David Lifton

Members
  • Content count

    751
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Lifton

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

28,827 profile views
  1. Karl: I understand your argument, and its possible that you are correct, but. . . : But if you are, there's a second witness to Jacqueline Kennedy's arrival (6:53/6:55 p.m.) and that she was inside the Bethesda lobby, a few minutes later (say, 7 p.m.), and a good 25 minutes after the recorded arrival of the body (per the Boyajian document, at 6:35 p.m. ). Who is that witness? Donald Rebentisch (whose account I first published in the 1982 edition of Best Evidence (a Dell paperback) and whose information is so important that I mad sure to include it in the remaining two editions of Best Eividence: the 1988 Carroll and Graf edition, and the 1993 Signet mass paperback edition, both of which carried the autopsy photographs (which I had obtained in December 1982). This "addendum" is titled "Epilogue to 1982 Edition", and you anyone interested in this subject of "time-sequence" should read it, because it explains who Donald Rebentisch is, how I came to interview him, and what he saw. WHO IS REBENTISCH: One of the sailors who was on duty that night, at Bethesda, and who was called upon to assist in unloading the black hearse which arrived with the shipping casket, "a good 20 minutes before" the arrival of the naval ambulance (carrying RFK, Jackie, and the Dallas casket, at the front). HOW DID I HEAR ABOUT REBENTISCH, AND WHEN DID I NTERVIEW HIM? I learned about Febentisch within a few days of the publication of the TIME story (in the issue dated Jan 19, 1981) which carried a two-page story, in the National News section, about the publication of Best Evidence. The TIME story was titled "Now, a Two Casket Argument," and--I was told--almost made the cover, and TIME was serioiusly considering carrying an excerpt of B.E. in that issue. Rebentisch, who lived in Grand Rapids, Michigan, called his local newspaper, and volunteered that yes, he knew about the two-casket business, and had been telling his family all about that for years. So the reporter wrote all of that up in a newspaper account, which was published (locally) in the Grand Rapids Press, and then he telephoned my publisher, to reach me, before it appeared. My publisher told him where to reach me--I was on my book tour, in Los Angeles, and was staying at the very posh Bonaventure Hotel. The phone rang in my room, and I got the message. I immediately realized the potential significance of Rebentisch as a witness, and went to considerable trouble to hook up my freshly purchased SONY mini-cassette recorder to the phone in my room, and called Morlock, who then provided me with Rebentisch's phone number; and soon I was on the phone with Rebentisch. It was a remarkable phone call, because I was able to speak with him--at length, and in great detail--before he had read (or even had a copy of) Best Evidence. He went through his entire account with me, and the most important part, from my standpoint, was that he corroborated the account of dennis David, who was Chapter 25 in Best Evidence. Yes, he was asked (by Dennis David) to assist in the unloading of the black hearse, and yes, he helped carry in the shipping casket. And then--get this--he went up to the Bethesda lobby, which was on the first floor, and there he saw Jacqueline Kennedy (and Bobby, as I recall) waiting at the elevator, to take that "upstairs" to the presidential suite (which we now know, was on the 17th floor). THE IMPORTANCE, HISTORICALLY, OF REBENTISCH'S ACCOUNT Rebentisch's account provided strong evidence that the black hearse--which he helped unload--arrived at the back, before the naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy (and Bobby, and the Dallas casket) arrived at the front. As the call came to an end, I was searching in my mind for some way to verify his credibility, because that was most important to me. At some point during the call, he mentioned that he often played cards with Dennis David, and had known him well. Just three months before, in October (1980), I had been to Dennis David's home, in a small town in Illinois, to interview him on camera, and had met his wife. And she had a somewhat unusual first name. "By the way," I asked, "Do you know the first name of Dennis David's wife?" Without missing a beat, he replied, and his answer was correct. As far as i was concerned, that estbalished his credibility. THE CBC DOCUMENTARY--THE EMPTY CASKET--AND REBENTISCH'S ACCOUNT Some months later, in the spring of 1980, and after B.E. had been on the national best seller lists for several months (#1 in both AP and UPI, and $4 on the NY Times list), CBC film producer/director Brian McKenna, approached me, and --using the B.E. footage I already had (from Octobner 1980)--Brian produced a major nationally televised documentary broadcast on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). In connection with the production of that program, he arranged for us to fly to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and we interviewed Rebentish on camera. Brian tells me that the program--"The Empty Casket"--was one of the highest rated TV programs ever broadcast on CBC. THE ORIGINAL MICRO-CASSETTE TURNS UP Finally, this footnote. For years after I re-settled myself in Los Angeles (around May 1985), I couldn't locate what had become of the original cassette of the original January 1981 telephone interview. Just a few years ago, I opened a manila file folder (of many that I have) and out flopped that cassette! Pat Valentino made it his project to transfer to the audio to a digital format and spent the hours it took to make a perfectly accurate transcript. So that's the "happy ending" to the Don Rebentisch story. He's an important witness who corroborates the account of Dennis David, and so --if it turns out that Custer's account was incorrect (whatever the reason)--it doesn't matter, because Rebentisch provides quite powerful corroboration, for the sequence of arrivals: i.e., first, the black hearse (with the shpping casket at the back); and then, some 20 minutes later, the naval ambulance arriving with Jacqueline Kennedy, RFK, and the Dallas coffin at the front. Bottom line: The Dallas coffin--the coffin offloaded from Air Force Once, in the nationally televised arrival of AF-1 from Dallas--was empty. More on that another time. DSL 4/26/17 -8 a.m., PDT Los Angeles, California
  2. Karl: There is obviously a conflict between Custer's account, and the Ebersole account. Please keep this in mind: 1. When I spoke with Ebersole (8/27/72) he either said (or implied) that the autopsy began at 10 p.m. 2. Custer told me from the beginning (Sept/Oct 1980) of this incident. I didn't lead him on in any way; he simply volunteered it. Whose story is correct? An interesting question which is not easy to analyze. Neither are "perfect" witnesses. DSL
  3. Ray: I sent you a private message some hours ago. I found (I believe) what I was looking for. Then I tried to send you a followup message, saying so. . . But your mailbox is full You can email me privately at dsl74@cornell.edu for further details. DSL
  4. Hi Ray,

