Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton

Members
  • Content Count

    986
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About David Lifton

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

45,150 profile views
  1. I interviewed James Jenkins at length back in September 1979 (approx), just prior to the publication of Best Evidence. He made no such statements to me at that time. (See Chapter 27 of B.E.) Further, I then conducted a multi-hour filmed interview with him, at his lakeside home. Again, Jenkins had no such recollections. Only after --well after--- Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) did Jenkins' account change. Bottom line: only after Jenkins read the account of Paul O'Connor (to whom he was distantly related), and who described --in detail-- that the cranium was empty), did Jenkins then --years later!-- suddenly come up with the account you are quoting (As if: "Oh yes. . now I remember!" And. . : {"The damn thing fell to in my hands.") For these reasons, I do not place any reliability whatsoever in Jenkins' "new and improved" account. Nor should you. (Again, IMHO). Yes, I am sure there are authors who, perhaps unaware of this history, will quote O'Connor (per Best Evidence); and then quote Jenkins (as if his account constitutes corroboration). But that is not true. And historically -- there is no equivalence. Simply put: they are on not on equal footing. I wish that were not so. But that's the reality. And let me remind you what Jenkins said, when I first interviewed him, and when --after a lengthy conversation --he made no mention of any "empty cranium" or anything like what O'Connor had said. When I decided to spell it out, and see what his response would be, here's what happened. He listened to what I had so say, and then denied the essence of it, saying, "That's 'blue sky' stuff David." Again: "Blue sky stuff" - -that's was his response to me. Then (months later) came the publication of B.E. (Jan 1981) and thereupon followed-- some years later-- James Jenkins "new and improved" version. . And, pardon me, but that's how I think it should be treated, because I have no patience for those who attempt to fictionalize history with a false account. I wish a label could be affixed to such accounts so that writers who wish to rely on them could do so by introducing it in just that fashion: "According to the 'new and improved' version provided by James Jenkins. . " etc. (DSL, 6/28/20).
  2. ((edited and modified, 6/21/2020 - 430 AM PST)). The numbered list you provided --while attempting to be "comprehensive" --does not provide an accurate picture. The idea that what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63 represented a coup was first voiced by M.S. Arnoni in a series of articles in his publication "The Minority of One," (TMO). TMO was available at the UCLA Research Library and I spent hours studying his writings back in 1965/1966. Another pioneer was Vincent Salandria who (along with Thomas Stamm) went to the National Archives, and viewed the Zapruder film and then came his (Salandria's) articles in Liberation magazine. Still another "first generation" researcher was Josiah Thompson, who --in 1966 (approx) --was hired as a consultant by LIFE, visited Dallas, interviewed witnesses, and had "early access" to the Zapruder film. Furthermore, and speaking only for myself, I learned a lot from speaking with--and meeting with - Raymond Marcus, during that same period. Another member of the SoCal "group" was Maggie Field, and still another Lillian Castellano. All of this activity by "first generation" researchers--this complete immersion in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission, and the realization that the Warren Commission was not just "wrong" but perhaps deliberately so (i.e., an outright fraud) --- took place between 1964 and late 1966. (Furthermore, all of it was "pre-Internet," by several decades). District Attorney Garrison entered the scene in February 1967, making his headline-producing announcement that he had "solved" the Kennedy assassination; and then, in March, charging New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy. It was around May 1967 (or perhaps a bit later) when I first met with him --- more than once, and for several hours. (The chronology of my own involvement is laid out, in detail, in the opening chapters of Best Evidence, which was first published (in hardcover) in Jan 1981, which was a Book of the Month Club selection; and then (again) by three more publishers: Dell [1982], Carroll and Graf ["Trade paper," 1988], and Signet [paperback, 1993]). Your point number 8 --that Garrison was "[the] first critic who said JFK's murder was a coup d'etat," is incorrect-- completely incorrect. I had any number of conversations with Ray Marcus on this very subject (back in 1964/1965). Also, and on the subject of "coup," a most important book is (i.e., "was") "Coup d'etat," by Edward Luttwak, first published by Harvard University Press in 1968, and reprinted a number of times since. That book provided a methodical way to examine the JFK assassination (from the standpoint that it was a coup); and led me to focus on the Secret Service -- specifically, the White House Detail ("WHD") of the Secret Service as the key to understanding the mechanics of any plot. Bottom line: there's a very solid published record about how thinking developed --among early JFK researchers --about the JFK assassination; and, should you wish to get an overview, there are two lengthy articles in Esquire Magazine --one in December 1966, and then a follow-up several months later (Just Googe "Esquire" and "assassination theories"). Garrison was not the progenitor of the ideas on your numbered list, and to believe that is a gross oversimplification. The original books on this case -- "Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy," by Joachem Joesten (1964 or 1965), Inquest (by Edward Epstein, July 1966), and Rush to Judgement (by Mark Lane, August 1966); marked the beginning. Two other "first generation" researchers were Ray Marcus and Maggie Field. Later (in 1968, I believe) came Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, and my own work (Best Evidence ) was published in 1981. My final chapter -- Ch. 32 ("The Assassination as a Covert Operation")-- explicitly argues that the assassination was an "inside job" and leaves little doubt that we are talking about a coup. FWIW-- and this is admittedly subjective --it was always my impression that Garrison's "political theory" (i.e., his very public talk about a "coup") emerged after a Spring 1967 trip to Los Angeles, and the extensive contacts that he had--at that time--with Ray Marcus and Maggie Field (mentioned above). In particular, your point #9 --that a purpose of JFK's murder was to change the foreign policy of the U.S. (a polite way of saying, "to escalate the Vietnam War", e.g., starting with Tonkin Gulf, august 1964) -- is developed in The Minority of One (TMO), and was a subject of intense discussion among the two Southern California researchers (mentioned above, along with another, Lillian Castellano) with whom I was in contact back in those days. A good "snapshot" of the situation can be found in a New Yorker article published in June 1967, called "The Buffs," by writer Calvin (Bud) Trillin. Years later (circa 1992), some of this history blossomed into a Ph.D. thesis of John Newman, which then (in 1992/93) became his published book, "JFK and Vietnam." If you will study the materials I have mentioned, and arrange everything in "chronological order," you will have a much more accurate understanding of how the JFK controversy emerged, and the role played by District Attorney Garrison. I am not taking issue with some of the "particulars" you raise; rather, I'm trying here to focus on "the big picture." In many ways, Garrison can be viewed as "just another JFK researcher" --the big difference being that, as D.A. of New Orleans, he could charge people with crimes, and actually present evidence to a Grand Jury (which he did). Unfortunately (and this was the serious downside of his investigation) the principal person he charged --businessman Clay Shaw--was, IMHO, completely innocent of any wrong doing. The result was legal proceedings which produced national publicity and historically important testimony (e.g., the Shaw Trial testimony of Col. Finck, one of the Bethesda autopsy doctors) and much other testimony and documentation-- all if which led to a "not guilty" verdict (Spring 1969). The trial also led to the first public showing of the Zapruder film (in a New Orleans courtroom) which shows that JFK was thrust "back and to the left" by the force of a shot to JFK's head (which received world wide publicity, and was featured in Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, "JFK"). Personally, I don't believe the Clay Shaw had a blessed thing to do with JFK's death, but his prosecution --the prosecution of an innocent man, and a situation that was right out of Kafka -- became the center of Garrison's "quest" for the truth.
