "subcontractors" there are. No doubt, Bugliosi wrote some (and perhaps=
a=20
> lot) of his own book--certainly, the bombast, ridicule, and insults whi=
ch=20
> are threaded through the book almost as "add ons" to what otherwise=20
> appears to be sober writing, are all his. Calling people insane, and=20
> unhinged is apparently his style. But I am just sick and tired of=20
> Bugliosi misrepresentations about my own work, and the way he tries to=20
> present himself publicly as an "expert" in all the different areas of t=
he=20
> JFK case. Further, this behavior emanates from a guy that repeatedly=20
> red-baits the various critics (see his chapter on History of the Moveme=
nt,=20
> or on Mark Lane) and who compares the research community to microbes=20
> ("conspiracy theorists starting to multiply like bacteria"-p. 993) who=20
> then receive "oxygen" when documents are released on the FOIA ("Moreove=
r,=20
> the passage of the Freedom of Information Act in 1966 guaranteed almost=
=20
> perpetual oxygen to the movement. .[same page].
>=20
>=20
> There is nothing honorable or nice about the way Bugliosi writes about=20
> these issues, or addresses an adversary. To put it mildly, Bugliosi has=
an=20
> "attitude" problem. He is going to solve it all--its as if his mantra i=
s:=20
> "Do not fear, now that Bugliosi is here."
>=20
>=20
> * * *
>=20
>=20
> The JFK assassination is a very complex problem. It can easily take a=20
> committee to do the work, especially if one is tackling multiple aspect=
s.=20
> Do not forget that it took the WC about 14 attorneys 1 year to do the j=
ob.=20
> So the WCR--whether they got it right or wrong--represents about 14 man=
=20
> years of work. That's how complex the data base is, and that was in 196=
4,=20
> when the Archives accepted "32 four drawer filing cabinets" as the=20
> "archive" of the Warren Commission's records.
>=20
>=20
> The NY Times reporter who interviewed me on the subject noted that Mr.=20
> Bugliosi "is not an immodest man," an understatement if there ever was=20
> one.
>=20
>=20
> If, as Mr. Bugliosi says, "this is a book of inserts," then I believe I=
=20
> know very well what that probably means. Substantial amounts of writing=
=20
> were done by third parties, indicative of the two signed contracts=20
> mentioned earlier. As was stated to me by one person who knew of the=20
> situation, "Vince adds the bombast." That may mean his having dictated=
=20
> thousands of words, perhaps tens of thousands, of words. It may mean t=
he=20
> process went on for years as his book is filled with bombast, personal=20
> attacks, and ridicule, but it is not the same as writing all of the boo=
k=20
> "from the ground up."
>=20
Personally, I think it may be more fun to blame all the mistakes on
Rosemary.
>=20
> Normally, when an author writes a chapter in a non-fiction work, it com=
es=20
> out of his brain, based on his research. Then there is re-writing, and=
=20
> often plenty of it. But it does not start with a draft submitted by a=20
> third party, to which the author adds "inserts", or something which is=20
> very slim and sketchy, and in which paid writers then flesh out the=20
> details, in accordance with some contract--the very existence of which =
is=20
> to be kept secret.
>=20
>=20
> I am sure that Bugliosi did a lot of work on this book. Even with all t=
he=20
> help he got, and perhaps driven by all the pent up anger of the lone=20
> nutters who contributed (see his Acknowledgements, for details) I have=20
> little doubt that he spent a good five years on the project. He was so=20
> discouraged, at the end, that he talks of the Kennedy assassination as =
"a=20
> bottomless pit." ("I can tell those who have not seriously studied the=20
> assassination of President John F. Kennedy that it is a bottomless pit.=
. .=20
> I found, as others also have, that there is no bottom to the pile in th=
e=20
> Kennedy case. It is endless. . [p. 1513]). But to claim that it is all=
=20
> his own writing and, even more important, his own analyses--when the wo=
rk=20
> of third parties played such a serious role, and when there are signed=20
> contracts with other writers, (contracts so serious that the book, in t=
wo=20
> previous incarnations, was to be "by Bugliosi" but "with" another=20
> writer)--is to misrepresent what this book is all about.
>=20
>=20
> In my opinion--and I am entitled to that--Bugliosi's book is, in many=20
> ways, a glorified anthology, assembled by a man with a huge ego, in lar=
ge=20
> part based on the research and thinking of others (research of course w=
ith=20
> which Mr. Bugliosi agrees) and then threaded through with his own legal=
=20
> "insights" but also his own insulting commentary. If Mr. Bugliosi want=
s=20
> to make ad hominem attacks, then perhaps he should try submitting to th=
e=20
> nearest Op-Ed page; or distributing pamphlets from a soapbox. If he wa=
nts=20
> to write about the JFK case, he should stick to the facts. Reclaiming=20
> History was written (or perhaps "assembled," is a better word) by someo=
ne=20
> who wants to take credit for it all, without acknowledging the truth ab=
out=20
> how the book was written.
>=20
>=20
> That's why I have referred to this book as "Helter Smelter."
>=20
>=20
> DSL
>=20
>=20
> * * * EXCERPT OF BUGLIOSI'S FALSE STATEMENT ABOUT BEST EVIDENCE* * *
>=20
>=20
> . . . David Lifton , a meticulous researcher, I am sure he is a nice=20
> fellow but he came up with this cockamamie theory - well, the President=
9s=20
> body is being flown on Air Force One from Dallas, Texas to the Nation9s=
=20
> Capital. And the casket is in the back of the plane and who is sitting=20
> next to the casket - the whole trip - Jacqueline, the President's wife =
and=20
> close members of JFK staff - they are there the whole trip. And accordi=
ng=20
> to lifton some conspirators, he doesn't say who they are, but some=20
> conspirators went back there, opened up the casket - I am not making th=
is=20
> up, you can't make up stuff like - this is too far out - open up the=20
> casket, removed Kennedy's body from the casket without anyone noticing =
and=20
> put the body in a baggage hold.
>=20
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>=20
I don't know if you have been reading any of the messages here, but you
may have missed mine about Bugliosi. I had the pleasure of going to his
lecture in Cambridge and being the only person to call him a liar to his
face. Here is the text of the questions I was going to ask him which I
handed to him after his lecture.
Vincent Bugliosi
Why do you continue to lie to the public about this case?
It is your lies and those of the other Warren Commission
defenders which have caused 89% of the public to believe it
was a conspiracy. The public sees that you lie about the
evidence and thinks that, =93Well, if they are lying about all the
evidence, maybe there really was a conspiracy.
On pages 484-485 you cite the Itek report as proving that
JFK's head snapped forward by 2.3 inches between frames
312 and 313. Several people have since pointed out their
error and that what Itek was really measuring was the BLUR
of frame 313.
You dishonestly misrepresent Josiah Thompson by citing his
book Six Seconds in Dallas. He has since repudiated that study
for the same reason as other researchers have pointed out why
the Itek report was wrong. He no longer believes that there was a
head shot from behind. He was impressed by David Wimp's very
careful analysis of the Zapruder film which showed that EVERYONE
in the limo moved forward. Were they all hit by bullets from behind?
His animated GIF allows you to see that the other occupants
continued to move forward after the head shot, especially noticeably
Kellerman. My own study had shown that everyone was moving
forward.
Several Warren Commission defenders are confused about when you claim the
Single Bullet Theory shot happened. In your book all your diagrams depict
it at Z-210, but in your endnotes you say frame 223-224. So, which is it?
Or is your claim that frame 210 is exactl= y the same as frame 224 and
Connally never changed position, despite the fact that he testified that
he was in the process of turning when he was=20 hit?
You are a sloppy researcher. On page 434 you discuss a box seen in
photos of the reinterment and claim that no one knows what it contained
and speculate that it contained the brain. Wrong. You got that CIA
disinformation from Gus Russo. I know, because I bothered to actually
research it. The box had an empty bottom and held nothing. It was placed=20
over a flower to cover and protect it.
