The bottom line in the Kennedy assassination is not whether “Oswald was guilty” (he wasn’t) or whether he “acted alone” etc. The bottom line is whether, in connection with President Kennedy’s assassination, a strategic deception was employed (perhaps “deployed” is a better word) to hide the truth and create a false solution to the crime.

I am referring, of course, to the notion that the President’s murder was simply the result of a person firing three shots from a bolt action rifle from a sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Either that is the truth, or it is a construct fabricated as part of a sophisticated strategic deception.

Ultimately, that's what this case is all about--and, in the long light of history, that's the way it will be viewed.

In other words, the bottom line is whether it was planned in advance to falsify the key evidence so as to frame a pre-selected scapegoat, and create a false reality which was then fed to the media in real time, and then went into the main arteries of all subsequent investigations.


And as part of this "sophisticated strategic deception", the conspirators decided it was a good and sensible idea to make it as difficult as humanly possible to hide the conspiracy by deliberately firing all of the shots at President Kennedy from the FRONT, while firing ZERO shots from the rear (which is where they planted their one and only patsy named Oswald). Is that correct, David L.? (Not to mention the difficulty that the plotters deliberately set up for themselves regarding the altering of the President's wounds after the shooting.)

I think we can take out the word "sophisticated" in David Lifton's above quote and replace it with "idiotic". Because that latter word is much more appropriate.

Please, David Lifton, explain to me what was going through the collective minds of those silly conspirators in the days and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they DELIBERATELY tried to frame a guy in the DEPOSITORY by firing ONLY from the Knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision. I doubt that you can reasonably explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking, and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake.

In addition -- How do you, David L., explain away witnesses like Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Bob Jackson, and Mal Couch -- each of whom said they saw with their own eyes a rifle sticking out of the sixth-floor window on the southeast end of the Book Depository at the exact time when the President was being shot with rifle bullets on Elm Street?

Did those witnesses merely see a person who was only PRETENDING to fire a gun at JFK? You don't think that sixth-floor rifleman fired ANY shots from that gun seen by those witnesses?

And what about Harold Norman? Was he lying when he said he HEARD the rifle being fired from directly above him in the Depository? Is Harold yet another one of the many people you must call a liar in this case, DSL?


On the London Education Forum, David Von Pein recently cited the existence of witnesses to someone firing a weapon from the SE corner 6th Floor window and challenged me to defend my position that, based on such evidence, I was wrong in asserting that President Kennedy was struck only from the front (which derives from my reading of the Dallas medical reports and testimony).

I do not think you (or your pal Vince Bugliosi) have ever understood what the Kennedy murder was all about. You both seem to view it as a simple homicide. But it was not. It was not simply about "killing the President"; It was about murdering the President and getting away with it.

That could not have been accomplished by simply firing shots and leaving the evidence undisturbed, because the evidence, in that case, would have pointed to the guilty party.

And by "the evidence," I am referring to the standard view of "the evidence" in this case. Surely you are familiar with that "evidence": The rifle, the shells, etc.

So that's why, in this case, the evidence had to be altered, messed with, replaced, substituted, planted, choose your own terms; and that's why the standard techniques of investigation did not (and will not) work in this case. Critical evidence has been changed, and replaced with a false overlay, if you will.

Some of that was done before the actual shooting (and I'm referring here to the creation of the so-called "sniper's nest"); and some afterwards (e.g., the planting of a bullet on a stretcher, or bullet fragments in the presidential limousine).

Unfortunately for you and your pal, Vince Bugliosi (who I suspect vets most of your posts, assuming he does not provide actual draft materials for your posts) [LOL! Lifton's hilarious!] he views Dealey Plaza (and Oswald) as if he were retrying the Manson case. A madman was responsible; a psycho named Oswald.

But Oswald was not Charlie Manson, and Vince Bugliosi doesn't seem to understand that. And I doubt he ever will.

If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter.

Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage.


If the wounds were inflicted from the front (only), then what you're witnessing on the sixth floor of the TSBD is a diversion. Is that so difficult to grasp?


But David Lifton seems to totally ignore the VERIFIABLE FACT that he is DEAD WRONG about the wounds only being inflicted from the FRONT.

The idea that NO shots struck either the President or Governor Connally from behind is so unbelievably wrong, false, and utterly STUPID, I don't really need to say anything more.

And it's not just JFK who was PROVABLY struck TWICE from behind with rifle bullets, but it's also John Connally too, who was PROVABLY struck one time from BEHIND.

Why do you, David Lifton, feel the need to totally ignore Dr. Robert R. Shaw's statements and testimony? And what about Governor Connally HIMSELF? Connally never once even HINTED that he was shot from any other direction than FROM BEHIND. He felt a bullet hit him in the upper back and he always said it "felt like someone hit me with a balled-up fist" -- IN THE BACK, which had to have come FROM BEHIND the Governor at the time he was hit.

Question for Mr. Lifton -- Has even ONE other human being on the face of this planet called "Earth" said they agree with your theory about NO shots at all striking JFK or John Connally FROM BEHIND? If one such other person exists on this planet, please provide his name, because I've never heard about him.


So of course the body was altered, and the doctors at Bethesda recognized that. Immediately. That's why Dr. Humes said--and this was written down by the two FBI agents witnessing the beginning of the autopsy--that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."


The "surgery of the head area" crap is yet another myth that Mr. Lifton, like a child named Linus who can't bear the thought of getting rid of his trusty security blanket, refuses to let go of.

Perhaps you, Mr. Lifton, haven't heard this 2005 C-Span interview with James W. Sibert, who was one of those two FBI agents who witnessed portions of JFK's autopsy at Bethesda.

Of particular interest during that interview are several portions of Mr. Sibert's detailed re-telling of the things he witnessed during President Kennedy's autopsy at Bethesda, such as when Sibert talks about the "surgery of the head area" remark made by lead autopsy surgeon James J. Humes, with Sibert laying to rest the incorrect speculation about this remark.

And there's also the important details revealed by Sibert concerning the bullet fragments that he saw that night in 1963, i.e., the two very small metal fragments that were removed from President Kennedy's brain and then handed over to Sibert and placed in a glass jar [Warren Commission Exhibit 843].

The size of these small fragments, as repeated by Sibert during the 2005 interview, measured 7x2 millimeters and 3x1 millimeters.

The verbatim quote shown below should put to rest the erroneous idea that any whole (or nearly whole) "missile" was recovered during any part of JFK's autopsy on 11/22/63:

"There was no large bullet of any kind there at Bethesda during this autopsy that was found." -- James W. Sibert; June 30, 2005

The other FBI agent at the autopsy, Francis X. O'Neill, also confirmed in this 1979 video that only fragments were recovered from JFK's body, not any whole bullet.

The so-called "missile" handled by Sibert and O'Neill on November 22 consisted of very small FRAGMENTS of metal removed from JFK's head -- fragments only. How do we know this for an absolute ironclad fact? Two reasons:

1.) Dr. Humes, et al, were searching desperately during the autopsy for a bullet (or bullets)--ANY signs of a bullet or bullets!--inside JFK's body. They found NONE. Zero. Zilch. Only the small fragments in the head. Nothing else.


2.) No whole "bullet" (or nearly whole bullet) was entered into evidence by Sibert, O'Neill, or anybody else connected in any way to President Kennedy's autopsy. The only whole bullet in the entire case is Commission Exhibit 399. Period. And that wasn't found at Bethesda.

If a whole "bullet" (or "missile") had been found at Bethesda, then that bullet would be part of the evidence on the table in this case TODAY. The reason that none of the three autopsists testified to seeing a whole bullet during the autopsy is because no such "bullet" exists....and never did.

The 2005 interview with Sibert also pretty much (all by itself) destroys the credibility of David Lifton and his fairy-tale book "Best Evidence", inasmuch as Lifton relied very heavily on the observations of FBI agent Sibert to try and support a good chunk of the nonsensical "body alteration" assassination theory that appears in that book.

But, as Sibert explains in no uncertain terms during his 2005 interview, the "surgery of the head area" remark made by Dr. Humes was not referring to any type of covert "surgery" done by evil conspirators prior to the Bethesda autopsy (which is covert surgery that Mr. Lifton firmly believes did take place, in order to alter the wounds on the President's body). Listen to the 2005 interview and hear Sibert's explanation for the "surgery" remark.

So much for Mr. Lifton's "Best Evidence".


Are you so wedded to the idea that Oswald was a murderer that you cannot conceive of a plan to frame him for a crime he did not commit?


To reciprocate:

Are you, David S. Lifton, so wedded to the impossible notion that President John F. Kennedy's body was secretly stolen off of Air Force One and his wounds altered by an unknown group of conspirators on November 22, 1963, and so wedded to the additional foolish belief that every shot that hit the two limo victims came from in FRONT of the car, that you cannot even conceive (for even a moment) that your outlandish theories just MIGHT be inaccurate?

The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case.

Body alteration....casket-switching....bullet-planting...."diversions" in the Sniper's Nest window....NO SHOTS hit the victims from behind....and "Oswald Was Nothing But A Patsy" are the mottos endorsed by this band of JFK conspiracists.

And, incredibly, ALL of the above cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus (aka: hogwash) is supposedly, per the likes of David Lifton, providing a MORE REASONABLE and MORE LOGICAL and MORE RATIONAL and MORE TRUTHFUL explanation to the events in Dallas on 11/22/63 than to simply believe that the evidence in this case has NOT been forged, faked, or manipulated and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald was just exactly what the evidence in this case says he was --- a double-murderer.

Somebody please provide Mr. Lifton with a dictionary -- because he evidently has no idea what the definitions are for words like "Reasonable", "Rational", "Logical", and "Truthful".



You did not properly read what David Lifton said. The crucial sentence - which you correctly quoted - was prefaced with the word “if.”

David Lifton's point is that the critical shots were fired from another source, other than the back. .... Lifton did not say live rounds were not fired from the rear: he simply said that the shots fired from that direction were a diversion to keep attention from the main source of shots.

In effect he is saying that shots were fired from both front and back - and that the most critical of those two sources were the shots being fired from the front.

I have no problems with that analysis.

If I have correctly understood what David Lifton has said, then it is clear you have misunderstood what he said.


Oh, come now, James. You know darn well what Mr. Lifton was saying -- he was saying that he believes ALL the shots that hit anyone in the limousine came from the FRONT, with no shots hitting anyone from BEHIND the President's car.*

And he also implied an additional element of pre-assassination lunacy by actually saying that the assassins designed it that way--with the plotters knowing (well before November 22nd, obviously) that they were going to attempt to frame a guy in the Depository, even though they had no intention at all of firing any shots at JFK's body from the place where they were going to frame the patsy--the 6th floor of the TSBD--even though they COULD have simply shot JFK with the useless "diversionary" rifle that the Oswald look-alike had in his possession in the Sniper's Nest.

But the goofy plotters decided it was MUCH better to make things as difficult as possible for themselves--so they shot JFK from the FRONT only, and then framed Oswald in the REAR. What a lovely plan--if your assassination team is comprised of nothing but morons, that is. Or comprised of weirdos who just wanted to keep the "Let's Plant Evidence" division of their organization super-busy after the assassination.

* And although Lifton was careful to not specifically say that John Connally, too, was hit by no bullets fired from the rear (David's apparently going to save the "Connally bombshell" evidence for his future book release, "Final Charade"), it's pretty clear that Lifton also believes that no shots from behind struck Connally either -- otherwise, Lifton would have no reason to say that he thinks that Connally's injuries resulted in some kind of a "cover-up" too.

So, why sugar-coat the bullshit that David Lifton has forced upon us -- he thinks NO SHOTS FROM THE REAR struck Kennedy or Connally. And that, of course, is a silly and ludicrous position to take. And you'd think that Mr. Lifton would be more than a little embarrassed to present such claptrap in public. But, evidently he's not embarrassed in the slightest. Go figure.


David L.,

You can stop calling me Vince any time now. Mr. Bugliosi has no control over what I write--and never has. Vince, AFAIK, still doesn't even own a computer, and the only contact I have ever had with Vince is via his secretary through e-mails passed back and forth [Click Here]. But I'm pleased to know you think I'm Vince. No greater compliment could be bestowed upon me. Thank you.

As for your last post of evidence-mangling and distortion of the known facts surrounding JFK's murder, I think one word can sum that up nicely (and excuse me for repeating myself):


And if someone thinks that David Lifton, in his last two posts, HASN'T totally distorted and misrepresented and misinterpreted the evidence in the JFK case, they'd better think again. Because anyone who has the nerve to claim that John Kennedy and John Connally were struck by ZERO bullets fired from behind the limousine doesn't even deserve a place at the "Assassination Research" table. He should be UNDER the table. And I don't care whether his book won 6 Pulitzers and a Grammy and the Best Picture Oscar for 1980 -- his theories are still provably BUNK. Period.


Your 1500 page [sic] book, Vince, is a monument to your obstinacy, your ego, and, unfortunately, your gullibility; because you have accepted falsified evidence as real. Because of that, you took seriously the false version of history that was created on 11/22/63, by Kennedy's murderers, to hide the truth about how he died; falsified evidence which then became legal foundation for concluding that Lee Oswald was Kennedy's assassin.

You swallowed all that hook, line and sinker.

Stop ignoring the evidence, Vince.


Stop embarrassing yourself, Mr. Lifton. Please. (And, btw, Vincent's book is 2800+ pages, including the CD-ROM material.) :)

You act as if Vince Bugliosi and myself (if you can stop thinking that I am Vince) are the only two people on the planet who think Oswald did it, or are the only people who think your theory is bunk.


What about the HSCA?
What about the Rockefeller Commission?

Those committees concluded that OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY too. Not to mention the Warren Commission, which started it all. And not to mention most of the members of the Dallas Police Department too. Let me guess--Will Fritz and Jim Leavelle and Gerald Hill are all liars too. Right, David?

So, you think the HSCA (with dozens of people on its staff) swallowed a false theory about Oswald's guilt "hook, line, and sinker", too? Is that it? The HSCA was also gullible enough to NOT believe that JFK's body was stolen and then altered?

I asked this question previously, and it deserves a replay here, I think:

I wonder what the Vegas odds would be of Oswald not killing Kennedy, and yet having BOTH official investigative organizations [Warren Commission and HSCA] concluding that he did?

Any idea?


Remember what they taught you in law school, Vince [sic], about the importance of the "earliest recorded recollection"?


Well, then, let's listen to the earliest POSSIBLE statement by Dr. Robert R. Shaw concerning Governor Connally's wounds--this video below is from Shaw's 11/22/63 news conference at Parkland, right after Shaw operated on John Connally. Let's see David S. Lifton wiggle out of this 1963 statement, with DSL favoring some 1967 Shaw interview instead:


I do not understand how today, people can return to these accounts and reasonably claim that this or that doctor did not see what he said he did.

The notion that this is what the President's head looked like, at Bethesda, is--as far as I'm concerned--not just unlikely. It's simply absurd.


And yet we have THREE different forms of photographic proof that indicate the Parkland doctors were wrong --

1.) The autopsy photographs.
2.) The autopsy X-rays.
3.) The Zapruder Film.

Am I really supposed to believe that ALL of the above items are fakes, David, including Mr. Zapruder's home movie? And Mr. Zapruder's movie and camera, keep in mind, are items that were never out of Mr. Zapruder's sight from the time he filmed the assassination to the time the film was developed and processed. So is Abe Z. a part of a plot too? He'd almost HAVE to be in order to even BEGIN to believe that his film is a fake.

Mr. Lifton,

Can you tell us what credentials you possess in photo analysis and photo authentication that would make you determine that the two pictures below are fakes and frauds (even though the HSCA determined the exact opposite on Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7)?:


Mr. Lifton, can I get you to agree that if even one of the above photographic items is NOT a fake and a fraud [including the Zapruder Film], then President Kennedy definitely did NOT have a great-big hole in the back (occipital) area of his head?

Thank you.


David Von Pein,

You are so arrogant, and so utterly ill informed.


I played a role in creating this historical record, which you so glibly, arrogantly (and ignorantly) dismiss.


What reasonable person WOULDN'T dismiss your kooky ideas?

I mean, for Pete sake, you think JFK and Connally were struck by NO SHOTS FROM BEHIND. Talk about being "arrogant". Geesh. It really takes some arrogance to put that idiotic theory on the table at a JFK Forum filled with people who have studied this case for a long time.

And you think JFK's body was spirited off of Air Force One and his wounds were ALTERED BEFORE THE AUTOPSY. (Aren't you pleased I didn't use the word you hate--"stolen"?) Here again--it's a dumb theory. Simple as that. Not to mention--impossible.

I don't give a damn how long you've been researching this case. And I don't care how many Bethesda and Parkland witnesses you have talked to. The above two theories I just mentioned (which you fully endorse and think are the Gospel truth in this case) are, simply put, crazy theories. And they are just plain wrong. And all reasonable people who have studied the JFK case know it.

So, to toss your words to me back in your face, Mr. Lifton, you can stick your stupid theories "where the sun don't shine". Because that's where they belong.


"David Lifton's 15-year-long "body alteration" odyssey makes for a heavy and impressive-looking publication, but the theory within the pages [of his book] falls way short in the "Proof That It Really Happened" department, and (above all) it falls monumentally short in the "Common Sense" department as well. [Lifton's] book ["Best Evidence"] is a conspiracist's attempt to literally rewrite the history of John F. Kennedy's tragic death by taking the most important piece of physical evidence in the entire case -- President Kennedy's own body -- and postulating a conspiratorial cover-up scenario so full of implausibilities, complexities, roadblocks, and complications that even with God's own help from the heavens above, the plot theorized here would have still been an iffy proposition--at best. In short, anybody who would accept as true the nonsensical theory of JFK's body being stolen off of Air Force One by evil plotters should check themselves into the nearest insane asylum and seek immediate treatment for 'Conspiracy Theory Overdose'." -- David Von Pein; January/March 2006


"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... Out of his 747 pages, [Lifton] unbelievably devotes no more than 6 or 7 full pages, if that, to Oswald. .... One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1057, 1058, and 1066 of "Reclaiming History"


The photographs of those who saw the President’s head in Dallas completely contradict the color photograph you are displaying. Those doctors (and nurses) saw the back of the head and they said—in their reports, testimony, and when I interviewed them—that there was an avulsive wound at the back of the head.

The photograph you are using is also contradicted by the clear language of the Bethesda autopsy report, a report written by Dr. James Humes, the Director of the lab, and co-signed by Boswell and Finck. That report states that the large wound extended into the occipital area. But that does not appear in the color photograph you have posted. Do you really believe those three doctors—Humes, Finck and Boswell—were so incompetent that they could not properly describe where a large hole in the head was located—as well as where it was not?


