Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show


Recommended Posts

d4e6c6ffde833ebe6039718ccb98cf71.jpg

 

Brian Doyle asked me to post this photo. He wrote:

"This image shows that Lifton's claim that you could not see what was going on on the starboard side is ridiculous...The image clearly shows that the starboard rear door and its access area were in clear view of all photography from the port side...Cargo and stairway equipment is sizeable and for Lifton's covert slipping of the body out the other side to have happened would have required equipment that was well visible, as this photo makes clear...It is entirely open and you couldn't hide it as this image proves..."

When I read Lifton's theory (posted above), the impression I got wasn't that the forklift on the starboard side could not be seen from the other side, but rather that those on the other side wouldn't know what was going on with the fork lift.

What the above photo makes me wonder is if the forklift is going to arrive in time.

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 703
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brian, Sandy, and others who are interested in the goings-on at Love Field:

 

I am quite familiar with this picture,and have been for years.  Do you know by whom it was taken? And when it was first released?   That's my first question. But here's some more commentary.  Let me number the points for convenience of future discussion:

1. The witness I interviewed, and who knew all about the forklift truck on the starboard side of Air Force One was the pilot of Air Force Two. I have no doubt about his credibility, or the accuracy of his recollection. (Remember: He's sitting in the cockpit, located in a more forward position, and can look directly across the space between the two aircraft; which, according to Manchester, were parked "wingtip to wingtip").

2. I dispute your glib contention that you can tell, from this single photograph, and the angle from which it was taken (which is aft, on the starboard side, and one to two hundred feet away) that you can properly infer what persons on the port side can see, especially if they are pre-occupied with the offload of the Dallas coffin, from the arriving ambulance (which is what the photo appears to show; and which has not yet occurred).  Moreover, many of those on the port side were SS agents of the White House Detail, some of whom were involved in getting the body "onto" AF-1, so it could immediately be opened and "offloaded" on the starboard side.  Do you think anyone on the port side was going to say, "Hey, Kellerman, look at that forklift truck!" (after it arrived); or, if before, might he exclaim: "Hey, Roy, where the heck is that forklift truck, that was supposed to be on site, and waiting?"

3. Furthermore, even if a forklift was seen on the starboard side (by an "inquiring mind" on the port side, who happened to focus his gaze, at ground level, across the underside of the AF-1) that wouldn't necessarily mean that there would  seem to be anything improper about it being there. The rear starboard side door was a "half-door" and normally used to service the rear galley area (although normally, of course, by one of those trucks with an "upper level" used to "match" with the starboard rear- entry door).

4. I call your attention to the "blackened out" area on the rear starboard side.  I call this area to your attention because, if it represents photo alteration, then the picture was altered to hide whatever was going on (An opened starboard half-door?  Who knows.).  This is an area that needs more work, but its important because of point #1, so let me repeat.

5. The pilot of AF-2 saw the fork lift, on the starboard side ofAF-1, fully extended, and with what he believed to be a coffin. This is a tape recorded telephone interview which I had around Feb/March 1980, some 38 years ago. (And I omitted it from the publication of B.E. because, at the time, I was certain that if anything had occurred, it would have happened during the swearing in. And it was only after publication, when Gen. McHugh wrote the letter to TIME disputing my contention, that I was forced to rethink the entire issue, which puzzled me for a good three years).  It was not until the summer of 1984, when paying a summertime visit to the UCLA campus, that I suddenly realized that the swearing in wasn't the only time that "Jackie wasn't with the coffin."    In view of the above. . . the first such time period was when she (and the others) were down on the tarmac (as the photos taken by White House photographer Stoughton show), and the coffin was being (or  had just been) brought "upstairs" by the men who carried it up the stairs on the rear port side).

6. I think that your quick-to-judge notion that the inferences I have drawn about the goings-on on the starboard side is "ridiculous" is seriously flawed.

7.  I have additional information about the fork life truck that will be in Final Charade, and which I cannot release at this time.

