Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Micah Mileto

Recommended Posts

DSL NOTE, 3/4/2018 - 3:30 PM PST - - Spell checked and slightly reedited for clarity, where appropriate.



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? 


Yes, DVP,  I believe the tape was altered, but let's put that aside for the moment, and focus on the transcript of the CBS Broadcast--specifically, Part 2.

Just consider what you have written; let me repeat your complaint:

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?

The answer is that "they" did, or at least attempted to, and that "intention" can be inferred from the following fact:

Yes, there are two separate transcripts, and they differ in only one word: the first, put out  by CBS News shortly after the four-part series was broadcast in June 1967; and then a (supposedly) identical transcript which appears in the Appendix to the book written by the writer of the show --Stephen White.  White's book, Should We Now Believe the Warren Report,  was published by Macmillan in 1968 (according to Amazon; but a correspondent of mine says it was published in 1967; that point is yet to be resolved).

In the official CBS transcript, as distributed by CBS in New York, the following paragraph appears, words supposedly spoken by Dr. Perry, when interviewed by Eddie Barker (of KRLD-TV, the CBS affiliate in Dallas):

And 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 inviolate as regards further examination and inspection.

In the  transcript --presumably the identical transcript--as published in the Appendix to the White book, as published in late 1967 or 1968, by Macmillan, the same paragraph appears, but one word is different:

And 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 as regards further examination and inspection.

Please note: the first transcript is a photocopy; the second transcript was typeset (in standard book publishing font) from a source that is not specified. The presumption is (that is, "would be") that it reflects the official CBS transcript, but maybe not. Maybe someone made an penciled in "editorial correction"; or perhaps there was an "official transcript," but that particular page was retyped. We don't know (and can't tell). All I can say, for sure, is that years ago, I checked the transcripts of all four shows published at the back of the White book and found  that they were word-for-word identical, except for this particular instance, where one word was changed: again, in the official CBS transcript, it says "rendered it inviolate", and in the transcript published at the back of the White book, it says, "rendered it invalid."

Simply because the copy published in the book was clearer, and easier to read, I had photocopied those pages and placed him in a manila folder which functioned as a "subject file" on this one subject: Did Perry make an incision, or did he not? Also in that folder was Dr. Stewart's story from the (Nov 1967) Nashville Banner, in which Stewart said that Perry told him he did not have to make an incision--that he just used the pre-existing bullet hole as an orifice of entry.  Somewhere in that time frame, I called Stewart, by way of following up the Nashville Banner story. Stewart told me what Perry told him, that he "left the wound inviolate." Since I already possessed a transcript (from the White book) which showed that Stewart had used the word "invalid," I discounted what Stewart told me.  In 1985, Pat Valentino, listening to the tape of my conversation with Dr. Stewart, caused me to re-evaluate this situation. Pat  told me that Stewart sounded both dignified and credible, and that it was imperative that we meet him, and interview him in person, on camera. This we did, in June 1989, routing ourselves through Tennessee, to interview Dr. Stewart, and before we interviewed Groden.


During our filmed interview with Stewart, he repeatedly emphasized what Perry had told him--that (a) he didn't have to make an incision; and (b) had "left the wound inviolate."  He was absolutely certain on this point, and at some point said something like "Hell, you can hear Perry say it himself, in that 1967 program!" 

When we asked Stewart how certain he was, on a scale of 1 to 10, that Perry had said "inviolate," Stewart replied--instantly, and strongly--"fifteen."

Everything I have just described was recorded on camera (i.e., DSL/Dr. Stewart).

I was polite but skeptical (inside) because I the transcript on which I was was relying, published at the back of the White book, said "rendered it invalid," and I told Pat V  that, regardless of how credible he appeared to be (and he certainly appeared credible) that he must be mistaken: that the transcript said "invalid"--and, of course, I thought of the transcript as "best evidence."

Two days later, we were in Media, Pennsylvania, and at Groden's residence.   At that time, and perhaps out of sheer curiosity, we asked Groden if he had the 1967 four-part CBS broadcast; he did. Could we view it? Specifically, Part 2.  Yes, we could. So he retrieved the tape, popped it into the machine, and that's when Pat V and I had the extraordinary experience of listening as Perry quite distinctly used the word "inviolate" in responding to a question.  Simultaneously, we had the same reaction, rising out of our separate chairs and exclaiming "What?!!"

We were both unprepared for this, because the transcript I had (which came from the Stephen WHite book, said "invalid."

