David Von Pein

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Wow David, I'm surprised by your take on the photo. Because right away I can think of boys from three groups of kids in my 9th grade class who would have proudly shown off a broken tooth or any other kind of significant injury. The "jocks," the "xxxx kickers," and the "hoods." LEE Oswald would have fit in with the jocks.

So, you're saying a "jock" would be happy and proud and full of glee about having his picture taken to advertise the fact that he, in essence, LOST A FIGHT to another boy and had a couple of teeth knocked clean out of his head by THE OTHER BOY, eh?

Call me Mr. Strange, but that type of attitude seems mighty odd to this writer---even for a "jock".

But, then, what do I know?

18 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

What is remarkable about Sandy’s presentation in this thread is the absurdity of the arguments against it that have been presented here by the usual anti-H&L, CIA defenders here.

They want us to believe that LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel more than 60 years ago concocted a plot to blacken one of LEE Oswald’s teeth, photograph Oswald showing off the blackened tooth, and that Voebel would years later perjure himself in front of the Warren Commission by saying he thought Oswald lost a tooth.

 

FWIW...

I think a somewhat reasonable interpretation of the above photo of Schoolboy Oswald is....

He's "mugging" for the camera with his head tilted slightly backward, as if he's deliberately trying to show off and display his smiling teeth.

Now, if Lee Oswald REALLY had one or more of his FRONT TEETH missing, what are the chances he would have a desire to "mug" and "ham it up" for a camera that he knows is pointed right at him? Was he PROUD of having some front teeth missing? Most people, given that unfortunate dental circumstance, would be trying their darndest to AVOID any cameras....and they'd be keeping their mouth SHUT most of the time to try and hide (as best they can) their dental predicament.

But, here, Lee Oswald is wanting to SHOW OFF his "deformity" (so to speak).

Therefore, I think at least one reasonable take on that picture (and on Oswald's possible, but not proven, seeming lack of front teeth in the photograph) is that Oswald's teeth have been artificially "blacked out" (licorice anyone?) and 15-year-old Lee was just having a little innocent fun in 9th-grade English class that day.

(If someone else here in this discussion has said essentially the same thing I just said above, my apologies for the redundancy. But I haven't read any of this thread--except for the last post I'm responding to now.)

Regards and Godspeed,

DVP

P.S. ....

BTW, as a side note for the people who continue to incorrectly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was lefthanded....

Please take note of which of Oswald's two hands is holding his pencil.

BTW #2, here's the complete February 21, 1964, LIFE Magazine article featuring the Schoolboy Oswald picture. It's a fascinating portrait and bio on Oswald's life:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SVQEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA1&pg=PA67#v=onepage&q&f=true

David Lifton said:

DVP has repeatedly asserted that his copy [of the CBS interview with Dr. Perry] shows no audio/video disparity, as if that is the final word. He even goes so far as to imply that the problem was, perhaps, Groden's equipment.

It's much more likely that the audio/video on Groden's videotape was out of sync, rather than the problem being due to any of Groden's VHS players (or any other playback devices that were being used to play the tape at any other location).

And it's very likely that Groden's ENTIRE TAPE was out of sync, as opposed to JUST the small excerpt with Dr. Perry. Or, if not the entire tape, it seems likely that at least a larger portion than just the Perry interview segment was/is out of sync.

Here's what I said earlier on the out-of-sync matter (just for the record--again)....

"It's possible that Robert Groden's taped version of the 1967 interview is out of sync for some reason. That's quite possible. But that certainly doesn't have to indicate any "monkeying around" with the original video. Any number of technical things could happen that can result in audio going out of sync with video on VHS tapes, DVDs, digital files, etc. I've had that happen to my video files all the time, and it's annoying as hell. But I don't think it has anything to do with somebody trying to "monkey around" with my files. It's just something that happens in the "A/V" world." -- DVP; 3/2/2018

After looking into this "syncing" issue a little more today, I discovered that there are, indeed, copies of Part 2 of the CBS special ("A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report") that are out of sync on the Internet. This YouTube video provides one example of a poor-quality (only 240p) version of Part 2 of the 4-part program (skip up to 22:40 to see the controversial segment with Dr. Perry), and you can see that the video portion is running just a fraction of a second ahead of the audio. (And, btw, the other three parts in the CBS series that were uploaded by the same person at YouTube are also out of sync in the same manner as Part 2.)