8.  If you (or anyone else reading this) be able to ascertain who took this photo, and when it was processed and released, please let me know (at DSL74@Cornell.edu). Just look at the high quality of this picture. It doesn't appear to be taken by someone with an ordinary "Brownie" type camera. But it does appear to have been taken by someone seated inside the airplane.  (As one poster has noted, you can see part of the window frame).  So. . what (i.e., "who?") was the source?

9.  Please keep in mind that photography in that area, and particularly on the starboard side, was prohibited. A TV cameraman, as I mentioned, had his film and camera confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Chief of Police (Fisher), and a Texas Highway Patrolman was threatened with arrest, by the Secret Service (and specifically,  by Agent Rufus Youngblood) if he kept filming.   So I think your snap judgements are entirely incorrect, and in fact represent an oversimplified and one-sided view of this issue. Having spoken at length to the pilot of AF-2, I can assure you that he did not imagine the particulars of what he told. me.

10. Regarding the timing of the photo: it would appear, form the cluster of people at the rear of the Dallas ambulance, this was a moment when the coffin was about to be removed from the back of the Dallas ambulance.  I don't know if the fork lift truck had yet "arrived" (and was photographically removed); assuming that was not the case, then when it did arrive, a more reasonable question to ask would be: once the agents started carrying the Dallas casket up port side stairs, is it not reasonable to believe that all eyes would be glued on those fellows, struggling with the Dallas coffin, and not the movements of an apparatus on the starboard side which, in any event, would appear to be legitimate.

DSL (Edited, 4/6/18 - 5:55 PM PDT)

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Brian, Sandy, and others who are interested in the goings-on at Love Field:

 

I am quite familiar with this picture,and have been for years.  Do you know by whom it was taken? And when it was first released?   That's my first question. But here's some more commentary.  Let me number the points for convenience of future discussion:

1. The witness I interviewed, and who knew all about the forklift truck on the starboard side of Air Force One was the pilot of Air Force Two. I have no doubt about his credibility, or the accuracy of his recollection. (Remember: He's sitting in the cockpit, located in a more forward position, and can look right across the space between the two aircraft; which, according to Manchester, were parked "wingtip to wingtip".

2. I dispute your glib contention that you can tell, from this single photograph, and the angle from which it was taken (which is aft, on the starboard side, and one to two hundred feet away) that you can properly infer what persons on the port side can see, especially if they are pre-occupied with the offload of the Dallas coffin, from the arriving ambulance (which is what the photo appears to show).  Moreover, many of those on the port side were SS agents of the White House Detail, some of whom were involved in getting the body "onto" AF-1, so it could immediately be opened and "offloaded" on the starboard side.  Do you think anyone on the port side was going to say, "Hey, Kellerman, look at that forklift truck!" (after it arrived); or, if before, might he exclaim: "Hey, Roy, where the heck is that forklift truck, that was supposed to be on site, and waiting?"

3. Furthermore, even if a forklift was seen on the starboard side (by an "inquiring mind" on the port side, who happened to focus his gaze, at ground level, across the underside of the AF-1) that there would necessarily seem to be anything improper about it. The rear starboard side door was a "half-door" and normally used to service the rear galley area. 

4. I call your attention to the "blackened out" area on the rear starboard side.  I call your attention to this area because, if it represents photo alteration, then the picture was altered to hide whatever was going on (An opened starboard half-door?  Who knows.).  This is an area that needs more work, but its important because of point #1, so let me repeat.

5. The pilot of AF-2 saw the fork lift, on the starboard side ofAF-1, fully extended, and with what he believed to be a coffin. This is a tape recorded telephone interview which I had around Feb/March 1980, some 38 years ago. (And I omitted it rom the publication of B.E. because, at the time, I was certain that if anything had occurred, it would have happened during the swearing in. And it was only after publication, when Gen. McHugh wrote the letter to TIME disputing my contention, that I was forced to rethink the entire issue, which puzzled me for a good three years.  It was until the summer of 1984 when I realized that the swearing in wasn't the only time that "Jackie wasn't with the coffin."    In view of the above. . 

6. I think you quick-to-judge notion that the inferences I have drawn about the going on on the starboard side is "ridiculous" is seriously flawed.