    I just read your post re Bowron, and have some questions. I'm hoping you can lend a hand because Bowron is definitely an important witness.  Years ago, someone sent me a tape of a trans-atlantic phone call between Livingstone and Bowron. It was very helpful because it documented the fact that, as of that call, she was not making the claims he later had her making in his book KILLING THE TRUTH. Putting aside the issue of how Harry L. managed to get to that point with her (and I don't have a definitive answer), what I do know is that she was asked by Specter whether she saw any other wound(s) besides the back-of-the-head wound and the throat wound and she responded "no."  That's in WC vol 6.  Here's what I would like to have, from you, if possible:

    (a) Could you tell me what is the source for the HSCA interview of Bowron? (Is that publicly available at NARA?  And if so, could you please provide a link?)

    (b) Could you tell me what is the source for her account of how she was alone with the body, in the room, after he was pronounced dead (I'm writing this from memory, having read you post an hour ago, on my ipad).

    I would like to get both of these documents--whatever the source--and it may be that, given the size of the data in this case, I already have them, but misfiled it.

    Please use this email:  dsl74@Cornell.edu

    But, if you have some document not generally available, and its not convenient to scan, here's my fax (dedicated) number: 310 943 3899

    In reading your post, I was startled by the idea that perhaps you have a transcript of the same tape that was provided to me, some 20 years ago, from someone "inside" Harry L's operation, and who thought that his treatment of me (and B.E.) was simply absurd.  As I said above: I don't know the "final inning" of the game--when he (finally) got Bowron to say what she did, and which he publicized widely in KILLING THE TRUTH, but its clear that that was not her original position.  Any insights you wish to add will be appreciated, and I promise to include you in my acknowledgements.

    Thanks.

