Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Michael Walton:

QUOTING FROM YOUR POST (above): 

QUOTE ON: 

Yes, they were Ray and even if they weren't who and what in the world were they doing grabbing a bloody corpse out of a coffin mid-flight in a tight place like an airplane? Come one, Ray.

Do you really think this could have happened unnoticed and not a single person has EVER gone on the record who was in that airplane state anything suspicious? UNQUOTE

Just a minute, Walton: "bloody corpse". . . "mid flight" etc etc ?

This is a good example of how you function.  I never said--nor does anything I have ever written (or stated) anywhere or anytime--say or imply any such thing.

As far as I'm concerned, this guy should be disqualified from participating in any discussion on the JFK assassination.

Michael Walton: Go see a good therapist and get your psyche checked.

To those who may be reading this post: I don't care what this shmuck says to the "local people" at this website, most of whom  are sensible,  know better and already have their own "war stories" from dealing with him. I do care, now that the Internet has international reach, that the nonsense he distributes could be read, and lead to serious misunderstanding about my work, on a global scale.,

FWIW: I do not have the time to spend refuting all of the nonsense this jerk promotes, but this is a perfect example and so I jumped in here just to make a point.

I was tipped off early on about his behavior and so that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. 

I cannot afford to spend time doing "clean-up" with the garbage trail left by a person with such a loose connection to reality.

Also note how, despite multiple requests, he has failed to respond to my request(s) and post reliable background info. Obviously, he has something to hide, and FWIW I'm no longer interested in what that "something" is.

DSL

3/9/2018 - 8:45 PM PST

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

FWIW / BTW / FYI....

I feel compelled to add the following information to this discussion regarding Parkland Hospital's Dr. David Stewart, mainly because of the fact that when David Lifton first mentioned the name of a "Dr. Stewart" earlier in this forum discussion, my initial reaction upon seeing that name in print was, "Who in the world is Dr. Dave Stewart? I don't think I've ever heard of him before. And I can't seem to recall any of the other Parkland doctors talk about him in the past either." And that was my reaction, even though, of course, I had already seen Vincent Bugliosi's one and only reference to Dr. Stewart in Vince's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" [see image below]. But since it was a very brief—and singular—reference that Bugliosi made to Stewart in "RH", I had totally forgotten about it....
 

Click to enlarge....

Vincent-Bugliosi-Reclaiming-History-Book-Excerpt-Page-247-Of-Endnotes.png

--------------------------------------------------

There's also this article that appeared in The Milwaukee Sentinel on January 30, 1967, which deals (in part) with "Dr. W. David Stewart". It would seem, based on that 1967 article, that Stewart's main function on 11/22/63 at Parkland was to deal with Governor Connally's injuries, not JFK's.

And the most interesting thing that I found today [March 9, 2018] concerning Dr. Stewart comes in the form of a written review that Stewart himself wrote in May of 2006 at Amazon.com for Dr. Charles Crenshaw's book. In that review, Dr. Stewart, in effect, admits that he himself was not present in Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland with President Kennedy on 11/22/63. Here's what Stewart said:

"Chuck Crenshaw was a friend of mine at Parkland Hospital. We both were there at the time of the assassination. We were both residents in general surgery. He was in the trauma room with Kennedy. My only criticism with his book is in his exaggeration of his role. The facts he related were identical to those of all the other physicians who were in attendance." -- Dr. David Stewart; May 16, 2006

I think it's pretty clear that when Stewart said "He was in the trauma room with Kennedy", he was indicating that Dr. Crenshaw WAS in the Emergency Room with JFK, but Stewart himself was not there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006-Amazon-Review-By-Dr-David-Stewart.p

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of the above information necessarily has to mean anything at all with respect to the things that Dr. Malcolm Perry allegedly said to Dr. Stewart in the days that followed the assassination; but I think the credibility of Dr. Stewart on certain issues relating to JFK's death could certainly be called into question, particularly the things Stewart allegedly told radio host Joe Dolan on April 10, 1967, none of which do we find in Stewart's own 2006 written remarks that I highlighted above.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Michael Walton:

QUOTING FROM YOUR POST (above): 

QUOTE ON: 

.........

QUOTE OFF:

 

As far as I'm concerned, this guy should be disqualified from participating in any discussion on the JFK assassination.

Michael Walton: Go see a good therapist and get your psyche checked.

To those who may be reading this post: I don't care what this shmuck says to the "local people" at this website, most of whom  are sensible,  know better and already have their own "war stories" from dealing with him. I do care, now that the Internet has international reach, that the nonsense he distributes could be read, and lead to serious misunderstanding about my work, on a global scale.,

.....

DSL

3/9/2018 - 8:45 PM PST

 Agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David Von Pein:

As I recall--and I'm not certain of this--I first heard of Dr. David Stewart because of the major news story that appeared in a Tennessee newspaper.  Perhaps someone sent me that newspaper, or perhaps I obtained it via UCLA's "Interlibrary Loan" facility. But I clearly remember possessing it, and opening a separate manila file folder for it. What was unusual about it (to the point that I was rather skeptical) was that Stewart was stating that Dr. Perry did not have to make a tracheotomy incision; and that (somehow) he ws able to use the pre-existing bullet hole in the front of the neck as the  entry point for the tracheotomy procedure.