7.  I have additional information about the fork life truck that will be in Final Charade, and which I cannot release at this time.

8.  If you (or anyone else reading this) be able t ascertain who took this photo, and when it was processed and released, please let me know (at DSL@Cornell.edu). Just look at the high quality of this picture. It doesn't appear to be taken by someone with an ordinary "Brownie" type camera. So. . what was the source?

9.  Please keep in mind that photography in that area, and particularly on the starboard side, was prohibited. A TV cameraman, as I mentioned, had his film and camera confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Chief of Police, and a Texas Highway Patrolman was threatened with arrest, by the Secret Service,if he kept filming.   So I think your snap judgements are entirely incorrect, and in fact represent an oversimplified and one-sided view of this issue. Having spoken at length to the pilot of AF-2, I can assure you that he did not imagine the particulars of what he told. me.

10. Regarding the timing of the photo: it would appear, form the cluster of people at the rear of the Dallas ambulance, this was a moment when the coffin was about to be removed from the back of the Dallas ambulance.  I don't know if the fork lift truck had yet "arrived" (and was photographically removed); assuming that was not the case, then when it did arrive, a more reasonable question to ask would be: once the agents started carrying the Dallas casket up port side stairs, is it not reasonable to believe that all eyes would be glued on those fellows and not the movements of an apparatus on the starboard side which, in any event, would appear to be legitimate.

 

DSL

 

Many thanks for taking the time to respond.   

Your peerless dedication to evidence instead of speculation makes you a lonely figure in the assassination "research" community.  You are one of the few truly valuable and essential contributors of evidence.

 

Jason Ward

PS - I noticed a few months ago you are credited in the opening sequence of the Burt Lancaster film Executive Action.  Do you agree with the broad narrative in the movie, i.e., a wealthy cabal of non-government actors ordering and financing the assassination?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

 

Many thanks for taking the time to respond.   

Your peerless dedication to evidence instead of speculation makes you a lonely figure in the assassination "research" community.  You are one of the few truly valuable and essential contributors of evidence.

 

Jason Ward

PS - I noticed a few months ago you are credited in the opening sequence of the Burt Lancaster film Executive Action.  Do you agree with the broad narrative in the movie, i.e., a wealthy cabal of non-government actors ordering and financing the assassination?

 

8 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Jason:  Thanks for the compliment.

First, a small "program note."  Please note that I went back, reviewed the text of my post about that particular Love Field photo, and so you may wish to review the text that I had written, because I made a number of  editorial changes, in the interest of clarity;.

Second: Its really important to determine (someday, I hope) just who it was that took this picture, because (a) it wasn't released until some 20 - 30  years after the fact; and (b) it is of exceptional clarity.

Third, about the picture "Executive Action", and my involvement with that movie, which led to my receiving a screen credit as "researcher":   I worked on the film (which was released in November 1973, as I recall), through much of  (early) 1973, working closely with film editor Ivan Dryer. As a result, I was able to review all the films of the JFK assassination that were then available at New York City film libraries.  (So, for example,  that was when I first discovered the footage of LHO being brought into the DPD and filmed as he walked right by Billy Lovelady, who was seated in the Homicide Bureau).  The siilarity of appearance was striking.  I had slides made of those frames, and from that point forward, had no doubt that Oswald was not (I repeat, was not ), the man in the doorway.)  Also, by that time, I knew all about post-mortem surgery on JFK's body (which was certainly not a topic dealt with in Executive Action), but  thought it had occurred on the grounds of Bethesda Naval Hospital, in the hour before the autopsy, because (in terms of the break in the chain of  custody) all I knew about was the "ambulance chase" (per chapter 16 of Best Evidence), and didn't have the "empty coffin" until July 2, 1979, when I interviewed Dennis David (and then came Paul O'Connor in late August 1979). So until July 2, 1979, my focus (as to "where" it had occurred) was on the grounds of the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; and it was not until July 2, 1979, that I realized that JFK's body had been removed from the Dallas coffin prior to takeoff from Love Field in Dallas.  And I had to re-interpret the "ambulance chase" in a brand new light: as the time when thebody, having been removed from the casket earlier in the day, was now being returned to the Dallas casket, to hide the fact that it had been removed in the first place.  See Chater 25 of B.E. for details.

