Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton

Members
  • Content Count

    1,036
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Lifton

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

47,050 profile views
  1. RE: "... and was used to describe the need for a wide trach incision.." ("was used [as an excuse] to describe the need for a wide trach incision". Let's focus on the word "used". Used. . by whom? Keep in mnd what Dr. Perry told me, when i telephoned him (October 1966) and asked, the size (i.e., the width) of the trach incision. His response: "2- 3 cm". Contrast this with what Humes wrote in the autopsy report ( "6.5 cm") and when he testified (Spring 1964 - "7 - 8 cm")/ All this is described in detail in Best Evidence. DSL
  2. RESPONSE by David Lifton: Cliff, We may have discussed this years ago — I simply do not remember our previous back-and-forth via email, or on the London Forum. But let me remind all readers: There were no wounds —i.e., no shallow puncture wounds — of President Kennedy’s back or shoulder at Parkland Hospital. Every doctor was asked about this, under oath: the response was always the same: No, I didn’t see any such thing. That’s why it is all the more important to remember Perry’s testimony about Dr. Humes telephone call (to Perry) on Friday night (or Sat. morning); Perry test
  3. There is no credible evidence --no document or any eyewitness --that Curtis LeMay was "covertly aboard" Air Force One. The Stoughton photos-- which were originally published in TIME circa 1967)-- do not show him there; nor is he on the official manifest; nor does any witness place him there. Who makes up this kind of stuff?
  4. Not explicitly; but the two FBI agents (Sibert and O'Neill) wrote, in their report, that the President's body "was removed from the casket in which it had been transported and was placed on the autopsy table". The implication (IMHO) was simply this: that "the coffin in which it (JFK's body) had been transported" was different than the one offloaded from Air Force One at about 6 PM, EST, at Andrews AFB, upon its arrival from Dallas-- an event televised nationally on all the major TV networks. Now back to the two FBI agents, who had been ordered to "stay" with the body and obtain bullets
  5. Quoting Steve Thomas: QUOTE ON: Yes, various people assert the fancy bronze casket was never out of view, even for a moment, after JFK's body was put in. And yet there seems to be multiple credible witnesses that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda in a steel-colored, government-issue ordinary casket. Lifton posits the body was switched while in flight. I have always wondered if AF1 carried a government-issued casket as part of regular supplies. After all, AF1 could be expected to cross the Pacific from time to time with a bunch of older men on board, and a death might occur. H
  6. I investigated this very carefully back in the period 1967 - 1972 (years before the advent of the Internet); analyzing all relevant documents and telephoning all the relevant witnesses. This is only an issue for someone who started so late in the game that their information comes from a YouTube video (and so their reaction is "Gee, how interesting! I never head of this before!") Bottom line: when the Dallas coffin left Parkland Hospital (about 1:55 PM, approx), it contained JFKs body. When AF-1 took off from Love Field, the coffin was empty. See Best Evidence for the many details.
  7. A couple of points: (1) The correct spelling of JWS's last name: "S i b e r t." (2) Sibert and O'Neill's FBI Report (dated 11/26/63) was based on "oral statements" made to the two FBI agents, by the chief autopsy surgeon 'at the time of autopsy" --THIS, according to the official FBI statement issued in the aftermath of the publication of Epstein's book, "INQUEST", published in July 1966, as well as letters written to the FBI by Sylvia Meagher, and myself. (3) The S & O report states that the bullet exited through the hole at the "top" of the head. He may have said something different a
  8. The FBI agents went to the trouble of stating the the body was "removed from the casket in which it had been transported'. Based on simple rules of English usage, it seems to me that the descriptive phrase --that the coffin been specified was "the casket in which it (i.e., the President's body --DSL) had been transported," would suggests that there was another (i.e., some "other") casket. If not, why specify that the casket as "the casket in which it had been transported." Think of it this way; Suppose the FBI agent had made a telephone report to a supervisor at FBI Headquarters. I can easi
  9. I suppose "hi tech rounds the wouldn't leave a trace" is a possibility. But I prefer the more probable explanation: that they were puzzled because they could find no bullets; and expected to find (one or more) bullets (or substantial size fragments) because of the wound geometry. For example (and I'm writing this from recollection). . . Humes found a bruise atop the right lung, and testified to that, in detail. So I believe that based on the wound geometry (entry in the neck, based on news reports, for example), Humes' expectation --most likely (if he was relying on "Dallas information"--wa
  10. I believe that the exact quote was that "the body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported" (per Pete Mellor, above). The point is: that the coffin [in which the body arrived at the Bethesda morgue, a shipping casket] was distinctly different from the four-hundred pound ceremonial casket which was in the Navy ambulance (and in which Jackie and RFK arrived at Bethesda). From the language in their FBI report, it seems clear that the two FBI agents were making an explicit distinction between two separate coffins: the one that was in the naval ambulance (in which Jacqueline an
  11. Pat: For someone not "up-to-date" with the "photographic evidence debunking the dictabelt evidence," it would help if you would provide a few sentences briefly listing the major points --i.e., the points that you believe "debunk" the dictabelt evidence. Otherwise, this discussion will only be clear to those who have been following the details of this particular aspect of the debate. I'm not requesting that you write a detailed treatise--just a few sentences listing your objections Thanks. DSL (2/02/21; 7:10 PM PST)
×
×
  • Create New...