David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Michael Walton]

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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?

Why do people here ignore the very simple and plausible answers here?  As DVP says here, even if he did use inviolate that word is completely wrong when it's added into the sentences that he says - it makes no sense at all.

And quotes from the 3/64 testimony:

---

Dr. PERRY - After the tracheotomy tube was in place and we were breathing for him, Dr. Clark and I had begun...

Dr. PERRY - There were other procedures done that I did not do during this period. I did not describe in detail the performance of the tracheotomy. It seems that that is really not necessary at this time, unless you want it. 

Dr. PERRY - All right. Well, to regress, then, at the time I began the tracheotomy, I made an incision right through the wound which was present in the neck in order to gain complete control of any injury in the underlying trachea.

---

David Lifton - you can't just keep posting here in reply to your fan boys and supporters and ignore these rebuttals. You HAVE to address DVP's post above and also explain the original testimony here as well. If you don't then how can you expect any serious to take anything you have to say seriously?

[David Lifton]

Denny Zartman: Thanks for the kind remarks. Please email me at DSL74@Cornell.edu, because I would like to communicate with you briefly, but in private. Thanks. DSL

[Sandy Larsen]

56 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Why do people here ignore the very simple and plausible answers here?  As DVP says here, even if he did use inviolate that word is completely wrong when it's added into the sentences that he says - it makes no sense at all.

We are NOT ignoring that.

We are trying to account for the opposite statements Perry apparently made, the ones where "inviolate" would have been the proper word. The ones where Perry said he made an incision below the wound.

I'll be quite surprised if it turns out that Perry actually did use the word "inviolate" in those cases. Because it would mean either that 1) he always used the term "inviolate" even in cases where the word means the opposite of what was meant; or 2) he used "inviolate" and "invalid" properly, and that those two words coming from Perry's mouth sound so similar as to fool a transcriptionist. And me. I mean, that would be quite a coincidence.

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I'll be quite surprised if it turns out that Perry actually did use the word "inviolate" in those cases. Because it would mean either that 1) he always used the term "inviolate" even in cases where the word means the opposite of what was meant; or 2) he used "inviolate" and "invalid" properly, and that those two words coming from Perry's mouth sound so similar as to fool a transcriptionist. And me. I mean, that would be quite a coincidence.

It's disgraceful that Lifton is trying to make something out of nothing regarding Perry like he  also did with his ridiculous thrumming helicopter theory.  And look how he's now going off line to personal email to reply to people here (see above) instead of arguing a rebuttal ("Oh, thank you so much...please contact me at my email address.")

He's actually using Humes of all people to support this ridiculous theory.  Humes who Pat Speer revealed as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the official story:

And who I pointed out that amid all of Humes's bluster made a laugher of a statement 29 years later. Among others like "the shot was in the upper neck."

Like many people down in Texas on 11/22 Perry was just caught in the crossroads of history.  He tried to save Kennedy's life...he DID cut through the wound to put the tube in there...and he did make the comment - unfiltered - that he thought some of the shots came from the front.

And here we are...another twisting of the evidence and someone's saying a word that may SOUND LIKE something else to others but makes absolutely NO SENSE in the context of Perry's film statement...and we have another ridiculous STAY TUNED theory.

 

[Michael Walton]

21 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Denny Zartman: Thanks for the kind remarks. Please email me at DSL74@Cornell.edu, because I would like to communicate with you briefly, but in private. Thanks. DSL

Come on, Dave. Stop playing games and reply to Von Pein's rebuttal. It's disgraceful what you're trying to do here with Dr. Perry. It's shocking that you're trying to make him into some kind of boogeyman.

[David Lifton]

 

 

DSL NOTE: Re-written on 3/3/2018 - 12:20 p.m. PST

DVP: You wrote:

'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.'