So. . .  (even prior to having the "empty coffin"),  I certainly thought the assassination was an "inside job" (of some sort), because , whatever the details of this covert deception, the White House Detail of the U.S. Secret Service always had the body.  Also (and  as I recall), I believed that wherever the break in the chain of custody had occurred,  LBJ very likely must have been involved because of the major role he had played in  (aggressively) persuading  JFK to make the Dallas trip.  (As Jackie was quoted in Manchester's 1967 book, JFK had been "lured" to make the Texas trip).  As to the political particulars (e.g., whether Texas oilmen were involved),  I don't remember (today) exactly what I thought at the time; but I would remind you that I wrote a fairly detailed multi-page newspaper sized  "handout" that was distributed in theaters around the country, about what appeared to be the indications of a substantial political plot.  (I saved a number of those circulars,. but they are in "deep storage"). I think I tended to believe it was a "government operation" (i.e., an inside "cabal" of some sort), but over the years I have grown to appreciate more the possibility that the plot (such as it was)  may have had elements of both: i.e., "insiders" who gave support where necessary, but also a variety of "outside contractors" who were involved in the "particulars").    

I have much more specific ideas today, as to who must have been involved, based on new information that I now possess, and I'll be spelling my present understanding out in Final Charade, focusing on certain "overt acts" which (so far) have been unpublished; and using the terminology of who would be "persons of interest" if a Special Prosecutor had been appointed and investigated the crime as it ought to have been investigated.  To design and implement  something as elaborate and complex as  the JFK assassination, there must  have been significant payoffs to a slew of top officials of the Dallas Police Department (at the level of "Deputy Chief") and one question is: who put up the money?  A good book to read--to understand how a criminal plot like this takes root, how it "works," and how recruitment occurs, etc.) --is the 1969 classic by Edwin Luttwak "Coup d'etat" (still in print to this day).   Most of the key players have passed on. Bottom line: "they" got away with it, and "we"--the "general public" --are presently stuck with the result of their handiwork: a false history of the event, consisting of the false story that "a man in a building shot a man in a car." That is what the Warren Commission report is all about, and I intend to show that that is a completely false (and artificial) construct.

DSL/4/6/2018 - 8 AM PDT

Orange County, California

DSL

Quote

 

 

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Furthermore, even if a forklift was seen on the starboard side (by an "inquiring mind" on the port side

I can't be the only one who gets confused by this word usage, can I?

  It's one of those words that you have to look up every time you come across it; when I started reading the thread I looked it up. Now I'm all confused again--particularly with  any use of "back" door. Two planes lined up, tail to tail. Got it. Then there is the left and the right and the rear way of boarding,right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DSL.

Edwin Luttwak's "Coup d' etat" is available on line.

I have been perusing it's first pages which get right to subject.

Fascinating.   You instantly become aware of the prevalence of this type of government takeover and it's enormous effect on entire societies all over the world.

You also can't help but contemplate and consider the possible tie in of this type of government change to the JFK assassination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"This image shows that Lifton's claim that you could not see what was going on on the starboard side is ridiculous...  -Doyle

The "forklift" was not used in Dallas...

It was used at Andrews...  at night...   :huh:

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

DSL.

Edwin Luttwak's "Coup d' etat" is available on line.

I have been perusing it's first pages which get right to subject.

Fascinating.   You instantly become aware of the prevalence of this type of government takeover and it's enormous effect on entire societies all over the world.

You also can't help but contemplate and consider the possible tie in of this type of government change to the JFK assassination.

Hello Joe Bauer:

You wrote: "You also can't help but contemplate and consider the possible tie in of this type of government change to the JFK assassination. "

Yes, in the current vernacular, its called "regime change."  And, if my analysis is correct, and this was an 'inside job," then that's what happened in this country on November 22, 1963.

