David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Michael Clark]

12 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And around and around in circles we go (again), with Mr. Lifton apparently (again) totally ignoring the following facts that were discussed about a month ago. Quoting from my previous posts....

---Quote On:---

"In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound".

And please keep in mind the context of the sentence that Dr. Perry is uttering. The word "inviolate" in that part of his 1967 CBS-TV interview doesn't make any sense at all. But "invalid" sure does. Perry's complete statement was:

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

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

[...]

Some additional thoughts....

Since you [David S. Lifton] 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?"

-- DVP; February 28 & early March 2018; Hendricks County, Indiana; USA; North America; Earth; Milky Way

David Von Pein, Your cut and paste style fails on very important test. I does not pass the "would you want everyone else do what you do?" test. You take advantage of the good sense of others by acting in a way that they do not act. If everyone pasted quotes from their archive of debates there would be no debate. 

[David Lifton]

David Von Pein:

You say I'm ignoring this or that "fact" and quote me as follows, QUOTE ON:

In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound".  UNQUOTE

But you, David [Von Pein] are ignoring the fact--the published fact--that on November 23, 1963, Perry told writer Jimmy Breslin, in an  article quoting him and which was published on Sunday 11/24/63 that he made the trach incision "below" the bullet wound. Also, you are ignoring the account of Dr. Dave Stewart that Perry told him that he left the wound "inviolate"--which is exactly the same thing that he told Groden when Groden visited him in his New York City office (circa 1977) and showed him the face-up "stare-of-death" autopsy photograph. 

What's clear is that Perry said different things to different people on different days.

So the issue is: why is Perry behaving this way, and which account is to be believed?

If the issue was as straightforward as you would like it to be, Perry wouldn't be saying these different things to different people at different times.

I don't understand how you can invoke Perry's statement, on camera, about "cutting through the wound" (made around December 1966, when this interview was filmed) and ignore what he told Jimmy Breslin the day after JFK was murdered (i.e., on 11/23/63, that he made his cut "below" the wound) or what he told Dr. Stewart --according to Stewart--on 11/22/63 (that he left the wound "inviolate"); or what he said in his office to Groden (and a Baltmore reporter) in 1977 (again, "inviolate").

If Perry had been brought before a Federal Grand Jury investigating President Kennedy's murder, how do you think he would have handled all these discrepancies?  Do you really believe he could have ignored everything he said on these different occasions, and simply used your selective approach to the record?

And, of course, had there been such a Federal Grand Jury inquiry, perhaps one of the questions would have been: "How do you explain the fact, Dr. Perry, that you told David Lifton on 11/27/1966, that the incision you made was "2 - 3 cm", when the autopsy doctor testified it was "7 - 8 cm"? 

And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that you used a knife, while the autopsy report states that the wound had "widely gaping irregular edges"? (See Ch. 11 of B.E.)

And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that when the autopsy was conducted, and Colonel Finck examined this wide gash (i.e., the so-called "tracheotomy incision"), and examined the edges very carefully, he said he could not find any evidence of the previous wound; even going so far as to say, "I don't know why it is not there"?

And perhaps, if Paul O'Connor had been called before such an inquiry, he would have testified to what he told me, both in the telephone interview in August 1979, and then in my filmed interview in June/July 1989, that the situation in the area of the neck was so bad that the esophagus and the trachea were clearly visible and "through" the so-called trach incision, and perhaps one of the Grand Jurors would have asked Perry: "Did you make a wound that was so big that the esophagus and the trachea could be seen through the hole that you made?"  And perhaps another of the Grand Jurors, hearing about the fact that the wound was "sutured shut" when he saw it, might ask that Dr. Humes, the autopsy pathologist, be called to testify, and to explain: "Hey, Dr. Humes. . do you mind telling this jury who stitched up this wound? And when that occurred?"  And perhaps another question: "Dr. Humes, would you mind explaining why you told the FBI that this suturing was where a trach had been performed, in Dallas? And implying that the suturing was done in Dallas?  Were you attempting to mislead the FBI, Dr. Humes?"

