Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

Sandy:  OK.  I'll give further thought about what you wrote.

Thanks for the tip about Walton.

Gotta leave. . pulled an all nighter doing all of this. Need some sleep.

DSL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, it sure does seem like he did a lot to that neck for having left the wound "inviolate"

PERRY: Once the trachea had been exposed I took the knife and incised the windpipe at the point of the bullet injury.

20 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

FACET #2: What Perry did (on 11/22/63):  My personal belief: He did what he said he did: Perry left the wound "inviolate."

Mr. SPECTER - While the doctors were working on President Kennedy, did you ever have any opportunity to observe his neck? 
Miss BOWRON - No; I didn't, until afterwards.. 
Mr. SPECTER - Until after what? 
Miss BOWRON - Until after they had pronounced him dead and we cleaned up and removed the trach tube, and indeed we were really too shocked to really take much notice. 
Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever see his neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube? 
Miss BOWRON - No, sir. 

Mr. SPECTER - What was done to the President after he arrived at the emergency room? 
Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well the first thing, his endotracheal tube was inserted. 

ACTIVITIES OF (Parkland Nurse) PAT HUTTON 
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963
As soon as we reached the room, a doctor placed an endotracheal tube, and prepared for a tracheostomy.

 

**Dr. PERRY - At the time I entered the door, Dr. Carrico was attending him. He was attaching the Bennett apparatus to an endotracheal tube in place to assist his respiration.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time? 

Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration. 

Dr. PERRY - At this point, I had entered the neck, and Dr. Baxter and Dr. McClelland arrived shortly thereafter. I cannot describe with accuracy their exact arrival. I only know I looked up and saw Dr. Baxter as I began the tracheotomy and he took a pair of gloves to assist me. 
Dr. McClelland's presence was known to me at the time he picked up an instrument and said, "Here, I will hand it to you."
At that point I was down in the trachea. Once the trachea had been exposed I took the knife and incised the windpipe at the point of the bullet injury. And asked that the endotracheal tube previously placed by Dr. Carrico be withdrawn slightly so I could insert a tracheotomy tube at this level. This was effected and attached to an anesthesia machine which had been brought down by Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Giesecke for better control of circulation.
I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum and although I could not see any evidence, myself any evidence, of it in the pleura of the lung the presence of this blood in this area could be indicative of the underlying condition.
I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax.
This occurred while I was doing the tracheotomy. I did not know at the time when I inserted the tube but I was informed subsequently that Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of urology, and Dr. Charles Baxter, previously noted in this record, inserted the chest tube and attached it to underwater seal or drainage of the right pneumothorax. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having no dog in this fight, I wonder whether Dr Perry saying he left the bullet wound inviolate meant that although he had cut the incision over the wound, it didn't alter the appearance of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David Lifton said:

My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision.  He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade).

I guess Mr. Lifton thinks there's a whole lot of lying going on in these interviews linked below....

2009 INTERVIEW WITH DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOODhkYTRkOFdNUlU/view

Skip to about the 10:00 mark in the McClelland interview above to hear him talk in some detail about the "incision" that was made through the bullet wound in JFK's throat; and then go to 41:25, where McClelland says the large tracheotomy wound in the autopsy photos is exactly the same size as the trach wound he saw at Parkland on 11/22/63). [Also see this related article.]

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009

 

1963 & 1967 INTERVIEWS WITH DR. MALCOLM PERRY:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOYUc1cXFjQ2JGcGc/view

In the 1967 interview above, Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound". And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was: "I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid [inviolate?] for as regards further examination and inspection."

