David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Cliff Varnell]

10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Nice. My thoughts  exactly.

Please refrain from agreeing with me about any thing...unless you're a Golden State Warriors fan...

Edited March 2, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

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

Edited March 2, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Please refrain from agreeing with me about any thing...unless you're a Golden State Warriors fan...

 

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein 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

the defense rests...  next he'll be offering McAdams a quickie...

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

2 hours 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

 

This is what I said:

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

I didn't say that the two audio versions and the two transcripts all exist. I said it APPEARS that they exist. I qualified my statement because I haven't actually heard or seen them myself (other than the one audio clip DVP provided). But David L. says they exist, and I have no reason to believe he is lying. He could be mis-remembering something.

Unlike Walton I won't jump to the conclusion that David L. is lying.

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[David Lifton]

Sandy,

Yes, there are definitely two different versions of the transcript, as I have already indicated in my post(s).

LOCATING THE ORIGINAL CBS TRANSCRIPT

I will do the best I can to get both versions, and post them.  But. . . It won't happen overnight, because I've got over 45 5 drawer filing cabinets of material, in storage, and an additional ten or twenty cabinets about 100 miles from where I'm now living.  However,  I will attempt to retrieve the original (unaltered) version--with "inviolate"--by requesting it from a third party.  Just two or three days ago, scanning a terrabyte disk, I came across what I believe was a 1989 or 1990 memo I wrote about this situation, when I had both transcripts in front of me, and I believe I can retrieve that memo, and post the appropriate text from that memo. But I'm sure that everyone would like to see both transcripts.  As I've already stated, the one with "rendered it invalid" is at the back of the Steve White book, available at Amazon, "Should we now believe the Warren Report." The other will have to come either from the Ford Library, or from my own files.  I kept meticulous files re those four June 1967 broadcasts. As I just noted, the only problem is, they are now in storage. But anyone reading this post--who obtained their transcript from CBS News in New York City, should have the same transcript that I had in my files, and which I always had assumed was identical to what was published in the Steve White Book.

1989 (approx) DISCOVERING THE TRANSCRIPT DISCREPANCY

What astonished me was discovering, after returning to Los Angeles in 1989 after interviewing Dr. Stewart and Robert Groden,  that that was not so. I was  amazed when I saw that one said "inviolate", which is exactly what Groden said Perry said to him, when he visited him in 1977, in New York City; and what Dave Stewart said repeatedly, and with great emphasis, both in 1982, when I interviewed him on the phone; and in 1989, when Pat V. and I interviewed him, on camera, at his home.  And the other said "invalid" --i.e. rendered it invalid. Two different phrases; two different transcripts. There it was.

RE-INTERPRETING WHAT HAPPENED AT THE BETHESDA MORGUE

What I did not have--back in 1989--was the realization of the extent to which JFK's body arrived at Bethesda with the throat area being such a ripped up mess (as described in the previous post I wrote on this thread); and "connecting the dots" and realizing that that was the reason for the suturing. But now I have "connected those dots" and have a much better understanding of what is (that is "was") going on here.  It has also become much more clear to me why someone made up the story that the reason the throat looked so different at Bethesda was that Dr. Perry did a "sloppy" tracheotomy; and then prevailed up Perry to go along with that. What was being hidden, of course, is the fact that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy. What emerges from all this is there are (at least) two distinct paths to proving body alteration: what happened in the area of the head, and what happened in the area of the neck. And then, of course, there's the evidence of interception (body bag, shipping casket, empty coffin, etc.)

TENTATIVE PLANS RE A RE-ISSUE OF BEST EVIDENCE

When Best Evidence is re-issued, I will be writing an "Addendum", or perhaps issue a separate "e-book addendum" addressing some two dozen areas where matters have crystallized and cleaning up a various of loose ends. But that's another subject. . and I don't wish to be diverted into writing about that, in this post.

Note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you, and much of your "argument" about the JFK case, is going to end up in the dustbin of history; and this matter of the throat wound, and "rendered it invalid" versus "inviolate" (and the business of two transcripts) is a perfect example. I do not know whether someone at CBS messed with the audio, and created --shall we say--a "modified" audio record (for the benefit of author Steve White);  But I can damn well tell you that there are two different transcripts of Part 2 of that show, because I had them both in front of me, back in 1989, and was astonished by this discovery.  So you're behaving like a fool if you wish to believe that I made this up.