We played it, and replayed it--there was no question.  It wasn't even "close."  Somewhere at this point, Groden related his experience of visiting Dr. Perry  (in 1977) --with a Baltimore reporter--when Perry was practicing medicine in New York City. Groden described how he showed Perry the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photograph--a photo Perry had never seen before. Perry shook his head from side to side, and said, sadly,  that that was not the way he had left the wound. "I left the wound inviolate," said Perry, according to Groden.  Watching us bubbling with barely suppressed excitement, Groden wanted to know what this was all about. We said that we "couldn't say" (at the moment), but that if he would just restrain himself (and he was, naturally, very curious), we wanted to put this whole episode on film.


Thereupon, we set up our lights and camera (we were with a professional film crew, which had been hired, for the purpose of these various visits--in Dallas, the doctors and nurses; Dr. Stewart, Groden, etc.)--and then did a multi-hour interview with Groden.  After we had thoroughly interviewed him--in effect, "debriefed" him--we then explained why we believed this was so significant: what Dr. Stewart had said, the importance of what he had just said, how what he said comported, completely, with what Dr. Stewart had just told us, etc.

GRODEN'S COPY OF PART 2 of the 4-Part CBS DOCUMENTARY: The Audio/Visual Divergence (the Lip sync issue)

When viewing the tape, it was obvious that the words Perry was mouthing were substantially out of sync with the audio.  That--plus the fact that the transcript on which I had been relying said "rendered invalid" whereas the sound track we were hearing most definitely had Perry saying  "rendered it inviolate"--caused us all to go to an audio house in either Philadelphia or Trenton, N.J.  We spent an hour or two studying the issue there, and making sample clips to illustrate what we viewed as "the problem."


DVP has repeatedly asserted that his copy shows no audio/video disparity, as if that is the final word. He even goes so far as to imply that the problem was, perhaps, Groden's equipment.  None of this is valid, and here's why:

a) Our work was done with a high quality copy (Groden "obtains" only the best) and on his high quality and very well maintained equipment. (He will eat dog food for a week (if he has to), but he will buy the best equipment available).

b )  We studied the "problem" at a professional audio house, and on high quality equipment--and it was obviously present on that equipment, too; it was readily visible. Think about it: how could we record "video samples" if it wasn't present?

c ) Our source was Groden's copy, obtained back in the period 1967-1975, or thereabouts, and there was no Internet then.

d) DVP's copy, as far as I know, was made years later, and in the "age of the Internet" and very likely was downloaded, from some site , via the Internet.

(And I'd like DVP to either confirm that this is so (and perhaps specify the site of origin, and the year of the download), or if he actually purchased a tape from a CBS library, to provide details (i.e., the year, the transfer modality, etc). )  What I can say for certain is that all of us were dealing with this problem, and the cause wasn't the equipment in Groden's home. And by "all of us" I mean Pat (who is an audio expert), myself (an engineering graduate and a former Ham Radio operator [K2HKC], who has built transmitters, etc); and our film crew, who had competent technicians, and their own equipment. So one either has to entertain the notion that Groden's original tape was defective, at that particular point (and only at that particular point), in the entire program; or that there has been an "improvement" in the original from which Groden's copy was made, and the time that DVP purchased his copy from CBS, or made his download, if he was able to do it more recently, via the Internet.


Back in 1989 (or perhaps even 1990) I located a copy of the "official" CBS transcript.  I immediately went to Program Number 2, found the paragraph in question and learned--for the first time--that there were two different versions of the transcript, differing in only one word (!).  I wrote "memos to the file" about this situation, one of which I re-examined the other evening (on a separate computer) and I can retrieve that memo, if necessary.

So where do matters now stand, and what do I make of all this?

To begin with, one must understand more about the source of what, for want of a better term, I will call the "Stephen White" transcript.

STEPHEN WHITE -- AND HIS BOOK: Should We Now Believe the Warren Report? (1968, per Amazon)

Stephen White died in March 1993, at age 77.  That's 25 years ago.

