David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Rick McTague]

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Mic, what you fail to understand about this theory are the logistics of it. Don't get hung up on the holes and ripped scalp and so on of the photos and the head injury.  We know his head was blown to bits.

Instead, back up and think how this entire theory could have possibly taken place. The body's put in a coffin at Parkland. It was wrapped with sheets and the head was wrapped as well. It's put in an ambulance.  The wife and his staff are all right there, feet away from it all.

Now ask yourself - is it really, truly possible that some how, some way, this coffin surrounded by the wife and staff, was some how stolen or whisked away? Perhaps at Love Field, where someone on the plane took a photo of it as it was being brought on board, with the wife walking behind it?

Or perhaps two hours later as the plane lands? Remember the wife and staff are around the coffin for the duration of the flight. But as it lands and as the wife walks out of the plane on that transport thing and the coffin is right there and then into the ambulance, some how, some way, secret agents were able to get the body out of that same coffin - I'm guessing mid-flight right in front of everyone - put it in a body bag, and as the plane lands, in full view of everyone, they whisk it out the back door of the plane onto a thrumming helicopter?

So now ask yourself, Mic.  Could it really, truly have happened that way? Could it, Mic? While all of this was going on and when all these people were some how around and kind of looking at each other and bumping into each other in the hall ways and on the plane and so forth?

And not a single one of them ever came forward with something like, "Well, yeah, I remember as we arrived at Love there was a decoy ambulance and the one from Parkland drove off and went into a hangar and I saw white-coated doctors taking the coffin out of the ambulance.  I seen it." Or "Yeah I went to the bathroom in mid-flight and took a peek inside of the room where the coffin was...no one was there, but I noticed two military guys in there, one closing the lid and I glanced on the floor and there was a body bag with a body in it. Jackie stepped in and I looked at her and she nodded and smiled.  I seen it."

Not a single person ever came forward, Mic, in 55 plus years. All of these people out and about and no one ever saw this happen and reported it.

It makes a great story but knowing how life goes, it didn't happen that way and there was no reason for it to have happened that way.

MW,  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.

What about Jerrol Custer holding JFK x-rays for development at Bethesda when he saw the Navy ambulance pull up and Jackie and the entourage get out?

Thanks

[Ray Mitcham]

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

 

Or perhaps two hours later as the plane lands? Remember the wife and staff are around the coffin for the duration of the flight. S

 

Neither Jackie or her staff were around the coffin for the complete duration of the flight. 

Edited March 9, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Michael Walton]

40 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

MW,  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

People get their stories wrong all the time, Rick. You know the old rumor story.  You say to someone on day one, "The dog was brown" and one year later you hear it again as "The white cat ate the brown bird."

This case is no different. This kind of thing happens on many, many other theories in this case. Someone hears from someone who was there that the "zipper" was unzipped and all of a sudden a new theory was born - he was not wrapped in a sheet but in a zipper bag so therefore his body just had to be altered.

Some links that explain some of this.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lifton.txt

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/b_snatch.htm

If it doesn't explain everything enough to your satisfaction, then continue to believe that the body was some how, some way squirreled away to be cut up by mad doctors.

But keep this in mind - there has to be a WHY to all of this too, not just a HOW. Why would they be cutting up the body when no one had even settled on the how yet? Look at this newspaper picture from 11/27:

Even five days later, they still couldn't explain how a shot that supposedly hit him in the rear and came out of his throat actually was a frontal throat wound. So they had him turning all the way around to face the warehouse to get that shot.

So they went through all of this trouble to alter his body to, among other things, cover up the throat wound as one of entrance to one of exit and yet someone who leaked this to the newspaper forgot to tell the reporter? Wouldn't that be the ultimate example of putting the horse before the cart?

[Michael Walton]

2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Neither Jackie or her staff were around the coffin for the complete duration of the flight.

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?

Get real.

[Rick McTague]

58 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

People get their stories wrong all the time, Rick. You know the old rumor story.  You say to someone on day one, "The dog was brown" and one year later you hear it again as "The white cat ate the brown bird."

