SMOKING TIME-CARD. . .REDUX (to correct 2 errors)
John McAdams
>>
>
>Greg, Oswald's staggered log-in times at Reily's certainly are not indicative
>of a very punctual person, I agree. But to me, what makes judging the punctuality
>of Oswald during the times he was employed difficult is the fact that he
>was either always utilizing mass transit or rides with co-workers. In other
>words, it would be far easier to gauge Oswald's punctuality if he used his
>own car to get to work every day. But hell, Lee was always reliant upon buses
>running on schedule in order to arrive at work on time. In any event, I would
>imagine that Oswald was no more, nor less, punctual than any other employee
>who wished to get credit for putting in a full work day.
>
That's the point, and that's a good point.
Judyth has tried to claim that the check-out times of Oswald somehow
are "suspicious" and that only a theory that involves her checking him
out can account for that.
In fact, that's all spin. There is nothing really odd or "out of
line" about Oswald's time cards, and no mystery needing an elaborate
explanation.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>>From: dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton)
>
>you all people are going to accuse someone of making up things? Aren't you the
>dude who was trying to push the JFK body alteration theory?
>
>viking8350
In fairness to David Lifton, body alteration is his *theory.* I don't
think it's a very good one, frankly.
He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
conclusions.
But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
Clark Wilkins
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3c30d943....@news.alt.net...
> On 31 Dec 2001 09:28:10 -0600, "O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >
> >Greg, Oswald's staggered log-in times at Reily's certainly are not
indicative
> >of a very punctual person, I agree. But to me, what makes judging the
punctuality
> >of Oswald during the times he was employed difficult is the fact that he
> >was either always utilizing mass transit or rides with co-workers. In
other
> >words, it would be far easier to gauge Oswald's punctuality if he used
his
> >own car to get to work every day. But hell, Lee was always reliant upon
buses
> >running on schedule in order to arrive at work on time. In any event, I
would
> >imagine that Oswald was no more, nor less, punctual than any other
employee
> >who wished to get credit for putting in a full work day.
> >
>
> That's the point, and that's a good point.
Except that his arrival times are all over the place.
>
> Judyth has tried to claim that the check-out times of Oswald somehow
> are "suspicious" and that only a theory that involves her checking him
> out can account for that.
If she could demonstrate other employees did not routinely clock out on the
hour too, she would be able to demonstrate her case.
>
> In fact, that's all spin. There is nothing really odd or "out of
> line" about Oswald's time cards, and no mystery needing an elaborate
> explanation.
Except there's nothing elaborate about her explanation. She clocked Oswald
out for an 8 hour day, which the record shows happened, and that she clocked
him out "on the hour", which is what the record shows what happened.
There may be an inconsistency though in her "clock" tale. Alfred Claude's
statement (See Shinley's post) was that he and Oz had argued over Oswald
working a late shift. This seems to be the 7:32 PM clock out by Oswald.
Yet Judyth claims this late clock out occured because she forgot to clock
Oswald out, which caused Oswald to have to use his "key" to get back in and
clock himself out.
Perhaps she can explain this?
Just curious.
::Clark::
Karl Vissers
>From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
>Date: 12/31/2001 3:36 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <3c30d9ca....@news.alt.net>
>
>On 31 Dec 2001 15:23:47 GMT, vikin...@aol.com (Karl Vissers) wrote:
>
>>>From: dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton)
>>
>>you all people are going to accuse someone of making up things? Aren't you
>the
>>dude who was trying to push the JFK body alteration theory?
>>
>>viking8350
>
>In fairness to David Lifton, body alteration is his *theory.* I don't
>think it's a very good one, frankly.
>
>He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
>things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
>sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
>conclusions.
>
>But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
>
>.John
>
come on John. what did lifton base his theory on? he had to at least think
he found some kind of evidence,right? and if he thought he found some
evidence of body alteration then he in a sense is a witness to something
sinister. you know what I mean. have you ever heard the saying about
people who live in glass houses?
viking8350
David S. Lifton
> think it's a very good one, frankly.
>
> He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
> things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
> sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
> conclusions.
>
> But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
>
> .John
John:
As you yourself state, I am indeed using "standard historical
sources."
I don't want to turn this into a "medical" thread, but let me point
out that you can't get much more standard (or better) evidence than:
(1) Two FBI agents who state that, the body arrived at Bethesda, there
had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.
(2) Conflicting medical reports, from the official records, Dallas
versus Bethesda, regarding the size and location of the head wound
(See Chapter 13, Best Evidence); plus a similar situation re the front
throat wound (See Ch. 11, B.E.). Ipso facto: the body was indeed
altered.
(3) Documentary evidence--supported by eyewitness interviews--for the
proposition that the body (a) left Dallas in sheets, and arrived at
Bethesda in a body bag; and (b) left Dallas in full size and very
fancy ceremonial coffin, and was delivered in a shipping casket. Ipso
facto: the body was indeed intercepted.
The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
connect someone's gun to the crime.
But this is not about John Doe; its about JFK. Many lone-nutters
refuse to take the evidence of autopsy falsification (via body
alteration) at face value, hence, the label "outlandish."
In my opinion, this represents a failure to think "outside the box."
Before 9/11, it was outlandish" to think that four airplanes could be
hijacked and two of them flown into the World Trade Center. Suddenly,
that is very much in vogue, and lengthy articles now appear in the
press as to all the "signals leading up to 9/11" that were "missed."
The same goes for the body alteration evidence in this case.
And another fact: Far from being "outlandish," a number of
lone-nutters have--in private conversaations--in effect conceded that
if this event didn't happen per the Warren Commission, then BEST
EVIDENCE presents the only reasonable and rational way to explain the
evidence -i.e., the record--in the case.
But at root, I still say, the problem is psychological.
There was a great cartoon in the New Yorker a few months ago. It
showed a patient, lying on a couch in a shrink's office. His body was
peppered with "dots."
And the doctor is telling him, "But you have to *want* to connect the
dots, Mr. Smith."
That's what I say about the evidence in this case.
If the key evidence in this case (i.e., autopsy report, ballistics,
etc.) is valid, then the official version prevails. Only if the key
evidence has been falsified--which is the thesis of Best Evidence--can
there be a logical and rational conspiracy explanation.
That is not outlandish; its plain logic.
The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
labeled "outlandish."
DSL
Martin Shackelford
is a distortion of the record, as was amply documented in the early 90s.
Martin
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>As to the meaning of the evidence, that is very clear. Lee Oswald was
>punctual, and the time card records demonstrate that. That, and
>nothing more. But Judyth, a fantast who insists that the world of Lee
>Oswald was really a world of "Lee and me" is (once again) meddling
>with the record (and reality), and attempting to "insert herself"
>where she doesn't belong. Into the several months of Lee Oswald's
>life leading up to the JFK assassination.
>
[snipping]
>
>But, having said that, I have a small mea culpa. There were two minor
>errors in my original postā-two errors that have nothing to do with
>the validity of the analysis. And so for the benefit of Shackelford
>(and any others who think that is significant), I am re-posting here a
>modified post, the same post only with those two errors corrected.
>
>Again, to the main point: what this "smoking time-clock" business does
>is illustrate just how Judyth probably went about fabricating this
>fictional "Lee and me" story in the first place. She reads the record
>and looks for "holes"āfactual intersticesāwhere she can "insert"
>herself.
>
>In this case, examining the time card check-out data (published in the
>26 volumes), she thought she saw a "pattern" where non existedā-a
>pattern of clock-out times that "needed explaining," and so she then
>stepped forward and inserted herself into the story.
>
>For Judyth, like the little icon that would appear in my hypothetical
>LHO documentary, its always: "Hey, what about me?!" And the answer in
>these time-clock records was: "Oh, I see. There IS room for me."
>
>Ergo, the "I checked him out" story that appears in her account.
>
>That's what this is all about, and not much more. And that's what her
>whole false account is all about.
>
>This is someone who apparently has studied many of the JFK records and
>whoāfor whatever reasonāapparently has a compulsion to inject herself
>into the "reality of the event."
>
>DSL
>
>* * * * BELOW. . . a corrected version of my original account * * *
>
>Judyth's Claim About LHO's Daily Routine At Reily
>(the "I clocked him out" assertion, to "explain" the FBI time-card
>data).
>
>Oswald was employed at Reily between Friday, May 10, and Friday, July
>19āten weeks, plus one dayāand every day he punched a clock. Since
>there was no work on July 4, there are a total of 50 days of such
>data.
>
>The 50 days of time card dataā"in" and "out"āwas gathered by the FBI
>in CD 75 (pp. 34-38) and published as Warren Commission Exhibit 1896
>(Vol. 23, pp. 700-701). (See the end of this post for a complete
>tabulation of this data, copied from those records.).
>
>In the recently circulated outline for their "book"āa document titled
>"Deadly Alliance" and authored by Baker and Howard Platzmanāthese two
>foolishly claim that there is something suspicious (i.e. non-random)
>about Oswald's checkout times clustering around "4:30 PM or 5:30 PM".
>This, in turn, is cited as evidence that "Judyth covered for Lee's
>activity, and for his daily absences from work, making sure to punch
>him out at 4:30PM or 5:30 PM when he was no longer there, which was
>almost always." (p. 4, Deadly Alliance, section titled "Judyth and
>Lee").
>
>This assertion offers an excellent opportunity to evaluate Judyth's
>claims, and Platzman's (and Shackelford's) ability to evaluateāand
>write accurately aboutāevidence.
>
>To begin with, the authors have their data wrong. In Oswald's entire
>10 weeks and 1 day at Reily, there are only two check-out times of
>4:30, and those are on Friday, May 10, his first day of work; and
>Friday, July 19, his last day of work. So that is for startersāthese
>two, in submitting a book proposal and (supposedly after years of
>careful fact checking) don't even state the facts correctly when it
>comes to a simple assertion about Oswald's check out times.
>
>Now lets turn to their general theory. There are indeed many checkout
>times of 5 and 5:30, but even that doesn't tell the whole story.
>Because the records also show other clock-out times: 4:30 (the first
>and last day, i.e., the two just mentioned), 5:01, 6:30, many at 5:30,
>and one at 7:32.
>
>So what is going on here? More precisely: is there anything unusual
>about any of this? Is it really necessary to postulate a "Judyth" (or
>anyone else, for that matter) checking out Oswald on the dot (at 5 or
>5:30 pm), which Judyth (and Platzman) claim is "an impossibility since
>there was a line to wait on and such precise time-outs could not occur
>accidentally." ("Deadly Alliance" document, p. 4)
>
>None of this is true; and it doesn't take a genius to figure out
>what this data means. What is necessary is to use common sense,
>instead of invoking an exotic (and provably false) explanation. To
>begin with, it is necessary to understand that Lee Oswald was a very
>punctual guyāin fact, punctuality is a personality trait of Lee's that
>is commented upon by Marina, and appears several times in the McMillan
>book. Lee was the kind of guy was not only "on time", he was often
>"early."
>
>So now, lets approach this time card data in a sensible fashion, and
>keeping in mind Lee's punctuality.
>
>Plainly, Lee wanted to work (and get paid for) a full eight hours
>every day. So every day he came in early enough to put in his eight
>hours, AND have his 30 minutes off for lunch. And he apparently
>looked forward to getting outāeither at 5, or 5:30 (but sometimes at
>even later times).
>
>On his very first day, he clocked in at 7:59, and clocked out at 4:30.
>That gave him eight hours for work, 30 minutes for lunch, and one
>minute extra. Nothing mysterious about that.
>
>On the next dayāand for many days thereafterāhe came about one-half
>hour early, and left promptly at 5pm. Notice: I said "about" one-half
>hour early. Lee's "clock in" times that first week of work were:
>8:24, 8:18, 8:23, 8:29 and 8:25 (Mon to Fri, respectively).
>
>Each day, he clocked in āessentiallyāat 8:30, but provided himself
>with a small cushion and then left promptly at 5pm. Nothing
>mysterious about that. Also note: the "randomness" is in the clock-in
>time, not the clock-out. Also note the cushion Lee provided himself:
>to leave at 5 p.m., he had to arrive at 8:30, but Lee arrived early
>in each case: 8:24, 8:18, 8:23, 8:29, and 8:25. Lee could clock OUT
>on the nose, but the INcoming time is where he gave himself the
>"margin."
>
>Again: you have to know this much about Oswald: he was exceedingly
>punctual. To leave at 5 pm, then he had to be at work "early", and the
>clock-in records show he did just that. So what these Reily records
>document is the evidence of Lee's personality trait of
>punctualityāthey are certainly NOT records which document Judyth's
>fantasy version of eventsāthat Lee Oswald clocked out repeatedly at 5
>pm or 5:30 pm, because Judyth was there and she clocked him out.
>
>Now let's turn to the second week: the same pattern applies, Monday
>through Thurdsay (8:25, 8:22, 8:20, 8:24) with a clock-out time of 5
>pm on Mon, Tues., and Wed, and 5:01 on Thursday.
>
>On Friday (5/24), he came to work 90 minutes late (clocking in at
>9:58) and thenāfollowing this same pattern (30 minutes for lunch, 8
>hrs of work) clocked out at precisely 6:30 pm.
>
>Now let's turn to the third week. This is the week Oswald got his New
>Orleans Library card (on Monday), and also had business at the Jones
>Printing Company (on Wedneday and Friday)āthings which he apparently
>took care of (or at least probably took care of) in the morning,
>before arriving at work.
>
>On this (third) week, he clocked in at 9:53, 8:50, 9:45, 9:00, and
>9:53; put in his eight hours of work (plus his 30 minutes for lunch)
>and clocked out (Monday to Friday, respectively) at: 6:35, 5:31,
>6:30, 5:30 and 7:32.
>
>To repeat: On Monday, he got his library card. And on Wednesday and
>Friday correlates with his visits to the Jones Printing Company for
>his FPCC fliersāWednesday, to order them; Friday, to pick them up.
>Nothing mysterious about that.
>
>So much for Week #3. Now let's turn to Week #4. On Monday, 6/3, Lee
>rented a PO Box, and ordered 500 FPCC application forms. On Tuesday
>(6/4) he picked up hand bills at Jones printing. On Wed., 6/5, he
>picked up FPCC application forms and membership cards.
>
>The Reily data is completely consistent with this (i.e., with the
>notion that during the first three days, he did a series of morning
>errands before going to work). Specifically, starting on Monday, June
>3, we have late clock in times (again, with a margin, so he can work
>an eight hour day, and have 30 minutes for lunch) corresponding to
>late clock-outs.