His New York Times obituary (3/30/93) describes him  as having been "a producer and principal writer for "A CBS New Inquiry: The Warren Report. The four-hour documentary examined rumors and accusations about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It concluded that the Warren Report, flawed as it may have been, was the likeliest explanation of the killing." I became aware of White's book around the time it was first published --1968--and certainly by 1970-1972.  It was one of the most well-written (and reasonable) defenses of the Warren Report I had ever seen; but--and this is what intrigued me--it very nicely illustrated the complete dependence of the WC's conclusions on the validity of the Bethesda autopsy. Since, by that time, I was well aware of the evidence that the body had been altered (see B.E., for details of my own chronological narrative, which began in late October 1966), I studied the White book closely.  (I'm surprised that White's name does not appear in B.E., because I clearly remember that I thought of his book as containing, in published form, the sort of arguments that I was hearing, week after week, when I attended Prof. Liebeler's UCLA Law class on the WC). Anyway, I'm pretty sure that White argued, in one of his chapters, that it was Perry's cutting through the wound that created some measure of confusion at Bethesda. For years, I  accepted all this (which I now, more or less, view as a "story").  But I wasn't skeptical of this "story" until after my experiences with (and filmed interviews of) Dr. Dave Stewart and Robert Groden in June 1989.  After that, and after the discovery of the "second transcript" (i.e., of the original CBS transcript, which had the word "inviolate" whereas the one in White's book used "invalid," as in "rendered it invalid," I revisited this whole issue.


As some readers of this thread may know, there's an expression in intelligence circles for revisiting an issue, when new information has become available, and the analyst attempts to (in effect) "press the reset button" , start from scratch, and make a fresh effort at "connecting the dots." That's called: "walking the cat backwards." And that's what I did in the days, months and years following my June 1989 experiences with Groden and Dr. Dave Stewart.

At this point, I have a whole sheaf of notes, and could write a complete (and very detailed) chapter on the subject, but I don't have the time (or energy) to do that.

In a nutshell, here's the essence:

1. Dan Rather was "the" major producer of the CBS four-part series; so was Eddie Barker. (I have yet to determine the details of whether this was a shared "producer" credit, or what).

2. Starting on the night of 11/22/63, Dr. Perry became aware that he was being "blamed" for the confusion at Bethesda, because his tracheotomy (supposedly) had destroyed the bullet wound.

3. The next day, he was interviewed by writer Jimmy Breslin.  Dr. Perry told Breslin that he had made the trach incision "below" the bullet wound; and  Breslin wrote that in his story that was published in the Sat Eve Post on 12/14, but was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Sunday, 11/24/63.

4A. Over the weekend, Perry told Stewart (with whom he was personally friendly)  that he had left the wound "inviolate" and in fact never had to make an incision

4B. In November 1967 (date to be fact-checked), Dr. Stewart told the Nashville Banner that Perry (had told him) that he did not have to make an incision; he just pushed the trach tube in through a pre-existing bullet wound.

5. In 1977, Perry would tell Robert Groden, when seeing the autopsy photo, that he had "left the wound inviolate."

6. However, on March 30 1964, Perry testified before Chief Justice Warren in Washington and--under oath--and swore that he took a scalpel and made a horizontal incision through the wound. Here's exactly what he said to Chief Justice Warren, and the others present, when he was under oath:

“I then began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck.”  (Vol. 3, p. 369)


7. Around December 1966, Perry had a filmed interview with CBS (Eddie Barker).  Although its not clear exactly what he said, Perry did use the word "inviolate." That can be heard on the audio visual record, and the word "inviolate" appears in the official CBS transcript.  THe transcript says that Perry said that he "rendered it inviolate," which of course makes no sense. According to the  CBS transcript which appears at the back of White's book, Perry is quoted as saying that, because he cut through the wound, he "rendered it invalid" (for future examination, etc.)

8. The lip sync problem that was observed by me, Pat Valentino, Robert Groden, and our film crew (i.e., by all of us) made clear that there was "something wrong" with that tape. There was nothing subtle about it. Perry was moving his lips and mouthing words, but they were not the words audible on the sound track.

9. I (and Pat V) discovered the word "inviolate" on that tape, in June 1989, when we were at Groden's home in Media, Pennsylvania. I don't think we focused (as much) on the words preceding it. What was very clear that Perry said  "inviolate" (on the audio visual record) but that the transcript (on which I had been relying, for years) was incorrect because it said "invalid"--and not "inviolate."


10. On returning to Los Angeles, I found that the "official" CBS transcript had the word "inviolate"--and not "invalid".  I was quite excited about this discovery.  Nowhere else in the entire CBS transcript, as released by CBS in 1967, after the four-part broadcast, was there any difference between the official transcript, and the transcript published at the back of the Steve White book.


