Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

David Lifton

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About David Lifton

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

31,209 profile views
  1. Sandy, Thanks for your post. I don't have much more time to spend on this guy, and his commentary, which I'm starting to realize is basically vapid. But let me just point out a few things, for those reading this thread, and who genuinely want to know what happened, or at least, would like some hint of what I belive. Based on interviews (not yet published, in full), here are some conclusions I have reached: 1. The original alteration of JFK's body (bullet retrieval, wound alteration, etc) was planned to take place in Dallas, and within 30 minutes of the shooting. 2. It did not happen because, among other unexpected events, Governor Connally was unexpectedly shot. (You can take this statement to the bank--the shooting of Governor Connally was completely unexpected, and was not in anyone's scenario. It completely upset a reasonably well-designed apple cart.) 3. As a consequence of an out-of-control situation that developed, i.e., as a result of unexpected events (such as the shooting of JC), President Kennedy's body left Parkland Hospital without an autopsy, and basically in the same condition as it was immediately after the shooting. 4. Upon reaching AF-1 (25 minutes before the Dallas coffin's arrival), Lyndon Johnson got on the phone, and reached "higher authority"--which, in this case, was Secretary of Defense McNamara. (Remember: the rest of the Kennedy cabinet was out over the Pacific, with Sec State Rusk). 5. As a result of that phone call, and others, arrangements were made to arrange what I will politely call a "political autopsy." As in: "This is above your pay grade, doctor. . Do as you're told. . . We're trying to prevent a nuclear war" etc. All of that is (i.e., was) baloney, but that is what I believe happened. Humes was not Simon Pure; and he did not "alter the body". But he did "follow orders" in what turned out to be an extraordinary situation. 6. At about 2:15 p.m. CST, the body was offloaded from Air Force One at Love Field, on the starboard side, via the rear starboard half-door, while Jacqueline Kennedy and all the Kennedy aides were down on the tarmac, on the port side, and prior to Jacqueline Kennedy boarding the aircraft. 7. The result generated a blood trail--requiring an extensive plane cleaning at Andrews-- that will be addressed in Final Charade. 8. By phone, and possibly via McNamara, Robert Kennedy was provided with a "limited hangout" which "explained" what had to be done to eliminate the (supposed) "threat of war"--again, this was LBJ, bull-xxxxting his way into the presidency. I don't believe that RFK believed what he was being told, but McNamara did. And that paved the way for the subsequent high level cover-up. 9. Regarding the events at Bethesda. . . focus on Chapter 16 of B.E., and realize that, if the body was not in the coffin when AF-1 took off from Dallas, then the "ambulance chase" at Bethesda was not the time when the body was first "intercepted"; rather, it was quite the opposite; it was the time when the body, which had been already been intercepted (i.e., already covertly diverted) hours earlier, and prior to take-off, was being "returned" to the coffin in which it began its journey, so that the US Army multi-service casket team would witness a coffin opening at the Bethesda morgue, a coffin opening that contained the body. As to the Navy personnel, they were hushed up with the gag order. (See Chapter 27, B.E). 10. Note: The ambulance chase occurred starting at about 7:12 p.m.; the official coffin opening occurred at 8 p.m. The real question is what happened between 6:35 p.m., when the body first arrived in the morgue, in the shipping casket, and 7:17 pm, when the FBI arrived. I now know considerably more about this crucial period than I did when I wrote B.E... and it will all be spelled out in Final Charade. (Read Chapter 28 to get up to speed as to what I knew back in 1980). 11. The body did not go to Walter Reed. Those radio transmissions are real, part of a plan to return the body to the coffin, which didn't work. How do I know ? 12. I had a two-hour meeting , in person and tape recorded, on July 15, 1980, with Major General Chester Clifton at his Washington DC office. I learned a lot from that interview. 13. Also note: remember Hubert Clark--whose account (based on my telephone interview) was published in Chapter 16? Well, about ten years after B.E. was published, someone sat down with Clark and did an excellent video interview, and I now have that interview, in full living color, on a DVD. Its really quite good, and I may be using it either in Final Charade, or in the e-book version of B.E. All I can say is: the quest to find the truth goes on, and this is a complex case. It requires study and careful analysis. Wisecracks (and insults) won't do. Stay tuned. . . DSL 12/16/17 - 7:15 a.m. PST
  2. What I like best--and nominate for the most ludicrous misrepresentation of all, and a testament to fundamental ignorance--is that there were people with "scalpels at the ready prepared to carve up the body." Pardon me, but this wouldn't even pass for text in a cheap novel. DSL
