David Lifton

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Lifton

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

28,426 profile views
  1. Paul: Please email me at DSL74@Cornell.edu I have a question. Thanks. DSL
  2. Michael: The quote is indeed an important one; the problem is the context. When time permits, I'll answer in greater detail. But here is the nub of the matter. The ARRB interview of Robinson was conducted in 1996 (plus or minus). By that time, Best Evidence had been published multiple times--originally in 1981 then again in 1982 (paperback); then with the autopsy photos, in full "trade paper" size (1988, Carrol and Graf) ;and finally (and again), in 1993, again with the autopsy photographs. It is implausible to believe that Tom Robinson did not read--and read closely--Best Evidence. It was therefor incumbent on any legal investigation which questioned him (and he is one of two examples of this) not to ask Robinson (a) whether he read the book; (b) his reaction to the book; and (c ) whether he had any theories of his own. This was not done. The result: Robinson was permitted to espouse his "theory" without any questioning--without any cross-examination. The result is a mess, in which we have a conflation of his original recollections and the memories he had (as a genuine witness) plus what he said in an ARRB telephone interview over three decades later. Not properly questioning Robinson properly is the fault of the ARRB. It opened the door to a witness polluting the record with an assassination theory. If you go back to Robinson's original HSCA Interview (back in 1976, prior to the original publication of my book), you will find quite a rather different record. At that time, he was interviewed, in person (not on the telephone, which is really amateurish) by HSCA Attorney Andrew Purdy. If you read that (HSCA) interview carefully, you will discover two things: #1: Robinson told Purdy, who questioned him carefully, that there was no back wound--let me repeat that: no back wound. Purdy asked him, more than once,as I recall, whether there was any wound on the back, which he (Purdy) defined in the area above the waist, and below the head. Robinson answered in the negative. FWIW: This questioning should have been reviewed by the ARRB, carefully, and under oath, because of its implications--i.e., no back wound, consistent with the Parkland hospital record. But none of that was done. #2: The transcript created by the HSCA (circa 1976 or 1977) happens to be incorrect. Something I discovered years later, by carefully listening to the audio tape of that interview, when it was released sometime in the 1990s. Words and/or phrases were left out, and so (when read superficially) the false transcript gives the impression that the interviewee (Robinson) was saying that the body was removed from the Bethesda morgue, and then returned--both events witnessed by him (!). That is false. No such event happened. More importantlly: That's not what Robinson said. At all. All it took to avoid that error, and to remedy that situation was to listen to the audio tape of that HSCA inteview, and correct the transcript. To repeat: Years later, I did exactly that. Doing so, I immediately discovered the error,and transcribed that part correctly. The ARRB did not, and so Doug Horne advanced a false thesis, based on an incorrect transcript, that Robinson had witnessed something mysterious; i.e., that he had said the body was removed from the morgue (in his presence) and then returned again (!). To repeat: as if he had witnessed something truly mysterious. Robinson said no such thing. That surmise was false and was a completely avoidable error/ But the ARRB (that is, Horne and Gunn, in questioning Robinson) did not properly review (and correct) the HSCA transcript. Had they done so, that incorrect surmise would not have arisen. That was a poor performance for the ARRB, whose major purpose was to "clarify the record." Instead, and because of that inadequate questioning, they clouded the record. The combination of an incorrect transcript and the failure to question the witness properly--exploring whether the implications of his having read Best Evidence (which by that time had been in print for about 17 years, and in four editions)--led to the confused record that now exists. The resultant ARRB record is, imho, a confusing combination of the witnesses original recollections, and his own hypothesis. I'll have more to say about this, because something very similar happened with another witness--X-Ray tech Ed Reed--and the combination of Ed Reed and Robinson has led to a confusing mess in which the legal record contains, instead of the unvarnished record of the witnesses' recollections, those important recollections, but also the witnesses theories about lhe autopsy. That would not have happened if proper procedures had been followed. DSL 2/11/2017 - 4:05 p.m. PST Los ANgeles, California
