Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

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

Well, Micah, after listening again to Dr. Perry's remarks to Eddie Barker of CBS News in 1967, and realizing that the word "inviolate" doesn't make a bit of logical sense whatsoever in the context in which he uttered it, I'd have to wonder if perhaps Perry actually said the word "invalid" during those two other occasions when people are claiming Perry utilized the word "inviolate" too (in 1963 in the presence of Dr. Stewart and in 1979 for Robert Groden).

When listening over and over again to Perry's 1967 CBS interview, I think a case can be made for Perry saying either word ("invalid" or "inviolate"). It's hard to tell. But since "inviolate" doesn't make any logical sense in that '67 interview, I have to believe he was saying "invalid" instead. And I would think even a hardline conspiracy theorist who sees liars and plots everywhere he looks would have to agree with me on this one. Otherwise, you've got no choice but to paint Dr. Malcolm Perry as an idiot. Or, as an alternative, you'd have to believe that Dr. Perry just had no idea what the word "inviolate" means, even though he was using that word repeatedly in the conversations he was having with different people. Which, again, would bring the word "idiot" to the forefront. And I don't think anybody even in Conspiracy Fantasy Land really believes that Dr. Perry was an idiot. And I certainly have no reason in the world to think Dr. Perry was a big fat l-i-a-r either.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Well, Micah, after listening again to Dr. Perry's remarks to Eddie Barker of CBS News in 1967, and realizing that the word "inviolate" doesn't make a bit of logical sense whatsoever in the context in which he uttered it, I'd have to wonder if perhaps Perry actually said the word "invalid" during those two other occasions when people are claiming Perry utilized the word "inviolate" too (in 1963 in the presence of Dr. Stewart and in 1979 for Robert Groden).

When listening over and over again to Perry's 1967 CBS interview, I think a case can be made for Perry saying either word ("invalid" or "inviolate"). It's hard to tell. But since "inviolate" doesn't make any logical sense in that '67 interview, I have to believe he was saying "invalid" instead. And I would think even a hardline conspiracy theorist who sees liars and plots everywhere he looks would have to agree with me on this one. Otherwise, you've got no choice but to paint Dr. Malcolm Perry as an idiot.

 

I agree with DVP. I ran the audio clip repeatedly, first expecting to hear "invalid" and then expecting to hear "inviolate." It worked in both cases! I heard both "invalid" and "inviolate."

But since only the word "invalid" makes sense in context, I have to conclude that is what he said.

 

Share this post


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

On November 23, 1963, Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin that he made an incision "below" the bullet wound.  On that occasion, he did not use the word 'inviolate," (as far as we know);  he simply said (i.e., told Jimmy Breslin) that he inserted the tracheotomy tube "below" the bullet wound; and Breslin then used that word--"below"-in the article he wrote for the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch which was published on 11/24/63, and which was then  reprinted as "Death in O.R. 1" in the Sat Evening Post of 12/14/1963.

On that same weekend (according to Dr. Dave Stewart, who first related this to me in a telephone interview in 1982) Dr. Perry told Stewart --that he left the wound "inviolate."  Steward told me this in 1982, by phone; and then repeated all of it in considerable detail i a filmed interview that I conducted in June 1989, with Pat Valentino also being present. (See paragraph below, starting "In June 1989").

David (von Pein) and Sandy:

the  1966/67 CBS interview was aimed to calcify the WC outcomes and therefore, I am not surprised that  Dr. Perry had admitted making a cut through the neck wound in that interview which was just a confirmation of what he had said to the WC. However, please also read the statements collected by David (quoted above) in which Dr. Perry claimed cutting below the neck wound and leaving the neck wound intact (my interpretation of "inviolate"). These statements were close to the event and are therefore the most valid and genuine statements, in my view.

Please consider the logic for a moment: Dr. Perry cuts through the neck wound. What will he find? An opening in the trachea from the gunshot. However, he also claims to make a cut to the trachea - but where could he cut the trachea if there was only one cut to the skin and fascias and this cut only exposed the part of trachea with the opening from the gunshot? He did not need to make a tracheotomy if he made a cut through the neck wound, however, he did (confirmed also by Dr. Carrico). 

In the 1966/67 audio clip with Dr. Perry, please mind about 2 seconds gap elapsing between a swallowed "rendered" and the next word "inv....", with an "uh". Does this look natural when other parts of the clip contain a fluent speech? In my view, Dr. Perry was in severe distress when saying this.

It is a mess and I understand that it is hard to find an explanation that would satisfactorily explain all the statements, interviews and the gash on the neck in the autopsy photograph. The common denominator could be that Dr. Perry made an incision below the neck wound, and then he made a tracheotomy and a tracheostomy on an undamaged tracheal ring. The neck wound was, according to this interpretation,  expanded later to exclude any chance of interpreting the neck wound as an entry wound. This is why Dr. Perry did not accept his authorship of the crater in the throat. The rest is just a mess and confusion, intentional or non-intentional, I do not know. Dr. Perry went with the official version during his WC testimony. I am not sure what exact word was used in the CBS interview - "inviolate" or "invalid", however, I see signs of a strong distress on the part of Dr. Perry at those moments.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once  again  Lifton here is trying to create more "conspiracy" to carry  on his original  thrumming  helicopter  and whisking the body away alteration  story.