    DSL

     

     

  5. Chris: No time for any detailed postings, but i don't understand why RP's story doesn't add up or boggles the mind. First of all, Lee was "playing" her. So he writes this deliberately provocative letter, deliberately leaves it out where she can see it, she glimpes the opening line or two, her curiosity is aroused, and she takes the bait. The result: there are three documents created: 1. The LHO original handwritten draft 2. The copy that Ruth Paine made 3. The typed item that LHO wrote, on RP's typewriter, and which was mailed to the SOviet Embassy. Ruth Paine ended up with her own handwritten copy of LHO's copy (and then she filched his "original"--correct?) So: When the assassination occurred, and he stood accused, she was upset--if not horrified--at what she finds herself having been dragged into. So then she turns over both items to the FBI. She wanted nothing further to do with the whole situation. FWIW, and especially from my 1995 (approx) conversation with Arthur Young, Ruth (without question) believed LHO's guilt; but even more important, it deeply affected her psyche and her belief about "the way things work" that such an insignificant twerp and non-entity as Oswald (again, this was her perception) could have murdered a president she much admired. From talking with Arthur Young and with Michael Paine, and with the Paine relative who I got to know pretty well (and who assisted me, and wanted to get to the bottom of all of this), I believe I can state, with considerable confidence, that Ruth Paine never outgrew her almost sophomoric view of Oswald. Why that w the case I do not know, but she could never break through and get beyond that. And BTW, she's a very intelligent woman. Her IQ --I later learned--was up around 145. In the gifted range. In the Feb/March 1963 period, when it became clear that DeM would be leaving for Haiti, it was almost as if there was a "transfer of custody" of Marina and LHO over to Ruth Paine, and I always found that hard to accept as coincidence. But I can easily see that being "arranged" if Dulles asked his former mistress if she new anyone in Dallas who might assist in the "resettling" of a returned defector, and so that's how Ruth Paine was "selected" for that task. So that's what I always believed may have occurred, and nothing more sinister. Oswald's handler was definitely not Ruth Paine, but there was a handler, I am certain of that. Different subject; another tie. DSL 4/25/2017 - 10:35 a.m. PDT
  6. Micah: I don't believe Michael Paine lied. To the contrary: he told the TV show exactly what he told me (in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass)--and we went through it in considerable detail. Here's what Michael did not do. He did not (as far as I recall) relate that incident to the WC, when he testified. If I'm wrong, point me to the page of the WC deposition where he tells them, but I don't think he ever did. Puzzled? Here's what's going on. . . : LHO was, in effect, "strutting his stuff" and "bragging" about what a great revolutionary he was. Paine elected not to tell that to the WC, but it was a vivid memory, it actually happened, and he started telling that years later. Many JFK researchers jumped on that because it contracted their view that LHO couldn't possible have possessed the back yard photos in March or April 1963. . because they believe these pictures were fabricated much later, i.e., after JFK was murdered. Well, they're wrong; and their whole model of "conspiracy"--if its built around that --is incorrect. Seriously incorrect. LHO very likely --as Larry Schiller speculated to me, back in 1967--made those picture(s) himself (after Marina photographed him, but he did the fabrication, probably changing the rifle, etc). . but all of that took place during the period he was employed at Jaggars, and then he put copies of them in the family photo album, and had this particular copy in full view, on a table or something, when Michael Paine picked him up to go to dinner at Ruths. Bottom line: LHO "played" the Paines. both of them. The great Trotskyist revolutionary. I could add "IMHO", but I won't, because i truly believe that's what happened, and that's what's going on here. DSL 4/25/2017 - 4:55 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California
  7. Chris: I'm sending this as a private message to avoid cluttering up the thread. Previously I raised a question about the source(s) for the statements made in  the following quote: "

    QUOTE While interviewing Marina Oswald on 11/27/63 the United States Secret Service noted that at exactly 9:27 PM [Huh?]  the translator for Marina Oswald, ATSAIC Gopadze remarked to FBI Special Agent Hosty that Marina Oswald recognized him [where is this stated?] as the FBI Agent who interviewed her on 10/27/63 and in response FBI SA Hosty confirmed that he did interview Marina on 10/27/63.  [Again, where?] The USSS thought this event remarkable enough to write a separate memo about this incident on 11/30/63. [What "separate memo" are you referring to?] UNQUOTE

    Could you please address these questions, because I am getting the feeling that I am missing a document, or something along those lines.  (I realize that you perhaps have already supplied this, and this confusion on my part may be my error. In any event, please do address the question(s) --and feel free to email me directly at:
    dsl74@Cornell.edu

    Thanks.