My response: It is not in my interest to “ignore” (much less “totally ignore”) the “context of Dr. Perry’s complete statement in the ’67 interview (which, keep in mind, is the broadcast date. I believe the interview with Barker was conducted in late 1966).  My short response to your criticism is: it depends what you mean by “the context”.  I am well aware that if one restricts “the context” to that particular sentence in that transcript (or in the audio excerpt) then the statement that Perry said he “rendered it inviolate” makes no sense. 

However, if one takes into account three other times where the word “inviolate” would apply (Dave Stewart, that day and weekend; Breslin, on 11/23, when he said he performed the trach “below” the wound; and then Robert Groden, in 1977 [“I left the wound inviolate”], and if one enlarges one’s vision to encompass the possibility that this tape has been altered to conceal what Perry actually said—especially if he uttered the word “inviolate” in the context in which (for example) he used it with Groden—then the presence of “inviolate” on that audio track can (and should) be viewed as trace evidence of what he said; specifically, that he may well have said, to Barker, something that was either similar (or identical) with what he had said to Stewart, pr Breslin (11/23), or --years later (1977)--would say to Robert Groden. (when shown the Bethesdsa autopsy photo).   Why is that so difficult to understand? 

As Groden pointed out (to me, and to Pat V., in 1989) when we interviewed him on camera, and when he described his 1977 meeting with Perry, ‘inviolate” is a rather unusual word. For it to appear on that audio track suggests to me that he (Perry) used it on that occasion (i.e., at the time of his interview with Eddie Barker), in the same manner in which he used it on at least three other occasions. You (apparently) want to ignore the importance of this word on the grounds that, when preceded by  “rendered it”,  the sequence of three words  ("rendered it inviolate") makes no sense.  My reaction is decidedly different.  I argue that, by taking into account the other times this word was uttered by Perry, it is not unreasonable to infer that we are dealing with an altered audio record. 

Why do I say "altered audio record"?

Because: on the occasion tgat we filmed Groden in 1989, we (all three of us)  could readily see that visually, what Dr. Perry was saying was clearly “out of sync” with the sound, and that disparity was our justification (our “probable cause,” if you will) for believing that this audio record had been altered.  END OF EXPLANATION

DVP: 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? 

DSL RESPONSE: I am not arguing that the three-word phrase "rendered it inviolate" makes sense. To the contrary: I agree that --viewed in isolation--it does not make sense. As explained (or at least implied) above: The choice appears to be either: (a) That Perry doesn't know how to use the English language, and is given to making nonsensical utterances; or (b) that the audio record was altered. Based on the other times that he used the word ("inviolate") , it would appear that something is missing.  Assuming Perry said  actually said "inviolate", he used it in the context that, when he performed the tracheotomy,  he  he didn't touch the bullet wound; i.e., he "left the [bullet] wound inviolate."

And perhaps I should add this other observation: to use the word "inviolate" almost has a defensive quality to it--i.e., that someone had accused Perry of (without meaning to) having altered the wound; and he was responding (in effect) by saying "No, I didn't do that. I left the wound 'inviolate.'"

Remember: Dr. Dave Stewart told me that there was a problem or kerfuffle  (late that night) at Parkland, when Perry was informed (via a phone call from someone at Bethesda, and I'll bet it was SS Agent Kellerman) that there was a "problem" at the autopsy (or "confusion") because of what "he" (i.e., Perry) had done. So he was at pains to deny it; to say, in effect, "No, you're wrong, I didn't do that." And then came: "I left the wound inviolate". As I said, that is my interpretation of the context in which Perry employed (or should I say "deployed") that word.  It was in the context of him defending himself against a charge (even if only implied) that what he had done had caused confusion (or "was causing confusion") at the Bethesda end of the line.  END OF EXPLANATION

DVP: 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.?

DSL RESPONSE: No, of course not. I understsand the  basic vocabulary, and why these three words ("rendered it inviolate") don't fit together.  But again, I refer you to my lengthy answer above. I’m perfectly aware that “rendered it inviolate” —if Perry actually said that—makes no sense.  But the word "inviolate" can be heard, quite distinctly, and so the question is: in what context was it uttered?