MY ORIGINAL BELIEF AND HOW IT CHANGED

Also, to anyone reading this thread, please note: I used to believe--that is I "originally believed" --that Perry said "rendered it invalid" because, relying on the Steve White Book, that's what the CBS transcript published in that book stated. So for years--between 1982, when I first spoke with Dr. Stewart on the telephone, and even through June 1989, when (at Pat V's insistence) we interviewed him on camera, at his home--I continued to believe that he must be mistaken. Let me repeat that: I originally believed that Dr. Stewart was mistaken, and held that belief for at least seven years (1982 - 1989).

It was only two days after filming Dr. Stewart, when Pat and I went to Robert Groden's home in Media, Pennsylvania, that the combination of what Groden said, and the video he showed us, caused me to completely reverse my position.

June 1989: WHAT HAPPENED AT GRODEN'S HOME

First of all, Groden showed us his high quality copy of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry by Eddie Barker.  Pat and I, sitting in separate chairs, were watching that intently. Remember: we had just come from interviewing Dr. Stewart, two days before. in Tennessee. We listened attentively as Dr. Stewart, repeating what he had told me on the telephone in 1982 (as I recall) and perhaps sensing my skepticism, said something like: "Hell, what Perry told me he said on national TV, in that CBS Special that was broadcast back in 1967!  Go watch that TV special. Its right there! You will see he said 'inviolate' !". I was polite, but skeptical.

The key word here was "inviolate."  Dr. Stewart repeatedly told us that that's what Dr. Perry had told him--that he had left the wound "inviolate."

Then, two days later, we were in Groden's home.  We asked Groden if he had that interview, and he said that he did, and we asked if we could see it. He agreed. So that led to the unforgettable scene of Groden putting the cassette into the player, and perhaps even doing something else while Pat and I watched  the show. When we got to that moment in the tape, and when we heard the word "inviolate," we both rose up out of our chairs, and exclaimed, "What?!!!" Groden wanted to know what the fuss was all about, and we declined to tell him, because we had not yet interviewed him, on camera, and wanted to have that "first tell" on camera, and unrehearsed. So we just stayed mum (which Groden understood, and respected) but told him that we had something special, and reassured him that would tell him what it was once we were on camera.

THE STORY OF GRODEN'S 1977 VISIT WIth Dr. PERRY

Then, as we prepared for the "on-camera" part of our visit, Groden related to us how he (and the Baltimore reporter) had paid a visit to Dr. Perry, when he was practicing medicine in New York City, and showed him the face-up ("stare of death") autopsy photo. (According to a computer record I have, Groden said that occurred in 1977, not in 1979 as I had previously written on this thread). He related what happened. Perry looked at the photo, slowly shook his head side to side,  sadly, and said words to the effect that that wasn't the way he left it. And then he said: "I left the wound inviolate."  There it was--that same word: "inviolate"!  Pat and I looked at each other in amazement, because now it was truly important that we get all this on camera--and that it not be rehearsed in any way. Groden saw that we were both quite excited by what he had just told us, and asked, quite earnestly, "What is this all about?"  We wouldn't say.  We insisted that he just calm down and wait until we were on camera (which he did)  and then --after he had told us what happened in New York City, with Perry--that then we would tell him.

And that's exactly what we did.

REGARDING THE WORD "INVIOLATE" AS SPOKEN BY DR. PERRY --TO ROBERT GRODEN--IN 1977

Regarding the word "inviolate":  Groden stated that he knew what the word meant, but had never heard it used in spoken conversation before--that is, until the day he and the reporter visited Perry in New York City.  All of this was repeated, by Groden, as soon as we set up the lights and camera--the whole story of his NYC visit with Dr Perry, and how Perry reacted to seeing the face-up autopsy photograph for the first time, and what he said.  Then we told him why we believed what he had told us  was so significant.  We probably told him about our filmed interview with Dr. Stewart one or two days previously,  and how Stewart had used the identical word: "inviolate." Finally, we told Groden why we (Pat V and I) had such a startle reaction on hearing what Perry said when Groden had played for us his copy of the Eddie Barker interview, and what we heard Perry say: "inviolate."

VISITING THE AUDIO LAB IN PHILADELPHIA OR TRENTON

All of this led to the three of us then going back to the Eddie Barker interview of Perry, playing it over and over again, noticing the fact that Perry's lips were moving out of sync with the words, and so forth. That led to us going into either Philadelphia (or Trenton, New Jersey) the next day, and paying a pretty penny to put the tape up on a very high quality audio system, and making some demo excerpts to establish the divergences we saw and which were, frankly, quite obvious.