  3. Michael Walton: Your post really comes off as something generated by an uninformed smart alek who apparently thinks he knows much more than he obviously does. 1. The sequence of arrivals at Bethesda--that the body arrived a good 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin, and arrived in a body bag, that was inside a shipping casket, absolutely establishes that the body was not in the coffin when Air Force One took off from Dallas. Instead of sitting on your duff, and making grandiose pronouncements, go read (or re-read) Chapter 25 of B.E. Also be informed that there's a second witness, besides the late Dennis David, to the sequence of arrivals. (See Point #2) 2. The second witness is Donald Rebentisch, a U.S. Navy person who came forward within a day or two of the original release of Best Evidence. I wrote up the details about who he was in the 1982 paperback edition of B.E. (the second of its four publishers) and made sure that that 1982 epilogue was published then, and in all remaining editions. Rebentisch was part of the group that Dennis David had assembled to assist in the offloading of the shipping casket, from the black hearse which arrived at the back, around 6:35 p.m. The Fifth Estate--the Canadian version of 60 Minutes--found him highly credible, and the producer (Brian McKenna) and I flew to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and interviewed Rebentisch for the CBC broadcast, titled "The Empty Casket", one of the highest rated shows ever broadcast at CBC. There will be an e-book edition of B.E., and one of the topics I intend to include is Rebentisch, and the corroboration he affords for the account of Dennis David. 3. Neither I, nor Brian McKenna, collected "snatches of statements". . . we conducted a fully professional filmed interviews. So did Stanhope Gould, who was the producer for Walter Cronkite at CBS News, and handled the Watergate coverage. He and Sylvia Chase reviewed the B.E. video, and the key witnesses, filming them again for a 1988 broadcast on KRON-TV, and its sister station in St. Louis. Stanhope told the San Francisco media that "David Lifton has found and developed courtroom quality evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda" (quotes, from memory). Rest assured, Michael Walton, that Brian McKenna and Stanhope Gould have a level of professionalism that you can only achieve--or should I say "hope to achieve"-- in your dreams. 4. The puzzle of just when the body was removed from the coffin, which the mathematics of the arrival times shows must have occurred, and what rationale was given to the Secret Service agents involved, is a legitimate subject for historical inquiry. But to engage in such an inquiry, you have to get your facts straight, and not approach the situation as simply a juvenile smart aleck who wants to engage in insults. To begin with, and contrary to your glib assertions, Jacqueline Kennedy was not with the coffin "during the entire time from Dallas until you see her get off the plane." Take another look, Michael Walton, and you will see that, in your haste to throw around insults, there is another crucial period which you have neglected. In addition. . 5. No one said the body was at "the back of Air Force One, [and then] put in a helicopter. . " Certainly, I never did. Of course, you're free to make up your own "facts"--if that's what you prefer. 6. There's been quite a number of developments in this area, since Best Evidence was first published (in January 1981) and long before you joined the London Forum (about two years ago), posting about 1300 posts in the space of two years. So I guess you like to hang out at your computer, and impress people that you know a lot. Well, guess again. Suggestion: Study the record before running your mouth. 7. Regarding your characterization that a "helicopter. . flew away with it (the body) so other military/intelligence/medico personnel could look at it and cover up all manner of conspiracy" is completely sophomoric, and the give-away that you really don't understand what the heck you are talking about. You certainly have no accurate conception of what was going on aboard Air Force One from the time that Lyndon Johnson boarded the plane at about 1:40 p.m. CST, to the time that the hearse arrived at planeside from Parkland Hospital with the bronze coffin which, undoubtedly, contained President Kennedy's body--at that time. Also, there's another small fact you seem to have neglected, in your haste to appear so sophisticated and well informed. . . 8. There are about six hours of tapes of AF-1 communications that are currently missing. Do you think they were discussing White House grocery lists? 9. No one "[took] a statement [from] here and there [to] weave a story of body snatching. . " If that's your concept of how a legal investigation works, or what happened in this case, or how I pursued my own investigation, you've got a lot to learn. And then to say that my analysis "completely muddles the conspiracy record and, at worst, is dishonest to the Kennedy case. . " Really, one has to wonder who appointed you to be the judge of such things, not to mention what you studied during the years of your formal education. . basket weaving? 10. I strongly suggest that you take a small sabbatical, and post less, and read more. Also, I would appreciate it if you would not include me in the same sentence as Armstrong. I think his book has, here and there, some interesting data, and there was a period (some 23 years ago) when I communicated with him by fax and phone, and engaged him in debate, and I understand how much effort he has put into this case (probably much more than you have, I might add); but no, I don't subscribe to his major interpretation(s) or any of his major hypotheses. DSL 12/16/2017 - 6:35 a.m. PST South Orange County, California