  3. Micah: There's important missing history of which you are unaware, and which establishes that Dr. Perry's quote (from the 1990's JAMA article) can be set aside (to put it mildly). What I will now set forth concerns what happened when Robert Groden and a reporter from a Baltimore newspaper visited Dr. Perry in his office in New York City (in the period 1977-78) when Groden was on the staff of the HSCA, and had access to certain prints of the autopsy photos. Let's begin with my filmed interview of Robert Groden, conducted at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey in June or July of 1989, a two-night multihour interview. This interview was filmed, professionally, and Pat Valentino was present, and in charge of the sound. When we interviewed Robert Groden at that time, Robert described, in detail, what happened when he (and a Baltimore news reporter) visited Dr. Malcolm Perry at his New York City office (Perry was then practicing medicine in NYC). Robert Groden was then employed on the staff of the HSCA; and he went to see Perry in New York, the main purpose being get his reaction to see the "stare of death" photo. Groden showed Dr. Perry the photo--the first time Perry had ever seen it--and Perry shook his head from side to side, and said, referring to the trach incision he had made: "I left the wound inviolate." Let me repeat what Perry said: "I left the wound inviolate." Now. . .what did he mean by "inviolate"? And how could that be, since he had testified he made his incision through the wound? Perry was referring to the fact that--based on his unvarnished memory--he had made the incision below the wound. (FYI: This is what Perry had told writer Jimmy Breslin on 11/22/63, and which Breslin then published in the detailed article he wrote, and which was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63. FYI: that identical interview was then published (again) in the Saturday Evening Post in early December, 1963 (referring now to the article titled "Death in Emergency Room One" --from memory). Now let's turn to the word "inviolate" and set aside whether this was the first time he had used that word, in connection with describing the throat wound, and how he believed he had left it. When Robert related this, I turned to Pat Valentino and said, "Oh no, Perry is wrong. The transcript from his 1966 CBS interview says "invalid", so Perry must be mistaken". (And in fact, the official CBS transcript does in fact use the word "invalid"). But then came this stunner. Groden happened to have, right there in his residence, an excellent copy of that 1966 CBS interview, and so he played t for us. Naturally, I expected to hear Perry say (just as the transcript quoted him as having said) "invalid." But no, that's not what Perry said. Perry clearly said "inviolate" ! What the heck? Had the transcript been fiddled with? (You betcha!) Pat and I both rose up out of our chairs, astonished. (Groden didn't understand our reaction, because--in the interest of an unbiased interview--we hadn't (yet) told him any of this backstory. But there it was, right there on the screen: Perry had said "I left the wound inviolate" (on screen); and he had told Groden (and the accompanying reporter, at his NYC office), the same thing; he said that he had left the wound "inviolate." Following this, Pat and I then brought Groden completely up-to-date, filling him in on these details, and we did all of this "on camera," to get his reaction as we talked, and we then interviewed him further about his experiences in New York City, and at Perry's office--all about his certainty that yes, there was no doubt about itL in his New York City office, and while looking at the autopsy photo, Perry had said "inviolate." It was a wonderful filmed interview at a time when I had few of the problems with Groden, that later bloomed (and are described in Pig on a Leash, 2003). Now, here's some additional follow-up: ITEM #1: Pat and I (and Groden) --the very next day--then went to a Philadelphia audio lab, with Groden's excellent copy of the filmed interview, and did some precise slowed-up copying to see if we could detect how the world "inviolate" had become "invalid." All I can say is that there was plenty of circumstantial audio evidence of digital hanky-panky. (That work should be repeated, with today's better digitial technology). ITEM #2: Upon returning to Los Angeles, I located the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden to Perry's NYC office, and spoke with him by phone. He confirmed that Perry had shook his head from side to side, and made clear that the photograph he was looking was not the way he had left the wound. ITEM #3: Dr. Perry, in a 1988 interview with PBS, tried to demean, and make fun of, me, and the conversation he had had with me in October 1966. Sorry, but that won't work: On October 27, 1966, he told me that the wound was "2-3 cm." And I wrote it down as he said it. ITEM $4: I deeply regret, after all of this, having to state that I completely forgot to develop this into a "research package" and send it to Jeremy Gunn on the ARRB. At the time, I was working very closely with the ARRB, and with Doug Horne, speaking to Horne multiple times per week (and recording all of our conversations, with full permission) and speaking with Gunn, too. I just plain forget about what happened six years before, in 1989. But this would have been a perfect example of using the ARRB's subpoena powers to "clarify the record", which was their mandate. Perry should have been put under oath, and --on this subject--depositions should have been taken from both Groden, and the Baltimore reporter. To round out the record, I would have been glad to contribute the 1989 filmed interview with Groden, in which he related, in vivid terms, Perry's reaction to first seeing the "stare of death" autopsy photo, and his saying: "I left the wound inviolate." ITEM #5: My personal opinion of Dr. Perry: he lied. Its as simple as that. Sure, he told the truth on 11/22/63, and yes, he complained about being badgered about changing his opionion, etc. ; but there was no need for all of that in 1967. A man of integrity would have told the truth. Instead, we have the record of Dr. Perry not only going along with an altered transcript; but then, decades later (and you can find this on the Internet) telling he doctors with whom he worked, in Seattle, (and after swearing this one and that one to secrecy), that of course the wound at the front of the throat was an entry. * * * Micah: I hope you now realize that what Dr. Perry said, in a 1990s JAMA article, should be viewed skeptically, to say the least; and in my personal opinion, it is basically worthless. DSL 2/10/2017 - 6:45 PM PST Los Angeles, California