So. . that's where matters stand now.

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.

DSL

3/2/2018 - 4:45 p.m. PST

Orange County, California

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by David Lifton

[Denny Zartman]

I apologize for intruding, since I have nothing to contribute to the conversation, but I wanted to say that this thread makes for absolutely fascinating reading, and I think it's cool to be on a forum with Mr. Lifton.

Thanks for posting so much, here, Mr. Lifton, and I look forward to your new book. Your dedication to research is astounding and inspiring.

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks for the recap, David L.

Hopefully we will soon be able to see the two transcripts side-by-side.

 

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

unless you're a Golden State Warriors fan...

I hate the NBA - haven't watched it in 30 years.  Too much showing off and NO ONE plays defense

[Michael Walton]

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Yes, there are definitely two different versions of the transcript, as I have already indicated in my post(s).

Good luck with your book Dave.  I'm counting three buyers here and I'm sure there'll be quite a few more.

[David Lifton]

Micah:

You are absolutely correct when you ask "Doesn't the 1979 Robert Groden interview [make] it clear what he [Perry} means by "inviolate"?

Of course it does. Without any question.

Perry was looking at the stare-of-death autopsy photo, slowly shaking his head from side to side, and said that this wasn't the way he left the throat wound; that is, he left it "inviolate."

Furthermore, upon returning to Los Angeles, I contacted the Baltimore reporter and asked if he recollected the interaction. He said he did, but didn't recall Perry's exact words. What he did remember: that Perry was displeased, and/or upset, because this wasn't the way he left the wound.

To those following this thread: this is not simply an argument about what Perry said to Eddie Barker in late 1966, as broadcast in June 1967. Ultimately, this is an argument about what Perry said, starting with the moment after he left ER-1 on 11/22/63, and we have a plethora of data to address that point.

At the risk of being repetitious:

On 11/23/63, he told Jimmy Breslin that he performed the tracheotomy "below" the bullet wound; and Breslin included that in the story he wrote that day, and which was published in the next day's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. If he performed the trach below the bullet wound, then he left the bullet wound "intact", or "inviolate". Based on what Perry said to Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, 11/23/63, he did not touch that bullet wound. Note to David Von Pein: Stop ignoring what Perry told Jimmy Breslin, and stop dispensing your disinformation and other garbage all over the Internet, like an unclean garbage truck moving through the streets of a community, without a muffler. Go get an intellectual muffler and put it over your mouth before you keep dispensing your false information.

Over that weekend, and in the days following, Perry made clear to Dr. Dave Stewart that he did not touch or alter the bullet wound in any way. He said that he left the wound "inviolate."

I know what Dr. Stewart said, because (a) he said something very similar to the Nashville Banner in November 1967; and (b) I spoke with Stewart by phone in 1982, and then Pat V and I did an extensive filmed interview with him in June 1989. Stewart told me, repeatedly, and with emphasis, that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate." Note To David Von Pein: Affix your muffler before driving your garbage truck through the Internet community, consisting of many who are serioiusly interested interested in the truth about this issue, and not your false and misleading statements.

In 1977, when Groden--then employed by the HSCA--visited Dr. Perry in New York City, and showed him the stare-of-death photo, Perry looked at the photo, shook his sadly from side to side, and said that what the Bethesda showed wasn't the way he left the wound. "I left the wound inviolate," he told Groden, as related to me, by Groden, on camera, in June 1989. Again, David Von Pein: affix that muffler, before cluttering up the atmosphere with foul smoke.

Finally, we come to the one "wild card" in this affair--exactly what Perry said when interviewed by Eddie Barker. We have two kinds of records--an audio record, which --for whatever reason--is contradictory and confusing; and a transcript record.  Regarding the transcript record, a friend of mine just located the CBS transcript that is posted at the Dan Rather website. I'm not saying this is the last word, because I haven't located my own records, created after my 1989 interview with Dr. Stewart. But here's what the CBS transcript for Part 2 of the 1967 four-part series says: 

BARKER: Did it occur to you at the time, or did you think, was this an entry wound, or was this an exit wound?

