David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Micah Mileto]

20 hours ago, David Lifton said:

I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption. 

1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.?

 

2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back? 

Re Question #1:  Answer: Because the Single Bullet Theory was the creation of the Warren Commission staff, and wasn't advanced until mid January 1964. (It was first advanced, as a 'suggestion' in a Dallas Morning News story in late December 1963. The autopsy occurred (in real time) on the night of 11/22; and the trajectories posited were unrelated to the timing problem was not apparent on Friday night, 11/22, at the time of autopsy.  As far as the hole "matching" the downward trajectory: the original 'downward' trajectory was "in" the back of the head, and then an "out" (or exit) caused by a fragment exiting at the front of the throat. FYI: All this is discussed in B.E.  Re #2: If you look carefully at the "early" Z film frames -according to Groden --one can see the body being thrust slightly forward--this, according to Groden.  I believe there is merit to this argument, but I haven't analyzed it in detail.  DSL

If we are to suspect the rear back and scalp wounds were faked, what about the "coagulation necrosis" descriptions in the autopsy protocol? Would that information be exaggerated or outright false, or maybe the tissue samples were substituted with samples from real cases?

[Douglas Caddy]

David Lifton Project (Author, Researcher of "Best Evidence")

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms0BJIxfaqw&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3nIOMI9VuGrp6W_VBwtvz3oM7vwkU2BjHvKMVj9EQ_TSrManxsPgQNhCQ

 

[Paul Bacon]

Thank you for posting this link Doug.  Very, very interesting interview.

Along with most others, I anxiously await "Final Charade."

The little teasers Lifton leaves for us ..."the esophagus was hanging out of the throat wound", "throat wound sewed up with sutures" ??!  And he suggests he understands what the original plan for the body and the evidence the body would show were.

 "Best Evidence" was the first book I read after seeing Stone's JFK.  It was a paradigm shift for me.  I hold David Lifton in very high regard.  I have always wondered where the pre-autopsy body alterations were done and we may get an answer.

David Lifton and Doug Horne are my favorites.

[Micah Mileto]

6 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Thank you for posting this link Doug.  Very, very interesting interview.

Along with most others, I anxiously await "Final Charade."

The little teasers Lifton leaves for us ..."the esophagus was hanging out of the throat wound", "throat wound sewed up with sutures" ??!  And he suggests he understands what the original plan for the body and the evidence the body would show were.

 "Best Evidence" was the first book I read after seeing Stone's JFK.  It was a paradigm shift for me.  I hold David Lifton in very high regard.  I have always wondered where the pre-autopsy body alterations were done and we may get an answer.

David Lifton and Doug Horne are my favorites.

In Best Evidence, Paul O'Connor said he could see the esophagus through the defect in the throat. I don't know if he ever specifically said the esophagus was damaged. John Ebersole was the one who initially said he remembered the body arriving with the throat sewn up, but in his last interview he changed his mind and said it wasn't.

[Paul Bacon]

Thank you Mica.  I didn't realize this info was known already.  I read Best Evidence in the early '90's.  There is a good deal I know now that I didn't know then, so much of it didn't really register.

[David Lifton]

On 11/15/2020 at 11:22 AM, Micah Mileto said:

In Best Evidence, Paul O'Connor said he could see the esophagus through the defect in the throat. I don't know if he ever specifically said the esophagus was damaged. John Ebersole was the one who initially said he remembered the body arriving with the throat sewn up, but in his last interview he changed his mind and said it wasn't.

At this moment, I do not recall O'Connor's exact words, but he made clear that the esophagus was "ripped out" or "hanging out," or something of that sort. In other words, Humes' description of the throat wound as having "widely gaping irregular edges" -- which, in my research notebooks, I always abbreviated as "WGIE" -- did not come close to describing the major damage as described to me by O'Connor. (Further, and as I recall, O'Connor's statement about that was during our filmed interview at his Florida home in October, 1980.  But he may have said essentially the same thing during our original August 1979 telephone interview).

From the standpoint of a criminological analysis, and treating this as a covert operation, the point, as I recall, was that whoever did this was probably working rapidly and crudely to retrieve any missile that had entered at the front of the throat. 

Remember: the the President's body was evidence. And any such "extra" metal that reached the FBI Laboratory that night -- and associated with a frontal throat entry--would have constituted definitive evidence of a shot from the front, and that would have provided powerful evidence of a "second" -- or "frontal" shooter.  And that --had it been discovered-- would have seriously sullied  LBJ having a legitimate "claim" to the presidency   But "second shooter" would quickly be overshadowed by  another--closely related-- issue: the issue of "fraud in the evidence".  Both issues are relevant, but one has much more politically potent implications than the other.  "Second shooter" could be "anybody."  "Fraud in the evidence" points to an "inside job."  Viewed in that manner, the more important issue was -- or should have been: who had messed around with President Kennedy's body, in the area of the throat, prior to the Bethesda autopsy?