  4. Oh, great. A smart alek who doesn't know what he's talking about. Just what is needed on this forum. Is this the best you can do at age 48? DSL
  5. Hi Sandy: Let me supply a two pieces of information, and add some observation:s (Item #3): Item: When I interviewed the Dallas doctors--and my first round of interviews was in 1966/67, and were by phone--the doctor who spent the most time with me on the phone was Dr. Peters. He said that the head wound--what has been referred to as the "blowup"--was the size of "a hen's egg" (i.e., an ordinary store bought egg) and that would be reasonably consistent with Carrico's profferred measurement of 5 x 7 centimeters. As to location, he said it was down on the right side of the skull, towards the bottom, and that the defect was sufficiently low that he believed he could see the occipital lobes of the brain resting against the foramen magnum (the hole at the bottom of the skull, in the occipital bone, through which the spinal cord enters the brain etc.) In short, his description was rather consistent with the defect shown in the "McClelland diagram," as published in Six Seconds, which had not yet been published. ITEM #2: Back in 1965/66, when I was intensely interested in collecting negatives and prints of the Moorman photo, I was in San Francisco, either at a wire service office, or at a newspaper (and I don't remember which) and they had a negative of the Moorman photo which was the original neg generated on their wire service machine back on 11/22/63. "Here, you want this? You can have it" was their attitude; and yes, I did want it. That Moorman negative, plus the half-tone (of Moorman) that I describe in Chapter 1 of B.E., provided an good image of what (at first) appeared to be a "shoulder pad" , on Kennedy's right shoulder. Closer inspection persuaded me that that was no "shoulder pad"; rather, it was a piece of President Kennedy's scalp (probably with bone attached on the underside) as it fell from the right rear of his head, and into the back seat of the car. So the shot that caused this "right rear blowout" must have impacted within a split second of Moorman's camera shutter being open, and taking that photo, so it caught the image of a piece of JFK's head, as it was detached from the skull, and falling into the back seat. Which brings me to the next point. ITEM #3: What was the origin of that shot, and where did it come from? First of all, I'm a strong partisan of the idea that Kennedy was very likely struck in the left temple, as Dr. McClelland noted in his original handwritten report. But more important, and even if that were true, what were the details? Exactly how did it impact. what was the origin, and why did it create the exit wound at the right rear? I'm afraid that my answer will be most unsatisfying to many, but I believe that until and unless the riddle of the Zapruder film is (finally) resolved, we won't know, for sure. In other words, I believe the film was altered, that frames are missing, and that we simply cannot trust a frame like, say, 312, and conclude: well, this is the true geometry at that moment in time, so how can we explain that right rear exit?--especially if, for corroboration, I am correct about what I believe to be on the Moorman negatives that I obtained back in 19655/66. Finally. . ITEM #4: I am not going to debate film alteration in this post (see my essay Pig on a Leash, for my views) except to say that I went to Dallas in November 1971, specifically for the purpose of interviewing the "car stop" witnesses. I interviewed 5 of them, and I have great confidence in what they told me. The memory I have--and this is all on audio tape (made on a SONY TC-800, the same recorder that Nixon used for his "White House tapes") - is that of -Bill and Gayle Newman. I was at their home, and we went over this very carefully. It was their reality, without any question, that the President's car stopped (momentarily) right in front of them. When I told Bill Newman that the Z film which was at the National Archives (and had had not yet been shown publicly--remember, this was 1971) showed no such stop, he said: "I don't are what the film shows. It stopped. . right in front of us." (quotes, from memory. and he was quite emphatic on that point). Now I know that there are many technical arguments that can be made, but I'm not interested in debating the point, here in this post. I believe that someday this matter may be resolved, quite definitively, by the production of unaltered film footage. Meanwhile, I'm just taking this opportunity to point out what (to me) seems obvious: the reason the entry point for the bullet which caused the right rear blowout is so puzzling, is because the film record has been altered. Anyway, Sandy, in view of your technical background--not all that dissimilar to my own--I can understand why you are puzzled about the entry point. Because I have been, too. DSL 12/16/2017 --5:30 a.m. Orange County, Calif.