And since David L. asked for the background data and statistics concerning where I obtained my copy of the 1967 CBS program, I will offer up that dry-as-dust and boring information now:

In 2002, I was in the process of obtaining a lot of JFK-related VHS tapes and DVDs, and I started trading some of these materials (by snail mail) with a friend who then lived in Illinois. One of the items that I obtained in a trade with this individual was a VHS cassette containing the 1967 four-part CBS "Warren Report" series.

But, unfortunately, the four parts that I acquired in 2002 on VHS tape were in very poor quality (recorded in EP mode) and were not in color. Well, actually, I think the source material was in color, but due to the fact the tapes had been copied so many times, the quality had deteriorated so much that the color was almost completely lost and washed away due to degradation. So the tapes I got back then were, essentially, in black-and-white.

So I wanted to get some better quality copies for my files and websites. And in 2011, I found some good color copies via another e-mail acquaintance (named Mike, who maintains this YouTube channel). But the copies I obtained from him at that time weren't on VHS tape or DVD. These were digital computer files (in the Windows Media Video [.wmv] file format).

And so I arranged for Mike to send me the files via a file sharing service called ADrive.com. He sent me the download links by e-mail, one at a time, and I then downloaded the files to my computer in February and early March of 2011, where the files still reside today. (Although the computer I have now is not the exact same one that I had in 2011 when I first downloaded the files. My current Dell computer is one that I obtained [via Amazon] on October 30, 2012, which, ironically, was the exact same day that my brother travelled to Dealey Plaza in Dallas and took this video and these still pictures of the Plaza. That's way more info than anyone needed, but I just threw it in as a friendly bonus.) :-)

Here are some of the e-mails I sent to the person (Mike) who ultimately sent me the high-quality copies of the CBS program:

"Would there be any way to do the '67 Warren Report special that way (from your raw wmv files)? I never told you this, but the second batch of DVDs of the Warren Report CBS show that you were kind enough to send me last year would not play or transfer properly, so I have still not been able to get a good color copy of that program for any of my video websites. I was wondering how big your wmv file(s) is on that show? Or do you still have the wmv saved? I have no idea, but maybe U-Drive can support it." -- DVP; February 19, 2011

"Thanks a lot, Mike! It downloaded perfectly. A very good-looking color copy indeed. I am grateful to you for providing it." -- DVP; February 19, 2011

"Hi Mike, Sorry to hear about more trouble with the CBS files. Damn things. It's a curse! I'm not meant to have them, I guess. It MUST be a conspiracy organized by Jim Garrison's ghost! It's obvious! :)" -- DVP; March 1, 2011

"Hi Mike, FYI---I've now successfully downloaded all 4 parts of the CBS program that you provided. Thank you very much for your persistent efforts in making usable copies of these programs available to me (and to others through Duncan's forum, and your site too). I greatly appreciate your efforts. The CBS shows look and sound very good too. Many regards, David V.P." -- DVP; March 7, 2011

THE SYNCING....

Now, since the four parts of the CBS special that my e-mail acquaintance sent me in 2011 are "in sync" with respect to the video matching the audio tracks, one of three things happened (and I've been trying as hard as I can to recall which of these three things occurred, but unfortunately I cannot remember):

1. The files that my e-mail associate sent to me in 2011 were already "in sync" before he ever sent them to me.

2. The files were out-of-sync and my e-mail associate, Mike, fixed the problem with video editor software prior to sending me the "fixed" files.

3. The files were out-of-sync even after I received them from my e-mail associate and then I myself fixed the syncing problem using the video editor on my computer [Windows Movie Maker] in 2011. (And such a glitch is quite simple to fix with even a low-end video editor like Windows Movie Maker [WMM]. I've fixed such audio problems on many of my videos with the WMM software, mainly because having the video and audio out of sync is extremely aggravating and annoying, IMO. So lots of times I will just go to WMM and fix it myself. But I can't remember whether I did that for the 1967 CBS programs or not.)

My best guess:

#2 is the correct answer to this mini-mystery. #1 is also very possible as well; but #3 is the least likely option. And the reason I say that is because if I myself had fixed the syncing glitch, I almost certainly would have also created custom "title cards" at the same time for each of the 4 parts of the CBS special. And my copies of the four-part special [linked below] do not have any text titles on them at all (which would indicate "Part 1", "Part 2", etc.).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


END RESULT....

The video and audio are in sync for my copy of the 1967 CBS interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry. Regardless of WHO it was who fixed the audio glitch, we can see by way of Perry's mouth movements via an "in sync" copy of the segment of the program in question that Dr. Perry IS SAYING WHAT THE AUDIO TRACK INDICATES HE IS SAYING.

