David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Andrej Stancak]

15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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?

David:

it is not relevant whether I am a conspiracy theorist or not (as a matter of fact I am). My post pointed to the early statements by Dr. Perry about making a treacheotomy below the neck wound  (to Mr. Breslin) and leaving the neck wound "inviolate" (to Dr. Stewart). I have pointed out to a logical and factual impossibility to make a tracheotomy at a place where an opening already was which questions Dr. Perry's statement about making a tracheotomy.  

Thus, the conflicting statements, the early statements and the ones for the WC and CBS, suggest that Dr. Perry had to change his view if he claimed that he made a cut through the neck wound which claims differ from the statements he made shortly after the fact. As far as the CBS interview is concerned, such programs are prepared to the minute details with scenarios and scripts available before actual recordings. Actually, Dr. Perry's talk sounds to me like a rehearsed narrative. The more I was surprised by hearing much of hesitation in his speech and the swallowed word "render" in the audio clip you kindly posted. 

 

[Michael Walton]

6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

If your favorite movies are ones you got to see opening in theaters in your lifetime, then you aren't a very good movie-watcher

You're  totally  and completely missing the point of my post, Mic, but that's  OK.

So tell me - do  you  believe in the thrumming  helicopter theory?

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A little bit of background is in order, Michael

Ah, who knew? Didn't  know the genesis of EF was a marketing  tool.

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The only statement of fact I can make about the JFK assassination is:  He was shot in the back from behind, in the throat from the front, in a military style ambush.

Nice. My thoughts  exactly.

[David Lifton]

Andrej (and others who are following the details that I have posted, on this thread, about this rather complex situation)

 

A few observations because I don’t have time to write the a perfectly organized post, which would deal with every conceivable criticism, which I attempted previously.

NUMBER 1: One should not forget the psychological dynamic that, quite likely, propelled Dr. Perry to make the statement(s) that he did.  That dynamic begins with one or more calls received at Parkland, from Bethesda (and its not clear from exactly who, but I suspect Secret Service) late on the night of 11/22/63 complaining that there was confusion at the autopsy and blaming that confusion on what the Dallas doctors had done to the throat wound. Perry did not have an autopsy photograph (of the kind that I published)—i.e., the stare-of-death photo.  So he didn’t have a “visual understanding” of the problem. What he was receiving was a verbal description of a most embarrassing “problem,” and he was being blamed. (The foregoing is the general impression I have gotten from my conversations with Dr. Stewart). All Perry knew was that he was being blamed for, in effect, having messed up the wound, because of the tracheotomy he had had performed. That was the bottom line. Perry’s reaction was to say (in effect) “I did nothing of the kind. I didn’t touch the wound or alter it in any way!” Most specifically, Perry told Jimmy Breslin (the next day, 11/23)  that he performed the tracheotomy “below” the bullet wound.  By implication, he was saying: “I didn’t touch that wound. I left it alone.” That was the situation, as described by Perry (to Breslin) on Saturday, 11/23/63, and it was published in Breslin’s account on Sunday, 11/24/63 (in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch)—and then reprinted verbatim in the Saturday Evening Post of December 14, 1963.

 

NUMBER 2:  WHAT DR. DAVE STEWART SAID HAPPENED ON 11/22/63, and in the days following

Dr. Dave Stewart, who spoke with Perry (and the other doctors) that weekend claims that Perry made the point to him that he “left the wound inviolate.”  He didn’t say he “rendered it invalid.” He said that he “left it inviolate.”  I know this because that’s what Stewart told me when we spoke, at length, by phone in 1982; and then again, when he discussed the situation in detail with me, on camera, in 1989.  Again: he never spoke to me about “rendering [anything] invalid.” He spoke about having “left it inviolate.”

 

NUMBER 3: What Dr. Stewart Told the Nashville [Tenn.] Banner in November 1967

In a front-page article, Dr. Stewart recalled that Perry did not have to make an incision, because he was able to gain access to the trachea by going in through the pre-existing bullet wound. (Currently, I am making efforts to retrieve that story).

