Deep Politics Forum

David Lifton Wrote:

Albert Doyle Wrote:David,


I think you should make Lifton answer to that Palmer McBride letter. I think he was being less than honest portraying McBride as consenting to his version of the dates. The McBride letter clearly rejects that and gives details that require a response from Lifton.

Albert:

Have you ever sat down and actually met --and talked with--Palmer McBride?

I did. For hours.

First on the telephone in September, 1994, and then on camera, a few weeks later.

It was after the phone call that I hired a professional film crew to go over the same ground again, and get it all on camera.

John Armstrong then re-entered the picture and did a sales job apparently persuading McBride of the "historical importance" (my quotes) of his original statement, which in fact was simply an error on McBride's part, and then became the so-called "foundation" for this whole two-Oswald hypothesis.

Armstrong also pulled the same stuff with Linda Faircloth, who completely and totally misrepresented the conversation that I had with her.

I already published extracts of what McBride said to me over at the London Forum --years ago.

When McBride sat there, on camera, and --practically ruminating aloud--reaffirmed when it was that he knew Oswald, and related it to his prior job at the Weyerhauser (phonetic) box company, it was pretty obvious it was spring 1956 when he knew Oswald at Pfisterer.

If this matter had been investigated properly back in 1963/1964, and all the employment and appropriate tax records retrieved, there never would have been a "two-Oswald" theory; and there never would have been a John Armstrong running around and lobbying witnesses, and attempting to connect dots that really don't "connect."

Also: who actually wrote the so-called McBride letter?

Did Palmer McBride just sit down one evening and write that himself? Or did he have assistance of some sort?

Does anyone know the answer to that question?

And since when does a witness in a historical situation like this, become such an intense partisan to a particular hypothesis.

DSL
5/21/15 - 1:50 a.m. PDT
Los Angeles, California

Mr Lifton,


My position towards you is I respect your Bethesda work and consider it critical to understanding the fraud and cover-up committed by the government in the Kennedy assassination. In fact I believe I furthered it by suggesting Pitzer captured the pre-autopsy on film, showing an entry wound to the temple to Dennis David that could only have been filmed at the covert pre-autopsy. This in turn necessitated the removal of Pitzer by covert assassination. However I don't think you made any attempt to answer what was really said here vs McBride. He clearly gave a set of anchoring landmark specifics that you made no attempt to answer. Please answer Mr McBride's specific protests and their details. My complaint above is that you failed to answer what McBride actually said. Your repeating that process in this answer doesn't help. To me it commits the offense of explaining to an actual witness why he is wrong about what he actually witnessed. If the things Mr McBride listed are accurate they disprove your position and therefore require serious response. To not respond leaves the impression that they can't be responded to.

Quote:And since when does a witness in a historical situation like this, become such an intense partisan to a particular hypothesis.

When he knows his true witnessing isn't being accurately recorded or honored the way it should be. When he has an astounding realization that he witnessed something profound and revelatory towards a bizarre incident.



.

If I remember correctly, there are about three of those distinct landmarks.

Wasn't one some kind of opera performance?

It was Boris Godunov and it played only in October of 1957.

The other is the Sputnik landmark.

I wonder then why Palmer had to write this letter then Mr. Lifton...

Seems to me you are asking hypothetical scenario questions that you have no clue regarding the answer yet to only imply things you aren't saying.

You are calling Palmer and the rest of those mentioned in his letter liars. You are calling John Armstrong a liar.

"Pretty obvious" means you don't have the proof.
"Misrepresented the conversation" - post the transcripts then.

and then you make accusations of Palmer's motivation when he, first hand, was witness to the duality of H&L... Just like Anna Lewis which no one has refuted, when she says she met Lee Oswald in Feb 1962 when Harvey was in Minsk.

I have another letter written from Palmer which shows the writing at the top of this letter is Palmer's.

If you have definitive evidence that Plamer here is wrong... post it. I'm not going to look in the London Forum... if you have the proof, authenticated, post it...