So you see, DVP, there's a lot more to this issue than what you are trying to focus on. And its kind of peculiar--even laughable--that you would take one piece of evidence out of an entire array of facts, and just focus on that one datum, and ignore the rest.

No one is denying what Perry said on camera. The issue is why he said so many other things, at other times; and why there's such obvious evidence that this particular wound area was altered, and in a most ugly fashion, before the body arrived at Bethesda. 

That's the bigger picture, DVP; and no matter how much you try to focus on just one little tree, there's a whole forest out there.

DSL

4/2/2018- 6:55 PM PDT

Orange County, California

Edited April 3, 2018 by David Lifton

[Geoff Heinricks]

David...

"Further details can be supplied; and I do remember the name of the show: a very detailed radio documentary titled  "Thou Shalt Not Kill." (Its a well known interview to JFK researchers.)  "

My father did that radio documentary! Glad to see that you and Vince Palamara  still recognize some rare and important interviews they managed...not bad for a group of Canadians!

Robert Holiday was/is his 'radio' name...he turns 80 in a few days. He gave me BE to read when it came out.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein, Your cut and paste style fails [one] very important test. [It] does not pass the "would you want everyone else do what you do?" test. You take advantage of the good sense of others by acting in a way that they do not act. If everyone pasted quotes from their archive of debates there would be no debate. 

I think my "style" is just fine, thank you. In fact, in many instances, I find it even more powerful and useful to repeat (i.e., "cut and paste") something I have already posted (such as the Feb./Mar. 2018 excerpts I repeated above regarding David Lifton's outlandish "altered 1967 CBS-TV tape" theory) in order to emphasize and reiterate things that I perceive to be obvious and which were not adequately (IMO) addressed and/or refuted by the CT defense counsel (i.e., Mr. Lifton).

IOW, I felt the need to repeat a point (or points) I had previously made. And since a perfectly good written record of those points already exists in my saved archives, why shouldn't I use them again to reiterate my position (vs. typing out pretty much the exact same argument again, while utilizing just a few different words)?

Perry....your witness.

P.S. ....

Another good "case in point" to illustrate the benefit of having a fairly large archive of JFK-related written material readily at hand occurred just 4 days ago in another thread at this forum --- here --- concerning the contradictory statements made over the years by Buell Frazier.

BTW, I'm certainly not the only person who cuts & pastes their previously archived material at this forum. Many times in the past few years I've seen other members---such as Pat Speer and Jim DiEugenio---copy their verbatim quotes taken from their own websites (patspeer.com and JD's K&K site) into forum threads. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all. In fact, as I stated, I think it's a good thing to do in many instances.

Edited April 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Lifton]

Hello Geoff: What a small world!  Perhaps you can locate a transcript of the show? Or, if you can send me the audio, I know someone who will produce a letter perfect transcript. Let me know. You can respond privately to me at  DSL74@Cornell.edu  Thanks for showing up here, in this dialogue.

[Geoff Heinricks]

Hi David,

I've been following this (long} thread since it started. Glad to see I'm still registered here, though it's been years since I logged in.

It wasn't the CBC, but rather a private radio station in Toronto - CFTR - that produced the series...which won a few awards...and a folllow-up TSNK II. I'll ask my dad to find a cassette or something of the show...I think he has a few hidden away. God knows...but he probably has the unedited interview tapes as well.

Look forward to the new book.