In a nutshell --- It is my opinion that the "monkeying" and "altering" that David Lifton alleges with respect to the CBS tape never happened at all, and could have easily been disproven even back in 1989 (at the "audio house" in Philadelphia or Trenton that David Lifton spoke of in an earlier post) if someone would have taken the time to "line up" the video with the out-of-sync audio, which is something (as I stated before) that I myself have done with "glitchy" video files many times in the past ten years. And I'm certainly no "tech wizard" when it comes to computers.

Also....

I'm wondering if this on-demand commercial DVD-R release of the "CBS Inquiry" program (which came out in late 2013) suffers from any syncing issues? I don't own that DVD product. I never felt a need to purchase it, since I already have a high-quality version of all four parts on my computer already, with the original 1967 CBS-TV commercials included as well. In looking through the few reviews for the commercial DVD at Amazon.com, nobody mentions anything about any audio glitches, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. However, in the video excerpts of the program provided on that Amazon page I just linked above, the audio and video are perfectly synchronized.

[END OF TEDIOUS ESSAY]
 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

btw, David Von Pein stipulates to the fact that JFK's jacket wasn't bunched up significantly on Elm St. ...

Here we go again with the clothing. Everything always revolves around that jacket and that shirt. Nothing else seems to matter (if your name is Clifford Varnell, that is).

Talk about being a One Trick Pony. Cliff's got the patent on it.

~yawn~

~stretch~

All 4 Parts....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's also have a look at what Dr. Perry told the ARRB in August of 1998 concerning the tracheotomy he performed on President Kennedy (emphasis is my own):

MR. GUNN -- "Could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?"

DR. PERRY -- "I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon, but my reply to that was that it was big enough. There are only two medical emergencies, airway and bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and [they were?] quite large with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound, I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea."
 

To David Lifton:

Thank you for your (ultra)-detailed reply above.

Some additional thoughts....

Since you are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? (This reminds me of the argument from the people who think the Zapruder Film has also been altered, even though the film alterers decided to LEAVE IN the "back and to the left" footage of JFK's head movement after the fatal shot, which is, of course, the MAIN reason why so many conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy in the first place. Ironic, huh?)

Also....

Since you are convinced that Perry did NOT cut through JFK's throat wound at all, then that must mean that the following portion of Perry's interview is a portion that you think was "altered", right?....

"...cutting through the wound..."

Or do you think that Dr. Perry was in a lying mood (or mode) when he uttered the above sentence, but then he turned off his "lying mode" a couple of seconds later when the word "inviolate" came out of his mouth?

Plus....

As anyone with a working computer can easily see when looking at the video linked below (not the audio clip I created, but the FULL VIDEO version of Dr. Perry's CBS interview, which I've linked to previously in this discussion as well), the audio and video portions of that interview are NOT "out of sync" at all. The syncing is just fine, and we can SEE Dr. Perry's mouth form the words that he is uttering. We can SEE him speaking the words "cutting through the wound" and "rendered" and the key word which begins with the letters "inv...".

Therefore, David L., how can you still maintain that the video/audio has been "altered"? Do you REALLY think that someone in circa 1966-1967 was able to perfectly and seamlessly "alter" Dr. Perry's words AND ON-CAMERA MOUTH MOVEMENTS so as to fool all Americans who were watching that CBS News special that night in June of '67?

Come on, David, you can't seriously believe that tape was altered....can you? (Especially since, as I mentioned before, the END RESULT of such "alteration" would be a statement being made by Dr. Perry that could only make him look like a fool and an idiot.)

An additional note (just “for the record”)....

Prior to getting involved in this discussion this week, I had watched and listened to that 1967 CBS interview with Dr. Perry at least a dozen times in my lifetime (probably more), and when it gets to the part where Perry says that "inv..." word we're now discussing, I have never once thought that Perry was saying the word "inviolate" there. Not once. I always have interpreted that utterance as being the word "invalid". Every time.

Now, perhaps Mr. Lifton will fire back at me with something like: Well, DVP, since the word "invalid" is a word that makes the most sense in that sentence, then you probably have trained your ears to hear what you think makes the most sense. But Perry really said "inviolate" there.

Okay. That might be a fair argument for someone like David Lifton to make. But I have a hard time believing that you, DSL, are so stubborn in your beliefs that you would refuse to admit that there's even a possibility that the "inv..." word being spoken by Dr. Perry in the CBS interview could be the word "invalid" instead of "inviolate". You don't think the word could possibly be "invalid"? There's no chance of that at all in your mind? Really? Listen again. Here's the video (again):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOYUc1cXFjQ2JGcGc/view

Another related PDF from the Weisberg collection....