I discuss the autopsy report's "somewhat into the occipital" language in the multi-part "BOH" [Back Of Head] series posted at my website HERE. In those "BOH" discussions, I am battling mostly just one person--Mr. John A. Canal--who, ironically, believes that Lee Oswald fired all the shots, but Canal believes that Humes deliberately "under-reported" the amount of damage done to JFK's head.


It is not irrational if someone, who studies the evidence and discovers that is where the evidence leads, to accept that something underhand[ed] must have taken place.


But, James, in David Lifton's body-alteration theory, we are expected to accept as true something that is so outlandish and unlikely (and, per witnesses like Dave Powers, so physically impossible even), that I do not think it's unreasonable to reject that theory out of hand. Just as it's not unreasonable to reject similar "impossible" theories out of hand -- e.g., Brian David Andersen's theory of JFK not being killed at all (he thinks that JFK himself activated a "pyrotechnics device" that was attached to his head, which made it falsely seem like his head was exploding)....and the "Jackie Did It" theory which has recently been postulated by some nutty dame at a JFK newsgroup.

Those are theories that are not "reasonable" theories. And I put Mr. Lifton's body-alteration theory in that same category.

Which means that the discrepancies in the testimony between the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses MUST have an alternate explanation to resolve them--other than the most extreme explanation of "body alteration" and "casket switching", etc.

What all of those alternative explanations are, I'll admit, I cannot say. But I truly think that the "multiple body arrivals" at Bethesda can be explained -- those witnesses, such as Dennis David, merely saw OTHER (non-JFK) caskets entering the Bethesda morgue. Does David Lifton have knowledge of there being absolutely NO other casket arrivals at Bethesda on the night of November 22 OTHER than JFK's casket? If so, what is that proof?

The only explanation that makes any sense at all to me regarding the multiple casket entries is that those other caskets just simply had other (non-JFK) bodies in them.

And I'd also have to ask -- If the plotters KNEW that Kennedy's body had been taken out of an expensive ornamental casket in Dallas (and they surely knew that, right?), then why on Earth would they have placed JFK in some el-cheapo pinkish-gray "shipping" casket for the entry at Bethesda? Didn't the plotters think anybody would notice the (huge) difference in casket types? Or didn't they think anybody would care--or report the differences?

The same logical question must also be asked about the body wrappings -- Why would anyone place JFK's body into a zipped body bag, when they knew he had been wrapped only in sheets when they swiped the body off of Air Force One in Dallas?

Did ANY of the body-alteration team members have a working brain? (Just wondering, David, that's all. But I know I'm not supposed to ask such "What Were They Thinking?" type of questions. We're supposed to just accept Paul O'Connor's four-tiered conspiratorial tale without asking the two questions I just asked.)

And here's a third one -- How could the doctors (on November 25th) have performed a Supplementary Brain Exam (as revealed in the autopsy report in an Appendix in the Warren Report) if there really was "NO BRAIN" in JFK's cranium to be examined on the night of the autopsy, as reported by Paul K. O'Connor?


When it became clear to me that the Single Bullet Theory was not possible, then it was clear that the throat wound had to be an entrance wound. As you are so fond of informing me, and others, “O.k. if the throat wound is an entrance wound – where is the bullet?” The only answer to that is that it was removed.


You do realize, don't you James, that you've just DOUBLED the "bullet" problem for yourself, right?

Because if the throat-wound bullet entered and never exited (and was "removed") as you say, then you've got to say the same thing about the back-wound bullet too. Remember, JFK was struck in the upper back by a bullet too.

So now you've got TWO bullets going into JFK's soft flesh--striking no bone to speak of (save the trachea damage, which, even per Dr. [Cyril] Wecht, wasn't enough to cause the bullet to deflect from its original trajectory)--with NEITHER of those bullets exiting the body....and then both bullets just VANISH.

And THAT type of theory is MORE logical and reasonable than is the SBT, James? Really? I beg to differ.

This also gives me a great excuse to re-post one of the best and humorous quotes ever written about the silly "2 Bullets Entered And Neither Exited" theory that conspiracy theorists are so fond of:

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?"
-- Bud (at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup); April 1, 2006


I'm starting to think that I really was wrong in assuming Bugliosi was writing (or vetting) your text, because what passes for "reasoning" is so sophomoric it is truly an embarrassment.


Why on Earth anyone would be silly enough to think that Mr. Bugliosi writes or "vets" my Internet posts is anyone's guess. But it's a really stupid suggestion, David. Vince doesn't have the slightest idea what I'm writing on the Internet. And I haven't a clue as to why you would think he does (or ever has). ~big shrug~

Maybe you should ask Pat Lambert. After all, she's another person you were 100% wrong about when it comes to the topics of "writing for other people" and "ghostwriting" and "Vincent Bugliosi".

For those who aren't aware of this hilarious story -- David Lifton, on May 24, 2007, decided to go on Len Osanic's Black Op (Conspiracies 'R Us) Radio show and claim that "False Witness" author Patricia Lambert had practically written all (or certainly most) of Vincent Bugliosi's 90-page chapter about the Jim Garrison case and Oliver Stone's movie.

After learning about Lifton's crackpot "ghostwriting" charges, Pat Lambert made a statement in early July 2007, in which she said she had not written a single sentence (or word) of Mr. Bugliosi's book. AFAIK, however, Mr. Lifton has never offered up a public apology to Ms. Lambert.

What was that you were preaching to me in your last post, Mr. Lifton -- about "ethics"? (Geesh.)

Now, let's see what other comic antics "Mr. Body Alteration" has in store for Davey tonight.....


Your writing indicates you really do not function logically.


Says the guy who thinks it's MORE logical to think that President Kennedy was shot by NO BULLETS FROM BEHIND and also believes JFK's body was pilfered RIGHT OFF OF AIR FORCE ONE by unknown plotters and the BODY ALTERED.

Please continue, Mr. Alteration.....


There is nothing physically impossible about taking the President's body out of the casket and moving it elsewhere on the plane, especially if the order to do so comes from "higher authority." What you seem to be avoiding is the fact that the body was in the coffin when the coffin was placed aboard Air Force One (at 2:18 CST) but could not possibly have been in the coffin when AF-1 landed (at 6 PM) because the body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, (at 6:35 PM) about 20 minutes prior to the Dallas casket, which arrived in the naval ambulance at 6:55 PM.


Oh, my weak bladder!!

And the funniest part about all this is -- David L. really believes it!


Instead of sputtering and filling the Internet with insults, why not address the evidence?


Says the man who thinks Kennedy WASN'T SHOT FROM BEHIND AT ALL.

Yeah, David S. Lifton really knows how to "address the evidence" in the JFK case alright.

(I had no idea Mr. Lifton was a drinking man. But after reading this post of his--including the Cronkite/"Hotstuff"/"Von Pain" simulation, I have no choice but to think that his cupboard is brim full with empty Jack Daniels bottles. Gee, and I thought I had a lot of free time to write stuff on the Internet. Since joining Duncan MacRae's forum, Lifton's got everybody beat in the "free time" category, it would seem.)


So you see, DVP, this is the sort of thing you should be looking for, and when you find it, I do hope you will post it on your YouTube site. And you will go down in history, as having shown that all of the data about multiple coffins is just one big misunderstanding...you know, like the Lusitania.


Was your Walter Cronkite/Comedy Central routine supposed to offer some kind of PROOF that no other casket entries were made at Bethesda on the night of November 22, 1963, David? If so, I must have missed that "proof".

And didn't you say the other day (and perhaps even in your book, "Best Evidence") that you think perhaps a THIRD casket entry occurred at Bethesda that night? Care to go for four?

What was in the third (and fourth?) casket, David? Kennedy's brain? Luncheon snacks for Humes and Company? What?

Let's now again bask in the Pot/Kettle nature of this gem penned previously by one David S. Lifton on the west coast:

"Your writing indicates you really do not function logically."
-- D. Lifton; May 9, 2013

Now, after having read the above comment, can anyone even begin to imagine the gall and monster-sized gonads it would take for someone who claims that President Kennedy was not shot by ANY BULLETS FROM BEHIND to make the statement I just quoted above?

Absolutely mind-boggling.

BTW -- Does anybody wonder how David Lifton reconciles the Main Street curb damage and James Tague's slight cheek injury within a theory that has ALL of the shots coming from the FRONT of the President's car? (Not to mention the limo damage done to the windshield and the chrome strip.)

But, maybe Lifton can now backpedal a little bit and claim that a shot WAS fired from the rear, and that this "missed" shot hit Tague and the Main Street curb.

Or, maybe DSL thinks that the "real killers" on the Knoll were really wanting to kill James T. Tague down by the Underpass. I like that theory myself. Maybe DSL can postulate that one sometime. Because you gotta wonder how any Grassy Knoll shooters could be such lousy shots as to hit Tague by the Underpass when they were supposedly aiming at Kennedy in the middle of Elm Street.

No worries, though -- David S. Lifton must certainly have a very good (and ultra-logical) theory to account for the Tague wounding, within his current theory of "JFK & Connally Suffered No Injuries From Any Rear Gunmen".

Anyway, I think it's quite obvious by this time that Mr. Lifton belongs in the "Pot/Kettle" Hall-of-Fame (based on just the last quote I cited above--all by itself) -- right next to James DiEugenio, also of Los Angeles. How fitting.


Best Evidence makes the valid case that President Kennedy's body was covertly intercepted prior to autopsy, and the wounds altered.


Even though Mr. Lifton knows that a whole lot of people have said that such "covert interception" of President Kennedy's body was absolutely impossible.

1.) The body could not possibly have been "intercepted" (aka: stolen) off of Air Force One while at Love Field. There were too many people surrounding the casket at all times for such a pilfering of the body to have been successfully accomplished.

But David Lifton totally ignores this pivotal fact and, instead, tries to shoehorn this very important and vital event (the physical stealing of the President's body) into a timeline that even he (Mr. Lifton) knows full well is too tight for even his own comfort. That's probably why David has changed his view on this critical timing factor over the years [as demonstrated by the quote below] ---

"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact realized there was a much more significant moment in time for getting the body out of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the coffin was already aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was down on the tarmac. And today, that is when I think that event actually occurred. How they got the body off the plane is another matter." -- David S. Lifton; November 15, 1997

2.) There was simply not enough time for the alleged body alterations to have been performed on the President between the time JFK's body was loaded aboard AF1 and the time the body arrived at Bethesda at approximately 7:35 PM EST on November 22nd. Quoting Dr. Humes: "The President's body was received at 25 minutes before 8." [2 H 349]

And I don't think that David Lifton has added yet another hilarious element to his body-swiping theory as of this date--that being: a new theory that has JFK's body being altered WHILE IN FLIGHT, aboard some "covert" airplane or rocket ship that transported the body of the President and a team of body-altering surgeons from Dallas to Washington. But, maybe that's a theory that DSL should consider, because otherwise he's got no choice but to pretend that the covert body alterations were performed with lightning-like speed between the time the body arrived back in Washington (regardless of WHAT aircraft it might have been transported in) and the time when Dr. Humes and company opened up the casket at Bethesda at about 7:35 PM EST.

That would have given the covert body alterers approximately 90 minutes to alter all of the wounds AND transport the President's body to Bethesda. And, let's face it, the alleged body-altering surgeons didn't just cross their arms and blink their eyes like Barbara Eden in order to alter those wounds or to transport the President's body the hundreds of miles it must have travelled from Dallas, Texas, to Washington, D.C., on November 22, 1963.

Ninety minutes (at most) to perform the kind of surgery David Lifton advocates AND to get the altered body from Walter Reed (or wherever DSL thinks the alterations took place) to Bethesda. And it's really even less time than that, because the body had to go from SOME airport or Air Force base in the Washington area TO Walter Reed (or wherever) FIRST. So there's more time lost. Unless, as I said, the alterations were performed while in transit. And that's just flat-out silly. Isn't it, David L.?

And if I understand Mr. Lifton's timeline correctly, there's even far LESS time for any covert body-altering surgery to have been performed on JFK, because Lifton has the "shipping" casket (with JFK's altered body inside of it) arriving at the Bethesda morgue at about 6:35 PM EST (correct me if I'm wrong about this timing, DSL). Which makes the body-altering scenario even more laughable and impossible than it already is. This would give the body-altering doctors virtually no time at all to perform any surgery on the President, unless the plotters somehow were able to fly JFK back to Washington from Dallas at supersonic speed (or perhaps with the help of George Reeves or Christopher Reeve).

This timing problem is undoubtedly why Douglas P. Horne decided to "alter" David Lifton's original "body altering" theory, with Horne realizing that there was simply no way in Hades that all of this cloak-and-dagger hocus-pocus could have been accomplished in the amount of time that was available. So, Horne added a new (and equally as laughable) wrinkle to this whole silly farce by contending that Dr. Humes himself performed the alterations to President Kennedy's body between about 6:35 PM and 7:35 PM EST.


The Internet is read by people all over the world, and that's the only reason I'm spending time responding to your nonsense. Never did I say--ever--that the President's body was "altered while in flight." That is a total fiction. I never said that, nor do I believe it.


David Lifton should learn how to read. Never once did I say that David Lifton believes that JFK's body was altered while in flight. Here's what I said (with emphasis now added for Lifton, who apparently cannot read at all):

"And I don't think that David Lifton has added yet another hilarious element to his body-swiping theory as of this date--that being: a new theory that has JFK's body being altered WHILE IN FLIGHT, aboard some "covert" airplane or rocket ship that transported the body of the President and a team of body-altering surgeons from Dallas to Washington. But, maybe that's a theory that DSL should consider, because otherwise he's got no choice but to pretend that the covert body alterations were performed with lightning-like speed between the time the body arrived back in Washington (regardless of WHAT aircraft it might have been transported in) and the time when Dr. Humes and company opened up the casket at Bethesda at about 7:35 PM EST." -- DVP

And, in fact, the very fact that David Lifton definitely does NOT believe that JFK's body was altered on the airplane (as I always knew he did NOT believe) is a big reason to know that his body alteration theory is nonsense from simply the TIME factor alone. Which is why I humorously suggested that DSL probably SHOULD add the "Altered In Flight" element to his crackpot theory--because without it, there's simply no time for the alterations to happen, especially via DSL's 6:35 PM casket entry.

And Lifton doesn't think Humes and Boswell altered the wounds, which means they must have been altered between 6:00 PM and 6:35 PM. And when allowing travel time from an airport in Washington to Bethesda, then how much actual "body altering" time was available to the covert surgeons on 11/22/63? Tell us, David, WHEN was the altering of the President's body done via your super-tight (and impossible) timeline? When? And where? In the hearse on the way to Bethesda perhaps?

You don't want to answer those perfectly logical and reasonable "timeline" questions--mainly because you cannot answer them in a reasonable manner. So you'll just ignore the impossibly tight timeline during which you say all of this stuff was done to President Kennedy's body.

Any casket that arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:35 PM EST quite obviously DID NOT and COULD NOT have contained the body of John F. Kennedy. Any such 6:35 casket entry must have been associated with some other case entirely. Especially if it involved a plain "shipping casket".

Anyone with any common sense at all would be able to figure this out. But David Lifton has, instead, decided to believe in the most ridiculous scenario imaginable--one that has JFK's body being deliberately placed by conspirators into a casket that doesn't even begin to resemble the casket that the plotters took JFK out of. This gives new meaning to the term "Brain Dead JFK Conspirators". And yet an obviously intelligent man named David S. Lifton swallows this crap whole. Remarkable.


I don't have the time to follow you around and do "clean-up" after you post your various false statements about what I believe, or have written.


There's nothing you need to "clean up" at all. I didn't misstate a single one of your silly beliefs, David. And, in fact, I hit the "6:35 PM" timing smack on the nose in my previous post, even though I was relying only on memory for that bit of info, and even inviting you to correct me if I was wrong. Here's exactly what I said:

"Lifton has the "shipping" casket (with JFK's altered body inside of it) arriving at the Bethesda morgue at about 6:35 PM EST (correct me if I'm wrong about this timing, DSL). Which makes the body-altering scenario even more laughable and impossible than it already is." -- DVP

So stop whining. Your "clean up" services aren't required at all. You just need to learn to read. For Pete sake, you even QUOTED me directly, and yet you still got it wrong.


The reason I have so little respect for what you do is your blatant misstatements of my own work...


Again, I made no misstatements at all that I can see. I never said you think the body was altered in the air. Read my quote again. Maybe the following operative words will begin to sink in (as you hunt for a better pair of reading glasses):

"I don't think that David Lifton has added yet another hilarious element to his body-swiping theory as of this date--that being: a new theory that has JFK's body being altered WHILE IN FLIGHT...but, maybe that's a theory that DSL should consider."


...and your rotten sneering attitude towards the evidence which clearly indicates that President Kennedy's body was altered prior to autopsy...


What reasonable and sensible person WOULDN'T sneer at such an insane theory? Even 99% of your fellow conspiracy theorists have tossed your foolish theories aside (including your equally silly "No Shots Hit Any Victims From The Rear" claptrap too, which is possibly even MORE ludicrous than your body alteration fairy tale).


...combined with the incredible hypocrisy you show by claiming you have some sort of great respect for the late President--which you clearly do not. Because if you did, you would care about who was responsible for his death.


You've got a lot of gall to say that. I respect President Kennedy very much, and I always have. And I do care about finding out who killed him. And the evidence is screaming out the answer to anyone who will listen -- President Kennedy was murdered by your favorite "patsy", Lee Harvey Oswald -- and no one else.

So you can take that remark about my not having any "respect" for JFK and stuff it squarely up your rear quarters, because in my opinion, that particular comment was totally uncalled for (even for this type of JFK forum).


Do you have a problem when it comes to telling the truth? Is misrepresenting what an author says in his book indigenous to your DNA? If not, then what is the problem?


See my previous response. I misrepresented nothing. It's not my fault you can't read. (Is it?)


DVP has given an excellent rebuttal to DSL's theory on body alteration. Simple, direct, specific in detail. There is so much evidence contrary to this theory that reasonable credible individuals can only shake their heads.

I believe most people who have followed this case, whether CT or LN, have or had a high regard for JFK. This is what makes the issue of his death so emotional. For DSL to accuse DVP of having no respect for JFK is insulting. While I believe DSL has promoted a theory right out of a Hollywood Sci Fi movie, I have no doubt he too respects JFK.


David [Lifton], your book makes it clear you think all the shooters were in front of the President. And therefore, in front of the Governor as well. It therefore follows from your own theory that the Governor's wounds MUST have been altered as well.