I believe that the key to the proper interpretation of that word depends on the context; which, specifically in this case, comes down to focusing on the two words preceding it (“rendered it”) which then results in the three-word phrase: "rendered it inviolate."

If Perry actually said “rendered it inviolate,” then —agreed—that would make no sense. So how are we to properly interpret this nonsensical phrase?  My suggestion: we go to the existing history of how--on other occasions--Perry used that (rather unusual) word.

Based on other occasions in which he used that (rather unusual) word, I believe it is not unreasonable to infer that  he used that word in conjunction with the phrase (which functioned as a prefix, of sorts): "I left the wound. . . "  resulting in the sentence "I left the wound inviolate."   It seems to me unreasonable, based on Perry's own "linguistic history" (if I may coin a phrase) to assume that he would use “inviolate” in order to say the opposite --i.e., that by not cutting through the wound, he rendered it "inviolate."  What might be plausible (but rather a clumsy use of language)  would be if he meant to say that by cutting through the wound, he (by "cutting")  had  “rendered it invalid."  (And that is what  the transcript published in the back of the Steve White book states).

  So what is one to make of this linguistic conundrum?   It comes down to whether this audio track was tampered with or not. You (apparently) are operating on the assumption that its genuine, that it was not altered.  I react to this linguistic puzzle quite differently.  I believe (and all three of us believed, based on the way Perry's lips were moving quite obviously in a manner that made no sense based on the words being uttered)  that the tape had been altered. That we were viewing a clumsily altered audio record.  And that’s the reason all of us took Groden ’s tape to that rather expensive “sound shop” in either Philadelphia or Trenton, spent an hour or two there, and prepared video excerpts to document our suspicions.  

You have responded to our action by saying (in effect): "It wasn't altered. It was your playback machine. Here, let me show you my copy. It plays perfectly."  Do you really believe that you producing your "copy" --in 2018--is an answer to what we experienced back in June 1989, and which drove us to go to that audio house, and to spend good money to prepare video samples for further study?

To recap: I’m not being at all unreasonable in my beliefs.  On several occasions, Perry said that he “left the wound inviolate.”  He said that to Groden in 1977; and Stewart says that's the word he used on 11/22 and over that weekend. And the next day he told Breslin that he performed the tracheotomy "below" the bullet wound.  Note what Perry did not say. He never said, on any of these occasions,  that he “rendered it inviolate.” He said he “left it inviolate.” And its precisely for that reason that I suspect that the tape was  altered.  Moreover, the Steve White book, in its transcript (located at the back) uses the word “invalid,” so that is either an innocent transcriber error (which I doubt) or a deliberate "editorial" correction.  In other words, its my belief that someone (either Eddie Barker or Dan Rather) lobbied with Steve White that "here's what the tape sounds like, so you should correct that transcript you are publishing to reflect what Perry apparently meant to say."  That's the sort of thing that I believe took place, and which explains the way the Steve White version of the CBS transcript reads: it is identical in every way to the "official" CBS transcript except for that one phrase (!).

SANDY LARSEN'S CONJECTURE

Sandy Larsen’s conjecture that the printed version of Perry's testimony  (as published,  in Vol 3 of the WC's 26 volumes) may not reflect what he actually said, is important; and that’s why I will be ordering a photocopy of the actual steno tape, to check out that possibility.  If the printed version of the transcript published in Volume 3 does not reflect what is actually on the steno tape, that would be very important.  On the other hand, please note: if the printed version was (editorially) changed, and then that changed version was "re-transcribed," then the printed version and the steno tape would "match" and such a change--if it occurred--would be undetectable.  (I am making these comments because of experience with this in another instance of this in the WC's 26 volumes).  But .. . . if done "sloppily"--i.e., changed in the printed version, but without a re-transcription, then that should be easy to spot.  Should that prove to be true—and I don’t know that one way or the other—that would be very important; and constitute  definitive evidence of the kind of “audio fraud” that is going on here.