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/R Disk/Ruby Jack/Item 190.pdf

Here's one of the transcripts of the Perry/Barker CBS interview. This one says "inviolate" (page 9)....

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/Weisberg-Subject-Adds 1-23-09/CBS News Inquiry/CBS News 04 Part 2.pdf

Am I the only one here with my mouth agape in utter disbelief after reading David Lifton's nonsense about the Malcolm Perry 1967 CBS interview?

It's just unbelievable how Mr. Lifton seems to want to totally ignore the context of Dr. Perry's complete statement in the '67 interview.

Let me see if I can get a few direct answers from Mr. Lifton:

Even if the word spoken by Dr. Perry in the 1967 CBS interview is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all? If Perry actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any kind of sense at all, David L.?

Or are you implying that other portions of the CBS interview have been altered and "monkeyed" with too? Are you suggesting that the version of the '67 interview that you saw and heard at Robert Groden's house in 1989 did NOT contain these words being spoken by Malcolm Perry just before the sentence that included the disputed word ("invalid/inviolate")?....

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound..."

Because it the above words WERE spoken by Dr. Perry in the Bob Groden VHS tape that you saw, then you must admit that the word "inviolate" being used in Perry's following sentence MAKES NO SENSE at all, but the word "invalid" does make sense, correct?

Also....

Since this discussion has illustrated the possibility of people having different opinions about the word being spoken by Dr. Perry ("inviolate" vs. "invalid") -- and, as I said earlier, even I myself think a good case can be made for either of those words being the correct word spoken by Perry -- I don't find it highly unlikely or unusual (or "sinister") that there are two different transcripts that say two different things.

But, as I also said earlier, since "invalid" is the only one of the two words in question that makes any sense whatsoever when the CONTEXT of Perry's whole statement is evaluated, then this whole discussion can safely be placed into its proper "moot and irrelevant" category forever.
 

David Lifton said:

A side note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you and much of your views will end up in the dustbin of history. You're obviously a good collector, but your behavior on the Internet has been that of a propagandist, spewing disinformation and misinformation to new generations interested in the JFK case; and, in general, the world at large. You once said that your interest in the JFK case started when you read my book. What a shame that you're going to end up with a tawdry legacy, one marked by so many episodes of such intellectual dishonesty.

Only two words are needed as a reply to Mr. Lifton's dramatic and patently absurd soliloquy above. Those two words:

Pot and Kettle.
 

11 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

A very good post, David.  This is where the Hardly crowd gets themselves in trouble, taking 3rd and 4th generation hearsay testimony, mistakes, a scribble on 50 year old papers and blow it into a full-blown ridiculous theory.

And please note how David Lifton has completely ignored these comments repeated below (the first one made by me, and the second uttered by Dr. McClelland, who must be very high on Mr. Lifton's "Liars For The Rest Of Their Lives" list....

"And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does." -- David R. Von Pein; February 28, 2018

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert N. McClelland; 2009

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Well, this is certainly interesting.

It appears that:

1. The 1967 CBS interview audio has two versions, one with Dr. Perry saying he "left the wound inviolate" and the other with him saying he "rendered it invalid."  (Inviolate" and "invalid" sound the same, but can be differentiated via he context in which the word is used.

There aren't two different "versions" of the CBS video/audio at all. David Lifton just misquoted what Dr. Perry said in the ONE and only version. Lifton is just wrong when he put these words in quotes --- "I left the wound inviolate". We know Perry never said those exact words because of this video I posted previously. In that video, Perry's lips match the audio perfectly. How can anyone doubt that fact---even David S. Lifton?

And the words "I left" in Lifton's version of Perry's quote are very important too. And those are words--"I left"--that Dr. Perry never uttered in that CBS statement at all. Lifton simply misquoted Perry.

The question that remains is --- Did David Lifton deliberately misquote Perry when it comes to the 1967 CBS interview? Or was DSL merely attempting to recall the exact quote from memory and incorrectly (but innocently) put the words "I left" in Dr. Perry's mouth by mistake?

DAVID LIFTON SAID:

We (Pat V. and I) were both astounded to hear Perry say, “I left the wound inviolate.”