Now jumping to the present. . . :

Because of time constraints, I have to postpone any further discussion of Dr. Stewart at this point, but I do intend to return to the subject, and Pat Valentino has been reviewing the June 1989 filmed interview with Stewart.  The only point I wish to make here: Dr. Stewart never said (to me) that he was in ER-1.  Ever. To the contrary, he made clear that he was not. He made that point in my 1982 telephone conversation with him, and again in the June 1989 filmed interview. With regard to JFK's wounding, he was a witness to what the other doctors told him, not to what he saw. If you could compile what he said on the few occasions that he spoke publicly (as you have been doing) that would be helpful. I am endeavoring to get the major story in the Tennessee newspaper (the Nashville Banner, as I recall) which was the first time I had heard of him.  What was most impressive about that story was not just its detail, but the "early" date (1967, I think).  Both Pat and I met him in person, at his home (June 1989), and spent at least 5 hours with him. He is very well spoken and impressive. He would make a very credible witness before a jury.  Despite all of that, I did not believe what he said when it came to the word Dr. Perry used because--at that point in time (the night we filmed him)--I believed (erroneously as it turned out) that the filmed interview of Perry had him saying "invalid" and not "inviolate."  I believed that because of the CBS transcript as published in the Stephen White book.  When we went to Groden's home the next day (or the day after that--i.e., 2 days later) and were watching the CBS Perry interview, Pat and I were both astounded to hear Perry very clearly use the word "inviolate." We both rose up out of our separate chairs, simultaneously, exclaiming "What??!!!"  And such things as "Robert, please back it up and play that again!" etc. The rest of what happened I have previously written about.

Now there are two other matters I will hurriedly report here, to be further elaborated upon when time permits:

ITEM  #1: What Robert Groden told us during the filmed interview - - A New Fact

Pat Valentino, reviewing the video tapes over the last few days (before he had to leave town on personal business) emailed me that the following repartee took place when Groden (and the Baltimore reporter) visited Dr. Perry at his New York City office. Upon being shown the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photo, Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. (This was actually stated during the filmed interview). Groden agreed, and that is when Perry said "OK" (or words to that effect); and it was then that he shook his head from side-to-side, and said that that was not the way he left the wound.

Why I bring this up: This is in response to your question, DVP, as to (possibly) why Groden may not have reported the incident when he wrote his book, The Killing of a President. Remember what I said: I said that (in 1993) he wouldn't want to say anything which would indicate an agreement with body alteration; but based upon the June 1989  filmed interview that Pat V has been reviewing, Groden may have felt constrained by an (informal, and certainly legally unenforceable) agreement with the late Dr. Perry.

ITEM #2: Audio analysis

A friend who has audio expertise has been examining the a record of what Perry said at that crucial point on the tape. He notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought not to be the sound of any words. He states that, without any question, there are serious anomalies in this regard, and he believes that they constitute evidence that tape has been altered ("monkeyed with," in my prior posts).  He is preparing some exhibits, and when his work is completed, and I have    reviewed it, I will pass it along.

DSL

3/9/2018 - 9:40 PM PST

Orange County, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the additional information, David L.

As I said, the apparent inconsistent statements from Dr. Stewart that I talked about above don't necessarily mean anything at all when it comes to the things Dr. Perry supposedly said to Stewart about the throat wound. But I think those contradictory accounts are kind of interesting nevertheless.

Since you say you have Dr. Stewart on film saying he was never in Trauma Room 1 with JFK, then it's got to make you scratch your head a little bit (right?) when you see alleged statements being attributed to the same man (David Stewart) which say exactly the opposite (e.g., the Dolan radio interview of 4/10/67 and the quotes that evidently appear in one of Harold Weisberg's books).

Also....

I find this comment you made quite interesting (and humorous):

"Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. .... Groden agreed." -- DSL

And even with such a rigid agreement in place, what does Groden decide to do in 1989 in front of two people (David Lifton and Pat Valentino)? Groden decides that 12 years of living up to that verbal agreement with Dr. Perry was more than enough---so he decides to violate the agreement and spill his guts about what Malcolm Perry told him in 1977. (Nice guy, that Bob Groden, huh?) ~smirk~
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
David Lifton said:

A friend who has audio expertise...notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought not to be the sound of any words.

And if it's merely a case of the audio and video being slightly "out of sync" with each other on the CBS 1967 tape in question, then OF COURSE you're going to find that there are some SILENT parts of the tape even when Perry's mouth is moving, and vice versa. That's practically the definition of "out of sync". (I feel a "Duh" is needed here.) :-)

If your A/V friend would simply transfer the tape to a digital format and then place the digital file into a video editor, then the audio and video portions could easily be separated and then they could very likely be "lined up" with one another. The out-of-sync issue would then be fixed, and thus the silly allegation of the tape being "altered" by evil-doers would disappear forever.

Why not try doing that and see if I'm right?
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hello Michael Clark:

Still no email. . You may be making a common error. . 