  3. Re Dr. Stewart (6/6/20): Dr. Dave Stewart’s statement was first published in a Tennessee newspaper -- part of a major article about him published a few years after the assassination. Somehow I learned of it and ordered the original microfilm record of the relevant article (from a Tennessee library, as I recall). Flash foward now to 1989 (or 1990): When I set out on my trips to Dallas (and other cities) with a film crew, I planned the itinerary divert to Tennessee, and to include a filmed interview with Dr. Stewart, in which he provided a detailed account of his background, and his activities on 11/22/63; and stated all this “on the record.” Some Background (for those perhaps not familiar) with the details: As set forth in Best Evidence. . . and now recapping some of the history of how I came to write the book: When the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital on Friday evening, 11/22/63, Commander Humes (the autopsy surgeon) wrote in the report that the damage at the front of JFK's through was a horizontal gash measuring 6.5 cm. (and when he testified, under oath, he swore that it was "7 - 8 cm"); and further, and as recorded in the autopsy report, the throat wound had "widely gaping irregular edges." In Dallas, of course --and as verified by my 1966 interviews---the wound (a) was described as a small (1/4" diameter) puncture, and (b) with "smooth edges." (See Chapter 3, and beyond, in Best Evidence). So now flashing back to 1966, when I first pursued this matter: My original discovery of alteration of JFK's wounds (i.e., "body alteration") pertained to the alteration of the head wounds (i.e., "surgery of the head area," as reported in the FBI 302 report of Agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended the Bethesda autopsy). As I say, that was my starting point, i.e., my original discovery. But then, within a few days, I realized that the wound at the front of JFK's throat had (also) been altered, as well; and that discovery was made when I first interviewed Dr. Perry, in detail, about the tracheotomy incision he had made. (Again, see B.E. for details). These two discoveries-- that there was evidence that both the head wound(s) and the throat wound had been altered, then led to another discovery --or insight. That second "discovery" --or insight --was the (sudden) realization that none of the medical witnesses in the Dallas ER reported any wounds in the president's back. In other words --not only was there no entry wound observed in the back of JFK's head; there was no entry wound observed in his upper right shoulder (or back). This was important because not only did the late Dr. Carrico (at Parkland) testify that he performed an examination of JFK's back (looking for any such wound); but, more significantly, after the pronouncement of death, the President's body was sponged down by two nurses at Parkland and they didn't report any such back wound (either). Had they observed any such wound, they (those nurses) would surely have reported it. And not just "reported it," such a discovery would have been major news. Rest assured: that the discovery of any entrance wound on JFK's body (and certainly the discovery of an entrance wound on the rear of the body) at Parkland Hospital would have been major news. The media was hungry every scrap of news, and had any such discovery (or "observation," to use more polite language) been made at Parkland Hospital, it would have been reported in the Dallas media (the Dallas Morning News,and the Dallas Times-Herald); not to mention the two wire services --UPI and AP; plus the New York Times, etc. But that was not to be. None of the Dallas doctors reported any entry wound on the back of JFK's body on 11/22/63. That's just a historical fact. Consequently, there were no such reports in the media. And that was the situation on November 22, 1963, and on Sat., 11/23, Sunday 11/24; 11/25 (Monday, the day of the funeral); and this situation persisted for another two weeks (!)--approx. THE FIRST REPORTED OBSERVATION OF A DALLAS REAR ENTRY WOUND (on JFK's body) In fact, the first time any Dallas doctors reported that Kennedy had a rear entry wound on the back of his body occurred on Dec. 10th (or 11th) 1963, in an article published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The article--by journalist Richard Dudman --was written after two Secret Service agents from Washington visited the Dallas doctors, and showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report. That document reported an entry wound at the top of the shoulder (approx) as a fact, i.e., as a medical reality. Only then, faced with such irrefutable evidence (i.e., that the wound was on the body at Bethesda, according to the Bethesda autopsy), did the Dallas doctors concede that there might have been such wound on the body i(in Dallas). They proceeded to speculate that perhaps it wasn't noticed because the president had not been 'turned over." etc. ** ** ** A NEW VIEW (or Concept) - SET FORTH IN Best Evidence: "before vs after" on JFK's body ("before" was Dallas; "after" was Bethesda). To utilize the language normally used in physics (when studying the physics of collisions), there was a 'before" and "after" condition on JFK's body --"before" being its condition at Dallas (as observed at Parkland Hospital); "after," at Bethesda (at the autopsy). And that is why two groups of doctors who saw the President's body on 11/22 came to diametrically opposite conclusions about trajectory: the Dallas