>
>The clock-ins are (Monday to Friday): 9:47, 9:50, 9:58, 10:05 and
>8:57.
>
>The clock-outs are: 6:30, 6:30, 6:30, 6:30, and 5:30.
>
>Again, in each case, Lee clocked out on the half hour, and on the
>nose.
>
>Now, let's go to Week #5. Here Lee clocked out every day (but Wed.)
>at 5:30 on the nose (Wed. at 5:31) and every day he clocked in 8 hrs.
>and 30 minutes earlier, plus a small margin. The clock-in times
>(Mon-Fri, respectively) are: 8:52, 8:44, 8:56, 8:50 and 8:29.
>
>Week #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10 show the same behaviorāalways leaving at
>5 pm or 5:30 pm (on the nose) and clocking in a few minutes before
>8:30 (to permit a 5:00 pm clock-out) and a few minutes before 9 am
>(for the 5:30 pm clock-outs).
>
>The data is very clear. Lee's "late" clock-ins correspond when we
>know he had other things to do, thing he apparently did in the
>morning. But there is no mystery relating clock-in and clock out
>times. All of it constitutes documentary evidence of Lee's
>punctualityāand his ability to plan ahead. His goal is to put in
>eight hours. He wants to leave at 5 pm, so, he comes in between 8:20
>and 8:30 am. OR: he wants to leave at 5:30 pm, so he comes in between
>8:50 and 9 am.
>
>So what's the big deal? Does anyone think that Oswaldāwho played
>chess, and spoke Russianācouldn't figure this out??
>
>Nothing mysterious. Nothing mysterious, that is, until this data is
>exposed to the bizarre mind of Judyth Avery Baker, who then sees a
>false pattern in the "check out" times, sees an opportunity to
>"insert" herself in the record, and then does exactly that. This
>time-card data is a perfect example of how she operates, and the
>superficiality of what she does (and which mental health professionals
>call "Pseudo-logia Fantastica"). She very cleverly inserts herself
>into a pre-existing reality; she inserts herself into the story by
>(first) spotting the cluster of "check-out" times; and (second)
>claiming that SHE is the cause of the 5 pm and 5:30 pm checkouts.
>
>The actually believes this nonsense! Then she sells this malarky to
>Shackelford and Platzman. And next thing you know, it finds its way
>into the book proposal (or some pitch to 60 Minutes). Here is what
>Dr. Howard Platzman, Ph.D. (Phi Beta Kappa, Summa Cum Laude, etc.)
>writes of this fantasy:.
>
>QUOTING (from the "Deadly Alliance" outline/pitch):
>
>Judyth covered for Lee's activity, and for his daily absences from
>work, making sure to punch him out at 4:30 PM or 5:30 PM when he was
>no longer there, which was almost always.
>
>EVIDENCE: The Warren Report shows precise time-outs on the half-hour,
>an impossibility since there was a line to wait on and such precise
>time-outs could not occur accidentally. It didn't occur to Judyth to
>vary the time-out stamp.
>
>Pardon my propensity to summarize, but here goes again. . .
>
>DSL CRITIQUE:
>
>First of all, this ignores the fact that the time-ins vary, in each
>case fitting the pattern of getting to work a few minutes prior to
>eight and a half hours early, so Lee could put in his 8 hours, and
>have his half-hour lunch. This omission of the clock-in times is
>serious, because it ignores the essence of the matterāthere IS
>"randomness" here; stated differently: there is nothing non-random
>about any of this at all. The "non-randomness" in fact shows up in the
>clock-in times. The punctuality of Oswald (a personality trait) is
>documented in the consistency of the check-out times.
>
>Second: Platzman/Shackelford ignore the fact that there is a distinct
>variation between two clusters of check-out timesāthose at 5 and those
>at 5:30. Their outline falsely states that Oswald was punched out "at
>4:30 pm or 5:30 PM" when in fact the two primary clusters are at 5 pm
>and 5:30 pm. Not a very good sign for two guys supposedly dealing
>with the recordāand a simple record at that: the "in" and "out" data
>for 50 days, that is published in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes.
>
>Third: In stating that "The Warren Report shows precise time-outs on
>the half-hour, an impossibility since. . etc. etc." --they again
>factually mis-state the record because, besides time-outs at 5 and
>5:30, there are in fact checkout times at 6:30, 6:35, 7:20, and a
>couple at 5:01. (Can't these guys read??)
>
>Fourth: Platzman/Shackelford ignores the apparent correlation between
>the "late" check ins and the dates that Lee had to get his New Orleans
>library card, drop off printing, and pick up printing at Jones
>Printing Company. The correlation is right there in the record, but
>these guys would rather use the data to nourish their Judyth fantasy,
>so it is ignored.
>
>TO SUMMARIZE: Judyth Baker has (once again) injected herself into a
>record āthis time a time-card record of clock-ins and
>clock-outsāclaiming she is the cause for a pattern which she claims to
>"see" in the data. In fact, her "pattern" is not there; nor is she the
>cause. Once again, Judyth has inserted herself into the record where
>there is no need for her, and, really, no "room" for her.
>
>Her "insertion" in this caseāas in the othersāis pure poppycock. It
>has nothing to do with reality.
>
>Moreover, Platzman/Shackeford, in manufacturing this particular item
>and using it in their "Deadly Alliance" pitch have done two things
>that are seriously wrong. First, they have mis-stated the facts of the
>record. They ignore checkout times that don't fit with their
>hypothesis, and mis-interpret the data that is there. Specifically,
>they don't comment at all on the varying check-in timesāI repeat, of
>the check-IN timesāwhich in fact show the "randomness" they claim to
>yearn for.
>
>Second: they compound their error by making a serious error in their
>so-called "analysis: claiming that that the check-OUT times show a
>pattern that is completely "impossible"āa claim which is without
>merit.
>
>Just to get the full flavor or these multiple errors , I conclude by
>returning (again) to their language, which both misstates the facts,
>but also includes their silly hypothesis.
>
>Quoting from their own document: "The Warren Report shows precise
>time-outs on the half-hour, an impossibility since there was a line to
>wait on and such precise- time-outs could not occur accidentally."
>
>All of this is false and nonsensical.
>
>Once again, Judyth is hung by her own petardāin this case, the actual
>time card record of check-in and check-out times, gathered by the FBI
>and published in the 26 volumes, all of which gives the lie to her
>foolishness in attempting to "insert herself" into this record; and
>which shows the utter ineptness and incompetence of her two
>supporters, Platzman and Shackelford, in pushing such an absurd claim.
>
>Judyth sure put in her time on the Reily documents, and what does she
>have to show for it? First, a phony claim that she authored the
>credit report (previously debunked); and now this "I punched him out"
>claim regarding LHO's time cards. In each case, she has "inserted"
>herself into the story. In each case, the actual data give the lie to
>her story.
> The record of Oswald's 10 weeks and 1 day (the first day was Friday,
>5/10/63) at Reily are recorded in WCE 1896 (CD 75, pp. 34-38). Here
>is that data:
>
>DAY Date IN OUT COMMENT
> (AM) (PM)
>
>Fri 5/10 7:59 4:30 LHO's first day at Reily
>
>WEEK #1:
>
>Mon 5/13 8:24 5pm
>Tues 5/14 8:18 5pm
>Wed 5/154 8:23 5 pm
>Thu 5/16 8:29 5pm
>Fri 5/17 8:25 5pm
>
> (and 9:57)
>
>Week #2:
>
>Mon 5/20 8:25 5pm
>Tues 5/21 8:22 5pm
>Wed 5/22 8:20 5pm
>Thur 5/23 8:24 5:01 pm
>Fri 5/24 9:58 6:30 pm.
>
>Week #3:
>
>Mon 5/27 9:53 6:35 LHO got library card;. (Yes, might have done so
>in evening. But more likely, AM)
>Tues 5/28 8:50 5:31
>Wed 5/29 9:45 6:30 Jones Printing; order for flyers
>Thurs 5/30 9:00 5:30
>Fri 5/31 9:53 7:32 Jones Printing; pays $4 for flyers
>
> WEEK #4:
>
>Mon 6/3 9:47 6:30 Rents PO box; orders 500 FPCC application forms
>
>Tues 6/4 9:50 6:30 LHO picks up hand bills at Jones printing
>
>Wed 6/5 9:58 6:30 O picks up FPCC application forms and membership
>cards
>
>Thurs 6/6 10:05 6:30
>
>Fri 6/7 8:57 5:30
>
>WEEK #5:
>
>Mon 6/10 8:52 5:30
>Tues 6/11 8:44 5:30
>Wed 6/12 8:56 5:31
>Thurs 6/13 8:50 5:30
>Fri 6/14 8:29 5:30
>
>
>WEEK #6:
>
>Mon 6/17 8:53 5:31
>Tues 6/18 8:53 5:30
>Wed 6/19 8:53 5:30
>Thurs 6/20 8:52 5:30
>Fri 6/21 8:53 5:30
>
>Week #7:
>
>Mon 6/24 8:57 5:30
>Tues 6/25 8:58 5:30
>Wed 6/26 8:54 5:30
>Thurs 6/27 8:53 5:30
>Fri 6/28 9:01 5:30
>
>
> Week #8:
>
>Mon 7/1 8:59 5:30
>Tues 7/2 8:49 5:30
>Wed 7/3 8:53 5:30
>Thurs 7/4 ---- -----
>Fri 7/5 8:53 5:30
>
>Week #9:
>
>Mon 7/8 8:47 5:30
>Tues 7/9 8:49 5:30
>Wed 7/10 8:54 5:30
>Thurs 7/11 8:58 5:30
>Fri 7/12 8:27 5:01
>
>
>Week #10:
>
>Mon 7/15 8:19 5:00
>Tues 7/16 8:26 5:00
>Wed 7/17 9:37 6:00
>Thurs 7/18 8:26 5:00
>Fri 7/19 8:22 4:30
> (Terminated)
Thanks for posting the correction. Your two errors were trivial, but
even trivial errors need to be corrected.
The bottom line is that this is like the green glass she has. A whole
elaborate story is built around a very mundane reality.
In these cases, it's not so much that the evidence contradicts Judyth,
but rather that it's no kind of corroboration. Her elaborate story is
redundant, and adds no explanatory power.
.John
--
John McAdams
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>To paraphrase a line from "Inherit the Wind," David, you're the only
>person I know who can strut online.
>
>You give yourself too much credit, as usual. Your windy recitation has
>provoked as much criticism as "comment." The only real support you seem
>to get is from the McAdams clique, not exactly highly regarded here.
>
Do you understand how much this sounds like "Deborah?"
Do you understand that having some supporters on the Nuthouse
translates into essentially nothing in the real world?
Altasrecrd
>he and Oz had argued over Oswald
>working a late shift. This seems to be the 7:32 PM clock out by Oswald.
>Yet Judyth claims this late clock out occured because she forgot to clock
>Oswald out, which caused Oswald to have to use his "key" to get back in
>and
>clock himself out.
>Perhaps she can explain this?
But more likely, perhaps not.
Just as I predicted, Judyth won't be posting here anymore.
She must be muzzled, because due to her long windedness she always ends
up making claims that are likely to be proven as fantasy later, i.e.
punching Lee Oswald out every day and Lee Oswald having a key to the Reily
Coffee Company.
Team Judyth can't afford to let her do this without the filter of Howard
and Martin.
John McAdams
<paul....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> "Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>> >And then when you're finished with those mea culpas, try understanding
>> >this: forget the fact his time clock shows 8 hours with a half hour
>> >break. According to Le Blanc, it was 8 to 5 which gives an HOUR lunch
>> >break.
>
>Greg, where does LeBlanc say LEE's hours were 8 to 5??
>Just the quote will do.
>( And not the one you give below, which refers to LEBLANC'S hours.)
>
>> >Mr. Le Blanc.
>> >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile when
>> >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty well stayed
>> >those hours as long as----
>
>Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible attitude
>towards start/finish times in itself.
>(LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8 to 5, &
>'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
>
>
>>He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
>> >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
>
>BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT WITH THE
>BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???
Has anybody produced any hard evidence that anybody *else* was docked
in pay?
All I've seen is Judyth's claims, but maybe I've missed something.
>( Why do people usually start work at 9am in coffee factories? RAT CANCER
>PROJECTS, GREG!! THAT'S WHY. Ask anyone. Ask Judyth.)
>The gun mags over at Alba's were full of CODED RAT CANCER INFORMATION.
That's a good point I hadn't thought of. If Lee was so busy with
cancer research, and also had to put in some *nominal* appearance at
Reily, how did he have all that time to spend with Alba?
>Because, despite the fact that he was never there, being regularly clocked
>out by his girl friend in full view of 30+ blind people, his supervisor had
>been tipped off not to stick any complaints against Lee on his timecard, and
>this was the ONLY WAY the personnel manager could possibly discover that Lee
>was ever late, being apparently unable to read the time card itself.
>The plant engineer failed to mention this to the FBI of course, having
>forgotten all about it, or perhaps because his family were being held at
>berylium syringe point.
LOL!
>And his supervisor forgot all about it too when specifically asked for 'any
>further info of interest' by the WC. (Presumably for a similar reason).
>
>Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff could be
>found who was particularly keen on doing the prestigious & over-paid coffee
>machine greasing & cleaning job Lucky Lee had so fortunately landed by
>virtue of his outstanding CV ?
>
>( Until they found some other twerp willing to do it & fired Lee pronto for
>slacking. )
>
>
I don't think he really put in "40 hours" in, but not because he was
off doing cancer research!
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:3c30d943....@news.alt.net...
>> On 31 Dec 2001 09:28:10 -0600, "O.H. LEE" <ga...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> That's the point, and that's a good point.
>
>
>Except that his arrival times are all over the place.
>
>>
>> Judyth has tried to claim that the check-out times of Oswald somehow
>> are "suspicious" and that only a theory that involves her checking him
>> out can account for that.
>
>
>If she could demonstrate other employees did not routinely clock out on the
>hour too, she would be able to demonstrate her case.
>
>
>>
>> In fact, that's all spin. There is nothing really odd or "out of
>> line" about Oswald's time cards, and no mystery needing an elaborate
>> explanation.
>
>Except there's nothing elaborate about her explanation. She clocked Oswald
>out for an 8 hour day, which the record shows happened, and that she clocked
>him out "on the hour", which is what the record shows what happened.