But please don't cast aspersions based on your opinions David, it takes from the decades of reputation you've built and winds up placing you in a class of posters with nothing better to do than argue FACT with Speculation.


I will ask you again as I've asked everyone... What was the importance of immediate follow-up to McBride's statement in order to dispell the reality that there was someone using the Oswald name here and there. How would that have any bearing on the case after Oswald is killed other than to address the conflict?






Date 11/26/63
Airman Second Class PALMER E. McBRIDE was interviewed at Air Police Headquarters, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, and furnished the following signed statement:
"Patrick Air Force Base,
Florida
November 23, 1963
"I, PALMER E. McBRIDE hereby furnish the following free and voluntary statement to JOHN R. PALMER who I know to be a Special Agent of the
FBI. I have been advised that this statement can be used in a court of law. No threats or promises have been made to me.
"I was born on November 29, 1937, at New Orleans, Louisiana. I enlisted in the United States Air Force on November 25, 1960 and since June 15, 1961, I have been assigned to Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. I am presently an
Airman Second Class assigned to the 8550th Maintenance Group with Air Force serial number AF 25589222.
"In about June, 1955, I went to work as a dental messenger for the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company in the 200 block of Dauphine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. In about December, 1957, a young man named LEE OSWALD was employed in the same capacity. Because we both enjoyed classical music I invited him to my home at 1416 Baronne Street, New Orleans, and he did visit my home
perhaps two or three times. I was living with my parents at that time, and during his visits we would listen to records in my room.
"During his first visit to my home in late 1957 or early 1958 the discussion turned to politics and to the possibility of war. At this time I made a statement to the effect that President DWIGHT EISENHOWER was doing a pretty good job for a man of his age and background, but that I did feel
On 11/23/63 at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida File # TP 62-455
By SA JOHN R. PALMER Date dictated 11/26/63

---

2
more emphasis should be placed on the space program in view of Russian successes. OSWALD was very anti-Eisenhower, and stated that President EISENHOWER was exploiting the working people. He then made a statement to the effect that he would like to kill President EISENHOWER because he was exploiting the working class. This statement was not made in jest, and OSWALD was in a serious frame of mind when this statement was made.
"LEE OSWALD was very serious about the virtues of Communism, and discussed those virtues at every opportunity. He would say that the capitalists were exploiting the working class and his central theme seemed to be that the workers in the world would one day rise up and throw off their chains. He praised KRUSCHEV's sincerity in improving the lot of the worker.
"In early 1958 I took OSWALD with me to a meeting of the New Orleans Amateur Astronomy Association at the home of WALTER GEHERKE, 208 Hector Ave., Metaire, Louisiana. This meeting was presided over by the Association president, WILLIAM EUGENE WULF, JR., 2107 Annunciation Street, New Orleans. At this meeting I recall that Mr. WULF told OSWALD that if he liked Russia so damn much why didn't he go over there. I do not know what OSWALD had said to bring forth this remark from WULF.
"On one occasion I took OSWALD to the WULF residence. OSWALD and Mr. WILLIAM EUGENE WULF, SR., a naturalized citizen of German origin, argued because OSWALD was telling him of the glories of the Workers State and saying that the United States Government was not telling the truth about Soviet Russia.
"In another conversation OSWALD stated to me he was not a member of the Communist Party but he suggested that both of us should join to take