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's not what Dr. Perry said in his 1967 CBS interview at all. Why are you twisting the quote? Perry never told Eddie Barker that he left the wound INTACT and UNDISTURBED (i.e., "inviolate")! He told him exactly the opposite! As I quoted previously, Perry said this:

"I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid (inviolate?) for as regards further examination and inspection."

https://app.box.com/embed/preview/Dr. Perry 1967 Audio Clip

And even if the word spoken by Perry there is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you (or anyone else) possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all?

If he actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any logical sense to you, Mr. Lifton?

DAVID LIFTON SAID:

When I was in Groden’s home, and watching multiple replays of that part of the CBS tape, it was clear to me that someone had attempted to monkey with the tape, because the audio was indistinct, and the lip movements of Perry were definitely out of sync with what he was supposedly saying: that he “left the wound invalid.”

It wasn’t too long before I put “two plus two” together, and realized that someone had attempted to deceive the author (Steve White) into believing that Perry had said “I rendered the wound invalid” when in fact he had said “I left the wound inviolate.”

The alteration of the transcript plus the blatant and easily observable attempt to fiddle with the audio made clear that this was all quite deliberate, and someone had tried to deceive the author and to hide from the pubic the truth about what Perry had said.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I just looked once again at this video version of Perry's '67 interview, and it's very clear that the audio and the video are perfectly "in sync" with one another. There is nothing unusual or sinister about it whatsoever. And, no, I didn't "monkey" around with that video file prior to posting it so that the audio and video portions would match perfectly, which they do. Dr. Perry's mouth movements are in perfect sync with the audio that we are hearing. And why David Lifton thinks otherwise is the true mystery.

Of course, it's possible that Robert Groden's taped version of the 1967 interview is out of sync for some reason. That's quite possible. But that certainly doesn't have to indicate any "monkeying around" with the original video. Any number of technical things could happen that can result in audio going out of sync with video on VHS tapes, DVDs, digital files, etc. I've had that happen to my video files all the time, and it's annoying as hell. But I don't think it has anything to do with somebody trying to "monkey around" with my files. It's just something that happens in the "A/V" world.

Bottom Line (as usual) --- A conspiracy theorist is making a huge mountain out of something that doesn't even rise to the level of an anthill.

DVP

3/2/2018 -- 2:19 P.M. EST

Hendricks County, Indiana

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html

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?

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.

2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

What? Perry is saying "inviolate" with a southern drawl. Not "invalid".

Despite the fact that "inviolate" makes NO SENSE at all given the context of Perry's statement to CBS' Eddie Barker, it doesn't really matter anyway (as I said before)....because Perry told Eddie Barker just SECONDS earlier that he "cut through the wound". So David Lifton's "no incision at all" theory is moribund (at best).

Or maybe Mr. Lifton can now dredge up a theory that has Dr. Perry lying through his teeth when he told Eddie Barker and the CBS audience that he cut through the wound, but then (just seconds later) Perry decided to tell the truth when he uttered the alleged "inviolate" word. But even that crazy theory makes no sense because the word "inviolate" MAKES NO SENSE in the sentence in question that was spoken by Dr. Malcolm O. Perry.

David Lifton said:

My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision.  He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade).

I guess Mr. Lifton thinks there's a whole lot of lying going on in these interviews linked below....

2009 INTERVIEW WITH DR. ROBERT McCLELLAND:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOODhkYTRkOFdNUlU/view

Skip to about the 10:00 mark in the McClelland interview above to hear him talk in some detail about the "incision" that was made through the bullet wound in JFK's throat; and then go to 41:25, where McClelland says the large tracheotomy wound in the autopsy photos is exactly the same size as the trach wound he saw at Parkland on 11/22/63). [Also see this related article.]

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009

1963 & 1967 INTERVIEWS WITH DR. MALCOLM PERRY:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOYUc1cXFjQ2JGcGc/view

In the 1967 interview above, Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound". And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was: "I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound, which, of course, rendered it invalid [inviolate?] for as regards further examination and inspection."

AUDIO CLIP

Now, if the word spoken by Dr. Perry there was really "inviolate", how does that sentence he just spoke make any sense at all? Inviolate means "Not Violated" and "Intact". So if Perry had REALLY said the wound was "inviolate", it would have meant the wound was still "intact", and therefore it COULD have still been available for "further examination and inspection". But Perry implied exactly the opposite in his '67 interview. He was implying the wound was no longer available for additional examination. (Is there any doubt in anyone's mind—even David Lifton's—that that is what he was implying there? How could anyone doubt that fact after listening to the full interview?) Therefore, how could he have meant the wound was "inviolate"?