    DSL

     

    1. Chris Newton

      Chris Newton

      David,

       

      No problem. Sent you an email this morning from cnewton2506@me.com

  8. Paul: I understand your point of view, but 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. Hope this clarifies the situation. Believe me: I wouldn't put anything past the DPD, but its 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 x5 or 5 x 7 index cards--that's an entirely different story. DSL 4/21/2017 - 10:45 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California
  9. Jim: I believe its you who is misinformed. The "Speculations and Rumors" section of the Warren Report (Appendix 12) does address the (apparently mistaken) report that the DPD "found in Oswald's room seven metal file boxes with the names of Castro sympathizers." The WCR report goes on to state that that was not true. No file boxes of any kind were found in Oswald's room at Beckley Street. Here's the link the USG Printing office version of the Warren Report; and what I'm referring to can be found on page 666 (second "speculation" from the bottom). https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-12.html As to the matter of what was found in Ruth Paine's garage, the Report (at that point) claims that there were some small file boxes, but "most of" that material were purely personal items that belonged to Ruth Paine. In perusing those DPD inventories years ago, I found the mention of some 5 x 7 (from memory) Index cards, and I ordered copies of them, and that's what I was referring to. DSL 4/21/2017; 9:55 a.m. PDT
  10. Paul: I ordered some of those index cards quite a few years ago. As I recall, this is probably 5-10 years ago, what I received back from NARA were several 8 x 10 photocopies of the original NARA items which were 5 x 7 ("Oxford") index cards of the type one could purchase at any stationary store (or, today, from Amazon). Here's what was significant: just as Sylvia Meagher said in her book --Accessories after the Fact (in the chapter she wrote titled "Hidell", where she discussed this matter), it took a certain subtlety of mind (on LHO's part) to create an index card filled out in the name of his own alias, i.e., in the name of an imaginary person. This card proved that Lee Oswald had done exactly that. In other words, I now held, in my hands, a photocopy of an index card that Lee Oswald had personally made out in the name of Hidell, a fictitious person (to use the language of the Warren Report). To state the matter somewhat differently: Oswald was sufficiently organized--mentally--to set up a primitive filing apparatus to keep track of his own self-impersonation. I will be dealing with this matter in some detail in Final Charade, and can't elaborate further at this time). DSL 4/20/2017 - 8:40 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California
  11. Glad to see that you are keeping up to date on whom I have swapped ideas with, but I haven't spoken to Wallace Milam in over 25 years. (But yes, he was someone I knew and who provided a valuable news tip, and his name --properly credited--appears on the second page of Chapter 25 of B.E.) As for LBJ, I think if Shakespeare were alive today, and researching the Kennedy assassination, he'd likely consider LBJ a "person of interest." (See his play, Mac something-or-other). As for the JCS, I've grown more or less agnostic. If this was really a body-centric plot, as I stressed in my November 2013 talk at Bismarck State College (Google David Lifton Bismark to view it on YouTube) one really does not need the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Air Force. And you couldn't send an aircraft carrier to the Dallas area, even if you wished to do so, because there's no nearby body of water sufficiently large enough accommodate such naval hardware. (Although it might be helpful if the Navy would provide "command and control" at one of the nation's naval hospitals). Anyway, send Wallace my regards. DSL 4/20/2017 0 19L35 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California
  12. Hi Chris, I don't (necessarily) see what the problem is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but--now relying on recollection--Oswald left a handwritten copy of the letter he had mailed out there in full view on some surface. She picked it up out of sheer curiosity, read it, and got somewhat alarmed. And she decided she would give it to Agent Hosty. That's my recollection of the sequence. Why is that baffling? Please explain, and if time permits, I'll try to reply further. DSL 4/20/2017 - 7:10 a.m. PDT