Also, on the subject of context, let's return to the actual situation, as it unfolded that night at Bethesda:  I described how the body arrived at the  Bethesda morgue with the neck area all messed up (esophagus and trachea torn and damaged), and how that damage, in turn, is apparently  relates to the suturing of that "wound" --suturing which is spelled out (in detail)  in Chapter 23 of Best Evidence.  (Indeed, Chapter 23 is devoted to that specific issue). As already stated in Best Evidence (in Chapter 11, titled "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda", there already exists sound reason(s) for believing something happened to the body in the area of the neck. Why? Because both Humes (before the Warren Commission) and Finck (at the Shaw trial) could find any evidence of a bullet wound (!). This is all laid out, in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence.)  But now let's return to the situation as it actually unfolded ("in real time") on Friday night, 11/22/63, at the Bethesa morgue.  As previously stated (in a previous post on this thread): when I wrote Chapter 23 (circa 1979/1980) I did not know when (or where) that suturing was done.  But now I do (and will provide details in Final Charade). If my current analysis is correct (that the  suturing occurred just prior to the arrival of the FBI (at 7:17 EST) at the Bethesda morgue; and if my other conclusion is correct (that the sutured area was deliberately passed off, to the FBI, as a tracheotomy made at Parkland Hospital), then that provides still further context--specifically, vital context as to why there might have been audio fraud in this situation.  In other words, something was indeed being deliberately hidden.  The President's body arrived messed up; the tracheotomy wound was sutured shut (to conceal that); and Perry was then called and pressured to take responsibility for that anatomic mess.

PERRY AND "HIGHER AUTHORITY"

Let me add one other observation: I do not believe Perry would have simply testified  falsely about having made an incision through the throat wound--if he did not (i.e., if he did not make any such incision)--unless, prior to that testimony, he was given private assurances --by "higher authority" that he should testify in that fashion. In other words, I do not believe that Perry would testify falsely in March 1964, before Chief Justice Warren, because of an unpleasant phone call he had received late on the night of November 22, 1963. There must  have been more to it than that.  In Final Charade, I will offer evidence of who was the "higher authority" and how that occurred in other situations as well.

Perry's non-response to the unfolding controversy has always intrigued me. He claims he never read an of the books and never followed any aspect of the controversy.  More on that, too, in Final Charade. END OF DSL RESPONSE

DVP:  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")?....

DSL RESPONSE: As I said above, I think that the two-word phrase “rendered it”, preceding the word “inviolate”, results in a three-word phrase that is nonsensical.   Hence, my conclusion: unless Perry was uttering nonsense, the audio tape was altered.  END OF RESPONSE

DVP: "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…"

DSL RESPONSE:  I am not sure what to make of this statement.  (And by the way: What does Perry mean by "or why"?) The reason I believed it was very likely not true was because Stewart told the Nashville Banner in (I believe) November 1967, that Perry did not have to make an incision.  But just maneuvered the trach tube into the throat, using the pre-existing bullet hole as his orifice of entry.  I am endeavoring to retrieve that story, as published, in the Nashville Banner.  If I obtain a copy, I will post it --or the text of what it says--on this thread. END OF RESPONSE

DVP: 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?

DSL RESPONSE:  Yes, DVP. We've (already) been through all that. Those words do not make sense, and that's precisely why I believe that the audio tape must have been altered. (If someone who knows mathematics is caught on tape saying "Two plus three equals seven", what are we to think?) It all comes down to the validity of the audio tape. Based on the other statements (already cited) that Perry made, I don’t trust the audio tape. You, apparently do. I find this odd, but maybe I shouldn't. After all, despite all the Dallas doctors who insist there was a blow-out at the back of the head, you revel in posting a back-of-the head autopsy photograph which, you blithely claim, depicts the reality, whereas just about all the credible Dallas medical witnesses claim it does not. (Sometimes I think you have an affinity for falsified evidence. You just love to roll around in that stuff, the way, on a farm. . . oh, I'd rather not have to complete that sentence.

