Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton

Members
  • Posts

    1,066
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

50,009 profile views

David Lifton's Achievements

  1. Paul: Correct your spelling. Its "w e i r d." DSL And yes: the Z film has been falsified. See my essay: "Pig on a Leash."
  2. It seems to me that any discussion of the Harper fragment must begin with the fact that Harper's uncle, Dr. Jack Harper was a pathologist. He had the actual fragment. He held it in his hand. He photographed it. It was also X-rayed. This is all documented in the record, The fragment was then turned over to the FBI, and ended up being turned over to White House doctor George Burkley. Back in the early 1970's, I wrote a detailed memo on the Harper fragment. If the Harper fragment was occipital, that is powerful evidence that JfK's lateral X-Ray is a fraud. JFK had one occipital bone. It could not be on the lawn in Dealey Plaza, and also on the X-Yay that was supposedly exposed that night at Bethesda. That's a simple proposition. If Sherlock Holmes was alive, that's how he would have explained it to Watson. Also: I interviewed the Bethesda autopsy photographer. I interviewed him, in 1971/72, at his home. JFK had a large hole at the back of his head -- a defect observed by numerous observers at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Journalist Craig Colvin (spelling, not sure) wrote a major story about this that was published in the Miami press. Unfortunately, now -- in 2021 --physicians with the proper credentials can go to the National Archives, examine this false evidence, and then --ignoring the evidence that the chain of possession has obviously been falsified -- write articles based on falsified evidence. The issue raised by this falsified evidence is not whether was a "second shooter." The issue is who falsified the evidence. DSL Author, Best Evidence (1981)
  3. Back in 1965, when I first bought my set of the Warren Commission's 26 Volumes, I encountered witnesses (notably, Sam Holland, standing on the Triple Underpass) who reported --at the time of the shooting -- smoke or steam coming from under the trees behind the fence on the grassy knoll. I'm not a gun expert, but back when I was temporarily employed by Ramparts and writing "The Case for Three Assassins" (summer of 1966; published in issue dated December 1966), my co-author David Welsh and I included a small section devoted to witnesses who saw smoke (and I even found an account of a witness in one of the press busses, that that just turned from Main onto Houston Street, and who reported seeing "puffs of smoke" from the area behind the fence on the knoll). Since it has repeatedly emphasized --in discussion and debates --that "guns don't smoke" (at least modern guns do not), I'd be interested in what various members of this forum think of this phenomenon. What was the cause of the smoke? I'd like to collect as many responses as possible; and you may be very brief, if you wish. (There is no "prize for the winner." I'm just interested in gathering data). Thanks. DSL Current Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Email: dlifton@earthlink.net dlifton@gmail.com
  4. Steve Bannon’s podcast constitutes written evidence of intent to foment a riot; further, to illegally grab politial power through the use of force. His words go beyond the right to assemble, air grievences, etc., all of which are constitituionally protected activities. But consider carefully what Bannon wrote next: “Its gonna be moving; its gonna be quick.” This does not sound like a peaceful assembly; but rather, an attempt to grab political power. As my high school teacher used to say, "Words are the tools of thought.” So what was Steve Bannon thinking? And what was it that was “gonna be quick”? Bannon’s words sound like he was not describing a peaceful assembly, but rather employing words one would use to describe someone planning a putch.
  5. This post would be more credible if the underlying source were specified. Is it a journalist's public reporting, or speculation? The word "apparently" is not good enough. Was this published anywhere and did any Secret Service official have a response? Additional info is needed to evaluate the credibility of this assertion. DSL
  6. Stu: 1. You should correct the typo in your post, which reads "abt" 2. Please make it read "about" 3. I mistakenly thought you were referring to attorney John Abt (which I realize you weren't). DSL P.S. If you can dig up my late friend's (Robert Chapman) email comments, please send them to me --marked "PRIVATE." Do not post them; just send them to me. Thanks. DSL (Please send to "dlifton@earthlink.net". Thanks.) PPS: Stu: LHO was an agent. Ergo, he had a handler. There was no need to "monitor, anticipate and *influence* LHO's behavior." LHO simply thought he had an assignment, which was both legitimate and covert. Please explain--or spell out (privately, via email) what you seem to believe to be the problem, Thanks. DSL