PERRY: Actually, I didn't really give it much thought. And I realize that  perhaps it would have been better had I done so. But I actually applied my energies, and those of us there all did, to the problem at hand, and I really didn't 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 inviolate as regards further examination and inspection.  But it didn't even occur to me.  I did what was expedient and what was necessary, and I didn't think much about it.

The link for this transcript comes from a "Dan Rather" website.  Here's the link:
https://danratherjournalist.org/investigative-journalist/early-reporting-cbs/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report/results/document-warre-0

The key words in this transcript are "rendered it inviolate."

Keep in mind: this is just a transcript; normally, we would (and should) believe that it is 100% faithful to the words that were spoken; but I don't believe that can be taken for granted in this case.  I still want to get three items: (1) the CBS transcript as published at the back of the Steve White book (and I should have that within a week); and (2) The transcript that was on file at the Gerald Ford library and (3) my own copy of the CBS transcript that I received from CBS News back in 1967, when this four-part program was first aired.

One other matter: in this transcript--call it the "Dan Rather CBS transcript"--the words "inviolate as regards further" appears to be ever-so-slightly below the rest of that line in the typed transcript. But that issue deserves further study.

DSL - 3/2/19 7 PM PST

Orange County, California

 

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by David Lifton

[David Von Pein]

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.
 

Edited March 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

PERRY: Actually, I didn't really give it much thought. And I realize that  perhaps it would have been better had I done so. But I actually applied my energies, and those of us there all did, to the problem at hand, and I really didn't 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 inviolate as regards further examination and inspection.  But it didn't even occur to me.  I did what was expedient and what was necessary, and I didn't think much about it.

 

Going by memory, this is precisely what was said in the DVP's 1967 CBS audio clip. EXCEPT that the word "inviolate" can be heard as either "inviolate" or "invalid." DVP and I both decided that Perry said "invalid" because that makes sense in context. "Inviolate" doesn't make sense.

If all I had in front of me right now were DVP's audio clip and DSL's transcript, my conclusion would be that Perry said only one thing, and that is what we hear in DVP's audio clip and see in DSL's transcript. The only discrepancy being that the transcript should read "invalid" rather than "inviolate." Because the transcriber heard the word wrong.

But I understand that there was also that business with Perry saying he made the incision BELOW the wound. In which case the word "inviolate" WOULD make sense and "invalid" would not. The pertinent question in my mind now is this:  Is there a transcript we could all read where Perry uses the word "inviolate" in a sentence where the context makes sense.

 

 

[David Von Pein]

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

Edited March 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Another related PDF from the Weisberg collection....

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

[Andrej Stancak]

Let me add one more source which provides some authentic information relevant to the case of the neck gunshot wound, William Manchester's "The Death of A President", 1967 (2013 edition).

On the neck wound, page 182:

"They could not win now. The throat wound - which was then assumed to be an entry wound, because there was no time to turn him over - was small, and it exuded blood slowly".

On the tracheostomy, page 184:

"The great need was, however, for some sort of breathing passage. The tube that the resident had inserted wasn't working, apparently because of the wound in the neck. Analgesics were unnecessary. Kennedy was in coma. "Scalpel", Perry muttered. A nurse slapped one in his rubber palm. Incising the President's throat just below the mediastinal wound, he began a five minute tracheostomy ("a mouth in the throat"). Meanwhile, the tube between Kennedy's lips had been connected to the respirator in an attempt to start him breathing again."

On page 186:

"Perry had just finished the tracheostomy when Clark arrived; he was inserting a cuffed tube in the windpipe. Jenkins attached it to an anesthesia machine , the controls of which were more delicate that those of the respirator.

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

The use of "mediastinal" in the 2nd quote was not correct because mediastinum is the soft tissue in the chest that separates different organs.  Anyway, Manchester's description fits well with Mr. Breslin's account of what Dr. Perry told him, and with Dr. Perry's "inviolate" to Dr. Stewart (in David's messages). The presence of bleeding from the neck wound (which I learned from Manchester's book by checking again what I read a while ago) excludes the possibility of using this wound as it was for a tracheostomy. Taken together, it is very likely that Dr. Perry made an incision below the gunshot wound in the neck and he therefore was sure he left it "inviolate" and could deny causing the damage to the throat seen in the autopsy photograph. 

What followed next, Dr. Perry's testimony for the WC and his CBS interview,  are in my view deceptions prompted by expanding the wound to obfuscate the frontal shot to the neck. While they are important to document the level of the cover-up, they only distract from the true course of events in the ER1.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Andrej Stancak