You create a lot of strawman arguments, such as why would the
Warren Commission members cover up a conspiracy for the Mafia,
or the CIA or the KGB. What you withhold from your readers are
the Pedro Charles letters and the fact that they are the reason for the
cover-up. Not because they were genuine (they were a CIA hoax), but
because Hoover and LBJ continued to think they were real and could
lead to WWIII. That is the leverage that LBJ used to blackmail the
Warren Commission into participating in the cover-up.
David Von Pein
================
DAVID S. LIFTON SPEWED:
>>> "{Paul} O'Connor's story never changed. And so the answer is: "Yes,
Mr. Bugliosi, O'Connor said that repeatedly..." <<<
What difference does it really make WHEN O'Connor told his three- pronged
fairy tale (body bag/no brain/shipping casket), or how many times he
uttered the same crazy triple tale of absurdity? Via scads of other
evidence, O'Connor was still proven dead-wrong each time he told it.
Yes, Vince made an error when he said O'Connor never told the HSCA his
triple fairy tale prior to 1978. But Vince ACKNOWLEDGES THIS ERROR IN HIS
OWN BOOK. He didn't hide anything. He was being up front concerning the
O'Connor error he made.
But the bigger overall point with respect to Paul O'Connor is: O'Connor
(for whatever reason we can only guess about) said he saw things that just
simply DID NOT OCCUR ON NOV. 22, 1963. And Bugliosi, rightly so, blasts
him regarding those errors.
>>> "I have by no means exhausted my information on the subject of
ghostwriting. Nor do I have any real interest in figuring out who wrote
the original drafts of each and every chapter..." <<<
But it was nice of you, David, not to slander Patricia Lambert's name
again, as you continue your anti-Bugliosi campaign and your unsupportable
quest to prove that "Reclaiming History" was "ghostwritten".
Is Patricia off the hook now? And would you care to apologize for your
error with respect to Ms. Lambert? Or would you rather remain wishy- washy
on that particular subject too?
>>> "{The various sections of "Reclaiming History"} do seem to be written
in markedly different styles." <<<
This is total nonsense, of course. I've read the whole book cover-to-
cover (and all the endnotes too), and there is positively no difference in
writing "style" or technique throughout the book. It's ALL VINCE B. from
start to finish.
And the next silly allegation is?.....
>>> "No doubt, Bugliosi wrote some (and perhaps a lot) of his own book..."
<<<
Gee, how nice of Mr. Lifton to make such a heartwarming concession.
(Who's got the "eyeroll" icon? I need it here....badly.)
>>> "There is nothing honorable or nice about the way Bugliosi writes
about these issues, or addresses an adversary." <<<
What makes you think that conspiracy authors (such as yourself), who have
distorted history and the true facts surrounding the assassination of
President Kennedy for decades on end, deserve the SLIGHTEST bit of
respect...or deserve to be treated "nice"?
You're living in a dream world, Mr. Lifton (and you obviously have been
living in that world ever since your body-altering fantasy began in 1966).
Mr. Bugliosi isn't obligated to play "nice" when dealing with
conspiracy-loving theorists who, as I said, have deliberately distorted
the historical record relating to JFK's death (Jim Garrison and Oliver
Stone to name but two additional examples).
In fact, I think Vince was far too polite to some of the CTers that he
writes about in his book. He could have lambasted them even more than he
did. And they would have deserved it (IMO).
An excerpt from "Reclaiming History".....
"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented
level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the
conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
Page 1066
Sometimes, as they say, the truth hurts, Mr. Lifton.
>>> "To put it mildly, Bugliosi has an "attitude" problem." <<<
Yeah, I think so too....and that's because he didn't bash your stupid
body-stealing theory NEARLY hard enough in his book. You only got 14
pages, David. Stone and Garrison got 90. You should consider suing Vince
for equal time. After all, your nonsense is just as good as Jim's and
Oliver's, right?
>>> "The JFK assassination is a very complex problem." <<<
It's only "complex" due to people like you, who have distorted history
(big-time). Vince Bugliosi is merely "reclaiming" that distorted history.
>>> "The NY Times reporter who interviewed me on the subject noted that
Mr. Bugliosi "is not an immodest man," an understatement if there ever was
one." <<<
LOL. Which means, of course, just the opposite of what the reporter (and
you) intended it to mean. For, if Vince is "not immodest" (as claimed
above)....then he's....modest.
>>> "If, as Mr. Bugliosi says, "this is a book of inserts," then I believe
I know very well what that probably means. Substantial amounts of writing
were done by third parties..." <<<
Another LOL.
This is just EXACTLY the sort of hilarious backward mindset exhibited by
CTers that Mr. Bugliosi talks about (at some length) in "Reclaiming
History"....i.e.,
Vincent Bugliosi (per Lifton's theory) has had his book "ghostwritten" by
many different people, but then Vince just goes right ahead AND PLACES
WORDS IN HIS BOOK THAT (per Lifton) LEAD STRAIGHT TO THE NOTION THAT THE
BOOK WAS, IN FACT, GHOSTWRITTEN (via VB's remark about using gobs of
"inserts").
That's very similar, IMO, to when the CTers claim that a certain JFK-
assassination conspirator did something to advance the "covert, secretive
plot", but then they just went right ahead and WROTE UP A MEMO OR SOME
OTHER DOCUMENT that can be accessed by researchers in future years that
would prove the existence of the conspiracy the plotters should have been
desperately attempting to hide at all costs.
So, per this VB example, I guess Vince wanted to keep it a secret that the
book was ghostwritten, but he decided (for whatever reason) to place in
that very same book evidence (per Lifton) that shows the book was
ghostwritten.
I love the "CT Mindset". (Mainly because I don't have a mindset like
that.) ;)
One more time (for effect)......
"I am proud to say that I have done 99.9 percent of my own research for
everything I wrote in this book (which is typical for me, not feeling
comfortable relying on others to do research for me)." -- Page 1516;
"RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY";
Copyright "2007 by Vincent Bugliosi"
All lies...right, DSL?
And to think...David said on Black Op Radio that he (David Lifton) was
thinking about suing Vincent Bugliosi! That would be like Lee Harvey
Oswald threatening to sue the city of Dallas for false arrest on 11/22/63.
Vince has the conspiracy-loving crowd all worked up into a foaming-at-
the-mouth lather. It's utterly hysterical to watch too....particularly Mr.
Lifton's pathetic attempts (via mile-long "I Was Right After All" type of
posts) to reconcile in his own mind the validity of his worthless
"ghostwriting" tale.
Lifton's next chapter will probably be subtitled --- Bugliosi wrote
nothing! Arlen Specter wrote the whole "RH" tome by himself in
Pennsylvania!
BTW, Vince said on a radio interview that his wife actually came up with
the title for the book ("Reclaiming History")....a title that fits
perfectly, too, IMO. So, I guess this will give Mr. Lifton yet another
"subcontractor" to chew on.
David Von Pein July 6, 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c027e4d0a9f1141a
cdddraftsman
___________
1) A couple of questions : When and will you be apologising for putting
false impressions into the minds of Americans with your book ' Best
Evidence ' , which I must say in all honesty uses the worse evidence
possible to construct the worse confabulation in the long line of
confabulations in regards to the Great JFK Assassination Conspiracy
Hoaxing of America ?
2) Many others have ripped to shreds your thesis on musical caskets , why
do you and do you feel more threatened by Bugliosi's book ? Is it his
prestige , which you lack , or does he hit too many bulls-eye's with his
comments ? America would like to know ?
WhiskyJoe
Mr. Bugliosi's book was ghostwritten but without his knowledge or
consent. A group of unknown authors made extensive modifications to
his final draft as it was being FedExed to the publisher.
Dave Reitzes
> Mr. Bugliosi's book was ghostwritten but without his knowledge or
> consent. A group of unknown authors made extensive modifications
Alterations, as it were.
to
> his final draft as it was being FedExed to the publisher.
Dave
jwrush
kind of guy who writes books for people who can't write at all, but the
ghost writer is never named as being the author of the book.