---

3
advantage of their social functions. I did not join the Communist Party, but I do not know whether he did or not.
"During the period I knew OSWALD he resided with his mother in the Senator Hotel or a rooming house next door to the Senator Hotel in the 700 block of Dauphine Street, New Orleans. I went with him to his room on one occasion, and he showed me copies of Das Capital and the Communist Manifesto . OSWALD stated he had received these books from the public library, and seemed quite proud to have them.
"In A[B]pril or May, 1958, OSWALD stated he was moving to Ft. Worth, Texas, with his mother. In about August, 1958, I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. I[/B]n this letter he also stated he had gotten mixed up in an Anti-Negro or Anti-Communist riot on a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas. OSWALD did not elaborate on this statement.
"I did not answer this letter, and I have not had further contact or communication with OSWALD.
"On the evening of November 22, 1963, I heard a radio commentator state that LEE OSWALD had been arrested as a suspect in the assassination of President J. F. KENNEDY. Upon hearing the name I recalled my association with a LEE OSWALD in New Orleans, and upon seeing a full face photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD in the November 23, 1963, issue of The Miami Herald newspaper I am now quite certain that they are one and the same individual. I particularly recall the large ears, the mustache, and the receding hairline.
"I also recall that OSWALD made statements favoring Russia and Communism to other employees of the Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company. I do not recall specific statements but his central theme always concerned the workers throwing off their chains.

---

4
"I have read and initialled each page and all corrections on this six page statement. I declare that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
/S/ PALMER EDWIN McBRIDE
Witness:
/S/ WILLIAM J. SIMS, S/A, OSI, 23 Nov 63
/S/ JOHN R. PALMER, Special Agent, FBI
Cocoa, Florida, November 23, 1963"
Airman McBRIDE said he made no report of OSWALD's statement concerning President EISENHOWER to any law enforcement agency. McBRIDE now assumes that at the time he felt the statement was made by OSWALD to emphasize his anti-EISENHOWER feelings and not made in the nature of an actual threat on the life of the President. McBRIDE stated that Mr. LAWRENCE WILLIAMSON, Bookkeeper, and Miss AMELDA (Last Name Unknown), Secretary at Pfisterer Dental Laboratory Company, would probably recall remarks made by OSWALD favoring Russia and Communism. Other company officials or employees named LEVEQUE, CAGLE, BISCHOFF and KLEIN would probably recall his remarks. He also stated that he was not acquainted with OSWALD's close associates and never attended any type of meeting with him except the one meeting of the Astronomy Association.

I'm sorry but the specifics Palmer McBride mentions are condemning and to ignore them instead of answering them is equally condemning.

Anyone who then doesn't objectively and rationally pursue where this leads in regard to the Harvey & Lee theory simply isn't credible.


This is why the new group of skeptics isn't credible because they don't show any interest in where the evidence is obviously leading. And stomping even louder with your neanderthal club doesn't intellectually compensate for this failure.

H&L critics always seem to be under the impression that Palmer McBride alone placed LHO at Pfisterer Dental Lab at the inconvenient span between 10/57 and 5/58, but that is simply not true. William Wulf, McBride's close friend, remembered he met Oswald "shortly after Christmas" the year he returned to school (57/58) after missing an entire year due to illness.


Walter Gehrke met Oswald during a NOAA association meeting at his home in early 1958. James Harrison Vance, another member of NOAAA, met Oswald when he was working with McBride in 1958. And then Linda Faircloth, current Pfisterers president (or at least she was until relatively recently) researched Oswald's employment there for a presentation and also agreed it was in 1958.

Funny how the trolls stay away from this.

Albert Doyle Wrote:Funny how the trolls stay away from this.

Forget the trolls...

What about Lifton? How does he take this position on this topic when from the same sources there is evidence of body alteration enroute to Bethesda?

I can just as easily pick his "theory" apart by claiming the same nonsensical conclusions without evidence as well... his leading of witnesses and all evidence to support his contention that the body was intercepted
and worked upon prior to the autopsy rather than look forways to corroborate and authenticate the theory and evidence behind it...

While BE was correect on many fronts it misses the mark in many others as new evidnece and interviews come to light. Does this refute the entire theory? of course not. If the alteration occurs on the morgue table as opposedto AF-1, so what? The basics of the theory are sound, the details get more clear over the years....

What does Lifton stand to gain by claiming Palmer and all the Pfisterer's contacts are lying? It does not affect the BE conclusions a bit... and there is a mountain more evidence supporting H&L then there is in his conclusions...