  6. Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

    Jim DiEugenio: Re "impacting at exactly the same point the Parkland Doctor indicated in his television interview that afternoon as he pointed to his own head. " #1: The photograph I believe you are referring to, where someone is pointing to their "own head", is the picture of Assistant Press Secretary pointing to his own head, when answering a question from the press. If there is another photo one showing a "Parkland doctor. . as he pointed to his own head," please produce that image. #2: What is "post Bethesda tampering with the medical evidence which have (sic). . (you mean "has", do you not). . become so clear over the years." Are you saying that you believe that Commander Humes told the truth, in his autopsy report and testimony, and there is no disagreement between the Parkland data and what Humes described? And that any alteration took place only to the autopsy photographs, but not to the body? Where does this idea come from. . from Gary Aguilar and Milicent Cranor? Having interviewed the Dallas doctors both by telephone (going back to 1966, and extending out to 1982) and then on camera (1989, and 1990), I can assure you that they reacted quite negatively when shown either (a) the Bethesda data, as set forth in the autopsy report and autopsy testimony; and (b) the autopsy photographs, which were displayed by me and Pat Valentio to these doctors -and nurses--in the period December 1982 through January 1983. You'd better do your homework, DiEugenio, if you are going to step into the debate as to when the medical data was altered. For example: are you not aware that when the body was first unveiled for Dr. Ebersole, at the outset of the Bethesda autopsy, that the throat wound was sutured? That suturing (of the throat area) occurred before the autopsy even began (or are you unaware of that?). If so, then I suggest you read Chapter 23 of Best Evidence, where this is all spelled out in detail. I have no doubt that the X-rays (and photos) do not represent the situation as it was reported in the Bethesda autopsy protocol, but neither is it congruent with the situation that was reported in Dallas, by the Parkland doctors and nurses. In fact, and as I laid it out in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence, there are three distinctly different views of the President's body, which I referred to as three different "lenses": (1) The Dallas medical records; (2) The Bethesda protocol; (3) The autopsy photos and X-rays. (1) Does not agree with (2); and (2) does not agree with (3). If you are trying to promote the idea that the only changes were "post Bethesda" changes--i.e., bertween the autopsy report, and the autopsy photos and X-rays and not between the Dallas observations and the Bethesda report, then you have an incomplete understanding of the record. DSL
  7. Friday, 12/1/2017 - 5:p.m. PST Late yesterday afternoon, I read the news that Robert Oswald—Lee Oswald’s older brother—had died. And I wrote something that I sent to the entire Paul Hoch group (of about 50 JFK researchers, many of them lone nutters, plus a sprinkling of reporters). Below is a copy of that email. DSL Begin forwarded message: Subject: Death of Robert Oswald From: "David S. Lifton" (DSL74@Cornell.edu) Date: December 1, 2017 at 4:12:17 PM PST Friday, 12/1/2017 - 3:35 p.m. PST Some thirty years ago, veteran JFK researcher Wallace Milam, after watching a video clip of Robert Oswald, said to me,”You don’t want a brother like Robert Oswald.” Wallace was not just an expert in the area of the medical evidence; he was an expert in all manner of details dealing with this case. What he said about Robert Oswald was succinct, and to the point; and I couldn’t agree more. In Final Charade, I will set forth the facts—as I know them (and partly based on conversations I had with Robert Oswald, plus correspondence with the man) on the subject of his brother’s guilt. Lee Oswald was a highly intelligent (and linguistically gifted) individual, an idealist with a serious interest in world affairs, and with a serious interest in sociology, an auto-didact who, by the summer of 1963, was reading at the rate of approximately 150 books a year. Lee Oswald was light years more advanced (i.e., more “evolved”, psychologically) than his older brother, and the roots of the envy (and hatred?) that resulted come right out of the Story of Joseph that can found in Genesis. ( "When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him. Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more.”) Robert Oswald was terribly envious of Lee and in fact had a crush on his wife. As Marina told me back in the early 1980s (and quoting what he told her)," I fell in love with you the first time I saw you.” Marina did not feel the same way about him—at all—and the result was that he cruelly cut off his relationship not only with Marina, but with her two daughters, as well. Unlike Robert Kennedy, who took seriously his responsibility to his fallen brother’s children, neither of Oswald’s daughters had an “Uncle Robert.” He just wasn’t there. Robert Oswald had serious exculpatory information that he could have shared with the authorities about Lee, but he chose not to do so. He cynically went along with the official story that Lee was Kennedy’s assassin, when he knew better, and so we are treated, on annual assassination anniversaries, to film footage of Robert, re-broadcast from the 1993 FRONTLINE documentary stating, in effect, that he is “oh so sorry, but. . “ he has reluctantly concluded that Lee was a murderer. And telling the rest of the country (and the world) that they should just grow up and “get over it." All of that is nonsense. Robert knew better, and in Final Charade, i will provide details. So. . . : RIP Robert Oswald. You could have told the truth about your brother, Lee Oswald, the truth as you knew it, even if you didn’t know all of it. Instead, you took the easy way out; and went along with the big lie. You became an enabler of falsified history. And that will be your true legacy. DSL 12/1/07 South Orange County, California ADDENDUM - 12/4/2017 - 12:40 a.m. PST As far as I can see, and somewhat to my surprise Robert Oswald's death was completely ignored by the New York Times. The editors there apparently decided that his passing was not newsworthy enough to merit an obituary.
  8. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Mathias: Thanks very much. No, I did not know about this. I'm surprised that Gaeton would have this in his book, published years ago, and that this passage did not receive significant followup questioning and commentary, after his book was published. It would appear that this is exactly the sort of thing that I conceived of back in the early to mid 1970s, and discussed with CBS producer Harry Moses. But let me back up a bit. In the passage you quoted, who is the "former Deputy Chief" and when did this revelation occur? In other words: when did he "remember" this, and when --and in what format--was it provided to the HSCA? In a letter? A memo? A deposition? If you know more, I'd sure like to know. Thanks. DSL 11/17/2017 - 6:40 p.m. PST
  9. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Paul: Thanks for your post. I have told a number of people that one of those who post on the LEF has a prominent position in a symphony orchestra. I think a more detailed picture will emerge in my future writing, but here's the best I can do for now: (1) The alteration of the body (as a means--that is, "the" means-- of falsifying the autopsy) was an integral part of the crime. However, although elegant in conception (and I can't be more specific than that, at this time), it was bungled in execution. The result: there ended up being two conflicting medico-legal records of the President's body--one coming from the treating physicians at Parkland Hospital (in lay language, the "Parkland observations"); the other coming from the autopsy report (or, more generally speaking, the entire Bethesda autopsy protocol). (2) As conceived, it was not just a "cover-up"; but rather, if executed as originally planned, I prefer to think of it as "camouflage"--that is, a series of acts which amounted to a strategic deception, which, if successfully executed (that is, according to the original plan) would have prevented history from ever knowing what had occurred. (I'm sorry that , at this juncture, I have to be somewhat cryptic and vague). My beliefs will be spelled out quite explicitly, and with considerable clarity, in Final Charade. (3) So now, back to your question: the persons involved in what you call "the coverup" (and what I would call the deception operation) were an integral part of the plot to murder the President, even though, by the very nature of the deception operation (whose objective was a fraudulent autopsy) their contribution would, of course, have to occur after the shooting. Another way of stating this: this was a "plot with a built-in coverup." (4) If we were prosecutors, and all the relevant parties were alive, we would make no distinction between Speedy Gonzales and his clique of assassins who murdered the President, and Persons A, B, and C who were involved in a deception operation