 

NUMBER 4: What Stewart told me in June 1989

When I interviewed Dr. Stewart, on camera, in June 1989, the matter was brought up again; and—at that time—Stewart said that if I would just watch the June 1967 CBS broadcast, in which Perry was interviewed (by Eddie Barker), I would be able to see this for myself. Stewart said that it was plain as day that Perry said “inviolate.”  Go find a tape of that broadcast and listen to it, said Stewart. You can hear it for yourself. Its right there on the broadcast. (This filmed interview  with Stewart was conducted on June ___, 1989).  And two days later, Pat V and I visited with Groden, at his home in Media, Pennsylvania (not Hopelawn, New Jersey, as previously stated) prepared to conduct a filmed interview with Groden, and having no idea that he (and a Baltimore news reporter) had shown the autopsy photos to Dr. Perry, at his New York City office, in 1977.  But that turned out to be quite important.

Groden told us of the incident, and told us what happened (when he showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph).  Groden said that Perry looked at the picture, shook his head slowly from side to side, and said (sadly) words to the effect that that was not the way he left the wound. “I left the wound inviolate,” said Perry. 

We were both astounded, because “inviolate” was the word that Dr. Stewart had used, just two days before.  Groden happened to have that CBS tape, and played it for us, and that’s when the word came up again: we (Pat V. and I) were both astounded to hear Perry say, “I left the wound inviolate.”  The fact that Perry said “inviolate”—and did not use the word “invalid” and did not say “rendered it invalid”—was confirmed just a few years ago, when this issue was discussed –in detail--on the private Paul Hoch email chain. Gary Mack, as Curator of the Sixth Floor Museum, retrieved a high quality copy of the Eddie Barker interview and listened to it, and confirmed, to the group, that Dr. Perry had indeed said that he had left the wound “inviolate.”  A day or so later, JFK Researcher Todd Vaughan, who has had a highly analytical approach to the evidence, and who (himself) had a very high quality tape of the Perry interview, came on line, and told the group that he, too, had listened to his tape, and that Perry definitely said “inviolate.”

All very well, but then why was it that I had a firm recollection that what I recalled was the CBS transcript of the CBS show stated that Perry said “I rendered it invalid”?

NUMBER 5: The transcript discrepancy

When I returned to Los Angeles, in the aftermath of the Groden interview, I set out to resolve the problem of why it was that I believed that the transcript of the interview stated that Perry said he had “rendered it invalid” whereas Todd Vaughan’s transcript, an official CBS transcript from the Gerald Ford library, clearly stated that Perry said that he left the wound inviolate.

I soon found the answer to that problem, and it revolved around the transcript of the CBS show that was published in the back of a 1968 book by Steve White (of CBS) titled: “Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?”

Years before, I had photocopied that transcript and it was in my files as “the transcript” of the CBS show.

But now, when I compared my transcript (from the White book) with the one I had received from CBS in New York City years before, it was clear that they were identical in every respect except for one sentence (!).   In Part 2 of the four-part CBS show, the transcript in White’s book had Perry saying that “I rendered the wound invalid.” Whereas the transcript that I had from CBS in New York (and which Todd Vaughan had obtained from the Gerald Ford Library) said “I left the wound inviolate" (from recollection).

NUMBER 6:  Was the tape altered (or was there a clumsy attempt to do that?)

When I was in Groden’s home, and watching multiple replays of that art 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.

This was solid evidence, and it wasn’t just in “audio” form. The two transcripts, differing only in that one sentence, was the proof.

NUMBER 7A:  Was the throat wound altered, after the body left Parkland Hospital, and prior to autopsy?

The short answer is "yes, absolutely." There are two ways to approach this problem--first, to compare the length of the tracheotomy incision that Dr. Perry made (in Dallas) with the length of the wide gash that is reported in the Bethesda autopsy. This is the subject of Chapter 11, of Best Evidence, titled: The Tracheotomy Incision, Dallas vs Bethesda.  I called Perry on 10/27/66, had a detailed conversation with him on this subject, and he told me that the incision he made was "2-3 cm."  Commander Humes, the Chief autopsy surgeron at Bethesda, testified that the horizontal "wound" that he found was "7- 8 cm."  More to the point, when I interviewed the Dallas doctors (after I spoke with Perry, back in the fall of 1966), I asked about the wound edges. They all said "smooth", or "smooth, of course, Perry used a knife". (They obviously did not all see the wound, becuase anyone who entered the room after Carrico first intubated Kennedy with an endotracheal tube, would probably not have very much of a view of Perry's tracheotomy); but, nevertheless, I am only reporting what I was told. But here's the main point: at Bethesda, the autopsy report states that the horizontal "wound" had "widely gaping irregular edges."  As I said, this is the "traditional" way of ascertaining whether there was a "change" between Parkland and Bethesda, but there are two more points, and perhaps three more points, worth making. And these points make it crystal clear that of course the body was altered --post Parkland, but "pre-Bethesda."  Read on. . .