And in addition to that hunk of nonsense about the Governor's wounds being altered (which we all know didn't happen, of course, since John B. Connally lived to tell his story to the American people after the shooting), it also means that somehow the conspirators who shot Connally only from the front got John Connally HIMSELF to lie about his wounds and what he felt when he was hit by the bullet.

Connally ALWAYS said that the bullet which hit him felt like a "balled-up fist" striking him a sharp blow IN THE BACK. He never wavered from that story his entire life.

So, apparently David Lifton must believe that either Governor Connally was part of the conspiracy and cover-up too, or that Connally was somehow innocently mistaken when he said that he was hit in the back, which would mean that the "balled-up fist" feeling that Connally felt in his back was really the EXIT point for a bullet that must have entered his chest and came out his upper back.

Anybody buying that one?

In short, David Lifton's theories fail miserably from EVERY single angle they are approached from. And to think that this guy still has supporters for this type of crackpottery. Geesh.


The casket that arrived at 6:35 PM obviously contained the body of John F. Kennedy,


David [Lifton],

Is such a timing realistic?

Doing a search on the internet, I see that the straight-line distance between [Andrews Air Force Base and Bethesda Naval Hospital] is 18 miles as the crow flies. However, traveling by car is 28 miles.

[William] Manchester states that the plane arrived at 6:05. From that time has to be added the time to off load and enter the cars and ambulance.

At best if you add 5 minutes, which is probably too short, to the change over, you then have 28 miles to drive in 25 minutes.

Does that seem realistic to you?


And let's also remember, too, that according to David Lifton's theory, it's an ALREADY ALTERED BODY of John Kennedy that arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 PM EST.

Lifton doesn't think the "alterations" to JFK's body were performed at Bethesda, which means (unless Lifton has decided to crawl into bed with Doug Horne regarding WHERE the alleged body alterations were done) that the body had to be secretly removed from Air Force One by a team of conspirators at Andrews AFB (without a single person noticing this activity on the other side of the aircraft), and then the body had to travel to Walter Reed (or wherever) for the lickety-split wound alterations, and then after placing JFK into a casket that looks nothing like the expensive ornamental casket the plotters earlier removed JFK's body from (and also after putting JFK into a body bag, for some idiotic reason that only the bumbling plotters could possibly explain), they travel the XX miles to Bethesda. (How far is it from Walter Reed to Bethesda? I'm not sure and I really don't care, but David Lifton sure should.)**

And all of the above is accomplished, per David Lifton (unless he's changed his theory in the last few years), in roughly 20 to 25 minutes.

Can anybody say -- No way, Jose?!

** EDIT -- Distances (per Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", page 1063)---

Andrews Air Force Base to Walter Reed Hospital -- 13 miles (by air).

Walter Reed Hospital to Bethesda Naval Hospital -- 5 miles.


The casket that arrived at 6:35 PM obviously contained the body of John F. Kennedy.



"Lifton's scenario couldn't possibly be more insane." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 1061 of "Reclaiming History"

Vince is right (as usual).


Unlike some, I am not adverse to David's body alteration scenario. However, I did not find his argument about the helicopter very persuasive. I always felt it was never fully tied down.


Helicopter talk can be found in the CBS-TV coverage. No big secrets here. The helicopter that departed just before LBJ's chopper was taking members of the Kennedy party to the White House. [UPI correspondent Merriman Smith, in his 11/23/63 newspaper article recounting the events of November 22nd, makes mention of "another 'copter bound for the White House lawn", on which Smith himself was a passenger.]

David Lifton, of course, thinks there was another chopper that must have departed a little earlier which contained the pilfered body of John Kennedy (see addendum below). But when Lifton's fantasy is discarded (as it must be by all sensible reasoned-thinking individuals), any and all helicopters that were standing by at Andrews AFB on 11/22 were no doubt there for reasons other than to swipe the President and whisk him to Walter Reed.


"Through [Lifton's] compulsive effort, he comes up with a speck of evidence here and a speck there to support his earth-is-flat theory. For instance, he tells us, and I assume he's being truthful, that if one listens to the tape of CBS anchorman Harry Reasoner announcing the arrival of Air Force One at Andrews, "it [is] difficult to hear [Reasoner] because, thundering in the background could be heard the turning rotor of a helicopter," the one, Lifton assures his reader, that took the president's body to Walter Reed hospital, where his phantom conspiracy surgeons performed the alterations. Assassination researcher Howard Platzman describes this tendency of the conspiracy theorists to stitch together bits and scraps of information to support their grand conclusions "hyperperspicacity. Seeing very clearly what isn't there or what is innocently there. This special kind of seeing is what enabled me, at age 19, to discover 83 pieces of evidence in Beatles' music and paraphernalia pointing inescapably to the conclusion that Paul [McCartney] was dead."" -- Page 1063 of Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"

I'm not quite sure if Mr. Bugliosi has the correct CBS reporter when he quotes from David Lifton's book above, because Harry Reasoner's voice is never drowned out by anything during the CBS coverage of JFK's arrival at Andrews Air Force Base.

Reasoner hands off the coverage to CBS correspondent Charles Von Fremd, who was reporting live from Andrews. The loud noise of the jet engines on Air Force One do drown out Von Fremd's coverage to some degree for a short time, but I can't hear any helicopter rotors in the background. And even if there are the sounds of a helicopter in the background....so what? Any helicopter sounds can just as easily be explained by a helicopter LANDING at Andrews, instead of one TAKING OFF. The sound of the chopper's rotors would be about the same.

Just try to find any helicopter noise at all in the CBS videos. I hear none. The only thing that comes close to "helicopter noise" at the operative time, IMO, occurs right after Reasoner hands off the coverage to Von Fremd at Andrews....but that's at a point when Air Force One is still taxiing. The Boeing 707 hasn't even come to a stop yet! Did the conspirators throw JFK's body into a waiting helicopter from the moving jetliner perhaps? Maybe a new theory has been born. :-)


Here is what James Sibert told me in 1990, fifteen years before the interview you quoted: “Dave, I could swear on a stack of bibles that the doctor said there was surgery.” That’s just a fact. That’s what he said in 1990.


So what? Big deal.

Yes, Humes used the word "surgery". We know that. Nobody's claiming Sibert and O'Neill lied in their initial report when they said that Humes said "apparent surgery of the head area". But the key is: WHY did Humes use that word? And James W. Sibert answered that "Why?" question for Vincent Bugliosi in 1999 (see below excerpt from Vince's book).

Plus -- Since we know that the word "surgery" did come out of James Humes' mouth at the autopsy on the night of 11/22/63, that very fact and that fact alone drives a stake through the heart of Doug Horne's "alternate" body alteration theory. Horne thinks it was HUMES HIMSELF who performed the "surgery of the head area" on President Kennedy's body. And yet within seconds of the body being removed from the casket at Bethesda, Humes (the alleged body-alterer himself) blurts out the word "surgery" for everybody to hear in the autopsy room. Brilliant, huh?

So I guess Horne must think Humes WANTED the covert "surgery" to be discovered and PUT ON RECORD in the Sibert/O'Neill report. Either that, or Horne must think Dr. Humes was one really stupid SOB.


And in my 1990 conversation, he [Sibert] said: "that’s haunted me for years, this surgery of the head."


Looks like he got unhaunted just nine years later when he told Vincent Bugliosi on September 22, 1999, the things we find printed on page 1060 of Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" (excerpted below). And Sibert said the exact same thing in this audio interview on June 30, 2005 (9 minutes into the interview). And also please take note of Sibert's description of the body wrappings in the book excerpt below -- "wrapped in two sheets":





Oh pleez...I'm really sick and tired of seeing Dale Myers quoted "in defense of" Vincent Bugliosi. Dale Myers was a paid ghost writer for Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History." Hundreds and hundreds of pages were written/rewritten by Myers.


I have a very strong feeling that Mr. David S. Lifton doesn't know what the hell he's babbling about here.

Vincent Bugliosi gave full credit to Dale K. Myers for Dale's writing contributions in the "Acknowledgments" section of "Reclaiming History". So that eliminates Mr. Myers as a "ghostwriter" right there, because ghostwriters are NOT ACKNOWLEDGED AT ALL in the book that they are helping to "ghostwrite".

And why on Earth David Lifton has it etched in his mind that Dale Myers wrote (or rewrote) "hundreds and hundreds of pages" of "Reclaiming History" (or even whole chapters, as Lifton has practically alluded to in the past as well) is a real mystery to me.

Myers HELPED Bugliosi write PORTIONS of "Reclaiming History" (just as the late Fred Haines did), and Vince has acknowledged that fact IN PRINT right inside the book itself, but I'm at a loss to comprehend just exactly why Lifton believes that Myers wrote practically all of Chapter 1 ("Four Days In November").

Here is exactly what Vincent Bugliosi says on this matter, on Page 1515 of "Reclaiming History":

"Dale [Myers] helped me in the writing of several sections of Book One [i.e., the first two-thirds of "Reclaiming History"], most notably on acoustics, 'Four Days in November' [Chapter 1 of the book] (particularly in the Oswald interrogations), and all matters dealing with still photography. I am deeply grateful to Dale for lending his time, energy, and considerable expertise to this literary project."
-- Vincent Bugliosi

And we can also know that Lifton is full of crap about his alleged "ghostwriting" allegation by taking another look at the following comment made by Bugliosi's personal secretary, Rosemary Newton:

"In response to David Lifton's outrageous, malicious and contemptible lie regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book...where he claims ghost writers wrote this great book (which will be read by generations to come, long after Mr. Lifton and the rest of us are gone, including all the die-hard conspiracy theorists)...I say, unequivocally, that NO section of Mr. Bugliosi's book was ghostwritten."
-- Rosemary Newton; July 5, 2007

Another reason, of course, to seriously doubt Lifton's claims about Dale Myers is to re-examine the very same allegation that Lifton made against author Patricia Lambert [which I alluded to earlier in this blog post]. In 2007, Lifton came right out and made the bold and ludicrous claim that Pat Lambert had written virtually ALL of the "Jim Garrison/Oliver Stone" chapter in "Reclaiming History".

Well, within a few weeks of Lifton's allegation, Ms. Lambert put that issue to rest for all time (but I suppose Lifton thinks Lambert was lying her ass off when she said this):

"For the record: I did not write one single word of Vince Bugliosi's book, not even a footnote. I never saw Vince Bugliosi's manuscript. I never saw any portion of Vince Bugliosi's manuscript. I didn't even get a peek at the galleys. No comma, colon, semi-colon, parenthesis, hyphen, apostrophe or period is my doing, to say nothing of sentences, paragraphs and a whole chapter. .... I have indeed been in touch with Bugliosi; we have talked on the telephone and I provided him with some documents. That is the full extent of my involvement in his book. I cannot imagine what prompted Lifton to make such a stunningly false allegation about me. But false it is. I am not a ghostwriter. I have never been a ghostwriter. I have no intention of being a ghostwriter. Since I know unequivocally that Lifton is wrong about the role he assigned to me, I see no reason to believe he is correct about the other unidentified writers on whom he has bestowed the credit for having written Vince Bugliosi's book. David Lifton owes me an apology. David Lifton owes Vince Bugliosi an apology." -- Patricia Lambert; July 2, 2007

Therefore, since we KNOW beyond all doubt that David Lifton was 100% dead wrong about his ghostwriting allegations that he levelled against Pat Lambert, why in the world would anyone put any stock or faith in ANYTHING ELSE this man named Lifton has to say about the SAME TOPIC of "Reclaiming History" being ghostwritten by various individuals? That's nutty.


There are two signed contracts (at least) between Myers and Bugliosi and/or his publisher. The first contract was when Myers first hired onto the project. The second contract (or contracts) occurred when Myers and Bugliosi found they couldn't get along with one another ("creative differences" is the Hollywood term) and so a legal "divorce" had to be arranged.

Both contracts included provisions that Dale Myers could not talk about the role he played--in other words, complete "confidentiality" was a part of the legal arrangement--both in the case of the original "marriage" and then the "divorce."


Again, I repeat: it's absurd to be citing Dale Myers "in defense of Bugliosi" since he (Myers) wrote such a substantial portion of both "Reclaiming History," and of [the 2008 follow-up paperback volume] "Four Days in November."


I'll let Dale Myers speak for himself on this. Naturally, Mr. Lifton won't believe a word uttered by Mr. Myers, but I'll pass these quotes along anyway--just "for the record":

"Lifton is questioning Bugliosi's credibility? Isn't Lifton the guy that claimed at one time that snipers were firing from inside artificial trees that had been installed and removed from the grassy knoll by crane? .... Lifton's problem is not Bugliosi's book or the secret gaggle of authors who supposedly wrote the master's work for him. David Lifton's problem is himself. As long as he continues to haunt the fringes of rational thought we can expect to be entertained with more ridiculous and unfounded accusations." -- Dale K. Myers; July 5, 2007

"As to Mr. Lifton's 'ghostwriting' allegations regarding Vincent Bugliosi's book...charges and assertions without support don't mean much to me. I note that in the year since Mr. Bugliosi's secretary Rosemary Newton challenged Lifton...that Mr. Lifton failed to grab what would apparently be (according to Lifton's 'ghostwriting' claims) an easy $100 grand, and instead continues to trash-talk Mr. Bugliosi's book. Seems to me there would be an easy way to settle all of this - Why doesn't Lifton simply post the contracts for all of Mr. Bugliosi's 'ghostwriters' which he claims to be privy to? I know the idea of some kind of evidentiary support for an allegation is a novel idea to most conspiracy theorists, but come on! .... Extraordinary charges require extraordinary proof, yes? As to your question: "Do you then categorically deny that any such relationship existed between yourself and Vince Bugliosi?", perhaps you [a person named "Duke", to whom Myers was talking to here] missed Mr. Bugliosi's acknowledgements on page 1515 of 'Reclaiming History'?" -- Dale K. Myers; May 7, 2008


DVP: do yourself and others on this forum a favor, and "get real."


This is hilarious.

Just imagine, folks, David "JFK'S BODY WAS STOLEN OFF OF AIR FORCE ONE" Lifton is telling another person to "get real". The irony and pot/kettle nature of that statement is so thick you could slice it with a knife.

In reality, David, I got "real" a long time ago. In fact, it was a short time after being exposed to your book of total fantasy ("Best Evidence") in 1981 that I started to get more and more interested in the JFK assassination.

And after looking into the REAL EVIDENCE in the case (vs. Mr. Lifton's impossible-to-pull-off fantasy version of it), I soon began to realize that President Kennedy was shot only from BEHIND, and the person who shot him was most certainly a man named Lee Harvey Oswald.

But thanks for today's laugh-fest, David. I enjoyed it.


You know dang well that Lifton acknowledges he was wrong about Lambert.


When did he ever do that, Pat? I sure don't recall ever hearing his retraction re Lambert.


Bugliosi...praises Lifton's research abilities.


Yeah, I know. And Vince was way too kind to Lifton when it comes to David's "research", too. Because anyone who believes that ALL of the shots came from the front, with ZERO shots coming from the TSBD or anywhere to the rear of JFK's limousine, doesn't deserve even the slightest bit of praise, IMO. What type of serious "research" could possibly make any JFK researcher come to such a totally absurd conclusion re the location of all of the gunshots? It's too crazy to even discuss.

The "All Shots Came From The Front" silliness is probably even more ridiculous than Lifton's "body alteration" tripe.


How can you deny it, if Bugliosi ACKNOWLEDGES the contributions of his ghost writers?


If Myers is ACKNOWLEDGED as a co-writer of the book, then he is not a "ghostwriter". Simple as that. (And I've quoted the relevant excerpt from Page 1515 of "Reclaiming History" myself, to illustrate the silly point of referring to Dale K. Myers as a "ghostwriter".)

And my guess is that David Lifton doesn't have a clue as to the number of pages that Myers HELPED Bugliosi write. Lifton is merely picking numbers out of a hat (i.e., "hundreds and hundreds"). And the same goes for Fred Haines' writing contribution, which Bugliosi says in the book was a "smaller" writing effort when compared to Myers'.


You surprise me, DVP. Somewhere on this forum, you have actually asked an interesting question:

"Gee" (you seemed to have wondered). . . "How can these conspiracy theorists believe that it was planned in advance to set up Oswald, as the fall guy, and yet ALSO believe JFK was shot from the front?"

Of course, the answer is to be found in Best Evidence, published in January, 1981: Specifically, it was planned, in advance, and as part of the crime, to falsify the autopsy findings.

You also might wish to reference Chapter 14, of Best Evidence, which you said you read when you were in your early 20s, and which you said got you interested in this case. How nice. But perhaps have forgotten by now. Anyway, that's what "trajectory reversal" is/was all about. The ability to shoot the President from one direction, but create the false appearance that the shots came from another.

Also, if you read my book--and specifically that same chapter 14--you will find that I certainly do not deny that the very effective appearance was created, on Dealey Plaza that day, that shots (if not "all the shots") were fired from the TSBD. Again, that's an appearance, and I never denied that. It's all spelled out, chapter and verse, in my book, right there in chapter 14.

As I make very clear--this false appearance (centered on the so-called "sniper's nest" found at the sixth floor of the TSBD)--was part of a strategic deception, employed in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. The purpose of the strategic deception was to make it appear, both in real time, and in the evidence, that JFK's assassination was a quirk of fate, a historical accident, by attributing sole guilt to Lee Oswald, the pro-Castro Marxist who had once lived in Russia for over 2-1/2 years.

Why don't you go and read some books about strategic deception--and how such plans are often used, in war, as an integral part of any military operation. (Or do you think soldiers always march forward, in full battle dress, and then stand up and yell, before firing at the target, "You hoooo! Hey you! Look at me! I'm over here!" And then: "Bang...you're dead!")


Oh, my poor, poor weak bladder!

So, David, the mentally retarded conspirators who planned President Kennedy's assassination well in advance knew from the GET-GO that they were going to have to fake all kinds of evidence (including the alteration of the "best evidence" in the case--JFK's very own body). Correct?

So, instead of merely firing the shots FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE "PATSY" WAS LOCATED, the goofball assassins of JFK decided it would be much, much better to try and frame Oswald by shooting ONLY from the Grassy Knoll (or various other FRONTAL-ONLY locations). Is that correct, DSL?

You're hilarious, David (in the comedic way).

But why do things the simple way (i.e., shoot Kennedy from the "patsy's" window and using the patsy's gun), when you could do it via an impossible-to-pull-off and ultra-complicated (not to mention, NEEDLESS and totally RECKLESS) "trajectory reversal" way by shooting the President from the exact OPPOSITE direction from where your fall guy is situated. Right, David?

And, just think, this is the kind of topsy-turvy, backward, illogical thinking we are treated to--year after year--by the JFK conspiracy theorists.

