Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you were paying attention you would know about Perry's assertions that he made the incision BELOW the wound. DSL is creating more controversy only if he fabricated that. I have no reason to believe he would do that. Do you?

You  need  to read his testimony  from 3/64 Sandy. He clearly  said he cut into the wound.

Von Peins video clearly shows what he said but like the thrumming  helicopter theory Lifton's now trying to make it as if Perry used a different  word when he didn't.

And the word Lifton is trying to say he said would  not even make sense in the context of his sentence. But leave it up to Lifton to create  yet another conspiracy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

You shouldn't even be ALLOWED to ask that question...

Who the $%^- are you?  You can barely tie your laces on this forum and you're calling out David Lifton

You think you're  an expert at this but you're not. Here are reasons

Sloping shoulders 

Contrast

Painted in scenery in the Z film

Z film fakery

Nix film fakery

...I  could on. But seasoned  homicide detectives would laugh you  out of their office if you  came knocking.

The problem  with  you  Dave is you have no ability to play devil's  advocate  in this case and the  reason  is you're  totally biased toward anything  that had to do with "official  authority."

That flaw completely eliminates any ability  to see things clearly and from both sides. Because  let's  face it not all of these  wild conspiracy  theories  could have happened  like  you  and  others think they did.

Lifton is just another conspiracy  monger. They're  pretty  much  a dime a dozen.

I have much more faith in the 60s era ones like Meagher, Lane, and Markus. And Bill Simpich.

Gil Jesus and Jeff C and even Greg Parker. What do all of the people  have in common? If you  could think clearly you  would  know.

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If you were paying attention you would know about Perry's assertions that he made the incision BELOW the wound. DSL is creating more controversy only if he fabricated that. I have no reason to believe he would do that. Do you?

You  need  to read his testimony  from 3/64 Sandy. He clearly  said he cut into the wound.


And elsewhere Perry reportedly said that he cut below the wound. And thus we do indeed have a controversy. You say one fabricated by Lifton. I say let's look at all the facts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sandy Larsen said:

And elsewhere Perry reportedly said that he cut below the wound - WHERE??? THE TAPE? HA - WHAT A JOKE! And thus we do indeed have a controversy. You say one fabricated by Lifton. I say let's look at all the facts.

What a joke, Larsen.  You're just as bad as Josephs and all of the other paranoid people on here. Why would Perry - a quiet doctor down there minding his own business and suddenly thrust in a historical event - suddenly become a boogey man here? He said he cut through the wound to try to save Kennedy's life.  He didn't even want to talk about it to the WC but he did anyway and clearly explained what he did.  If you don't want to believe him, then that's your problem just like it's your problem if you don't want to believe the world is round.

Further, the stare photo confirms this. And he said it again in the broadcast Von Pein put on here.

You and your "I'm only about the facts" really makes me sick.  You're considered a joke not only on here but on other forums what with your INDISPUTABLE PROOF of a missing tooth and all of the other malarkey you spout out. You do this all of the time and Lord knows if I'd not called you out for you even saying you thought one of the old guys had a pistol (cop out term = black object) you'd probably even be saying THAT is evidence and the facts according to you. And that was several years.

Sheesh!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:
35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And elsewhere Perry reportedly said that he cut below the wound -

WHERE??? THE TAPE? HA - WHAT A JOKE! 

 

According to DSL, that's what Perry told writer Jimmy Breslin. And Bresline wrote so in an article published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63. And also in the Sat Eve Post on 12/14/63.

 

26 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:
35 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And thus we do indeed have a controversy. You say one fabricated by Lifton. I say let's look at all the facts.

What a joke, Larsen.  You're just as bad as Josephs and all of the other paranoid people on here.


I have an open mind. What's wrong with that?

 

26 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

You and your "I'm only about the facts" really makes me sick.  You're considered a joke not only on here but on other forums what with your INDISPUTABLE PROOF of a missing tooth and all of the other malarkey you spout out.