This case is no different. This kind of thing happens on many, many other theories in this case. Someone hears from someone who was there that the "zipper" was unzipped and all of a sudden a new theory was born - he was not wrapped in a sheet but in a zipper bag so therefore his body just had to be altered.

 

 

1

Thanks for the reply, Michael.  So to understand your explanation of the 3 documented casket entries, the two types of caskets (the ornate bronze one and the pink shipping casket seen - not "heard about" - by two different people), the wrapping of JFK in a sheet leaving Parkland and being removed from a body bag at Bethesda in the presence of Paul O'Connor (as opposed to him "hearing" it was a body bag), and Jerrol Custer taking JFK x-rays to be developed when he saw Jackie and the entourage enter Bethesda are all got their stories wrong about what they saw (not "heard about").

I did not say that I am adherent to body modifications, I only asked about these items.  If I believe these witnesses were not mistaken, that does not imply that I believe in the body modifications.  I think they were credible, believable witnesses of what they saw, and you think they all got their stories wrong. Simple as that.

Thanks again.

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, Rick McTague said:

Thanks for the reply, Michael.  So to understand your explanation of the 3 documented casket entries, the two types of caskets (the ornate bronze one and the pink shipping casket seen - not "heard about" - by two different people), the wrapping of JFK in a sheet leaving Parkland and being removed from a body bag at Bethesda in the presence of Paul O'Connor (as opposed to him "hearing" it was a body bag), and Jerrol Custer taking JFK x-rays to be developed when he saw Jackie and the entourage enter Bethesda are all got their stories wrong about what they saw (not "heard about").

I did not say that I am adherent to body modifications, I only asked about these items.  If I believe these witnesses were not mistaken, that does not imply that I believe in the body modifications.  I think they were credible, believable witnesses of what they saw, and you think they all got their stories wrong. Simple as that.

Thanks again.

My suggestion is read those links.  I don't have 100% all of the answers here but those links went into quite a bit of detail with how Lifton took a word here and a word there and turned it into a body alteration theory.  The key too is try to just put yourself - like a time machine and a fly on the wall - in Parkland on the day of the murder.  Just think of your own life experiences how things happen then think of it back then.  The casket being wheeled, loaded, the plane taking off, people - lots of them - milling about on the plane ride back - people peeking into the coffin room, seeing the wife, and on and on. It seems highly unlikely that someone hurriedly grabbed the body out of the coffin mid-flight, blood dripping around, hurriedly stuffing it into a body bag - and where then to hide the body and bag - and not a single person on the flight ever reporting this to happen. Not a one.

Lifton pretty much weaved this body alteration story together like from bits and pieces of statements made years later after the event like Armstrong did with his Hardly Lee clone story. And now, sadly, Lifton is trying to do it again by saying that a guy caught in the cross hairs of history, Dr. Perry who actually tried to save Kennedy's life, made false claims that he never cut into the throat wound to stick the tube in, thus, trying to bolster the body alteration further. 

[David G. Healy]

It appears the 'LHO did it all by his lonesome' (read: 1964 WCR report supporters [despite their protestations otherwise]) crowd is getting very nervous about DSL upcoming book. I wonder why? tsk-tsk.

[David Lifton]

To all those who are following this person and his posts.. .:

Walton is setting up his own "reality distortion field" for those naive, credulous or foolish enough to believe (or rely upon) anything he has to say.

When it comes to my book, practically every single statement he makes about how this covert operation worked (or how and where the body was altered) is either factually wrong or a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said in Best Evidence.  His postings --sentence after sentence- -are filled with falsehoods and straw men containing multiple misrepresentations about my supposed beliefs.  His most bizarre assertion is that I "took a word here and there and turned it into a body alteration theory."  What total nonsense, as anyone can see from reading Best Evidence, and the very careful way I went about reporting what was in the record. When the book was first published, a law school asked me for permission to use part of it in a class.  ("Earth to Walton. . are you there?")