  4. Alistair Briggs: Thanks much for the time and effort you put into your post, and the fact that you obviously paid close attention to Chapter 14 of B.E., and in particular, my Figure 26, which is titled "Case Against Oswald Viewed as a Triangle." That's a critically important diagram, and if one compares what happened on 11/22/63 to a "screenplay," that's the schematic explaining the structure of the screenplay. There's a myriad of details one can discuss and debate, but that diagram encapsulates (and displays) the structure. Although B.E. was largely written between 1977 and April 1980, the thinking (and analysis) expressed in Chapter 14, and displayed in that diagram, reflects my thinking as of December 1966, about two months after I discovered the evidence of body alteration (10/23/66), and about a month after Liebeler sent out his 11/8/66 memo to Chief Justice Warren and the rest of the WC legal staff (transmitted on 11/16/66, via a letter available at the Ford Library). The bottom line: if my analysis is correct, then on 11/22/63 and in the days immediately following, the country was the target of a major strategic deception that lay behind the transition of power from Kennedy to Johnson. That triangle is a pictorial representation--in effect, a blueprint--of the fabrication of the false (Oswald-did-it) narrative, that lay at the heart of that deception. Your post tells me that you have given serious thought to how this deception might have been synthesized, and how its "moving parts" might have worked. Good, that's exactly why I wrote Chapter 14. FWIW, and if I can take you back to the period Oct-Nov-December 1966: In the first couple of weeks, I was simply horrified and disgusted at what appeared to have happened to JFK's body (and I tried to capture all of that in my narrative). Then came a few weeks intensely devoted to the details (See Chapters 11, 12, 13, 18 etc.)) Then came a lot of questioning and cogitation, and attempting to answer the question(s): "What the heck is going on here? What does all of this mean?" During that period, I had a number of discussions with Professor Liebeler, but also with his top law student (and the person who later became his wife), Susan Liebeler. In the very beginning, I failed to appreciate the full extent of what I had discovered, and thought of body alteration was akin to some sort of "magic trick" by which clever plotters had concealed the "second assassin" (e.g., the one on the knoll). But these early conversations with Prof. Liebeler, and Susan W. set me straight, and made me realize the full extent of the corruption--the systemic (political and "legal") corruption--with which I was dealing. A key phrase--and a key concept---was the notion of "fraud in the evidence"; and that, to some extent, was a jumping off point to a wider concept: strategic deception. But. . .to what end? Answer: To promote a false narrative, one which would facilitate the smooth operation of the presidential line of succession. I remember one conversation where one (or both) of them said to me: "Don't you 'get it'? This isn't about a 'second assassin'!" Well, at the very beginning, I didn't get it. But it wasn't too long before (finally) I "got it." Today, in 2017, there are still people who come to the Kennedy case sort of like a weekend hobby, and think they will find some error or glitch in the Warren Report, that will prove there was a "second assassin." Then they can go back to work on Monday morning, and feel they have accomplished something. I think the reason Bugliosi was so furious with Best Evidence (and with me) is that it challenged the underpinnings of his entire professional career. Everything he had learned in law school was at stake; if my analysis was correct, what he had learned had proved useless (in finding the truth) and the country had been deceived by the falsification of the "best evidence": a false autopsy, a planted murder weapon, some bullet fragments--do all that with some verisimilitude, and you can change the occupant of the Oval Office. Again, thanks for paying attention to the diagram --Figure 26 (in Chapter 14). I'll be having a lot more to say about all of that in Final Charade. DSL 2/10/17 - 5:55 p.m. PST Los Angeles, California
  5. RESPONSE: No, not at all. I stand by what I wrote in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, titled: "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda." As reported there, when I spoke with Dr. Perry on 10/27/66, he told me that the incision he made was "2- 3 cm." The autopsy description of the same defect was "6.5 cm" and Humes sworn testimony was "7 - 8 cm." Furthermore, the autopsy described the "wound" (or defect, or whatever you wish to designate it) as having "widely gaping irregular edges," whereas one doctor after another (as described in Chapter 11, were surprised by my even questioning them on the wound edges and told me that they were "smooth" (of course, some added) because it was made with a knife. It should be evident that there was a " 'before' and 'after' " situation on the so-called "incision." What introduces significant confusion is the Bethesda doctors' claim that they didn't know that damage was done "over" a bullet