observers, concluded that JFK was shot from the front; the Bethesda doctors concluded he was shot from the back. This "difference of opinion" did not result because the President wasn't "turned over" -- a facile explanation provided several weeks after the murder. In fact, the president was "turned over" -- when his body was washed down before being placed in the expensive Dallas coffin. The difference (in opinion, between Dallas and Bethesda) resulted from the wounds having been altered. All of this is laid out, in detail, in Best Evidence, with separate chapters devoted to each of these conflicting wound observations; and then my own conclusions about the results are recapped and summed up in Chapter 14, titled (appropriately): "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." In plain English: President Kennedy was ambushed from the front, but then --prior to the autopsy- -bullets were removed and the wounds altered to create the false appearance (at autopsy) that he (JFK) was shot twice from behind. The alteration of JFK's body --and the resultant false autopsy conclusions-- provided the foundation for the false history of November 22 1963. Oct. - Nov 1966: MY OWN INTERACTIONS WITH FORMER WC ATTORNEY LIEBELER The late UCLA Law Professor Wesley J. Liebeler, to whom I revealed much of this on Oct. 24 1966, understood the implications completely-- that the issue was no longer whether there was a "second assassin," but (rather) whether there was fraud in the evidence; i.e., (autopsy) fraud; and how that led to false conclusions about JFK's murder. Indeed, that's why Prof. Liebeler wrote the 13 page memorandum that he then spent several days writing (circa November 1966), and then sent to Chief Justice Warren (and all the other members of the Commission, and its legal staff) explaining what I had discovered and why it was important. "Second assassin" or "fraud in the evidence"? Without question, Prof. Liebeler understood the ultimate implications of this discovery: no longer was the issue whether or not there was a "second assassin." At issue was the legitimacy of the ascendancy of LBJ to the presidency-- i.e., in plain English, the legitimacy of the Johnson government. I believe I quoted (what follows) in B.E.; specifically, I remember there was one point -- after I had made my presentation (and when I asked "What are we going to do?";)he made this observation: "Sometimes we get involved in things that are bigger than us." (See B.E.) It took a lot courage for Liebeler to write the memo that he did; the sad part is that he had no "takers." Can you imagine how different it would have been if other lawyers on the staff --instead of being focused on (and transfixed by) the "sniper's nest evidence"-- had instead recognized that the body had been altered, and that there had been autopsy fraud. And consequently, that the official story of the assassination (originally presented by the Dallas Police Department) was false, and based on phony evidence. Furthermore; that --contrary to the "sniper's nest" evidence first presented by the Dallas Police Department (and taken seriously by the Warren Commission)--the assassination of President Kennedy was an inside job. Once one goes down that path, not only is the legitimacy of the JFK-to-Johnson transition in doubt, but the subsequent escalation of the war in SE Asia then becomes "part of the same package" and becomes the subject of legitimate historical inquiry. On this point: the subsequent release of the Pentagon Papers (summer of 1971) makes clear that the esclation of that war (in the aftermath of Johnson's inauguration (Jan 1965) was part of "contingency planning' that extended back in time to the earliest days of JFK'S '1000 days." RETURNING TO THE PERIOD - JULY - NOVEMBER 1966 I co-wrote "The Case for Three Assassins" (with David Welsh, a Ramparts staff writer) in July 1966, and it was first published on November 22, 1963 (in the UCLA Daily Bruin) and then nationally, about a month later, in the January 1967 issue of Ramparts magazine. I have often wondered what would have happened, if other members of the WC legal staff had joined with Liebeler, and made a public statement to the effect that they had been the victims of fraud in the evidence. But that was not to be. In early November 1966, I was at the UCLA Law School Building, and in an adjoining office when Liebeler called WC attorney Arlen Specter --who had been in charge of the "autopsy area" of the WC's investigation. After speaking to Specter for a good 15 minutes (maybe more, I defer to whatever I wrote in B.E.), I asked, "What did he say?" Liebeler's unforgettable response: "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." And no wonder Specter had that reaction: the President's body (and not the X-rays and photos, which the WC had not bothered to examine0 was the key evidence in the case; and not only had Specter failed to establish a legally sound "chain of possession" on JFK's body -- Specter had instead come up with his own rather unique "explanation" for why this was a two-victim shooting, leaving trail of nine (count 'em) wounds, with no complete bullets (or reasonable side fragments) in either victim's body. THE BIG PICTURE But I digress. The covert interception of JFK's body (and the alteration of the wounds) is the best evidence that JFK's assassination was an inside job. That's the importance of Dallas, and it's also why -- IMHO -- its possible to make the jump from the Dallas assassination to the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War. Yet today -- with the Vietnam War now history (and Saigon now Ho Chi Minh City) -- a number of JFK researchers have lost sight of the "big picture". So now--decades later -- one can fill the requisite application, and --if approved --visit the National Archives, and examine the JFK X-rays and photos, focusing on this or that piece of evidentiary minutia, arguing (for example) for a "fourth shot" struck. Evidence of conspiracy. . correct? Yes, but. .