The proper address is DSL74@Cornell.edu

Not  DS174@Cornell.edu

To repeat: the third character in the email address is "L",  not "1"

Inserting some spaces, for clarity. . :

Again:. . DSL 74 @Cornell.edu (written: DSL74@Cornell.edu)

Not     DS 174 @Cornell.edu

FYI: Still have not received any email from you.

See what you can do to correct the situation.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Why not try doing that and see if I'm right?

David L - can you give it a whirl and see what happens?

6 hours ago, David Lifton said:

TEM #2: Audio analysis

A friend who has audio expertise has been examining the a record of what Perry said at that crucial point on the tape. He notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought not to be the sound of any words. He states that, without any question, there are serious anomalies in this regard, and he believes that they constitute evidence that tape has been altered ("monkeyed with," in my prior posts).  He is preparing some exhibits, and when his work is completed, and I have    reviewed it, I will pass it along.

Why don't you just put this video online for others to judge, Dave L? Why do you get to hold all of the cards regarding this? Let others see it and make their own judgement.

This really sounds bogus to me. Why, during an entire interview, is one single word being held up as the ultimate proof that Perry cut below the wound and thus further "proof" of body alteration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/10/2018 at 12:15 AM, Michael Clark said:

To those who may be reading this post: I don't care what this shmuck says to the "local people" at this website, most of whom  are sensible,  know better and already have their own "war stories" from dealing with him. I do care, now that the Internet has international reach, that the nonsense he distributes could be read, and lead to serious misunderstanding about my work, on a global scale.,

Dave, you can call me all the names you want. But what you fail to realize Dave is that there are plenty of theories du jour.  Life doesn't happen that way and it didn't happen in this case as well. To boot:

Right wingers did it
CIA did it
Gays did it
LBJ did it
Nixon did it
Generals did it
Hoover did it
Italians did it
French mob did it
USA mob did it
KGB did it
Mac Wallace did it
Rip Robertson did it
ONI did it
Castro/Cuba did it
Dulles did it

Then you have:

Body snuck out of coffin mid-flight [or at Love], thrown onto thrumming copter in DC, and altered
* NEW Perry didn't cut into throat wound proving body alteration
** Proof 1 - audio in video interview of Perry does not sync up
** Proof 2 - Bob Groden said Perry told him
Oswald had a clone whose mother was also a clone
* Proof 1 - missing teeth in the dental charts
* Proof 2 - Oswald and clone had different sloped shoulders
* Proof 3 - Oswald's clone's Mom was frumpy and never smiled
* Proof 4 - TX Oswald's Mom was happy and smiled a lot
* Proof 5 - Contrast in Oswald photos is different
* Proof 6 - Different heights of Oswald in different photos
Z film was faked as in:
* Film shot at 48 FPS and 67% of frames removed
* At around Z 160, Elm street painted in to cover something up
* Frames were flipped
* Back head wound painted out
An entirely different Z film exists showing everything but has yet to turn up
Nix and Muchmore films also faked so they sync up with Z film
Shots came from pavilion
Shots came from storm sewer in roadway
Greer/Kellerman shot JFK
SS agents in Queen Mary shot JFK
Umbrella man shot JFK
Babushka lady had flashlight signalling shooters to fire or not
Jackie shot JFK
Autopsy photos were faked
Photo of Ruby shooting Oswald was fake as in:
* Microphone hanging from ceiling appears and disappears
Towner film was faked
Carousel club basement was assassination HQ
One of the old guys on knoll had a black object/pistol in hand

I could go on. So as you see Dave, is it any wonder why I get upset when I'm on here? My suggestion is watch the episode below of Forensic Files.  These are actual murder cases. In it, you'll hear fantastical stories made up by the suspects and you'll also hear seasoned detectives say such things as "implausible," "unreal," and so on.  If you like the show, there are over 300 episodes free online.

Anyway, the JFK murder, despite all of the wild theories listed above, was quite simple. Technology during that era, combined with a very simple 6-second shooting sequence, did the deed.  Once the head exploded, the deed was done and the cover up began. But it was not necessary to alter the body and fix the Z film - the vast, lawerly machinations of the blue-ribbon WC would do that, twisting and turning the record to reach the desired conclusion and this would work much more efficiently than attempting to alter the Z film, the photos, and so on.

What real good would it have done to try to alter the wounds?  Nothing.

 

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


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

Dave, you can ..........

 

You have deliberately misquoted me. Fix it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

THIS POST HAS BEEN RE-EDITED FROM THE TIME WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED

Rick McTague:

I see that you are a relative newcomer to this forum, and that you seem to be interested in the matter of the arrival of more than one casket  (in fact, two caskets) at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63, each of which supposedly contained JFK's body, but --in fact--only the first actually did.  The second was empty.  Then there followed some rigmarole in which the second casket (the Dallas casket, the one which arrived in the naval ambulance, carrying Jackie and RFK,  and which was empty) was brought to the Bethesda morgue (the 7:17 PM entry),  "loaded" with JFK's body, brought back outside, and  then brought back in at 8 PM (under the watchful eye of the tri-service honor guard) in order to conceal the fact that the body had been intercepted in the first place.  I have referred to this "three entries of two caskets" and the situation in treated in considerable detail, and with appropriate timelines, in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence.  That chapter is titled "The Lake County Informant"--the "informant" being Dennis David (who died recently) and whose account, if true (and I am certain that it is ) establishes that the coffin in the naval ambulance that arrived at 6:53/6:55 PM at the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital. was empty. Why? Because Dennis David had already witnessed the true arrival of the body, some 20 minutes before, in a black hearse, and in a shipping casket. In fact, he had assisted by arranging for some of his men to bring that casket to the morgue; and it was only some "20 minutes later" (as he originally described it to me) and after he had gone "back upstairs" and to the front of Bethesda, that he witnessed the arrival of the naval ambulance carrying Jackie and Bobby.   (This sequence was later corroborated by documentary evidence--i.e., by the discovery of the Boyajian document (Sgt. Boyajian being the USMC person in charge of  "morgue security", which indicates that the body was delivered to the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM).