AUDIO CLIP

Now, if the word spoken by Dr. Perry there was really "inviolate", how does that sentence he just spoke make any sense at all? Inviolate means "Not Violated" and "Intact". So if Perry had REALLY said the wound was "inviolate", it would have meant the wound was still "intact", and therefore it COULD have still been available for "further examination and inspection". But Perry implied exactly the opposite in his '67 interview. He was implying the wound was no longer available for additional examination. (Is there any doubt in anyone's mind—even David Lifton's—that that is what he was implying there? How could anyone doubt that fact after listening to the full interview?) Therefore, how could he have meant the wound was "inviolate"?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

 

David,

I believe that "leaving the wound inviolate" is inconsistent with the idea that Dr. Perry put a tube down though it.

There are only two doctors who stated that Dr. Perry put the tube down through the wound, Dr. Stewart and Dr. McClellan. Dr. Perry never said it himself. (As far as we know.)

Please allow me to put forth this alternative hypothesis:

Dr. Perry made the incision below the wound, and this is why he repeatedly insisted that he left the wound inviolate.

Dr. Perry told Dr. Stewart that he left the wound inviolate. (On a scale from 1 to 10, Dr. Stewart was 15 sure of that!) But somehow Dr. Stewart also got the (wrong) impression that Dr. Perry had not needed to make a tracheotomy incision... he merely inserted the tube through the wound. And this is what he told reporters.

Dr. McClellan either spoke with Dr. Stewart or read one of his interviews in the news. And this is how McClellan came to understand that Dr. Perry put the tracheotomy tube through the wound.

Dr. Perry testified truthfully in his WC testimony, that he'd made the incision below the wound. However his testimony was later modified so that it would be consistent with the autopsy findings.

And that's how this all came to be.

(I think I got it all straight. I need to leave now, so I don't have time to see if I understood everything correctly from what you wrote.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David, I suggest you ignore what Michael Walton says. His MO is to keep everything as simple as possible. And if that means ignoring a whole lot of important evidence, so be it. He has no trouble ignoring evidence. IMO his goal isn't to know what the truth is. It's only to know there was a conspiracy.

Yes that's  exactly right. Funnily and ironically, no one here has the foresight to ask - could all of this have happened like we're  saying it did?

Now we've  got yet another theory saying  that a doctor down there  didn't  make a cut through the wound...even when he said he did  for crying  out loud. And when the autopsy photo  clearly shows the wound like he described  it in March 1964.

But now as is the usual case here the usual cast of  characters  are using second hand and hearsay comments  to say otherwise.

Will you people  never stop  thinking  of alternative  reality theories?

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Malcolm Oliver “Mac” Perry, Attending Surgeon (deceased 12/5/2009):

Quote

1979 interview with Robert Groden [“BE”, p. 706; Groden’s “TKOAP”, p. 77 (includes photo of Perry)]---photos of neck and head wound not as he remembered them to be: his trach was “neater”, and not the “larger, expanded” one seen in the pictures. Also, the head wound more closely matched the Dr. McClelland drawing in “Six Seconds in Dallas”; “When interviewed in 1979, he still maintained that the bullet had entered the President’s throat from the front…”

 

 

Palamara, Vincent. JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda: The Ultimate Kennedy Assassination Compendium (p. 5). Trine Day. Kindle Edition.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2017 at 2:18 PM, Larry Hancock said:

From a military command and control perspective that answer was exactly correct, with JFK out of the command loop McNamara represented the sole remaining person to exercise National Command Authority and the Joint Chiefs had the responsibility to communicate emergency orders to the military from him though the National Military Command/Communications Center at the Pentagon.

According to his biography, McNamara found out JFK was shot from Bobby Kennedy, not the military.

While waiting for LBJ to arrive all McNamara did was check on Oswald's files and arrange the reception of AF1 at Andrews (as per David Lifton).

With all the cabinet either out of town or side-lined at the Pentagon -- who would have been in a position to provide "continuity of government"?

The State Department -- #2 George Ball and #3 Averell Harriman, and  National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy at the White House.

Share this post


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

Perry's complete statement was: "I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid [inviolate?] for further examination and inspection."