(as far as I am concerned) that is largely irrelevant; is it not? A prominent doctor from San Francisco recently (and once again) visited the National Archives. I remember his reaction when Best Evidence was first published. To say he was interested in the book is a vast understatement. But then something happened; and I'm afraid it was simply this; if the body was intercepted and altered, then all this minutia about the X-rays and photos would be largely irrelevant. At some point, I think he realized this. The good doctor has a violent temper -- something quite to behold (if one has the misfortune to provoke the good doctor) -- and some twenty years ago (at least), he called, engaged me in a discussion about the subject-- and- screamed at me, at the top of his lungs. "The body was not altered! the body was not altered!" The words were not "spoken", as in normal conversation; but screamed, violently yelled at me, at the top of his lungs.* *which is why I put the words in red font. The good doctor can repeat that as many times as he wants; and, when not treating patients for various problems with their vision (which I assume he does when he is calm, and not exposing his violent temperament), he can squeeze in a flight to Washington ( and perhaps a visit to the National Archives), and prepare still another inconsequential presentation to students of the JFK case. Another tiny metal fragment, perhaps, that he reports that he can now can "see" on the X-Rays that wasn't noticed before. The good doctor has never written a book -- and probably never will. And aside from his generalized theory about not trusting the government (he's a proud libertarian) I am not sure what his political views are. (Further: if another fragment was to be found, or if there was a "fourth shot," does that mean we had a coup? No, it would not. But covert body alteration presents an entirely different situation. Because the alteration of the body provides a "historical shortcut" of sorts, between the falsification of the body and the subsequent change of foreign policy, and sharp escalation of the war. So. . .What about the copious evidence that the President's body was intercepted, and altered? . Returning to my own views: What I do know is that back ion November 22, 1963, President Kennedy's body was intercepted (and the wounds altered) prior to autopsy, in order to promote a false story of how he does. And if this fact is not recognized (and addressed), then one cannot possibly come up with a proper explanation for what happened in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63, much less a political explanation. Without recognition of that fundamental fact, one cannot properly decipher what happened in Dealey Plaza; or understand the political motives of the plot that took President Kennedy's life. President Kennedy had to be brought to Texas --and specifically to Dallas --for his death to occur; and then, some 18 months later-- the focus would shift to Saigon, to see the political result; and I am referring here to the sudden Vietnam escalation (which Kennedy never intended) and which marked the readily observable foreign policy switch, which began just a few months after the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson.* DSL 6/06/2020 - 6 PM *For a close analysis, see "JFK and Vietnam," by John Newman (Warner books)
  4. Hi Micah: I do not understand what you are driving at, when you ask if the Bryce Miller (UPI) story "has an exclusive source". Please clarify; i.e., please reword and/or provide additional context -- because (as presently worded) I don't understand what you're trying to ascertain. Thanks. DSL (You might also email me directly at dlifton@earthlink.net, and elaborate as you wish. Thanks.)
  5. The Zapruder film was altered to hide basic facts about the murder. The "car stop" was one of those basic facts. Another concerns the parameter of time-- and specifically, the matter of "elapsed time." If the limo stopped, then the assassination was not a "six second" event, or even seven seconds. If the car stopped, the assassination was very likely closer to a 20 second event --which, by the way, is what Sheeriff Decker (who was in lead car,) said was the case. Why do I estimate 20 seconds? Because (if the car stopped) you can't bring a two-ton vehicle to a halt, and then re-accelerate it (to 12 or 15 mph), without the passage of that length of time (approx). T
  6. Sandy. . thanks. See my separate post, which is posted "above". DSL (5/26/20 - 7:15 AM PST)