 

If that's malarkey, then why hasn't anybody been able to dispute my finding and conclusion?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

What a joke, Larsen.  You're just as bad as Josephs and all of the other paranoid people on here. Why would Perry - a quiet doctor down there minding his own business and suddenly thrust in a historical event - suddenly become a boogey man here? He said he cut through the wound to try to save Kennedy's life.  He didn't even want to talk about it to the WC but he did anyway and clearly explained what he did.  If you don't want to believe him, then that's your problem just like it's your problem if you don't want to believe the world is round.

Further, the stare photo confirms this. And he said it again in the broadcast Von Pein put on here.

You and your "I'm only about the facts" really makes me sick.  You're considered a joke not only on here but on other forums what with your INDISPUTABLE PROOF of a missing tooth and all of the other malarkey you spout out. You do this all of the time and Lord knows if I'd not called you out for you even saying you thought one of the old guys had a pistol (cop out term = black object) you'd probably even be saying THAT is evidence and the facts according to you. And that was several years.

Sheesh!!!

Michael:

may I ask you to stop ventilating your aversion to David Lifton and other forum members in this thread? Please set up your own thread, and you will see how many people will respond to it. 

David Lifton is a distinguished researcher and author and deserves all respect. We are privileged to have such expert among forum members. David put his name and much of his life into his research. He was also lucky but also perseverant to be able to speak with a number of witnesses in person, record their reports, gather different materials,  and visit the critical places such as the morgue at Bethesda hospital. Those of us who came late (and may not even live in the USA) can only refer to secondary information which has been filtered and perhaps tainted. The closeness to the sources is also one of the reasons why David's work is original, essential and unreplicable. Here I need to correct myself a bit because a large part of David's research has been actually confirmed, e.g. by Mr. Doug Horne.

I take David's presence on this forum and his sharing with us his original ideas as a sort of another Christmas. However, you need to understand that when someone is working more or less alone on a research problem and is very deep and advanced, there are not too many people who can help. It is like digging a deep tunnel which narrows down as you progress and at end, there is no one nearby to help you. While David knows his stuff very well, he also needs to hear an independent view else it is very easy to commit a mistake and jump to conclusions too fast. Can you second David's theses? Can you provide a feedback which may not be accurate or elaborate but which could still highlight a potential problem? 

If not, may I then kindly ask you to withdraw your insulting comments.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Michael:

may I ask you to stop ventilating your aversion to David Lifton and other forum members in this thread? Please set up your own thread, and you will see how many people will respond to it. 

Until you can convince me and many many others that the thrumming helicopter and scalpels at the ready and Perry said this when he didn't theories, then Lifton's theories are open for ridicule and further discussion. Von Pein mentioned many things on here that refute the silliness that Lifton is trying to pass here, with no clear additional evidence to prove otherwise.

I'm tired of you, too, Adrej because you always try to be so "respectable" here and you probably don't even bother reading the rebuttals to Lifton because your mind is already made up that there's  a thousand and one theories to believe in.

By the way what makes Lifton so respectable to you?  Because his book sold a million copies 30 years ago? Because he was on national TV here?  Yeah, I read that book back then when I was 18 years old and yeah, I saw him on the PBS documentary series NOVA. Just because your book sells and you're on TV doesn't make you right.

So let me ask you - as Jackie is walking up the steps to board the plane ride back to DC, do you really think that the body was whisked off somewhere? Or as Jackie was on that service truck as she left the plane next to Jack's coffin, do you really think that the thrumming helicopter behind the plane was whisking his body away to some undisclosed place?

Really Andrej? That's what you really really think happened?

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Until you can convince me and many many others that the thrumming helicopter and scalpels at the ready and Perry said this when he didn't theories, then Lifton's theories are open for ridicule and further discussion. Von Pein mentioned many things on here that refute the silliness that Lifton is trying to pass here, with no clear additional evidence to prove otherwise.