The discovery of this situation was truly remarkable, and marked a major turning point in my JFK research.  I interviewed Dennis David on July 2, 1979--and you can read what he told me. verbatim, in Chapter 25. Then, about two weeks later, the HSCA report was released, and there was the statement --in Appendix Volume 7 (devoted to the medical evidence) --that JFK's body arrived in a body bag (!). That led to my  interviewing Paul O"Connor on 8/25/79.  The combination of Dennis David (on 7/2/79) and then Paul O'Connor on 8/25/79, was dynamite.  If these accounts were true, that mean the Dallas coffin in the naval ambulance was indeed empty; and that led to a meeting with the top people at Macmillan (my publisher) as to what to do in light of these new and startling developments. That led to agreement--in effect--to a lengthening of the  book (which originally would have ended at about Chapter 24, but now, as a consequence of these discoveries, extended out to chapter 32), and to a changed due  date.

Meanwhile, I had to contend with another "research" issue. which can be boiled down to one word: "When?"   When was the body removed from the original Dallas coffin? Just how did that happen?  "When and where"?

THE "WHEN AND WHERE" PROBLEM

Within an hour of getting off the phone with Dennis David, I knew that the President's body must have been removed, from the Dallas coffin, prior to takeoff.  This was apparent, indeed obvious, just from a careful studying of time lines.  Just from studying the time line of events, the following proposition (which I viewed as an important corollary) was crystal clear; "An empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty coffin upon take-off in Dallas."  See Chapter 25 of B.E., where this is all spelled out, just as I experienced it. To the explain this (originally to myself, but then to the reader), I thought of it as running a hypothetical picture film, with the focus on the Dallas coffin, "in reverse," starting with the arrival of that coffin in the naval ambulance,at the Bethesda front entrance.  If you "ran it backwards," it was very clear that nothing could have happened after Jackie entered the ambulance at Andrews.  The naval ambulance never stopped anywhere between Andrews and Bethesda.  Then, continuing the "thought experiment" of "running the film backwards," it was clear that nothing happened between the time Jacqueline stepped onto the mechanical lift, when it was in the "raised position" and when it was lowered to ground level, at Andrews. Finally, by running it backwards one more step, to takeoff, it was clear that nothing happened once Air Force One took off from Dallas.  Sp again, let me repeat the corollary: an empty casket at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty casket upon takeoff from Dallas. The logic was airtight: the question was: when could the body have been removed from the coffin (i.e., when, "before take-off") could that have occurred?

At the time (July 2, 1979, and in the days following) I was well aware of the dispute over the circumstances of the LBJ swearing in and how the swearing in of LBJ caused a delay in the take-off of the flight back to Washington.  The dispute centered around why the necessity for such a swearing in before the take-off? Lyndon  Johnson said it was necessary because  "Bobby told me I should be sworn in before take-off" ( and so that was the reason the take-off was delayed); but Bobby--upon hearing this version of events, directly from Jackie and Kenneth O'Donnell, after the Kennedy party arrived back in Washington, denied any such instruction.  In other words, there was a direct conflict between what Lyndon Johnson said was the reason for the delay, and what RFK said.  And all of this burst into the public discussion in March 1967, when the Manchester book was published.  Because that's when it was first brought to light, and aired publicly. And so, from the beginning (again, July 1979), I focused on the swearing in, with all those people being drawn towards the area with LBJ, at the time this covert removal  (of the body, from the coffin) must have occurred in the tail compartment.

As I say, this was my original view, but.this initial conclusion turned out to be incorrect; but that's the way it appeared to me, initially.

THE PRESENTATION IN BEST EVIDENCE (as published in January 1981)

Anyway, I gave an accurate account of how I reasoned with the known evidence, and presented it that way in Best Evidence, which, by the way, was not reviewed by TIME, but instead, in a break with standard procedure, the publication of my book was covered as a news story --two full pages splashed across the National Affairs section of TIME, January 19 1981. (Furthermore, there had been serious consideration at TIME of buying first serial rights--i.e., and publishing it in TIME, as series of magazine articles).

But. . 

The "but" is that within a month of publication, General Godfrey McHugh (JFK's Air Force Aide, who was on the Dallas trip, and made it his personal mission, almost as a matter of honor, to always "stay with the coffin" wrote a letter to TIME Magazine saying, in effect, "This coudn't have happened, the way the author states it did. Why? Because I was there, in the tail compartment, the whole time. I never left! And no one took the body out of the coffin."