DVP: 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.

DSL RESPONSE: I don’t believe this is a matter of interpretation. For example: if Steve White had a audio tape on which he clearly heard (or believed he heard) the word “inviolate,” then he should have said so in his book; he should have spelled out the problem, and discussed it.  And not just changed the word (or three words), in his transcript, and said nothing aboiut the implications. That's why I suspect that, one way or another, this was (in effect) "foisted" on him; i.e., that he was deceived.  END OF RESPONSE

DVP: 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.

DSL RESPONSE: No, DVP,  I do not subscribe to your idea..When this whole affair is viewed in proper context, then (if we had a Special Prosecutor in this case)  that Prosecutor would have asked (behind closed doors, of course): Who the heck altered the body?  (And given the plethora of evidence that the body was covertly intercepted and altered, that you, and your peculiar ideas that nothing is wrong with the evidence would be subject to considerable ridicule). I'll tell you what such a (hypothetical) Special Prosecutor would be interested in: such an investigation would be interested in the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, on November 2 and November 3, 1966; and especially  the second one where, confronting him with the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area" (which he knew nothing about, until that day), he exclaimed "I'm not responsible for their reports!" and then, just a bit later in that same conversation, he exclaimed: "I'd like to know by whom it was done. . and when . . and where!"    (See Chapter 8 of B.E., where all this is described in detail). Surely such an investigation might have put Humes and asked: "Commander Humes, why did you say those things? And what did you mean by "it" when you blurted out, with considerable vehemence, "I'd like to know by whom it  was done, and when, and where?!" So that's the context in which to properly view the possible falsification of this particular audio record.  So no, DVP, I do not agree.  Perry's use of clumsy language cannot be discarded or set aside in the manner that you are wont to do.  To proceed in that fashion, you have to ignore the multiple occasions in which Perry used the word “inviolate,” —preceded by the words “I left the wound” etc.  What you seem to he doing, DVP,  is  cherry-picking when it comes to context; to choosing the context (or “defining the context” if I may coin a term) in such a way that it supports your interpretation. I say: Let’s enlarge the context and take into account the full picture; and that includes  all the times that Perry used the word “inviolate” to fully understand what he meant when he used that word. And also, to understand the (wider) context, at Bethesda that night, in which this problem developed. END OF RESPONSE

Edited March 4, 2018 by David Lifton

[Sandy Larsen]

David L.,

Can you actually quote some of what Perry said where he used the word "inviolate" in the context that he didn't harm the wound? I mean word-for-word, not just from memory? I would find that useful and interesting.

 

[David Lifton]

Sandy:  I'm going to explore the matter of the steno tape, as discussed in the previous lengthy post. I am also going to obtain a copy of the Nashville Banner story, which marks the first time that Dr. Stewart ever spoke publicly on this matter. Pat V is checking the  Dave Stewart filmed interview, and I am retrieving certain memos that I wrote back in 1989, after the extraordinary experiences we had with both Stewart and Groden.  None of this will happen overnight, but I'll see what can be done.

Edited March 4, 2018 by David Lifton

[David Von Pein]

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

[David Von Pein]

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."
 

[David Von Pein]

All 4 Parts....

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

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

What's the proof that's JFK in the "stare-of-death" autopsy photo?

How do we know the neck wound photo wasn't doctored?...as they say...

There is no chain of possession for the autopsy photos, they were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

I wonder why people continue to cede evidentiary weight to them.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

That puts him way ahead of most of the JFKA Critical Master Class in his grasp of a root fact.

Everybody argues with this guy but I'm the only one to get a significant concession out of him.

And it wasn't even an argument.  It was obvious.

Edited March 4, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

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~

Edited March 4, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

58 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

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~

 

 

??? round hole versus vertical slits

Edited March 4, 2018 by Micah Mileto