A co-author writes some of a book, while the real author writes some of it.
Both people go over and edit each other's sections and they exchange ideas.
The main author might write several chapters, while the co-author (who is
usually a more experienced book author) will edit and sometimes re-write
some of the chapters.
Rush
"David S. Lifton" <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:468e7c22....@news.alt.net...
Anthony Marsh
> That's not "ghost writing", it is "co-authoring". A "ghost writer" is the
> kind of guy who writes books for people who can't write at all, but the
> ghost writer is never named as being the author of the book.
>
Right, but you miss two vital points. First, Bugliosi denies ANYTHING
like that. He claims that he wrote 99.9% of his book.
Second, you Kennedy haters here are quick to accuse President Kennedy of
doing something like that, and equally quick to defend fellow Kennedy
haters when they are accused of doing it.
Winston Smith
Hardy har har! Anybody who'd suggest that criminals might tamper with a
body to cover-up evidence of a murder must be "crazy." The Spokane County
medical examiners office must be full of paranoid delusionals! Their
procedures actually require that when the retrieve a body, "The body bag
will be closed, then sealed with a tamper-proof, consecutively numbered
tag."
http://www.spokanecounty.org/medexaminer/pdf/pp/Body_transport_and_handling.pdf
Ha, what off-the-rails nutjobs. And look at these loony-tunes medical
examiners in Kosovo, actually claiming that the police tampered with
bodies of genocide victims:
<quote>
After a thorough inspection of the bodies by KVM, villagers collected the
bodies and transported them to the Racak mosque. Two days later, however,
under heavy arm, the police entered the village and *TOOK THE CORPSES* to
the morgue in Prishtina.
On January 25, head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Prishtina,
Slavisa Dobricanin, announced that autopsies had been conducted on
twenty-one bodies, some of them conducted in the presence of OSCE
personnel. None of the bodies bore the signs of a massacre, he said. The
OSCE did not comment on its impressions of the procedures or the announced
results.
A Finnish pathology team subsequently took over for the OSCE, and began to
participate in the autopsy procedures together with the government
authorities. The team distanced itself from Dobricanin's statements and,
on January 26, expressed concern that there had been a *TAMPERING* with
the evidence, although they did not clarify by whom or when. The results
of the Finns' investigations should be made public in early February.
<quote off>
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/racak.shtml
Man, you can just dismiss ANYTHING the Spokane medical examiner, or a
Finnish doctor, ever has to say!
Gerry Simone (O)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vq6dnd0tUMAn0Qzb...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
insults and ridicule may stem from a style of cross-examination the intent
of which is to test the veracity of statements made by an accused or a
witness.
"David S. Lifton" <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:468e7c22....@news.alt.net...
>
Dave Reitzes
wrote:
> On Jul 7, 1:31 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 6, 11:28?pm, WhiskyJoe <j...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Bugliosi's book was ghostwritten but without his knowledge or
> > > consent. A group of unknown authors made extensive modifications
>
> > Alterations, as it were.
>
> > to
>
> > > his final draft as it was being FedExed to the publisher.
>
> > Dave
>
> Hardy har har!
By a strange coincidence, this is almost precisely what Commander
James J. Humes said to David S. Lifton on the occasion when Lifton
informed Humes, via telephone, of his theory that the wounds examined
by Commander Humes on the evening of November 22, 1963, were not
precisely as they had been earlier that day.
I say "almost precisely," because what Commander Humes actually said
to Lifton was more like, "(Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle)" than "Hardy har
har!" But I don't see any mention of this in Lifton's narration of the
tape-recorded telephone conversation, contained in pp. 256-59 of my
13th edition of BEST EVIDENCE, published 1992.
Have you heard the tape? I have. I found Humes's response to be the
most striking instance of the conversation, but apparently Lifton
disagrees.
To be fair, however, Lifton does include Humes's characterizations of
Lifton's notion as "Ridiculous" and "fanTAStic" (emphasis as in
original).
Anybody who'd suggest that criminals might tamper with a
> body to cover-up evidence of a murder must be "crazy." The Spokane County
> medical examiners office must be full of paranoid delusionals! Their
> procedures actually require that when the retrieve a body, "The body bag
> will be closed, then sealed with a tamper-proof, consecutively numbered
> tag."
>
> http://www.spokanecounty.org/medexaminer/pdf/pp/Body_transport_and_ha...
>
> Ha, what off-the-rails nutjobs. And look at these loony-tunes medical
> examiners in Kosovo, actually claiming that the police tampered with
> bodies of genocide victims:
>
> <quote>
>
> After a thorough inspection of the bodies by KVM, villagers collected the
> bodies and transported them to the Racak mosque. Two days later, however,
> under heavy arm, the police entered the village and *TOOK THE CORPSES* to
> the morgue in Prishtina.
>
> On January 25, head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Prishtina,
> Slavisa Dobricanin, announced that autopsies had been conducted on
> twenty-one bodies, some of them conducted in the presence of OSCE
> personnel. None of the bodies bore the signs of a massacre, he said. The
> OSCE did not comment on its impressions of the procedures or the announced
> results.
>
> A Finnish pathology team subsequently took over for the OSCE, and began to
> participate in the autopsy procedures together with the government
> authorities. The team distanced itself from Dobricanin's statements and,
> on January 26, expressed concern that there had been a *TAMPERING* with
> the evidence, although they did not clarify by whom or when. The results
> of the Finns' investigations should be made public in early February.
>
> <quote off>
>
> http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/racak.shtml
>
> Man, you can just dismiss ANYTHING the Spokane medical examiner, or a
> Finnish doctor, ever has to say!
"Winston," could you please point me to the section of Lifton's book
wherein he details the procedures medical examiners routinely use to
distinguish between pre-mortem and post-mortem injuries on a decedent?
Could you also furnish the names of any (judging by the stridency of
your advocacy of Lifton's theories, there must be many) of the
forensic pathologists or coroners who have gone on record to declare
Lifton's hypothesis of body alteration (e.g., "The body itself had
been made to lie" [p. 181] and decieve the pathologists who examined
it) to be a plausible one. Not a proven fact, mind you. Not even a
likely hypothesis. Merely a plausible one.
Dave
tims...@gmail.com
On Jul 9, 9:56 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> jwrush wrote:
> > That's not "ghost writing", it is "co-authoring". A "ghost writer" is the
> > kind of guy who writes books for people who can't write at all, but the
> > ghost writer is never named as being the author of the book.
>
> Right, but you miss two vital points. First, Bugliosi denies ANYTHING
> like that. He claims that he wrote 99.9% of his book.
> Second, you Kennedy haters here are quick to accuse President Kennedy of
> doing something like that, and equally quick to defend fellow Kennedy
> haters when they are accused of doing it.
>
>
>
> > A co-author writes some of a book, while the real author writes some of it.
> > Both people go over and edit each other's sections and they exchange ideas.
> > The main author might write several chapters, while the co-author (who is
> > usually a more experienced book author) will edit and sometimes re-write
> > some of the chapters.
>
> > Rush
>
> > "David S. Lifton" <dlif...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:468e7c22....@news.alt.net...
> >> Ghostwriting is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with it,
> >> per se.
>
> >> In writing Helter Skelter, Vince Bugliosi availed himself of the services
> >> of author Kurt Gentry, and the title page on the book reads by Bugliosi
> >> "with Kurt Gentry." Those of us who knew Kurt Gentry know that he wrote
> >> Helter Skelter. It was an honorable and overt ghosting job--overt in the
> >> sense that Kurt's name was on the cover of the book.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kennedy haters now, is it Marsh? What happened to WC defenders? Could
it just be that anyone who disagrees with you gets besmirched? You've
got no way of knowing whether jwrush is a "Kennedy hater" or not,
Marsh.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
"Newsgroup Commentator"
Gerry Simone (O)
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your post and also to ask
a question on those shirt collar slits.
There is some recent discussion on this on Dale Myers' site.