IOW--in a CTer's world, the following rule is king:

Since ALL of the evidence positively indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible for the deaths of BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, it really means that THE EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE, and Oswald was completely innocent of BOTH murders.

Try and get a jury to accept the above philosophy (which is the EXACT philosophy that a lot of online conspiracy theorists are currently clinging to).

Here's a simple (and logical) question for David Lifton:

Why not just shoot Kennedy from the Book Depository and forget about all the cloak-and-dagger junk of altering the President's body...AND altering all of the photos and films and X-rays, etc.?

Were the plotters TRYING to concoct the most senseless and ridiculous and complicated assassination scenario ever devised by man?

Just asking.

And, btw, is there even ONE other conspiracy believer on this Education Forum website who believes in David Lifton's "No Shots Came From The Rear" scenario?

If even ONE other CTer answers "Yes" to my last question, my bladder will burst wide open.



I'd like to believe that your latest post on March 6, 2011, is a joke, but, alas, I'm quite sure it is not and that you were dead serious about all of the pure hogwash and fantasy-filled speculation you have uttered in that post.

As I have said in previous posts at a different forum, Vincent Bugliosi was way, WAY too kind to David S. Lifton in "Reclaiming History":

"IMO, Vince is far too kind to Mr. Lifton and his "research abilities" (especially when we consider the insane theory that was spawned and endorsed by Lifton via his "research"). VB must have been in a super-good mood the day he wrote the nice things that he penned in his book about Mr. Lifton. But Bugliosi also gets down to the bottom-line brass tacks of the matter when he makes these statements about David L.: "...One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something."" -- DVP; April 21, 2008


The purpose of the Kennedy assassination was not just to kill the President...but to kill the man AND to get away with it.


So the plotters did everything in their power to complicate the shooting and the plot to the Nth degree to make sure it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the "All Shots Came From The Front" plot to stay a secret.

Ya gotta love the backward logic of David S. Lifton.

In addition....

The following hunk of logic never occurs to the conspiracy theorists who want to believe that everything connected to Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases is phony and fake:

If the whole rifle transaction was phony from the get-go, then why wouldn't the plotters who cooked up the scheme have made sure that the rifle's length MATCHED the ad from the magazine from which it was ordered?

In a truly "fake" and made-up-from-whole-cloth scenario regarding the rifle, would the conspirators have wanted to have a mis-match of rifle lengths so that the conspiracy mongers could now say what they are saying today? -- i.e., "Look! The C2766 rifle is the wrong length!"

This is just one more example (among dozens) of the built-in idiocy of the so-called "patsy framers" in this case. Everything is supposedly "manufactured" and planted ALL THROUGHOUT THE CASE to make it look as though Oswald did certain things and bought certain things and shot certain people -- but the retarded plotters apparently didn't know their asses from the hole in JFK's cranium.


1.) The brainless plotters couldn't tell "36 inches" from "40 inches".

2.) They plant a "Mauser" in the Depository (even though the patsy owned a Carcano).

3.) They shoot JFK from the front (even though their one and only patsy was located in the rear).

4.) They allow their one and only patsy to wander around on the lower floors of the Book Depository at the precise time they need him upstairs on the sixth floor shooting at the 35th U.S. President. (Brilliant planning and organizing here on the plotters' behalf!)

5.) They plant a bullet shell in the Sniper's Nest that could not possibly (per the conspiracy fantasists) have been fired on the day of the assassination, due to the dented lip. And yet the retard plotters evidently expected this "impossible" shell to go unnoticed by everyone in officialdom.

6.) They shoot J.D. Tippit with an AUTOMATIC gun (again, per the outer-fringe CTers who will do and say anything to try and exonerate cop-killer Oswald)....even though their patsy owns a revolver and not an automatic.

7.) And, according to some CTers, they place into evidence a Smith & Wesson revolver (#V510210) that could not possibly have been fired on 11/22/63, due to a bad/broken firing pin. And yet, at the same time, these same plotters (with a combined I.Q. of a Hostess cupcake) are attempting to make it look like Oswald DID, in fact, use that IMPOSSIBLE-TO-FIRE gun to kill Officer Tippit by placing into evidence four phony bullet shells from Revolver V510210.

A brilliant patsy plot all the way around, wasn't it? (Well, maybe if the plotters were Gomer and Goober Pyle.)



If he [Vincent Bugliosi] wants to write about the JFK case, he should stick to the facts.


Can David Lifton REALLY not see the astounding hypocrisy that resides within the above statement. .... Absolutely incredible. (But hilarious.)



It seems to me that, when it comes to the Newmans, DVP is just a flat out liar. (Would you not agree?)

FYI: In November, 1971, I was in Dallas and spent an evening with the Newmans--both of them. I had a SONY tape recorder. There was no question in their minds that the shots came from "above and behind" them--and by that they were talking about the area directly behind where they were standing, just as they indicated in their original interviews.

Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality, and will bend the English language to support their misconception.

I really do believe he's just a garden variety liar.


David Lifton,

I take offense at being labelled a "garden variety liar" by you. When it comes to people who are "committed to a false reality" in the JFK case, it's certainly not me who falls into that category. It's you.

As for Bill and Gayle Newman, just take a look at the Bronson slide [below]. At the time of the head shot, what location is "directly behind" the Newman family?

Answer: the pergola/peristyle area -- NOT the famous Grassy Knoll/picket fence shooting location that you conspiracy kooks love so well:

William Newman is on record (within 25 minutes of the assassination) saying on WFAA-TV that he thought there were TWO shots, with both of those shots coming from the direction of the "mall" or "garden" behind him, which is not the picket fence area (like it or not). Let's listen:

And Mr. Newman is even more specific in his 11/22/63 affidavit, when he said:
"I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me". And there's no doubt that when he said "shot", he was referring to the HEAD SHOT, and Newman even confirms that fact in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum.

And during that 2003 interview, Newman goes into even more detail about his observations (Part 2, at the 6:20 mark), when Bill says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise".

Newman saw the right side of the President's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck JFK in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in his 2003 interview.




I do not understand how today, people can return to these accounts and reasonably claim that this or that doctor did not see what he said he did. The notion that this is what the President's head looked like, at Bethesda, is--as far as I'm concerned--not just unlikely. It's simply absurd.



If David Lifton's theory is correct and President Kennedy's head wounds were altered and rearranged to make it look like the President had been shot only from the rear....then how would it have even been possible for a Bethesda witness like Paul O'Connor (et al) to have seen a large gaping hole in the back (occipital) part of JFK's head during the autopsy?

I mean, if O'Connor is RIGHT, then there must not have been ANY "head-altering surgery" performed on the President's head at all, right? Because if there had been the type of wound-altering surgery that Lifton says did occur PRIOR to the Bethesda autopsy, then the big "hole" in the back of Kennedy's head would not have even existed as of 8:00 PM EST on 11/22/63 when the autopsy began. Correct?

It seems to me that the "body alterationists" like David Lifton and Doug Horne want to have their cake and eat it too -- i.e., they want ALL of the "big hole in the back of the head" witnesses to be 100% correct (including the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses) and they also want the President's wounds to have been completely altered somewhere between Parkland and Bethesda. But how can the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses be correct if the covert body-altering surgeons at Walter Reed did their job properly and, in effect, eliminated the great-big hole in the back of JFK's cranium?

For Pete sake, what was the purpose of stealing JFK's corpse and whisking it away to the "Emergency Covert Body-Altering" section of the Conspiracy BatCave at Walter Reed if the end result is going to still be people like Paul K. O'Connor seeing a great-big hole in the back of JFK's head at the autopsy? Kind of a waste of time at Walter Reed, wasn't it?

Food for body-altering thought....isn't it David S. Lifton?



Mr. Lifton has now added Merriman Smith of United Press International to his list of plotters and cover-up operatives. In this March 11, 2014, audio excerpt, Lifton says that he believes Smith had "foreknowledge" of a plot to murder President Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

How about that, folks? Because of Merriman Smith's initial UPI wireservice bulletin stating that "three shots" had been fired at the President's motorcade, which is a bulletin that went out over all the UPI wires in the country at 12:34 PM CST on 11/22/63, just four minutes after the assassination, David Lifton thinks Smith had "foreknowledge" of a plan to kill JFK.

Which, by extrapolation, would mean that Lifton must also believe that all of the other witnesses who immediately reported "three shots" being fired at the President's car also had foreknowledge of a plot brewing in Dallas that day---including (among others) Jack Bell of the Associated Press, Jay Watson of WFAA-TV, cameraman Mal Couch of WFAA-TV, and Pierce Allman of WFAA-Radio.

In addition, there's eyewitness Bill Newman, who, no more than 25 minutes after the assassination, said that he heard only TWO shots fired, which is certainly not a number that fits very well into the kind of "more than three shots were fired" shooting scenario endorsed by David Lifton (unless David thinks several shots were of the "silenced" variety).

And Lifton's assassination scenario is further damaged by the testimony of various other witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza when the gunfire was ringing out, such as Nellie Connally and John Connally. Nellie is also a "three shots" witness (all coming from "over my right shoulder" according to Mrs. Connally, which would be from the general direction of the Book Depository).

And John Connally is also, in effect, a "three shots" witness too--with John hearing the first and third shots, while being struck by the second shot, which he said he did not hear. And, like Nellie, John Connally is very clear as to the direction he thought those shots were coming from--back over his right shoulder.

I wonder if Lifton considers all of those people I just mentioned (plus many more "three shots" witnesses I didn't mention) to be part of a conspiracy plot or cover-up? If so, Lifton's goofiness just might have reached new heights.

The more David Lifton talks, the more crowded it gets at the Conspiracy Hotel, which must have had its "No Vacancy" sign flashing before the end of the day on November 22nd.



On Christmas morning 2014, I received a notification e-mail concerning the following tender and heartwarming Internet post written by conspiracy theorist David "The Body Was Altered" Lifton:

[Lifton Quote On:]

"David Von Pein is a good collector--and a webmaster of sorts. (Let's give credit where credit is due). But that's about all he is. He cannot reason very well, and--basically--he's a professional propagandist. If there had been an Internet 700 years ago, and he was around at that time, he'd be spending his time as a spokes-person for the Flat Earth Society. He's really not much better than that.

Von Pein is what happens when the readily available technology of the Internet gets into the hands of a closed mind and an intellectual reactionary.

But that's all right. We can all benefit from his website, even if he's too intellectually limited to "connect the dots" correctly.

12/25/14 - 8 am PST
Los Angeles, California"

[End Quote.]


And with the above bright and cheery greeting from Mr. Lifton, it gives me a good opportunity to reciprocate and to wish Mr. David S. Lifton a very Merry Christmas and a Happy 2015.

And if you want to see how Mr. Lifton's brilliant mind has managed to "connect the dots" in the JFK case, just scroll back up this page. (After all, everybody deserves a good hearty chuckle on Christmas Day....or any day.)



Later that morning [November 22, 1963], Lee Oswald was observed on the elevator, going upstairs, and passed a witness (and her supervisor) and they both saw him carrying a long package. "What'cha got there?" he was asked. And Lee responded that it was a "fishing pole."


The witnesses who saw Oswald with the longer package (that he explained as "fishing rods") did not make their statements to the FBI, but certainly did talk about it years later. It was first published in 1988 in American History Illustrated. I communicated with the author--Ed Oxford--and found his research and interviews to be quite credible. (But that's a whole other story.)


I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life. Who is the female witness, David? And who's the "supervisor"?

I'd love it if that story could somehow be proven to be true, though, because such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle.

Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the day that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it.

You'd then have to ask yourself this question:

Why didn't Oswald just stick with the same story about curtain rods that he started the day with when he drove to work with Frazier? Because the more nonexistent things he tries to cram into that brown paper package, the more obvious (and provable) his lies become.

But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place, much the same way Robert Groden's bombshell "I Was Giving LHO Change At The Time Of The Assassination When We Heard The Shots" witness, Mrs. Reid, was a hoax too, with that wholly unbelievable story being invented many years later.

Because if that story allegedly told by Mrs. Reid had even a grain of truth in it, we would have heard it coming from the mouth of Lee Oswald himself after his arrest — "Hey, why am I being accused of shooting the President?! I was in the office on the second floor at that time, getting change for the Coke machine! Just ask Mrs. Reid. She was right there with me!" (Oswald, of course, never said anything of the kind to the police after he was arrested.)



I'm not going to go further at this point in time. But the witness(es) exist and--from your post--you clearly understand the implications.


Well, then, what are the names of those two TSBD witnesses, David? I asked, but you failed to answer me. Or didn't Ed Oxford mention their names in his 1988 American History Illustrated article concerning the alleged "fishing pole/rods" statement?


You make a serious error when you refer to it as "that fairy tale" and I find it telling that you were unaware of the witness.

Saying "I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life" is revealing.

Surely you do understand that just because you are unaware of something does not mean it is non-existent.


Well, I'm certainly not alone, David. In fact, I'm in very good company when it comes to my ignorance on that topic. Because the late Vincent Bugliosi had apparently never heard the "fishing pole" tale either. No such information, at any rate, can be found on any of the 2800+ pages of "Reclaiming History", because I looked it up (via a word search in the PDF version of Bugliosi's book) and there are zero references to "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" relating to any kind of a story told by any Book Depository witnesses. So, like me, I guess Vince was in the dark about that particular story too.


Proving something like that to be true is important for the very reasons you stated: if true--i.e., if Oswald provided two separate (and different) explanations for the package would imply that Oswald was involved in deception; and of course, the ultimate implication was that what was in the package was neither curtain rods nor fishing rods.

I'll pursue this matter further in the future.

With regard to Buell Frazier .... I go way back to the original work done by the late George O'Toole, who emphasized how totally frightened Frazier was that weekend. Really "freaked out" (to use the more current vernacular).

FWIW: I spent time with Michael Paine in 1995--at his home in Boxboro, Mass.--and he revealed how frightened he was; and actually started crying during my taped interview.

I completely disagree with DiEugenio's oversimplified notion that these people (the Paines, Marina, etc.) are all crooked, etc. My impression, from watching several filmed interviews of Ruth Paine (particularly the ones you have archived on your thread #87) are very enlightening.


DiEugenio...just draws incorrect inferences, talks glibly, postulates false hypotheses (particularly about Ruth Paine), and then mounts his high horse and engages in slander.

To close again with your own quote: "Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the morning that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it." Agreed. That is exactly the case; only I would not say "throughout the day." That [is] an inaccurate characterization of the situation. There are only two points on the time line. Two separate times when he spoke to the issue of what was in the package.

Regarding the question you posed: it's a reasonable one. And I don't have a great answer. But one possibility does occur to me: that when Frazier saw him with the package (early in the morning of 11/22) the rifle was "disassembled", whereas when the "elevator" witness saw him with it, it had been completely assembled and was "thinner" and somewhat longer; consequently, "curtain rods" would not be an adequate explanation for the second observer (or observers).


But via the scenario that you just outlined, David, the completely assembled 40.2-inch rifle would have been too long for the 38-inch brown paper bag Oswald was carrying it in [CE142], and, hence, part of the gun would likely have been sticking out of the top (or bottom) of the bag when the two TSBD witnesses (allegedly) saw Oswald carrying it in the elevator on 11/22/63. Unless the gun could have been placed into the bag at a slight angle, which might have made it possible for a 40-inch object to be completely hidden within a 38-inch paper bag. But I've never done any experiments on this before, so I'm not sure if the 2.2-inch differential in the lengths could be completely compensated for by putting the rifle into the bag at an angle.

Now, I suppose any of the above speculative scenarios are possible, I don't deny that. But allowing part of the weapon to protrude out of the bag (if, in fact, the gun could not be put into the bag in a way to conceal the entire length of the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano carbine) would have been a risky thing for Oswald to do.

But, I guess under such a circumstance, Lee wouldn't have had too many choices either. He probably wouldn't want to construct a whole new bag from Troy West's TSBD wrapping table just for the purpose of transporting the rifle up to the sixth floor from a lower floor. So, as an alternative, he could possibly have placed his hand over the end of the bag (where the rifle was protruding), in order to temporarily hide the gun from any prying eyes that might want to gaze upon it as Lee ascended to the sixth floor. Such a "fly by the seat of your pants" plan would certainly be possible and doable, IMO.

I still have great doubts about the "fishing pole" / "fishing rods" story, however. But I will readily admit that I could be wrong when it comes to my deep skepticism on this matter. In fact, as I said earlier....

"I'd love it if that story could somehow be proven to be true...because such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle."


To recap (and this is just speculation): "curtain rods" would be a reasonable explanation for the way he described the package to BWF (early on Friday morning) but not the way it appeared when seen on the elevator sometime later. Just a thought. Without a time machine, or modern day security cameras, perhaps we'll never know.

Re your final comment: "But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place" is quite incorrect; and there is no comparison between the situation to which I'm referring and the sort of nonsense promulgated by Robert Groden re Mrs. Reid. Mrs Reid--as you well know--was interviewed by the FBI and Secret Service, and then testified to the WC. From the standpoint of valid historiography, she cannot "amend" her account a half century later, and be credible. Assuming her late arriving account is the truth, I can only say this: If she indeed had "made change" for Oswald, then she would have to have stated that from the beginning. That's not something that can be added to a story a half century later. Once she doesn't say it when originally interviewed, then she cannot expect that account to be believed.

4/6/16 - 5:50 a.m. PDT
Los Angeles, California


Thank you, David Lifton, for your detailed reply of Wednesday morning, April 6th, 2016 AD, written from the great western city of Los Angeles, California, home of the Los Angeles Dodgers, long-time rivals of my favorite baseball team, the Cincinnati Reds, Riverfront Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Milky Way.

4/6/16 - 6:59 p.m. EDT
Mooresville, Indiana



It was never intended that there would be two medico-legal records: one from certain medical personnel who saw the body prior to alteration; and a second record emerging from those present at the official autopsy.


Which means that the people who arranged, "in advance, to alter the body (as part of the crime)", MUST have thought that after he was shot, President Kennedy would NOT be transported to any hospital in the Dallas area for medical treatment.

Is that what you're suggesting, Mr. Lifton?

But, just for the sake of argument, even if your theory is correct about a pre-planned "sophisticated strategic deception", how could the plotters who were planning such a complicated mission on 11/22/63 have possibly thought they could have totally concealed the FRONTAL gunshot wounds that these gunmen/conspirators knew were going to be sustained by JFK during the shooting in Dealey Plaza (since you think ALL shots that hit the President came from the FRONT and not the REAR)?

