26-04-2010, 12:33 AM
David,
What you say may well be true. I am simply unaware that you marshalled the argument by putting together all of the pieces to show how the medical evidence impeaches the film. I went to "Zapruder Fakery, YouTube", by the way, and immediately encountered "Zapruder Fakery 6 - David Lifton Part 9", where you talk about my discussion of the TV interview during which Zapruder placed his hand over the right-front of his skull at the location of this non-existent wound. Looking for more, I then turned to "Zapruder Fakery 1 - James Fetzer Part 3", which begins with my discussion of the very point about the missing mass from the right-front, for those who want to follow what we are discussing here. Let me know if BEST EVIDENCE uses the same array of medial evidence to impeach the film, which I doubt, if only for the simple reason that, when it dawned on me that these were pieces of a mutually-reinforcing and cleverly contrived fabrication of the evidence to support the depiction of the wournd in the film, where his brains are bulging out to the right-front, IT CAME AS A REALIZATION, which, to the best of my knowledge, I had never read before. But, as you know from the Duluth conference, I have never ceased to be impressed with what you learned about the case in the course of your research, so it would not terribly surprise me. If either of us tracks it down, let the other know. I certainly prefer to be on the same side of these issues, which of course is also true of my attitude toward Jack and Weldon. Incidentally, you mention the Wecht conference. I may have told you this before, but I actually had in hand a formal written invitation from Cyril to attend, which I planned to do but had not as yet decided what I would discuss, when I was notified that my invitation had been rescinded! That was very troubling, but I was later told that two others had stated that they would not attend if I were on the program, which I gathered had been Aguilar and Thompson, who apparently are close to Cyril's son, Ben. I've no doubt that it would have been a far more lively and interesting event had you and I been present, but that's the politics of the JFK research community. I protested to Cyril about it at the time, but to no avail.
Jim
[quote name='David Lifton' post='190405' date='Apr 22 2010, 01:03 PM']Jim,
I am writing this simply "for the record" and in response to just one statement that is made in your post #1480.
Quoting you:
"It was only the way I put all of these pieces together to discern exactly how they were going to try to get away with it for which I meant to assert discovery--which is hard to dispute, since, to the best of my knowledge, no one else (including you and David Mantik) has made the point about the missing mass from the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Gary Aguilar, on the occasion of our first meeting, told me that the APPEARANCE of missing mass was an effect of OVEREXPOSURE and was not genuine. I thought that was a rather odd thing to say to me on our first meeting, but it stuck with me and I now believe not only that he was wrong but that the missing mass was a crucial ingredient in the medical cover-up that could be used to support what is seen in the film. We know it was not true," UNQUOTE
FYI: I believe this very point--the clear visual contradiction between what the JFK lateral X-Ray shows, with a major "black" area on the forward right hand side, and the JFK "stare of death" autopsy photograph was published in the 1988 Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence, which published the JFK autopsy photographs for the first time. I do not have the Carroll and Graf edition of B.E. in front of me as I write this, but here's what I recall.
It was the Spring of 1988, I had had these photographs since 1982, and the decision had been made by Carroll and Graf to re-publish BEST EVIDENCE, and to publish these photographs; and I was drafting the Epilogue describing the results of what happened in December, 1982 and January, 1983, when I visited Dallas and--along with Pat Valentino, in January--showed the autopsy photos to as many Dallas doctors and nurses as would meet with us. To get the finest possible prints, I had submitted my best copies to the photo lab at the UCLA Medical Center. I also happened to work at UCLA, at the time, in the pediatric radiology unit. I was looking at the autopsy photographs--and at the X-rays--and I had one of those "aha" moments, because there, on my desk, was this amazing, and--to me--inexplicable, contradiction. How could the X-rays show this huge black area, and yet the "stare of death" photo show the front of JFK's face so completely uninjured.
Being at UCLA, it was easy to solicit the opinion of a variety of doctors, and I did so. As I recall, the verdict was near unanimous: the two were contradictory.
What I remember then doing was either adding to the text of the 1988 Epilogue or actually incorporating this observation into the captions I was then responsible for writing. But somehow, I do remember communicating this clash between what the photos appeared to show, and what seemed so evident on the X-rays.
If I am wrong, I will modify this post, but that is my current recollection.
As to Gary Aguilar, he has made a small career out of attempting to deny the validity of BEST EVIDENCE, so I would heavily discount anything he has to say. Many years ago, when I first met Aguilar, and when I would speak to him on the phone, he referred to me as "chief" (as if he were a soldier, snapping his heels. "Yes, chief", etc.). That was when I was up on some sort of pedestal. Then I fell off the pedestal, and he busily tries to discount the major tenets of my book, all the while qualifying his negative message with statements like, "Now, mind you, I am not saying there couldn't have been surgery!" FYI: I tried to get a slot at the 2004 Wecht Conference so that Doug Horne and I might present the new ideas--recently synthesized by Doug--that there was "post-midnight" photography and that Knudsen may have been the photographer. I approached Wecht via a close friend of his, and his immediate response was "yes." Then, about one to two weeks later, came another message: "No," and the explanation: "Aguilar."
So that year, many heard the usual speeches about the Single Bullet Theory, but some truly original work was not presented--and it could have been.
That's all I have to say for now.