>
True, but the point is that we don't need Judyth's intervention for
this to happen. The record is consistent with what she says -- a
critic would say that's because she concocted her account to fit the
record.
>There may be an inconsistency though in her "clock" tale. Alfred Claude's
>statement (See Shinley's post) was that he and Oz had argued over Oswald
>working a late shift. This seems to be the 7:32 PM clock out by Oswald.
>Yet Judyth claims this late clock out occured because she forgot to clock
>Oswald out, which caused Oswald to have to use his "key" to get back in and
>clock himself out.
>
>Perhaps she can explain this?
>
>
Shinley's post was an excellent one, but I'm afraid Judyth appears to
be gone, at least for now.
.John
--
Martin Shackelford
In comparing the time cards and the green glass, you are doing
another of your "apples and oranges" claims. The only thing that
connects the two is your misrepresentation of the significance of both.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
back means even less?
Martin
Martin Shackelford
will stop posting soon. Matt "predicts" that "Judyth won't be posting
here anymore." Judyth, as she said she would, stops posting. Matt claims
to have "predicted" it. How lame can you get?
Then the conclusion "She must be muzzled," though she explained in advance
why she wouldn't be posting further for a while. If she was muzzled, how
do you explain her flurry of long posts all of a sudden? Where is "Team
Judyth's" mythical control over her?
That's the problem with you guys--no matter what happens, you twist it
into a pretzel to suit your nonsensical claims.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
insane theory Lifton has been pushing--remember Zapruder film
alteration? Remember "no shots from behind"?
And Lifton does seem to be claiming to be able to diagnose
psychiatrically based on a single, (illegally?) taped phone call.
Martin
Magic Bullet
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 22:42:23 +0000 (UTC), "Paul Seaton"
> <paul....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >> "Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >And then when you're finished with those mea culpas, try
understanding> >> >this: forget the fact his time clock shows 8 hours with
a half hour> >> >break. According to Le Blanc, it was 8 to 5 which gives an
HOUR lunch> >> >break.
> >
> >Greg, where does LeBlanc say LEE's hours were 8 to 5??
> >Just the quote will do.> >( And not the one you give below, which refers
to LEBLANC'S hours.)
> >
> >> >Mr. Le Blanc.
> >> >Well, I started on different hours there for awhile. For awhile when
> >> >he was there, I think I was around 8 to 5, and I pretty well stayed
> >> >those hours as long as----
> >
> >Which para incidentally seems to indicate a reasonably flexible attitude
> >towards start/finish times in itself.
> >(LeBlanc was on 'different hours', 'thinks' he himself was on 8 to 5, &
> >'pretty well' stayed with those hours.)
> >
> >
> >>He therefore was NOT working his full hours. Further, as shown
> >> >below, he was constantly missing. WHY WAS HE NEVER DOCKED IN PAY?
> >
> >BECAUSE HE WAS WORKING ON A TOP SECRET CIA RAT CANCER PROJECT WITH THE
> >BOSSES SECRETARY, YOU DUMMY!!! Isn't it OBVIOUS???
>
> Has anybody produced any hard evidence that anybody *else* was docked> in
pay?
Yep. Reily's wasn't really a business for profit. It was actually a charity
named after Saint Reily, Patron Saint of malcontents, malingerers, loners,
and assorted other weirdos and losers.
See, what they did was hired all those types... you know.... types that
wouldn't rate a second thought in any REAL business. Then, they let 'em
pick and choose their own hours, and decide for themselves if they wanted
to do any work when they were actually there. The really good part was
though, that, noone ever had their pay docked. Pretty good deal. eh?
> All I've seen is Judyth's claims, but maybe I've missed something.
I understand your point perfectly, John. It's not as if ALL employers
didn't have the same generous conditions. Saint Reily wasn't really all
that unique. In fact, I think his methods of achieving Industrial Democracy
became the measuring stick down around Nworleans.
> >( Why do people usually start work at 9am in coffee factories? RAT
CANCER
> >PROJECTS, GREG!! THAT'S WHY. Ask anyone. Ask Judyth.)
> >The gun mags over at Alba's were full of CODED RAT CANCER INFORMATION.
>
>
> That's a good point I hadn't thought of. If Lee was so busy with
> cancer research, and also had to put in some *nominal* appearance at
> Reily, how did he have all that time to spend with Alba?
And as I said to Paul in a previous post - his kindly treatment at Reily's
is a concern with or without Judyth or cancer research. But you can't deal
with it on its own terms, can you John.
> >Because, despite the fact that he was never there, being regularly
clocked> >out by his girl friend in full view of 30+ blind people, his
supervisor had> >been tipped off not to stick any complaints against Lee on
his timecard, and> >this was the ONLY WAY the personnel manager could
possibly discover that Lee> >was ever late, being apparently unable to read
the time card itself.> >The plant engineer failed to mention this to the
FBI of course, having> >forgotten all about it, or perhaps because his
family were being held at> >berylium syringe point.
>
>
> LOL!
Yeah, he's a real comedian. I heard Benny Hill died rather than try and
compete with the new jokester on the block...
> >And his supervisor forgot all about it too when specifically asked for
'any> >further info of interest' by the WC. (Presumably for a similar
reason).
> >
> >Or was it perhaps because he put his 40 hours in & no other stiff could
be> >found who was particularly keen on doing the prestigious & over-paid
coffee> >machine greasing & cleaning job Lucky Lee had so fortunately
landed by> >virtue of his outstanding CV ?
> >
> >( Until they found some other twerp willing to do it & fired Lee pronto
for> >slacking. )
> >
> >
>
> I don't think he really put in "40 hours" in, but not because he was
> off doing cancer research!
Ah, a mini-breakthrough. Now ask yourself why he was never docked. Then
ponder why his supivisor at Reily's wasn't asked to explain why his pay was
never docked.... as it would have been in any NORMAL business.
--
"Major, the big brass are going to yell their heads off about this,
and the Japanese aren't going to like it much either.
Have you got anything to say to them, sir?"
reporter to Marlon Brando from the movie "Sayonara"
Oz and the guiding hands
www.leftcoast-art.bc.ca/magicbullet
greg
Paul Seaton
"Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
news:newscache$6odbpg$4fo$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
>
> Ah, a mini-breakthrough. Now ask yourself why he was never docked. Then
> ponder why his supivisor at Reily's wasn't asked to explain why his pay
was
> never docked.... as it would have been in any NORMAL business.
<quote Greg>
The start and finish times don't really matter. If Lee had an hour lunch
break, he never (or rarely) put in 8 hours... [ ] ..So you're saying
Le Blanc had an hour lunch break and Oswald only a half
hour?
<unquote>
No Greg, JUDYTH BAKER is saying Oswald only had a half hour lunch break,
remember?
<quote Judyth>
. HIS CONTRACTED HOURS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 8:00- 4:30. EIGHT HOURS,
PLUS *** HALF AN HOUR FOR LUNCH ***.
<unquote>
If we are to believe both you AND Judyth on this, Lee DID put in his 8
hours, no question of docking his pay arises, & the whole Judyth deal is
back to being just a nasty mess on the carpet again.
And if we believe just Judyth on this, we can once more conclude that you
are plain old wrong.
The other possibilities are even worse, from your POV, but I'll let you work
them out for yourself.
--
Ā® ĆĀ§
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/eop_entry/eop.htm
--
"Get your facts first, & then you can distort them as much as you please"
(Mark Twain)
GMcNally
Greg,
The job that Oswald did was a dirty, repetive, ie, boring, job that
Riley had trouble filling. That's the only reason they kept Oswald on.
Just as Oswald hated the job, so did everybody else.
Too bad there were no third-worlders available who would be glad of
such a job.
Jerry
Magic Bullet
Paul Seaton <pauls...@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:3c33...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Magic Bullet" <magic...@octa4.net.au> wrote in message
> news:newscache$6odbpg$4fo$1...@news.octa4.net.au...
>
> >
> > Ah, a mini-breakthrough. Now ask yourself why he was never docked. Then
> > ponder why his supivisor at Reily's wasn't asked to explain why his pay
> was
> > never docked.... as it would have been in any NORMAL business.
>
> <quote Greg>
> The start and finish times don't really matter. If Lee had an hour lunch
> break, he never (or rarely) put in 8 hours... [ ] ..So you're saying
> Le Blanc had an hour lunch break and Oswald only a half
> hour?
> <unquote>
>
> No Greg, JUDYTH BAKER is saying Oswald only had a half hour lunch break,
> remember?
But you guys don't believe Judyth? Remember?
That being the case, I am happy to argue from what was said under oath to
the WC. A ONE HOUR LUNCH.
> <quote Judyth>
> . HIS CONTRACTED HOURS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 8:00- 4:30. EIGHT HOURS,
> PLUS *** HALF AN HOUR FOR LUNCH ***.
> <unquote>
>
> If we are to believe both you AND Judyth on this, Lee DID put in his 8
> hours, no question of docking his pay arises, & the whole Judyth deal is
> back to being just a nasty mess on the carpet again.
Huh?
I am going from the testimony which (a) indicated an hour lunch and (b)
further indicated Oswald was rarely to be found on the job.
YET HE WAS NEVER DOCKED. Even if I allow YOUR half hour (and the only
reason you want to believe Judyth on this is that it SUPPORTS YOUR story),
then he still should have been docked for all the time away from the job.
Why the continual efforts to dodge what the testimony says, and what the
ramifications of that SHOULD have been to Oswald?
> And if we believe just Judyth on this, we can once more conclude that
you> are plain old wrong.
Then don't believe her on this. Simple. You don't believe anything else
she says, so you are only shpowing your willingness to pick and choose
what suits you.
> The other possibilities are even worse, from your POV, but I'll let you
work> them out for yourself.
LOL. You not a jokester. after all. There are three too many letters
there...
greg
Magic Bullet
Yet he was never late for those, and never neglected his work by going
AWOL.
Give it up, Jerry. Your efforts lately aren't worthy of you.
greg
GMcNally <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.02010...@posting.google.com...
Martin Shackelford
one of the group that denounces Judyth is using her as a source,
and another has started a thread about NOT talking about her.
Anyone know the way back through the looking glass?
Martin
Paul Seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3C33DC57...@concentric.net...
> Typical,
> one of the group that denounces Judyth is using her as a source,
> and another has started a thread about NOT talking about her.
Martin,
Greg is making out Lee's lunch break is ONE hour, therefore there's a
problem with him not losing pay. All I'm saying is that if Greg is right,
then Judyth is wrong. I would presume that since you have a noticeable
tendency to believe Judyth, you would agree that Greg is wrong. I would
also assume that you won't be saying so out loud - we'll see.
> Anyone know the way back through the looking glass?
Yeah. Stop assuming I'm Jerry McNally.
--
--
Ā® Ž§
Paul Seaton
> >
> > No Greg, JUDYTH BAKER is saying Oswald only had a half hour lunch break,
> > remember?
>
> But you guys don't believe Judyth? Remember?
But you do. Remember? Or are you now telling me you don't? ( If so, we
could have saved a lot of typing if you'd just said so to begin with.)
>
> That being the case, I am happy to argue from what was said under oath to
> the WC. A ONE HOUR LUNCH.
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
>
> > <quote Judyth>
> > . HIS CONTRACTED HOURS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 8:00- 4:30. EIGHT HOURS,
> > PLUS *** HALF AN HOUR FOR LUNCH ***.
> > <unquote>
> >
> > If we are to believe both you AND Judyth on this, Lee DID put in his 8
> > hours, no question of docking his pay arises, & the whole Judyth deal is
> > back to being just a nasty mess on the carpet again.
>
> Huh?
>
> I am going from the testimony which (a) indicated an hour lunch and
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
Got it yet?
(b)
> further indicated Oswald was rarely to be found on the job.
Upshot : You think Judyth is lying. Fair enough. So do I.
>
> YET HE WAS NEVER DOCKED. Even if I allow YOUR half hour (and the only
> reason you want to believe Judyth on this is that it SUPPORTS YOUR story),
Judyth seems to be getting left by the wayside here, in that you seem to
have invented a new 'concern' that flatly contradicts her story. Since we
are talking about the credibility of JUDYTH's yarn, not yours, I'm happy
to have your agreement that she's lying.
> then he still should have been docked for all the time away from the job.
You mean the time spent over at Alba's? You obviously lead a somewhat
sheltered life & have no first-hand experience of real-world malingering.
I suggest you get out more.
>
> Why the continual efforts to dodge what the testimony says,
Let me run it by you again a few times :
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
I think we already cleared up that the ONE HOUR LUNCH specifically
referred to Lee's SUPERVISOR.
The only testimony we have relevant to LHO's lunch breaks is JUDYTH's.
Which says it was half an hour.
> > <quote Judyth>
> > . HIS CONTRACTED HOURS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 8:00- 4:30. EIGHT HOURS,
> > PLUS *** HALF AN HOUR FOR LUNCH ***.
> > <unquote>
> > <quote Judyth>
> > . HIS CONTRACTED HOURS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 8:00- 4:30. EIGHT HOURS,
> > PLUS *** HALF AN HOUR FOR LUNCH ***.
> > <unquote>
> > <quote Judyth>
> > . HIS CONTRACTED HOURS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 8:00- 4:30. EIGHT HOURS,
> > PLUS *** HALF AN HOUR FOR LUNCH ***.
> > <unquote>
> > <quote Judyth>
> > . HIS CONTRACTED HOURS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE 8:00- 4:30. EIGHT HOURS,
> > PLUS *** HALF AN HOUR FOR LUNCH ***.
> > <unquote>
You don't believe her. Fair enough. The whole thread is solemnly dedicated
to the vital (?) task of establishing her credibility - or lack thereof -
on this one issue. And it turns out (unexpectedly & rather late in the
day..) that you yourself think she must be lying.
Welcome aboard, Greg.
--
Magic Bullet
see fit here, so I won't even try.
Let's try this a coverall, instead. You have completely misrepresented my
statements once again.
greg
Paul Seaton <pauls...@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:3c35...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Ā® Ž§
Martin Shackelford
obvious similarities, I know the difference betseen you two. You're
preoccupied with the time cards even more than Lifton is. He's
rhetorically preoccupied with trying to shut down the discussion on one
thread, while stoking it on others.
Martin
Joe Zircon
with a qwuestion, but can anybody answer this one? If it's been
previously covered I apologize.