If I recall correctly from my reading of Best Evidence way back, you
mentioned that you interviewed the nurse who actually cut off JFK's tie
using a scalpel which accidentally slit the shirt (ergo, the slits are NOT
the result of a penetrating bullet).
Care to recount this please?
"David S. Lifton" <dli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:468e7c22....@news.alt.net...
>
Stug...@aol.com
Could you also furnish the names of any (judging by the stridency of your
advocacy of Lifton's theories, there must be many) of the forensic
pathologists or coroners who have gone on record to declare Lifton's
hypothesis of body alteration (e.g., "The body itself had been made to
lie" [p. 181] and decieve the pathologists who examined it) to be a
plausible one. Not a proven fact, mind you. Not even a likely hypothesis.
Merely a plausible one.
[UNQUOTE]
I like your standard, Dave. And, like many in the research community,
including Gary Aguilar, Cyril Wecht, and others, I am willing to openly
say that this is part of the reason I do not accept Lifton's theory. Now
for the test of the supposedly critically, open-minded, data-driven (per
Rahn himself) LNs for consistency... replace Lifton's name with Rahn's
and "body alteration" with "unique bullet fabrication, packaging and
shipment" and see if you have any better luck than a Lifton supporter...
While you're at it, find a single forensic chemist/statistician who thinks
Sturdivan's statistical analysis of a 14 sized, haphazard sample from a 4
mil. bullet population holds water?
You lose credibility every time you challenge a Lifton and refuse to hold
a Rahn to the same standards.
-Stu
aeffects
perhaps when Dave is finished his questions he can point us towards
where in the WCR-volumes JFK's death certificate resides. Most autopsy
prosecutors understand what those are, even coroners, imagine that!....
Anthony Marsh
A subset. Not all WC defenders are Kennedy haters.
> it just be that anyone who disagrees with you gets besmirched? You've
I disagree with other conspiracy researchers. I sometimes agree with WC
defenders.
> got no way of knowing whether jwrush is a "Kennedy hater" or not,
> Marsh.
>
I would not say something like that unless I got such an impression from
what the person says.
David Von Pein
Yeah, without that document in print somewhere in the WCR, we can't even
be sure if JFK is really deceased or not. Right?
CTers evidently think the Death Certificate supercedes (in significance)
the detailed autopsy report signed by 3 doctors (with the autopsy report
unequivocally stating that JFK was shot twice from behind).
You see...Mr. Healy knows what is really and truly important in this
murder case. The Death Certificate no doubt means much more to him than
does the autopsy report and the never-wavering "JFK Was Shot Only >From
Behind" testimony of all three autopsists that each of them told for
decades on end.
Now, let's get back to more important matters:
About those shoes and socks of Mary Moorman....
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Perhaps when Dave is finished {with} his questions{,} he can point us
> towards where in the WCR-volumes JFK's death certificate resides." <<<
>
>
> Yeah, without that document in print somewhere in the WCR, we can't even
> be sure if JFK is really deceased or not. Right?
>
> CTers evidently think the Death Certificate supercedes (in significance)
> the detailed autopsy report signed by 3 doctors (with the autopsy report
> unequivocally stating that JFK was shot twice from behind).
>
No, but the autopsy report is all lies.
Anthony Marsh
> It wouldn't have any bearing on the rock-solid evidence against Oswald's
> rifle as sole assassination weapon. It would change my core beliefs not a
> whit.
>
> When, on the other hand, Lifton surfaces to remind us all of his lunacy,
> or you yourself support the frequently incoherent and seemingly psychotic
> judgments of the late Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen, we appear to be
> drifting into a world of pure fantasy.
>
> You renounce your fantasy world -- in all necessary detail -- and
> explicitly document your reasons for doing so, and I'll consider being
> more critical of the science behind the NAA analyses.
>
> But I won't be holdly my breath.
>
> Dave
>
> http://www.jfk-online.com
> JFK Online: John F. Kennedy assassinatio
>
>
So, in short, anyone who disagrees with you is a kook.
Dave Reitzes
On Jul 10, 10:53?pm, Stugra...@aol.com wrote:
> [QUOTE]
>
> Could you also furnish the names of any (judging by the stridency of your
> advocacy ofLifton'stheories, there must be many) of the forensic
> pathologists or coroners who have gone on record to declareLifton's
> hypothesis of body alteration (e.g., "The body itself had been made to
> lie" [p. 181] and decieve the pathologists who examined it) to be a
> plausible one. Not a proven fact, mind you. Not even a likely hypothesis.
> Merely a plausible one.
>
> [UNQUOTE]
>
> I like your standard, Dave. And, like many in the research community,
> including Gary Aguilar, Cyril Wecht, and others, I am willing to openly
> say that this is part of the reason I do not acceptLifton'stheory. Now
> for the test of the supposedly critically, open-minded, data-driven (per
> Rahn himself) LNs for consistency... replaceLifton'sname with Rahn's
> and "body alteration" with "unique bullet fabrication, packaging and
> shipment" and see if you have any better luck than aLiftonsupporter...
> While you're at it, find a single forensic chemist/statistician who thinks
> Sturdivan's statistical analysis of a 14 sized, haphazard sample from a 4
> mil. bullet population holds water?
>
> You lose credibility every time you challenge aLiftonand refuse to hold
> a Rahn to the same standards.
>
> -Stu
I'm happy to let the chips fall where they may re: the NAA, Stu. Why
not? It wouldn't have any bearing on the rock-solid evidence against
Oswald's rifle as sole assassination weapon.
When, on the other hand, Lifton surfaces to remind us all of his
medical ignorance and overall lunacy, or you yourself support the
wholly unfounded, frequently incoherent and seemingly psychotic
judgments of the late Jim Garrison and his daffy protege Joan Mellen,
we appear to be drifting completely away from any semblance of
scientific inquiry into a world of, not merely dodgy evidence and
reckless speculation, but pure fantasy.
Tell you what: You renounce your wholly unscientific fantasy world --
in all necessary detail -- and explicitly document your reasons for
doing so, and I'll make a painstaking reanalysis of my standards re:
the science behind the NAA.
Deal?
Dave
David Von Pein
Prove it, Mr. Skeptical.
And, of course, if the AR is "all lies", that means that Finck, Humes,
& Boswell told lie after lie for decades on end every time they said
"JFK was shot twice, and only from above and behind".
Right? How likely is that (times THREE doctors)?
BTW, where are all those non-Oz bullets you told me you know existed?
I'm still waiting to see even one non-C2766 fragment. Let's see it/
them. And then you can make your fortune with your "I Solved The JFK
Case!" monster book. (I still wonder why Tony hasn't published it
yet.)
Winston Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well that's interesting.
It seems a little odd that first you recount how utterly "fanTAStic" Humes
considered the possibility of post mortem alterations, then you assume
Humes would certainly have performed "the procedures medical examiners
routinely use to distinguish between pre-mortem and post- mortem injuries
on a decedent" during the JFK autopsy.
But still, an interesting answer, and I appreciate it.
I see Prof. McAdams has posted some information from an MD named Robert
Artwohl that appears to address some of the issues you've raised. The
difficulty is separating the parts strictly dealing with medical
feasibility from the parts asserting that statements of certain witnesses
prove that there's no way JFK's body has an unbroken chain of custody. I
already know the latter just isn't true. And when an MD brings a
pre-conceived notion like that to the table, it taints the whole analysis.
An MD should assume its possible, and strictly address whether the medical
evidence excludes the possibility of alteration.
Anybody you'd recommend?
aeffects
David,
Why do you insist bring up shoes and socks when I asked a legitimate
question concerning President Kennedy's death certificate?
That you spend YOUR time reviewing and studying in the Dealey Plaza
photographic record is of no concern of mine. Please stay on the
subject. Playing to the public is fine on Amazon.com, on USNET boards
we know that game....
I'm well aware of autopsy prosecutors, their duties and functions. I
want to know the status of the JFK's death certificate during the
Warren Commission hearings, which was well after the completion of
JFK's autopsy..
btw, they're not called "autopsists", the correct term is
'prosecutors'. Perhaps you're NOT the one to answer a simple JFK
assassination related question, I forgot your gig is PR, B-A-D PR....