How on Earth could such a crazy, backward plot to kill the President possibly be successful, given the fact that anyone with half a brain HAD to know that the injured President was most certainly going to be rushed to the nearest hospital immediately after the injuries were sustained -- i.e., well BEFORE any kind of covert body-altering surgery could have possibly been performed on the body of the President?

I think only these four words need to be uttered at this point...

It makes no sense!

4/04/2017; 12:37 p.m. EDT
Mooresville, Indiana USA


Hello David [VP],

Maybe the plan all along was for only rear shooterS getting JFK, but when they had to rely on a frontal shooter, then it complicated things and the cover-up apparatus went into overdrive.


Utilizing ANY frontal shooters AT ALL within an assassination plot like the one purported by David Lifton (and all other CTers who think Oswald was being set up in advance to take the fall as the lone assassin) would have been suicide for the conspirators.

How can that basic fact not be blatantly obvious to everybody here?


David Von Pein:

In this regard, I cannot speak for anyone else, only for myself, but you are dead wrong, as will be established definitively with the publication of Final Charade. In the interim, please engage in the following thought experiment:

Step 1: Imagine a large dumpster, of the kind used to pick up trash in many communities. (They are all over the roads, here in Southern California, especially in the early morning hours, clanking loudly as they race down the major avenues towards their various destinations).

Step 2: Imagine a big sign being placed on that dumpster device: “Dustbin of History” (and perhaps in small type, and in order to give proper intellectual credit: “Original wording, per Leon Trotsky”).

Step 3: Imagine yourself being consigned to that location, because of your persistent and very loud statements that the President could not have been shot from the front (and setting aside the issue of whether he was shot “only” from the front). You keep pointing out this problem, and I gather it concerns you deeply. That is a good sign. It shows you have the capacity to think logically. Now, to the next step. . .

SOMETHING FOR YOU TO PONDER: Do you really think that those who engineered the plan to remove Kennedy from office were so stupid that they set up a plan to shoot him in a motorcade, and to frame a “pre-selected patsy” (etc.), and yet were such dunderheads that they failed to conceive of a plan to remove bullets, much less alter wounds? Do you not think that anyone with an IQ above room temperature might conceive of the necessity for such planning?

Or do you believe you're the only person, blessed with the intelligence and insight, to raise such an issue?

Food for thought.

4/5/2017 – 11:35 a.m. PDT
Los Angeles, California


But you see, David, since I don't think for one second that there was a group of people out there who "engineered the plan to remove Kennedy from office", I, therefore, don't have to engage in the wild speculation that you have engaged in for the last fifty-one years about "altered wounds" and "falsified evidence" and an elaborate "sophisticated strategic deception".

In my opinion, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, killed President Kennedy by firing three shots at him from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. And the evidence in the case most certainly supports that basic fundamental conclusion (despite the continued protestations of conspiracy theorists).

But even if I were to take a big leap off of your unique conspiracy-slanted diving board and accept the idea that some unknown group was responsible for JFK's death, my previous "It makes no sense!" comment would still be a perfectly valid and reasonable comment. Because no sensible person who was in the process of planning--IN ADVANCE--the following two things (in tandem with each other) would have even considered for even a single moment the idea of shooting at President Kennedy from the FRONT....

1. Kill John F. Kennedy.

2. Frame Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone "patsy" for JFK's murder.

By firing any bullets into JFK's body FROM THE FRONT, the plotters have virtually guaranteed that #2 could not be accomplished (unless, that is, God Himself was part of the assassination hit team).

4/05/2017; 4:14 p.m. EDT
Mooresville, Indiana USA



Here's the problem: There is no Dallas Police Department record--no DPD report, no DPD inventory, no DPD photographs, etc.--nor is there any such FBI record, of a filing cabinet. Filing cabinets are big items--I know. I have over 45 of them--2 drawer, 4 drawer, and 5 drawer. Items that big couldn't just "disappear"--I don't think. So my take on this, over the years, is that what someone called a "filing cabinet" was in fact a little metal box with some 5 x 7 index cards inside. And that's why, when I was carefully reviewing the FBI (and/or DPD, I forget which just now) "property lists," the presence of those particular cards excited my interest. And that's why I ordered copies of them.

Believe me: I wouldn't put anything past the DPD, but it's just not in the range of plausibility that they could make a 4 drawer filing cabinet (or even a 2 drawer one) just disappear. Without a trace. And without someone saying, "Oh yeah, and then I saw these mover people come in and they were rolling this filing cabinet out on a dolly". You know what I'm getting at. As for those small metal boxes that hold 3 x 5 or 5 x 7 index cards--that's an entirely different story.

4/21/2017 - 10:45 a.m. PDT
Los Angeles, California


David L.,

It's clear from Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission testimony that Walthers was NOT talking about the great big type of "filing cabinets" that you'd find in offices. He specifically used the word "LITTLE" before he used the words "FILE CABINETS". And he then goes on to describe in more detail the size of those "cabinets" [see 7 H 548]....

"...and then we found some little metal file cabinets—I don't know
what kind you would call them—they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all
right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves."

-- Buddy Walthers; July 23, 1964

Also see:

4/22/2017; 3:48 a.m. EDT
Mooresville, Indiana USA



(a) Some years after the publication of Best Evidence (and I believe what I am about to describe took place after the 1988 Carrol & Graf edition, the first ever publication of the JFK autopsy photos), I received a letter from a nurse (someone named "Dobson," as I recall) who apparently had read B.E. and was following the controversy concerning the JFK assassination. She said (again, quoting from memory): "Mr. Lifton...are you aware that Dr. Perry originally stated that he made the horizontal incision below--I stress "below"--the bullet wound?" She then cited, as her source, the famous article that appeared in the Saturday Evening Post dated (approx., from memory) December 10th, 1963, titled "Death in E.R. One", by writer Jimmy Breslin. She quoted from the article, I had that article in my files, and, sure enough, there it was, right there in the text: Breslin was reporting that Perry had told him that the incision he made was "below" the bullet wound. Of course, I found this very significant, but there was still more to come.

(b) When did Breslin conduct this interview with Perry? Was it a week or two later, in December (and "just in time" for the Saturday Evening Post's editorial deadline for that mid-December issue) or earlier? I don't have to emphasize the importance of the original interview date. As every law student is taught (and every historian knows) the "earliest" recorded recollection is the "better" evidence. But the exact date of [the] interview was not at all clear. Certainly, it was not indicated in the text of that December 1963 Saturday Evening Post article. Now..."flash forward" several years...

(c) At some point in time, and I don't remember exactly when this (what follows) occurred, I was consulting my voluminous files on all the original media coverage, and found--to my considerable surprise--that the Breslin article, with the identical text, was originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of Sunday, November 24, 1963. Further, the original publication of that article made clear that Breslin had interviewed Dr. Perry on November 23rd, 1963 (and possibly on 11/22; but let's just say, "by November 23rd, without a doubt" (my quotes). So Breslin's article in the mid-December Saturday Evening Post was simply a reprint what had been published on November 24, 1963, and represented what Dr. Perry told Jimmy Breslin on Saturday, November 23, 1963.

(d) At that point, I believed, based on what Breslin had published on 11/24 (which is what Perry had told him on 11/23) that Perry had made his incision "below" the original bullet wound. But...there is still more...

(e) Checking the exact wording of medical reports of the two key doctors (Dr. Carrico, who first treated President Kennedy, and inserted the endotracheal tube), here's what we find: From Dr. Carrico's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheotomy was performed by Dr. Perry" (WCE 392 [17 WCH 5]); and from Dr. Perry's 11/22/63 report: "a tracheostomy was effected...the tube was put in place" etc. (WCE 292 [17 WCH 7]).

(f) One doesn't have to be a linguistics expert to understand that (a) neither doctor made any mention of making an incision and that (b) the passive voice was used, which avoided the issue entirely (i.e., "the tube was put in place", etc.).

(g) "All of the above" is by way of background--and the point is (that is "my point is") that for quite a few years, I believed that Perry had made his incision "below" the bullet wound (as he [Perry] had apparently told Breslin he had, on 11/23/63, and which Breslin had then written in his article as published on 11/24/63 in the St. Louis Post Dispatch).

OK...now, let's move on...

(h) At that point, the issue was: Why did Perry not tell the Warren Commission that he made his incision below the bullet wound, and not "through" the wound?

In other words, the issue--at that point in time--was (if what Perry originally told Breslin was the truth): Why was Dr. Perry complicit in an attempt to hide from history (and specifically, from the Warren Commission) the fact that he had not made his incision "through" the wound? (Remember: Perry did not have access to the Bethesda autopsy photos, so he did not know how that wound looked by the time it reached Bethesda that night. He did not have that info until Robert Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph, when he (and a Baltimore reporter) visited Perry at his office sometime in 1978/79, when the HSCA was still in session, and Groden showed Perry the face-up autopsy photograph which, apparently, he had permission to possess...although I'm not sure on this last point).

(i) In December 1982, when I first came into possession of a set of the (Fox) black-and-white autopsy photos (See Epilogue to B.E., 1988 edition, published again in 1993, Signet), it became obvious how serious this matter was, because the effect of Perry's perjury (the proper legal name for what he did) became apparent: there was, by the time these autopsy photos were taken at Bethesda, a wide and obvious horizontal gash in President Kennedy's throat, and obviously that was not the "teach incision" made by Dr. Perry, if (a) he had made "his" incision below the original bullet wound and (b) if he had made no incision at all.

Which brings me to the next point...

(j) At some point, I became aware of Dr. Dave Stewart's statements, in a 1966 (or perhaps 1967) interview--date uncertain--and which was a front page story in the Nashville (Tenn.) Banner (again, from memory). At that point, I tried to evaluate what he had said, but, confusing the situation, was the transcript of Dr. Perry's CBS interview (broadcast in June 1967), which--according to the transcript in White's book--stated that he had "rendered the wound invalid." That incorrect transcript--which I did not know was incorrect (i.e., had been deliberately falsified)--something I did not know until June/July 1989--served to confuse me and thwart any attempt at proper analysis. And here's how the "turning point" (or "tipping point", to use more current vernacular) occurred.

(k) In 1982, I did a serious, in depth, telephone interview with Dr. Stewart. He stated--indeed, emphasized--that Dr. Perry stated that he (Perry) had said to him (Dr. Stewart) that he had left the wound "inviolate." I listened, made notes, probably made a recording, and wrote up a detailed memo. Based on the false transcript at the back of the Stephen White book (mentioned in my previous writing on this thread), I (incorrectly) concluded that Dr. Stewart was simply mistaken. Perry had said (I thought) that he rendered the wound "invalid." He had never said "inviolate." All of what I have just described was in my 1982 multi-page memo.

(l) I made a copy of that memo and provided it to Pat Valentino. More important, when I moved from New Jersey (where I lived for a few years, after B.E. was published) back to Los Angeles, Pat V. flew east to help me move. There were tons of files, many filing cabinets and shelving, and Pat was invaluable in helping me dissemble everything, pack it up, and put it into a large truck we had rented for the cross country trip. As he worked in my New Jersey apartment, with its beautiful view over the Hudson River, he wore a headset with a connecting wire to a small cassette recorder he wore on his belt and listened to the tapes of various recordings I had made over the years, and which were stacked on shelves. Often, he would stop moving the dolly, take off the headset, and exclaim, "David: Did you know what Malcolm Kilduff told you?" (And I would usually say, "No, I don't remember...what did he say?" etc., because Pat is blessed with an eidetic memory; I, unfortunately, am not.)

Well, one of the tapes he listened to was my conversation (circa 1982) with Dr. Dave Stewart. Pat was really impressed with Dr. Stewart's audio demeanor. "David, this man is telling you the truth! This is important!" And I, having already reviewed the situation more than once, responded by saying, "Pat, he's wrong. He's just confused. He's got the word "inviolate" confused with "invalid." Perry said "I rendered the wound invalid. He did not say "inviolate". Now how do you know that? was Pat's response. And my response to Pat was: "Just read the transcript of the CBS show. It's right there, in the transcript. Perry said "I rendered it invalid." He did not say that he left the wound "inviolate." Of course, I was relying on the incorrect transcript (read: deliberately falsified transcript, falsified by someone connected with the White book) at the back of White's back. But there the matter rested, for years. Pat believed what Dr. Stewart had told me over the phone; I did not. But...

(m) But Pat was so insistent on the point, that--around 1988/89, when I raised the money to go round the country for a series of filmed interviews--we should include Dr. Stewart on our itinerary, and so we did. Meanwhile, and just days before, that itinerary included a detailed interview/meeting with Groden, at his home in Hopelawn, New Jersey. One purpose of the meeting with Groden was to get the best copies we could of the Zapruder film, and other films, for which Groden was paid $5,000, and signed a contract. (Groden later denied much of this, but he signed the contract, he was paid, and in subsequent interviews, simply lied about it. See my essay, "Pig on a Leash," published in the Fetzer anthology, Hoax, for the details). And I certainly do not wish to be diverted here, into a discussion of Robert Groden, or his ethics, character, and general behavior. Simply put, he's an obsessive collector, much more so than a researcher, and a hoarder. But, putting all that aside (and that may hold the key to the missing original Nix film, and the missing original Muchmore film) that provides the context of how it was that, lubricated by the payment (of the first $2500) and suffused with a general feeling of goodwill, Groden played (for us) his crystal clear copy of the CBS interview of Perry, made in 1966/67, and broadcast in June 1967) and there it was, right there on the tape, Perry stating that "I left the wound inviolate." Again: "inviolate"...crystal clear, on the tape.

(n) Our very next stop after spending two days with Groden (again, this was June/July 1989) was to meet with Dr. Stewart (at his residence in the SE United States). We spent hours with him, and conducted an excellent filmed interview. Going over the whole story--A to Z--asking every single question we could, getting it all down on film. It's an important story, historically, because Dr. Stewart should have been (and could have been) an important witness before the Warren Commission. But that never happened because the Warren Commission was completely focused on the sophomoric "Oswald-did-it" story and never approached the case from the standpoint that there might be fraud in the evidence. Had they done so, had they heard Dr. Stewart's story, there would have been additional testimony sought from Dr. Perry and it would have been very clear that one of them was not telling the truth. Stewart would have testified that Perry said that he left the wound "inviolate"; and Perry would have been asked to explain why he testified that he made a horizontal incision through the wound.

(O) So that's the background about how all this was discovered, and the legal and historical implications. Suddenly, the tables were turned, and it became clear that:

(1) It was Dr. Stewart who was telling the truth about what Perry had said,

(2) That Dr. Perry himself actually used the word inviolate in his 1967 CBS interview (possibly done in 1966, but broadcast in June 1967); and...

(3) That the CBS transcript located at the back (in an Appendix) to the Steve White book ("Should We Now Believe The Warren Report"-1968) was incorrect (IMHO: deliberately falsified, by someone connected with the White book, to prevent White from learning the truth about what Perry had actually said, and pursuing the matter). Because note...

(4) If Perry said "inviolate" (which he did, because--as Dr. Stewart noted to us, on camera--it's right there in his CBS interview, as broadcast nationally in June 1967), then that provides a "direct path" to the thesis of body alteration. Why? Because no longer are we dealing with "surgery of the head area" but an entirely different "highway to the truth", one that involves the front throat wound, and is based upon a comparison of "what Perry said" with "what the autopsy photographs" (and specifically, the stare-of-death photo) shows.

My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision. He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade). And then the following events occurred:

(a) When interviewed by Breslin the next day (Sat., 11/23/63) Perry said that he made an incision "below" the bullet wound (apparently not wanting to get involved with anything having to do with that wound).

(b) On March 25, 1964, by the time he was deposed by Warren Commission counsel Specter, he had (apparently) been importuned to go along with the story that he had made a horizontal incision through the wound. On that date, he simply stated that he had "initiated the procedure" (6 WCH 9);

(c) Five days later, on March 30th, 1964, Perry testified in Washington before Chief Justice Warren, Allen Dulles, Ford, Boggs, etc.

On that occasion, he said: "I began the tracheotomy making a transverse incision right through the wound in the neck." (3 WCH 369)

If I'm correct, Dr. Perry was completely compromised--morally, and legally--by these decisions to testify in this manner, but I do not believe he would have made these decisions without the sanction of "higher authority." That is another subject, and one which I will address in Final Charade.

In plain English, and now focusing on the throat wound: in the 1963/64 time frame, someone was behind an effort to hide the fact that the President's body was altered. As a consequence: the very serious and obvious conflict between what the face-up autopsy photo shows (the wide gash, etc.), and what Perry (originally) said that he did (never made an incision, etc) was completely hidden from view. The double whammy: Perry testified falsely; and the autopsy photographs were unavailable for (at least) five years; and remember: they were not published (by me) until 1988.


Obviously, Dr. Dave Stewart is one of the unsung heroes of this whole matter of the throat wound, and he will be receiving full and proper credit in Final Charade. Furthermore, its my intention that the appropriate excerpts of the June/July 1989 interview with Robert Groden and, most importantly, of Dave Stewart, will be made available either on the Internet or via DVD.


I have completely re-evaluated my position (re the autopsy doctors) from what it was at the time I wrote Best Evidence. I will have much more to say about this, but it is beyond the scope of this thread. The issue goes way beyond whether Humes was "aware of Kennedy's throat wound". The issue is "much worse" than that; and much more fundamental: whether Humes and Boswell knew that the president's body had been intercepted and altered prior to its arrival at the Bethesda morgue. And: if they knew...what were they told? How was the situation explained to them? etc. And, finally, how were the autopsy photographs created? Did these two individuals supervise the taking of photographs that were based on a reconstruction? Again, what were they told? How was such activity explained (i.e., justified) to them?

Stay tuned.


2/27/2018 - 3 P.M.

Orange County, California


I guess Mr. Lifton thinks there's a whole lot of lying going on in the interviews embedded below....


Skip to about the 10:00 mark in the McClelland interview above to hear him talk in some detail about the "incision" that was made through the bullet wound in JFK's throat; and then go to 41:25, where McClelland says the large tracheotomy wound in the autopsy photos is exactly the same size as the trach wound he saw at Parkland on 11/22/63. [Also see this related article.]

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert McClelland; 2009


In the 1967 interview above, 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"?


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


That's not what Dr. Perry said in his 1967 CBS interview at all. Why are you twisting the quote? Perry never told Eddie Barker that he left the wound INTACT and UNDISTURBED (i.e., "inviolate")! He told him exactly the opposite! As I quoted (verbatim) previously, Perry said this:

"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."

And even if the word spoken by Perry there is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you (or anyone else) possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all?

If he actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any logical sense to you, Mr. Lifton?


When I was in Groden’s home, and watching multiple replays of that part of the CBS tape, it was clear to me that someone had attempted to monkey with the tape, because the audio was indistinct, and the lip movements of Perry were definitely out of sync with what he was supposedly saying: that he “left the wound invalid.”