  13. Yes, he told me that too (when I spent time with him at his home in Boxnboro, Mass., circa 1995); and I do not believe he was lying. We went over (and over) that point carefully. If there was any lying on his part--and without returning to the original Paine FBI interviews, and his multiple depositions I can't be sure at this writing--the problem was that he never volunteered that to the Warren Commission. I'm writing from memory here, so please don't take this as fact without verification: but the significance of Oswald having an "enlarged" picture of the backyard photograph, in his Neely Street apartment, was that he most likely made the item himself, using the enlarger at Jaggars. This fit with what Larry Schiller told me back around 1967--that it was his (very informal) opinion that if the backyard photos were forgeries, then Oswald made them himself. DSL 4/20/2017 - 6:55 a.m PDT
  14. Sandy, (and also to Ron Ecker, the first post on Web page #31): Thanks for your post. I've written quite a bit on this thread because I'm in the process of assembling the Final Charade manuscript and its very helpful to put certain ideas "out there" if only to see the response. (In a way, its an intellectual form of "market research"). Rest assured that I have learned from some of my experiences on the Internet, and my experiences on this thread have been no exception. Some of my closest friends are teachers, and--as I know all too well from them, and as you probably are aware--teachers will often say that while students learn, in a classroom experience, the reverse is also true. Teachers will tell you that they often "learn from the students." That applies to this thread, too. FYI: With the exception of a few scattered months here and there on other projects, I have spent full time on the Kennedy case since the initial publication of Best Evidence in January 1981. I have done a considerable amount of traveling and interviewing, have made a number of very significant discoveries, and have done some very significant filmed interviews. So, in fact, I have more than just Final Charade in the pipeline. I have two other manuscripts: one concerns the Secret Service; the other, the Zapruder film. FILMING WITNESSES The filmed interviews I have spanned a sufficient time period that they represent three (3) separate periods of technology, and three entirely different kinds of film equipment used, as the technology changed. My Best Evidence filmed interviews were done in October 1980, and constituted my first "film making" experience. At that time, the medium (for professional filming) was 16mm color film, and required a cameraman and a soundman (and, often, a separate producer). The costs were about $3500 - $5000 / per shoot, and then came the costs of film processing at the famous "Duart" in New York City, and then the renting of a full editing facility. That was October 1980, and you have seen the result in the Best Evidence Research Video (which sold about 50,000 copies, when it was originally marketed as a VHS cassette, by Rhino, and then Warner, for about $29, and is now available (free) on YouTube). Then came a period where the modality of choice was "hi 8". The result: I have a small library of "hi 8" work --and that period was, roughly, 1989 and for some years afterwards. Then came the period we are in now, everything is now "digital," and some interviews can be done by remote, (i.e., via Skype). FWIW: I did not start out to be a filmmaker, but I felt a strong responsibility to put, on camera, accounts which are of particular historical significance. One disadvantage from the long period of "investigation and research" is that there are certain advances I have made that I don't believe can--or should--be released until that can be done in the context of the finished work. That is why I have said, for example, that I have important evidence bearing on the question of whether it was planned, in advance, to alter President Kennedy's body as part of the crime, and I have stated that yes, I believe that to be true, but that the full revelation of that proposition (or "thesis", if you will) will have to await its presentation in Final Charade. NOW RETURNING TO YOUR POST. and the question you have raised. . . This is a somewhat long-winded way of returning to your post, and addressing the point you have raised. To restate the major part of your question: "I'm curious to see what you write in Final Charade that explains how Oswald just happened to get the right job at the right time, so that he could play the part of patsy." Let's modify the last few words, because there's a difference between a "patsy" and a "fall guy." So I would modify your question: ". . so that he could be the unwitting fall guy in the Kennedy assassination." Yes, I believe I have the answer to that question; that I can answer the "how-Oswald-got-the-job" puzzle piece and why a proper analysis absolves Ruth Paine from being on "the dark side" of that issue. Final Charade will present what I believe will be seen as solid and persuasive evidence of just how this (Texas) plot was structured and why it is reasonable to maintain that Oswald's employment on the Kennedy parade route was not a coincidence; and yet--at the same time--will explain how it is that Ruth Paine was (a) not part of any conspiracy and (b) had no foreknowledge whatsoever of Kennedy's impending demise. Unfortunately, my analysis in this area-cannot be published (until it can be published