that would result in a false autopsy. From the standpoint of a prosecutor--i.e., "legally"--they were all part of the (same) plot, and could all be tried for murder. (5) "How were the decision to alter the body made, and by whom?" The short answer: this was an integral part of the planning of the crime. . . not a "decision. . . made" later. You'll read all about that in Final Charade, including certain "communication evidence" that resulted when the original plan went awry as a result of the unexpected shooting of Gov. Connally. (Sorry, but I can't be more specific than that, at this time). Hope this helps. Since you're a musician, and musicians tend to be very smart, and I studied lots of math, and tend to be analytical, I think you are going to find my analysis very, er, interesting. DSL 11/15/2016 - 4:25 a.m. PST
  10. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    David, Please send me your email. I believe that the map that you published ("part 2, the Trip Down") is seriously incorrect, and I'd like to correspond with you about it. Please use: dsl74@Cornell.edu Thanks. DSL
  11. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Thanks for the compliments. Some people—and DiEugenio is a classic example—apparently forget that in evaluating a witness’ statement, it is vital to know when the statement was made. This is true whether investigating a murder, LHO in Mexico City, or anything else (e.g., something relatively as simple as an automobile accident). The Concept of “earliest recorded recollection”. . . being the more reliable evidence If you have an accident on Friday afternoon, and tell the investigating officer one thing, but then on Monday, say something different, it is the earlier account which will be believed, and you have much “explaining” to do, for the latter statement to have credibility. When the time scale is not three days, but a week, or a month, or a years, the situation borders on the absurd. As you have pointed out in this case (that of Duran), there was not just “pressure” but physical beatings. The Soviet Intelligence Officers Who Met With Oswald on Saturday, 9/28 And, of course, there’s also the fact that three Soviet intelligence officers—Nechiporenko, Yatsov (sp), and Kostikov, personally met with Oswald on Saturday morning, 9/28, and there’s no question in their mind that it was Oswald with whom they met. (This is all described in Passport to Assassination, by Nechiporenko). Back around 1993, John Newman and I met with one or two of these gentlemen, at the ASK conference, and I don’t believe there was any question about their credibility. Completely aside from whether the photo record was falsified—and obviously, something serious took place in that area—these three are witnesses to the fact that Oswald was definitely in Mexico City. Its amazing to me that DiEugenio has the gall to bring up his own visit to HSCA staffer Eddie Lopez at his Rochester residence, some fifteen years later, as evidence of anything. Fall 1978 – My Own Conversation(s) With Lopez (and Purdy) On that subject (and in the spirit of “FWIW”), I spoke to Ed Lopez multiple times back in the fall of 1978, when he was on the staff of the HSCA. I spoke to him for over 2-1/2 hours , as I reported in Best Evidence. (Chapter 24; p.562, Hardcover edition, or Carroll & Graf). A very nice guy, to be sure, but neither he nor Blakey nor Andy Purdy (or others), were taking autopsy falsification seriously. And autopsy falsification is at the heart of the issue of whether Oswald was a shooter, or just a patsy, as he claimed. As I reported in B.E., after I spent considerable time and effort explaining the evidence (remember: this almost three years before publication) and after Lopez had spoken at length with Purdy, he (Lopez), projecting considerable good humor (and certainly not spoken with any malice), relayed to me how Purdy had reacted: “Now that’s what I call a conspiracy!” he had exclaimed. (Same B.E. cite as before). But back to DiEugenio: DiEugenio on Black Ops (precise date [and number of Black Ops show] to be added) Pat Valentino and I have had highly problematic experiences with DiEugenio, because of the superficial way he deals with evidence. Going back, now, to multiple appearances DiEug made on Black Ops Radio, he proudly announced that "I refuse to (or "will not") debate Lifton, or Valentino, about his book.” Pat (who accompanied me on many of my 1989 filmed interviews of the Dallas doctors and nurses) prepared audio excerpts (using the Best Evidence Research Video, now available on line) to demonstrate to the radio audience that –according to Paul