"Surgery to the Top of the Head" is the impetus for the entire book

"He was in New Orleans at the same time as an Oswald is in Japan" is the impetus for the book and search which preceeded it.

Just as the events prior to 8pm were hidden, the records of two men combined into one and the need to address these location conflicts were front and center in the first week after the killing...

Mr. Lifton, why does the FBI need to know whether some obscure guy about a job 5 years before and the claim that Oswald was there is correct or not in the first week tying up loose ends for the WCR?

It seems that rather than investigating, the FBI is spending its time refuting claims of Oswald sightings and interavtivity which contradicts with THEIR timeline of his life. Which they in turn got from mass media and not from their own investigation. When they DID start to investigate they began to find all these timeline conflicts... Which is why, in the end, all we have are copies of copies from the FBI and none of the original materials from which to check authenticity.

Mr. Lifton, why are you allowed to be correct while you do not allow that luxury for others?

Here's to another 51 years of acrimony, vituperation and monomaniacal fixation on divisive, relatively inconsequential issues.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7014[/ATTACH]

R.K. Locke Wrote:Here's to another 51 years of acrimony, vituperation and monomaniacal fixation on divisive, relatively inconsequential issues.

And to comments like that one about one of the most important aspects of the cover-up

- the duality of a man working for the FBI/CIA/MIA/ONI being sent to Russia, marrying a KGB prostitute and bringing her to the USA, working both sides of the Cuban issue, virtually living within intelligence circles bent on disobeying presidential foreign policy, being incriminated for having been paid by Castro to carry out the assassination and then ultimately being framed for the assassination of a president -

and the reasons behind these important subjects being relegated to the status of "inconsequential" via unnecessarily multi-syllabic verbiage....


The ramifications of H&L's revelations are quite astonishing... that the US intelligence community was so hell-bent on acquiring Russian intel and thwarting anything remotely threatening under the guise of "communism" that they would emply tactics created and honed by generations of German, Russian, and SE Asian practice.

This pervasive "couldn't happen in the good ole US of A" attitude precludes intelligent people from traveling down obvious paths simply due to incredulity rather than let the evidnece and research take them where it leads.

Instead, let's ask the question,

"What benefit to the US intelligence community would handfuls of "assets" with histories not related to them and others creating a history using their identity?"


Reading books like Larry Hancock's Nexus http://www.amazon.com/Nexus-Political-As...ry+hancock, or
The Wilderness of Mirrors http://www.amazon.com/Wilderness-Mirrors...1585748242 along with Bill Simpich's State Secret allows us to get a glimpse of the evil and depravity involved.

That this topic and the conclusion of the evidence available is pushed aside as either too complicated or too far-fetched is a cop out. In front of hundreds of people and mutiple still/motion picture cameras the EVIDENCE was able to "almost" completely remove the head shot from the front to JFK from history. "almost" completely remove the frontal throat shot, "almost" convince us of the Silly Bullet Theory... this was done right in front of our eyes by the manipulation of the Evidence...

yet hiding two men into one history is "too complicated" or "far-fetched" within the mountains of documents ??

"relatively inconsequential issues" ? is simply a back-handed way to demean the work and unless these rebuttals are proven, or at least attempted to be proven, they remain a disservice to the work which has brought us to this point

DJ

Albert Doyle Wrote:I'm sorry but the specifics Palmer McBride mentions are condemning and to ignore them instead of answering them is equally condemning.

Anyone who then doesn't objectively and rationally pursue where this leads in regard to the Harvey & Lee theory simply isn't credible.


This is why the new group of skeptics isn't credible because they don't show any interest in where the evidence is obviously leading. And stomping even louder with your neanderthal club doesn't intellectually compensate for this failure.

Albert: Great that you have that letter from McBride. I await David Lifton's response as it-the letter- is definitive.

Lifton is quite the mystery to me. I read Best Evidence when it first came out, could not put it down, and was totally convinced by it. But as the years passed I began to have questions in other areas of his "work". Now this is just one more added to a rather long list.

Dawn