<deletia>
> >
> >QUOTING (from the "Deadly Alliance" outline/pitch):
> >
> >Judyth covered for Lee's activity, and for his daily absences from
> >work, making sure to punch him out at 4:30 PM or 5:30 PM when he was
> >no longer there, which was almost always.
> >
> >EVIDENCE: The Warren Report shows precise time-outs on the half-hour,
> >an impossibility since there was a line to wait on and such precise
> >time-outs could not occur accidentally. It didn't occur to Judyth to
> >vary the time-out stamp.
> >
Did not Judyth have to wait in the same line? Or did she have a
separate time clock for her own use?
If she could punch out Oswald promptly at 5:30 all those days (and had
to wait in line to do so), why couldn't Lee punch himself out promptly
by waiting in the same line?
Joe Zircon
> > In fairness to David Lifton, body alteration is his *theory.* I don't
> > think it's a very good one, frankly.
> >
> > He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
> > things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
> > sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
> > conclusions.
> >
> > But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
> >
> > .John
>
> John:
>
> As you yourself state, I am indeed using "standard historical
> sources."
>
> I don't want to turn this into a "medical" thread, but let me point
> out that you can't get much more standard (or better) evidence than:
>
> (1) Two FBI agents who state that, the body arrived at Bethesda, there
> had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.
*Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
>
> (2) Conflicting medical reports, from the official records, Dallas
> versus Bethesda, regarding the size and location of the head wound
> (See Chapter 13, Best Evidence); plus a similar situation re the front
> throat wound (See Ch. 11, B.E.). Ipso facto: the body was indeed
> altered.
>
> (3) Documentary evidence--supported by eyewitness interviews--for the
> proposition that the body (a) left Dallas in sheets, and arrived at
> Bethesda in a body bag; and (b) left Dallas in full size and very
> fancy ceremonial coffin, and was delivered in a shipping casket. Ipso
> facto: the body was indeed intercepted.
My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
>
> The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
>
> If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> connect someone's gun to the crime.
It would be very clear?
No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
question. And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
theory. When & where did this happen?
Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
seriously incomplete.
And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons? From what I recall, some
of the most qualified in the field say it wouldn't fool anyone who
knew what they were doing, that the wounds inflicted after death look
nothing like wounds made when the person was alive. You don't really
address this issue at all in your nearly 800 page book, nor do you
address how Connally's wounds were suffered. In fact, you practically
ignore Connally's wounding entirely.
A minor oversight?
>
> But this is not about John Doe; its about JFK. Many lone-nutters
> refuse to take the evidence of autopsy falsification (via body
> alteration) at face value, hence, the label "outlandish."
>
> In my opinion, this represents a failure to think "outside the box."
>
> Before 9/11, it was outlandish" to think that four airplanes could be
> hijacked and two of them flown into the World Trade Center. Suddenly,
> that is very much in vogue, and lengthy articles now appear in the
> press as to all the "signals leading up to 9/11" that were "missed."
>
> The same goes for the body alteration evidence in this case.
>
> And another fact: Far from being "outlandish," a number of
> lone-nutters have--in private conversaations--in effect conceded that
> if this event didn't happen per the Warren Commission, then BEST
> EVIDENCE presents the only reasonable and rational way to explain the
> evidence -i.e., the record--in the case.
I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
assumes the evidence is falsified.
Jack White thinks all the Dealey Plaza photos are falsified, and
builds his arguments around the witnesses statements. But only the
convenient ones. The other witnesses are lying or intimidated. Etc.
Robert Groden says those photos are legit, but the autopsy photos are
falsified to hide the evidence of a back of head wound. Like White,
the convenient witnesses are telling the truth, the inconvenient ones
are lying or intimidated.
You think the witnesses are correct for the most part (but only, of
course, where they offer evidence convenient to your theory), and the
autopsy photos legit, but you merely introduce the falsification of
evidence at an earlier level, prior to the autopsy and prior to the
photos taken at the autopsy.
There's really no difference. You're all relying on arguments that the
evidence before us aint legit. And using eyewitness evidence to
attempt to overturn the hard evidence.
>
> But at root, I still say, the problem is psychological.
>
> There was a great cartoon in the New Yorker a few months ago. It
> showed a patient, lying on a couch in a shrink's office. His body was
> peppered with "dots."
>
> And the doctor is telling him, "But you have to *want* to connect the
> dots, Mr. Smith."
>
> That's what I say about the evidence in this case.
Respectfully, David, when I think of your theory, I think of another
psychological joke. The shrink shows the patient an inkblot, and asks
what he sees. "A naked lady", says the patient. He's shown another,
and again, he says, "A naked lady". A third inkblot gets the same
response. As does the fourth & fifth.
At this point the doctor says, "I think I know what your problem is,
you have a dirty mind".
And the patient responds, "Me? You're the one with the dirty
pictures!"
We don't see the stuff we should see, stuff that is readily apparent
to you. And you tells us it's our problem?
>
> If the key evidence in this case (i.e., autopsy report, ballistics,
> etc.) is valid, then the official version prevails. Only if the key
> evidence has been falsified--which is the thesis of Best Evidence--can
> there be a logical and rational conspiracy explanation.
>
> That is not outlandish; its plain logic.
And the evidence is that the evidence has not been falsified. For
example, you go from *apparent* surgery to *definite* surgery. You
introduced the concept of the bodybag to the witness, he didn't
mention it independently.
You go from simple conflicts in the memory of some witnesses
concerning the timing of the arrival of the body at Bethesda, etc., to
a massive conspiracy.
Sorry, no sale.
>
> The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
> said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
> strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
> labeled "outlandish."
>
> DSL
Or alternately, they aren't connected and shouldn't be connected. But
you are connecting them because you have a strong bias to do so, not
that they deserve to be connected.
Who rationally connects dots on a patient's body, anyway? That's not a
proper way to diagnose or treat a patient in any case I'm aware of.
You need a better analogy than this one, David. This one suggests you
are connecting stuff that doesn't deserve to be connected, which is
not your intent, I don't think.
JoeZ
AnthonyMarsh
>
> dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) wrote in message news:<460446c1.01123...@posting.google.com>...
> > > In fairness to David Lifton, body alteration is his *theory.* I don't
> > > think it's a very good one, frankly.
> > >
> > > He doesn't claim to have been a witness who saw some terribly sinister
> > > things about body alteration. So he's not "making up" stuff in that
> > > sense. He is using standard historical sources, but to get outlandish
> > > conclusions.
> > >
> > > But he's not claiming to *be* an historical source.
> > >
> > > .John
> >
> > John:
> >
> > As you yourself state, I am indeed using "standard historical
> > sources."
> >
> > I don't want to turn this into a "medical" thread, but let me point
> > out that you can't get much more standard (or better) evidence than:
> >
> > (1) Two FBI agents who state that, the body arrived at Bethesda, there
> > had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.
>
> *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
>
Exactly. This is one of the problems with many researchers, not just
David. They are quite willing to take someone's statement or guess as if
it is an absolute proof.
BTW, the wording, IMHO, rules out a massive exit wound in the back of
the head. The exit wound was so massive that it appeared to have been
the result of surgery. That much bone was missing. There is only one
massive blowout exit wound and that it on the top of the head, not the
back of the head. The back of the head is fractured, but intact.
Lifton refuses to discuss the Connally back wound. We can see it
bleeding in later Zapruder frames. He also refuses to discuss how the
chrome topping was dented. These two points alone totally destroy his
position that absolutely no shots came from behind.
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Paul Seaton
> It's been made clear to me that I am unable to respond to you in the way I
> see fit here, so I won't even try.
The old ng 'guiding hands' on your collar, eh Greg ? : )
>
> Let's try this a coverall, instead. You have completely misrepresented my
> statements once again.
Yeah, sure.
It's interesting to note btw that if you are right about LHO having a 'one
hour' lunch break then not only is Judyth wrong about that (she seems to
think it was 1/2 hour) but she must be ALSO wrong about his (supposed,
official) start & finish times.
--
Ā® ĆĀ§
David S. Lifton
See comments below.
RE your statement:
> *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
>
> That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
>
COMMENT: It wasn't "apparent surgery"; it was "apparent" THAT THERE
HAD BEEN surgery". That's a big difference.
The quote: It was "apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as
well as SURGERY OF THE HEAD AREA, NAMELY, IN THE TOP OF THE SKULL."
YOUR STATEMENT:
> My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
>
COMMENT: Dead wrong.
Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
1980, during my filmed interivew.
Your "recollection" therefore is completely false, and so is the
negative implication you draw from it, about my work.
RE:
> > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> >
> > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > connect someone's gun to the crime.
>
> It would be very clear?
>
> No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
"outside the box."
>
> Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
>
> After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> question.
WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
in detail, but choose not to at this time.
RE:
And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
> that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
> front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
> back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
> same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
> he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
> means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
> theory. When & where did this happen?
>
> Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
> seriously incomplete.
RESPONSE: Please don't tell me that if I proved to you that JC's
medical data was falsified, you would suddenly come around on the
question of JFK's autopsy being false. The two are like skew-lines,
logically. You are trying to connect them, and thus use one issue to
avoid addressing the other.
RE:
> And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
COMMENT:
FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
RE:
>From what I recall, some
> of the most qualified in the field say it wouldn't fool anyone who
> knew what they were doing, that the wounds inflicted after death look
> nothing like wounds made when the person was alive. You don't really
> address this issue at all in your nearly 800 page book,
COMMENT: False. . that is why the microscopic slides are missing. See
chapter 18 of my book.
RE:
> I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> assumes the evidence is falsified.
FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
RE:
> Jack White thinks all the Dealey Plaza photos are falsified, and
> builds his arguments around the witnesses statements. But only the
> convenient ones. The other witnesses are lying or intimidated. Etc.
>
> Robert Groden says those photos are legit, but the autopsy photos are
> falsified to hide the evidence of a back of head wound. Like White,
> the convenient witnesses are telling the truth, the inconvenient ones
> are lying or intimidated.
COMMENT: Silly comparisions.
>
> You think the witnesses are correct for the most part (but only, of
> course, where they offer evidence convenient to your theory), and the
> autopsy photos legit, but you merely introduce the falsification of
> evidence at an earlier level, prior to the autopsy and prior to the
> photos taken at the autopsy.
>
> There's really no difference. You're all relying on arguments that the
> evidence before us aint legit. And using eyewitness evidence to
> attempt to overturn the hard evidence.
COMMENT: Wrong again. When there exists, for example, a pathological
slide that is labeled "from the line of transection of the spinal
cord," that is not relying on an eyewitesss recollection of the size
and shape of a wound.
Again, see Ch. 18 of B.E.
Apparently, you're in love with your own generalizations.
RE: your attempt to make a joke of the evidence that supports body
alteration.
> We don't see the stuff we should see, stuff that is readily apparent
> to you. And you tells us it's our problem?
COMMENT: Its not that you don't "see the stuff we should see." You
fail to see the "stuff" that is there. You shouldn't "see it" because
I say so; the subjective act is not mine; its your refusal to see what
is there.
RE:
> And the evidence is that the evidence has not been falsified. For
> example, you go from *apparent* surgery to *definite* surgery. You
> introduced the concept of the bodybag to the witness, he didn't
> mention it independently.
COMMENT: All these statements are based on multiple errors, as
outlined above.
>
> You go from simple conflicts in the memory of some witnesses
> concerning the timing of the arrival of the body at Bethesda, etc., to
> a massive conspiracy.
>
> Sorry, no sale.
COMMMENT: That's like saying: "you go from 4 planes hijacked by 19
people to a massive conspiracy. Sorry. . no sale."
> >
TO REPEAT WHAT I FIRST WROTE:
> > The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
> > said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
> > strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
> > labeled "outlandish."
> >
> > DSL
>
RE:
> Or alternately, they aren't connected and shouldn't be connected.
COMMENT: THis is YOUR problem is logic and perception, which you
project onto me. But the problem, let me assure you, is all yours.
AND:
"But
> you are connecting them because you have a strong bias to do so, not
> that they deserve to be connected."
SEZ WHO? You- - - who keeps getting the simplest facts wrong, as
ennumerate above??
RE:
> Who rationally connects dots on a patient's body, anyway? That's not a
> proper way to diagnose or treat a patient in any case I'm aware of.
COMMENT: Good Lord. . you do realize the NYer cartoon was a cartoon,
and was employing a metaphor, no?
>
> You need a better analogy than this one, David. This one suggests you
> are connecting stuff that doesn't deserve to be connected, which is
> not your intent, I don't think.
>
>
> JoeZ
COMMENT: To make these judgements, I suggest you go into the field of
psychiatry. In the world of logic and evidence, the dots I have
connected--i.e., the inferences I have drawn--are perfectly logical.
Unfortunately, for you and others, they happen to lead to conclusions
that are "politically incorrect," and that is the problem.
And not much more.
DSL
GMcNally
> Sorry, Joe, but you're wrong on all counts (as usual).
>
> See comments below.
>
> RE your statement:
>
> > *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
> >
> > That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
> >
>
> COMMENT: It wasn't "apparent surgery"; it was "apparent" THAT THERE
> HAD BEEN surgery". That's a big difference.
>
> The quote: It was "apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as
> well as SURGERY OF THE HEAD AREA, NAMELY, IN THE TOP OF THE SKULL."
David,
But, as the autopsists said the scalp was intact with the exception of
a defect at the top side, then, there couldn't have been surgery.
The doctors had to reflect the scalp, upon which the skull crumbled
enough to allow them to remove the brain without using a cranial saw.
Therefore, there could have been no surgery.
This body-alteration theory is your Judyth - something you bet your
career on and everybody else sees as ridiculous.
Jerry
Joe Zircon
> Sorry, Joe, but you're wrong on all counts (as usual).
>
> See comments below.
>
> RE your statement:
>
> > *Apparent* surgery of the head, David.
> >
> > That doesn't mean *definite*, it means *apparent*.
> >
>
> COMMENT: It wasn't "apparent surgery"; it was "apparent" THAT THERE
> HAD BEEN surgery". That's a big difference.
>
> The quote: It was "apparent that a tracheotomy had been performed, as
> well as SURGERY OF THE HEAD AREA, NAMELY, IN THE TOP OF THE SKULL."