  Framed that way, the legal issue is not "second assassin," but rather "fraud in the evidence" (and, frankly, "obstruction of justice.")  The jump from "second assassin" to "obstruction of justice" is an important one; because if RFK had been privy to anything like that, then, IMHO, he would have then had the evidence that his brother's death was an "inside job."  And that could have possibly led to his acting  to prevent the "automatic operation" (my quotes) of the presidential line of succession.  However, I do not today believe that on the evening of 11/22/63, RFK had any inkling that anyone was messing around with his brother's body, in order to create "false facts" about his death; i.e., about what had happened in Dallas.  I could be wrong, but that's my present view.  I believe that the first indication that RFK had of any such truly gruesome (and outrageous) activity was three years later, i.e., on October 24th 1966.  That was when-- as described in B.E. (Ch. 9)-- having just made the discovery about "surgery of the head area" (as reported in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report), I met with Liebeler (at Joe Ball's law office in Beverly Hills)  and showed him my discovery. (see Ch 9 of B.E.). At that point,  Liebeler called Eddie Guthman, as I recall. (Guthman  was close with RFK, and later was his press aide). All of that -- "what RFK knew, and when he knew it"-- is a whole "other story" and I may have more to say about that in Final Charade. (DSL, 11/24/20, 1045 AM PST)

Edited November 24, 2020 by David Lifton
Clarity

[David Andrews]

I don't mean to belabor, but isn't there a competing report, by a doctor, describing the esophagus as pushed to the left and bruised on the right side?  I'm sorry that I can't cite the witness.  It seems that this was at Parkland, and was used to describe the need for a wide trach incision and the difficulty of inserting the trach tube.

[Micah Mileto]

9 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I don't mean to belabor, but isn't there a competing report, by a doctor, describing the esophagus as pushed to the left and bruised on the right side?  I'm sorry that I can't cite the witness.  It seems that this was at Parkland, and was used to describe the need for a wide trach incision and the difficulty of inserting the trach tube.

The trachea was deviated to one side, not the esophagus. The esophagus is behind the trachea, so if it is true that the esophagus could be seen beneath the defect in the throat at Bethesda, there was definitely some alteration to the throat done.

Edited November 25, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

10 hours ago, David Lifton said:

1045 AM PST)

Thank you. Here's what I find in Best Evidence, page 109 of the 1992 signet edition:

 

I turned to the wound in the throat. O’Connor described it as “a great big hole in his larynx. . . . They said they tried to do a tracheotomy—it was already blown open. I don’t know how they could have done anything with it . . . there was nothing. The esophagus was laid open. . . .

[David Andrews]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

The trachea was deviated to one side, not the esophagus. The esophagus is behind the trachea, so it is is true that the esophagus could be seen beneath the defect in the throat at Bethesda, there was definitely some alteration to the throat done.

Got it.

[Paul Bacon]

David Lifton, thanks very much for weighing back in.  In my mind, this all gives credence to the John Liggett story ...a quick and sloppy job of evidence destruction.  Done on the plane back to Washington?

The assasination happened 4 days before my 11th birthday.  It is seared in my memory.  I remember watching the live feed during Oswald's transfer on Sunday morning when someone, out of nowhere, jumps out and shoots Oswald in the guts.  I was stunned and ran to tell my mother what just happened.

I followed everything for weeks afterward ...the Life articles and pictures.  But, soon it all went dormant in my mind.  I was somewhat aware that the Zapruder film was out in the open circa 1975, but it wasn't until Stone's JFK that everything was thrust forward.  I watched the movie in the theatre 3 times just to see the Zapruder film again ...couldn't believe my eyes.

Thanks David, for your work.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

David Lifton, thanks very much for weighing back in.  In my mind, this all gives credence to the John Liggett story ...a quick and sloppy job of evidence destruction.  Done on the plane back to Washington?

The assasination happened 4 days before my 11th birthday.  It is seared in my memory.  I remember watching the live feed during Oswald's transfer on Sunday morning when someone, out of nowhere, jumps out and shoots Oswald in the guts.  I was stunned and ran to tell my mother what just happened.

I followed everything for weeks afterward ...the Life articles and pictures.  But, soon it all went dormant in my mind.  I was somewhat aware that the Zapruder film was out in the open circa 1975, but it wasn't until Stone's JFK that everything was thrust forward.  I watched the movie in the theatre 3 times just to see the Zapruder film again ...couldn't believe my eyes.

Thanks David, for your work.

Paul, I was 12 years and two months of age on 11,22,1963.

I had the same exact experience as you regards that day and for days and even weeks after.

I too was watching the Oswald transfer live on TV the morning of 11,24,1963.