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184197588.6...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Kenneth A. Rahn
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184185354.1...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
PROSECTORS, David, prosectors. Not prosecutors. Ha, ha!
Ken Rahn
Glenn Sarlitto
> See below.
>
> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Ken,
>
> PROSECTORS, David, prosectors. Not prosecutors. Ha, ha!
>
> Ken Rahn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Healy's vehement "btw, they're not called "autopsists", the
correct term is
'prosecutors'..." sure brought me a few chuckles as well!
With that aside, here's a little something I picked up from YOU TUBE
that reminded me of you and somewhat of your NAA analysis, seeing that
you are a fellow Harry Potter fan. I trust you'll recognize the group
and the song. :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSeBGwNvbKg
GS
Stug...@aol.com
you applied to Lifton-- then the chips have not "fallen away" re:
Rahn's work, they are gone, dead. I know it's hard for the man who
claims to be a maestro of scientific thinking to renounce the
"landmark study" (landmark before he-- Dave-- even read it) but it's
about time you held Rahn accountable for abandoning even a pretense of
scientific objectivity. Plenty of CTs have challenged their own
brethren; when are you willing to do the same? Again, there are
no chips anymore, Dave. The forensic application of the technique
Rahn uses isn't even used anymore by ANYONE including the FBI.
-Stu
Anthony Marsh
Nonsense.
I love when the Know It All WC defenders correct the ignorant conspiracy
believers and get it wrong themselves.
Prosectors, not prosecutors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosector
A prosector is a person with the special task of preparing a dissection
for demonstration, usually in medical schools or hospitals. Many
important anatomists began their careers as prosectors working for
lecturers and demonstrators in anatomy and pathology.
So even prosector may not be the correct word for the situation as a
prosector can do his or her work outside of an autopsy.
And we know forensic pathologist is not applicable either for all three
of the autopsy doctors.
Flunkies may be more accurate, but not as colorful.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "No, but the autopsy report is all lies." <<<
>
> Prove it, Mr. Skeptical.
>
> And, of course, if the AR is "all lies", that means that Finck, Humes,
> & Boswell told lie after lie for decades on end every time they said
> "JFK was shot twice, and only from above and behind".
>
> Right? How likely is that (times THREE doctors)?
>
Quite likely when they were all under military orders.
Martin Shackelford
Bethesda.
Dr. Burkley, present at both locations, said there was a conspiracy.
Dr. Finck testified that higher level military officers interfered with the
autopsy.
After Dr. Humes testified to the HSCA, he said they didn't ask him the right
questions.
Dr. Boswell repeatedly hinted that there were things the three doctors
wanted to say, but couldn't.
Sounds to me like there was something unorthodox going on.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184197588.6...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
LNer.
Martin
"Winston Smith" <outerparty...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1184182053.7...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184185354.1...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
'prosecutors'." <<<
~Laugh Break~
Kinda like Vince B. -- a "prosecutor" -- huh? (Or was Vince a "prosector"?
I'm all confused now.)
BTW, Mr. Dictionary, "autopsist" is a perfectly-acceptable (and better/
clearer, IMO) term for a person who performs an autopsy.....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autopsist
>>> "Perhaps you're [not a sic; miracles ARE possible!] NOT the one to
answer a simple JFK assassination related question. I forgot your gig is
-- {silliness excised} ..." <<<
Well, I gotta tell you, Davey H., if I were searching for a person to try
and answer a simple question re. the JFK murder case, you are one of the
very last people I'd ever talk to. You can't even figure out the SIMPLEST
of things -- like who killed Officer Tippit. (And that's pretty bad when
you can't figure that easy one out.)
Why isn't the Death Certificate published in the WC volumes? Beats me. I
don't have the foggiest. Have you ever asked Specter? Go ask him.
But a more important (and simple) question might be....
Who cares?
aeffects
yep, horrible speller I, and know how to pronounce the title... Must
be a Bugliosi thingy....
> Ken Rahn
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Glenn Sarlitto" <gsar...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1184216629.0...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 11, 9:44 pm, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <k...@uri.edu> wrote:
>> See below.
>>
>>
>> PROSECTORS, David, prosectors. Not prosecutors. Ha, ha!
>>
>> Ken Rahn- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> David Healy's vehement "btw, they're not called "autopsists", the
> correct term is
> 'prosecutors'..." sure brought me a few chuckles as well!
>
> With that aside, here's a little something I picked up from YOU TUBE
> that reminded me of you and somewhat of your NAA analysis, seeing that
> you are a fellow Harry Potter fan. I trust you'll recognize the group
> and the song. :-)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSeBGwNvbKg
>
>
Glenn,
Thanks for the link. It was a lot of fun.
Ken Rahn
Dave Reitzes
> Well that's interesting.
>
> It seems a little odd that first you recount how utterly "fanTAStic" Humes
> considered the possibility of post mortem alterations, then you assume
> Humes would certainly have performed "the procedures medical examiners
> routinely use to distinguish between pre-mortem and post- mortem injuries
> on a decedent" during the JFK autopsy.
The only assumption I'm making is that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were
competent pathologists, which numerous colleagues of theirs have
vouched for, and their extensive individual histories support. There
are any number of indications as to whether a given wound was
inflicted pre- or post-mortem. It would be difficult or even
impossible to determine the cause of death for many individuals if
this were not so. In most cases, a pathologist or coroner would have
to be grossly incompetent not to recognize the difference.
One would never know this from Lifton's book, of course, because
Lifton doesn't address it.
> But still, an interesting answer, and I appreciate it.
>
> I see Prof. McAdams has posted some information from an MD named Robert
> Artwohl that appears to address some of the issues you've raised. The
> difficulty is separating the parts strictly dealing with medical
> feasibility from the parts asserting that statements of certain witnesses
> prove that there's no way JFK's body has an unbroken chain of custody. I
> already know the latter just isn't true.
How do you know that?
And when an MD brings a
> pre-conceived notion like that to the table, it taints the whole analysis.
> An MD should assume its possible, and strictly address whether the medical
> evidence excludes the possibility of alteration.
>
> Anybody you'd recommend?
One of the most respected and experienced forensic pathologists in the
U.S., and very possibly the entire world, has this to say about the
body alteration theory:
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
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 be able to accomplish in a day what Lifton says was done in a few
hours. I have never bought his stuff. It can't be done.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
You may have heard of the forensic pathologist in question. His name
is Cyril Wecht.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> Great sashay, Dave.
I thought we were talking about standards, Stu.
But if you apply a common standard-- ? the one
> you applied to Lifton-- then the chips have not "fallen away" re:
> Rahn's work, they are gone, dead. I know it's hard for the man who
> claims to be a maestro of scientific thinking
I certainly try my best, Stu. I'm sorry if that upsets you.
to renounce the
> "landmark study" (landmark before he-- Dave-- even read it)
Stu's been fuming about my enthusiasm about Ken's involvement in this
field for (literally) years. The statement he's misrespresented any
number of times is this one:
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 15:59:58 GMT
Local: Mon, Mar 5 2001 11:59 am
Subject: A pat on the back for Ken Rahn
I haven't had the time yet to give Ken Rahn's NAA monograph the time
it
deserves, but it looks to me like a potential milestone in the
assassination
inquiry.
I look forward to what I hope, perhaps naively, will be some informed,
enlightened, objective debate of its conclusions.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------
Wow, what a horribly misguided thing for me to say about the very
first independent analysis of Vincent Guinn's HSCA work ever conducted
by a qualified expert. Is my face ever red!
but it's
> about time you held Rahn accountable for abandoning even a pretense of
> scientific objectivity.
I can't hold Ken responsible for your opinions, Stu.
Meanwhile, if you need me to be more specific about what I asked you
before: if you're so dedicated to the scientific method, why is it you
can't come up with a more parsimonious theory to endorse (or, God
forbid, originate) than the unbelievably massive sort of "coup d'etat"
conspiracy theorized by people like Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen? And
why do you reject very simple, straightforward forensic evidence in
favor of unverifiable eyewitness claims?