[David Lifton]

DVP:

You refer to my "outlandish" altered CBS tape theory.  To begin with, I know how to separate theory from fact; and I'm well aware that its not a "fact" (yet) that the CBS tape was altered; what is a fact is that two transcripts of the show exist, that differ (principally) in just one key word: "inviolate" versus "invalid."  The official CBS transcript--which I obtained in 1967 after these broadcasts aired, and is at the Ford Library--says "inviolate."  And that supports the accounts of two people with whom Perry spoke: Dr. Dave Stewart (on 11/22 and over that weekend); and Robert Groden. He told Stewart that he left the wound "inviolate." He said the same thing when he met with Groden (and a Baltimore reporter) at his office in New York City, and was shown the "stare-of-death" autopsy photo, which shows that wide, horizontal gash in the neck.  "Inviolate" was used on both those occasions, by Perry, to state that he didn't touch the wound; that it left Parkland Hospital exactly the way it was when he saw the wound in the Trauma Room One.  But what Perry said changed in the transcript of the Barker interview of Perry.  According to that transcript, he now (supposedly) admitted to making an incision through the wound, which action (on Perry's part) "rendered it invalid."  Full quote from the CBS transcript as publishe on page 242 of the White book: "I didn't think abut cutting through the wound--which, of course, rendered it invalid as regards further examination and inspection.

The transcript published by the late Stephen White--and he was the  primary writer of the CBS show says "invalid", the context being that Perry's "cutting" rendered it "invalid."  But Perry told both Dr. Dave Stewart, and Robert Groden--approximately four years apart--that he "left the wound inviolate."  Since the two transcripts each say something entirely different, and since the word "inviolate" could be clearly heard (by myself and Pat Valentino, on the audio, when Groden played his super-special 3/4 " tape, obtained from God-only-knows where at CBS, the suspicion naturally arises that someone monkey'd with the audio in connection with changing the meaning of what Perry said.  And yet trace evidence of what he originally told Stewart ("inviolate") and Groden ("inviolate") is right there on the tape.

So did Perry just change his story, or did someone monkey with the audio, or was it some combination of both?  That's the issue.

Now here's something that could be done, if Groden was willing to assist.  The 3/4" tape of the CBS show, the one that he played for us (Pat Valentino and me) in June 1989, is in Robert Groden's possession.  A high quality digital copy could be made of that part of the show; and we could all listen to it, and decide.  Is what Groden possessed (and played for us, in June 1989) superior to what is available today--for example, at the Dan Rather site?  Or is it identical?  That would be an interesting matter to pursue, and I'd like to see it done.

DSL; 4/2/2018 - 7:40 PM PDT

Edited April 3, 2018 by David Lifton

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

DVP:

You refer to my "outlandish" altered CBS tape theory. 

Yes, I certainly did. IMO, it is, indeed, an outlandish/outrageous/ridiculous/preposterous (take your pick) theory. For the reasons I previously stated.

 

Quote

Now here's something that could be done, if Groden was willing to assist.  The 3/4" tape of the CBS show, that he played for us (Pat Valentino and me) in June 1989 is in his possession.  A high quality digital copy could be made of that part of the show; and we could all listen to it, and decide.  Is what Groden possessed (and played for us) superior to what is available today--for example, at the Dan Rather site?  Or is it identical?  That would be an interesting matter to pursue, and I'd like to see it done.

Yes. I'd like to see that done too. Not that I think it's really necessary, because that 1967 tape hasn't been "altered" at all. And, as I keep saying, one of the best reasons we can know it hasn't been altered is because the key word that you, David Lifton, are most concerned about on the tape---"inviolate"---IS STILL PART OF THE EXISTING AUDIO on that tape --- although Dr. Perry is obviously not saying "inviolate" there, because that word makes no sense in the sentence in which it was used. But you, DSL, seem to think the word is undeniably "inviolate", even though you ALSO insist the same tape has been "altered". Go figure that strange dichotomy. ~shrug~

Now, can you think of ANY reason why the "Tape Alterers" would have wanted to LEAVE IN the word "inviolate", even though it comes right alongside the words "cutting through the wound", so that the end result of their tampering was an incoherent mess?!

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

Reprise.....

DAVID LIFTON SAID:

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

SANDY LARSEN LATER SAID:

Well, this is certainly interesting.

It appears that 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.)


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 --- "I left the wound inviolate". We know Perry never said those exact words because of this video I posted previously. In that video, Perry's lips match the audio perfectly. How can anyone doubt that fact---even David S. Lifton?