DSL
4/22/10, 5AM PDT[/quote]
What you say may well be true. I am simply unaware that you marshalled the argument by putting together all of the pieces to show how the medical evidence impeaches the film. I went to "Zapruder Fakery, YouTube", by the way, and immediately encountered "Zapruder Fakery 6 - David Lifton Part 9", where you talk about my discussion of the TV interview during which Zapruder placed his hand over the right-front of his skull at the location of this non-existent wound. Looking for more, I then turned to "Zapruder Fakery 1 - James Fetzer Part 3", which begins with my discussion of the very point about the missing mass from the right-front, for those who want to follow what we are discussing here. Let me know if BEST EVIDENCE uses the same array of medial evidence to impeach the film, which I doubt, if only for the simple reason that, when it dawned on me that these were pieces of a mutually-reinforcing and cleverly contrived fabrication of the evidence to support the depiction of the wournd in the film, where his brains are bulging out to the right-front, IT CAME AS A REALIZATION, which, to the best of my knowledge, I had never read before. But, as you know from the Duluth conference, I have never ceased to be impressed with what you learned about the case in the course of your research, so it would not terribly surprise me. If either of us tracks it down, let the other know. I certainly prefer to be on the same side of these issues, which of course is also true of my attitude toward Jack and Weldon. Incidentally, you mention the Wecht conference. I may have told you this before, but I actually had in hand a formal written invitation from Cyril to attend, which I planned to do but had not as yet decided what I would discuss, when I was notified that my invitation had been rescinded! That was very troubling, but I was later told that two others had stated that they would not attend if I were on the program, which I gathered had been Aguilar and Thompson, who apparently are close to Cyril's son, Ben. I've no doubt that it would have been a far more lively and interesting event had you and I been present, but that's the politics of the JFK research community. I protested to Cyril about it at the time, but to no avail.
Jim
[quote name='David Lifton' post='190405' date='Apr 22 2010, 01:03 PM']Jim,
I am writing this simply "for the record" and in response to just one statement that is made in your post #1480.
Quoting you:
"It was only the way I put all of these pieces together to discern exactly how they were going to try to get away with it for which I meant to assert discovery--which is hard to dispute, since, to the best of my knowledge, no one else (including you and David Mantik) has made the point about the missing mass from the right-front of the lateral-cranial and the anterior-posterior X-rays. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Gary Aguilar, on the occasion of our first meeting, told me that the APPEARANCE of missing mass was an effect of OVEREXPOSURE and was not genuine. I thought that was a rather odd thing to say to me on our first meeting, but it stuck with me and I now believe not only that he was wrong but that the missing mass was a crucial ingredient in the medical cover-up that could be used to support what is seen in the film. We know it was not true," UNQUOTE
FYI: I believe this very point--the clear visual contradiction between what the JFK lateral X-Ray shows, with a major "black" area on the forward right hand side, and the JFK "stare of death" autopsy photograph was published in the 1988 Carroll and Graf edition of Best Evidence, which published the JFK autopsy photographs for the first time. I do not have the Carroll and Graf edition of B.E. in front of me as I write this, but here's what I recall.
It was the Spring of 1988, I had had these photographs since 1982, and the decision had been made by Carroll and Graf to re-publish BEST EVIDENCE, and to publish these photographs; and I was drafting the Epilogue describing the results of what happened in December, 1982 and January, 1983, when I visited Dallas and--along with Pat Valentino, in January--showed the autopsy photos to as many Dallas doctors and nurses as would meet with us. To get the finest possible prints, I had submitted my best copies to the photo lab at the UCLA Medical Center. I also happened to work at UCLA, at the time, in the pediatric radiology unit. I was looking at the autopsy photographs--and at the X-rays--and I had one of those "aha" moments, because there, on my desk, was this amazing, and--to me--inexplicable, contradiction. How could the X-rays show this huge black area, and yet the "stare of death" photo show the front of JFK's face so completely uninjured.
Being at UCLA, it was easy to solicit the opinion of a variety of doctors, and I did so. As I recall, the verdict was near unanimous: the two were contradictory.
What I remember then doing was either adding to the text of the 1988 Epilogue or actually incorporating this observation into the captions I was then responsible for writing. But somehow, I do remember communicating this clash between what the photos appeared to show, and what seemed so evident on the X-rays.
If I am wrong, I will modify this post, but that is my current recollection.
As to Gary Aguilar, he has made a small career out of attempting to deny the validity of BEST EVIDENCE, so I would heavily discount anything he has to say. Many years ago, when I first met Aguilar, and when I would speak to him on the phone, he referred to me as "chief" (as if he were a soldier, snapping his heels. "Yes, chief", etc.). That was when I was up on some sort of pedestal. Then I fell off the pedestal, and he busily tries to discount the major tenets of my book, all the while qualifying his negative message with statements like, "Now, mind you, I am not saying there couldn't have been surgery!" FYI: I tried to get a slot at the 2004 Wecht Conference so that Doug Horne and I might present the new ideas--recently synthesized by Doug--that there was "post-midnight" photography and that Knudsen may have been the photographer. I approached Wecht via a close friend of his, and his immediate response was "yes." Then, about one to two weeks later, came another message: "No," and the explanation: "Aguilar."
So that year, many heard the usual speeches about the Single Bullet Theory, but some truly original work was not presented--and it could have been.
That's all I have to say for now.
DSL
4/22/10, 5AM PDT[/quote]