It wasn’t too long before I put “two plus two” together, and realized that someone had attempted to deceive the author (Steve White) into believing that Perry had said “I rendered the wound invalid” when in fact he had said “I left the wound inviolate.”

The alteration of the transcript plus the blatant and easily observable attempt to fiddle with the audio made clear that this was all quite deliberate, and someone had tried to deceive the author and to hide from the pubic the truth about what Perry had said.


I just looked once again at this video version of Perry's '67 interview, and it's very clear that the audio and the video are perfectly "in sync" with one another. There is nothing unusual or sinister about it whatsoever. And, no, I didn't "monkey" around with that video file prior to posting it so that the audio and video portions would match perfectly, which they do. Dr. Perry's mouth movements are in perfect sync with the audio that we are hearing. And why David Lifton thinks otherwise is the true mystery.

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.


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.)


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?


A very good post, David. This is where the ["Double Oswald"] crowd gets themselves in trouble, taking 3rd and 4th generation hearsay testimony, mistakes, a scribble on 50 year old papers and blow it into a full-blown ridiculous theory.


And please note how David Lifton has completely ignored these comments repeated below (the first one made by me, and the second uttered by Dr. McClelland, who must be very high on Mr. Lifton's "Liars For The Rest Of Their Lives" list....

"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." -- David R. Von Pein; February 28, 2018

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller." -- Dr. Robert N. McClelland; 2009


Note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you, and much of your "argument" about the JFK case, is going to end up in the dustbin of history; and this matter of the throat wound, and "rendered it invalid" versus "inviolate" (and the business of two transcripts) is a perfect example.

I do not know whether someone at CBS messed with the audio, and created--shall we say--a "modified" audio record (for the benefit of author Steve White), but I can damn well tell you that there are two different transcripts of Part 2 of that show, because I had them both in front of me, back in 1989, and was astonished by this discovery. So you're behaving like a fool if you wish to believe that I made this up.


First of all, Groden showed us his high quality copy of the CBS interview of Dr. Perry by Eddie Barker. Pat and I, sitting in separate chairs, were watching that intently. Remember: we had just come from interviewing Dr. Stewart, two days before in Tennessee. And Dr. Stewart, repeating what he had told me on the telephone in 1982 (as I recall) and perhaps sensing my skepticism, said something like: "Hell, what Perry told me he said on national TV, in that CBS Special that was broadcast back in 1967! Go watch that TV special. It's right there! You will see he said 'inviolate'!"

I was polite, but skeptical.

Then, two days later, we were in Groden's home. We asked Groden if he had that interview, and he said that he did, and we asked if we could see it. He agreed. So that led to the unforgettable scene of Groden putting the cassette into the player, and perhaps even doing something else, while Pat and I watched the show. When we got to that moment in the tape, and when we heard the word "inviolate," we both rose up out of our chairs, and exclaimed, "What?!!!"

Groden wanted to know what the fuss was all about, and we declined to tell him, because we had not yet interviewed him, on camera, and wanted to have that "first tell" on camera, and unrehearsed. So we just stayed mum, but told him that we had something special, and would tell him what it was once we were on camera.


Am I the only one here with my mouth agape in utter disbelief after reading David Lifton's nonsense about the Malcolm Perry 1967 CBS interview?

It's just unbelievable how Mr. Lifton seems to want to totally ignore the context of Dr. Perry's complete statement in the '67 interview.

Let me see if I can get a few direct answers from Mr. Lifton:

Even if the word spoken by Dr. Perry in the 1967 CBS interview is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all? If Perry actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any kind of sense at all, David L.?

Or are you implying that other portions of the CBS interview have been altered and "monkeyed" with too? Are you suggesting that the version of the '67 interview that you saw and heard at Robert Groden's house in 1989 did NOT contain these words being spoken by Malcolm Perry just before the sentence that included the disputed word ("invalid/inviolate")?....

"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..."

Because it the above words WERE spoken by Dr. Perry in the Bob Groden VHS tape that you saw, then you must admit that the word "inviolate" being used in Perry's following sentence MAKES NO SENSE at all, but the word "invalid" does make sense, correct?


Since this discussion has illustrated the possibility of people having different opinions about the word being spoken by Dr. Perry ("inviolate" vs. "invalid") -- and, as I said earlier, even I myself think a good case can be made for either of those words being the correct word spoken by Perry -- I don't find it highly unlikely or unusual (or "sinister") that there are two different transcripts that say two different things. (Click Here to see one of the transcripts. That one says "inviolate" [page 9].)

But, as I also said earlier, since "invalid" is the only one of the two words in question that makes any sense whatsoever when the CONTEXT of Perry's whole statement is evaluated, then this whole discussion can safely be placed into its proper "moot and irrelevant" category forever.


A side note to David Von Pein: I've told you before that you and much of your views will end up in the dustbin of history. You're obviously a good collector, but your behavior on the Internet has been that of a propagandist, spewing disinformation and misinformation to new generations interested in the JFK case; and, in general, the world at large. You once said that your interest in the JFK case started when you read my book. What a shame that you're going to end up with a tawdry legacy, one marked by so many episodes of such intellectual dishonesty.


3/2/2018 - 4:45 p.m. PST

Orange County, California


Only two words are needed as a reply to Mr. Lifton's dramatic and patently absurd soliloquy above. Those two words:

Pot and Kettle.


DVP: You wrote:

"Am I the only one here with my mouth agape in utter disbelief after reading David Lifton's nonsense about the Malcolm Perry 1967 CBS interview? It's just unbelievable how Mr. Lifton seems to want to totally ignore the context of Dr. Perry's complete statement in the '67 interview."

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

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

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

Why do I say "altered audio record"?

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

DVP: "Let me see if I can get a few direct answers from Mr. Lifton: Even if the word spoken by Dr. Perry in the 1967 CBS interview is "inviolate" (and not "invalid"), how can you possibly argue that such a statement makes ANY sense at all?"

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

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

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

DVP: "If Perry actually said "inviolate", he would have, in effect, been saying "I cut through the wound which rendered it intact." Does that make any kind of sense at all, David L.?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

DVP: "Or are you implying that other portions of the CBS interview have been altered and "monkeyed" with too? Are you suggesting that the version of the '67 interview that you saw and heard at Robert Groden's house in 1989 did NOT contain these words being spoken by Malcolm Perry just before the sentence that included the disputed word (“invalid/inviolate")?...."

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

DVP [Quoting Dr. Perry]: "I didn't really concern myself too much with how it happened or why. And for that reason, of course, I didn't think about cutting through the wound..."

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

DVP: "Because it the above words WERE spoken by Dr. Perry in the Bob Groden VHS tape that you saw, then you must admit that the word "inviolate" being used in Perry's following sentence MAKES NO SENSE at all, but the word "invalid" does make sense, correct?"

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

DVP: "Since this discussion has illustrated the possibility of people having different opinions about the word being spoken by Dr. Perry ("inviolate" vs. "invalid") -- and, as I said earlier, even I myself think a good case can be made for either of those words being the correct word spoken by Perry -- I don't find it highly unlikely or unusual (or "sinister") that there are two different transcripts that say two different things."

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

DVP: "But, as I also said earlier, since "invalid" is the only one of the two words in question that makes any sense whatsoever when the CONTEXT of Perry's whole statement is evaluated, then this whole discussion can safely be placed into its proper "moot and irrelevant" category forever."

DSL RESPONSE: No, DVP, I do not subscribe to your idea. When this whole affair is viewed in proper context, then (if we had a Special Prosecutor in this case) that Prosecutor would have asked (behind closed doors, of course): Who the heck altered the body? (And given the plethora of evidence that the body was covertly intercepted and altered, that you, and your peculiar ideas that nothing is wrong with the evidence would be subject to considerable ridicule). I'll tell you what such a (hypothetical) Special Prosecutor would be interested in: such an investigation would be interested in the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, on November 2 and November 3, 1966; and especially the second one where, confronting him with the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area" (which he knew nothing about, until that day), he exclaimed "I'm not responsible for their reports!" and then, just a bit later in that same conversation, he exclaimed: "I'd like to know by whom it was done. . and when . . and where!" (See Chapter 8 of B.E., where all this is described in detail). Surely such an investigation might have put Humes and asked: "Commander Humes, why did you say those things? And what did you mean by "it" when you blurted out, with considerable vehemence, "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where?!" So that's the context in which to properly view the possible falsification of this particular audio record.

So no, DVP, I do not agree. Perry's use of clumsy language cannot be discarded or set aside in the manner that you are wont to do. To proceed in that fashion, you have to ignore the multiple occasions in which Perry used the word “inviolate,”—preceded by the words “I left the wound” etc. What you seem to he doing, DVP, is cherry-picking when it comes to context; to choosing the context (or “defining the context” if I may coin a term) in such a way that it supports your interpretation.

I say: Let’s enlarge the context and take into account the full picture; and that includes all the times that Perry used the word “inviolate” to fully understand what he meant when he used that word. And also, to understand the (wider) context, at Bethesda that night, in which this problem developed. END OF RESPONSE


To David Lifton:

Thank you for your (ultra)-detailed reply above.

Some additional thoughts....

Since you are pretty sure at this point that Dr. Perry's 1966/1967 CBS interview has been "altered", then can you tell me WHY the people who altered it would have wanted the end result of such fakery to be a totally nonsensical statement being uttered by Dr. Malcolm Perry?

If "they" can seamlessly alter the audio/video of that interview, then why didn't they replace what you believe to be the KEY WORD in the interview ("inviolate") with something else? But you're saying that even though the tape of the interview was "altered", the alterers decided NOT to remove the one and only word that is creating the big controversy here—"inviolate". Is that correct, DSL? (This reminds me of the argument from the people who think the Zapruder Film has also been altered, even though the film alterers decided to LEAVE IN the "back and to the left" footage of JFK's head movement after the fatal shot, which is, of course, the MAIN reason why so many conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy in the first place. Ironic, huh?)


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?


As anyone with a working computer can easily see when looking at the video below (not the audio clip I created, but the FULL VIDEO version of Dr. Perry's CBS interview, which I've linked to previously in this discussion as well), the audio and video portions of that interview are NOT "out of sync" at all. The syncing is just fine, and we can SEE Dr. Perry's mouth form the words that he is uttering. We can SEE him speaking the words "cutting through the wound" and "rendered" and the key word which begins with the letters "inv...".

Therefore, David L., how can you still maintain that the video/audio has been "altered"? Do you REALLY think that someone in circa 1966-1967 was able to perfectly and seamlessly "alter" Dr. Perry's words AND ON-CAMERA MOUTH MOVEMENTS so as to fool all Americans who were watching that CBS News special that night in June of '67?

Come on, David, you can't seriously believe that tape was altered....can you? (Especially since, as I mentioned before, the END RESULT of such "alteration" would be a statement being made by Dr. Perry that could only make him look like a fool and an idiot.)

An additional note (just “for the record”)....

Prior to getting involved in this discussion this week, I had watched and listened to that 1967 CBS interview with Dr. Perry at least a dozen times in my lifetime (probably more), and when it gets to the part where Perry says that "inv..." word we're now discussing, I have never once thought that Perry was saying the word "inviolate" there. Not once. I always have interpreted that utterance as being the word "invalid". Every time.

Now, perhaps Mr. Lifton will fire back at me with something like: Well, DVP, since the word "invalid" is a word that makes the most sense in that sentence, then you probably have trained your ears to hear what you think makes the most sense. But Perry really said "inviolate" there.

Okay. That might be a fair argument for someone like David Lifton to make. But I have a hard time believing that you, DSL, are so stubborn in your beliefs that you would refuse to admit that there's even a possibility that the "inv..." word being spoken by Dr. Perry in the CBS interview could be the word "invalid" instead of "inviolate". You don't think the word could possibly be "invalid"? There's no chance of that at all in your mind? Really? Listen again. Here's the video (again):


Let's also have a look at what Dr. Perry told the ARRB in August of 1998 concerning the tracheotomy he performed on President Kennedy (emphasis is my own):

MR. GUNN -- "Could you describe about how big the tracheostomy wound was that you cut?"

DR. PERRY -- "I've been asked this a lot. Of course, some of them said it was too big for a surgeon, but my reply to that was that it was big enough. There are only two medical emergencies, airway and bleeding. Everything else can wait. This just couldn't wait, and I had no idea how big it was. I made it big enough. At that time we used old metal flange tracheotomy tubes and [they were?] quite large with a cuff on them. And when I made the incision through the wound, I made it big enough that I could look to either side of the trachea."


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.


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. 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.


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.



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?



Your post marks the first time I have ever been aware of what Groden said on the subject of the throat wound (and the issue of the tracheotomy) in his 1993 book (The Killing of a President) which I always viewed, more or less, as a “picture book” and never really paid much attention to the rather skimpy [text]. But now I realize that that assessment was incorrect, at least insofar as this particular issue (the tracheotomy) is concerned.

In any event, the question you have posted is interesting and truly important, and deserves a thoughtful response. .... Whatever I say on the subject will end up being somewhat speculative because it necessarily deals with the psychology and general behavior of Groden, who I knew very well, and for a period of some 20 (or more) years starting around 1971. All of this is discussed in great detail in my 100-plus page essay “Pig on a Leash” (addressing issues of authenticity in the area of the Zapruder film, which I do not wish to deal with in this post), and which appears in the Fetzer anthology “Hoax” (2003). The relevance of that essay is not the Z film, but the detailed discussion of my 20-year history with Groden (1971-1991, approx.) and what I learned from that experience about him personally.

In the course of a quick file review, I came across the April 1990 Federal Express Receipt for the JFK autopsy photos which I sent to Groden at that time. That’s how he obtained the autopsy photos—from me. I gave them to him, gratis, because I never wanted to be accused of selling those materials to anyone for profit. Groden then promptly turned around and sold the photos to a tabloid (the National Enquirer, as I recall) for $50,000. The contract for that transaction was unearthed by a JFK researcher, provided to me, and I provided it to the lawyers involved in the OJ Trial. This led to a national broadcast in which TV journalist Nancy Grace was exclaiming, in outrage, “Robert Groden? Groden sold the autopsy photos to the National Enquirer!” etc.

I bring this up because that was just one example of the Groden story. In the period 1976-1979 (approx.), the HSCA employed Groden as a consultant, giving him access to an array of precious (and priceless) original materials. Today, both the original Nix film and the original Muchmore film are simply gone.

When the ARRB commenced its investigation (1994-1998), I was in very heavy contact with the two top lawyers, Marwell and Jeremy Gunn, since one of their jobs was to pursue the matter of the Zapruder film, in the area of authenticity. Through telephone and written communication, I made very clear my views that Robert Groden showed all the signs of kleptomania. Of particular importance is a 12 page 1996 letter (with numerous attachments) that I sent to Gunn, and which, no doubt, was useful in connection with the subpoena to Groden. During that sworn deposition, Groden denied, under oath, ever possessing various items that the signed contract that I provided (as an attachment) showed that he had sold (copies of) to me in June 1989, for the sum of $5,000!

All of this bears on the credibility of Groden, and his relationship with me. When I visited him at his home in late 1982, and he realized (because I showed him) that I had crystal clear black and white copies of the autopsy photographs, he was astounded, and green with envy. When (in 1978/79) he set out to write his “minority” report on the authenticity of the photos to the HSCA, I told him that I did not believe the pictures were photo composites, but that any fakery had been achieved by “reconstruction”–late at night, and at the time of autopsy. Groden believed otherwise, and showed me a draft of his report. It was poorly written, and I told him so. I said that although I didn’t agree with his view, it should be rewritten if it were to have any credibility. So I rewrote the part of his report dealing with the fakery of the autopsy photos, and which can be found (as I recall) in Volume 6 of the HSCA volumes. (I wrote the part of that report dealing with the back of the head).

Throughout that period, and when I would visit Groden at his home (then in Hopelawn, New Jersey) I concealed from him the entire content of my book, Best Evidence, which was contracted for in December 1978, and published in January 1981. I did so because he behaved like a juvenile “collector,” and I sensed that he couldn’t be trusted. I remember that one of his reactions, after publication, came down to this: “Why didn’t you tell me [about this]?” etc.


Do I believe what Robert Groden told me (and Pat Valentino)—on camera—in a lengthy and very detailed interview in June 1989, about what happened when he visited Dr. Perry in New York in 1977, and showed him (an HSCA copy) of the face-up (stare-of-death) autopsy photo? Absolutely. And remember (and as I believe I’ve already written on this thread): I spoke with the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden, and he confirmed Groden’s account. He remembered Perry shaking his head from side to side and saying that wasn’t the way he left it.

Did Groden play for us the Barker/Perry interview, and did both Pat and I hear “inviolate”? Yes, without question.

Was there a problem with the lip-sync etc., and did we all (Groden included) go to a audio house in Trenton (or Philadelphia) and give it further study? Yes, just as I described previously on this thread.

And did we interview Groden, extensively, and in detail, about his New York City visit with Dr. Perry? Yes, absolutely. On camera. And did Groden say what Perry said, and is it what I’ve reported? Yes.

So now, back to your question, DVP.

What happened between 1989 and 1993?

What happened such that—in writing the text for his 1993 book (probably written in early 1993)–Groden ignored what he told us (on camera, in 1989) and set forth (instead) the “conventional” version of Dr. Perry and the tracheotomy?

What happened was the relationship with the late Harrison Livingstone and the publication of High Treason.

Groden could not accept the fact that the throat wound was altered—on JFK’s body—without endorsing one of the major tenets of Best Evidence (see Chapter 11 of B.E., on the changed length and character of the trach incision, Dallas vs. Bethesda). Again, please note: Groden’s entire adult life was devoted to the thesis that the photographs (of the body) were altered—the photographs, but not the body itself. (At least this is the case with regard to JFK’s head wounds).


So now let’s go to 1993 ... Groden is writing some text for his “Killing of a President” book, and has had this big “Ooops!” moment: He cannot say that the throat wound was altered, without undermining his own thesis that it was “the pictures” that were altered, and not the body (!). (Livingstone has a similar problem. Much more of a researcher than Groden. As I learned, decades later, from examining correspondence in the Weisberg files at the Hood library, Livingstone personally interviewed the witnesses I did, confirms what they said, privately admits in private correspondence that I am correct, but continues to attack me in public, in the most vicious terms!)


GRODEN TODAY....(and for many years since the movie JFK)...

So Robert Groden now makes his “home” on the Grassy knoll, selling his wares, and using a car battery to run a Visa and Mastercard machine. And if someone asks him about DSL and B.E., he often parrots Livingstone’s line, and says that I am a fraud. I know because I periodically check, when friends of mine visit Dallas (and, of course, the Dealey Plaza area, where Groden can often be found, encamped with his wares).