I respected Godfrey McHugh, having spoken to him twice, in lengthy conversations, in connection with the researching and writing of Best Evidence.

So . . what to do about this? If McHugh's account was accurate, then when could the body have been removed from the casket?

WHAT WILLIAM MANCHESTER SAID ABOUT McHUGH (in The Death of a President, published in March 1967):

When I consulted Manchester's The Death of a President, he provided some important detail. He painted a picture of McHugh so upset by the delayed departure, that he was constantly leaving the area, at the back of Air Force One, and going to the front, and to the pilot's cabin, wanting to know what the delay in the take-off was all about?  (McHugh did not realize that Johnson was aboard the plane--"somewhere"--and had ordered the pilot not to take off until (a) the body arrived and (b) until he personally gave the order to take-off.  Manchester paints a picture of McHugh as so upset that if that plane didn't take off soon, he would fly it! (He was an Air Force Brigidair General).

Anyway this is where matters stood by about February 1, 1981.  This event, the removal of JFK's body from the Dallas asket --which was dictated by the sequence of the arrivals of the two ambulances at Bethesda  later that day (the black hearse at the back at about 6:35 pm and the naval ambulance at 6:55 pm) represented a logic which made clear that if the body was no longer in the Dallas casket---then the "removl" must have occurred during the swearing in.  Because there was no other time that Jackie wasn't with the casket.

Or so I thought. . .

Now flash-forward to the summer of 1984 --three full years after the publication of the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence.  I was  back in Los Angeles (I was living in New Jersey at the time, but was on a visit to L..A., where I maintained an apartment); and was up at the UCLA campus.  It was a beautiful bright sunny day, and I was walking across the campus,  and suddenly, I had this very important insight: the swearing in of LBJ was not the only time that  (at Love Field) the Kennedy party was separated from the casket prior to take-off.

That was an incorrect statement, and I could hardly believe that I had made such an error.

The Other Time Period (when Jackie wasn't with the casket) . . first "discovered" in the summer of 1984

The "other" time period was when the cream colored ambulance from Parkland had first arrived, and Jacqueline and others congregated on the tarmac on the port side of Air Force One.  As photographed by White House photographer Cecil Stoughton, a group of SS agents, led by senior agent Roy Kellerman, carried the Dallas coffin up the stairs, and into the tail compartment.  Then they had to turn left, which caused the coffin to be lost from sight, and there followed a brief pause as there was the activity of supposedly "securing" it against the wall of the airplane. So that took a bit of time; not much, but some additional seconds. Very likely a minute (or maybe at most two minutes).

It as during this period that Kellerman (et al) were with the coffin, in the tail compartment, while Jacqueline Kennedy, and others, were  still down on the tarmac. There is no "Zapruder film" of Jacqueline Kennedy's ascension up the steps, but it was not immediate.  There was a small time interval.

Most important: That was the only "other" period, and I now realized that, back in July 1979, when I first interviewed Dennis David, I had never taken that into account.

So now, everything changed, and I had to deal with what is sometimes referred to as a "paradigm shift."

I was forced to re-examine the "old" data and forced to deal with certain "new" possibilities and conclusions.

MY OWN INFERENCES FROM THIS "NEW" DATA

It was during that period, that Kellerman (and others) opened the coffin, and hustled the body across to the starboard side of the aircraft (a very small distance, inside a Boeing 707) and to the rear starboard door --actually a "half-door"-- and off the plane.

That was just a hypothesis (at the outset of this reevaluation, in the summer of 1984); but then, in the years following, I found more evidence - -evidence of a forklift truck being utilized on the starboard side of AF-1. It was even better than that: I had an important witness who saw something being offloaded or onloaded via the forklift.

I'l have much more to say about all this in Final Charade, but rest assured that, with certain additional evidence, the conclusion I have reached can be stated quite succinctly: JFK's body was removed from Air Force One between the time Kellerman was at the top of those rear port stairs (and again, I refer you to the photographs taken by Cecil Stoughton), and the time that Jacqueline Kennedy (and others) ascended those same stairs,  entered the tail compartment, and took their seats, assuming an immediate takeoff--which, as is now known, did not occur  At least not immediately.  Because as the Kennedy party soon found out, Lyndon Johnson was aboard what they viewed as "their" airplane, and was now telling Kenneth O'Donnell and Larry O'Brien that there must be a delay, because he (LBJ) had to be sworn in prior to take-off.  And why was that so?  Because, said LBJ, Bobby told him that he must do that.

There is additional detail about what occurred, and when, etc.  The bottom line: JFK 's body was removed via the rear starboard door, and it ended up in the forward luggage compartment.

More later.

Well, there is --in fact--one other matter that I'd like to mention, something that I believe I wrote about back in 1982, when the first paperback edition of Best Evidence was published.