wound. That's the highly debatable point. As I will spell out in Final Charade, Humes knew very well that the throat wound had been altered, from what it was in Dallas, and--because of that knowledge (and possibly because of his direct participation in the coverup)--was more complicit than I had imagined when I wrote Best Evidence. Those reading these posts and debating these matters should keep something else in mind: All of this was way above "Humes' 'pay grade.'" So if he were instructed that there were international political considerations at stake, and he was to say (or write) such-and-so, and that that was the equivalent of an order, he would have said "yes, sir" and followed orders. He was in no position to question orders delivered to him "under the color of authority"--whether the source was the White House, or Attorney General Robert Kennedy, or Sec Def McNamara (the latter two then situated on the 17th floor of Bethesda). Also, and this, too, is important: I spoke with Humes four times--twice in November 1966, and then two more times--once by phone, and another time at the HSCA hearings, when I was at the microphone covering the HSCA heariing for WETA, the Washington, D.C. PBS affiliated. Without doubt, the most dramatic encounter encountered were my two calls to him on 11/2 and 11/3, 1966, as described in Chapter 8 of Best Evidence. I was not writing a book at the time. I was simply calling in the spirit of a UCLA graduate student attempting to follow-up on my recent discovery of the lines in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report that when the body was unwraped at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Humes was clearly astonished that (a) there was any such report and (b) at the passage I was reading to him. My whole purpose, at that moment, was to tread carefully so that he wouldn't simply hang up on me and terminate the conversation. So, attempting to depressurize the situation, I asked, as innocently as possible, if it was not the case that anything had been done to the body (such as the removal of a bullet, much less the alteration of any wounds). . . if he would have brought it to the attention of the Warren Commission. "I would certainly hope I would," he said, and then I started to speak (but immediately stopped, as I realized he was continuing) and he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done (pause) and when (pause) and where!". There was no question in my mind, when I listened to Humes--in real time--that I had "made contact", and that he knew exactly what I was talking about. One has to hear this tape to make a judgment about Humes demeanor. I will attempt to get that recording digitized and posted on the net. Simply reading the words, on the page, does not convey the emotional quality, and the effect that conversation had on me, at the time. Today, i realize that Humes is much more complicit than I had originally believed, when I wrote Best Evidence. But by "complicit" I am referring (more or less) to his state of knowledge, and to certain things that he did "after the fact"; i.e., his aweness of multiple coffin arrivals; his involvement in getting the FBI agents to leave the morgue "early" by announcing autopsy conclusions that were incorrect, etc. And, just for the record, I certainly do not believe that Humes performed any surgery --i.e., pre-autopsy surgery--on the president's head. (He was complicit, however, in "sewing up" the "trach incision" in the throat area. Will explain in detail in Final Charade. Based on evidence discovered in January, 2014). The President's body arrived already messed up, and with no brain inside the cranium. Just watch the B.E. Research Video and see Paul O'Connor's account, which I filmed in October 1980, for yourself. The late Jerrol Custer, the X-ray tech, practically corroborated O'Connor when he described--both on the phone (1979)and then again on camera (October 1980) that "I could stick both my hands inside the cranium" (from memory). Furthermore, there is one other stunning piece of corroboration, and I'll get into this, in detail, in Final Charade, and concerns FBI Agent Francis O'Neill. FBI Agent Francis O'Neill --back in 1992--privately told a good friend of his that the cranium was empty. He said this more than once, and insisted on that being true. Then someone clued him in that that would provide major support for B.E., and my work, and he didn't like me (or that idea) at all. And so O'Neill then changed his story, equivocated, and said things like "Well, maybe there was half a brain." (See His ARRB testimony, September 1997). Sorry Charlie (as the saying goes), but the cranium was empty (as Paul O'Connor told the HSCA in 1977, and me in August 1979, and then again --on camera--in October 1980); and FBI Agent Francis O'Neill said the same thing, when queried by a close friend, who conveyed all of this to me, in 1992. Gotta run. DSL 2/10/2017 - 3:30 A.M. PST Los Angeles, California