>
>From http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
-- quote --
Main Entry: apęaręŖnt
Pronunciation: &-'par-&nt, -'per-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French aparent, from Latin
apparent-, apparens, present participle of apparEre to appear
Date: 14th century
1 : open to view : VISIBLE
2 : clear or manifest to the understanding
3 : appearing as actual to the eye or mind
4 : having an indefeasible right to succeed to a title or estate
5 : manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of
evidence that may or may not be factually valid <the air of
spontaneity is perhaps more apparent than real -- J. R. Sutherland>
- apęaręŖntęess /-'par-&nt-n&s, -'per-/ noun
synonyms APPARENT, ILLUSORY, SEEMING, OSTENSIBLE mean not actually
being what appearance indicates. APPARENT suggests appearance to
unaided senses that is not or may not be borne out by more rigorous
examination or greater knowledge <the apparent cause of the accident>.
ILLUSORY implies a false impression based on deceptive resemblance or
faulty observation, or influenced by emotions that prevent a clear
view <an illusory sense of security>. SEEMING implies a character in
the thing observed that gives it the appearance, sometimes through
intent, of something else <the seeming simplicity of the story>.
OSTENSIBLE suggests a discrepancy between an openly declared or
naturally implied aim or reason and the true one <the ostensible
reason for their visit>. synonym see in addition EVIDENT
-- unquote --
Note the definitions. Especially this: APPARENT suggests appearance to
unaided senses *that is not or may not be borne out by more rigorous
examination or greater knowledge* <the apparent cause of the accident>
or this: <the air of spontaneity is perhaps more apparent than real>
Or try this: <The surgery of the head area you mention is perhaps more
apparent than real>. Get it yet?
Note some of the synonyms listed, David. Illusory, Ostensible,
seeming, evident.
What is 'apparent' or evident at first glance may or may not be true
when examined in detail. It may prove to be illusory. As is your whole
case.
What pathologist who examined the body that night has said there were
body alterations?
What pathologist who examined the extant autopsy materials has said
there were body alterations?
The answers are none, and none, right?
>
>
> YOUR STATEMENT:
>
> > My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> > mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
> >
> COMMENT: Dead wrong.
>
> Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
> interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
> volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
> then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
> telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
> 1980, during my filmed interivew.
Floyd Reibe, not Paul O'Connor:
Lifton: ...was he in any kind of bag or anything, or in a sheet?"
Reibe: I think he was in a body bag.
Lifton: A body bag.
Reibe: Yes, a rubberized bag..."(p 637)
You asked about the bag, first. Don't you know your own material?
>
> Your "recollection" therefore is completely false, and so is the
> negative implication you draw from it, about my work.
No, my recollection is absolutely accurate. I found the quote in
question, and it confirms that you mentioned the bag first.
>
> RE:
>
> > > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> > >
> > > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > > connect someone's gun to the crime.
> >
> > It would be very clear?
> >
> > No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
>
> To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
> "outside the box."
Not at all. I think Time-Travelers On Vacation killed JFK. This
apparently hasn't occurred to you because you have trouble thinking
outside the sphere which encircles the box. ;-)
Name one other case where body alterations were used to fool the
pathologists.
Otherwise, it's still an outlandish suggestion.
> >
> > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> >
> > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > question.
>
> WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> in detail, but choose not to at this time.
Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
tell us at this time.
The JFK assassin happened 38 years ago, David. If you won't tell us
now, when?
And what's the need for the big secret anyway?
>
> RE:
>
> And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
> > that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
> > front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
> > back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
> > same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
> > he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
> > means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
> > theory. When & where did this happen?
> >
> > Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
> > seriously incomplete.
>
> RESPONSE: Please don't tell me that if I proved to you that JC's
> medical data was falsified, you would suddenly come around on the
> question of JFK's autopsy being false. The two are like skew-lines,
> logically. You are trying to connect them, and thus use one issue to
> avoid addressing the other.
>
Nope. That pig won't fly. That's your dodge. You're the one avoiding
addressing the issue of Connally's back wound, remember? I brought it
up, you said you won't explain it.
They are logically connected by the fact that both men were shot in
the same assassination attempt. It's your argument that there were no
shooters behind the limo in that assassination attempt, that the real
shooters were in front of the limo, and JFK's wounds on the back
surface of his body were added later by conspirators. So Connally's
wounds, suffered in the same assassination attempt, which point to the
rear of the limo, must likewise have been added as well, according to
your theory, because they point to the rear of the limo too.
Explain when Connally's wounds were altered, David.
In the limo by Jackie & Nellie?
By Clint Hill who jumped onto the limo as it speed away from Dealey
Plaza? (I've always been suspicious of that activity myself).
Or at the hospital by his attending physicians?
Or do you want to change the subject and talk about JFK's wounds some
more?
> RE:
>
> > And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> > would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
>
> COMMENT:
>
> FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
> front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
> surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
>
You're quoting an FBI report, not the pathologists. Your quote is
hearsay, not evidence. And you're apparently misinterpreting what the
word apparent means, besides.
What pathologist(s) agrees with you, David? Can you name *ONE*?
I'm sorry, where in the autopsy report can I read that the body was
altered by pre-autopsy surgery, and the wound on JFK's upper back
added after death?
If they weren't fooled as you allege, surely they would have noted all
that, right?
And the pathologists who examined the extant materials later, for the
HSCA, they weren't fooled either, right? Where can I read in the HSCA
volumes of evidence that JFK's body was altered after death by surgery
to falsify the wounds? I must have missed that part.
But if the pathologists who examined the body and the materials said
it, I'm sure you'd be kind enough to offer a quote. But they never
said anything of the sort, did they, David?
In fact, you are taking a hearsay report and elevating it to
preeminence, and throwing out the statements by all the pathologists
who've examined the body and the autopsy materials, not one of whom
ever said anything remotely like your theory ever occurred. And two of
whom, in fact, said definitely that nothing remotely like your theory
could have occurred.
Isn't that right?
> RE:
>
> >From what I recall, some
> > of the most qualified in the field say it wouldn't fool anyone who
> > knew what they were doing, that the wounds inflicted after death look
> > nothing like wounds made when the person was alive. You don't really
> > address this issue at all in your nearly 800 page book,
>
> COMMENT: False. . that is why the microscopic slides are missing. See
> chapter 18 of my book.
Really? You just changed the subject entirely, didn't you? I spoke of
no pathologist agreeing with your theory, you talked about microscopic
slides.
No one here is fooled by that, David.
For example, Dr. Cyril Wecht said:
"Lifton gets away with crap, and no one challenges him. I could
assemble a
whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
accomplish in a
day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have never bought
his stuff.
It can't be done."
For example, Dr. Michael Baden said:
"Lifton just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a fantasy of
his. he
thinks he sees signs of surgery in some of the autopsy photos, but he
doesn't
know how to read those pictures. It's laughable. He's not a doctor
and it's
clear by his work that he doesn't understand what really happened.
He doesn't
even take into account rigor mortis, which starts two hours after
death.
Surgery on a corpse would look different than one on a living person.
His
theory of medical alteration is ridiculous"
Are you saying these doctors are actually lamenting how the
microscopic slides would prove you right if those slides were only
available?
I don't think so, but I could have trouble thinking outside the box.
Maybe if you took a tape of Baden saying all that above, and played it
enough times, it could start to sound like Baden was agreeing with
you. Why not? It worked for your tape of Humes, didn't it?
>
> RE:
>
> > I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> > advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> > It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> > assumes the evidence is falsified.
>
> FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
> that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
No, you present hearsay (the FBI memo), contaminated interviews
(Riebe) and minor disputes about time from recollections years after
the events (the casket entry) as the cornerstones of your theory.
That's what your book is all about.
You discard hard or better evidence like Oswald's rifle, like the
Z-film, like the autopsy conclusions, and like the subsequent review
of the autopsy.
That's what your book is all about. I could write a book justifying
Time Travelers On Vacation, if I get to throw out everything that
disagrees with me as falsified, and keep just the hearsay, the
contaminated interviews, and the recollections from years after the
event that I like.
>
> RE:
>
> > Jack White thinks all the Dealey Plaza photos are falsified, and
> > builds his arguments around the witnesses statements. But only the
> > convenient ones. The other witnesses are lying or intimidated. Etc.
> >
> > Robert Groden says those photos are legit, but the autopsy photos are
> > falsified to hide the evidence of a back of head wound. Like White,
> > the convenient witnesses are telling the truth, the inconvenient ones
> > are lying or intimidated.
>
> COMMENT: Silly comparisions.
Really? And you take a hearsay report by two FBI agents and tell us it
is better evidence than the autopsy conclusions, and all subsequent
examinations by pathologists, none of whom see any evidence for body
alteration.
Explain why we should believe your arguments over Groden's or Jack
White's, when all CT's arguments (yours included) reduce to taking
hearsay and eyewitness testimony over the hard evidence?
> >
> > You think the witnesses are correct for the most part (but only, of
> > course, where they offer evidence convenient to your theory), and the
> > autopsy photos legit, but you merely introduce the falsification of
> > evidence at an earlier level, prior to the autopsy and prior to the
> > photos taken at the autopsy.
> >
> > There's really no difference. You're all relying on arguments that the
> > evidence before us aint legit. And using eyewitness evidence to
> > attempt to overturn the hard evidence.
>
> COMMENT: Wrong again. When there exists, for example, a pathological
> slide that is labeled "from the line of transection of the spinal
> cord," that is not relying on an eyewitesss recollection of the size
> and shape of a wound.
>
> Again, see Ch. 18 of B.E.
>
And this slide confirms your theory exactly how? What pathologist
agrees with you on the value of this slide, David?
Anyone?
If you can't cite one expert who believes as you do, then you are
unconvincing. Instead, it looks for all the world that you're merely
misinterpreting the materials based on your own biases in this case,
and substituting your own interpretations for those of qualified
experts.
>
> Apparently, you're in love with your own generalizations.
>
>
> RE: your attempt to make a joke of the evidence that supports body
> alteration.
Which was in response to your silly citation of a cartoon, the
substance of which is that you're wrong for attempting to connect dots
that shouldn't be connected.
>
> > We don't see the stuff we should see, stuff that is readily apparent
> > to you. And you tells us it's our problem?
>
> COMMENT: Its not that you don't "see the stuff we should see." You
> fail to see the "stuff" that is there. You shouldn't "see it" because
> I say so; the subjective act is not mine; its your refusal to see what
> is there.
Or, you're seeing stuff that's not there. Since you're in the definite
minority here (most others involved in following the JFK
assassination, on both sides of the fence, agree with me that your
theory is untenable), what makes you think you're seeing stuff that is
there, particularly since many pathologists say it can't be done as
you claim it was done?
>
> RE:
>
> > And the evidence is that the evidence has not been falsified. For
> > example, you go from *apparent* surgery to *definite* surgery. You
> > introduced the concept of the bodybag to the witness, he didn't
> > mention it independently.
>
> COMMENT: All these statements are based on multiple errors, as
> outlined above.
Nope. You're not familiar with the appropriate definition of
'apparent', apparently. And you named the wrong witness. You mentioned
the bag first to Riebe.
> >
> > You go from simple conflicts in the memory of some witnesses
> > concerning the timing of the arrival of the body at Bethesda, etc., to
> > a massive conspiracy.
> >
> > Sorry, no sale.
>
> COMMMENT: That's like saying: "you go from 4 planes hijacked by 19
> people to a massive conspiracy. Sorry. . no sale."
There you go again! You've got what, about a half-hour conflict in
time - how many years later exactly? - over the arrival of the casket
at Bethesda, and you cite this conflict as if it's important evidence
(you must surely think so, you spend a lot of time on it in your
book). You now even compare this minor conflict with the 4 planes
bearing 19 hijackers. Not even close. Those two are not even on the
same plane in terms of evidence.
A better analogy would be a 800-page book, written 15 years from now,
trying to prove Muhammed Atta was innocent, based on interviews
conducted 5 or 10 years from now, based almost entirely on
recollections from his father that he talked to Muhammed Atta shortly
after the two planes crashed. With maybe a dollop of an interview with
one NY observer who said it was apparent to him the plane was out of
control, and accidentally crashed into the building.
That kind of argument isn't very convincing now, and it won't be 15
years from now either.
Neither is your book.
> > >
>
> TO REPEAT WHAT I FIRST WROTE:
>
> > > The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in the New Yorker cartoon
> > > said, you have to want to connect them, and not start with the very
> > > strong bias that such connections lead to a pattern that is, a priori,
> > > labeled "outlandish."
> > >
> > > DSL
> >
> RE:
>
> > Or alternately, they aren't connected and shouldn't be connected.
>
> COMMENT: THis is YOUR problem is logic and perception, which you
> project onto me. But the problem, let me assure you, is all yours.
>
Respectfully, I'm not the one with the theory that's viewed as
outlandish by most of the research community. And I'm not the one
relying on hearsay evidence (The S&0 memo) and contaminated interviews
where I introduced the concept of a bag to the witness.
> AND:
>
> "But
> > you are connecting them because you have a strong bias to do so, not
> > that they deserve to be connected."
>
> SEZ WHO? You- - - who keeps getting the simplest facts wrong, as
> ennumerate above??
You! You get the simplest facts wrong as enumerated above.
>
>
> RE:
> > Who rationally connects dots on a patient's body, anyway? That's not a
> > proper way to diagnose or treat a patient in any case I'm aware of.
>
> COMMENT: Good Lord. . you do realize the NYer cartoon was a cartoon,
> and was employing a metaphor, no?
Yes. And your analogy needs work. The dots in the cartoon *you cited*
shouldn't be connected, should they?
But you keep insisting we should connect the dots in the JFK case, and
you cited the cartoon.
Like I said, your analogy needs work. So does your evidence.
> >
> > You need a better analogy than this one, David. This one suggests you
> > are connecting stuff that doesn't deserve to be connected, which is
> > not your intent, I don't think.
> >
> >
> > JoeZ
>
> COMMENT: To make these judgements, I suggest you go into the field of
> psychiatry. In the world of logic and evidence, the dots I have
> connected--i.e., the inferences I have drawn--are perfectly logical.
And you brought up a cartoon that is funny precisely because the dots
shouldn't be connected.
This illustrates the problem far better than anything else I can say.
You are in the position of the doctor in that cartoon, telling the
patient to connect the dots. But the cartoon is funny precisely
because the dots shouldn't be connected, right?
Yet there you are, telling us to connect the dots that don't deserve
to be connected! Quote: "The "dots" are there. But, as the doctor in
the New Yorker cartoon said, you have to want to connect them..."