in the full context provided by Final Charade). As in the case of whether body alteration was part of the crime, etc. this matter, too, really cannot be addressed"out of context" of the full book. But that's OK; because, as I am reminded by a businessman I know, and who is aware of the exigencies of business: when a client starts pressuring him, he responds: "Do you want it right? OR do you want it "right now"? THE CONSEQUENCE OF NOT HAVING A READILY AVAILABLE EXPLANATION Meanwhile, this delay gives certain people "free reign" to run around emoting righteously on the Internet, and casting the Paines in a false light, mainly because they (certain researchers) never solved this aspect of the puzzle. They don't know the answer, and so they are just as mystified by the situation today--in 2017--as Gerald Ford was over 50 years ago. Remember what Ford said in Portrait of the Assassin? Oswald's job on the parade route had to be a quirk of fate, said Ford, because he had interviewed the key persons involved, and it was all the result of a coffee klatch and coincidence. Presently, certain researchers can recycle that, and can smugly hold forth with a piece of circumstantial evidence, and subscribe to the "other side" of the Gerald Ford coin: that the Paines ought to have been prosecuted, or ought to be in prison, etc etc. Another may join in (carefully measuring his words to avoid getting dragged into a lawsuit): "I think we must be careful; we must have a proper accounting because there may have been a coup in this country in November 1963.” So there the seed is planted that the Paines may have been knowingly involved in an American coup d'etat. (And, of course, back when Oliver Stone made JFK [released in December 1991], he, too, didn't want a lawsuit, but on the other hand, he wanted to make the point that the Paines seemed to have some unusual friends, and so to deal with that issue, he renamed Ruth Paine as a fictional character named "Janet Williams." ) Let me be candid about this: If the Paines were younger, and cared to engage in appropriate legal counsel and someone attempted to write a book or make a movie implicating them (either in Kennedy's murder, specifically, or in a coup d'etat, in general), and presented their project in a misleading fashion to gain their permission to "go on camera," I think they could initiate significant legal action against anyone who behaved in that fashion; and specifically, anyone who attempted to blacken their name in history based on the kind of superficial analysis I have seen promoted over at the website formerly named CTKA. And, who knows, maybe some day it will come to that. (Recently, the website Gawker was put out of business because what the founder thought was "news" crossed over the line. Way over the line.) So, IMHO, those who are itching to put the Paines in prison (or link them to a 1963 coup) ought to be careful. Very careful. The fact that someone has not figured out the proper answer to this or that aspect of the JFK assassination puzzle---which, as I said, in some ways is akin to a Rubik's Cube--does not give them license to smear of libel another person or damage another person's reputation, or blacken their name in history. No one has a license to conduct a witch hunt--on camera--and call that "investigative journalism." We all have read accounts of bullying in middle school and high school---which gets so out of hand that the victim finally cannot take it anymore and takes his (or her) own life. The Paine's have had it pretty rough. They were hosts to an individual who, unknown to them, was the predesignated fall guy in an upcoming presidential assassination. This business of "blaming the Paines" offers a seriously mistaken (but superficially attractive) "conspiracy hypothesis" for those who are intellectually lazy, and whose problem is that they never got to the bottom of this particular aspect of the JFK puzzle, and I'm concerned that it may get worse before it gets better. Unsolved crimes offer fertile ground for rumor mongering and demagoguery. Especially for those who are basically cowards, but have a secret desire to present themselves as a man on a white horse. To return now to the quote previously cited, because that provides a good example of someone with one eye on his retirement account (because he wants to appear to have exercised “due diligence”); but with the other focused on the accusation he so dearly wishes to level against the Paines; so finally he works up his courage, throws caution to the winds, takes the plunge, and this is the way it comes out: "I think we must be careful; we must have a proper accounting because there may have been a coup in this country in November 1963.” As in: "I've got a lot of money (oh so much money!); but I've consulted with my attorney, and I think its safe for me to say it that way." Yeah, OK. . if you insist. You're not actually Patrick Henry, but that'll do. Stay tuned. DSL 4/20/2017 - 6:15 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California