|
Two questions that nag me.
|
27-03-2013, 08:52 PM
I've obviously mixed threads... Dotting the Eye and this one...
sorry for the confusion DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
28-03-2013, 12:53 AM
David:
If Gordon is referring to whoever shot Tippit, well its never going to be known. But I think it was more than one person. As per the stuff you are bringing up from Horne, look I will be reviewing Kaleidoscope for CTKA soon. What people forget is that part of Bethesda was a morgue for the military. A war was going on at the time. Therefore, just because JFK was killed that day, that does not mean he was the only one just because the eyes of the world were on him. Therefore, what Horne does is not fully describe report he finds so bracing, and he leaves out the context around it. Simply because he was out to endorse Lifton. I will go over all this in my review.
28-03-2013, 01:29 AM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:David: I look forward to it Jim... Are you of the opinion that a black hearse with men in black suits and men in white smocks require a gaggle of military personnel to bring a single metal shipping casket of a soldier killed in battle into the morgue? Who in turn see JFK's body in a body bag within this metal casket... or they are given the impression that JFK is in this casket/body bag... and then have yet another group of men tell you THEY brought a casket they believed to contain JFK into the ante-room of the morgue at around 7:20 and then LIE about remaining with this casket... and yet another group of men leave a document for history of yet another entry of a casket at 8pm... well after the chief autopsist says he was already working with the body? Endorsing Lifton's ideas from 1980 with evidence from 1997 that not only confirms but further substantiates the overall concept of three casket entries and alteration of the wounds should be thoroughly examined and pulled apart. yet you did write this Jim, yes? and it is followed by a review of the review by Dragoo who gives little credibility to the arguments against... I respect both your opinions in these matters VERY much... Has your mind been changed about this "book" so much so that Livingstone is able to refute Horne/Lifton with credibility? 12-15-2012 06:13 PM #2Jim DiEugenio ![[Image: icon1.png]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.png){kind=icon} You know having read the preview, I don't know what to make of this "book".
Its pretty clear that Livingstone still despises Lifton. ANd he is going after Horne since Horne is and was a disciple of Best Evidence. But man, Harry is such an unorganized and undisciplined non fiction author. In the best sense, his books are not really books. THey are a collection of essays without real flow and ebb and no arc e.g. High Treason 2, Killing the Truth. (Martin Hay listed this as one of the worst books ever on the JFK case and I agree.) And this carries over into his attempt at criticism. Its hard for him to separate the personal from the professional. Which is what you have to do as a critic. And you have to write clearly and in an organized fashion in order to make sure the reader follows your argument. I have never read his novels, I sure hope they are better written than this.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
28-03-2013, 02:57 AM
David Josephs Wrote:As described:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB-TLTWAh6sLR Trotter Wrote:IMO, the slowing of the limo is very likely the result of a reaction by Mr Greer to the "Dark Compected Man" stepping into the street with a "hold it" fist in the air, just as "The Umbrella Man" was pumping the open umbrella up and down. Added to to the hard limo turn from Houston to Elm, the speed was already reduced and this occurred just as the limo should have been increasing speed. Larry StudentofAssassinationResearch
28-03-2013, 05:46 AM
Thanks LR....
"Never Believe Anything Until it is Officially Denied"
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter 
28-03-2013, 09:14 AM
John Armstrong, Harvey, Lee and Tippit, on ctka.net is fascinating and feeds into James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters account.