Plenty of CTs have challenged their own
> brethren; when are you willing to do the same?
I've done so many times, Stu. Why, I've even criticized that guy
Posner you despise so much -- for example, for being so inaccurate
about those Clinton witnesses you're so fond of.
You're welcome, Stu. \:^)
Again, ?there are
> no chips anymore, Dave. The forensic application of the technique
> Rahn uses isn't even used anymore by ANYONE including the FBI.
>
> -Stu
I'm happy to let the experts debate this subject, Stu. If you want to
compare my support for Ken's work to, say, someone's advocacy of Dave
Lifton's bizarre notions, I'll be pleased to take that into
consideration as you sit in judgment of my credibility.
Dave
Drei...@aol.com
On Jul 11, 8:31?pm, David Von Pein <_davevonp...@aol.comwrote_
(mailto:davevonp...@aol.comwrote) :
>>>>"No, but the autopsy report is all lies." <<<
>>
>Prove it, Mr. Skeptical.
>>
>And, of course, if the AR is "all lies", that means that Finck, Humes,
>& Boswell told lie after lie for decades on end every time they said
>"JFK was shot twice, and only from above and behind".
>>
>Right? How likely is that (times THREE doctors)?
>>
>BTW, where are all those non-Oz bullets you told me you know existed?
>>
>I'm still waiting to see even one non-C2766 fragment. Let's see it/
>them. And then you can make your fortune with your "I Solved The JFK
>Case!" monster book. (I still wonder why Tony hasn't published it
>yet.)
COMING SOON FROM TRAFFORD PUBLISHING ON DEMAND:
A BENDER ON THE KNOLL
by ANTHONY MARSH
READ THE INTRODUCTION FOR FREE!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION
The Central Intelligence Agency killed President Kennedy. (1) It is a
proven fact. (2) No one could possibly deny this, unless one is an evil
Warren Commission defender. (3) They killed him with a shot from the
grassy knoll. (4) They blamed it on a patsy, with the assistance of an
MKULTRA "mind control" participant and a notorious CIA "sugar daddy." No
one knew the full story but for Richard Helms. (5)
FOOTNOTES
(1) Because I said so.
(2) Because I said so.
(3) I hate those %$&%** WC defenders.
(4) Maybe.
(5) Trust me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FREE COPY OF LEFTOVER JUDYTH BOOKS WITH EACH ADVANCE ORDER!
Dave
Anthony Marsh
Every forensic pathologist who has reviewed this case has said that the
three autopsy doctors were incompetent.
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > The only assumption I'm making is that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were
> > competent pathologists, which numerous colleagues of theirs have
> > vouched for, and their extensive individual histories support. There
> > are any number of indications as to whether a given wound was
> > inflicted pre- or post-mortem. It would be difficult or even
> > impossible to determine the cause of death for many individuals if
> > this were not so. In most cases, a pathologist or coroner would have
> > to be grossly incompetent not to recognize the difference.
>
> Every forensic pathologist who has reviewed this case has said that the
> three autopsy doctors were incompetent.
http://www.medscape.com/pages/public/bios/bio-georgelundberg
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------
George D. Lundberg, MD
Editor, Medscape General Medicine
glun...@webmd.net
A 1995 "pioneer" of the medical internet, Dr. Lundberg was born in
Florida, grew up in rural southern Alabama and holds earned and
honorary degrees from North Park College, Baylor University, the
University of Alabama (Birmingham and Tuscaloosa), the State
University of New York, Syracuse, Thomas Jefferson University and the
Medical College of Ohio. He completed a clinical internship in Hawaii
and a pathology residency in San Antonio. He served in the US army
during the Vietnam War in San Francisco and El Paso, leaving as a
lieutenant colonel after 11 years. Dr. Lundberg was then Professor of
Pathology and Associate Director of Laboratories at the Los Angeles
County/USC Medical Center for 10 years, and for five years was
Professor and Chair of Pathology at the University of California-
Davis.
Dr. Lundberg has worked in tropical medicine in Central America and
Forensic Medicine in New York, Sweden and England. His major
professional interests are toxicology, violence, communication,
physician behavior, strategic management and health system reform. He
is past President of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists.
>From 1982 to 1999, Dr. Lundberg was at the American Medical
Association as Editor in Chief, Scientific Information and Multimedia
with editorial responsibility for its 39 medical journals, American
Medical News, and various Internet products, and the Editor of JAMA.
In 1999 Dr. Lundberg became Editor in Chief of Medscape, the world's
leading source of online health information and education for
physicians and healthcare professionals and the founding Editor in
Chief of both Medscape General Medicine and CBS HealthWatch.com. In
2002, Dr. Lundberg became Editor in Chief Emeritus of Medscape and
Special Healthcare Advisor to the Chairman and CEO of WebMD. Today, he
serves as the Editor in Chief of Medscape General Medicine
(www.medgenmed.com), the first and only online, peer-reviewed primary
source general medical journal published on www.medscape.com. A
frequent lecturer, radio and television guest, and a member of the
Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr.
Lundberg holds academic appointments as a professor at Northwestern
and Harvard. In 2000, the Industry Standard dubbed Dr. Lundberg
"Online Health Care's Medicine Man".
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------------------
The Second Annual Midwest Symposium on Assassination Politics,
Chicago, Illinois, April 1-4, 1993
Program 10 - The John F. Kennedy Case: Two Views of the Medical
Evidence (Tapes 1 and 2)
Dr. George Lundberg (tape 1):
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------
I think it's safe to say that no one in this room was standing next to
Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas School Depository that November day,
that no one here was in the President's limousine in Dallas, that no
one here was standing at the President's head in the Parkland
emergency room area administering primary surgical care, that no one
here was in Air Force 1 on its way to Maryland, and no one here was a
pathologist in the Naval hospital at Bethesda responsible for the
President's autopsy. If any such persons are here, would they please
be recognized at this time. Apparently I'm correct, thank you.
So what do we know, what do we believe, and what and whom do we trust
about what actually happened since nobody here was there? We are all
dependent on sources of information other than personal, real-time
observations. And what are these sources? First, verbal statements
from the people who were actually there on the scene those days.
Second, written statements, past and present from those same people,
the primary source participants. Third, bona fide original physical
evidence and its interpretation. Fourth, relevant experimental data.
And fifth, our own individual knowledge about anatomy, medicine,
surgery, pathology, forensic pathology, wound ballistics, and what is
scientific and what is not scientific. I posit that those are our five
sources of information.
I wasn't in Dallas or Bethesda those days. I'm really not much of an
expert in this thing at all. It's never been all that interesting to
me until the last year or so. My role in that, in this whole thing, is
that of a journalist, along with Mr. Dennis Breo of our own JAMA
staff. I have essentially no primary-source information to share with
you, nor do I plan to achieve any. It's really not my main interest.
I'm a journalist.
What then and whom then do I trust? I have known Dr. James Humes, the
principal autopsy pathologist, personally since 1957. To paraphrase
Ronald Reagan, who was paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen: I know Jim Humes.
He's a friend of mine. I would trust him with my life.
Dr. Humes is an outstanding general pathologist, before and after
1963, acclaimed by his peers for thirty years -- forty years, perhaps
-- but never was before, during, or after a fully trained forensic
pathologist and never claimed to be. He didn't volunteer to do that
job; he was assigned.
Moving from 1963 to 1968, the United States Attorney General appointed
a four-person, blue-ribbon panel to study and reevaluate the JFK
autopsy. The reason that was appointed was a request by the second
autopsy pathologist, Dr. Jay Boswell, that there be such an
independent investigation. This four-member panel had developed
unanimous support for the autopsy report, results and interpretation.
A key member of that panel was the late Dr. Russell Fisher, Chief
Medical Examiner for the state of Maryland, probably the world's top
forensic pathologist of his time. I knew Russell Fisher. He was a
friend of mine. I would trust him with my life. He concurred: two
bullets from the rear. A simple story.