And of course to sell more books. All  you  have  to  do  is  read Perry's  original  testimony  which  I  posted  above. The man clearly tried  to do  what  he  could  to try  to  save  Kennedy.

But it's  not  good enough  for  Lifton  and his  readers. He's  dropping  little  hints here and  there to prime  readers  for  his next $39.99 conspiracy  book.

At least  we  can give Armstrong  credit  for making  his funny Hardly  Lee story free to the masses  LOL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 6:59 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

As to McNamara looking for Oswald's files, what files, where? 

Maybe these?

 

 

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

In the 1966/67 audio clip with Dr. Perry, please mind about 2 seconds gap elapsing between a swallowed "rendered" and the next word "inv....", with an "uh". Does this look natural when other parts of the clip contain a fluent speech? In my view, Dr. Perry was in severe distress when saying this.

Conspiracists will try to find conspiracy and "distress" and cover-up everywhere they look. It's just their nature. But in my view, Dr. Perry was merely trying to find the right word there. And he came up with "invalid". How many times in your life have you started a sentence and then reached a point where you groped for an appropriate word to finish your thought? Hundreds of times? Thousands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, that would certainly make sense, by 2200 hours or 10 pm I would imagine a good number of people were wanting to see any file available on Oswald, including his service records.  Looks like the first request came in at 1600 or four pm Eastern, which again seems reasonable with the time Oswald's name became generally known.  My question would have been to some specific and documented request from SecDef which would help check the chronology of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:
10 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

In the 1966/67 audio clip with Dr. Perry, please mind about 2 seconds gap elapsing between a swallowed "rendered" and the next word "inv....", with an "uh". Does this look natural when other parts of the clip contain a fluent speech? In my view, Dr. Perry was in severe distress when saying this.

Conspiracists will try to find conspiracy and "distress" and cover-up everywhere they look. It's just their nature. But in my view, Dr. Perry was merely trying to find the right word there. And he came up with "invalid". How many times in your life have you started a sentence and then reached a point where you groped for an appropriate word to finish your thought? Hundreds of times? Thousands?

Exactly. It's  always ALWAYS "there's  just gotta be something  more."

For goodness sake Anderq it's  amazing  that you're  trying  to  make  something  out  of  nothing.

Share this post


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

Conspiracists will try to find conspiracy and "distress" and cover-up everywhere they look. It's just their nature. But in my view, Dr. Perry was merely trying to find the right word there. And he came up with "invalid". How many times in your life have you started a sentence and then reached a point where you groped for an appropriate word to finish your thought? Hundreds of times? Thousands?

Can you blame them? The official story is false, after all. The EOP wound is tantamount to conspiracy as shown by the autopsy report, the autopsy face sheet, and about nine autopsy participants (Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Roy Kellerman, Francis X. O'Neil, Dr. Chester Boyers, George Burkley, Tom Robinson Richard Lipsey,) who mutually agree there was a small wound next to Kennedy's external occipital protuberance.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Once  again  Lifton here is trying to create more "conspiracy" to carry  on his original  thrumming  helicopter  and whisking the body away alteration  story.

And of course to sell more books. All  you  have  to  do  is  read Perry's  original  testimony  which  I  posted  above. The man clearly tried  to do  what  he  could  to try  to  save  Kennedy.

But it's  not  good enough  for  Lifton  and his  readers. He's  dropping  little  hints here and  there to prime  readers  for  his next $39.99 conspiracy  book.

At least  we  can give Armstrong  credit  for making  his funny Hardly  Lee story free to the masses  LOL

 

I believe in freedom of speech, but it is pretty ugly language to accuse other users of being charlatans seeking a profit. 

An author seeking a profit plans to publish a book, 30 years after their first book , only to spill most of their good stuff on public internet forums before it gets published? What?

Share this post


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

I believe in freedom of speech, but it is pretty ugly language to accuse other users of being charlatans seeking a profit. 

An author seeking a profit plans to publish a book, 30 years after their first book , only to spill most of their good stuff on public internet forums before it gets published? What?

Think of your favorite movie, Mic.  When did you first hear about it before it came out?  Maybe two months...three?  And how?  Maybe a trailer on YouTube or at the movies?

It's called marketing, Mic.  Lifton doesn't have the luxury to go on the Today show or CBS This Morning to hawk his book.  After all, the mainstream media calls all of us (gasp!) kooks.  Right?

So this forum can be his way of hawking his book (Stay Tuned!)

And yeah - it's my right and privilege to type on this forum that I disagree with Lifton's theory. I mean...really?  A thrumming helicopter pulling up to the back of Air Force One when it touched down at Andrews that night? When in plain sight, Jackie comes out bloodied right next to the coffin? White coated body snatchers carrying the body out the back, throwing it onto the thrumming copter to whisk it away?  To be examined and carved up by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready?