  7. Dear John Butler: Please correct the spelling of my last name: it is "L I F T O N," (not L I P T O N). Thanks. DSL P.S.: I'll delete this post once my requested correction is made. (Thanks again.)
  8. What follows is based on my original research, has not been previously published, and will be discussed in detail in Final Charade. ** ** ** ** ** * On Monday 11/25/63, Secret Service agents came to Governor Connally’s hospital room at Parkland Hospital and brought with them a 16 mm film projector, and a copy of the (altered) Zapruder film. The film shown Connally no longer had a “car stop”; in short, it was a copy of the same (altered) film that was purchased byLIFE magazine, and later was placed at the National Archives. Now back to 11/22/63, and the days following. The film was projected repeatedly for Connally and his wife. In other words, on this visit (Mon. 11/25) the Connallys were shown a copy of “the Zapruder film” as it then existed (i.e., without any car-stop, which (consequently, reflected a false reality); and it was in this manner that Governor Connally (and his wife) were exposed to an “altered reality” of what they both had experienced on Friday 11/22/63. Now, “flash forward to” —or CUT TO (to use screenwriter’s lingo) —to Wednesday, November 27th, 1963. On that day, a network news reporter —with a cameraman — was admitted to Connally’s hospital room; and it was on that day —to repeat, on Wed. 11/27/63, two days after he had been repeatedly shown this altered film —that Connally’s “official account” was filmed for posterity by NBC’s Martin Agronsky. That filmed interview was broadcast on Wed. evening (11/27/63) and was front page news the next day (Thurs., 11/28/63). Most importantly, a word-for-word transcript of what Gov. Connally said was published in the New York Times on the morning of Thursday, November 28th, 1963. Here’s the front page headline in Thursday morning’s NY Times (11/28/63): Connally’s Account Recalls First Lady’s ‘Jack! Jack!’ The lead (again, on Thursday morning, 11/28) reads, QUOTE ON: DALLAS,Nov. 27 — Gov. John B. Connally Jr. gave the nation tonight the story of the three quick rifle shots that spelled assassination for President Kennedy and nearly killed the Governor. Shot One struck the President. Shot Two coursed through the Texas Governor’s body. Shot three struck the President. The Governor said the President “slumped,” and said nothing. Mrs. Kennedy’s cry, as the Governor remembered, was: “Oh, my God!” They’ve killed my husband! Jack! Jack!” From his hospital bed, over television, Governor Connally gave the first public account by a member of the President’s immediate party of the tragic events last Friday. END QUOTE The above sequence explains how Gov. Connally (and his wife) were deceived and manipulated — i.e., had their recollections “messed with” (or “manipulated”): How? By being shown an altered film (of the reality the had experienced) on Nov. 25th, 1963, just two days before the formal and ”official” network (filmed) interview by Agronsky. In other words, the Connallys were deceived by being placed in the position (in effect) of having having to choose between the event (as they remembered it) and the event as it was now portrayed on a film which (presumably) they assumed to be authentic. (My assumption -- for decades-- has been that the Connally's were probably deeply puzzled by this conflict. I have no reason to believe that the Connallys had any knowledge of [and certainly no expertise in] film editing.) This situation —and a more detailed analysis of this deception — will be discussed in Final Charade. But note: this is why Governor Connally’s Warren Commission testimony (generally speaking) “matches” the Zapruder film, but does not reflect the true reality as it actually occurred on November 22, 1963. I'll have more to say about this situation in Final Charade. DSL (7/19/21_ 8:30 PM PDT)
  9. Today’s NY Times (7/12/21) published a lenghty obit re death of Prof. Athan Theorharis, a Marquette University historian who “chronicled F.B.I. Abuses.” The article is quite lengthy (a full half page) and may be of interest to anyone who has followed controversies of the FBI, and the Freedom of Information Act; and the March 1971 burglary of the FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania— which, in retrospect, turns out to be rather significant, historically. Here are points I found noteworthy: ITEM: Theoharis was interviewed for “The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret F.B.I. (by Betty Medseger); and also the documentary film “1971” (directed by Johanna Hamilton).Presumably, these items are —or will be— available via Amazon. ITEM: Both the book and film dealt with the burglary (3/8/71) of the Media, PA., FBI