  7. REVISED/EDIGED, 5/16/2020 - 7:15 AM PST Sandy: I was not aware of your post until now (5/16/20: 430 AM PST) Best Evidence describes my discovery of the images in the Moorman photo in Chapter 1. What is not included in the book (first published in Jan 1981) --because I discovered it years later-- is the image located on JFK's right shoulder, and which (for purposes of description) I have described as a "shoulder patch." In fact, that's a fragment of scalp and bone from the right rear portion of JFK's head, caught in flight by Moorman's camera, as she snapped her photo. Pulled downward (by gravity), that fragment then fell (or "descended") into the rear seat of the limo, and is (apparently) the one described by SS Agent Clint Hill when he wrote (in his report, and then later testified to that same effect): that the "back" of JFK's head was "missing" and that it was "lying in the rear seat of the car." (Approx., from memory). Now lets turn to 1965 (approx - date uncertain), and my discovery of important photo corroboration, and what I will now describe is how I came into possession of an important photo negative, which bears on the question of the authenticity (and relevance) of that image (of the "shoulder patch"). Around 1965 (or perhaps July 1966, in connection with my temporary residence in San Francisco, when I drafted "The Case for Three Assassins" [which was punished in January 1967 as a Ramparts Magazine cover story], I was living in San Francisco, and was working out of Ramparts' offices located at 301 Broadway. While there-- I decided to visit the office of Associated Press. My purpose--or at least one purpose--was to see what photos (i.e.,what prints) they might have (on file) of the Moorman photo -- because I was aware that her original had been copied (on 11/22, in the afternoon, as I recall) and transmitted via wire by both wire services--i.e., by both AP and UPI. To my considerable surprise, the AP office had wire service prints-- and negatives--of lots of photos; and one of them was of the Moorman photo. (In other words, they had the wire-service negative of the Moorman photograph, as received over the wire-service photo machine). This wire service negative, having been created by the wire-service telephoto machine, had horizontal scan lines -- that is, it consisted (on magnification) of horizontal scan lines; but, (my reaction was) "so what?" The scan lines weren't even visible unless you enlarged the photograph to a fairly high magnification. In any event, the basic content (i.e., the basic image) was clearly visible--- and there, on JFK's shoulder, was the image of that "shoulder patch." The person in charge --call him the "supervisor"--noted my intense interest, and said words to the effect that if wanted that negative I could have it. Because (get this) he said that there were a whole bunch of these negatives, they did not save them, and if I didn't want it, they were just going to discard them. When I was studying the image, probably using a magnifying glass, the person in charge said something like: "We don't save that stuff, so if you want it you can have it. Its yours." (Really! That's what he said.) Obviously, I accepted the offer, and that's how I came to possess the San Francisco wire-service negative of the AP Wire photo designated "DN-22," a negative created (in San Francisco) when the Moorman photo was first transmitted -- nationally-- on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. The shoulder patch --which I don't believe I was aware of at the time-- was right there on the negative, but so were the various images of "the men" behind the wall, which was my main focus. These were the images that had so excited me and started me down the path of my original research -- as described in Chapter 1 of B.E. So that's how I came into possession of San Francisco (AP) wire service negative labeled "DN-22" of the Moorman photo. Again, I don't (presently) recall what year it was that I first became aware -- on the image of the Moorman photo -- of what I (later) came to call the "shoulder patch," but its significance has only increased with the passage of time. WHAT I BELIEVE TODAY: Today, I believe Kennedy was struck in the head twice from the front-- once in the left temple (per the statement by Dr Robert McClelland, that JFK died "of a gunshot wound of the left temple). ); and once in the right temple (or on the right side). (See Chapter 2 of B.E.) Because the car-stop occurred (and some 30 frames, or more, on the Z film, have been eliminated, to "eliminate" the car stop (as I discussed in my essay, "Pig on a Leash", published around 2003) its obvious (to me, anyway) that the Zapruder film has been altered (and thats a whole other subject). I bring up that subject (of Z film alteration) because that (doctored) film record is the only one (or at least the most important one) that provides a detailed pictorial record of the Kennedy head wounding during those crucial few seconds (Z-232 on out to 330). And what does it show? Basically, that the back of the head has been "blacked out" (rather obvious in frames 309 - 330, approx)--another manifestation of film alteration. But, setting aside the actual imagery as shown on individual Z frames, and now considering the frames as a sequence, it also shows the rapid backward movement of the head after the impact of the fatal shot (i.e., the "head snap") --a subject I discussed at length in B.E. (Chapter 2). Of course, its the (backward) "head-snap" which attracted so much public attention, starting with the 1975 Geraldo Rivera broadcast (on his TV show) which --IMHO--played such an major role in leading to the several re-investigations of the Kennedy case. Somewhere in my personal records may be one or more memos I wrote when (years later) I discovered the image of the "shoulder patch." That discovery looms more and more-- with the passage of time --to any complete and thorough "micro-study" of the JFK assassination. (DSL, 5/16/20; 5:45 AM PST; Revised, 7 AM PST).