O’Connor (and Dennis David)—the body arrived in a shipping casket, and not the expensive bronze "Dallas casket". So that the body did not arrive in the same casket as it left Dallas. Replied DiEugenio (and this is approximate): “Well, sometime on the ride in the naval ambulance, from Air Force One to Bethesda, there may have been a stop.” “May have been a stop?” What was that for, asked Pat. . “For coffee, perhaps?” DiEugenio and “Reclaiming Parkland” (vs the Liebeler Memorandum of November 1966) Very recently, and for the first time, I obtained a copy of DiEugenio’s “Reclaiming Parkland,” published in 2013, which is supposedly focused on the medical evidence. In The Modern Researcher, by Barzun and Graf (a classic about the raft of research and writing), the authors stress the obligation of an author , when writing about any subject, to begin with the existing record. (And DiEugenio was a high school history teacher.) Somehow, this particular author, who apparently fancies himself to be a research genius, managed to write an entire book, supposedly focused on “Parkland,” (which, supposedly, he seeks to “Reclaim”) without mentioning autopsy falsification via body alteration at all. Not one word. You will not find anything about Sibert, or O’Neill in the context of autopsy falsification, or Paul O’Connor (who opened the body bag in which JFK’s body was delivered to Bethesda) or Dennis David (whose account is Chapter 25 in B.E., and who testified before the ARRB); or Sgt. Boyajian (whose receipt, unearthed by the ARRB, establishes that the body arrived at Bethesda 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin); nothing about the copious evidence that the body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, and not a word about my work (on video)or my book, Best Evidence, which was published by four publishers, was a best seller, was a Book of the Month Club Selection. Finally, DiEug mentions nothing about the fact that in November 1966, and based on my research at that point in time, UCLA Law Professor Wesley Liebeler wrote a 12 page memorandum to Chief Justice Warren (and all other members of the WC) about the autopsy, focusing on the issue of body alteration, and the FBI statement about pre-autopsy surgery, and recommending a limited re-opening of the investigation, with additional testimony to be taken under oath. Professor Liebeler sent a copy of that memo to the Warren Commission and its alumni, but to Robert Kennedy (via his attorney) and to Lyndon Johnson. All of that is spelled out in Chapter 10 of B.E., but not a peep from DiEugenio. After all, he’s just “reclaiming Parkland.” Huh? The art of "bibliography" - DiEugenio Style (the art of "selective omission") DiEugenio manages to write “Reclaiming Parkland” without mentioning any of that, and then—in compiling his “bibliography’—makes no mention of Best Evidence! I mention this not because I demand complete agreement with my views (I don’t) but because it shows the utter carelessness and disregard for “the record” that an author who behaves this way exhibits, in his public writing to the “research community.” Stalin liked to erase the existence of political opponents--in the realm of history--by simply altering photographs. If Stalin was concerned with published writings, perhaps he could have used someone with that sort of skill, at editing political bibliographies. Anyway, its for these reasons that neither Pat V or I hardly read anything at his website. Why bother? So I thoroughly agree with the gist of your post. I never agreed with his hero worship of Garrison, but disagreement about Garrison is one thing, the callous (and careless) disregard about a whole body or important research about the autopsy, while writing a book titled “Reclaiming Parkland” is quite another. It really takes chutzpah to write a book titled "Reclaiming Parkland" and ignore the most important issue of all--the profane behavior of plotters who messed with the President's body to alter the story of how he died. But I guess DiEugenio thinks that erasing me from the record--or at least, the limited record that he created, i.e., his book) -- will perhaps eliminate the many important issues I have raised, in Best Evidence, from public discussion and debate. I have news for Jim DiEugenio: that's not going to happen. DSL 11/14/2017 – 2:30 a.m. PST Los Angeles, California