7B: Commander Humes testified that, when he received the body, there was no longer any evidence of the original trach. It was simply gone. This point is made in Chapter 11 of B.E.; and is supplemented by another pieces of testimony--from Col. Pierre Finck, the forensic pathologist from AFIP (Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who was the third autopsy surgeon), at the 1969 Shaw trial. Finck testifed. Finck testified that he could not detect any evidence of a trach having been performed--there was no trace evidence of its prior existence--and that he carefully examined the horizontal "wound" (which more or less looks like a gash). He was most specific on this point, stating his puzzlement at this situation: "I do not know what it was not there." (From recollection; see Chapter 11 for details).  But there is still more. . .

7C: The account of Paul O'Connor (about the condition of the throat)

The late Paul O'Connor is well known for his account that JFK's body arrived in a body bag, that was inside a shipping casket.  (See Chapter 26 of B.E., and the Best Evidence Research Video, posted on the Internet). But when I first interviewed him in August 1979 (and in later interviews, too) I made sure to get his account of what the throat wound looked like. O'Connor said that both the esophagus and the trachea were damaged, and exposed, and words to the effect that one of them was actually hanging out of the large hole in the front of the throat.  Clearly such damage was not caused by Dr. Perry's tracheotomy, regardless of exactly what orifice he used to get to the trachea--i.e., whether he actually made an incision, or just entered through the small pre-existing bullet hole.  However he obtained access to the trachea, that would not have left behind a trail of damage (better described as "anatomical carnage")  that included a ripped and torn esophagus. That's just ridiculous.

7D: The sewing up of the damaged throat area

Chapter 23 of Best Evidence is devoted to the evidence that, when Dr. Ebersole saw the body, what he later learned was the "Parkland tracheotomy" had been sutured shut. See Chapter 23 for details; but I did not know, when I wrote B.E., just when Ebersole made his observation, or when and where the suturing had been done.

But now I do. Here's what is new, and establishes a major coverup by Humes and "the Admirals" who were present, and from whom he was taking orders. Now I know. It was done in the Bethesda morgue, and just prior to the arrival of the two FBI agents. Thus, Humes and those "Admirals" were responsible for the suturing, and --furthermore--misleading the FBI into believing that it had been done in Dallas, where a tracheotomy had been performed. That is felony obstruction of justice, plain and simple. The body arrived in a messed up condition, it was ordered that that area be "sutured" shut; that was done, and the FBI agents were mislead with a story that the sutures were the site of a tracheotomy, which had bee performed in Dallas.  Readers who have followed my work will understand why I have now changed my position about Dr. Humes. He was not a "before-the-fact" plotter; but neither was he "squeaky clean."

I do not know how much (if at all) Dr. Perry learned about this mess, but one can understand that Perry he became aware of the way the body looked at Bethesda, he would certainly want to distance himself from the situation.

NUMBER 8:  SUMMARIZING THE MAJOR POINTS:

Starting on the night of November 22, 1963, someone in authority at Bethesda called Parkland, and (apparently) spoke to Perry, and told Perry that he (apparently) was to blame for certain confusion at Bethesda, because of the tracheotomy he had performed (!).

Perry’s response, in effect, was to say, “I had nothing to do with it!  I never altered that wound!”  And, perhaps, he might have said: “I left the wound inviolate.”

From that point on, Perry was very defensive on the subject of just where he had cut, and what what he had cut, in performing the tracheotomy.

So the next day he made a point of telling Breslin that he had performed the tracheotomy “below” the pre-existing bullet wound. Topologically speaking, that meant there were two separate holes at the front of the neck. The (original) bullet wound, and, in addition,  any cutting that he had done.  That was Perry’s way—on 11/23/63,when he spoke with Breslin—of disassociating himself from any responsibility for any other cutting that had been done.