IMPLICATIONS OF A BODY-CENTRIC PLOT

The only reason that Kellerman (et al) were able to act so quickly (with regards to the body) is that, from the outset, this was a body-centric plot.  I used this phrase in describing the basic structure of the JFK murder plot, in my talk at Bismarck State College in November 2013 (Google: David Lifton Bismarck, for a video).  From the outset, there was a "twin focus" if you will: (a) to murder the President and then (b) to alter the body (retrieve bullets, and alter wounds) so as  to lay the groundwork for a false autopsy, one designed to "doctor the body" so as to change the basic facts of the shooting, and incriminate a pre-selected patsy. To elaborate just a bit. . : from the standpoint of plotters, JFK's body was viewed in two separate contexts: (a) a person to be murdered; and then (b) after death, a target to be altered.

However, the plan (as originally conceived)  didn't work as intended--and a major problem developed --when Governor Connally was unexpectedly shot.  This not only led to major confusion, but a serious malfunction in the original plan, and much of which then occurred was sheer improvisation --i.e., was done "ad hoc" (as they say in Latin).  First of all, there was now an extra "body"--and Gov JC wasn't dead.  But whether he lived or died, the true circumstances of how he was shot would have to be falsified (if the original "lone nut" scenario was to be maintained).  Furthermore,  there was still another complication to Gov JC having been shot: had he not been shot, and if there were complications with getting JFK's body out of the state without an autopsy, the Governor (a close and lifelong friend of LBJ) could probably be relied upon to issue an executive order going along with such a request. But once shot seriously (as he was), it was hardly possible for an aide to show up in his Operating Room, clipboard in hand, and say, "Governor, would you mind signing this? They want to take the President's body out of Texas, without an autopsy."  And that's just one of several problems.  So many things happened after the shooting of JC that were strictly ad hoc; and --in Final Charade--I hope that there will be sufficient evidence to persuade the reader that this was a plot that was "elegant in conception, but bungled in execution."

I bring up this subject not only because I have written about it before, publicly (but probably not at this length, and with such specificity); but because unless one understands the basic concept (and implications) of this being a "body-centric" plot (one in which the conclusions of a future investigation could be "structured in advance' via alterations on the body) it is difficult to comprehend how, upon reaching Love Field, anyone would be prepared to remove JFK's body  from the Dallas casket, in order to change its condition (and future autopsy conclusions) so as to harmonize with some pre-conceived scenario.

DSL

3/15/2018 - 3 AM PDT; edited, 5:35 AM PDT; edited 10:50 AM PDT)

Orange County, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If things regarding President's body happened as David  suggests, I wonder if the selection of the bronze casket to transport the President's body was a random choice.  Suppose that the coffin would be a plain metal casket: it would weigh some 40 kilograms. In such a case, it would be difficult to pretend that the body was in the casket as the body would weigh at least double of that weight. Even a heavier wooden casket with no ornaments on it would weigh only some 80 kg, and it would still be possible to find out that the body was not in the casket. Only a casket weighing maybe 200-250 kg  (the ceremonial bronze casket) would be heavy enough to cover up for the absence of a body in it because adding e.g. 80 kg to a casket weighing 250 kg would not be such a difference as adding 80 kg to a casket weighing 80 kg.

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Andrej:  No, it was not a "random" choice. (But, presently at least, I do not believe it was sinister).  FYI: The Parkland Hospital reports (see Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes) contain at least one where Clint Hill states that a casket is needed, that he is told of ONeals Funeral Home, and either he gets on the phone directly (or tells someone who is on the phone) that they (ONeal) should select "the finest."  So no, it was not random. The "finest" were the operative words, and Vernon Oneal then chose the "top of the line" Elgin Brittania.  In general, I would be very careful, if not very wary, about inferring  that because an SS agent said to bring "the finest", that that person (making such a specific request) already had in mind that the body would be removed from the coffin, and so deliberately wished to see that a rather heavy casket be selected, and brought to Parkland.  I think that "the finest" would be language that would be reasonable for an SS agent to use,  in view of the fact that the coffin was being requested for the body of the President.  Candidly, I've never viewed that language as being suspicious--although in the JFK case, "anything is possible," and you are correct that if an ordinary "shipping casket" had been brought to Parkland, and if it was intended to remove the body from that type of casket, then the "empty casket" (after such a removal) would be rather obvious. Still, my belief would come down on the side of "innocence"--that it was reasonable to request "the finest" casket, since it was the president of the U.S.

DSL - 3/15/18 - 11:08 AM PDT

Orange County, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Rick McTague:

I see that you are a relative newcomer to this forum, and that you seem to be interested in the matter of the arrival of more than one casket at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63, each of which supposedly contained JFK's body, but --in fact--only the first actually did.  The second was empty.  Then there followed some rigmarole in which the second casket (the Dallas asket, which was empty) was "loaded" with JFK's body, brought outside, and brought back in (under the watchful eye of the honor guard) in order to conceal the fact that the body had been intercepted in the first place.  I called this "three entries of two caskets" and the situation in treated in considerable detail, and with appropriate timelines, in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence.  That chapter is titled "The Lake County Informant"--the "informant" being Dennis David (who died recently) and whose account, if true (and I am certain that it is ) establishes that the coffin in the Naval ambulance that arrived at 6:53/6:55 PM at the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital. was empty. Why? Because Dennis David had already witnessed the true arrival of the body, some 20 minutes before, in a black hearse, and in a shipping casket. (This was later corroborated by the discovery of the Boyajian document, which indicates that the body was delivered to the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM).