  8. Yes, that's true. Mart Felt, an Assistant FBI Director (I think) was Deep Throat. Google "Mark Felt, Deep Throat." There are quite a few stories that were published when --at age 90 plus-- Felt revealed the full story; and it was then confirmed by Woodward. Its really quite amazing that this secret remained hidden for so long. There are also stories about why Felt did what he did, and that concerns his own anger at being passed over for promotion to FBI DIrector (as I recall). DSL
  9. I never believed LeMay was there because, if he had been present, the FBI agents would have noted his presence on the list of individuals they included in their FBI 302 report. IMHO.
  10. Response: It was in one of the documents released in mid-January 1969 —Jan 20, 1969, as I recall - the day the Clark Panel documents were released. Included was a document (or a memo) created when Humes, Boswell, and Finck went to the National Archives to examine the autopsy x-rays and photos. One of the documents included a statement by Surgeon General Edward Kennedy, Surgeon General who, as I recall, wore “another hat” -he was also Chief of Naval Operations (i.e., CNO) of the Navy. One of the documents reported Kenney as having made the statement about the purpose of the autopsy --to determine the use of death. The implication (if true): That Humes had been spcifically instructed,at the outset of the Bethesda autopsy, to determine the cause of death —i.e., and not to concern himself with what may have appened to the body after death. (Sorry for the delay in responding to your query).
  11. Yes, Jim. . . I'm so glad you recognize that I was "insightful." Before you ever got involved in the JFK assassination, and at a time when I was UCLA grad student, I recognized that the President's body was "best evidence" ; Further, that if the autopsy was falsified, that would explain how the Warren Commission --not to mention the FBI -- could be misled. Then came the discovery what when the President's body was removed from the Dallas casket, the two FBI agents reported that it was "apparent" that there had [already] been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Then came additional discoveries that established that, based on anatomic description it was clear that the President's head wound(s) had been altered sometime after the body left Parkland Hospital, in Dallas, and the time it arrived at Bethesda. All of this was laid out in UCLA Law Professor Wesley Liebeler's memo (November 1966) to Chief Justice Earl Warren--and all the other members of the Warren Commission, plus RFK, plus LBJ--that there was evidence in the record-- that was never addressed--that JFK's body (i.e., his wounds) had been altered prior to autopsy. And that, of course, is the focus on Best Evidence, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of Johnson's accession to the Oval Office. So tell me, Jim. . Is there anything you ever did, in real time, that compares with the potential importance of this discovery? What do you think is more important, Jimmy. . .the fact that Clay Shaw may have made some arguable remark about JFK, or the indisputable fact that JFK's body was altered, and the attendant falsification of the basic medico-legal facts about JFK's assassination? Oliver Stone is a smart guy, with a global view, and someone who understands the removal of JFK from office, in Shakespearian terms. I do hope that whatever he is working on now reflects that wider view, and the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War, and not a misplaced focus on Clay Shaw.
  12. Micah, Three questions: (1) I appreciate what Shirley Martin's daughter (Teresa) said --in an email to John kelin (in the year 2000-- that Huber indicated in the year 2000. But isn't it a fact that-- decades earlier-- Vincent Salandria quoted him as saying (or indicating) "left temple"?; and wasn't the source for that an article in the Philadelphia newspaper? (2) If Huber did not believe "left temple," and when saw that he was being quoted --i.e., "mis-quoted" --to that effect, then isn't it reasonable to believe that he would immediately have stepped forward and offered a correction? (3) Wasn't Huber interviewed by William Manchester? (If so, has anyone checked with the Manchester papers --at Weslyian, in Connecticut-- to see what Manchester's notes say? Perhaps most important, imho: Huber's account represents important corroboration for medical report of Dr. Robert McClelland, who wrote--in a medical report dated Friday afternoon, 11/22/63, that JFK died of a "gunshot wound of the left temple." (approx). Consult any book on evidence, and one learns the basic principle: The earliest recorded recollection is the 'best evidence''. (My quotes).
  13. From a brief summary at Wikipedia: Groden sued Random House over a 1993 New York Times advertisement for Gerald Posner's book Case Closed in which Groden was featured along with other conspiracy theorists and declared "guilty of misleading the American public." The U.S. District Court issued a summary judgment and dismissed the case. END QUOTE FYI: I (too) was named in the ad --which accused the Warren Commission critics of "misleading the American public"--and was not happy with it. I consulted a senior attorney at a major law firm, and determined that the ad did not use language that offered adequate grounds for a lawsuit. Groden thought otherwise, and--as noted above-- his lawsuit was dismissed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_of_A_President
×
×
  • Create New...