Yes, you do. You have to want to connect them. Regardless of whether
they deserve to be connected or not.
Respectfully, David, this real-life analogy of you connecting dots
that shouldn't be connected, because you want to connect them, would
be funny too, if it wasn't so sad.
>
> Unfortunately, for you and others, they happen to lead to conclusions
> that are "politically incorrect," and that is the problem.
>
> And not much more.
>
The problem is that you draw conclusions from hearsay and witness
recollections, years after the fact, and discard the better evidence
gathered from the pathologists and the physical evidence. Your
conclusions are, as might be expected, therefore and quite simply,
erroneous.
> DSL
JoeZ
WinBear
head".
There's a word the doctors may have used perfectly innocently in their
conversation that might have caused the agents to think that surgery was
being discussed, when it wasn't.
The word is "sutures". To the average person, surgical thread. To a doctor,
both the thread, and the join lines between bony plates of the skull...
natural landmarks when used in a discussion of head wounds.
Did the agents write anything down as verbatim? Did they have medical
training?
WinBear
AnthonyMarsh
>
> IIRC this is based on something FBI agents overheard, about "surgery to the
> head".
>
Have you read the FBI agents' report? The context is quite clear. Someone,
probably Humes is in the process of removing President Kennedy's body from the
coffin. Someone notes the CONDITION of the body. Either the FBI agents saw or
someone said that it was APPARENT that there was surgery in the head area. That
is the qualifier that people forget about. It was not proven that there was
surgery to the head. It just appeared to be the case. As we have seen with other
aspects of the autopsy, what is apparent to the unqualified autopsy doctors is
often far from the truth.
> There's a word the doctors may have used perfectly innocently in their
> conversation that might have caused the agents to think that surgery was
> being discussed, when it wasn't.
>
No, that is a red herring. They were talking about the damage done to the
President.
> The word is "sutures". To the average person, surgical thread. To a doctor,
> both the thread, and the join lines between bony plates of the skull...
> natural landmarks when used in a discussion of head wounds.
>
No, the head had been put back together at Parkland and gaps in the skull had
been filled in with gauze strips. There is no way that any person could have
seen the skull until the autopsy started. Look at the photos of the body after
it had been removed from the coffin and before the autopsy started. You can't
see any skull sutures. Even worse, the coronal suture had been blow away and the
sagital suture which which was partially blown away was hidden by the scalp. The
lamboidal suture was hidden by the scalp.
Read the Sibert and O'Neill report to get the context and timing.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Sibert-ONeill.html
> Did the agents write anything down as verbatim? Did they have medical
> training?
>
Some of the words are verbatim as they heard them.
> WinBear
GMcNally
> WinBear wrote:
> >
> > IIRC this is based on something FBI agents overheard, about "surgery to the
> > head".
> >
>
> Have you read the FBI agents' report? The context is quite clear. Someone,
> probably Humes is in the process of removing President Kennedy's body from the
> coffin. Someone notes the CONDITION of the body. Either the FBI agents saw or
> someone said that it was APPARENT that there was surgery in the head area. That
> is the qualifier that people forget about. It was not proven that there was
> surgery to the head. It just appeared to be the case. As we have seen with other
> aspects of the autopsy, what is apparent to the unqualified autopsy doctors is
> often far from the truth.
>
> > There's a word the doctors may have used perfectly innocently in their
> > conversation that might have caused the agents to think that surgery was
> > being discussed, when it wasn't.
> >
>
> No, that is a red herring. They were talking about the damage done to the
> President.
>
> > The word is "sutures". To the average person, surgical thread. To a doctor,
> > both the thread, and the join lines between bony plates of the skull...
> > natural landmarks when used in a discussion of head wounds.
> >
>
> No, the head had been put back together at Parkland and gaps in the skull had
> been filled in with gauze strips.
Tony, if you could provide more detail or a source I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Jerry
David S. Lifton
No time to debate this point just now, but. . the condition of the
head, as you quote the Bethesda autopsy report and testimony, simply
not the same as that of Dallas.
One flap was observed--and it was at the back.
See B.E., Ch. 13 (and 18) where I deal with this.
DSL
David S. Lifton
Re "apparent". . .
I know all about the dictioinary definition.
What I was addressing (and which you keep getting incorrect) is the
context.
It was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head
area"--that's what their report is saying. NOT: there was "apparent"
surgery.
See the different?
In one case (the way you persist in citing it--through a misread of
context--) it works in your favor.
But as the FBI actually wrote it, it works in mine. Because it is the
FACT of surgery is "apparent"--not something that "appears to have
been" surgery. Now that's my interpretation, and I believe it to be
the correct one, with regard to the way the FBI report is written.
* * *
> > YOUR STATEMENT:
> >
> > > My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> > > mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
> > >
> > COMMENT: Dead wrong.
> >
> > Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
> > interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
> > volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
> > then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
> > telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
> > 1980, during my filmed interivew.
>
You cite FLoyd Reibe, and you are correct that I asked a slightly
leading question. But my point was (and remains): O'Connor is the
chief body bag witness--he opened the darn thing. It is central to
his recollection of that night; and he said so to the Florida
newspaper, and to the HSCA reps that interviewed him year(s) before I
did.
Moreover, you can't erase what Reibe said, just because of the way the
quesiton was asked. And again I come back to the point: the case
rests on O'Connor--and, by the way, also on Capt. Robert Stover, CO of
the Navy Med School, who was there, and also confirmed to me there was
a body bag.
> > RE:
> >
> > > > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> > > >
> > > > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > > > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > > > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > > > connect someone's gun to the crime.
> > >
> > > It would be very clear?
> > >
> > > No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
> >
> > To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
> > "outside the box."
>
> Name one other case where body alterations were used to fool the
> pathologists.
> Otherwise, it's still an outlandish suggestion.
Re the above:
a. Its an awful standard by which to measure something.
b. Turn it around, and you'll see how unusual and original the plan
was.
c. The pathologists weren't "fooled" if they told the FBI, at the
outset, that it was "apparent" (that word, again) that there had been
"surgery of the head area. . "
d. Name one other person named Joe Zircon. . . etc.
> > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> > >
> > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > question.
> >
> > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
>
> Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> tell us at this time.
CORRECT TRANSLATION: I choose not to deal with that matter in this
e-mail post.
>
> The JFK assassin happened 38 years ago, David. If you won't tell us
> now, when?
May 5, 2004; at 10:30 am.
>
> And what's the need for the big secret anyway?
There's something I cannot discuss that will be occurring that May 5,
at 9:20 am, and which must remain confidential.
DSL
> >
> > RE:
> >
> > And Connally's wounds *must* have been altered, too, isn't
> > > that right? Because your theory tells us that all the shooters were in
> > > front of the limo. And the apparent entry wounds were placed on the
> > > back of JFK when the bullets were removed. Since both men were in the
> > > same limo, the shooters were in front of Connally too (Connally said
> > > he was facing forward when he was struck, as you well know). And this
> > > means his back wound therefore was also falsified, according to your
> > > theory. When & where did this happen?
> > >
> > > Can you explain this? If not, your theory of body alteration is
> > > seriously incomplete.
> >
> > RESPONSE: Please don't tell me that if I proved to you that JC's
> > medical data was falsified, you would suddenly come around on the
> > question of JFK's autopsy being false. The two are like skew-lines,
> > logically. You are trying to connect them, and thus use one issue to
> > avoid addressing the other.
> >
>
> Nope. That pig won't fly. That's your dodge. You're the one avoiding
> addressing the issue of Connally's back wound, remember? I brought it
> up, you said you won't explain it.
>
> They are logically connected by the fact that both men were shot in
> the same assassination attempt. It's your argument that there were no
> shooters behind the limo in that assassination attempt, that the real
> shooters were in front of the limo, and JFK's wounds on the back
> surface of his body were added later by conspirators.
But that doesn't absolve you of evaluating the JFK medical data
objectively (and separately). You can't say because there was another
victim in the shooting, that I must "solve" that crime to your
satisfaction, or you won't deal with the evidence of the primary
victim.
Yet you do just that. ..
Continuing with your "argument". . .
ZIRON (continued)
So Connally's
> wounds, suffered in the same assassination attempt, which point to the
> rear of the limo, must likewise have been added as well, according to
> your theory, because they point to the rear of the limo too.
>
> Explain when Connally's wounds were altered, David.
>
> In the limo by Jackie & Nellie?
>
> By Clint Hill who jumped onto the limo as it speed away from Dealey
> Plaza? (I've always been suspicious of that activity myself).
>
> Or at the hospital by his attending physicians?
>
> Or do you want to change the subject and talk about JFK's wounds some
> more?
I want you to understand that even if it were true that I had no
answer whatsoever to the JC medical issue--which is in fact not the
case at all--that would not absolve you of dealing with the JFK
evidence, and the evidence of wound alteration there.
If this were a twin bank robbery, Bank of America and Bank of Zircon,
and the D.A. prosecuted Shackelford and Platzman for robbing the Bank
of America, the defense could not be: "But you haven't proved they
also robbed Bank Zircon; ergo, and they ought to have done both, since
their offices were adjacent. . ergo, I argue that they are guilty of
neither."
That's my point.
> > RE:
> >
> > > And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> > > would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
> >
> > COMMENT:
> >
> > FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
> > front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
> > surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
> >
>
> You're quoting an FBI report, not the pathologists. Your quote is
> hearsay, not evidence. And you're apparently misinterpreting what the
> word apparent means, besides.
You are dead wrong, again. The FBI agents even testified before the
ARRB that Humes said there was surgery; and that's why they wrote it
down.
>
> What pathologist(s) agrees with you, David? Can you name *ONE*?
>
> I'm sorry, where in the autopsy report can I read that the body was
> altered by pre-autopsy surgery, and the wound on JFK's upper back
> added after death?
>
> If they weren't fooled as you allege, surely they would have noted all
> that, right?
HINT HINT. . . Humes called Perry the next morning, and asked: "Did
you make any woiunds in the back?" Do you think he was just making an
idle, purely out of context, inquiry??
>
> And the pathologists who examined the extant materials later, for the
> HSCA, they weren't fooled either, right? Where can I read in the HSCA
> volumes of evidence that JFK's body was altered after death by surgery
> to falsify the wounds? I must have missed that part.
You reveal yourself as someone who is hidebound to he voice of
authority.
>
> But if the pathologists who examined the body and the materials said
> it, I'm sure you'd be kind enough to offer a quote. But they never
> said anything of the sort, did they, David?
The HSCA tried to argue that the Dallas/Bethesda conflict was all a
result of the Dallas doctors being wrong in their perceptions. That
is an absurd argument. But you apparently believe that sort of thing,
because the HSCA sanctioned it.
>
> In fact, you are taking a hearsay report and elevating it to
> preeminence, and throwing out the statements by all the pathologists
> who've examined the body and the autopsy materials, not one of whom
> ever said anything remotely like your theory ever occurred. And two of
> whom, in fact, said definitely that nothing remotely like your theory
> could have occurred.
>
> Isn't that right?
THis has nothing to do with hearsay. It has everything to do with
logic.
BTW: Recently, Dr. Michael Baden was on talk radio out here in L.A.
He "explained" the headsnap by saying that the notion there is
anything wrong with the head going back after the fatal shot was the
result of people watching too many movies. That in reality, it happens
just the way its shown on the z film.
Would you believe that, too? If so, I look forward to your career as
a movie director. . . especially in westerns and war movies. . you can
always have scenes in which those hit by bullets fall *towards* the
line of fire. And if the screenplay calls for a scene in which the
victims are forced to dig a trench before they are shot, you will of
course have them stand on the "far side" of the trench because, per
Zircon, Baden, et al. . . bodies fall TOWARDS the gunfire.
My advice: Stop believing in authority. Look at the evidence.
DSL
> For example, Dr. Cyril Wecht said:
>
> "Lifton gets away with crap, and no one challenges him. I could
> assemble a
> whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
> accomplish in a
> day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have never bought
> his stuff.
> It can't be done."
Dr. Cyril Wecht mistated my argument. I never said the condition of
the head IN THE PHOTOS was as Humes saw it. In fact, in Chapter 20 I
make it quite clear that that is not so.
>
> For example, Dr. Michael Baden said:
>
> "Lifton just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a fantasy of
> his. he
> thinks he sees signs of surgery in some of the autopsy photos, but he
> doesn't
> know how to read those pictures. It's laughable. He's not a doctor
> and it's
> clear by his work that he doesn't understand what really happened.
> He doesn't
> even take into account rigor mortis, which starts two hours after
> death.
> Surgery on a corpse would look different than one on a living person.
> His
> theory of medical alteration is ridiculous"
RESPONSE: I daresay if you heard Dr. Baden going on and on about how
bodies fall towards the line of fire, you'd understand how laughable
his state of knowledge is--regardless of his credentials. THis is
also the same guy who was shown up on Current Affair when questioned
by former Assistant District atty. because he didn't realize, until
that interview, that there was NO WEIGHT given for the brain, in the
autopsy report!
Again I say: His competence in this area of the JFK case--regardless
of his credentials--is laughable.
>
> Are you saying these doctors are actually lamenting how the
> microscopic slides would prove you right if those slides were only
> available?
RESPONSE: No, they are not "lamenting" it. But had the slides been
avaialgble, they would indeed prove me right. Because that is the way
you tell an ante-mortem from a post-mortem wound.
DSL
RE:
> I don't think so, but I could have trouble thinking outside the box.
RESPONSE: I don't think you have trouble thinking outside the box. I'm
starting to conclude your problem is more fundamental. You have do
have appear to have trouble in the area of thinking.
> > RE:
> >
> > > I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> > > advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> > > It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> > > assumes the evidence is falsified.
> >
> > FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
> > that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
>
> No, you present hearsay (the FBI memo), contaminated interviews
> (Riebe) and minor disputes about time from recollections years after
> the events (the casket entry) as the cornerstones of your theory.
> That's what your book is all about.
>
> You discard hard or better evidence like Oswald's rifle, like the
> Z-film, like the autopsy conclusions, and like the subsequent review
> of the autopsy.
RESPONSE: Your problem, Zircon, is that you keep coming back to the
falsified evidence, and playing it and replaying it through your head,
like some kind of fairy tale you learned when your mother read it to
you so you'd have a good night's sleep. Maybe if you cleared out those
cobwebs, you could look at the evidence objectively. You're in love
with a view of this case that is as silly and mythological as the
story of the Three Bears--only with you, its the 3 shots.