  6. Ray: You are correct, and if these reports--and their authors--had integrity, the time sequence you have cited would be of considerable importance. BUT. . . . . : The "but" is (unfortunately) that some of the Secret Service officials were complicit --at the very least in the coverup of the President's assassination, and, very possibly, in aiding and abetting in the execution of the crime itself. Once the single bullet theory became a legal and historical necessity, the reports of two agents--Glenn Bennet and George Hickey--were crafted so as to provide legal support for the (final) and supposedly "official" version of the autopsy. Bennet's report states, as you note, that he saw the shot strike 4" down from the right shoulder (even though, in B.E., I noted, and published a photograph, showing that Bennet was looking off to the right). The Hickey report states --what I have always viewed as a "companion" false report--states that he "saw"a shot strike the top right hand side of the head (the "high" position, depicted in the autopsy photographs). IMHO: The whole thing is a scam and a sham. Notably, neither SS agent was called to testify. Nor was either agent interviewed by the FBI. And instead, when some on the WC legal staff grew suspicious, there was a May 1964 communication between the WC and SS Chief Rowley saying, in effect, "And here are Glenn Bennet's handwritten notes proving that he was not lying because he wrote this on November 22. .. etc. ; Is there anything else you'd like to see?" That's the sort of sophomoric investigation we had. What was needed, of course, was a smart Special Prosecutor, but that was 1964, and there wasn't a chance of anything like that coming to pass. DSL 2/9/2017; 6:10 p.m. Los Angeles, California
  7. Sandy, You are completely correct, and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding. If you will look in Best Evidence (under the "low/high" conflict, when it appears in chapter 5, 6 and 7) I address this entire situation, which is indeed confusing. Yes, the original plan (apparently) --and this is "IMHO"--was to create a shallow hole in the back, and "pair it" with a bullet placed on a stretcher. That "pairing" of stretcher bullet and shallow back wound is exactly the way the original FBI Summary Report (the one dated Dec 9, 1963) is written. But then,as events unfolded, two additional factors entered the picture, and had to be accounted for. They were: #1:THE THROAT WOUND It became known that the throat wound, originally (and mistakenly) perceived to be "only" a trach incision (and nothing more) was not that at all. Rather, it was a made over a small bullet wound; and further, once that situation was recognized, that bullet wound had to be accounted for. #2: THE TIME FACTOR At some point in time (and I believe it was likely 11/25 or shortly thereafter), it became clear that Kennedy and Connally were struck in less time that it took to fire the (prop) rifle twice (what I called the "42 frame constraint", in my "Case for 3 Asassins", written in July 1966, but published in Ramparts in Jan 1967); and so either an "additional shot" would have to be added to the "official explanation", or a pre-existing bullet strike would have to be said to have transited, so it could be the missile that struck JC. Of course, there was also the Tague bullet that to be accoiunted for. Yes, all of this is complicated, but I discussed it, in detail, in chapters 5 through 7. Again, to repeat the major point: the bullet placed on the stretcher was (originally) to be "paired" with a shallow wound, and certainly the Single Bullet Theory did not emerge as the important necessity it turned out to be, until some days later. Meanwhile, a legal record had already been created establishing that that hole was "low." So that's when the lies started as to exactly where that "back/neck" wound was actually located. Hope this helps. DSL 2/9/17 -5:55 p.m. PST Los Angeles, CA
  8. Re your quote: "As one who has been heavily involved in Weirdness himself. . . " Could you be more specific? What "weirdness" have you been "heavily involved in"? DSL
  9. QUOTING DVP, QUOTE ON: Well, David Lifton, I think about the only thing a reasonable person needs to do in order to come to a firm conclusion that your theory is utter hogwash (not to mention impossible) is to read the following portion of this post of yours: "The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter his body to change the story of how he died. If one has control of the body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the crime." -- David Lifton; Feb. 6, 2017 The key words written by David L. above are these words: "The plan, from the outset, was to...alter his body." UNQUOTE DSL RESPONSE: Yes, that was the plan. It didn't work out exactly as planned, but I stand behind every word I wrote. One other point, regarding your commentary: "Maybe we should all take a step back and just think about the above comment for a few moments. It shouldn't take very long, though, for any sensible person to fully appreciate just how ridiculous and far-out and nonsensical and impossible and downright crazy that comment by David S. Lifton truly is." DVP: I'm sorry to tell you the bad news, but your indiscriminate invoking of various adjectives will not save you from the logical consequences of the evidence. DSL, 2/9/17; 11:40 a.m. Los Angeles, Califoprnia
  10. The question you are posing sounds perfectly reasonable, at first; but if you take a closer look--and put yourself in the shoes of the plotters, whose intention was not just to kill the President, but--in addition--to *also* (and by "also" I mean "simultaneously) manufacture a false story of how he died--the problem(s) with what you are suggesting become manifest. Maybe it was my training in math, and my general exposure to systems engineering that brought this problem into focus, but its almost self evident: if one shoots from the back, then that will co-mingle two locations which (by design) one wants to be entirely separate: (A) The true source of the shots and (B) the location for the theatrical episode which is to be the foundation for the false narrative, which --in screenplay form--might as well be titled "The Man in the Building Who Shot the Man in the Car." Can you imagine what would