The discovery of this situation was truly remarkable, and marked a major turning point in my JFK research.  I interviewed Dennis David on July 2, 1979--and you can read what he told me. verbatim, in Chapter 25. Then, about two weeks later, the HSCA report was released, and there was the statement --in Appendix Volume 7 (devoted to the medical evidence) --that JFK's body arrived in a body bag (!). That led to my  interviewing Paul O"Connor on 8/25/79.  The combination was dynamite and that led to a meeting with the top people at Macmillan (my publisher) and that led to agreement--in effect--to a lengthening of the  book, and to a changed due  date.

Meanwhile, I had to contend with another "research" issue:  when?  When was the body removed from the original Dallas coffin?

 

THE "WHEN AND WHERE" PROBLEM

Within an hour of getting off the phone with Dennis David, I knew that the President's body must have been removed, from the Dallas coffin, prior to takeoff.  This was obvious because, just from studying the time line of events, the following proposition was crystal clear; "An empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty coffin upon take-off in Dallas."  See Chapter 25 of B.E., where this is all spelled out, just as I experienced it. The logic is airtight: the question was: when could the body have been removed from the coffin (i.e., when, "before take-off") could that have occurred?

I was well aware of the dispute over the circumstances of the LBJ swearing in--with Lyndon saying "Bobby told me I should be sworn in before take-off" ( and so that was the reason the take-off was delayed); and Bobby denying any such instruction.  And so, from the beginning, I focused on the swearing in, with all those people being drawn towards the area with LBJ, at the time this covert removal must have occurred.

This turned out to be incorrect, but that's the way it appeared to me, initially.

THE PRESENTATION IN BEST EVIDENCE

And I presented it that way in Best Evidence, which, by the way, was not reviewed by TIME, but instead, in a break with standard procedure, the publication of my book was covered as a news story --two full pages splashed across the National Affairs section of TIME, January 19 1981. (Furthermore, there had been serious consideration at TIME of buying first serial rights--i.e., and publishing it in TIME, as series of magazine articles).

But. . 

The "but" is that within a month of publication, General Godfrey McHugh wrote a letter to TIME Magazine saying, in effect, "This coudn't have happened, the way the author states it did. Why? Because I was there, in the tail compartment, the whole time. I never left! And no one took the body out of the coffin."

I respected Godfrey McHugh, having spoken to him twice, in lengthy conversations, in connection with the researching and writing of Best Evidence.

So . . what to do about this?

WHAT WILLIAM MANCHESTER SAID ABOUT McHUGH:

When I conulted Manchester's The Death of a President, he painted a picture of McHugh so upset by the delayed departure, that he was constantly leaving the area, at the back, and going to the front, and to the pilot's cabin, wanting to know what the delay in the take-off was all about?  Manchester paints a picture of McHugh as so upset that if that plane didn't take off soon, he would fly it! (He was an Air Force Brigidair General).

Anyway this is where matters stood by about February 1, 1981.  This event, the removal of JFK's body from the Dallas asket --which was dictated by the aw of the arrivals of the two ambulances at Bethesda, later that day, a logic which made clear that the body was no longer in the Dallas casket---must have occurred during the swearing in.  Because there was no other time that Jackie wasn't with the casket.

Or so I thought. . .

Now flash-forward to the summer of 1984. .. I was  back in Los Angeles (I was living in New Jersey at the time) and was up at the UCLA campus.  It was a beautiful bright sunny day, and I was walking across the campus,  and suddenly, I had this very important insight: the swearing in of LBJ was NOT the only time that the Kennedy party was separate from the casket.

That was an incorrect statement, and I could hardly believe that I had made such an error.

The Other Time Period (when Jackie wasn't with the casket)

The "other" time period was when the cream colored ambulance from Parkland had first arrived, and Jacqueline and others congregated on the tarmac on the port side of Air Force One.  As photographed by Cecil Stoughton, a group of SS agents, led by senior agent Roy Kellerman, carried the Dallas coffin up the stairs, and into the tail compartment.  Then they had to turn left, which caused the coffin to be lost from sight, and there was activity of supposedly "securing" it against the wall of the airplane. So that took a bit of time; not much, but some additional seconds.

It as during this period that Kellerman (et al) were with the coffin, in the tail compartment, while Jacqueline Kennedy, and others, were down on the tarmac. There is no "Zapruder film" of Jacqueline Kennedy's ascension up the steps, but it was not immediate.  There was a small time interval.

Most important: That was the only "other" period.

MY OWN INFERENCE FROM THIS "NEW" DATA

It was during that period, that Kellerman (and others) opened the coffin, and hustled the body across to the starboard side of the aircraft, and to the rear starboard door --actually a "half-door"-- and off the plane.

That was just a hypothesis (at the outset of this reevaluation, in the summer of 1984); but then, in the years following, I found more evidence - -evidence of a forklift truck being utilized on the starboard side of AF-1. It was even better than that: a witness who saw something being offloaded or onloaded via the forklift.