JFK was "removed from office" (as Sec State Rusk characterized it in his Warren Commission  testimony) using a sophisticated deception operation which created the outward appearance that this was a quirk of fate, a historical accident.  To the contrary, it was a political murder, with a specific political purpose: to change the occupant of the Oval Office.  The political purpose (once again): To operate the USG constitutionally-mandated  "line of succession," and replace Kennedy with Johnson.  In other words, it was a political murder, designed to look like a quirk of fate;  designed to look like a historical accident. 

As Theodore Sorensen said, not too long before he died, he believed it because, to all outward appearances, it looked like "a Marxist who got lucky with a gun." 

Yes, that's the way it appeared on November 22, 1963, and in the days and months following.  But anyone who persists in seeing it that way, particularly in the year 2018, has never gotten past the original disguise, which hides a much darker reality.

DSL

4/6/18 - 9:40 AM PDT - Orange County, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David Josephs:

I disagree with your terminology.

A forklift is what was described, in detail, by the pilot of Air Force Two, to me.

Thats what he observed on the starboard side of the aircraft.

A "forklift" is not what was used at Andrews (on the port side, and at the rear port-side door).

What was used at Andrews was properly described, in media reports, as an "enclosed"  mechanical "lift."

I don't know what the exact name would be (in US Army terminology) but it was certainly not the classic "forklift" which you can see in use if you go to any warehouse (e.g., to a COSTCO).

What you see being used at COSTCO to move merchandise around the area is a forklift truck.  That's not what was used at Andrews.

And, of course, no one at Costco is using a forklift to retrieve bodies from an upper shelf of a Costco warehouse.  Mostly stored on those shelves are paper goods and cleansers. Not bodies. Of course, if I'm wrong, and if anyone should see any such activity at a COSTCO, please do photograph it using an iphone and send me the picture so I can publish it in Final Charade with an appropriate caption (joke).

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Robert Harper:

The Boeing 707 has four doors--two "full doors" on the port side--one at the front, which goes up to the cockpit, and the other at the rear, which goes up to the tail compartment.

The other two doors are "half doors" and are on the starboard side--one at the rear galley, and another in the forward area of the plane, just to the rear of the cockpit.

Usually, stairs with a ramp are used to access the two doors on the port side.

As to the half doors on the starboard side, the normal procedure is for one of those trucks, which bring the food aboard, to pull up against the starboard side of the airplane, and that is how material is brought aboard from the starboard side.

What happened in Dallas--according to the pilot of Air Force Two--is that a forklift truck (fully extended) was used on the starboard side, at the rear half-door.

Sorry to hear of your confusion, but I do understand.  In pursuing this matter, I had to get full four-color drawings from Boeing (showing the exact dimensions of the aircraft, and the exact location of its four doors), and all of this became a major research project.  Very likely, you can find these materials somewhere on the Internet.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 9:43 PM, David Lifton said:

Brian, Sandy, and others who are interested in the goings-on at Love Field:

 

I am quite familiar with this picture,and have been for years.  Do you know by whom it was taken? And when it was first released?   That's my first question. But here's some more commentary.  Let me number the points for convenience of future discussion:

1. The witness I interviewed, and who knew all about the forklift truck on the starboard side of Air Force One was the pilot of Air Force Two. I have no doubt about his credibility, or the accuracy of his recollection. (Remember: He's sitting in the cockpit, located in a more forward position, and can look directly across the space between the two aircraft; which, according to Manchester, were parked "wingtip to wingtip").

2. I dispute your glib contention that you can tell, from this single photograph, and the angle from which it was taken (which is aft, on the starboard side, and one to two hundred feet away) that you can properly infer what persons on the port side can see, especially if they are pre-occupied with the offload of the Dallas coffin, from the arriving ambulance (which is what the photo appears to show; and which has not yet occurred).  Moreover, many of those on the port side were SS agents of the White House Detail, some of whom were involved in getting the body "onto" AF-1, so it could immediately be opened and "offloaded" on the starboard side.  Do you think anyone on the port side was going to say, "Hey, Kellerman, look at that forklift truck!" (after it arrived); or, if before, might he exclaim: "Hey, Roy, where the heck is that forklift truck, that was supposed to be on site, and waiting?"