NUMBER 9: The response of some people on this thread

Today, reviewing some of the posts on this thread, I see that some folks have taken the time to listen to the tape, and report (in good faith)  they hear “I rendered it invalid”.

Yes, that’s probably an “audio interpretation” that one can make; but so what? As I have laid out in this post, the record amply supports the fact that it was Perry’s position, from 11/22/63 and onward, that he had not disturbed the original wound, and, on numerous occasions, stated that he “left the wound inviolate.”

DSL NOTE, 3/5/2018 -1 AM PST: On the other hand, Perry testified on 3/30/64, under oath, to Chief Justice Warren, that he made an incision right through the wound (!). This sworn testimony alone (in Vol 3 of the 26 Volumes) should make clear that Perry made contradictory statements on the subject.  Here is the direct quote from the printed version of Perry's testimony, as it appears in Volume 3, page 369:

      “I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.”    END OF DSL NOTE

Further, that there was an attempt to alter the audio on that tape. A clumsy attempt, which resulted in a tape (at that point) where Perry's lip movements are clearly out of sync with the audio track.

My personal belief: I believe that it is incorrect procedure—in view of the work and analysis that I have laid out here, in this post—to listen to a tape that (apparently) has been subject to alteration. and which was backed up by a falsified transcript (yes, let me repeat that very important point: that was backed up by a falsified transcript, which said that Perry said that he “rendered it invalid”); and conclude that this is all an innocent error, and assert that Perry obviously meant to say “rendered it invalid”; even though the record (I have quoted) is clear that , on numerous occasions, that is simply not true. On several occasions, as enumerated above, Perry stated that he “left the wound inviolate.”

Hope this clarifies.

Feedback welcome.

DSL

3/2/2018 – 5:55 a.m. PST; edited at 7:10 a.m.

Orange County, California

Edited March 5, 2018 by David Lifton

[Larry Hancock]

Totally agree Cliff, we are solidly together on the basics, two hits to JFK from the front and back and obviously a conspiracy...and from then on we slogging through a swamp. In doing Surprise Attack one of my goals was to try to parse out some of the things that are consistent in national crisis response in order to compare to what was going on in the first 48 hours after the actual shooting. It was educational and actually a lot more concerning than I thought it would be...but that's another story.

As Jim Marrs used to say, there was a conspiracy, that obvious....deal with it...now what's next...

[David Andrews]

One wonders about the state of the neck wound in the "Stare of Death" photo.  How does a trach incision over a small, neat bullet hole turn into a ragged, cutthroat's wound with evulsed edges?  The wound looks painted in, or if real, deliberately obliterative of the bullet hole, to the point of overkill.

Edited March 2, 2018 by David Andrews

[David Lifton]

To David Andrews:

Couldn't agree more. 

But make sure to read the edited version of the extensive post that I just finished, and posted above (just preceding Larry Hancock's post).

DSL

Friday, 3/2/2018 - 7:12 a.m. PST

[Andrej Stancak]

David (L):

thanks for your very systematic account which sheds new light on the throat wound. This is an important addition to the data on President's head wounds (BE).

As for the audio clip with "rendrd ..... uh...   inv..", it could have been tampered with. There could have been two versions of the tape, one with "...inviolate" and one with  "... invalid". It is just difficult to prove and this is why if I would press on this point I would be accused of being a paranoid conspiracy theorist seeing alterations and falsifications everywhere.  

I look forward to reading about the neck wound and other new work in your upcoming book.

P.S. I asked my son who is a medical doctor (orthopedist) about whether he would perform an emergency tracheostomy with an existing throat wound located advantageously in the midline. He recommended asking a trauma surgeon which is something I recommended in my earlier post. After pressing more, he admitted he actually would use an existing wound in case of an emergency. 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Andrej Stancak

[David Lifton]

Andrej,

Thanks for your comments and observations.

(And I want to also thank David Josephs, for his commentary about “cutting”; Micah Mileto, for getting me started on this  thread, and deciding to share some of my research, and to seek feedback; and  Sandy Larsen, especially for his comment that the actual WC transcript may have been altered. . . which means that I’m going to have to ask NARA to make me a copy of the steno tape, and get that “read” properly, just to either confirm that the printed transcript is accurate, or to find out what edits where made, if any).