I'm tired of you, too, Adrej because you always try to be so "respectable" here and you probably don't even bother reading the rebuttals to Lifton because your mind is already made up that there's  a thousand and one theories to believe in.

By the way what makes Lifton so respectable to you?  Because his book sold a million copies 30 years ago? Because he was on national TV here?  Yeah, I read that book back then when I was 18 years old and yeah, I saw him on the PBS documentary series NOVA. Just because your book sells and you're on TV doesn't make you right.

So let me ask you - as Jackie is walking up the steps to board the plane ride back to DC, do you really think that the body was whisked off somewhere? Or as Jackie was on that service truck as she left the plane next to Jack's coffin, do you really think that the thrumming helicopter behind the plane was whisking his body away to some undisclosed place?

Really Andrej? That's what you really really think happened?

LOL

Running the risk of being included in your insults and vitriol, I would like to ask your explanation of the three documented multiple casket entry times, multiple caskets (ornate bronze / pink shipping) and multiple conditions of JFK's body (covered in sheets, in a body bag) that are a matter of record and hard evidence, none of which match the condition of the body matched to the casket as it left Parkland.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

According to DSL, that's what Perry told writer Jimmy Breslin. And Bresline wrote so in an article published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63. And also in the Sat Eve Post on 12/14/63.

BFD! Look at this:

ClearingThingsup-full.jpg

Reporters and publications get xxxx wrong ALL THE TIME Sandy.  Come on! Read Perry's WC testimony. He goes into gory detail there. Why go by a reporter's quote with a deadline vs what Perry describes clearly in the testimony? Or do you now want to say that a guy thrust into history (Perry) is some kind of boogey man now and even HE lied totally and completely to the WC?

Read Pat Speers' article on the many, many xxxx ups in the media reporting what was happening.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter1b%3Aclearingthingsup

Look at the stare of death photo.

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

I do not know how exactly was President's body transported to Bethesda Naval Hospital. However, it surely arrived in a different coffin compared to the heavy ceremonial casket, and President's body was in a plastic zipper bag, not in a blanket and towels. This is enough to assume a massive clandestine manipulation with the President's body.  How exactly this all has been done is a matter of research, and David has put forward a reasonable hypothesis. I myself do not have my own theory because I feel I do not know enough about this problem. As you may know, I am continuously working on a 3D reconstruction of the Depository doorway, and after three years of a systematic work, I can see some humble fruits. While one can be a good expert only in one aspect of the case, I am also interested in medical aspects and other aspects of the case because this helps me two understand the events unfolding in the Depository better. 

I am familiar with David Von Pein's comments and appreciate them even if they are biased towards the lone-nut side. I could not see any point in David (VP) posts which David L would not have responded in great detail ("ultra-detailed" in David von Pein's words). 

 I hope this helps.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

According to DSL, that's what Perry told writer Jimmy Breslin. And Bresline wrote so in an article published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63. And also in the Sat Eve Post on 12/14/63.

 

BFD! Look at this:

 

ClearingThingsup-full.jpg



Reporters and publications get xxxx wrong ALL THE TIME Sandy. 

 

 

 

And you think the WC Report is any more reliable?

 

bogus3.gif

 

Look, I don't know if David Lifton has anything here or not. What bugs me is that you seem to think you're the God of JFK Research. You decide what is worthy of research and what isn't. Anything discussed on the forum has to have Walton's Seal of Approval... otherwise the discourse should be shut down.

How the hell did you get such a grandiose self image?

If you want to voice your opinion, fine. But if you want others to believe the same, at least go to the effort of providing an argument. All too often I see you making pronouncements of something being nonsense, when in fact you have little idea what is going on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Andrew Danjek:

Thanks for your detailed laying out what you see as 3 possibilities.

There’s one point I wish to make, but the reason I’m delaying a further response (at this point in time) is that I want to retrieve the original story in the Nashville Banner that was published (to the best of my recollection, and it could be incorrect) in November 1967.