I asked him earlier to provide some personal history as to his personal background and education.

The reply: NADA. A deafening silence. (Does anyone have reliable information as to who he is?)

If you believe this uninformed person and his goofy posts, which repeatedly misstate facts and weave together his imaginings into a fabric of sheer fantasy, then implicitly one must subscribe to the following absurd proposition:  that, by cleverly misquoting a few documents "here and there," I cleverly deceived the top executives at Macmillan (and also at Book of the Month Club), along with hundreds of thousands of readers whose interest led to my work being at the top of the best seller lists for 3 plus months in the spring of 1981, and then being published by three additional major publishers (Dell, Carrol & Graf and New American Library [1993]).  And oh yes: I also deceived UCLA law prof Liebeler, who was so concerned with the evidence I brought to his attention in October 1966 that he drafted a 13 page memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the entire staff of the Warren Commission, Senator Robert Kennedy and LBJ. And, oh yes, I somehow caused all the witnesses, whose accounts I documented in Best Evidence (and which can also be viewed on the Best Evidence Research Video) to not have remembered what they witnessed and which a wide assortment of official documents reported as fact).  Its difficult to describe this individual  --and his strained connection to reality--accurately without violating the rules for civil discourse on this forum. 

But OMG! If only Michael Walton had been around, and sharing his profound wisdom and insights for the past several decades. .. : just think!  So much of  this JFK controversy could have been avoided!

Sure Michael Walton . . . in your dreams.

Meanwhile, how about addressing the questions that I previously asked?

Surely you have some general idea of who you are? 

Surely you are able to describe that, without engaging in falsehood and fantasy?

Why not share it?  Its so easy.  Just pretend you are taking a selfie, only doing it with words.

You know how to employ words in the service of truth. . .don't you?

What are you hiding?

DSL

3/9/2018 - 3:10 PM PST

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by David Lifton

[David Josephs]

 

[Michael Clark]

34 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

To all those who are following this person and his posts.. .:

Walton is setting up his own "reality distortion field" for those naive, credulous or foolish enough to believe (or rely upon) anything he has to say.

When it comes to my book, practically every single statement he makes about how this covert operation worked (or how and where the body was altered) is either factually wrong or a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said in Best Evidence.  His postings --sentence after sentence- -are filled with falsehoods and straw men containing multiple misrepresentations about my supposed beliefs.

I asked him earlier to provide some personal history as to his personal background and education.

The reply: NADA. A deafening silence. (Does anyone have reliable information as to who he is?)

If you believe this uninformed person and his goofy posts, which repeatedly misstate facts and weave together his imaginings into a fabric of sheer fantasy, then implicitly one must subscribe to the following absurd proposition:  that, by cleverly misquoting a few documents "here and there," I cleverly deceived the top executives at Macmillan (and also at Book of the Month Club), along with hundreds of thousands of readers whose interest led to my work being at the top of the best seller lists for 3 plus months in the spring of 1981, and then being published by three additional major publishers (Dell, Carrol & Graf and New American Library [1993]).  And oh yes: I also deceived UCLA law prof Liebeler, who was so concerned with the evidence I brought to his attention in October 1966 that he drafted a 13 page memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the entire staff of the Warren Commission, Senator Robert Kennedy and LBJ. And, oh yes, I somehow caused all the witnesses, whose accounts I documented in Best Evidence (and which can also be viewed on the Best Evidence Research Video) to not have remembered what they witnessed and which a wide assortment of official documents reported as fact).  Its difficult to describe this individual  --and his strained connection to reality--accurately without violating the rules for civil discourse on this forum. 

But OMG! If only Michael Walton had been around, and sharing his profound wisdom and insights for the past several decades. .. : just think!  So much of  this JFK controversy could have been avoided!

Sure Michael Walton . . . in your dreams.

Meanwhile, how about addressing the questions that I previously asked?

Surely you have some general idea of who you are? 

Surely you are able to describe that, without engaging in falsehood and fantasy?

Why not share it?  Its so easy.  Just pretend you are taking a selfie, only doing it with words.