Joe Z: That's what your book is all about. I could write a book
justifying
> Time Travelers On Vacation. . .,
DSL RESPONSE: OK. . I finally get it. . . .This is what this is all
about, isn't it. You're a frustrated author.
Instead of going round the barn like this, all you had to do is ask:
"David, If I write a book about Time Travelers, can you get me an
agent? And do you think you can help get me a movie deal?"
Just ask, Joe. I understand your problem. Of course I'll help you. .
. I'm always willing to lend a helping hand to beginners, and you
don't have to believe Best Evidence for me to help you with your book
about Time Travelers.
Now that part about you wanting it to be treated as a non-fiction
work. . hmmm. . . I think that might pose a problem.
DSL
Ritchie Linton
> Joe:
> > > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> > > >
> > > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
> >
> > Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> > altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> > necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> > tell us at this time.
++++
++++
There is no conflict once you realize how far around Connaly was
turned before he was hit.Start with teh famous Altgen's photo, and you
see Connally's back facing forward toward Altgen's camera.Thats been
reconciled to Z255.Return to the Zfilm and watch as Connally completes
his turn just after the lampost crosses your view.Then you see him
really react.
So no conflict.Connally was turned around nearly backward before he
was shot from the front;Kennedy's head snaps backward after being hit
from the front, and Mrs. Kennedy leaves by the rear.
The only problem is that the planted evidence against the patsy had
already been planted to the rear.Something had to be done to reconcile
the actual execution with the evidence planted in the plan...that
din't quite work as planned.David's evidence on what was done is quite
compelling...and Connally presents no conflict.
Ritchie
Ritchie Linton
> Joe:
> > > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
+++
No one.See below.
> > > >
> > > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
> >
> > Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> > altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> > necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> > tell us at this time.
+++
+++
There is no conflict once you see how far around Connally was turned
before he was actually shot.Start with the famous Altgens photo=you
can see Connally's back as it faces forward to Altgen's camera.Thats
been reconciled with Z255.Return to teh zfilm and see Connally keep
turning until the lampost crosses your view.Just after the lampost you
see Connally really react.
So-no conflict. Connally was turned aroun backward when shot from in
front; Kennedy snapped backward when shot from in front, and Mrs
Kennedy left by the rear in reaction.
Problem was the evidence left to frame the patsy had been left somehow
to the rear of the actual shooting as it unfolded=something went
wrong.Something had to be done about that=Lifton's evidence that
something was done is solid.
The only question is why. He thinks it was a part of the plan all
along=whereas when once you realize how far around Connaly turned
before he was hit=thats no longer the issue.
The fact remains that there was desecration of corpse=an "opening in
the back" they called it at autopsy=much needed since the already
planted evidence found against the intended patsy was still found to
the rear=even though all actual shots came from the front. Even
Connally, who had turned around backward at the time.
Ritchie
David S. Lifton
I meant to say "NO WEIGHT give for the brain, in the autopsy chart
that was filled out in the room that night, and attached to the
autopsy report.
SEE BELOW AT **
>
> RESPONSE: I daresay if you heard Dr. Baden going on and on about how
> bodies fall towards the line of fire, you'd understand how laughable
> his state of knowledge is--regardless of his credentials. THis is
> also the same guy who was shown up on Current Affair when questioned
> by former Assistant District atty. (whose name I forget. . but was the producer/questioner-of-Baden) because he didn't realize, until
> that interview, that there was NO WEIGHT given for the brain, in the
> autopsy report! ** (See errata notice above)
>
Joe Zircon
> Joe:
>
> Re "apparent". . .
>
> I know all about the dictioinary definition.
>
> What I was addressing (and which you keep getting incorrect) is the
> context.
>
> It was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head
> area"--that's what their report is saying. NOT: there was "apparent"
> surgery.
>
> See the different?
>
No. One of the definitions of Apparent means what appears to be, not
necessarily what proves to be:
"manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of
evidence that may or may not be factually valid".
> In one case (the way you persist in citing it--through a misread of
> context--) it works in your favor.
>
> But as the FBI actually wrote it, it works in mine. Because it is the
> FACT of surgery is "apparent"--not something that "appears to have
> been" surgery. Now that's my interpretation, and I believe it to be
> the correct one, with regard to the way the FBI report is written.
Precisely! It's your *interpretation* of the evidence. And I believe
it to be the wrong one. Now, since you're the one making the
extraordinary claims here, you're the one who needs the extraordinary
evidence. And you've already admitted that the cornerstone of your
book - the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Memo - is subject to varying
interpretations. So take that off the table. What else you got?
>
> * * *
>
> > > YOUR STATEMENT:
> > >
> > > > My recollection of your interview with one witness is that *you* first
> > > > mentioned the bodybag, and he subsequently agreed.
> > > >
> > > COMMENT: Dead wrong.
> > >
> > > Paul O'Connor said it to the Florida newspapers after being
> > > interviewed by Andrew Purdy et all, back in 1977. THEN, he
> > > volunteered it again to the HSCA (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence);
> > > then, in August 1979, he (again) volunteered it to me, in our
> > > telephone interview. Finally, he volunteered it again in October,
> > > 1980, during my filmed interivew.
> >
>
> You cite FLoyd Reibe, and you are correct that I asked a slightly
> leading question. But my point was (and remains): O'Connor is the
> chief body bag witness--he opened the darn thing. It is central to
> his recollection of that night; and he said so to the Florida
> newspaper, and to the HSCA reps that interviewed him year(s) before I
> did.
Not talking about O'Connor. What do you have that confirms O'Connor's
recollections? How many years after the fact did O'Connor first
mention the body bag, by the way?
> Moreover, you can't erase what Reibe said, just because of the way the
> quesiton was asked.
Yes, you can. It's tainted evidence. You mentioned the bodybag first.
Any mention by him subsequent to this is bogus. You asked him about
this how many times, in how many ways, without getting the answer you
sought? So you resorted to mentioning it first. But he had plenty of
opportunity to mention it prior to you, and didn't. That is telling.
> And again I come back to the point: the case
> rests on O'Connor--and, by the way, also on Capt. Robert Stover, CO of
> the Navy Med School, who was there, and also confirmed to me there was
> a body bag.
How many years after the fact? And who mentioned the bodybag first?
And did really mean to say your case for body alteration rests on a
couple of people remembering a body bag instead of a rubber bedsheet?
That is beyond belief, and I don't think you mean it that way. That
is, however, what you wrote above.
>
>
> > > RE:
> > >
> > > > > The word "outlandish" is a subjective and psychological evaluation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this was not the Kennedy assassination--if the victim were John
> > > > > Doe--it would be very clear that the body was intercepted, and the
> > > > > wounds altered, prior to autopsy. And that the purpose was to falsely
> > > > > connect someone's gun to the crime.
> > > >
> > > > It would be very clear?
> > > >
> > > > No, it would still be an outlandish suggestion.
> > >
> > > To you, perhaps, because you apparently have difficulty thinking
> > > "outside the box."
> >
Gee, David, what's the matter? You snipped entirely my retort about
you having a problem thinking outside the sphere that encircles the
box. No response?
>
> > Name one other case where body alterations were used to fool the
> > pathologists.
> > Otherwise, it's still an outlandish suggestion.
>
> Re the above:
>
> a. Its an awful standard by which to measure something.
Name one other case where this was attempted. You can't.
> b. Turn it around, and you'll see how unusual and original the plan
> was.
E.g. You agree it *was* outlandish! Unusual & original indeed!
> c. The pathologists weren't "fooled" if they told the FBI, at the
> outset, that it was "apparent" (that word, again) that there had been
> "surgery of the head area. . "
There is a big IF in the above, isn't there? And that word 'apparent'
is your cross to bear, not your savior.
It was *apparent* that there was surgery of the head area. Name one
pathologist who later determined this was 'true on the basis of
evidence that was factually valid'.
Name one!
>
> d. Name one other person named Joe Zircon. . . etc.
>
Hello? Why? What's that got to do with anything? JoeZ is my pen name,
so to speak. You may recall we met in Dallas at one of the ASK
conferences (I think '92, but it may have been '93, I honestly forget
which).
I asked you then how you explained Connally's wounds pointing to the
rear, if the shooters were in front of the limo. Your response was
classic, and should be framed: "That's a good question. What do you do
for a living?"
You never did tell me. 10 years later, and you still won't.
That's even funnier than wanting to connecting dots that shouldn't be
connected.
>
> > > > Who altered Connally's wounds, David?
> > > >
> > > > After all this time, you're still unable to answer that basic
> > > > question.
> > >
> > > WRONG (again). I am certainly capable of addressing this question and
> > > in detail, but choose not to at this time.
> >
> > Translation: You have absolutely no clue how Connally's wounds were
> > altered, but the alteration of Connally's wounds is absolutely
> > necessary to your theory, so you maintain you do know, but just won't
> > tell us at this time.
>
> CORRECT TRANSLATION: I choose not to deal with that matter in this
> e-mail post.
Translation: You are stuck for a response.
> >
> > The JFK assassin happened 38 years ago, David. If you won't tell us
> > now, when?
>
> May 5, 2004; at 10:30 am.
> >
> > And what's the need for the big secret anyway?
>
> There's something I cannot discuss that will be occurring that May 5,
> at 9:20 am, and which must remain confidential.
>
Uh, huh. Judyth will reveal the inner workings of the conspiracy then?
There were two shooting victims in that limo. Both show evidence of
being shot from behind (Connally, in fact, testified he believed the
shots came from above and behind him, over his right shoulder. JFK had
no such opportunity to testify, of course). Both men have bullet
damage to their bodies consistent with a shooter above and behind the
limo. You allege JFK's wounds were planted to frame Oswald. But your
solution to this crime is woefully inadequate until you address
Connally's wounds too.
He and his doctors thought his bullet wounds were caused by one shot,
fired from above and behind him.
Let me know when you intend to address this.
>
> Yet you do just that. ..
>
> Continuing with your "argument". . .
>
> ZIRON (continued)
>
> So Connally's
> > wounds, suffered in the same assassination attempt, which point to the
> > rear of the limo, must likewise have been added as well, according to
> > your theory, because they point to the rear of the limo too.
> >
> > Explain when Connally's wounds were altered, David.
> >
> > In the limo by Jackie & Nellie?
> >
> > By Clint Hill who jumped onto the limo as it speed away from Dealey
> > Plaza? (I've always been suspicious of that activity myself).
> >
> > Or at the hospital by his attending physicians?
> >
> > Or do you want to change the subject and talk about JFK's wounds some
> > more?
>
> I want you to understand that even if it were true that I had no
> answer whatsoever to the JC medical issue--which is in fact not the
> case at all--that would not absolve you of dealing with the JFK
> evidence, and the evidence of wound alteration there.
I have dealt with the JFK evidence. I labelled the FBI memo hearsay -
which you did not contest. And pointed out that the vaunted mention of
surgery is only apparent, not necessarily real. In response, you
admitted that it was only your *interpretion* that the memo means
'real', not 'apparent'.
I also pointed out that your interview of Riebe was tainted by your
mention of the bodybag before Reibe.
Your entire book is built upon this kind of evidence.
>
> If this were a twin bank robbery, Bank of America and Bank of Zircon,
> and the D.A. prosecuted Shackelford and Platzman for robbing the Bank
> of America, the defense could not be: "But you haven't proved they
> also robbed Bank Zircon; ergo, and they ought to have done both, since
> their offices were adjacent. . ergo, I argue that they are guilty of
> neither."
>
> That's my point.
Sorry, you lost me.
You're the one suggesting Oswald is innocent, and that he shot neither
man. Since the physical evidence - including, but not limited to the
autopsy of JFK - indicates strongly he shot both men (as you yourself
admit in your book), then your job of getting Oswald off the hook is
only half done if you propose that JFK's wounds were altered to make
it look like he was shot from the rear by Oswald.
For Connally is another shooting victim. And you still need to explain
how the conspirators altered Connally's wounds to make it look like he
was shot from behind, when, according to you, all the shooters were in
front of the limo.
So you need to, to get Oswald off, explain how he didn't rob both
banks, in effect, when the evidence says he did. Your defense won't
get him free, because you haven't even addressed the other bank
robbery. And he's accused of both.
Right? And the evidence implicates him in both. As you note, the
defense can't get someone off for both by only dealing with one. But
that's precisely what you're doing. You didn't deal with the
implications of Connally's wounds in your book, and you refuse to deal
with those implications here and now.
>
>
> > > RE:
> > >
> > > > And what pathologist agrees with you that body alterations after death
> > > > would be a good way to fool autopsy surgeons?
> > >
> > > COMMENT:
> > >
> > > FYI. . .the pathologists were NOT fooled. They said, aloud, and in
> > > front of the FBI, that it was "apparent . . that there had been
> > > surgery of the head area." Why can't you read and understand that??
> > >
> >
> > You're quoting an FBI report, not the pathologists. Your quote is
> > hearsay, not evidence. And you're apparently misinterpreting what the
> > word apparent means, besides.
>
> You are dead wrong, again. The FBI agents even testified before the
> ARRB that Humes said there was surgery; and that's why they wrote it
> down.
Hello? Do you understand what hearsay is? Regardless of whether they
type it in a memo, or write it out longhand, or testify to what they
heard, it's *still* hearsay!
Do you have an admission by the pathologists that they said there was
apparent surgery of the head area?
And it's still got that nasty word 'apparent' in there. Which, as you
admit, is subject to interpretation.
> >
> > What pathologist(s) agrees with you, David? Can you name *ONE*?
> >
> > I'm sorry, where in the autopsy report can I read that the body was
> > altered by pre-autopsy surgery, and the wound on JFK's upper back
> > added after death?
> >
> > If they weren't fooled as you allege, surely they would have noted all
> > that, right?
>
> HINT HINT. . . Humes called Perry the next morning, and asked: "Did
> you make any woiunds in the back?" Do you think he was just making an
> idle, purely out of context, inquiry??
>
Geez, David, you make it sound so suspicious. He had just learned that
Perry had made a wound in JFK's throat, for the trache, which
partially obscured a bullet wound. So why wouldn't he ask if Perry
made any other wounds, any where else?
If he didn't ask, critics like you would criticize Humes for doing a
half-assed job and not getting all the facts.
How should he have worded it, to suit your sensibilities and not
suggest something sinister? Serious question. What precisely should he
have asked?