11. My hypothesis: that sometime after the December 1966 (Barker) interview of Perry was conducted, he said something about "inviolate" (and its not clear just what); and then the tape was monkeyed with, and modified in some way, in an attempt to change the meaning of what Perry had said. (Again, it is not at all clear what he said, except that it does appear that he used the word "inviolate", in some sensible context--unless one wishes to entertain the hypothesis that Perry talked nonsense, either by accident or design) . Then the film was altered to address the "inviolate" problem.  Then, that  "modified" film, and a "matching transcript" (which used the word "invalid" as part of the phrase "rendered it invalid") was then provided to Stephen White, who was principal writer for the show. White (then about 50) who was then working under Rather, then about 36  (and/or Barker) then did the writing necessary to structure the narrative of the show in that area; and relate the "story" (quotes deliberate) about how Dr. Perry's tracheotomy had caused confusion that night at Bethesda.  Then  afterward the broadcast, Steve White wrote his own book, published in late 1967 or early 1968.  On that project, White used the transcript he had been provided, and which he placed at the back of his book.  Conceivably, he was given a copy of the "original" transcript, with an "inked in" editorial change; but I doubt that was the case, because (if so) then doing it that way would draw attention  to that particular word, and/or phrase, so I doubt that was the way it was done. I think he was given a transcript without any hint that a change had been made. And  that transcript --that was provided to White--reads exactly as  printed in the back of his book.

12. I think it is possible that, over the years, additional work was done on the video record of that particular Perry/Barker interview.  I say that because DVP is claiming that there is no lip sync problem at all in the copy that he has, but there certainly was such a problem on the very high quality copy that Groden had (and his was from the 1970s period, whereas DVP's is from the age of the Internet, a good 20 years later).  On this point, it should be noted that Dan Rather remained at CBS for many years, becoming a major news anchor in March 1981, and remaining in that position until March 2005. During that period, there a number of "other"   JFK assassination documentaries that he produced, or played a major role in; and the matter of Perry and the tracheotomy he performed were probably discussed more than once.  Furthermore, I met with Dan Rather, alone, for at least an hour (in December 1980) and know quite a bit about the way he functions, and his "private versus public" attitude on the JFK case. More on that another time. Rest assured that if the tape on later programs where he was the producer had technical problems, they would be addressed and fixed.

13. At the "Dan Rather, American Journalist" website today, there is a copy of the transcript of the 1967 CBS four-part program and it is the official transcript--the one with the word "inviolate". Its as if the one used by Steve White, in his book,   (with "rendered it invalid") has simply disappeared.

14. In 1966/67, when the four-part program was being assembled, Dan Rather--with producer credit--Rather was 36 (approx); Steve White was 50. If Part 2 had two different transcripts with only one word changed, on a key issue discussed on that program, then the interviewer, Eddie Barker (and Dan Rather)--both of whom had "Producer" credit, surely had to know about it. The person who appears to have been in the dark was Stephen White, who was principal writer. In 1966 White was 50; Dan Rather was an ambitious and fast-rising 36 (approx).   A Special Prosecutor--had there been one--would have had a field day investigating this entire question, because he (or she) would have copious array of evidence:  a changed written record (with both versions available); plus strong evidence of a changed audio record, and--finally  there is (or was) the body itself.  Think about it: There would be Dr. Perry, who was a personal witness who would be claiming he had nothing to do with creating the confusion, but, as noted in Best Evidence (Chapter 11) there was a trail of evidence (as laid out in Ch 11 of B.E.) that the body had been altered, in the throat area, before the body reached Bethesda.  Furthermore, and because of the anatomic mess that had been created (per my interviews with Paul O'Connor, that JFK's esophagus was damaged and partially exposed) that area (at the front of JFK's throat) had been sutured (per Ch. 23 of B.E.) apparently to hide this extraordinary damage to the body (!); and further,  the FBI agents were misled to believe that the suturing was done in Dallas, where a tracheotomy had been performed (and then "sewn up").

Further discussion will be found in Final Charade, but--from what I have written above--it should be clear that there is now enough information available to write a small e-book on this problem alone, with plenty of filmed interview material to back it up and document the narrative I have just laid down (Barker/CBS intvw ofPerry, DSL/Groden, DSL/Stewart , DSL/ McLelland, etc )

(And maybe I'll tackle that e-book issue, someday!)

Feedback welcome.


3/4/2018 - 10:55 AM PST

Orange County, California

P.S. I will soon be posting links to JPEG images from Steve White's book.






Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 707
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 hours 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.



Thank you for not offering rationalizations and fake debate, David!

Thank you for your continued stipulation that there was no significant elevation of the jacket on Elm St..

Physical evidence in a murder case is supreme -- but in the JFK case all LNers and many CTs despise the clothing evidence.

It's like garlic before vampires...



Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Lifton said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

My best guess:

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



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

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


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


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Just attempting to tie up a loose end here. . . :

  No, I do not believe the body was altered at Walter Reed.  However, there are a number of AF-1 radio transmissions indicating that it was "supposed to go" to Walter Reed, but (rest assured) it never did. JFK's body never went there, and I wasn't  able to confirm this, with certainty, until about 1982 (approx), a full year (or more) after the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence.

 So where was the body altered, and what are those Walter Reed transmissions all about?  Here's a rapidly written preview of my answers to these two questions which will be elaborated on in Final Charade.

NUMBER 1: Where was the body altered?

There are 3 periods where "the alteration" could have taken place (and I've concluded that "something" occurred during each of these 3 periods). 

Period #1: Love Field, after the body was removed from the coffin, and before it was put in the forward storage area,  prior to take off;.

Period #2: the brief period at Andrews after a covert off-load took place, and prior to its being put aboard a chopper, for Bethesda

Period #3: At Bethesda, in the period after the body arrived (6:35 p.m., per the Boyajian document); but  before the official start of the autopsy ( 8 pm)

Now let's consider each of these three periods, and add some detail.

Re Period #1 (At Love Field): I  don't know precisely what happened during #1 (i.e., at Love Field) but that is the primary location  where a sloppy alteration took place; and whatever was done (at that time) --what I sometimes call "smashing and bashing"--was done hurriedly and sloppily. (To be elaborated on in Final Charade).  Its an unspeakably ugly, horrific scene and it took place on AF-1, in the forward luggage area.  (It left a blood trail, and that's how I know about it).

Re Period #2: (At Andrews): That was "cleanup" and almost certainly had the sanction of RFK and Sec Def McNamara, who (it would appear) were not aware that the body had been (maliciously) altered (back in Dallas).  Period #2 (at Andrews) is when the body was put inside a body bag, and when the body bag was placed inside a (military style) shipping casket, and the combo was placed aboard a chopper; destination: Bethesda Naval Hospital. 

Re Period #3: (At Bethesda):  In the 42 minutes between 6:35 pm (when the body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, inside a shipping casket) and 7:17 pm, when the two FBI agents arrived at the Bethesda morgue; there was additional "clean-up," with the full sanction of one (or more) of the several Admirals who were present.  But during this period, Humes was acting in accordance with orders from "higher authority." That's when Humes--either by himself, or assigning the job to a med-tech (but always with the approve of higher authority" [i.e, the Admirals present])--had the front throat area sutured shut.  Humes then personally misled the FBI by telling the two agents that the suturing was from a tracheotomy done in Dallas, and--most importantly--that the suturing (also) had been done in Dallas. That was false. The suturing was done in the Bethesda morgue, with Humes present.

BUT PLEASE NOTE: Humes had nothing to do with the actual pre-autopsy alteration of JFK's body--either the conception of such a plan, or its execution.  I am aware that Doug Horne (with whom I shared a close personal relationship during the 3 year (approx) period when he was on the ARRB [Aug 95 -9/30/98] believes otherwise, and has advanced a hypothesis along these lines in his five-volume work, Inside the ARRB. Horne apparently believes that Humes got the body, and then proceeded to do the alterations, right there in the Bethesda morgue--specifically, in the area of the head.  IMHO: That's flat out wrong.  I disagree completely, and believe that Hornes "Humes did it" hypothesis to be completely incorrect.  I told him this back before he published (2009) and his response was that this is what he believed, and that if I believed differently, then "you'll write you own book one day."  Horne apparently didn't want to hear what I had to say, and was intent on "amending" (in the spirit of "correcting") my work.  In the process, he advanced what I believe to be a completely unreasonable and absurd hypothesis : that Humes (and Boswell) were the culprits.  That "they" altered the body.  I believe that to be completely incorrect, but do not wish to debate it in this post. Final Charade will--hopefully--dispose of that incorrect hypothesis once and for all.