3. Furthermore, even if a forklift was seen on the starboard side (by an "inquiring mind" on the port side, who happened to focus his gaze, at ground level, across the underside of the AF-1) that wouldn't necessarily mean that there would  seem to be anything improper about it being there. The rear starboard side door was a "half-door" and normally used to service the rear galley area (although normally, of course, by one of those trucks with an "upper level" used to "match" with the starboard rear- entry door).

4. I call your attention to the "blackened out" area on the rear starboard side.  I call this area to your attention because, if it represents photo alteration, then the picture was altered to hide whatever was going on (An opened starboard half-door?  Who knows.).  This is an area that needs more work, but its important because of point #1, so let me repeat.

5. The pilot of AF-2 saw the fork lift, on the starboard side ofAF-1, fully extended, and with what he believed to be a coffin. This is a tape recorded telephone interview which I had around Feb/March 1980, some 38 years ago. (And I omitted it from the publication of B.E. because, at the time, I was certain that if anything had occurred, it would have happened during the swearing in. And it was only after publication, when Gen. McHugh wrote the letter to TIME disputing my contention, that I was forced to rethink the entire issue, which puzzled me for a good three years).  It was not until the summer of 1984, when paying a summertime visit to the UCLA campus, that I suddenly realized that the swearing in wasn't the only time that "Jackie wasn't with the coffin."    In view of the above. . . the first such time period was when she (and the others) were down on the tarmac (as the photos taken by White House photographer Stoughton show), and the coffin was being (or  had just been) brought "upstairs" by the men who carried it up the stairs on the rear port side).

6. I think that your quick-to-judge notion that the inferences I have drawn about the goings-on on the starboard side is "ridiculous" is seriously flawed.

7.  I have additional information about the fork life truck that will be in Final Charade, and which I cannot release at this time.

8.  If you (or anyone else reading this) be able to ascertain who took this photo, and when it was processed and released, please let me know (at DSL74@Cornell.edu). Just look at the high quality of this picture. It doesn't appear to be taken by someone with an ordinary "Brownie" type camera. But it does appear to have been taken by someone seated inside the airplane.  (As one poster has noted, you can see part of the window frame).  So. . what (i.e., "who?") was the source?

9.  Please keep in mind that photography in that area, and particularly on the starboard side, was prohibited. A TV cameraman, as I mentioned, had his film and camera confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Chief of Police (Fisher), and a Texas Highway Patrolman was threatened with arrest, by the Secret Service (and specifically,  by Agent Rufus Youngblood) if he kept filming.   So I think your snap judgements are entirely incorrect, and in fact represent an oversimplified and one-sided view of this issue. Having spoken at length to the pilot of AF-2, I can assure you that he did not imagine the particulars of what he told. me.

10. Regarding the timing of the photo: it would appear, form the cluster of people at the rear of the Dallas ambulance, this was a moment when the coffin was about to be removed from the back of the Dallas ambulance.  I don't know if the fork lift truck had yet "arrived" (and was photographically removed); assuming that was not the case, then when it did arrive, a more reasonable question to ask would be: once the agents started carrying the Dallas casket up port side stairs, is it not reasonable to believe that all eyes would be glued on those fellows, struggling with the Dallas coffin, and not the movements of an apparatus on the starboard side which, in any event, would appear to be legitimate.

DSL (Edited, 4/6/18 - 5:55 PM PDT)

 

David,

Brian Doyle asked me to thank you for your correction of what he'd said about that photo of the starboard of AF1.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to everybody for taking part in this discussion.  No time just now to contribute. I'm on the AMTRAK Surfliner which must be hitting speeds of 60 MPH (at least) as I race north across Orange County towards Los Angeles, and then board another train to San Francisco.  This train rocks back and forth, and I'm truly amazed that I can open up my laptop and get email!

 

DSL

Heading north. . from San Juan Capistrano to L.A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't those shadows of the police officers on the starboard side of AF1 a little long for about 2:00 pm?  Something isn't right about that late arriving photo of the starboard side of AF1 at about the return of the Kennedy party....

Link to post
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...