"A team of two forensic pathologists and two forensic odontologists under the direction of Dr. Linda Norton examined Oswald's skeletal remains at the Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. Norton told reporters after the nearly five-hour examination on October 4 [1981], "We, both individually, and as a team, have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hills Cemetery is Lee Harvey Oswald."

Among other things, the pathologists compared and matched the teeth of the remains with Oswald's Marine Corps dental records of October 25, 1956, and March 27, 1958, and also found, in the skull, the scar made by surgeons in 1945 when Oswald, age six at the time, had a mastoid operation.

At the time of the exhumation, Dr . Norton, a former medical examiner of Dallas County, was the associate chief medical examiner in Birmingham, Alabama. The rest of her team consisted of Dr. Irving Sopher, chief medical examiner for the state of West Virginia ; Dr. James Cottone, head of the Forensic Odontology Department at the University of Texas at San Antonio; and Dr. Vincent DiMaio, chief medical examiner in San Antonio." -- Page 1042 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"

50 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

EARTH TO DVP....

The FBI faked evidence in this case.  Can you say COVER-UP?  Of course not.

Oswald Did NOT Purchase a Pistol from Seaport Traders

The above = Absolute nonsense (of course).

Oswald Positively DID Purchase A Pistol From Seaport Traders

From 2013....

"The key physical evidence are the bullet shells, two of which did not go through J.M. Poe's hands at all and, as such, they have a clear chain of custody (even for most conspiracy [theorists]).

The only possible way for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following idiotic situation occurred (which nobody could possibly even begin to believe happened on November 22, 1963):

Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier." -- DVP; June 2013

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html

Earth to Conspiracy Theorists......

Lee Harvey Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM when he was arrested just 35 minutes after the murder!

Maybe it'll help if I increase the font for emphasis....

Lee Harvey Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM when he was arrested just 35 minutes after the murder!

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

20 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

All the rifle documents, and the pistol documents as well, placed in evidence and now at the National Archives are all black and white COPIES.  What happened to all those ORIGINALS that the FBI confiscated? 

Would that really make a bit of difference to you or other Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists like you? Don't make me laugh! You guys wouldn't believe anything relating to Oswald's ownership of the rifle---even if Charlie Givens had taken an up-close picture of Oswald holding the rifle while standing in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 PM on Nov. 22. You'd find some way to disregard that photo, just like you disregard all of the "LHO Did It" evidence in this case.

After all, an "original" document can be a fake and a forgery too, can't it? For example, many CTers think that Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 (Oswald's money order; aka CE788) is a fake document. The rabid CTers of the world don't think Oswald touched that money order at all. And yet it is an "original" document, not just a "copy". (See the testimony of Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott.)

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald never ordered a pistol either. .... I may be wrong, again.

You can say that, again.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

Incredibly, if you're an Internet conspiracy theorist, the fact that Lee Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63 is very likely of far less importance to you than being able to answer the following question --- When and where did Oswald first pick up the revolver after he purchased it by mail order in early 1963?

Properly being able to prioritize doesn't seem to be a strong suit for a great number of CTers.

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald Didn't Order A Rifle.  That's why no one in the Post Office said he picked it up over the counter with the notice in his post office box, Because the Rifle Wouldn't Fit In The Box.  It didn't happen.  It's been argued to death previously here and elsewhere.  The Warren Omission story of it has fallen apart.  David is putting further nails in the coffin of this unproven lone nut Theory. 

And you do realize, do you not, the large number of things that would need to be FAKE---and the number of LIARS that would have been required---in order for these words to be true --- Oswald Didn't Order A Rifle?

But because the postal workers didn't specifically remember the WHOLLY MUNDANE AND ORDINARY act of handing a box to a post office box owner (an event that occurred EIGHT MONTHS prior to the postal workers being asked about it), you think that proves "Oswald Didn't Order A Rifle"???

Incredible!

I would have been shocked if anyone had specifically remembered Oswald picking up the rifle package when the clerks were asked about it EIGHT MONTHS later. Why on Earth would any postal worker recall such a routine event amid the thousands of other packages that those postal workers had handed out over the counter in the course of their daily duties? Do you think YOU could remember such a routine event eight months later?

      

"Despite over forty years of allegations by Mark Lane and other conspiracy theorists, if there is one thing even a child should walk away from this case knowing for sure, it's that only one rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository and that rifle, a Mannlicher-Carcano, serial number C2766, was bought and paid for by Lee Harvey Oswald." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 794 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)