That’s the first time that Dr. Dave Stewart ever made a public statement, and it has a power all its own, simply because it was published at such an “early” date.

As I recall, Stewart said that Perry told him he didn’t have to make an incision, and that was the chief reason (again, based on my current recollection) that the story was newsworthy (and was published).

FURTHER COMMENT ON YOUR THREE POSSIBILITIES. . .

As to your three possibilities, I believe you should understand something else: there is no doctor or nurse (or anyone) at Parkland Hospital who has ever (or who would ever) support the idea that Dr. Perry (or anyone else) made any stitches whatsoever on the President’s body.

That just didn’t happen.  Had it occurred (in connection with JFK’s “treatment” at Parkland), it would have been witnessed and/or “known about” by numerous people in the room, would have been mentioned in official reports (and/or testimony) and in media accounts.  That’s just the way “history works” (my quotes) and how it worked in this case.  Had there been any suturing in Parkland, accounts about that would have appeared in the New York Times and in all major media.

But there’s no “trace evidence” of any such event—i.e., no trace evidence of any suturing at Parkland.

So, with all due respect for the effort you have put into your post,  I believe you can (and should) set that aside and  “edit it out” of your possibilities.

THE ONLY  EVIDENCE OF SUTURING (presently published). . .

The only evidence of sutures—at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan. 1981)—is laid out in Chapter 23 (“Allegations of Dr. John Ebersole”) and it is quite thoroughly set forth and discussed there.  Not only did I draw on official documents (the HSCA testimony of Dr. Ebersole, which Blakey conveniently “locked up” for 50 years, and was only released earlier as a consequence of Stone’s movie, and the subsequent 1992 JFK Records Act) but I had a wonderful audio tape to work with from a local high school teacher  (Art Smith) who Ebersole trusted, and to whom he granted a detailed interview.  In addition,  I had (actually, a document of an audio) the transcript from local reporter Gil Dulaney, of the Lancaster (PA) Intelligencer-Journal who interviewed Ebersole on the subject prior to his trip to trip to Washington to be interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA).

CERTAIN “NEW EVIDENCE” OF SUTURING.. . .

About four years ago, and through something of a fluke, I discovered certain “new evidence” regarding suturing.  And that forms the basis for the statements on the subject that I have made on this thread (and which will appear, in full form, in Final Charade).  Specifically: first, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, the area of the throat wound was so torn up and damaged that the esophagus (as well as the trachea) were visible through the “hole” in that area (consult your anatomy text to understand how serious the damage had to be for the esophagus to be visible); and second, what would qualify as “new evidence” on the subject, some credible data that I have that the suturing was done in the Bethesda morgue and just prior to 7:17 p.m. when the two FBI agents arrived (See Chapter 28 of B.E. for timelines, if you wish to know more detail). I have already written about this in one (or more? I don’t remember) previous posts on this thread, but this latter event (the discovery of certain new data) has led to a substantial revision in my understanding of “what Humes knew and when he knew it”; or, more accurately stated, what Humes and Boswell knew, and when “they” knew it.

I cannot say more at this juncture. Pat Valentino is currently engaged in a careful review of our records (the  June 1989 filmed interview) of Dr. Stewart, as well as the lengthy filmed interview of Groden; and I am trying to obtain a copy of the original November 1967 (I think is the date) publication of the Nashville Banner news story, in which Stewart says that Perry told him he didn’t have to make an incision.

Please note: I’m not saying that because this account was published in November 1967 it necessary represents “the truth” about this event; just that it is an important historical document, and is what the lawyers call “probative.”

Stay tuned.

DSL

3/6/2018 - 1 PM PST

Orange County, California

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

DSL NOTE, 3/6/18 - 11:20 PM PST. The writing below has just been reviewed, and slighly re-edited.