Meanwhile, and addressing the point you asked your son. .

Here’s the problem with Perry, whom I spoke to only once, in 1966, but who I was told --last July--that he read my book and respected my work (really? who knows)... :

In the beginning, and for many years, I thought he was squeaky clean, the perfect Boy Scout.

Now, I’m not so sure, he may be involved in a cover-up, and here’s why.

Once Perry found out --somehow-- that the body had been messed with before it arrived at Bethesda, he (no doubt) wanted to distance himself from any indication that he might have been involved; so he said, in effect, “No, I didn’t touch that wound. I left it just as I found it,” etc.

So. . .: the next day, when speaking with Breslin, he made it an important point to say that he made his incision “below” the bullet wound. Then came his statement(s): that he left the wound “inviolate.”

So. . let me pose this question: was it “inviolate” because he made a trach incision “below” the bullet hole?  Or “inviolate” because he never had to make an incision at all  ?                          ?

Frankly, I don’t know.

Perry’s changed accounts, and the manner in which he was badgered and scolded (by Allen Dulles [!]) for having said the throat wound was an entry—and practically forced to retract (to “walk that back”, in the current vernacular), make me wonder just where the truth  lies. In seeking to distance himself from the situation, did he make up a story to Breslin?  i.e., that he performed the trach “below” the bullet hole?  Or was he telling the truth when he said he left it inviolate, because he never had to make an incision, at all, and actually entered through the pre-existing bullet hole?

 DSL

3/2/2018 - 7:50 a.m. PST

Edited March 2, 2018 by David Lifton

[Michael Walton]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

7B: Commander Humes testified that, when he received the body, there was no longer any evidence of the original trach. It was simply gone.

So let me get this straight.  When it suits your thrumming helicopter theory, you're willing to use Humes - of all people - as your source?  Humes, who was a deeply compromised witness?  Pat Spear did an excellent video on Humes and I recently pointed out elsewhere on here that his word was not to be trusted.  Yet, here you're using him as your main source?

16 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Perry’s changed accounts, and the manner in which he was badgered to and scolded

So what are we supposed to make of Perry's original 3/64 testimony under oath...that his entire statement was fake or he lied totally and completely?

16 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

o(And I want to also thank David Josephs, for his commentary about “cutting”; and  Sandy Larsen, especially for his comment that the actual WC transcript may have been altered. . . which means that I’m going to have to ask NARA to make me a copy of the steno tape, and get that “read” properly, just to either confirm that the printed transcript is accurate, or to find out what edits where made, if any).

So now the folks who fully and completely believe that Oswald had a clone, and this clone had a Mother who was also a clone of the first Oswald's Mother (but who never smiled and had a unibrow) are now saying that the WC testimony has been faked, yet they post it over and over again to support their own crazy theories?

OMG! Sigh... Jack Kennedy is rolling over in his grave. I live 40 miles from his grave and I can feel the rumbles of his rolling LOL

David, I'm going to say this as nicely as I can so you don't have to call me a smart aleck like you did a while back.  But do you ever - EVER - stop and think how disgraceful it is to the memory of Mac Perry to be writing this kind of stuff?  When the man stood two feet away from Kennedy and was trying to save his life?

Edited March 2, 2018 by Michael Walton

[David Von Pein]

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

Edited March 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

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.)
2. The transcript for that interview likewise has those two versions.

We have just heard for ourselves the audio (as provided by DVP) where the word "invalid" is used. All we need to do now, to know for ourselves that funny business went on, is to either listen to the other version of the audio or read the other version of the transcript. The one where the word "inviolate" is used.

David L., can you post one or the other here? If you can, that much of the matter would be settled.

 

[David Von Pein]

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?

Edited March 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

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 --- "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 word "left" in Lifton's version of Perry's quote is very important too. And that's a word--"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 word "left" in Dr. Perry's mouth by mistake?

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.

But let's watch as Larson will come back and say something like, "Well, we don't know there's a second and different version because we simply cannot trust CBS or the makers of the video and because they hid it from the public" or some such nonsense. Just like the the Z Film Fakers crowd claiming that because two FBI agents got their diorama wrong, well that "proves" that there were two different Z films LOL