I was alone in an upstairs bedroom watching an old grainy black and white TV we brothers were given when our stepdad bought a new color one for his own viewing downstairs.

The second Ruby bounded out and blasted a loud and fatal shot into Oswald's gut my entire body spontaneously and involuntarily leaped up from my lying down position on my bed to a standing one with me shouting ( also involuntarily ) "NO WAY, NO WAY...NO WAY!"

Even as a 12 year old, I instinctively felt in every cell of my body, mind and soul that what I had just witnessed was something more than just a random act by some nut alone without assistance. That it was a set up.

I swear, the "second" I saw Oswald brought out into the corridor leading to the press crowd and waiting transport car I thought to myself..." boy, Oswald sure looked way too open with just two security men at his side."

For two days previous I watched TV 24/7 about the event. I heard it mentioned over and over how thousands of threats against Oswald were continuously coming into the Dallas PD from all over the nation. Oswald's personal safety concerns were a real part of the event coverage.

That is why I was so shocked at how open Oswald appeared when he was first brought into the corridor leading to the press crowd and the waiting transport car.

The whole scene seemed so crowded, so uncontrolled. People yelling, lights flashing, press people just feet from Oswald and jostling forward. Similar to the craziness of packed hallways and a yelling, jostling press in the DPD building the last two nights before.

The police escorting Oswald in the DPD the nights before seemed to be in a physical fight to get through the press people like football team offensive linemen trying to shove the defense opponents out of the way to get their running back room to move forward. It was laughable but disturbing at the same time.

Why allow your DPD headquarters to be over-run like that. To where you can't even get your suspect from room to room? It was a circus!

Keep the press separated in designated areas for a press briefing and away from Oswald instead of inches from him I thought, again even at my young age.

The DPD were totally responsible for Oswald's security and safety once he was in their custody.

Oswald's murder in their custody and right inside their own building was all on them and their management heads that chose the security measures that failed in a worst possible case scenario.

Nowadays, the family of a yet to be tried criminal suspect murdered inside a police department building, especially one receiving more death threats than any criminal suspect in American history, would have sued for a huge sum for such negligence.

Hard to imagine a truly impartial jury ever available in Oswald's case, but the DPD negligence was so obvious, so worst case scenario bad, a jury today would have no choice but to rule for some type of compensation to a surviving wife and children.

Ruby's defense claims of brain damage, or temporary insanity with lost mental and emotional control due to his grief and protective retribution feelings for Jackie Kennedy or to prove Jews had guts or a rage at seeing a smirk on Oswald's face are as ridiculous sounding today as they were 57 years ago.

The truth about anything other than a deranged nobody nut seeking attention and fame and being incredibly time, place and opportunity lucky in taking out JFK in front of hundreds was destroyed by Jackie Kennedy avenging and Jews have guts promoting strip joint owning Jack Ruby.

Sorry, my life experience common sense will never allow me to buy that ridiculous scenario as concluded by an investigative commission that included JFK hating Alan Dulles, total FBI informant Gerald Ford, Dulles's close friend John McCloy and evidence controlled by JFK hating, "like brothers" close to LBJ, organized crime and Clint Murchison compromised J. Edgar Hoover and his bureau.

The Ruby whacking Oswald event is the keystone one in suggesting a conspiracy in JFK's removal imo. Just too convenient is getting rid of the JFK case star witness.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Ken Davies]

Joe,

I was 11 years old when JFK was killed. I was clearing snow from the driveway when Oswald was gunned down. My mother called me in to watch the aftermath. My immediate thoughts were that he was "rubbed out" to shut him up. I had seen that many times in the Bogart, Cagney, Robinson, Raft movies that were on TV so much as I was growing up. (We only had the CBC and CBS until 1961).

Why couldn't the adults figure this out?  

 

 

 

[Dan Rice]

I was 10 year old.  All of a sudden, the intercom system in school was broadcasting a radio station that was reporting the assassination.  It was quite a shock for a kid.  I didn't think about a conspiracy until a few years later after newspaper articles began printing news about various conspiracy theories and reading about holes in the official story.

Edited November 26, 2020 by Dan Rice

[Dennis Berube]

On 11/24/2020 at 1:14 PM, David Lifton said:

And that could have possibly led to his acting  to prevent the "automatic operation" (my quotes) of the presidential line of succession. 

This makes no sense. After JFK was killed, who had a more legitimate claim to the presidency than LBJ as Vice President? 

 

On 11/24/2020 at 1:14 PM, David Lifton said:

And that --had it been discovered-- would have seriously sullied  LBJ having a legitimate "claim" to the presidency  

How would that have made any difference to the Constitution in regards to ascension? Only if it could have been immediately proven that LBJ was involved in the scheme, which is still debated to this day so it's not relevant to the point.