DVP:

Your post marks the first time I have ever been aware of what Groden said on the subject of the throat wound (and the issue of the tracheotomy) in his 1993 book (The Killing of a President) which I always viewed, more or less, as a “picture book” and never really paid much attention to the rather skimpy.  But now I realize that that assessment was incorrect, at least insofar as this particular issue (the tracheotomy) is concerned.  In any event, the question you have posted is interesting and truly important, and deserves a thoughtful response.

Unfortunately, I am deluged (at the moment) with other (“non-JFK”) matters; but I am giving it careful thought and discussing it with other people  as well (Pat V., and another, presently).  Whatever I say on the subject will end up being somewhat speculative because it necessarily deals with the psychology and general behavior of Groden, who I knew very well, and for a period of some 20 (or more years) starting around 1971.   All of this is discussed in great detail in my 100-plus page essay “Pig on a Leash” (addressing issues of authenticity in the area of the Zapruder film, which I do not wish to deal with in this post),  and which appears in the Fetzer anthology “Hoax” (2003).  The relevance of that essay is not the Z film, but the detailed discussion of my 20-year history with Groden (1971-1991, approx.) and what I learned from that experience about him personally.

April 1990 - Fed Ex Receipt - - Documenting shipment of autopsy photos to Groden (for free)

In the course of a quick file review, I came across the April 1990 Federal Express Receipt for the JFK autopsy photos which I sent to Groden at that time. That’s how he obtained the autopsy photos—from me.  I gave them to him, gratis, because I never wanted to be accused of selling those materials to anyone for profit.  Groden then promptly turned around and sold the photos to a tabloid (the National Enquirer, as I recall) for $50,000.  The contract for that transaction was unearthed by a JFK researcher, provided to me, and I provided it the lawyers involved in the OJ Trial.  This led to a national broadcast in which TV journalist Nancy Grace was exclaiming, in outrage, “Robert Groden?  Groden sold the autopsy photos to the National Enquirer!” etc.

I bring this up because that was just one example of the Groden story.  In the period 1976-1979 (approx.), the HSCA employed Groden as a consultant, giving him access to an array of precious (and priceless) original materials. Today, both the original Nix film and the original Muchmore film are simply gone.

1996: My Heavy Liaison with ARRB re Z film, Groden, and his "arrangement" with Weitzman

When the ARRB commenced its investigation (1994-1998), I was in very heavy contact with the two top lawyers, Marwell, and Jeremy Gunn since one of their jobs was to pursue the matter of the Zapruder film, in the area of authenticity. Through telephone and written communication, I made very clear my views that Robert Groden showed all the signs of kleptomania.  Of particular importance is a 12 page 1996 letter (with numerous attachments) that I sent to Gunn, and which, no doubt, was useful in connection with the subpoena to Groden.  During that sworn deposition, Groden denied, under oath, ever possessing various items that the signed contract that I provided (as an attachment) showed that he had sold (copies of) to me in June 1989, for the sum of $5,000!

Robert Groden (and the issue of his credibility)

All of this bears on the credibility of Groden, and his relationship with me.  When I visited him at his home in late 1982, and he realized (because I showed him) that I had crystal clear black and white copies of the autopsy photographs, he was astounded, and green with envy. When (in 1978/79) he set out to write his “minority” report on the authenticity of the photos to the HSCA, I told him that I did not believe the pictures were photo composites, but that any fakery had been achieved by “reconstruction” –late at night, and at the time of autopsy. Groden believed otherwise, and showed me a draft of his report.  It was poorly written, and I told him so.  I said that although I didn’t agree with his view, it should be rewritten if it were to have any credibility.  So I rewrote the part of his report dealing with the fakery of the autopsy photos, and which can be found (as I recall) in Volume 6 of the HSCA volumes. (I wrote the part of that report dealing with the back of the head).

Throughout that period, and when I would visit Groden at his home (then in Hopelawn, New Jersey) I concealed from him the entire content of my book, Best Evidence, which was contracted for in December 1978, and published in January 1981.  I did so because he behaved like a juvenile “collector,” and I sensed that he couldn’t be trusted.  I remember that one of his reactions, after publication, came down to this: “Why didn’t you tell me [about this]?” etc.