In 1979 the forensic pathology subcommittee of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations included nine members. It voted eight to
one in support of the autopsy findings and basic interpretation. One
of the members was Dr. Earl Rose, a forensic pathologist in Dallas in
November 1963 whose legal responsibility it was to autopsy President
Kennedy, and who tried to stop the illegal movement of the body from
Dallas.
I have known Dr. Earl Rose since 1973. He is a friend of mine. I would
trust him with my life. He concurs: two bullets from the rear.
Another member of that 1979 subcommittee was Dr. Charles Petty. Dr.
Petty is Professor of Pathology at the University of Texas-
Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, Texas. He heads up the Forensic
Science Institute there, which was built in large part because of the
Dallas embarrassment over the assassination and their recognition of
the need for outstanding forensic science.
Dr. Petty has been quiet on the JFK issue for many, many years. This
year he volunteered to write for JAMA on this subject. Last week's
JAMA has his editorial, which confirms and explains the Single Bullet
Theory.
I have known Chuck Petty since 1968. He is a friend of mine. I would
trust him with my life.
These are the keys to trust: Jim Humes in 1963, Russell Fisher in
1968, Earl Rose in 1979 and again in JAMA in 1992, Chuck Petty in 1979
and again in JAMA in 1993, and then there is me.
To imagine or state that somehow these people say we have been duped,
misled, or are somehow part of the conspiracy to deny the truth on
this issue for all ages, strains the vocabulary to find strong enough
words to describe such absurdity. Such charges are somewhere among the
descriptors: wild and crazy, off the wall, out in left field in Cubs
Park, incredible, insulting, or worse.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------------
Dave
Anthony Marsh
So, is Lundberg a forensic pathologist? Yes or no? I said forensic
pathologist. Has he done thousands of autopsies himself? Talk to a real
forensic pathologist like Dr. Henry Lee.
General pathologist. Is that the same thing as a forensic pathologist?
> Moving from 1963 to 1968, the United States Attorney General appointed
> a four-person, blue-ribbon panel to study and reevaluate the JFK
> autopsy. The reason that was appointed was a request by the second
> autopsy pathologist, Dr. Jay Boswell, that there be such an
> independent investigation. This four-member panel had developed
> unanimous support for the autopsy report, results and interpretation.
>
> A key member of that panel was the late Dr. Russell Fisher, Chief
> Medical Examiner for the state of Maryland, probably the world's top
> forensic pathologist of his time. I knew Russell Fisher. He was a
> friend of mine. I would trust him with my life. He concurred: two
> bullets from the rear. A simple story.
>
> In 1979 the forensic pathology subcommittee of the House Select
> Committee on Assassinations included nine members. It voted eight to
> one in support of the autopsy findings and basic interpretation. One
Wrong. The HSCA panel disagreed with the autopsy doctors on several key
points.
Mitch Todd
Lee is not a forensic pathologist, nor a pathologist, nor even a physician.
His PhD (and MS) isin biochem.
MST
Dave Reitzes
Stu cuts and runs.
Remember this when Stu attacks me for the umpteenth time, folks.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
Mitch Todd
So where does Dr Lee's website say that he is/was a forensic pathologist?
BTW, you need to brush up on the defintion of "ad hominem." I didn't
attack Dr Lee. I only pointed out the mistaken claim that Lee was
a forensic pathologist.
MST
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 9:27?pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >>> The only assumption I'm making is that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were
> >>> competent pathologists, which numerous colleagues of theirs have
> >>> vouched for, and their extensive individual histories support. There
> >>> are any number of indications as to whether a given wound was
> >>> inflicted pre- or post-mortem. It would be difficult or even
> >>> impossible to determine the cause of death for many individuals if
> >>> this were not so. In most cases, a pathologist or coroner would have
> >>> to be grossly incompetent not to recognize the difference.
> >> Every forensic pathologist who has reviewed this case has said that the
> >> three autopsy doctors were incompetent.
Name the forensic pathologists who have examined the original autopsy
materials and specifically stated that the autopsy materials contradict
the key conclusion of the cause of death: two shots from behind.
Meanwhile, here's someone with a unique perspective on the issue:
> >http://www.medscape.com/pages/public/bios/bio-georgelundberg
>
> > <QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------
>
> > George D. Lundberg, MD
> > Editor, Medscape General Medicine
> > source general medical journal published onwww.medscape.com. A
> > frequent lecturer, radio and television guest, and a member of the
> > Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr.
> > Lundberg holds academic appointments as a professor at Northwestern
> > and Harvard. In 2000, the Industry Standard dubbed Dr. Lundberg
> > "Online Health Care's Medicine Man".
>
> So, is Lundberg a forensic pathologist? Yes or no? I said forensic
> pathologist. Has he done thousands of autopsies himself? Talk to a real
> forensic pathologist like Dr. Henry Lee.
Has Dr. Lee examined the autopsy materials? If so, what did he say?
You're the one accusing Humes, Boswell, and Finck of lying, Anthony.
Support your claim if you can.
Cause of death?
Dave Reitzes
Stu cuts and runs.
Everyone remember this when Stu's attacking me for the umpteenth time.
Dave
Winston Smith
The Stoughton photographs. Lifton published the argument in Best
Evidence, and although this news group goes around and around the
issue, over and over again, it always comes back to the same place.
The photos of LBJ's swearing-in show that nobody who claims to have
been with the body the whole time really was. And again, how
interesting that LBJ participated in the decision to remove the body
from Parkland, and then also decided that he just had to be sworn in
on the plane. For those who haven't pre-decided the case, it might
look like he was creating a diversion.
>
> And when an MD brings a
>
> > pre-conceived notion like that to the table, it taints the whole analysis.
> > An MD should assume its possible, and strictly address whether the medical
> > evidence excludes the possibility of alteration.
>
> > Anybody you'd recommend?
>
> One of the most respected and experienced forensic pathologists in the
> U.S., and very possibly the entire world, has this to say about the
> body alteration theory:
>
> <QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
>
> 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 be able to accomplish in a day what Lifton says was done in a few
> hours. I have never bought his stuff. It can't be done.
>
> <QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
>
> You may have heard of the forensic pathologist in question. His name
> is Cyril Wecht.
>
> Dave- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wecht's views are based on the assumption that there was some
tremendously sophisticated "body alternation" scenario. But why would
the evidence manipulation really have to extend beyond getting into
the skull and removing the brain - like a hoodlum scraping under the
fingernails of a rape/murder victim to remove signs of a struggle -
and perhaps installing a replacement? Certainly the autopsy doctors
would have considered such a scenario so "fanTAStic" as to either miss
it or deliberately ignore it:
"Doctors who conducted the autopsy on President John F. Kennedy may
have performed two brain examinations in the days following his
assassination, possibly of two different brains, a staff report for
the Assassinations Records Review Board said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm
(1998).
Again, not the crystal-clear chain of evidence we'd expect. And I
can't seem to square the eye-witness descriptions of the brain with
each other or with the autopsy report, which says the brain weighed
1500 grams (the average adult human brain weighs 1300-1400 grams per
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html ). Boswell said the
brain was so badly destroyed it didn't require sectioning, while the
autopsy report says that only the right hemisphere was lacerated.
Apparently no real cutting was required to remove "the" brain, or
whatever was left of it. The entire record of the condition and
disposition of the brain smacks of accounts by witnesses who filled-in
the details with their own preconceptions rather than face a rather
"fanTAStic" truth. And who could blame them?
LBJ was perhaps the most ruthless, "connected," genius ever to be
President. A killer and known associate of his left a fingerprint on a
cardboard box on the 6th Floor of the TSBD, according to a well-
credentialled fingerprint expert named Darby, as you know. LBJ either
came up with, or influenced, the decision to remove JFKs body
from Parkland Hospital. He insisted on having a swearing-in ceremony
before take-off, although completely unnecessary. He established a
commission to control the subsequent investigation.