>
> >
> > And the pathologists who examined the extant materials later, for the
> > HSCA, they weren't fooled either, right? Where can I read in the HSCA
> > volumes of evidence that JFK's body was altered after death by surgery
> > to falsify the wounds? I must have missed that part.
>
> You reveal yourself as someone who is hidebound to he voice of
> authority.
Translation: David can't cite one expert on pathology who agrees with
his outlandish - by his own admission, he called it "unusual and
original" which can be the poster-synonyms for outlandish - theory.
> >
> > But if the pathologists who examined the body and the materials said
> > it, I'm sure you'd be kind enough to offer a quote. But they never
> > said anything of the sort, did they, David?
>
> The HSCA tried to argue that the Dallas/Bethesda conflict was all a
> result of the Dallas doctors being wrong in their perceptions. That
> is an absurd argument. But you apparently believe that sort of thing,
> because the HSCA sanctioned it.
Gee, David, were we supposed to not notice that you just changed the
subject entirely?
I asked if any of the pathologists who examined the body or any of the
pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials agreed with
your assessment that the body was altered after death. You ignored the
question entirely, and changed the subject to what the doctors said
they saw.
Gee, we were supposed to not notice this blatant dodge?
> >
> > In fact, you are taking a hearsay report and elevating it to
> > preeminence, and throwing out the statements by all the pathologists
> > who've examined the body and the autopsy materials, not one of whom
> > ever said anything remotely like your theory ever occurred. And two of
> > whom, in fact, said definitely that nothing remotely like your theory
> > could have occurred.
> >
> > Isn't that right?
>
> THis has nothing to do with hearsay. It has everything to do with
> logic.
Translation: If DL wishes hard enough, he can even get Ruby slippers.
It has everything to do with hearsay, David. The cornerstone of your
case is a hearsay report by two FBI agents. Remember?
And it's subject to various interpretations, as you yourself admitted.
And knowledgeable experts (like Wecht and Baden) on the subject claim
your theory is ridiculous.
>
> BTW: Recently, Dr. Michael Baden was on talk radio out here in L.A.
> He "explained" the headsnap by saying that the notion there is
> anything wrong with the head going back after the fatal shot was the
> result of people watching too many movies. That in reality, it happens
> just the way its shown on the z film.
>
Curiously, you offer no direct quote or citation. What you are
offering here is *your* hearsay version of what Baden allegedly said.
Why am I not surprised by this?
Oh, maybe because you think hearsay is good evidence? You need to
learn that some of us disagree with that assessment.
> Would you believe that, too? If so, I look forward to your career as
> a movie director. . . especially in westerns and war movies. . you can
> always have scenes in which those hit by bullets fall *towards* the
> line of fire. And if the screenplay calls for a scene in which the
> victims are forced to dig a trench before they are shot, you will of
> course have them stand on the "far side" of the trench because, per
> Zircon, Baden, et al. . . bodies fall TOWARDS the gunfire.
>
> My advice: Stop believing in authority. Look at the evidence.
Been there. Done that. Which is why I could laugh out loud when I
first heard of your theory.
>
> DSL
>
>
> > For example, Dr. Cyril Wecht said:
> >
> > "Lifton gets away with crap, and no one challenges him. I could
> > assemble a
> > whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
> > accomplish in a
> > day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have never bought
> > his stuff.
> > It can't be done."
>
> Dr. Cyril Wecht mistated my argument. I never said the condition of
> the head IN THE PHOTOS was as Humes saw it. In fact, in Chapter 20 I
> make it quite clear that that is not so.
So, in your interpretation of the above, Wecht is agreeing with you
that JFK had pre-autopsy body alterations? Is that your view? I could
have sworn this meant something else entirely: "I could assemble a
whole team of the best surgeons in the country and still not
accomplish in a day what Lifton says was done in a few hours. I have
never bought his stuff. It can't be done." But then, I don't have your
ability to think 'outside the box'.
Face it, David, Wecht is saying - as an expert - that you don't know
what the hell you're talking about.
And your argument is based on hearsay, interpretation, and tainted
interviews.
> >
> > For example, Dr. Michael Baden said:
> >
> > "Lifton just doesn't know what he's talking about. It's a fantasy of
> > his. he
> > thinks he sees signs of surgery in some of the autopsy photos, but he
> > doesn't
> > know how to read those pictures. It's laughable. He's not a doctor
> > and it's
> > clear by his work that he doesn't understand what really happened.
> > He doesn't
> > even take into account rigor mortis, which starts two hours after
> > death.
> > Surgery on a corpse would look different than one on a living person.
> > His
> > theory of medical alteration is ridiculous"
>
> RESPONSE: I daresay if you heard Dr. Baden going on and on about how
> bodies fall towards the line of fire, you'd understand how laughable
> his state of knowledge is--regardless of his credentials. THis is
> also the same guy who was shown up on Current Affair when questioned
> by former Assistant District atty. because he didn't realize, until
> that interview, that there was NO WEIGHT given for the brain, in the
> autopsy report!
Sorry, this is simply mis-direction. His lack of knowledge about the
specifics of the JFK case - which you've spent, by your own admission,
studying for nearly 4 decades, calls into question his credentials
where he is a recognized authority (pathology) exactly how?
He's an expert. And he says your "theory of medical alteration is
ridiculous".
He also says you failed to make note of the fact that wounds on a dead
body look different that wounds suffered while the person was alive,
and that such body alteration would fool no one.
Is it your interpretation that he is unqualified to render that
assessment?
>
> Again I say: His competence in this area of the JFK case--regardless
> of his credentials--is laughable.
> >
> > Are you saying these doctors are actually lamenting how the
> > microscopic slides would prove you right if those slides were only
> > available?
>
>
> RESPONSE: No, they are not "lamenting" it. But had the slides been
> avaialgble, they would indeed prove me right. Because that is the way
> you tell an ante-mortem from a post-mortem wound.
But it is curious that you cannot quote one qualified autopsist who
agrees with your assessment of the slides or your assessment of JFK's
wounds.
Not one. No one said the slides would change their view. Right? No one
said, 'ya know, that Lifton fellow, he is really on to something. Look
at this photo hereā¦'
Right?
In fact, two of the best in the land said your theory was
'ridiculous', in essence. One used that word specifically. The other
said you were 'full of crap', which means roughly the same thing,
where I come from.
>
> DSL
>
> RE:
> > I don't think so, but I could have trouble thinking outside the box.
>
> RESPONSE: I don't think you have trouble thinking outside the box. I'm
> starting to conclude your problem is more fundamental. You have do
> have appear to have trouble in the area of thinking.
>
One other note. Where I come from, the first one to start calling
names loses.
It exposes their arguments as fundamentally unsound, that they have to
resort to name calling. You haven't seen me do it. And you won't. I
haven't once challenged your capacity to think. I have questioned your
theory - vigorously. This kind of rebuttal argument is beneath you,
David, unless you are conceding that you have no legitimate retort.
Then and only then, I can understand why you would resort to this sort
of rebuttal.
>
> > > RE:
> > >
> > > > I'll say it publicly. Best Evidence is the only conspiracy theory
> > > > advanced to date that even attempts to put forward a coherent theory.
> > > > It's major fault, as is all other conspiracy theories, is that it
> > > > assumes the evidence is falsified.
> > >
> > > FALSE. I don't "assume" the evidence is falsified. I present evidence
> > > that it was falsified. That's what my book is all about.
> >
> > No, you present hearsay (the FBI memo), contaminated interviews
> > (Riebe) and minor disputes about time from recollections years after
> > the events (the casket entry) as the cornerstones of your theory.
> > That's what your book is all about.
> >
> > You discard hard or better evidence like Oswald's rifle, like the
> > Z-film, like the autopsy conclusions, and like the subsequent review
> > of the autopsy.
>
> RESPONSE: Your problem, Zircon, is that you keep coming back to the
> falsified evidence, and playing it and replaying it through your head,
Nope. The problem here is you haven't demonstrated the evidence is
falsified. You believe it is. But your 'evidence' is by your own
admission nothing more than hearsay, interpretation, tainted
interviews, and the like.
> like some kind of fairy tale you learned when your mother read it to
> you so you'd have a good night's sleep. Maybe if you cleared out those
> cobwebs, you could look at the evidence objectively. You're in love
> with a view of this case that is as silly and mythological as the
> story of the Three Bears--only with you, its the 3 shots.
>
Thanks, David. I needed a laugh. In the final analysis, the 3 shot
scenario is the one supported by the most evidence. As always in this
case, conspiracy beliefs are exposed as built on hearsay, speculation,
and the like. The fairy tale of body alteration, in other words, is
all yours.
>
> Joe Z: That's what your book is all about. I could write a book
> justifying
> > Time Travelers On Vacation. . .,
>
> DSL RESPONSE: OK. . I finally get it. . . .This is what this is all
> about, isn't it. You're a frustrated author.
Nope. Not even close. You're the author, not me. I'm simply pointing
out that one can justify almost anything if one gets to throw out all
the evidence one doesn't like (as you throw out the autopsy
conclusions and all the hard evidence pointing to Oswald) and one gets
to use hearsay and speculation (you called it 'interpretation' above)
instead.
You're the author of that book. Not me.
>
> Instead of going round the barn like this, all you had to do is ask:
> "David, If I write a book about Time Travelers, can you get me an
> agent? And do you think you can help get me a movie deal?"
>
> Just ask, Joe. I understand your problem. Of course I'll help you. .
> . I'm always willing to lend a helping hand to beginners, and you
> don't have to believe Best Evidence for me to help you with your book
> about Time Travelers.
>
> Now that part about you wanting it to be treated as a non-fiction
> work. . hmmm. . . I think that might pose a problem.
Why? Your body alteration book got published, didn't it? But of
course, only after you put it in the first person. So it's less about
the JFK assassination and more an in-depth study of how one person can
go seriously, seriously wrong by refusing to accept the evidence that
is right in front of them. (In that way, it is an invaluable text).
Like when you went to - NY? - to view the original Z-film. You were
convinced going in - as your book reveals - that the z-film would
reveal the conspiracy. Right? Once you saw it, however, and saw no
evidence in it to confirm your beliefs, did you reassess your beliefs?
No!
You simply made the conspiracy bigger, and accepted that the Z-film
was altered, too.
That, more than anything else, explains exactly what the problem is.
You simply refuse to accept any evidence that points away from
conspiracy.
PS: Since you didn't respond on many of my other points, and in fact
snipped them entirely without noting you did that, like the carton you
cited being funny precisely because it is suggesting the patient needs
to connect the dots which *shouldn't* be connected (which makes your
citing it and telling us to connect the dots in the JFK assassination
all the funnier), should we assume you are now clear on how you went
wrong therein?
And does this mean you won't be citing that carton anymore?
Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> DSL
JoeZ
Judyth V. Baker
going to give his answer until May 5th, 2004, at 10:30 AM. At last ---
a date you can count on? Or is this more evidence that Lifton is a
fantast? Keep challenging him to bring out evidence regarding
Connally NOW. And while he's at it, challenge him to bring out
evidence-- instead of personal attacks--regarding Judyth Vary and Lee
Oswald. May 5, 2004, will come and go, and Mr. Lifton's revelations no
doubt will be put off yet again. ........ ===j==
joez1...@aol.com (Joe Zircon) wrote in message news:<7f2b02a8.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> dli...@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton) wrote in message news:<460446c1.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> > Joe:
<snip>
>
> >
> > DSL
>
> JoeZ
Joe Zircon
elect...@aol.com (Judyth V. Baker) wrote in message news:<ba6b02a7.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> ==Good question to ask Lifton, Mr. "Zircon." Mr. Lifton says he isn't
> going to give his answer until May 5th, 2004, at 10:30 AM. At last ---
> a date you can count on?
I expect it to come and go without much happening. I suspect DL pulled
the date out of his hat (or elsewhere).
> Or is this more evidence that Lifton is a
> fantast? Keep challenging him to bring out evidence regarding
> Connally NOW. And while he's at it, challenge him to bring out
> evidence-- instead of personal attacks--regarding Judyth Vary and Lee
> Oswald. May 5, 2004, will come and go, and Mr. Lifton's revelations no
> doubt will be put off yet again. ........ ===j==
>
I have a question for you, too, however. It's my understanding - correct
me if I'm wrong - that you have claimed to have punched Oswald out on a
near daily basis while he worked at Reily Coffee, and that he was provided
the job as a cover for other work by, as I recall, the CIA.
I asked you this question back on Jan 4th, 2002. Maybe you didn't see it
(I understand you were ill for a while), so I'll ask it again:
Why bother giving him a phony job at all, even? Why not just hand him $50
or $100 a week under the table, in cash?
This is unheard of in the CIA, right? Nobody ever did this?
Please advise, re: the necessity for a Reily job at all.
Jerry Shinley
> Hi. Glad to see you here.
>
>
> elect...@aol.com (Judyth V. Baker) wrote in message news:<ba6b02a7.02011...@posting.google.com>...
> > ==Good question to ask Lifton, Mr. "Zircon." Mr. Lifton says he isn't
> > going to give his answer until May 5th, 2004, at 10:30 AM. At last ---
> > a date you can count on?
>
> I expect it to come and go without much happening. I suspect DL pulled
> the date out of his hat (or elsewhere).
>
>
>
> > Or is this more evidence that Lifton is a
> > fantast? Keep challenging him to bring out evidence regarding
> > Connally NOW. And while he's at it, challenge him to bring out
> > evidence-- instead of personal attacks--regarding Judyth Vary and Lee
> > Oswald. May 5, 2004, will come and go, and Mr. Lifton's revelations no
> > doubt will be put off yet again. ........ ===j==
> >
>
> I have a question for you, too, however. It's my understanding - correct
> me if I'm wrong - that you have claimed to have punched Oswald out on a
> near daily basis while he worked at Reily Coffee, and that he was provided
> the job as a cover for other work by, as I recall, the CIA.
>
> I asked you this question back on Jan 4th, 2002. Maybe you didn't see it
> (I understand you were ill for a while), so I'll ask it again:
>
> Why bother giving him a phony job at all, even? Why not just hand him $50
> or $100 a week under the table, in cash?
>
> This is unheard of in the CIA, right? Nobody ever did this?
>
> Please advise, re: the necessity for a Reily job at all.
>
could have still paid their salaries by giving WGB Associates a
pretext contract, like investigating the theft of green glasses
by employees.
Jerry Shinley