Anyway, I provide this as background. When the B.E. Research Video was released (via Rhino, and then Warner) in 1989 as a VHS cassette, and I gave Groden a copy, he said something like  “What are you trying to do. . .torture me?” 

GRODEN AND “B.E. Envy”

It was during that period that he became affiliated with Harrison Livingstone, another character, who told the NY Times that he was trying to sell the autopsy photographs for a million dollars, and who actually filed a lawsuit against me in Federal Court, accusing me of being a part of a plot to kill him, and suing me for $50 million dollars. (Yes, I’m not joking.  And that cost me about $250 to get it dismissed).

GRODEN AND OLIVER STONE (and “JFK,” released in December 1991)

Then we come to Groden’s being hired by Oliver Stone as his principal consultant in the photo area. Groden told Stone that I had his screenplay (which I certainly did not) and that I had provided it to George Lardner, of The Washington Post, who then wrote a widely read and very damaging article about Stone and his film, months before the film was ever released (December 1991) .  I know exactly what Groden was saying about me to Oliver Stone, on the movie set, because it was witnessed by John Newman  (who was present, and who was a very good friend of mine), and who would telephone me at night and tell me what he was witnessing as Groden merrily went about assassinating my character, with Stone apparently believing him (!).  (In fact, it was Groden who carelessly gave the screenplay to Harold Weisberg, who hated Stone, and who provided it to George Lardner at The Washington Post). Very late in the game,  I think I managed to (finally) convince Stone that I had nothing to do with the Post getting his screenplay, writing him a long-ish letter explaining the situation with Groden, and which ended, “Oliver, I’m just a patsy.” Stone eventually paid me some money, and my name appears in the film credits to JFK, but basically the damage was done (and what could have been an entirely different relationship never happened).

I am providing this information not to debate any technical details about the Zapruder film, but to shed light on the matter of Robert Groden’s general behavior and credibility.

RETURNING NOW TO JUNE 1989 (and my detailed interview of Groden, on camera)

Do I believe what Robert Groden told me (and Pat Valentino)—on camera—in a lengthy and very detailed interview in June 1989, about what happened when he visited Dr. Perry in New York in 1977, and showed him (an HSCA copy) of the face-up (stare-of-death) autopsy photo?   Absolutely.  And remember (and as I believe I’ve already written on this thread): I spoke with the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden, and he confirmed Groden’s account.   He remembered Perry shaking his head from side to side and saying that wasn’t the way he left it.

Did Groden play for us the Barker/Perry interview, and did both Pat and I hear “inviolate”?  Yes, without question.

Was there a problem with the lip-sync etc., and did we all (Groden included) go to a audio house in Trenton (or Philadelphia) and give it further study ?  Yes, just as I described previously on this thread.

Did Groden have good technical equipment on which to play the cassette?  Absolutely. (Groden will eat dog food for a week, if necessary, but he will always find the money to buy the best electronics.)

And did we interview Groden, extensively, and in detail, about his New York City visit with Dr. Perry?  Yes, absolutely.  On camera, for at least 30 minutes, on camera, on this subject alone. And did Groden say what Perry said, and  is it what I’ve reported?  Yes.

So now, back to your question, DVP.

What happened between 1989 and 1993? 

What happened  such that—in writing the text for his 1993 book (probably written in early 1993) –Groden ignored what he told us (on camera, in 1989) and set forth (instead)  the “conventional” version of Dr. Perry and the tracheotomy?

What happened was the relationship with the late Harrison Livingstone and the publication of High Treason.

HIGH TREASON  (Orig pub date: March 1989)

 Groden could not accept the fact that the throat wound was altered—on JFK’s body—without endorsing one of the major tenets of Best Evidence (see Chapter 11 of B.E., on the changed length and character of the trach incision, Dallas vs. Bethesda).  Again, please note:  Groden’s entire adult life was devoted to the thesis that the photographs (of the body) were altered—the photographs, but not the body itself.  (At least this is the case with regard to JFK’s head wounds).