I'l have much more to say about all this in Final Charade, but rest assured that, with certain additional evidence, the conclusion I have reached is found: JFK's body was removed from Air Force One between the time Kellerman was at the top of those rear port stairs, and the time that Jacqueline Kennedy (and others) ascended those same stairs,  entered the tail compartment, and took their seats, assuming an immediate takeoff--which, as is now known, did not occur  At least not immediately.  Because as the Kennedy party soon found out, Lyndon Johnson was aboard what they viewed as "their" airplane, and was now telling Kenneth O'Donnell and Larry O'Brien that there had to be a delay, because he had to be sworn in.  And why? Because, said LBJ, Bobby told him that he must do that.

There is additional detail about what occurred, and when, etc.  The bottom line: JFK 's body was removed via the rear starboard door, and it ended up in the forward luggage compartment.

More later.

Well, there is one other thing that I'd like to mention, something that I believe I wrote about back in 1982, when the first paperback edition of Best Evidence was published.

IMPLICATIONS OF A BODY-CENTRIC PLOT

The only reason that Kellerman (et al) were able to act so quickly (with regards to the body) is that, from the outset, this was a body-centric plot.  I used this phrase in describing the basic structure of the JFK murder plot, in my talk at Bismarck State College in November 2013 (Google: David Lifton Bismarck, for a video).  From the outset, there was a "twin focus" if you will: (a) to murder the President and then (b) to alter the body (retrieve bullets, and alter wounds)so as  to lay the groundwork for a false autopsy, one designed to "doctor the bod" so as to change the basic facts of the shooting, and incriminate a pre-selected patsy.

However, the plan didn't work as intended--and a major problem developed when Governor Connally was unexpectedly shot.  This not only led to major confusion, but a serious malfunction in the original plan, and much of which then occurred was sheer improvisation --i.e., was done "ad hoc" (as they say in Latin).  First of all, there was now an extra "body"--and Gov JC wasn't dead.  But whether he lived or died, the true circumstances of how he was shot would have to be falsified.  And there was still another complication to Gov JC having been shot: had he not been shot, and if there were complications with getting JFK's body out of the state without an autopsy, the Governor (a close and lifelong friend of LBJ) could probably be relied upon to issue an executive order going along with such a request. But once shot seriously (as he was), it was hardly possible for an aide to show up in his Operating Room, clipboard in hand, and say, "Governor, would you mind signing this? They want to take the President's body out of Texas, without an autopsy."  And that's just one of several problems.  So many things happened after the shooting of JC that were strictly ad hoc; and --in Final Charade--I hope that there will be sufficient evidence to peruade the reader that this was a plot that was "elegant in conception, but bungled in execution."

I bring up this subject not only because I have written about it before, publicly (but probably not at this length, and with such specificity); but because unless one understands the basic concept (and implications) of this being a "body-centric" plot, it is difficult to comprehend how, upon reaching Love Field, anyone would be prepared to remove JFK's body  from the Dallas casket, in order to change its condition so as to harmonize with some pre-conceived scenario.

DSL

3/15/2018 - 3 AM PDT; edited, 5:35 AM PDT

Orange County, California

Mr. Lifton,

Thank you for replying with such clarity and details to my questions to Michael Walton regarding the hard evidence of multiple caskets / entries / conditions of JFK's body at Bethesda compared to Parkland.  I would still like to get his reply on how he views this evidence, leaving out for the moment the "why" and "how" questions for the moment. 

MW, just focusing on this alone, what is your take on the multiple caskets / entries / conditions of (meaning the wrappings vs. body bag) JFK's body?

Thanks

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Andrej:  No, it was not a "random" choice. (But, presently at least, I do not believe it was sinister).  FYI: The Parkland Hospital reports (see Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes) contain at least one where Clint Hill states that a casket is needed, that he is told of ONeals Funeral Home, and either he gets on the phone directly (or tells someone who is on the phone) that they (ONeal) should select "the finest."  So no, it was not random. The "finest" were the operative words, and Vernon Oneal then chose the "top of the line" Elgin Brittania.  In general, I would be very careful, if not very wary, about inferring  that because an SS agent said to bring "the finest", that that person (making such a specific request) already had in mind that the body would be removed from the coffin, and so deliberately wished to see that a rather heavy casket be selected, and brought to Parkland.  I think that "the finest" would be language that would be reasonable for an SS agent to use,  in view of the fact that the coffin was being requested for the body of the President.  Candidly, I've never viewed that language as being suspicious--although in the JFK case, "anything is possible," and you are correct that if an ordinary "shipping casket" had been brought to Parkland, and if it was intended to remove the body from that type of casket, then the "empty casket" (after such a removal) would be rather obvious. Still, my belief would come down on the side of "innocence"--that it was reasonable to request "the finest" casket, since it was the president of the U.S.

DSL - 3/15/18 - 11:08 AM PDT

Orange County, California

I agree with the innocent interpretation of the casket selection problem. 

It is interesting that only two men (one using one arm) were able to lift and hold the front part of the heavy casket with the body. Obviously, it was possible.

casket.jpg?w=768

-------------------------

This ceremonial casket was disposed of in 1966. An original document on the whole process and background is described here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/mystery-jfks-casket-0?page=1

casket_w.png

According to this document, the casket and three sandbags, 80 pounds each, weighed 660 pounds. This gives 660-240 = 420 pounds or 200 kg. The casket with the President's body weighed 280 kg. 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

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

×