happen if you have an unwitting patsy in the building (a patsy you want to see "dead" asap) but also in the building (e.g., perhaps on a different floor) the actual assassin(s)? And then police --perhaps police who are completely innocent--start rushing to that location? That really could lead to an out-of-control mess, with (innocent) police arresting the real assassins, and so forth. For a better, more carefully stated explanation, I refer to Chapter 14 of Best Evidence. Also, and completely aside from these "theoretical" considerations, I can't overemphasize the fact that no one in the original 1963/64 medical records (i.e., from Parkland Hospital) saw any entry wound on the back of the body. The first report that such existed is in the December 12, 1963 report by Dallas Times Herald science writer Bill Burrus. That's the first supposedly "authoritative" account--from Dallas--that reported that JFK was struck from the rear (by a missile that exited at the front of the throat). FYI: I was able to contact Burrus in 1978 (in New York City, see B.E. p 156)), met him in a NYC bar, buy him a few beers, and talk to him for several hours (with a tape recorder between the two of us); and will give a complete report of that in Final Charade. Bottom line: Burrus was contacted the night before--i.e., late in the evening of 12/11/63--by a certain VIP, who slowly and carefully provided him with the autopsy conclusion regarding the non-fatal shot, emphasizing that it entered high on the back of the right thorax, transited the neck (back to front), emerged (undamaged, by implication) at the throat, etc etc. --in other words, although Burrus was unaware of it, he was being given a preview of the Single Bullet Theory. He then carefully wrote the story, called back the VIP (to make sure he had every detail right) and then it was published in the Dallas Times Herald (page 1) the next day. It was not carried on the wire (AP), because the persnickity wire service official wanted confirmation as to the source, and Burrus--to hide the VIP's identity --intended to (and did) "false source" the story as if it came from a "Bethesda pathologist" (but it did not). All of this was the beginning of the "PR push" for the Single Bullet Theory, and this backstory will be described, in detail, in Final Charade. I don't believe anybody can become acquainted with all of this and still credibly maintain a belief that Kennedy was shot in the back. (Based on what. . . the "clothing holes"?) The whole thing is a fabrication. Again: IMHO. Returning now to your original question: I don't mean to diminish its importance. In fact, it was one of the most difficult questions that I confronted, on my book tour, because, quite frankly, it zeros in on a factor that is counter-intuitive, and difficult to explain, say, in the 30 sec or 1 min typically available on a radio talk show. FWIW: I am proud to recall that in the weeks or months after the publication of B.E., this "counter-intuitive" proposition was the subject of a New York Times Quiz question (I must retrieve that item, frame it, and put it in near my work place). And BTW:Many important propositions in life are counter-intuitive--whether its couples who seem to disagree on everything, but end up in 30 year marriages, or watching a physics professor stand on a piano stool, arms outstretched (and with weights in each hand) and as he brings them to his chest (and especially if he does so rapidly) he starts spinning on the piano stool. (Conservation of angular momentum). I don't expect DVP to appreciate any of that--I'm not even sure he believes in evolution--but rest assured that "trajectory reversal" (spelled out in Chapter 14 of B.E.) is far less radical than many of the revelations of modern biology, or the wave-particle duality in physics. DSL 2/09/2017; 11:30 a.m. PST Los Angeles, California
  11. John: (1) It was an Air Force "Colonel"; (2 ) It was just a story--there was never any body. This story was told to me in October 1980, by James Jenkins, when I interviewed him (on camera). The purpose of this (false) story was to "explain" the Dallas coffin, which was sitting in the ante-room at Bethesda. There is a wonderful moment, on amera, when I tell Jenkins that there was no "AF Colonel" and that that was simly a story to account for the Dallas Coffin. For reasons I will never understand, this story was changed and elaborated upon by Harrison Livingstone. By tbetime Livingstone got finished with his "modification," there really was a body in there, the lid was raised and this or that person saw it, etc. For any serious analysis, I would advice to simply stick with the story as originally related to me (n October 1980); and skip any elaboration developed by Livingtone. D DSL 2/6/17 - 4:05 a.m. PST Los Angels, California
  12. David: You are one of those who has a completely incorrect model of conspiracy, and is destined to end up in the dustbin of history. Thanks for archiving all the material you have collected, but your analysis leaves much to be desired. If there was an Internet back in 1859, when Origin of the Species was published, you would have been one of those with a massive website arguing against evolution, and saying. . "Just look at all these dogs and cats that I have collected. . . and what about the apes and all the other animals in the zoo! You mean to tell me that all of this is somehow connected! That all these different species came about naturally! That's ridiculous! Darwin is nothing but a kook! All of this was created in about 7 days, and if you don't believe me, go to my Website, "Darwin Sucks.com" DSL