On Amazon, his book got plenty of good reviews (because of the major conspiracy stance), but here’s what a negative reviewer said:

The authors are the "Odd Couple" of JFK assassination researchers. Neither are good writers and neither seems to understand that the value of their writing is directly proportional to the value of their sources and the authenticity and authoritativeness of their documentation. Almost all of the claims and conclusions in this book are insufficiently sourced and cannot be accepted until corroborated by other, sufficiently referenced works. Once you realize this, you conclude that your time is better spent with the top-quality books like David Lifton's "Best Evidence". . .

So now let’s go to 1993. . . Groden is writing some text for his “Killing of a President” book, and has had this big “Ooops!” moment: He cannot say that the throat wound was altered, without undermining his own thesis that it was “the pictures” that were altered, and not the body (!).  (Livingstone has a similar problem, and he was much  more of a researcher than Groden, but they were both tied, like siameese twins, to this hypothesis that it was "the pictures," and not "the body" that was altered.  As I learned, decades later, from examining correspondence in the Weisberg files at the Hood College library, Livingstone personally interviewed the witnesses I did, confirmed what they said,  admits in private correspondence to certain third parties that I am correct ("Lifton is correct, that. . .etc.), but continues to attack me in public, in the most vicious terms!)

GRODEN AND THE ARRB (1995 - 1998)

If you now move forward to the period 1995- 1998, you enter the period of the ARRB, and the fact that, because of my correspondence with Gunn and Marwell (the two top persons on the staff at the ARRB), and my relationship with Horne (who was the senior person in the area of militar records, but also headed up the depositions of the medical witnesses), the jig is up. The “magic” of how Groden does what he does is revealed, and its not all that complicated.  You just have to understand what an optical printer is, and how it works. (I did all of that, renting time on one, in New York City,  for about 4 or 5 days, and then I actually met with Groden’s guru, Moe Weitzman, and who was a wizard in this area; a meeting which infuriated Groden; because  Weitzman now learned that Groden was getting tens of thousands of dollars for work done with film negatives obtained from Weitzman, and on Weitzman’s equipment, no less!)  For awhile, Groden was in Weitzman's dog house, and the two hardly spoke.  (But somehow, Groden managed to "get back" into Weitzman's favor).

On hearings that were nationally televised (on C-Span), Tunheim personally acknowledged my contribution in writing memos to the ARRB explaining how an optical printer worked, how film duplication was done, and then Groden was seriously questioned under oath as to how the got this or that film, what happened to this or that one, what negative was used, where did he get it from? etc etc. (Doug Horne said that I was so active, what with my book, and sending in tapes of my 1966 telephone interviews, and video copies of my 1989/90 interviews, that Doug Horne, who I had lengthy phone conversations with several times a week, jokingly called me "the 'sixth man' on  the ARRB).

Now here's another important point to understand:. . . Groden ended up with this great picture book, with all these wonderful high quality  photos , not because he was a great collector (the way someone is  said to be an “art collector.”)  Not at all.  Groden’s “collection” is entirely different, and the outgrowth of an entirely different kind of activity.  All of it was a consequence of his employment by the HSCA, and his relationship with Moe Weitzman of EFX (the NYC optical house (i.e., lab )where he could reproduce motion picture film.  Furthermore, EFX is where Groden originally obtained his "superior" prints of the Z film (when he was an employee there, which is how his original odyssey began) because of a contract that Moe Weitzman had with LIFE, back in 1967.  (This is all spelled out in Pig on a Leash).  Anyway, Groden could make excellent  duplicates of anything he possessed (and from anything Weitzman had retained, from the days of his original LIFE contract). With regard to the former, Groden had access to numerous originals; because Robert Blakey (unwisely) trusted him, and granted him such access.  Today, the original Nix and Muchmore are missing, and Gale Nix Jackson is involved in a never ending search for her grandfather’s original film.