But anyone who has studied this matter should ask themselves this question: Is it reasonable to believe that JFK's body was covertly removed from Air Force One, during the brief period prior to Jacqueline Kennedy ascended the stairs on the rear port side, simply so that JFK's body could be brought to the Bethesda morgue (1500 miles away, and four-plus hours later), some 20 minutes before the arrival of the empty coffin?  I find that absurd. The body was removed from AF-1 in Dallas so that it could be altered (i.e., bullets removed, and wounds altered) as soon as possible. Every minute of delay represented a situation in which the "best evidence" --unaltered--posed a threat to the plot, because here was "best evidence" which, unaltered, could tell the truth about the Dealey Plaza shooting.   So the notion that it was "covertly removed" from AF-1, before take-off, only to remain in some baggage hold, in its UN-altered state, until some four hours later, at Bethesda, strikes me as a highly dubious, if nonsensical, proposition.

NUMBER 2: The Walter Reed Radio Transmissions -- what were they all about?

The answer.  Bobby Kennedy and McNamara learned, very likely from Johnson himself, that JFK's body was not in the ceremonial coffin. Almost certainly, they were told--again, by Johnson himself--that he (LBJ, in conjunction with certain SS agents)  ordered the body removed from the coffin ( and placed in a luggage area), supposedly because of his (LBJ's) concerns about "security."  How considerate of him! (Also, There are some indications that Johnson implied that this was being done with the Attorney General's approval.)  All of this was pure LBJ hogwash, but that--almost certainly--is what certain SS agents were told.

Then the problem (for McNamara and RFK) became "logistical": how to return the body (i.e., JFK's body) to the original Dallas coffin, without the country finding out about this cockamaymee situation?

 So a plan was hatched, with the full approval of both of these two senior officials, to have the (empty) Dallas coffin choppered from Andrews to Walter Reed (in the twin-rotor MDW chopper);  and then to have the body (which was also to be brought to Walter Reed) re-inserted into the Dallas coffin; and then,  the final step,  for that coffin (i.e., the Dallas coffin, but now [once again] containing JFKs body) to be flown (by chopper) to Bethesda.  That was the plan. and at each step along the way, "national security" would be invoked to "explain" (as necessary) what the heck was going on..

But this plan didn't work out.  Why? Because at Andrews, a certain official who was not "in the loop" saw the Navy ambulance, and, with good intentions (and only trying to be helpful)  instructed the driver of the Navy ambulance (which had gone to Bethesda with a cardiac team, in case LBJ had a heart attack etc.) to back up toward the plane.  And so the driver did so.

As the driver backed the Navy ambulance up towards the side of Air Force One, it was spotted by Jackie, who was descending in the motorized lift, and she said (to Bobby): "We'll go in that," pointing to the ambulance.  

Jackie's stated wishes could not be ignored, and that's how "the best laid plans" (of mice and men, and RFK and McNamara) got derailed. The Dallas coffin was placed in the Navy ambulance, instead of aboard the MDW "twin rotor"  chopper (which was the original plan); And  Jackie, accompanied by Bobby, got into the ambulance containing the (empty) Dallas coffin.

Please note: RFK knew it was empty; Jackie did not.

Once that happened, the problem of putting JFK's body back into the original (i.e., Dallas) coffin had to be changed; but now, because of the snafu,  that had to be done ("somehow") at Bethesda, and not at Walter Reed, as originally intended.  OK dear reader. . so now,  if you have studied what I have just written, and been able to follow it (and yes, its a bit complex), you can now "pick up the narrative" by going to Best Evidence, Chapter 28..  Specifically: See Chapter 28 of Best Evidence, where the rest of this tale is told; i.e., where the remaining pieces of this puzzle are laid out, in detail (with appropriate time lines as to what the heck was going on at Bethesda).

Anyway. . . : now you know what (I believe) the "Walter Reed radio transmissions" were all about, and perhaps most readers will understand why I drew  an incorrect inference about them, when writing Best Evidence in late 1979, and up to April 1, 1980, which was the hard deadline for the manuscript.  I had those AF-1 transmissions, and believed the body was going there, but I still tried to be somewhat "tentative" in my conclusions about the matter.

But here's another piece of information, which is important, and which I have never talked about (very much)--at least not publicly.