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

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

[...]

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

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

[...]

Regarding this comment [by David Lifton]:

"A friend who has audio expertise...notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought NOT to be the sound of any words."

And if it's merely a case of the audio and video being slightly "out of sync" with each other on the CBS 1967 tape in question, then OF COURSE you're going to find that there are some SILENT parts of the tape even when Perry's mouth is moving, and vice versa. That's practically the definition of "out of sync". (I feel a "Duh" is needed here.) :-)

If your A/V friend would simply transfer the tape to a digital format and then place the digital file into a video editor, then the audio and video portions could easily be separated and then they could very likely be "lined up" with one another. The out-of-sync issue would then be fixed, and thus the silly allegation of the tape being "altered" by evil-doers would disappear forever.
 

Edited April 3, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Lifton]

DSL NOTE, 4/3/2018 - 7:55 PM PDT: This post has been edited and revised, from the time it was originally written.

DVP:

Quoting from your post, QUOTE ON:

Now, can you think of ANY reason why the "Tape Alterers" would have wanted to LEAVE IN the word "inviolate", even though it comes right alongside the words "cutting through the wound", so that the end result of their tampering was an incoherent mess?!  UNQUOTE

 

You seem to believe--or think--that those who murdered President Kennedy (and then altered evidence in an attempt to hide what they had done, and blame the crime on Oswald)--were following certain rules of "logic" (DVP style) and were perhaps engaged in prim and proper behavior. And so you say such things as, "Well, the Z film couldn't have been altered, because look, see!?. . the head snap is still in the film. Since the inclusion of that in the film presents important evidence of conspiracy, ergo, there could not have been an (or "any") alteration."

This is bizarre and nonsensical logic, or "logic."  Suddenly, you have become Mr. Psychologist, making judgements about whether evidence has been tampered with based on whether those involved in this tawdry affair had a deep commitment to performing "the perfect crime."

First of all, the crime was far from perfect (and this applies to the cover-up, as well).  But let's start with the crime: Do you think that anyone in their right mind, planning to shoot Kennedy (and, let's say, to frame Oswald) would then also shoot Connally?  Obvously not.  Certainly, Connally was not a target, and yet,he got shot.  So that should tell us (and particularly you) something right there.  This crime, however (elegantly) it was planned (in the abstract), was imperfectly executed.  And I would suggest to you that the cover-up was (that is, "is")  also riddled with similar problems, i.e., similar inconsistencies.  In other words, whatever the original plan--it was bungled in execution.  Bottom line: both the crime, and the cover-up had serious same flaws.

So.  . .if it was desired to remove a car-stop, for example, "they" didn't have a month to take their time and "get it right."  Consider the time line. The Z film came out of processing by 5pm, or thereabouts.  The film--just as it exists today at the National Archives--was sold to LIFE by about 9 - 10 AM the next day (in a rather peculiar auction; but that's another story). So do the math, DVP. . . that's not very much time.  Whatever was done was done very hurriedly--i.e., essentially within the first 15 hours (approx) and I am sure that those involved were not pleased that the result. Why? Because it contained something as powerful and telling as the Zapruder film headsnap (regardless of how you and your apologist friends try to explain it). But the "head-snap" was the result of the film editing done to remove the car stop. By eliminating frames in that area of the film, the acton was speeded up and so JFK's "slump" was turned into a backward "snap." I realized this back in 1969, when I first spotted the existence of all these "car-stop witnesses" in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes. The car stop was gone, but now the head "snapped" back.  This artifact of film editing does not change the fact that so many people saw the car stop--and I know, because I interviewed five of the car-stop witnesses in November 1971. I wanted to hear these car stop witnesses personally, and brother was that an experience. When I spent an evening with William and Gayle Newman, and told him, after hearing his account (which focused on the stop), that there was a film at the Archives which showed no stop, (remember: this was four years before the film was shown by Groden on national TV in March 1975), Bill Newman was somewhat exasperated and said words to the effect that "I don't give a fig what any film shows!  We were there, and the car stopped, right in front of us!" (This interview was recorded on audio tape--using a reel-to-reel TC 800, the same recorder used by Nixon to record his Oval Office conversations).