But for some reason, you find the scenario of decoy-ambulances and
brain-tampering to be so completely unbelievable that only the
mentally ill could fall for it. And hey, maybe it is wrong. I
certainly can't buy "the CIA did it" or any of the other "one-world-
government" scenarios because they become so convoluted as to be
completely bizarre. But a simple story of greed and power - what's so
unbelievable about that?
Anthony Marsh
> On Jul 17, 12:12?am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>> On Jul 14, 9:27?pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>>>> The only assumption I'm making is that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were
>>>>> competent pathologists, which numerous colleagues of theirs have
>>>>> vouched for, and their extensive individual histories support. There
>>>>> are any number of indications as to whether a given wound was
>>>>> inflicted pre- or post-mortem. It would be difficult or even
>>>>> impossible to determine the cause of death for many individuals if
>>>>> this were not so. In most cases, a pathologist or coroner would have
>>>>> to be grossly incompetent not to recognize the difference.
>>>> Every forensic pathologist who has reviewed this case has said that the
>>>> three autopsy doctors were incompetent.
>
>
> Name the forensic pathologists who have examined the original autopsy
> materials and specifically stated that the autopsy materials contradict
> the key conclusion of the cause of death: two shots from behind.
>
Straw man argument. Not what I said. Even a janitor can walk in and
guess that the man was shot twice from behind.
Anthony Marsh
I would point out that words like "ridiculous" and "fantastic" are what
the CIA used when they denied that the had plotted to assassinate Castro.
Can you name any case in the world where wounds have been altered on a
corpse? Hint, someone who was beaten to death and the authorities
claimed he fell out of a window while escaping.
> Dave
>
>
Dave Reitzes
How could LBJ or anyone else count on the body being left unattended, or
that they would have an opportunity to remove the body of the President to
wherever they intended?
You don't think this whole idea is a little far-fetched?
But they weighed the brain!
Paul O'Connor was the only one who claimed the brain was missing, and this
was after fifteen years. Memories can be extremely untrustworthy after
fifteen minutes, much less fifteen years.
> "Doctors who conducted the autopsy on President John F. Kennedy may
> have performed two brain examinations in the days following his
> assassination, possibly of two different brains, a staff report for
> the Assassinations Records Review Board said."http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm
> (1998).
Or people's memories, after 35 years, were simply unreliable.
Which sounds more likely to you?
> Again, not the crystal-clear chain of evidence we'd expect.
You're relying, in some cases, on memories that are 35 years old. How
could they possibly be crystal-clear?
And I
> can't seem to square the eye-witness descriptions of the brain with
> each other or with the autopsy report, which says the brain weighed
> 1500 grams (the average adult human brain weighs 1300-1400 grams perhttp://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html). Boswell said the
> brain was so badly destroyed it didn't require sectioning, while the
> autopsy report says that only the right hemisphere was lacerated.
> Apparently no real cutting was required to remove "the" brain, or
> whatever was left of it. The entire record of the condition and
> disposition of the brain smacks of accounts by witnesses who filled-in
> the details with their own preconceptions rather than face a rather
> "fanTAStic" truth. And who could blame them?
>
> LBJ was perhaps the most ruthless, "connected," genius ever to be
> President. A killer and known associate of his left a fingerprint on a
> cardboard box on the 6th Floor of the TSBD, according to a well-
> credentialled fingerprint expert named Darby, as you know. LBJ either
> came up with, or influenced, the decision to remove JFKs body
> from Parkland Hospital. He insisted on having a swearing-in ceremony
> before take-off, although completely unnecessary. He established a
> commission to control the subsequent investigation.
>
> But for some reason, you find the scenario of decoy-ambulances and
> brain-tampering to be so completely unbelievable that only the
> mentally ill could fall for it. ...
You don't think there are more likely scenarios?
Dave
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 12:12?am, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >>> On Jul 14, 9:27?pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >>>>> The only assumption I'm making is that Humes, Boswell, and Finck were
> >>>>> competent pathologists, which numerous colleagues of theirs have
> >>>>> vouched for, and their extensive individual histories support. There
> >>>>> are any number of indications as to whether a given wound was
> >>>>> inflicted pre- or post-mortem. It would be difficult or even
> >>>>> impossible to determine the cause of death for many individuals if
> >>>>> this were not so. In most cases, a pathologist or coroner would have
> >>>>> to be grossly incompetent not to recognize the difference.
> >>>> Every forensic pathologist who has reviewed this case has said that the
> >>>> three autopsy doctors were incompetent.
>
> > Name the forensic pathologists who have examined the original autopsy
> > materials and specifically stated that the autopsy materials contradict
> > the key conclusion of the cause of death: two shots from behind.
>
> Straw man argument. Not what I said. Even a janitor can walk in and
> guess that the man was shot twice from behind.
When you come up with some evidence that anyone but Oswald killed
Kennedy, please let us all know, Anthony.
Until then, you're just wasting my time.
Dave
Stug...@aol.com
What am I cutting and running from Dave??... I agree with you about
Lifton, for the reasons you cited about Lifton. But that is because I am
willing to hold CTs accountable. You cut and run from your obligations to
hold Rahn accountable. You will never, EVER admit that Rahn has been
foisting a load of bull on this forum, to his students, on the Internet,
etc. It suggests quite a bit about your commitment to supposed rational,
scientific thought. And it is not my opinion-- in case you last checked,
the kinds of things I've been arguing for five years while you've been
hiding behind Ken's credentials and surrendering your critical thinking
skills are now accepted in two separate journal articles. In case you
missed, the one journal Rahn was accepted in accepted his work as a
tribute to Guinn-- I know Rahn left that whopper out of his presentations,
but you should be well aware of it as I've posted the comments from the
editors. So that is 2 to 0. In fact, it is more like 1000 to 0 when you
consider that no one even uses Rahn's beloved forensic technique
anymore... So if you are being intellectually honest, I could run around
citing the acoustics, the paraffin testing, George O'Toole's voice stress
analysis, etc.-- all of those things have as much credibility as Rahn's
work. They are back on the table, until you are willing to hold Rahn
accountable for his BS.
So a simple question Dave, one you are virtually guaranteed to "cut and
run" from... does Rahn's work have scientific credibility anymore with
anyone other than Rahn and Sturdivan? Yes or no?
It is real test as to whether you are a person of principle, truly
committed to rational thought, or a person with an agenda, willing to hold
a righteous view of science and the scientific method only when it helps
his cause.
-Stu
Anthony Marsh
When you come up with some type of reasonable argument please let us all
know.
> Until then, you're just wasting my time.
>
Until then you're just wasting bandwidth with the same old stonewalling.
> Dave
Anthony Marsh
Not my theory, but your thinking is shortsighted. Any conspirator may have
several opportunities until the right one comes along. For example Bremer
stalking Wallace, Ruby stalking Oswald, or Princip having a coffee after
the failed attempt on Archduke Ferdinand when his car drives by the cafe.
> You don't think this whole idea is a little far-fetched?
>
The whole idea is very far-fetched. So what?
Wrong. The filled in a nominal value. Do you really think Kennedy's
brain weighed 1500 grams? As in undamaged by gunfire and missing no mass?
> Paul O'Connor was the only one who claimed the brain was missing, and this
> was after fifteen years. Memories can be extremely untrustworthy after
> fifteen minutes, much less fifteen years.
>
The HSCA officially determined that the brain is missing. If the brain
is not missing, then why can't the National Archives find it?
Kenneth A. Rahn
<Stug...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184987847.0...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Gee, I don't know whether Dave can handle this kind of heavy pressure.
<vbg>
Ken Rahn
Winston Smith
> Wrong. The filled in a nominal value. Do you really think Kennedy's
> brain weighed 1500 grams? As in undamaged by gunfire and missing no mass?
Interesting idea. As I'd noted, the average adult human brain weighs
1300-1400 grams per http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html).
A place-holder that was never replaced?
John Hunt
"Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu> wrote in message
news:4695945b$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Spelling corrections from the guy who wrote "mythlology."
Great work, Dr. Rahn!! Sadly, your best in 20 years.
John Hunt