He has been arrested over 50 times, and has a lawyer who has broken some new legal ground, at least in Dallas, in this area—or so I am told.

Finally (of course), Groden is now a card-carrying member of the “Hate DSL” and “Hate Best Evidence” club, featuring Dr. Cyril Wecht and his pal, Gary Aguilar (and I could name others), with supporting roles played by someone like DiEugenio, whose claim to fame was his uncritical belief that Garrison was the be-all and end all, who still believes that JFK and his brother didn't know about the CIA's assassination plots; and---apparently--doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that autopsy falsification (via body alteration) could be conceived of (and planned) before the fact.

From his website, DiEugenio often chimes in, using his site to launch similar snide (and sometimes nasty) commentary about me and my work (often from one of his “writers”; and often "signed" [i.e., as if written by DiEugenio, when it was not)]. DiEug--who prides himself in saying that he has me on "ignore" (an accomplishment in which a small mind can take some pride)--is reasonably good when it comes to issues like Vietnam, but doesn’t understand the medical evidence and won’t discuss it, usually referring people to Aguilar (who probably listens carefully, when he is on his meds).

My last conversation [with] Aguilar (who has a barely controlled temper, and often flies off the handle), occurred in March 2000 (yes, that long ago). It ended with Aguilar having the telephone equivalent of "road rage" and in a screaming cursing tirade, like an out-of-control child, with his multiple uses of the “F” word, directed at me personally and screaming that no, he didn't believe the body was altered; saying that I wasn't even a good Jew, and if I appeared at "his" hospital, where a JFK gathering was scheduled to take place, he would have me arrested and thrown out by security, if I dared to open my mouth. Nice guy, whose temperament has perhaps improved, over time.

An interesting question, for those who enjoy the theoretical, is whom would you rather have to dinner: DVP, Aguilar, or DiEugenio? (I'll take DVP, anytime. At least I know I'll be able to finish dinner, using my knife and fork to eat with, and not to defend myself; and maybe I'll get the chicken for free!).

Have I now explained the situation, DVP?

I never really expected to write all this out, in this detail. But perhaps it's necessary to explain what is going on here. To properly appreciate one of the major splits in the JFK research movement. And, finally, to properly depict Robert Groden–in context. And to attempt to do so in a reasonably fair and accurate manner, and without—as the saying goes—throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And there is a lot of bathwater.


3/6/2018 - 1:05 PM PST

Orange County, California


Thank you, David Lifton, for yet another very detailed and interesting response. The things you have said about Robert Groden's possible reason(s) for not wanting to include in his book (TKOAP) the things that Dr. Perry allegedly told him in 1977 do make some degree of sense to me, but it's still a bit difficult for me to believe that a major conspiracy author like Bob Groden would have been willing to just ignore a series of allegedly contradictory statements being made by one of the doctors who had his hands on President Kennedy in the emergency room in Dallas.

Because even if Mr. Groden was not a believer in your "Body Alteration" theory, I would think he still could have found a way to utilize Dr. Perry's "bombshell" 1977 statements to his advantage in order to promote the two main issues that Groden advocates --- "conspiracy" and "cover-up". Instead, Groden just decided to drop the whole matter and sweep Perry's statements (which are statements that Perry supposedly made to Groden in person) under the rug?!? That seems very unlikely, in my opinion.***

*** I'm not saying your explanation for Groden's reticence is totally wrong, but knowing of Mr. Groden's passion for spreading the "conspiracy" word (as I do), Bob's total silence in his 1993 book concerning this tracheotomy bombshell seems mighty strange to me.

David L., I have enjoyed reading your thoughts on various matters concerning the JFK case this week [in late February and early March of 2018]. And these discussions have provided some excellent additional material for my own archives of "JFK Assassination Arguments" at my website. So I thank you, DSL, for that.

But I have to also say that the many things you have said in this discussion have not caused me to be swayed a single bit into believing in any kind of "conspiracy" or "cover-up" or "alteration of videotapes" relating to Dr. Perry or any other part of the investigation into John F. Kennedy's murder. (But I'm sure that doesn't come as much of a shock to you.) :-)

Yes, there's an apparent discrepancy with respect to some of the things that Dr. Malcolm Perry said to various people over the years concerning the tracheotomy procedure that Perry performed on President Kennedy's body at Parkland Hospital in Dallas on 11/22/63. I cannot deny that discrepancy. But I also have a difficult time believing that if Dr. Perry was so committed to telling such blatant lies to the public regarding the details surrounding the tracheotomy (e.g., the "lies" you think he told to the Warren Commission, the ARRB, and to the CBS-TV audience in 1967), then I have to ask myself: Why on Earth would this alleged LIAR be willing to tell multiple people—including AUTHOR Robert J. Groden!—something totally different from what he had said (i.e., lied about) numerous times in public and in his Warren Commission testimony?

Didn't he know that Groden was a WRITER OF BOOKS on the JFK assassination? And didn't Perry know that his "confession" (so to speak) about leaving the wound "inviolate" would likely end up being printed somewhere, and that such a "confession" would be totally at odds with what he told the Warren Commission and CBS News years earlier?

In other words, it's my opinion (which you might regard as silly as all get out) that even with such "discrepancies" existing in the record when comparing Dr. Perry's public vs. private statements, there MUST be, in my view, an explanation that can reconcile those discrepancies without having to resort to this conclusion: Dr. Perry lied.

As my very good friend and fellow "LNer" Jean Davison said (which is one of many “Common Sense” quotes by Jean that I have archived over the last several years):

"Although the solutions proposed by [David] Lifton and [Michael] Eddowes are more farfetched than some, they use the same style of reasoning found in other conspiracy books. All these theories are based on unexplained discrepancies in the record. .... Alternative explanations and the overall pattern of the evidence are given little attention, if any." -- Jean Davison; Pages 274-275 of "Oswald's Game" (1983)

In summary....

I enjoy discussing the JFK case with David S. Lifton. It's just a shame that all of that writing talent, and all of that detailed knowledge about the JFK case, and all of that research skill, and all of that decades worth of effort on the part of Mr. Lifton has been so misdirected and misguided (IMO). For, I ask with all sincerity, how is a reasonable human being supposed to take seriously a person who says things like this to them?:

"You might want to pick up and reread those sections of 'Best Evidence' which deal with the design of the sophisticated strategic deception which, I believe, was used in conjunction with the Kennedy assassination, in order to hide the true source of the shots, and point a false evidentiary vector in the direction of the so-called “sniper’s nest”. .... That is what Chapter 14, titled “Trajectory Reversal”, is all about. It is not titled “Strategic Deception.” Rather, it is titled “Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception” and I have no doubt it will stand the test of time. Long after Mr. Bugliosi's tome is viewed as an anachronism, the last hurrah of someone trying to defend the “Oswald-did-it-all-by-himself” thesis, “Trajectory Reversal” will be properly viewed (i.e., ultimately recognized) as the genuine blueprint for a strategic deception utilized in connection with the Dallas shooting, and the best description of what actually happened. (Which it is.) It is why the media reported one thing, whereas the President’s body provided evidence of something quite different." -- David S. Lifton; March 6, 2011

"If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) -- all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage." -- David S. Lifton; May 4, 2013

"There was an attempt to alter the audio on that tape [of the 1967 CBS News program]. A clumsy attempt, which resulted in a tape (at that point) where Perry's lip movements are clearly out of sync with the audio track." -- David S. Lifton; March 2, 2018

The above quotes provide just three examples (among many) of the type of highly improbable and bizarre theories that Mr. Lifton has endorsed since the mid-1960s. And in order for me to place my faith (or belief) in either of those theories—particularly the first one—I would have no choice but to toss all of my common sense out the nearest window.

Here's what I said five years ago:

"The JFK case has a very curious effect on certain people (such as David Lifton of Los Angeles) -- They treat the evidence as if it's something that needs to be molded and crafted into something that it is not. In plainer terms, they simply IGNORE all the evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in the assassination of the 35th President, and they expect the masses to fall at their feet and give thanks to these expert "researchers" like Mr. Lifton who have literally made a mockery out of the true evidence in this case." -- David Von Pein; May 4, 2013

The late Vincent Bugliosi summed things up pretty well too, when he said this:

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 1057 and 1066 of "Reclaiming History" (2007)


I thought Groden did mention the Perry interview in Killing of a President? The book From Parkland to Bethesda cites it as such....


Dr. Malcolm Oliver “Mac” Perry, Attending Surgeon (deceased 12/5/2009)

1979 interview with Robert Groden [“BE”, p. 706; Groden’s “TKOAP”, p. 77 (includes photo of Perry)]---photos of neck and head wound not as he remembered them to be: his trach was “neater”, and not the “larger, expanded” one seen in the pictures. Also, the head wound more closely matched the Dr. McClelland drawing in “Six Seconds in Dallas”; “When interviewed in 1979, he still maintained that the bullet had entered the President’s throat from the front...”

[End Book Quote.]

[Source:] Palamara, Vincent. JFK: From Parkland to Bethesda: The Ultimate Kennedy Assassination Compendium (p. 5). Trine Day. Kindle Edition.


Thanks, Micah.

For the record....

I just now took a photo of pages 76 and 77 of Robert Groden's book "The Killing Of A President" [see below], and although a "1979 interview" with Dr. Perry is mentioned on Page 77, there is nothing in that brief section of text that says anything about Perry saying he left JFK's throat wound "inviolate", nor is there anything mentioned there about the trach wound looking "neater" than the wound seen in the autopsy photos. (That "neater" info must have come from Vincent Palamara's other listed source—"BE", p. 706—because it sure didn't come from "TKOAP", p. 77.)

Also (FWIW) .... Palamara probably has the date of that interview incorrect. From what I gather from Mr. Lifton in this discussion, that interview took place in 1977, not '79. (But maybe there was a second Groden/Perry interview in '79 too. ~shrug~)

Moreover, just as I quoted previously, Groden, on Page 76 of TKOAP [top left], positively endorses the idea that Dr. Perry did, indeed, cut through the bullet hole in President Kennedy's throat:


And, as we can see on the above two book pages, the notion of Dr. Perry cutting through the bullet hole in JFK's neck is endorsed by Groden a total of three separate times in the text seen on pages 76 and 77 of his 1993 publication.


FWIW / BTW / FYI....

I feel compelled to add the following information to this discussion regarding Parkland Hospital's Dr. David Stewart, mainly because of the fact that when David Lifton first mentioned the name of a "Dr. Stewart" earlier in this forum discussion, my initial reaction upon seeing that name in print was, "Who in the world is Dr. Dave Stewart? I don't think I've ever heard of him before. And I can't seem to recall any of the other Parkland doctors talk about him in the past either." And that was my reaction, even though, of course, I had already seen Vincent Bugliosi's one and only reference to Dr. Stewart in Vince's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" [see image below]. But since it was a very brief—and singular—reference that Bugliosi made to Stewart in "RH", I had totally forgotten about it....


There's also an article that appeared in The Milwaukee Sentinel on January 30, 1967, which deals (in part) with "Dr. W. David Stewart". It would seem, based on that 1967 article, that Stewart's main function on 11/22/63 at Parkland was to deal with Governor Connally's injuries, not JFK's.

And the most interesting thing that I found today [March 9, 2018] concerning Dr. Stewart comes in the form of a written review that Stewart himself wrote in May of 2006 at Amazon.com for Dr. Charles Crenshaw's book. In that review, Dr. Stewart, in effect, admits that he himself was not present in Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland with President Kennedy on 11/22/63. Here's what Stewart said:

"Chuck Crenshaw was a friend of mine at Parkland Hospital. We both were
there at the time of the assassination. We were both residents in general surgery. He was in the trauma room with Kennedy. My only criticism with his book is in his exaggeration of his role. The facts he related were identical to those of all the other physicians who were in attendance."
-- Dr. David Stewart; May 16, 2006

I think it's pretty clear that when Stewart said "He was in the trauma room with Kennedy", he was indicating that Dr. Crenshaw WAS in the Emergency Room with JFK, but Stewart himself was not there.


None of the above information necessarily has to mean anything at all with respect to the things that Dr. Malcolm Perry allegedly said to Dr. Stewart in the days that followed the assassination; but I think the credibility of Dr. Stewart on certain issues relating to JFK's death could certainly be called into question, particularly the things Stewart allegedly told radio host Joe Dolan on April 10, 1967, none of which do we find in Stewart's own 2006 written remarks that I highlighted above.


David Von Pein:

Dr. Stewart never said (to me) that he was in ER-1. Ever. To the contrary, he made clear that he was not. He made that point in my 1982 telephone conversation with him, and again in the June 1989 filmed interview.

With regard to JFK's wounding, he was a witness to what the other doctors told him, not to what he saw.


Now there are two other matters I will hurriedly report here, to be further elaborated upon when time permits:

ITEM #1: What Robert Groden told us during the filmed interview --- A New Fact....

Pat Valentino, reviewing the video tapes over the last few days...emailed me that the following repartee took place when Groden (and the Baltimore reporter) visited Dr. Perry at his New York City office. Upon being shown the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photo, Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. (This was actually stated during the filmed interview.) Groden agreed, and that is when Perry said "OK" (or words to that effect); and it was then that he shook his head from side-to-side, and said that that was not the way he left the wound.

Why I bring this up: This is in response to your question, DVP, as to (possibly) why Groden may not have reported the incident when he wrote his book, The Killing of a President. Remember what I said: I said that (in 1993) he wouldn't want to say anything which would indicate an agreement with body alteration; but based upon the June 1989 filmed interview that Pat V has been reviewing, Groden may have felt constrained by an (informal, and certainly legally unenforceable) agreement with the late Dr. Perry.

ITEM #2: Audio analysis....

A friend who has audio expertise has been examining the record of what Perry said at that crucial point on the tape. He 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. He states that, without any question, there are serious anomalies in this regard, and he believes that they constitute evidence that tape has been altered ("monkeyed with," in my prior posts). He is preparing some exhibits, and when his work is completed, and I have reviewed it, I will pass it along.


3/9/2018 - 9:40 PM PST

Orange County, California


Thanks for the additional information, David L.

As I said, the apparent inconsistent statements from Dr. Stewart that I talked about above don't necessarily mean anything at all when it comes to the things Dr. Perry supposedly said to Stewart about the throat wound. But I think those contradictory accounts are kind of interesting nevertheless.

Since you say you have Dr. Stewart on film saying he was never in Trauma Room 1 with JFK, then it's got to make you scratch your head a little bit (right?) when you see alleged statements being attributed to the same man (David Stewart) which say exactly the opposite (e.g., the Dolan radio interview of 4/10/67 and the quotes that evidently appear in one of Harold Weisberg's books).


I find this comment you made quite interesting (and humorous):

"Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. .... Groden agreed." -- DSL

And even with such a rigid agreement in place, what does Groden decide to do in 1989 in front of two people (David Lifton and Pat Valentino)? Groden decides that 12 years of living up to that verbal agreement with Dr. Perry was more than enough---so he decides to violate the agreement and spill his guts about what Malcolm Perry told him in 1977. (Nice guy, that Bob Groden, huh?) ~smirk~

Regarding this comment:

"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.

Why not try doing that and see if I'm right?

David Von Pein
February 28—March 10, 2018



Fragments from the head shot bullet caused the damage to the limo's windshield and the chrome topping. And such a conclusion is a perfectly logical and reasonable one, given the sum total of physical (bullet) evidence in the JFK case.

After striking the President's head from behind, the bullet fragmented and continued its FORWARD course toward the front of the limousine --- which is perfectly consistent with the "Oswald Did It" scenario.

The two front-seat bullet fragments had no overlapping areas, with one of the fragments being a NOSE section of a bullet, while the other fragment was the BASE section of a bullet. The fragments were, therefore, very likely part of the same bullet.

One thing that even most conspiracy theorists should be sure of is this ---- Those two large front-seat bullet fragments most certainly were NOT fired from the FRONT of President Kennedy's vehicle.

Therefore, among other obvious things (such as Governor Connally's BACK wound and JFK's BACK wound), the existence of those two fragments in the front seat of the Presidential limousine pretty much destroy David Lifton's crazy "All Shots Came From The Front" theory.


The legal (and historical) record in this case clearly establishes a serious bifurcation in the record (i.e., the medical record) between the wound observations at Parkland Hospital and what was reported at Bethesda, at the time of autopsy.

The fact that the two FBI agents present (Sibert and O’Neill) would report that, when JFK’s body was laid out on the autopsy table, it was “apparent” that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull,” should afford a rather clear explanation as to what the explanation is for this bifurcation: the wounds had been altered, somehow, in the six hour period between the time of the Parkland observations and the official start of the Bethesda autopsy.


Not surprisingly, I see that David Lifton is still desperately clinging to really bad information with respect to the "surgery of the head area" remark that appears on Page 3 of the 11/22/63 Sibert & O'Neill Report. Mr. Lifton, however, knows full well that the co-author of that 1963 report—James W. Sibert—also made the following statement to the HSCA in 1978:

"When the body was first observed on the autopsy table, it was thought by the doctors that surgery had possibly been performed in the head area and such was reflected in my notes at the time. However, this was determined not to be correct following a detailed inspection." -- James Sibert; October 24, 1978

So, Mr. Lifton, what about that 1978 statement by Jim Sibert? Was he lying when he made those comments to the House Select Committee? I guess you must think he was.

I'll also add this excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"In a 1999 telephone conversation from his retirement home in Fort Myers, Florida, Sibert told me that when the casket was opened in the autopsy room, "The president was wrapped in two sheets, one around his body, another sheet around his head." He said the sheet around the head was "soaked in blood," and when it was removed, Dr. Humes "almost immediately upon seeing the president's head—this was before the autopsy—remarked that the president had a tracheotomy and surgery of the head area." When I asked Sibert what Humes was referring to when he used the word surgery, he said, "He was referring to the large portion of the president's skull that was missing." When I asked him why he was so sure of this, he replied, "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to."" -- Page 1060 of "Reclaiming History"

And after I utilized the above Bugliosi quote at a JFK forum in May 2013, I followed up the quote with these remarks:

"Why conspiracy theorists continue to cling to inaccurate information is anyone's guess--but they do it--all the time. Sibert and O'Neill merely wrote down what Dr. Humes said at the start of the autopsy. And that information was proven to be wrong. And even most CTers know and think it was wrong--because there are very few CTers who are idiotic enough to actually believe David Lifton's theory about there being "surgery" done to JFK's body before the autopsy." -- DVP; May 5, 2013


Perhaps it should come as no surprise that David Von Pein is still at it, beating a dead horse, basically denying the evidence that JFK’s wounds were altered prior to autopsy; in other words, the President’s body was a medical forgery by the time of autopsy. But Von Pein, ignoring all that, and employing “kindergarten logic,” basically argues that since ammunition found in the presidential limo ballistically matched Oswald’s rifle, that that somehow validates the case against Oswald.