And now Lifton's follow up (STAY TUNED!) - trying to twist Perry's story around...from one that he cut into the bullet wound to try to save Kennedy's life...to not cutting it at all?  And it's about a hesitation - an "uh.." and a "inv..." in an interview 4 FREAKING YEARS after Dallas...?

Can you really not see the forest from the trees?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Think of your favorite movie, Mic.  When did you first hear about it before it came out?  Maybe two months...three?  And how?  Maybe a trailer on YouTube or at the movies?

It's called marketing, Mic.  Lifton doesn't have the luxury to go on the Today show or CBS This Morning to hawk his book.  After all, the mainstream media calls all of us (gasp!) kooks.  Right?

So this forum can be his way of hawking his book (Stay Tuned!)

And yeah - it's my right and privilege to type on this forum that I disagree with Lifton's theory. I mean...really?  A thrumming helicopter pulling up to the back of Air Force One when it touched down at Andrews that night? When in plain sight, Jackie comes out bloodied right next to the coffin? White coated body snatchers carrying the body out the back, throwing it onto the thrumming copter to whisk it away?  To be examined and carved up by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready?

And now Lifton's follow up (STAY TUNED!) - trying to twist Perry's story around...from one that he cut into the bullet wound to try to save Kennedy's life...to not cutting it at all?  And it's about a hesitation - an "uh.." and a "inv..." in an interview 4 FREAKING YEARS after Dallas...?

Can you really not see the forest from the trees?

 

If your favorite movies are ones you got to see opening in theaters in your lifetime, then you aren't a very good movie-watcher :P

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Think of your favorite movie, Mic.  When did you first hear about it before it came out?  Maybe two months...three?  And how?  Maybe a trailer on YouTube or at the movies?

It's called marketing, Mic.  Lifton doesn't have the luxury to go on the Today show or CBS This Morning to hawk his book.  After all, the mainstream media calls all of us (gasp!) kooks.  Right?

So this forum can be his way of hawking his book (Stay Tuned!)

And yeah - it's my right and privilege to type on this forum that I disagree with Lifton's theory. I mean...really?  A thrumming helicopter pulling up to the back of Air Force One when it touched down at Andrews that night? When in plain sight, Jackie comes out bloodied right next to the coffin? White coated body snatchers carrying the body out the back, throwing it onto the thrumming copter to whisk it away?  To be examined and carved up by mad doctors with scalpels at the ready?

And now Lifton's follow up (STAY TUNED!) - trying to twist Perry's story around...from one that he cut into the bullet wound to try to save Kennedy's life...to not cutting it at all?  And it's about a hesitation - an "uh.." and a "inv..." in an interview 4 FREAKING YEARS after Dallas...?

Can you really not see the forest from the trees?

 

A little bit of background is in order, Michael.

This forum was conceived and designed as an avenue through which authors could reach their readers.  Its founder, John Simkin, invited numerous authors to the site, and encouraged them to use the site for Q and A about their books. In other words, marketing.

It was a successful model, for that matter. At various times in its history, this site has hosted comments by authors such as Nathaniel Weyl, William Turner, Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, David Lifton, Dan Moldea, Walt Brown, Jim DiEugenio, Jim Fetzer, David Mantik, Larry Hancock, Barry Errnest, Peter Janney, and Joseph McBride, as well as a number of historical figures (of varying credibility) such as Dennis David, Gerry Hemming, Daniel Marvin, Harry Dean, Tosh Plumlee, and Judyth Baker. It has also hosted thousands of comments by figures related to the Watergate scandal (Douglas Caddy, Alfred Baldwin, and Tim Gratz). 

Now, to be clear, the forum may not have sold many books, but it has inspired some great conversations. The original thread on Larry Hancock's book Someone Would Have Talked stretched on for hundreds if not thousands of posts over several years.

So, in short, David Lifton is not only allowed to promote his research and theories on this forum, he has actively been encouraged to do so.

 

 

 

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2018 at 7:50 PM, Larry Hancock said:

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.
 

Always a pleasure to discuss the case with you, Larry.

I'm not out to "convict" anyone of the murder of JFK.  I don't think it's knowable.

The only statement of fact I can make about the JFK assassination is:  He was shot in the back from behind, in the throat from the front, in a military style ambush.

The defects in the clothing, the authenticated neck x-ray, and the contemporaneous written notes of 5 men in a position of authority-- 2 doctors at Parkland, an SS SA in Dealey Plaza, 2 FBI SAs at Bethesda -- establish beyond any reasonable doubt JFK was hit from two directions.

All the rest is speculation.  (And a mountain range of redundant, moot bullshi* e.g. Mock Trial).

I try to base my speculation as close as possible to the historical record.

The last time we discussed the AF1/White House Situation Room calls was before you published Surprise Attack, iirc.

Whoever made those calls was acting as a tool of the cover-up, letting LBJ know that he wasn't returning to Washington as a fall-guy.

Whoever made the calls, it doesn't prove their involvement in the assassination plot.  Whomever may have been following orders.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

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...