Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Lifton

  1. DSL COMMENT: Two points: Willis Slide 5 --showing the JFK limo on Elm Street, and at a location that corresponds to Zapruder frame 202--specifically shows Glen Bennet looking off to the right 9towards the sidewalk, and a bot above); so that significantly diminishes the probability that he actually observed, what his SS report claims. But much more important is this: that if a Secret Service coverup took place (i.e, was ordered) in this case (and I believe that to be the case), GB'S report can simply not be replied upon; i.e., as valid and truthful evidence. In other words: Glen Bennett's
  2. Your statement (Lawrence): "I just don’t see any realistic opportunity to steal the body while it was on AF1." DSL RESPONSE: Your analysis is incorrect The body was not "stolen" while it was "on" --as in "on board," AF-1. The President's body was offloaded onto a fork lift truck, then shifted to the forward luggage area of Air Force One. All of this was covered in detailed posts years ago. You ought to familiarize yourself with the existing record. DSL P.S.: Re your statement: "Rather than a pre-autopsy. . I think (that) the more plausible answer is. " etc. Again. . .No, n
  3. Paul Jolliffe: Re: "David, I agree that the largest papers in New York and Washington were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but I'm not at all convinced that the Dallas Police were certain of that on Friday." You refer to "the largest papers in New York and Washington" who 'were pushing the 'lone nut' line way too early'" Agreed, but the situation is even worse than that. FYI: I went down this path many years ago --decades ago--and obtained the key "real time" wire service records, both for AP and UPI. In one case, I actually went up to UPI Headquarters, in New york
  4. No, I am convinced a crucial part of the plot was not merely to frame "Oswald" but to kill him immediately. A dead "Oswald" with all of his (supposed) work as a pro-Castro agent would have led immediately to an invasion of Cuba. The other unidentified shooters could (in the heat of the moment) been named as Castro agents. DSL response: I agree. it was intended from the outset that Oswald would be shot, within 1-2 min of the shooting, and supposedly while trying to "escape." etc. In other words --and I used to say this a lot, when I first had these insights, (many) years ago: the plot t
  5. My first (and only) telephone interview with Jenkins occurred in late September 1979 (I am doing this from memory). The main point I would like to make (about Jenkins) is that he didn't remember very much --if anything--that was relevant. I didn't think of this as being sinister. Jenkins just didn't remember. When I had arranged for funding for filmed interviews, I put Jenkins on the list. I flew to Canyon Lake[s], Texas, and that's where I interviewed Jenkins, on camera, around midnight, at his lakeside residence. Just about everything I asked was met with the response that he
  6. That is correct. When I first interviewed Jenkins by phone (fall, 1980), he had no recollection of any such details, just as you have stated. Then, I interviewed him on camera; the result was the same. Keep in mind the chronology: I interviewed Paul O'Connor, on film, in late August 1980. In late Sept (or early October) I interviewed James Jenkins --who was distantly related to Paul O'Connor. James Jenkins had nothing specific to offer, except a feeling that things 'weren't right' that night. I remember asking him why, if he felt that way, he didn't communicate with someone at the Depar
  7. Here's the problem (as I see it) and this is the problem with attempting to properly evaluate McHugh's statement (as quoted by Manchester): When McHugh stated that the casket was "cheap and thin" and "its really shabby" --was he referring to a shipping casket? Yes, that is certainly a possibility, but what McHugh says next would seem to make clear that --in fact--he was referring to the fancy ceremonial casket. Specifically, McHugh said: "One handle is off, and the ornaments are in bad shape." Those statements make clear he was referring to the casket that was loaded aboard Air Force One at
  8. RE: (Quoting )"... 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 he had made. 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
  9. RESPONSE by David Lifton (4/12/21): 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 reported 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. m
  10. 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?
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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...