  13. I have heard this argument from others--its what I call the "1967 argument' because it goes back to the time when the be-all and end-all of JFK assassination research was to prove that there was a cover-up; i.e., an "after-the-fact" coverup. But, as I explained in my November 2013 Bismarck lecture (just Google, David Lifton Bismarck), this was a body-centric plot. The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter his body to change the story of how he died. If one has control of the body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the crime. Those who persist of thinking of this in the old (1967) paradigm --i.e., that of an "after-the-fact coverup--are attempting to put a square peg in a round hole. They completely miss the significance of a modus operandi in which it was planned--as an integral part of the crime--to shoot the President and then alter the body soon afterwards (so as to implicate Oswald as "the assassin")/ The shooting--followed by the alteration--were two facets of the same integrated covert operation. The late Sylvia Meagher--who thought of everything (after the shooting) was part of an ad hoc after-the -fact cover-up--fell victim to this kind of mistaken thinking. Another researcher expressed it this way, back in 1993: QUOTE: The real problem with, I think, with David [Lifton's] thesis is that altering evidence is [that it is] an enormously dangerous thing to get into. It is especially dangerous to get into before you know (now laughs) exactly what you have to have. . .. At this point in time ([and] the point in time we’re talking about are the hours say, between 4 P.M. on that Friday, the 22nd, and midnight of the 22nd. At that time, you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show." UNQUOTE This is completely incorrect reasoning, because the evidence is clear--whether one looks at the DPD radio transmissions or what happened with the body (and how fast it happened)--that the plan, from the outset, was to shoot the president, and then create the false appearance as to how he died; i.e., that "a man in the building shot a man in the car." The "man in the building," of course, was Oswald, the pre-selected patsy; and yes, he had to be pre-positioned in the building for any of this to work. But stepping back and taking a "longer" view: To argue that there was no "pre-11/22 design" of this crime, and that the false result (the consequence f a far-reaching cover-up) was all assembled "on the fly," after the shots were fired" is to seriously misunderstand what happened in Dallas, and to seriously misinterpret the chronology of events. Why? Because, by positing that approach, one is tied to a completely incorrect model of conspiracy. Is there any serious student of this case (i.e., of this crime) who really believes that the planning of this murder began (and ended) with the shooting? That after the last shot was fired, the "CEO" of this operation, in effect said, "Well done, boys, we succeeded. We can all go home now!" That is not just inadequate, it is ridiculous--a sophomoric way of looking at this crime (i.e., everything is part of "the cover-up" from J. Edgar Hoover to Gerald Posner!). As I said in my book, Best Evidence (1981), and in numerous lectures in the years following, "my book (or "my work") is not about who put the bullets into the president's body, but who took them out." Those who have studied some modicum of math should have no problem "inverting" the traditional statement of the crime, and viewing it in that fashion. Those who persist in viewing bullet removal and wound alteration--i.e., deliberate autopsy falsification--as something that was dreamed up "afterwards" --perhaps by the hypothetical CEO I mentioned above, who then said, after he told his associates to disband and "go home", "Ooops! I forgot! There are bullets in the body! And those bullet wounds. . OMG. . what am I gonna do about that? I forgot all about that when I/we planned this shooting! But those wounds. . . they may not jibe with that sniper's nest we put at the Sixth Floor window. . OMG! What am I gonna do now?!" Etc. Anyone who persists in viewing the JFK murder in that fashion is destined to waste their time attempting to meaningfully interpret the evidence, because they have a completely incorrect model of the conspiracy that took President Kennedy's life. First of all, they have a substantially incorrect time-line and consequently fail to properly distinguish what was "before the fact" from that which was "after the fact." Second: those who persist with this incorrect model of conspiracy lose the ability to recognize when unexpected events occurred, resulting in genuine ad hoc improvisation (but that is another story, and one which is dealt with quite comprehensively in Final Charade). DSL 2/5/17 - 12:02 a.m. PST Los Angeles, California
  14. Hello Micah Mileto: Thanks for starting this thread. I'd like to debate more, but there's so much writing and "work to be done' that I have no time. Again, many thanks. DSL