So now we turn to the audio record of Dr. Perry's interview (by Eddie Barker); and we find that Perry used the word "inviolate" --clearly heard on the tape (by both me and Pat Valentino) --and for me, that key word (clearly audible on the tape) worked to confirm what he told Groden in 1977, when Groden (and a Baltimore reporter) showed Perry the autopsy stare-of -death photo; and what he told Dr. Dave Stewart, on November 22, 1963: that he left the wound inviolate.

Here's what I don't understand.  Why can't you seem to understand that the audio record, when considered in the context of the two different transcripts--one from CBS and another from the writer of the show (Stephen White)--which differ in just one word ("inviolate" versus "invalid") clearly indicate that something is amiss?

DVP: You think that my argument leaves the debate about the audio record an "incoherent mess".

But what about the body, DVP?

Does it not bother you at all that, as I described in my previous post(s), that JFK's nody  left Dallas with a small bullet entry wound, and --possibly, but not definitely--a small and modest trach incision ("2-3 cm", according to what Dr. Perry told me on 10/27/66) ; and arrived at Bethesda with a wide gash, measured at "7 - 8 cm"? And which, according to the autopsy report, had "widely gaping irregular edges"?

And that's just the beginning: what about the fact that, according to O'Connor, the throat area was such  a mess that you could see the esophagus through the wide gash; and that the larynx was destroyed? 

Can you face yourself in the mirror and tell me that your honest response to all this is what we see in the face-up autopsy photograph, which I published for the first time in October 1988, in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence, is a tracheotomy incision?

And then, now moving forward to the Bethesda morgue, and the time the two FBI agents arrived, there's credible evidence that, at some point before the two FBI agents arrived, it was "sutured shut".  And the FBI agents were mislead into thinking that what they were looking at was a trach, which had been sutured at Parkland.  Do you think that's legitimate?  (This matter will be developed at length in Final Charade).

What I have described above--with regard to the President's body, and this area at the front of the throat--is what was an "incoherent mess."

You ought to get your priorities right, DVP, before preaching the lone-nutter story to your political "base"--i.e., your "audience"--while the evidence is so very clear that something really awful happened to the President's body, and viewed in context, the alteration of collateral evidence (such as the Perry interview) some three years later, would be mere "collateral damage" in the larger scheme of things.

DSL, 4/2/2018 - 10:30 PM PDT; edited/revised on 4/3/2018 - 7:55 AM PDT

 

 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by David Lifton

[Ron Ecker]

On 3/29/2018 at 9:17 PM, David Lifton said:

Steve (and all others who may be interested in the "Air Force One" problem, and, in general, the details re the chain of possession of JFK's body after it left Parkland Hospital [at about 2 PM CST], and prior to its arrival at Bethesda for the autopsy [which officially commenced at 8 PM EST]):

.....

 

David,

Fascinating stuff. Thanks. If your account is accurate, it suggests to me that LBJ was literally a hands-on conspirator.

 

[Ray Mitcham]

LBJ was aboard Air Force One quite some time before the Kennedy clan got aboard. LBJ was there when the coffin with the President in was loaded. What on earth could he have been up to whilst he was on there?

Edited April 3, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Ron Ecker]

2 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

LBJ was aboard Air Force One quite some time before the Kennedy clan got aboard. LBJ was there when the coffin with the President in was loaded. What on earth could he have been up to whilst he was on there?

He apparently wanted people to believe he was hiding in the bathroom.

 

[Gary Murr]

12 hours ago, Geoff Heinricks said:

David...

"Further details can be supplied; and I do remember the name of the show: a very detailed radio documentary titled  "Thou Shalt Not Kill." (Its a well known interview to JFK researchers.)  "

My father did that radio documentary! Glad to see that you and Vince Palamara  still recognize some rare and important interviews they managed...not bad for a group of Canadians!