I can only speculate as to what would happen if DVP were involved in a card game and it turned out, from simple card-counting, that there were two “Ace of spades” or three Jack of Diamonds? Would he continue to play? Or would he understand that the game was permeated with fraud?

As I have stated in public lectures, JFK’s body was akin to the sun in the solar system of evidence. Once it's established that the body was altered, the evidence that there was fraud in the evidence (and that the Dallas sniper’s nest evidence was a source of artifacts, not legitmate “facts”) becomes “the” major issue; and has logical consequences.

Von Pein doesn’t seem to understand that. He wants to keep dealing the cards, and keep playing the game, with the stacked deck; i.e., even though there’s clearly fraud in the evidence.

His attempt to focus on the limousine, and cite one of the two fragments (that matched Oswald’s rifle) as legitimate evidence is both pathetic and illogical.

Von Pein doesn’t seem to understand that once fraud is established in the most basic evidence in this case—i.e., the body of the deceased, which was the basis for the Naval autopsy—the entire legal case is kaput.

It is almost comical to see him, all these years later, focusing on one of the two “Oswald fragments” recovered from the limousine, and attempting to use that as the basis for arguing that the sniper’s nest evidence is legitimate because...because why? Because (of course, in DVP’s world!) Oswald assassinated the President!

By that flawed methodology and absurd logic, why stop with the fragments? Why not cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin; ergo, the body was not altered (to create that false appearance)!

If this is the way DVP “reasons,” I can only imagine what would have happened if he had displayed this sort of reasoning in a mathematics class or one on basic geometry.


Well, David L., you'll have to forgive me if I choose not to follow you down your "Body Alteration" and "Body-centric Plot" roads. (And I doubt there are more than a couple of conspiracy theorists at this forum who buy into your fantastically impossible version of events either.)

And what is truly "comical" is that Mr. Lifton seems to be implying that it's only me who believes in Lee Oswald's lone guilt....and it's only me who thinks the evidence is legitimate throughout the JFK case. When, in reality, there are millions of "Lone Assassin believers" in the world. I'm certainly not in the LN boat all by myself.

And, YES!, of course I'm going to "cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin". What Lone Assassin believer wouldn't be citing that Carcano rifle as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if not THE most important)? Get real, David L.!

Here's a rifle-related question I have repeatedly asked conspiracy believers over the last several years:

"At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner, LEE HARVEY OSWALD? .... For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November 22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza? On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on November 22 (or any other day of the year). If conspiracy theorists think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace (or anyone else) to have been up on that sixth floor using Oswald's gun on 11/22/63, they've got a huge hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD." -- DVP; November 18, 2007


"Who is more likely to have used Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 on 11/22/63 (or any other day of the year)? The owner of the gun (Lee Harvey Oswald)? Or some stranger who didn't purchase the weapon? Based on those "odds", alone, the Anybody But Oswald kooks are cooked. And when we start adding in all the other stuff that incriminates Sweet Lee, it's Katie, bar the door (e.g., Oswald leaving the building immediately; Oswald killing Tippit; Oswald's actions and statements within the Texas Theater, which practically amount to Oswald confessing to some horrible act; plus those fingerprints on the rifle's trigger guard, identified as being Oswald's prints by Vincent Scalice in 1993). This case is a prosecutor's wet dream." -- DVP; September 18, 2012


And, yes, I'm also going to cite the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limousine (which came from OSWALD'S rifle) as strong evidence that is was, indeed, OSWALD who was firing that rifle at President Kennedy on November 22nd. Again, what LNer wouldn't be citing such incredibly incriminating physical evidence of Oswald's guilt?

You, David S. Lifton, actually seem to think it's surprising that a person (like me) who strongly believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK would dare to assert that the various pieces of ballistics evidence associated with JFK's murder are actually legitimate (i.e., non-phony) pieces of evidence in this case—such as the C2766 Carcano rifle and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the President's car.

And despite the popular trend among JFK conspiracists to believe that virtually all of the physical evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases is fake and worthless, there hasn't been a speck of PROOF to substantiate that ANY of that evidence was actually manufactured, planted, or fraudulent (including the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the two front-seat bullet fragments).

And the last time I checked, the massive amount of SPECULATION and ACCUSATIONS and WISHFUL THINKING being done by JFK conspiracy theorists does not come close to rising to the level of PROOF.

Get real, DSL! You're the one beating the dead horse. Not me.


I spoke with FBI agent James Sibert at length some years later (in the early 1990s, but I will try to determine the exact date), At that time, he told me (and he was quite emphatic on this point): "I would swear on a stack of bibles that the doctor (referring to the autopsy surgeon) said there had been surgery of the head area..." So I'm not making any of this up.

Furthermore (and I did not discover what follows until years later): when, during the "latter stages" of the autopsy, a bone fragment was brought to the autopsy room and handed to Humes (the autopsy surgeon), Humes--according to the two FBI agents--was "instructed" that this "had been removed" from the President's skull." Note the FBI agents choice of words: not "blasted" away; not "found in the street"; not "found in the car" etc. Rather: that this bone fragment had been "removed" from JFK's skull. Again, another strong indication that, at the time of autopsy, it was the perception in the Bethesda autopsy room that there had been pre-autopsy surgery on JFK's body--i.e., on his wounds.

DSL, 5/21/2019 (3 PM EDT)


That's extremely weak, David. It's embarrassingly weak for you. Especially after reviewing the comments made later by both James Sibert and Dr. Humes.

You are desperately searching for justification so that you can continue to believe in the "surgery" that never happened.

Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information?

Bonus Quotes....

The complete 1992 interview with Dr. James J. Humes:


Is it possible that, despite all the contrary evidence, all it takes to deceive DVP is for Oswald's rifle to have been placed among some cartons on the sixth floor; and so, ipso facto, that's enough for him to accept Oswald's guilt as "the assassin"?


Well, David, I think I'm relying on just a tad bit more than just the rifle. Or had you forgotten about all of this other "Oswald Did It" evidence? (You're not going to totally ignore all of this stuff too, are you DSL?)....


DVP scolds me, writing "Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information?"

How ironic. This is written by DVP who sincerely believes--and promotes--a completely false view of what happened on 11/22/63, because he is wedded to a simplistic belief in falsified evidence.

DSL; 5/21/19 (7:15 EDT)


It's all a matter of POINT OF VIEW and BELIEFS.

DSL believes that there's a ton of "falsified evidence" in this case. (Despite the fact that he's got no definitive PROOF that even ONE PIECE of evidence against Oswald was "falsified".)

DVP does not share DSL's belief.

And the JFK Assassination merry-go-round continues to perpetually spin....

David Von Pein
May 10-21, 2019



My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision.


In addition to this previously-mentioned 2009 comment by Dr. Robert McClelland....

"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller."

....there are also these 1992 remarks concerning the size of the tracheotomy wound by four other Parkland Hospital doctors....

Dr. Charles Baxter said:

"I was right there, and the tracheostomy I observed and the autopsy photos look the same—very compatible."

Dr. Marion Jenkins (comparing the autopsy pictures with the trach wound he saw at Parkland):

"They're the same."

Dr. Charles J. Carrico:

"I've seen the autopsy photos and they are very compatible to the actual tracheostomy."

Dr. Malcolm Perry:

"Of course, tissues sag and stretch after death, but any suggestion that this wound was intentionally enlarged is wrong."

Source for the above four quotes:

The Journal Of The American Medical Association; May 27, 1992; Page 2805

So, David Lifton, do you still stand by this statement of yours from last year?....

"Dr. Perry never made an incision." -- David S. Lifton; February 27, 2018

David Von Pein
May 21, 2019



Subject: Marguerite Oswald on WOAI in December 1966
Date: 7/24/2015
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein



There are news clips and documents that state that Marguerite Oswald was interviewed—at some length—on radio station WOAI (San Antonio).

I wonder if you have that—somewhere in your collection.

Or: if you do not, if you could (somehow) obtain the audio for that program (and/or a transcript).

Marguerite, of course, sets forth her theories on various aspects of the JFK case; and I would like to hear what she had to say.



Subject: Re: Marguerite Oswald on WOAI in December 1966
Date: 7/25/2015
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton



I don't have the WOAI interview. Nor do I know where a transcript can be obtained.

You might find the following Marguerite links useful, however....


Marguerite Oswald Reads Lee Harvey Oswald's Letters From Russia



Subject: Your Connecticut radio station narrative
Date: 11/27/2015
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein



I listened to your Connecticut radio station broadcast yesterday with some interest, and made notes which you might be interested in.

FWIW: I was surprised by how long they kept broadcasting their ordinary programming, unaware of what was going on in Dallas.

By using that particular station, you were able to write your own narrative, and the listener (e.g., me) kept thinking: “Oh, come on now, don’t you realize what has happened in Dallas? When are you going to wake up and learn about that?”

Anyway, my notes aside (I found some typos and some errors you may wish to correct in your narrative), I have one request.

In your narrative, you stated that Dan Rather reported that JFK was transferred to an ambulance. I am aware that AP reported that factoid at about 12:49 CST (approx., I’m writing this from memory), but I did not know that Dan Rather actually read that dispatch over the air.

My request: could you please point me to the source of that particular piece of sound?

Your have archived quite a few radio stations on your YouTube channel, and I have no idea which one might be the one that carried that particular report.

Could you please point me to the source?

Ideally, I would like to have that snippet of sound to play for someone with whom I’m meeting tonight for a late dinner.

Do you think you could provide me the source, and perhaps the exact “coordinates”, so I could just click on it, and play it, on my laptop?

I would appreciate that.

Thank you.



Subject: Dan Rather & "The Ambulance"
Date: 11/27/2015
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton


Here it is:

It's a CBS radio report by Dan Rather, with Rather saying that JFK "was taken into an ambulance and rushed to Dallas' Parkland Hospital". This occurs at the 8:57 mark of Part 1 of my WCCO-Radio (Minneapolis) series, which equates to about 12:55 PM CST.

And in video form, here's Dan Rather narrating a film and saying that an ambulance had transported JFK to Parkland (it's at the 2:13:02 mark in Part 2 of my CBS-TV series):

For the record....

The "narrative" you were referring to in your last mail is NOT mine. Those captions were written by Doug Bertel and they are presented on Doug's YouTube channel, not mine.

Doug Bertel, btw, is the son of WTIC-Radio announcer Dick Bertel, who was on the air quite a bit on 11/22/63 providing bulletins to the Hartford radio audience.

David V.P.


Subject: Missing Zapruder frames (in the Life issue that you are using)
Date: 2/28/2016
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein



At your blog, where you go through all the Life magazine issues that have anything to do with Kennedy, there is a serious omission in the 10/2/64 issue which deals with the Warren Report.

The caption describes 8 pictures.

But there are only 4 Z frames shown. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

For whatever reason. 4, 6 and 7 are not shown in the Internet Link that you provide.

I think you should correct that.

If/when you do, please let me know, and perhaps provide the new (or revised) link.




Subject: Re: Missing Zapruder frames
Date: 2/28/2016
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton


That is odd....especially since the frames go from number 3 to number 5, skipping 4, even though 3 and 5 are on the SAME page [here]. Weird.

But how would you suggest that I go about "correcting" it, David? I have no control over those Google LIFE images.



Subject: Flaw in the original magazine, as scanned
Date: 2/28/2016
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein



I just checked via Google.

The flaw is in the original document.

Have no idea why those pages were not scanned.


As far as “correcting” this situation goes, perhaps the only way is to bring to the attention of the creator of this Internet product —Google?, and the right department or official there—and letting them know that their scan was improperly done, and that they should correct the situation.

For now, and if you could help on this matter, I would appreciate it if you could either direct me to (or provide yourself) a proper image of those frames that are missing from the Google product, as published: #4, #6, #7 and #8. Most important to me are pictures #7 and #8.

Ideally, I would like a scan off of the Life magazine page; i.e., just as it [was] published, with the black border, and the little white number at the left.

Second: if such an image is not available or cannot be created, i.e., if you do not happen to have that issue of Life (10/2/64) at hand, do you happen to know the Z frame number for photo #7 and #8?

Please respond asap.

To recap: If you happen to have the Life issue of 10/2/64, and could scan the “missing” images, that would be great.

OTOH: If you could provide an Internet link to some other site which happens to have posted those pages from that Life issue, that would also be helpful.

Finally, I would like the exact Z frame numbers of those missing frames.




Subject: Re: Missing Zapruder frames
Date: 2/29/2016
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton


I don't know the Z-Frame numbers for 7 and 8. And, no, I do not have the 10/2/64 LIFE magazine.


It's kind of interesting to note that the very same issue of LIFE Magazine that has those Z-Film frames missing is the same issue of LIFE that includes these inaccuracies about Howard Brennan.



Subject: Please address this issue as soon as you can
Date: 3/26/2016
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein



Re your post on your YouTube channel titled:


Who is the announcer?

I am getting conflicting opinions from two different individuals, each of whom claims to have reliable knowledge.

Here is what Wikipedia states:


"Dallas/Fort Worth's television stations were given separate assignments. As Bob Walker of WFAA-TV 8 (ABC) was providing live coverage of the President's arrival at Love Field, KRLD-TV 4 (CBS) with Eddie Barker was set up at the Trade Mart for Kennedy's luncheon speech. KTVT Channel 11 (Independent), had originated live coverage of the President's breakfast speech in Fort Worth earlier that day. On hand to report the arrival on radio was Joe Long of KLIF 1190."


Is it Bob Walker? Channel 8....WFAA news director?


Subject: Re: Bob Walker
Date: 3/26/2016
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton


Yes, it's Bob Walker. He even says his name at the beginning of the video [embedded below] --- "This is Bob Walker speaking..."



Subject: Question I have -- "When was Connally standing?"
Date: 3/28/2016
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein



I much appreciated your identification of the narrator as Bob Walker.

Since that email exchange, additional questions have arisen.

At issue is just when [Governor John] Connally was "standing" and when the Ward Warren film showing him standing was exposed.

Can you help?

If you can address the question I am asking, and help clarify the situation, that would be much appreciated.

(Let me cut to the chase, as the saying goes: is it your understanding that when this image (see below) was exposed, JC [John Connally] was in the car, and it contained Jack and Jackie, and it was already moving? Or was this image taken before President and Mrs. Kennedy even reached the limo, and took their seats?)

Please let me know what you think.



P.S. And who are all those people with the gray uniforms on in the background? I don’t recall seeing any such group to the port side of the limo at Love Field, so I am thoroughly confused. (Is it possible that this image comes from San Antonio???)


Subject: Re: "When was Connally standing?"
Date: 3/28/2016
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton


I can definitely help you on this....

The "Connally standing up" footage is definitely taken at Love Field, not in San Antonio.

JFK's limo, with Connally standing up holding his Stetson hat, was moved forward slowly a few times during the period when JFK and Jackie were walking along the fence line at Love Field shaking hands with the crowd. It is during one of those "moving forward" periods that Ward Warren, right at the end of his film, captured the car in motion with Governor Connally standing up in the car.

Here's a still image showing Connally standing up in the limo at Love Field prior to JFK and Jackie entering the car. As you can see, LBJ is also not in his car yet either when this picture was taken:

And the women in the gray uniforms in the background in the Warren Film are (I think) airline stewardesses and other airline personnel who came out to see the President at Love Field.

Bob Walker and Joe Long (the latter being the narrator for the KLIF Radio coverage of the Dallas arrival) mentioned in their broadcasts something about airline personnel coming out of the airport buildings to see JFK that morning.

Hope this helps.

David V.P.


Subject: Re: "When was Connally standing?"
Date: 3/29/2016
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein


David V.P.:

Yes, this really does help, and does indeed clarify the situation.

I have this question, if you’d care to elaborate: how did you “figure out” (or “arrive at the conclusion”) that the JFK limo was driving along, slowly, as JFK was doing his thing along the fence??

I have no doubt you are correct; it fits. But I don’t understand how you were able to unearth that explanation.

Did you interview someone? Is there some film which provided that perspective, and made clear what was going on? Or what?

Until your email, I had no idea that the JFK limo “moved” as JFK was greeting people at the fence.

Anyway, thanks for your help.

Very useful.



Subject: Re: "When was Connally standing?"
Date: 3/29/2016
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton


Well, for one thing, we can SEE the limo moving while Connally is standing up in the Ward Warren film. (And the Warren Film was definitely taken in Dallas, not San Antonio. That fact is confirmed in the description of the film at The Sixth Floor Museum website.)

Plus, you can see some of the cars in the motorcade moving forward at the 22:30 mark in the WFAA/Walker Love Field video.



Subject: Request for assistance
Date: 4/7/2016
From: David Lifton
To: David Von Pein



I wonder if you could help me out.

The other night, on YouTube, I watched a piece of footage (which you may have posted, I don’t know that for sure) which contained the lengthiest (and most informal) footage of the Newmans I have ever seen. More important, it contained other witnesses as well.

Let me describe it:

I believe it started with Zapruder, and then with Moorman and then Hill; and then the Newmans.

Both Newmans seated with Jay Watson.

Then came the other fellow—Mr. Peppermint.

Then Mrs. Newman (and her baby) left, so it was just Bill Newman and Watson (and Peppermint, I think).

Then there was moot footage, only now with Watson standing up, nearby, in an office setting, with Bill Newman.

I wanted to go back to all of it, and make some notes; and now I can’t find it.

You are very familiar with all of this material.

Could you please send me the link to this item?

(And --- Are you the one that posted it?)

I have the general impression that it was (originally) compiled—or pasted together—by WFAA, and then you (or someone) posted it on YouTube.

Again, I would really like to review it again, but I need the link.




Subject: Re: Request for assistance
Date: 4/8/2016
From: David Von Pein
To: David Lifton



It sounds like most of that footage is the live TV coverage from WFAA-TV (with Watson, Haynes [Mr. Peppermint], and the Newmans).

But the stuff with Zapruder, Hill, and Moorman UP FRONT, before the Newmans, must be a compilation of some kind (as you suggested).

I don't recall putting together any "Highlights" video like that. (Although I have several “DVP's Highlights” videos on my sites that I have compiled over the years.) But my WFAA Highlights program wouldn't show Moorman and Zapruder PRIOR to the Newmans.

Anyway, here's the (uncut) WFAA link....