http://www.ctka.net/pr198-jfk.html Clearly Tippit was anxious to find Oswald, whether to kill him or rescue him. There was the unit in front of Beckley honking--just stunning, but the rodeo clowns of the Commission from Rankin to Liebeler to Specter had no interest. Jim DiEugenio has the best defense brief for Oswald in this charge. Here's a thorough review of the evidence: http://www.ctka.net/2009/ruby_mack_2.html Section I above is 1768 words exonerating Oswald. Case Closed. Hahahahaha--and yet, there are some so blind they will not even use their real names. Regarding the three casket Monte, BE 1980 was pretty mysterious, but there's something patently clear in the x-ray tech seeing the official party arrive with the bronze ceremonial casket when he's running x-ray prints up to the lab and the SS minder stops him at the mezzanine. To say there wasn't a shuffle because some versions are outre or vaudevillian doesn't mean that Penn and Teller and David Copperfield and Chris Angel can't create illusions. There is a telling variance between Perry, Crenshaw et al regarding a one and a half centimeter incision through an obvious entrance wound in the throat and the garish gash in the stare of death photo. The wound was preserved pristine, they said, not ripped open like some frantic search for the metal fragments Custer saw in the missing C-3/4 x-ray: [a note on Horne: he will either do another edition which is edited and indexed and organized and not tediously repetitive or he will slide into oblivion] [FONT=&]Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassinations Record Review Board, Volume II, Chapter Five: The Autopsy X-Rays, pages 530-2:[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer Examines the X-Rays of the Body[/FONT] [FONT=&]The noteworthy highlights of Custer's review of the x-rays of the body was Jeremy's attempt to see whether Custer could identify metal fragments near any of the cervical vertebrae, which Custer had mentioned earlier in the deposition.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Jeremy showed Custer x-ray no. 9, a view of the chest prior to removal of the lungs, and the exchange went as follows:[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Previously, you referred to there being metal fragments in the cervical area. Are you able to identify any metal fragments in this x-ray?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Not in this film.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Does this film include a view or an exposure that would have included such metal fragments?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Where would the metal fragments be located?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Further up in there. This region.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Can youand you're pointing to?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Up into the, I'd say, C3/C4 region.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Jeremy asked Custer to review x-rays no. 8 and 10, of the right shoulder and chest, and left shoulder and chest, respectivelyboth are images following the removal of the heart and lungs. Custer could not identify metal fragments in either x-ray.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Later, Jeremy asked Custer the following questions:[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Now, you had raised, previously in the deposition. . .the possibility of some metal fragments in the C3/C4 range.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: I noticed I didn't see that.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: You didn't see any x-rays that would be inthat would include the C3/C4 area?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: No sir.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Are you certain that you took x-rays that included theincluded C3 and C4?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Yes, sir. Absolutely.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: How many x-rays did you take that would have included that?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Just one. And that was all that was necessary, because it showedright there.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: And what, as best you recall, did it show?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: A fragmentation of a shell in and around that circular exitthat area. Let me rephrase that. I don't want to say "exit," because I don't know whether it was exit or entrance. But all I can say, there was bullet fragmentations [sic] around that areathat opening.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Around C3/C4?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Right.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn" And do you recall how many fragments there were?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Not really. There was enough. It was very prevalent.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Did anyone make any observations about metal fragments in the C3/C4 area?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: I did. And I was told to mind my own business. That's where I was shut down again.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: You have, during the course of this deposition, identified three x-rays that you are quite certain that you took, but don't appear in this collection. Are there any others that you can identify as not being included?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: That's the only three that come to my mind right now; the two tangential views, and the A-P cervical spine.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Okay.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: Can I add something to that?[/FONT] [FONT=&]Gunn: Sure.[/FONT] [FONT=&]Custer: In my own opinion, I do believe, basically, the reason why they are not here is because they showed massive amounts of bullet fragments.[/FONT] 
28-03-2013, 12:55 PM
David Josephs Wrote:\Jim DiEugenio Wrote:David: I have only read parts of Killing the truth. And those parts were horrible. So I went to the index and looked up some things. Like his section on my dear (now deceased) friend Carl Oglesby. LIES. Total bullshit. So I would not ever get any of his books. THis one was given to me by Walt Brown on Jay Harrison's deathbed. Jay had all the books and Walt told me this one belonged in the fireplace. From what I read I agree, however I don't burn books. Dawn
28-03-2013, 01:09 PM
Phil Dragoo Wrote:John Armstrong, Harvey, Lee and Tippit, on ctka.net is fascinating and feeds into James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters account. Brilliant Phil. I found BE VERY compelling when it came out. My only complaint was there was too much of Lifton in it. His this his that. The book needed an editor badly. Like Lifton I too had noticed the report about surgury to the head and it literally jumped off the page in 1975 when I was doing a research paper on the JFK assassination. So David's work was very important. That said the censored hour ( of three) on TMWKK ...LIgget...adds to this mystery. Another explanation, not far from Lifton's for me. Both involve alteration of the evidence. Once I considered that just the pics were faked, and that could be real too. I mean all of the above could have occurred. As for Tippit, my suspician was that he was sent to kill LHO and when he failed he had to go. But it truly is impossible to know, as Phil has pointed out. My friend Jay and he were close. Jay believed Oswald killed Tippet. By which I now believe he meant Lee not Harvey....(too bad I can't ask him - miss him every day). Dawn
28-03-2013, 06:02 PM
I assume you mean your friend Jay was close to Tippet? I so did he think Tippet had any involvement in the conspiracy? His behavior that day was very unusual, as described by Armstrong. Which Oswald did Tippet know, Lee or Harvey, or did he know of both of them?
29-03-2013, 12:26 AM
Gordon Gray Wrote:I assume you mean your friend Jay was close to Tippet? I so did he think Tippet had any involvement in the conspiracy? His behavior that day was very unusual, as described by Armstrong. Which Oswald did Tippet know, Lee or Harvey, or did he know of both of them?Gordon, she answered here: Dawn Meredith Wrote:My friend Jay and he were close. Jay believed Oswald killed Tippet. By which I now believe he meant Lee not Harvey....(too bad I can't ask him - miss him every day).
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her. “I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