GRODEN TODAY.  . . (and for many years since the movie JFK, released in December 1991) . . .

So Robert Groden now makes his “home” on the Grassy Knoll, selling his wares, and using a car battery to run a Visa and Mastercard machine. And if someone asks him about DSL and B.E., he often  parrots Livingstone’s line, and says that I am a fraud.  I know because I periodically check, when friends of mine visit Dallas (and, of course, the Dealey Plaza area, where Groden can often be found, encamped with his wares).

He has been arrested over 50 times, and has a lawyer who has broken some new legal ground, at least in Dallas, in this area (on whether Groden has the right to sell his goods where he sets up his table); or so I am told.

The anti-DSL and anti- "Best Evidence" Clique  (and DiEugenio and his use of ghost-writers0

Finally (of course), Groden is now a card-carrying member of the “Hate DSL” and “Hate Best Evidence” club, featuring Dr. Cyril Wecht and his pal, Gary Aguilar (and I could name others), with supporting roles played by someone like DiEugenio, whose claim to fame was his uncritical belief that Garrison was the be-all and end all (when he charged Clay Shaw with conspiracy, and put him on trial in 1969, which lasted less than an hour when he was acquitted); and who still believes that JFK and his brother didn't know about the CIA's assassination plots, and---apparently, and perhaps most importantly--DiEugenio doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that autopsy falsification (via body alteration) could be conceived of (and planned) before the fact.  From his website, DiEugenio often chimes in, using  his site to launch similar snide (and sometimes nasty) commentary about me and my work (often from one of his “writers”; and often signed "by Jim DiEugenio [i.e., as if written by DiEugenio. when it was not)].   He does this quite a bit, so he appears to have detailed knowledge on a wide range of subjects.  He doesn't.  He promotes this false illusion about himself.  DiEug --who prides himself in saying that he has me on "ignore" (an accomplishment in which a small mind can take some pride)--is reasonably good when it comes to issues like Vietnam (but even there his ghost-writing operation takes over).  DiEugenio doesn’t understand the medical evidence and won’t discuss it, usually referring people to Aguilar (who probably listens carefully, when he is on his meds). My last conversation Aguilar (who is tightly wound, and has a barely controlled temper, and often flies off the handle),  occurred in March 2000 (yes, that long ago) . It ended with Aguilar having the telephone equivalent of "road rage" and in a screaming cursing tirade, like an out-of-control child, with his multiple uses of the “F” word, directed at me personally and screaming that no, he didn't believe the body was altered; saying that I wasn't even a good Jew, and if I appeared at "his" hospital, where a JFK gathering was scheduled to take place, he would have me arrested and thrown out by security, if I dared to open my mouth. Nice guy, whose temperament has perhaps improved, over time. An interesting question, for those who enjoy the theoretical, is whom would you rather have to dinner: DVP, Aguilar, or DiEugenio?  (I'll take DVP, anytime.  At least I know I'll be able to finish dinner, using my knife and fork to eat with, and not to defend myself; and maybe I'll get the chicken for free!*).

     *DSL Joke Alert:  DVP owns a KFC franchise (or perhaps more than one) in the Indiana city where he lives.

Have I now explained the situation, DVP?

I never really expected to write all this out, in this detail.  But perhaps its necessary to explain what is going on here.  To properly appreciate one of the major splits in the JFK research movement: was it the body that was altered, or was it "just the photos"; and who is really the fraud in this whole area, and who has conducted an honest investigation?  And, finally, to properly depict Robert Groden –in context.  And to do attempt to do so in a reasonably fairly and accurate manner, and without—as the saying goes—throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And there is a lot of bathwater.

DSL

3/6/2018 - 1:05 PM PST; reviewed, re-edited 3/6/18, 11:20 PM PST

Orange County, California

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×