  15. I have not visited the London Forum in quite some time, and I see --Pat Speer--that not much has changed. This post is a good example. "I studied the case full-time from 2004 - 2006 or so. . " you inform us; well, that says something, or should. Then you state: "While much has been made of the large size of the trach incision, from studying old textbooks I came to realize that there was nothing that surprising about the size of the trach incision." "Nothing that surprising"? Really! How selective we are, when the need arises. Buried in all the erudition that you cite is what you fail to mention. So. . for those who wish to be informed, here are the basic facts. (All of this is "elementary" but I'll state it here, from memory). 1. I interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on October 27, 1966. I was a student in Prof. Liebeler's UCLA Law class on the Warren Commission, and told him exactly that--that the course title was "Legal Problems in Areas of National Security." I said I was assigned a paper, the purpose of which was to get the flavor of what "fact finding" was all about, and my topic was the length of the tracheotomy incision. Perry was perfectly polite, and answered without hesitation. The incision he made, he said, was "2- 3 cm." Of course, I knew, before I made this phone call, that the Bethesda autopsy reported the incision as being 6.5 cm; and that when Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon, testified, he said it was "7 - 8 cm." That's in his testimony. Look it up. 2. So, upon hearing Perry respond "2-3 cm" I raised the ante a bit, and asked Perry is it might be 4 cm. As I write this, I don't recall his exact response, but he doubted it. Then, whatever Perry's answer was, I then raised the ante again, asking if it perhaps was 5 cm. With each increase, Perry grew more uncomfortable, and concerned, explaining that it wasn't necessary to make an incision that large etc. 3. It was obvious to me that the incision that Dr. Perry recalled making was considerably smaller than the one reported in the autopsy, and certainly much smaller, by at least 50%, than the one to which Humes testified. The story of my Perry phone call is laid out in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, titled: "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda." 4. Immediately after the call, I realized it had historical significance, and that the only record I had was my own memory and notes. I promptly went out and purchased a reel-to-reel tape recorder, resolving that henceforth, I would always tape such calls. 5. Over the following weeks, I studied the record closely, and began calling the other doctors. One of the more important phone calls was with Dr James Carrico, the first to treat Kennedy upon his arrival at ER-1, and the physician who inserted the endotracheal tube. So he saw the wound, before any cutting had been done, and before any tube --with its flange--had been inserted. Without hesitation, and without any prompting from me, Carrico provided a response that was identical to what Perry had said: "2 - 3 cm." 6. Sometime during the course of these interviews, I became aware of another important medico-legal indicia: the edges of the incision. The Bethesda autopsy reported that defect as having "widely gaping irregular edges." Once I was aware of that, I added that question to my repertoire, and one doctor after another responded by saying the edges were "smooth" (and one said "Smooth, of course"). 7. Another indicia of alteration concerns the question of whether the original bullet hole was visible, along the edges of the so-called "trach incision" at the time of autopsy. Renowned medico-legal expert Dr. Milton Helpern said, in his book Where Death Delights, that it ought to have been. But Dr. Finck testified at the Shaw trial in New Orleans that it was not: "I examined this surgical wound. . and I did not see the small wound described by the Dalas surgeons along that surgial incisio., I did not see it." And: "I don't know why it is not there." (Best Evidence, p. 278, original hardcover or Carrol & Graf edition). All of this is discussed at length, and in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence--which was published in January 1981, was republished by three more publishers, and was in print for 17 years. (And yes, I'm planning another edition. Details not yet finalized). But . . lo and behold. . along comes Pat Speer, in December 2016, over fifty years after I made these calls, and purports to define for us what is (supposedly) important. He informs us that he has looked up a bunch of books about tracheotomy incisions, and finds some contrary data. But . . so what? The issue is not what Pat Speer can dig up in some book: the issue is whether the tracheotomy incision changed between Dallas (at Parkland) and Bethesda (at the morgue). That's the important issue. And, of course, had a photograph been taken of Dr. Perry's incision (and one was not of course taken), then the difference between Dallas and Bethesda would be immediately apparent, there would be no debate; it would be a fact, and the issue would be: What happened to the body? Of course, if Speer was around to deal with such an eventuality, he would probably come up with some excuse to explain that, as well. Based on the head wound "before" and "after" data (See Chapter 13 of Best Evidence; the neck wound data (Chapter 11) and the words spoken at the time of autopsy (Chapter 12), by Humes (that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull"), plus the clear evidence of covert interception of the body (i.e., the body arriving at Bethesda in a shipping casket, a good 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin arrived with Mrs. Kennedy and Bobby), it seems clear that the body was covertly intercepted and altered. Medical facts were changed. The story of how Kennedy died was changed. Some of the details can be debated, but that basic fact cannot. Its stlll there, i the legal and historical record, that the body looked one way in Dallas; and another in Bethesda. That's what Best Evidence was (and still is) all about. What must be done to persuade you of this data, Pat Speer? Must I send flowers? DSL Los Angeles, California 12/7/16 - 3:17 a.m. PST