office, which (according to the NYT) “showed among other things, active unlawful surveillance of black, student and peace groups, and led to the relevation of Hoover’s secret Cointelpro program. . .which spied on civil rights leaders, political organizations,” etc. ITEM: The Times article quotes Theoharis describing Hoover as “an insubordinate bureaucrat in charge of lawless organizaton. . . He was also a genius who could set up a system of illegal activities and a way to keep all documentation ecret for many years.” ITEM: Theoharis has donated “[his] voluminous trove of F.B.I. papers to Marquette.” ITEM: Regarding the “Do Not File” files; The Times notes Prof. Theoharis’ skill at using the FOIA: “Prof. Theoharis. ..deployed the FOIA, which had been strengthened by Congress in 1974, to plumb Hoover and his top aides’ sensitive “Official and confidential” files, along with those designated “Do Not File,” which were kept from the F.B.I.’s central records, presumably safe from being disclosed.” ITEM: The Times article implies that the designation “Do Not File” was effectively used by Theoharis (in filing FOIA requests) and that “he got a lot of information that way.” ITEM: Regarding “the portrait of Hoover as a ‘homosexual cross-dresser’ (as reported by Anthony Summers (in his 1993 book, “Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover,”) the Times obituary takes issue with that. Here’s what the Times obit says: “He (Theoharis) refuted Mr. Summers in 1995 citing a Theoharis book (DSL Note; one that I was unaware of): “J. Edgar Hoover, Sex and Crime: An Historical Antidote.” Specifically addressing Summers, the Times obit then quotes Theoharis as noting that “Hoover’s leadership of the F.B.I. was "a story of a resourceful bureaucrat who successfully circumvented the limitations of the American constitutional system of checks and balances” — and not, as Mr.Summers had it, a ‘morality play’ about a closeted gay man whose secret was used by organized crime bosses to leave them alone.” Personal Note: I will not be surprised if Anthony Summers writes a “Letter to the Editor’" about all of this (which should be interesting). Hopefully, this post to the London Education Forum will be of interest to students of the FOIA, and the F.B.I. Personal Note: I have reviewed this for typos; and other errors. Please feel free to post any comments (and correct any errors). Here is the link to the original FBI story, which has some nice photos of Prof. Theoharis, at his desk: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/10/us/politics/athan-theoharis-dead.html
  10. Paul: I thought you might enjoy reading this New Yorker article (from about 5 years ago) about Yuja Wang. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/05/yuja-wang-and-the-art-of-performance?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Recommends_070321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d7b83f92a40469e727f6&cndid=29293378&hasha=ddac3c366b853843dae281b312795abb&hashb=ef64b28c32b5bee7615fc6487a3be74474cd77b2&hashc=5673f3c50a63a3c57e04dbdc968700886edf0e99f1291fc8e1af7bf802deca98&esrc=no_source_code&utm_term=TNY_Recommends DSL 7/4/21 - 10:30 AM PDT
  11. Sorry if I confused matters, by writing what I had to say inside Mathias Baumann's space. Will try to be more careful in future posts. DSL
  12. I've read that Oliver Stone (and DiEugenio) are involved in a project that will be previewed at Cannes. I hope that someone alerts Stone to this particular audio. Perhaps it can somehow be incorporated into his presentation. It certainly seems to be newsworthy. As a long-time ham radio operator, who was fluent in high-speed Morse code from the time I was 13 (passed the FCC amateur radio code test at 20 wpm), the sound of that V --in this case, a repeated V --is perfectly obvious. Also, I should point out that the same "V" was sent o out in the opening sequence of the Naval series (re WW II in the Pacific, titled "Victory at Sea.") Very well done sound effect; very haunting. Again I hope it can be incorporated in future JFK presentations. It certainly deserves to be. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and is the equivalent of someone "in the audience" clapping "Hurray" after JFK was shot. DSL
  13. Has anyone ever advanced a hypothesis as to what Office Hargis was doing, leaning against the light pole, and looking directly across the street at the area where Zapruder had been standing? (Zapruder, remember, said that the shots came "directly from behind me" [approx., from memory]). So just what was Hargis looking at, and what did he see? Did he ever elaborate? That photo, I believe, captures a moment in time that I believe to have been quite relevant. It raises the question: "What did Hargis know, and when did he know it?" Did anyone ever show him this photograph, and ask him that question? (DSL, 6/8/21)
×
×
  • Create New...