FYI:  I interviewed General Chester Clifton, in his Washington DC office, for about 2 hours, on July 15, 1980, with a SONY TC 800 reel-to-reel recorder sitting on the desk between us. Clifton, as those who study the case may know, was handling all the communications between AF-1 and the White House situation room, and the Pentagon. I'll just say this: Clifton  was a valuable source. This 1980 interview (with Clifton) was granted at a time when Best Evidence was already known "in the trade" (i.e., the publishing business).  So Clifton agreed to see me, spoke reasonably candidly, and I learned quite a bit--but not everything--from that 7/15/1980  interview.  It took additional years for me to acquire additional information (e.g., from a detailed film interview with the helicopter pilot who met Air Force One on the starboard side), and to piece all the different parts of this puzzle together.

But now I have done that, as best as I can; and now I am sharing it (at least in part) on this thread.  So now you know, and all this will be laid out, with considerable detail and plenty of backup, in Final Charade.

This new evidence, about the fumbled "interception" of JFK's body, should help clear up many of the anomalies connected with the issue of the covert alteration of JFK's body prior to autopsy.

Doug Horne's hypothesis about Humes having altered the body at Bethesda, is wrong; but at least he tried; and he understood that the essential hypothesis set forth in Best Evidence was correct. (And he said so, publicly, in 2004, in a written statement. See Spartacus, under his name).

As for David Von Pein, much of his commentary will be proven false, and unnecessarily insulting; and, as I have said, he and his views will, to a large extent, end up in what Leon Trotsky called "the dustbin of history."

But (and as I have also noted), DVP is a good collector, and we should all give him credit for that. Bottom line: DVP is very good at "collecting the dots." He just isn't particularly adept at "connecting" them.

Stay tuned. . .


P.S.: In my remarks (above), I am referring to the way DVP has treated my work. As for DVP's ongoing "debate" with DiEugenio, that's an entirely different matter. More often than not, his arguments in that debate have significant validity.


3/4/2018 - 10:35  p.m. PST; edited 11:15 PST 12:40 a.m. (3/5)

Orange County, California


Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DSL NOTE - 3/4/2018  10:35 PM PST:

I do not know why there are multiple copies (and/or partial copies) if my post. I will try to clear all this up in the next few yours.


Sandy:  Just tying up a loose end here.  No, I do not believe the body was altered at Walter Reed. There are a number of radio transmissions indicating that it was "supposed to go" to Walter Reed, but it never there.  So where was the body altered, and what are those Walter Reed transmissions al about.  Here's a rapidly written preview of my answers to these two questions which will be elaborated on in Final Charade.

DELETED (unintended duplicate #1)


Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for David Lifton....

Why do you think it is that Robert Groden chose not to write a single word in his 1993 book "The Killing Of A President" about the bombshell revelations that Dr. Malcolm Perry supposedly revealed to him in 1977?

According to the things I'm reading in this discussion, Perry told Groden in 1977 multiple things that should make a dedicated conspiracy believer like Robert Groden turn cartwheels over --- e.g., Perry saying he didn't cut through JFK's throat wound at all, plus the shaking of Perry's head from side to side in disgust as he was shown the Stare of Death autopsy photo, with Perry (allegedly) saying the wound in the photograph didn't look like the tracheotomy incision he made on the President's body on 11/22/63.

Those things should have been centerpieces of Mr. Groden's major "30th Anniversary" book release in 1993, wouldn't you think? And yet not only doesn't Groden say a single word in TKOAP about these things, he actually endorses the notion that Dr. Perry DID make his trach directly through the bullet hole in President Kennedy's neck. Here's what Groden wrote on page 76 of TKOAP:

"The President's throat wound has long been the subject of controversy. Was it an entrance or exit wound? Few medical personnel viewed the wound in its original state before it was obliterated by a tracheotomy procedure." -- Robert J. Groden; Page 76 of "The Killing Of A President" (1993)

It's utterly inconceivable to me that Bob Groden would endorse in his major book release of 1993 the fact that Dr. Perry did, indeed, perform the trach incision through the bullet hole in JFK's throat if he had direct information to the contrary that came out of the mouth of Dr. Perry himself while the two men were standing face-to-face in Dr. Perry's office sixteen years earlier.

What possible explanation could there be for Groden not shouting from the rooftops (and in his 1993 book), "Dr. Perry told me he never cut through the wound!", if Perry had, in fact, said that very thing to Groden's face in the year 1977? Did Groden just forget about his bombshell meeting with Perry in '77?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David (L):

your research and hypotheses are mind-boggling. I confess that I need more time and reading to be able to swallow all new information.