AUDIO CLIP

 

Sure sounds like "invalid" to me. And only "invalid" would make sense in context.

Kudos to DVP.

(I will be amazed if David L. posts an audio clip where Dr. Perry says "violate" and it also makes sense in its context.)

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be some confusion in this about what Bundy was doing vs. what McNamara was doing at a particular times.  Manchester is the only one who I have seen do a really detailed chronology with corroboration of locations/times from multiple sources. McNamara was definitely with the Chiefs and at the Pentagon for a period of time. He was also certainly in touch with Air Force One. As to McNamara looking for Oswald's files, what files, where?  If someone wants to post a detailed chronology of locations and activities comparable to Manchester's I'd be happy to see it...but I would also be happier if the data was collected within a year or so...memories for biographies are often questionable.  Way to many well structured memory exercises have proven that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Sure sounds like "invalid" to me. And only "invalid" would make sense in context.

Kudos to DVP.

(I will be amazed if David L. posts an audio clip where Dr. Perry says "violate" and it also makes sense in its context.)

 

 

What? Perry is saying "inviolate" with a southern drawl. Not "invalid".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What? Perry is saying "inviolate" with a southern drawl. Not "invalid".

Despite the fact that "inviolate" makes NO SENSE at all given the context of Perry's statement to CBS' Eddie Barker, it doesn't really matter anyway (as I said before)....because Perry told Eddie Barker just SECONDS earlier that he "cut through the wound". So David Lifton's "no incision at all" theory is moribund (at best).

Or maybe Mr. Lifton can now dredge up a theory that has Dr. Perry lying through his teeth when he told Eddie Barker and the CBS audience that he cut through the wound, but then (just seconds later) Perry decided to tell the truth when he uttered the alleged "inviolate" word. But even that crazy theory makes no sense because the word "inviolate" MAKES NO SENSE in the sentence in question that was spoken by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

There seems to be some confusion in this about what Bundy was doing vs. what McNamara was doing at a particular times.  Manchester is the only one who I have seen do a really detailed chronology with corroboration of locations/times from multiple sources. McNamara was definitely with the Chiefs and at the Pentagon for a period of time. He was also certainly in touch with Air Force One. As to McNamara looking for Oswald's files, what files, where? 

Good question for David Lifton...

31 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

 

If someone wants to post a detailed chronology of locations and activities comparable to Manchester's I'd be happy to see it...but I would also be happier if the data was collected within a year or so...memories for biographies are often questionable.  Way to many well structured memory exercises have proven that.

The calls to AF1 and the cabinet plane assuring all aboard that the lone assassin was in custody didn't come from any military people in the Situation Room, and Bundy was quoted by a Newsweek reporter admitting to the phone calls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Despite the fact that "inviolate" makes NO SENSE at all given the context of Perry's statement to CBS' Eddie Barker, it doesn't really matter anyway (as I said before)....because Perry told Eddie Barker just SECONDS earlier that he "cut through the wound". So David Lifton's "no incision at all" theory is moribund (at best).

Or maybe Mr. Lifton can now dredge up a theory that has Dr. Perry lying through his teeth when he told Eddie Barker and the CBS audience that he cut through the wound, but then (just seconds later) Perry decided to tell the truth when he uttered the alleged "inviolate" word. But even that crazy theory makes no sense because the word "inviolate" MAKES NO SENSE in the sentence in question that was spoken by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry.

Doesn't the 1979 Robert Groden interview makes it clear what he means by "inviolate"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff, we have been down this road before; I document the AF1 and Cabinet aircraft calls, their timing and the overall post-assassination command and control process in Surprise Attack - in much more detail that SWHT and with more references. Basically I did that entire book to evaluate how different the command and control following the assassination was from other major crises and that's really what I have to say on the subject - I won't try to change your mind or argue against the names you propose as being in control and deeply involved in the conspiracy.  Each to his own, my views are in my books.
 

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

×
×
  • Create New...