You know how to employ words in the service truth. . .don't you?

What are you hiding?

DSL

3/9/2018 - 3:10 PM PST

 

David, His MO has been to try to relate in some way to members of the forum. He comes off as fairly decent, until, inevitably, you disagree with him about something, then he forever mocks and misrepresents (and worse) what you say or offer, and it never stops.

I recall, recently, when you called him a smart aleck. I thought , " Bummer, Lifton just bought a permanent personal pest". What you probably don't recall is that this happened about a year ago as well, and you used the same term, "smart aleck". Walton demurred a bit, you accepted his attempt to back off, and you bought some time. But you own this pest now, as long as you and he are both present here.

The point is that Walton is here to wade into personal cyber relationships, it is not about the subject matter..Once he senses that you aren't his "brah", he goes into permanent, personal tantrum mode.

I believe I have figured out, partially who he is, or at least who he pretended to be at other times. If you post your email, as I have seen you do before, I will let you know what I have found. I will also look through your posts for that email address.

Also, you may not recall your past brush with this problem because last summer he changed his avatar from a pic of a 40-something, carbon based unit, to that of a child. It's kind of fitting but against the rules without permission.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Michael Clark

[Michael Walton]

David

I stand by what I've  written here and I  know that others who've  read your thrumming  copter and body stealing theory malarkey agree.

What I  think is even  more disgraceful  is how you're  distorting Mac Perry's  testimony into even more body alteration  malarkey. Lucky for  you  Perry has passed on so your malarkey can stand unchallenged, so you  can continue  to  keep it moving along with little push back. And those who are too ignorant to know better will obviously  fall for it.

[James DiEugenio]

As I said before, I really do not know why these arguments descend into the personal stuff.

I am really against it because this discussion does not deserve it.  In fact, is demeaned by it.

Every time someone disagrees with us, we ask, "Who is this person? How dare he!"  

Mike does not buy Lifton's book.  Just like he does not buy Armstrong. 

What's the big deal?  

Edited April 3, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As I said before, I really do not know why these arguments descend into the personal stuff.

I a really against it because this discussion does not deserve it.  In fact, is demeaned by it.

Every time someone disagrees with us, we ask, "Who is this person? How dare he!"  

Mike does not buy Lifton's book.  Just like he does not buy Armstrong. 

What's the big deal?  

It's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of incessant, mocking, normative ridicule and harassment, and you know it, Jim. Walton has claimed that he did video production work for you. He has the "brah" thing going-on with you. You never say a word about his "special" child-like antics. So you are good to go. You know that with a few pointed criticisms from you, you would have a gnat on your sassaphrass. But your OK with it, because he is on David Lifton. 

Your playing dumb here, and it is beneath you. Ask David Josephs.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Michael Clark

[David Lifton]

Friday, 3/9/2018 - - 7:05 PM PST

Hi Michael Clark:

I really did appreciate your email, which I found not just informative, but genuinely amusing.

OK. . . here's the email address that I believe you wanted:  DSL74@cornell.edu

Repeating:  DSL74@Cornell.edu

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Please put "JFK" or "Friend from Education Forum" in the subject line.

Many thanks.

Best,

DSL

[Michael Clark]

18 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Friday, 3/9/2018 - - 7:05 PM PST

Hi Michael Clark:

I really did appreciate your email, which I found not just informative, but genuinely amusing.

OK. . . here's the email address that I believe you wanted:  DSL74@cornell.edu

Repeating:  DSL74@Cornell.edu

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Please put "JFK" or "Friend from Education Forum" in the subject line.

Many thanks.

Best,

DSL

Hi David, it looks like I already e-mailed you. I'll look back and see if I have anything new.

BREAK,...

Allow me to ask a question I am sure you have entertained before. I see your Cornell email addy. I want to ask what you think of John Liggett. I mentioned Cornell because Malcolm Liggett, John's brother, was faculty at Cornell ( I think).

All the Best,

Michael

 

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by Michael Clark