However, let me come back to the neck wound.  Even here I am in a state of confusion, seeing that any attempt to make sense of it would not survive the next round of posts. Anyway, let me review the three possibilities of how a tracheostomy could have been achieved.

1. Inserting a tracheal catheter straight into the neck wound without making any incision or tracheotomy. This is a very unlikely possibility because there was blood frothing from the wound. Such option would be risky as it could result in suffocating the patient. Without a detailed inspection of the wound, it would not even be clear where this opening would lead to.  This possibility is not supported by most of the testimonies and reports. A skin incision and a tracheotomy were performed.

2. An incision was made through the neck wound which allowed inspection of the wound. This is what Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission, and he also provided some details about the wound  which details were obvious to him after making a horizontal cut through it.  Further, the wound would be expanded above and below the opening in the trachea (caused by the gunshot), and that allowed to expose the second or third tracheal ring and to make a tracheotomy below the existing hole in an undamaged part of the trachea. This would be consistent with both a tracheotomy below the wound and an incision through the wound. Dr. Perry's statement for the ARRB, quoted in one of previous David Von Pein's posts, provides some support to this possibility. The wound would be very large by now and it would be fully understandable if Dr. Perry would also suture the neck wound with 1-2 stitches on each side. Suturing the skin and fascia around the tube used for a tracheostomy is a part of the procedure. The tracheostomy allegedly lasted 5 minutes (William Manchester's book) which long time might have involved also making some 4 surgical knots. After the President was pronounced dead, all the tubes were removed from President's body. This left the neck wound sutured and narrow, with an opening in the midline which opening was related to the neck gunshot wound. There was no suture through the opening in the neck because sutures were made with the tube in its place. The resulting picture of the neck wound was that of a neat incision because it was sutured and a rounded hole in the middle of the throat because of the gunshot wound and the circular tube which was just removed. Therefore, Dr. Perry did not remember ever causing a gash on the neck seen in the autopsy photograph. He might have said that he left the neck wound inviolate because it looked after removing the catheter more or less the same as he saw it when he first approached President's body. 

The gash on the throat might have been the result of tampering with the body or a part of the autopsy in which the sutures were cut for an inspection of this wound.

3. An incision was made below the neck wound and a tracheotomy and tracheostomy were carried out on an undamaged part of the trachea. This solution would contradict Dr. Perry's testimonies for the WC and ARRB, and it is therefore not the most likely scenario.

Unless some novel information pops up which is entirely possible given how dynamic this thread is,  I am inclined to believe in (2) : there was a cut through the wound,  Dr. Perry created a space above and below the wound, and used a healthy part of trachea below the site of injury for tracheotomy and tracheostomy. As a standard part of any tracheostomy, he sutured the tissues on both sides of the catheter. After the catheter was removed, the incision was appearing as a narrow horizontal line, well sutured, and the opening caused by the gunshot wound was seen as it looked before any surgery to the neck - it was "inviolate". This wound, in my opinion, could have still be used to decide whether the gunshot wound to the neck was an entry or an exit wound. 

Edited by Andrej Stancak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's  disgraceful  what Lifton is doing here, actually trying to create more controversy and conspiracy  and using Perry's  video interview to  do so. It just goes to show that no one in this case is sacred.

And the thrumming helicopter  and cut up at Love Field is even more ridiculous. Worst of all it's amazing  how there are people  out there who continually  believe  in this nonsense.

Does Lifton  not have any scruples  at all?

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Does Lifton  not have any scruples  at all?

You shouldn't even be ALLOWED to ask that question...

Who the $%^- are you?  You can barely tie your laces on this forum and you're calling out David Lifton?

So there it is... the real lacking quality is RESPECT.  You have none of it for anyone but yourself...  :up

You believe simply because you can utter some syllables you have any credibility here?

You whine on virtually every thread and in most every post and can't understand why you're ignored.

:idea   here's a thought....   now run along...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I think it's  disgraceful  what Lifton is doing here, actually trying to create more controversy and conspiracy  and using Perry's  video interview to  do so.

If you were paying attention you would know about Perry's assertions that he made the incision BELOW the wound. DSL is creating more controversy only if he fabricated that. I have no reason to believe he would do that. Do you?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with either Mike Walton or Lifton.  In fact, I have Lifton on ignore, along with Trejo.

But I do not understand why we have to reply with such vitriol in either manner.

I mean, if you disagree with someone say so and say why.  But I don't see why we have to get personal.  It becomes demeaning to the whole JFK issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...