Robert Holiday was/is his 'radio' name...he turns 80 in a few days. He gave me BE to read when it came out.

Hello Geoff - and David Lifton:

I never realized that Robert Holiday was not your father's true name. Mind you it never came up in discussions or meetings I had with your father and the other individual who worked on "Thou Shalt Not Kill," Clint Nickerson. As you may or may not be aware, Geoff, I was the one who got your dad and Clint to look further into this subject matter. I put them in touch with Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, who in turn helped line up interviews for the radio show. And you are correct, the show was originally broadcast via the outlet at which they were working at that time in the early 1970's, CFTR radio. I still have some cassette copies of the show around somewhere; I also have some surviving copies of the taped interviews Clint did, as well as interviews conducted on behalf of Fred and Perry.

The next time you are talking to your father, tell him Gary Murr says "Hello!"

 

[David Lifton]

Hi Ron: 

You wrote: "Fascinating stuff. Thanks. If your account is accurate, it suggests to me that LBJ was literally a hands-on conspirator. "

Yes, that's true (unfortunately).   I state that its  most unfortunate, because there's no way to sugar-coat the implications of the timeline evidence. And that means that anything I have to say on the subject will (no doubt) be viewed as seriously "politically incorrect."   But if we can get past Johnson's psychopathy (and the matter of what is "politically incorrect" (which is really quite besides the point), then the way is  cleared to ask (at least) these three questions:  (1) How many Secret Service agents (who, as the Stoughton photos show) carried the coffin up into the tail compartment) know about what happened next?  My answer: maybe not everyone, but certainly quite a few.  It was a known fact among a small number of agents on the White House Detail that JFK's body was removed from the coffin within minutes of its being carried into the tail compartment, and that the Dallas coffin, from that point forward, was empty.  The explanation: "security".  Which brings me to the next question.   (2) How did Johnson justify this action?  Answer: Almost certainly, by some argument about "national security"--that it was a "security measure" to insure that  no one would "get to" the body; or that the Dallas Police Department would not be able to halt the take-off and insist on recovering the body for autopsy. (This last notion is a joke, since Chief Curry was right there, on the plane, and could countermand any such an attempt (in the [highly]  unlikely event that it occurred, which--of course--it did not). So that whole idea is nothing but a bogeyman; and I mention it only because it was, apparently, a possibility that seriously worried Ken O'Donnell, according to Manchester.  Now all of this leads to the next question. . . .   (3) Did Bobby Kennedy know that this had occurred? And that his brother's body was not in the Dallas coffin?  Answer: Yes, he did.  He learned of this situation after AF-1 was en route back to Washington, via communication with Sec Def McNamara, who learned the truth from Johnson; along with some screwball justification that LBJ offered to "explain" why this was the case, i.e., why this "had to be done." 

I will address this subject ("what Bobby knew, and when he knew it"; along with another closely related question, "what Bobby knew, that Jackie did not"  (and rest assured, the First Lady did not know that the Dallas coffin was empty, and would have freaked out had she been told) in Final Charade.  But back to your original observation, and I will now address it by adding a little bit more information:  yes, once the Dallas plot failed (and  yes, there was a Texas plot to alter the body, but it went seriously awry, because of the unexpected shooting of Governor Connally, among other things), LBJ was (then) involved in a series of actions that was tantamount to pulling the plotters' chestnuts out of the fire. Of critical importance was getting JFK's body (which was unaltered, except for the trach incision [i.e., if an incision was really made, etc.]) out of the coffin, and arranging for an alternate autopsy site. I'll have more to say about this in Final Charade.  Stay tuned. And thanks for your commentary.

DSL, 4/3/2018 - 8 AM PDT

Orange County, California

Edited April 3, 2018 by David Lifton

[Geoff Heinricks]

Hi Gary,

Thanks for the note, and the background. I will pass that on to him. Clint unfortunately died last Spring in B.C. of lung cancer. GH