  12. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    " QUOTING FROM YOUR POST ABOVE:: Brendan: We all know that Duran has always insisted that the man she encountered was a short blonde guy. UNQUOTE Typical DiEugenio bluster and baloney. "We all know"? What is that? The doctrine of "Collective Reliance" as promulgated by James DiEugenio? J.D. please note: Duran's original identification, and it was published in the Mexico City media, within a day, was that she identified the man arrested in Dallas and whose picture was on TV as the man she saw. As Brandon quoted in his post, its right there in her HSCA testimony. CORNWELL: Then, the next morning you saw a newspaper. TIRADO: Yes. CORNWELL: Were you sure at at time that that was the man? TIRADO: Yes. * * * Try getting your facts straight before you misinform those reading this forum. DSL
  13. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Michael: IMHO: Jack Ruby was strictly "after the fact" and has nothing to do with "Jewish mobsters." I can elaborate. . . (and did, once, on the pages of Ramparts Magazine, decades ago). . but no time just now. DSL
  14. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    IMHO: There were a number of serious errors made in the execution of the plot, so I would not be surprised if --somehow--Oswald was photographed in the company of another person. Some examples of what were serious errors: ITEM; the shooting of Governor Connally, which was surely unintended. ITEM: The survival of Oswald (if he was a pre-selected patsy) to end up leaving the TSBD, and thenbe arrested alive by the Dallas Police, and to live for two additional days making multiple statements attesting to his innocence, and loudly proclaiming he was "just a patsy." ITEM: The alteration of the Z film (if the car stop witnesses are to be believed), in such an incompetent fashion that the President's head goes backwards, and resulting in a situation in which the film had to be suppressed for more than a decade (which it was). There are other examples, but these three should suffice to make the point. Let me put it this way: if there were no errors, then there would be no evidence trail; and without an evidence trail, Dallas would have been (by definition) a perfect crime, and we wouldn't be here debating the validity of the Warren Report's conclusions. Its my belief--and I will expand on this in a future writing--that almost every problem with the official version stems from mistakes in the execution of an original plan; a plan which, if properly executed, would not have left such evidence.. This line of analysis --a sort of "error analysis"--is particularly important if one is attempting to identify "what was supposed to happen, but didn't." Now back to Mexico City. . . : All I'm suggesting is that, for whatever reason,there was a serious snafu in Mexico City, resulting in a photo record that was "unacceptable" (for some reason); and the attempts to deal with the situation may have led to serious confusion; and specifically, to the confusing record that currently exists: pictures of someone who was obviously not Oswald, in effect "labeled" as Oswald, and the source of incorrect information that ended up in communications between Mexico City and Washington. I have little doubt that, as designed, the original plan called for a trail of credible evidence that Oswald (and Oswald alone) went to Mexico City, and appeared at both the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy. Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest way to accomplish this--if that was the goal--would be for Oswald (himself) to have been sent to Mexico City, and to those two locations, under the guise of someone simply seeking travel documents, for a trip back to the USSR, by way of Havana. According to Marina, that's essentially what Lee told her he was doing. You can "take it" from there. Again I repeat: I've only advanced a hypothesis in an attempt to explain a complicated and confusing record. If there's a better explanation, I'd be glad to defer to it. DSL 11/13/2017 - 5:30 p.m. PST
  15. Witten's report on Oswald in Mexico just released

    Sandy (and others who have contributed to this thread, e.g. Michael Clark, and the many useful links he has posted; David Josephs, et al): FWIW: When I first became involved with NARA and the available documents, the year was 1968. Between then and about 1975, I would devoted considerable blocks of time puzzling over the entire matter of the "mystery man." Of course, this was before the many declassifications and releases which have added to our knowledge--and I often think of it as as adding many additional "pixels" to the picture. But back then, and particularly by the year 1975, I formulated a hypothesis about what may have been going on, and I'm going to set it forth here, briefly, because I personally believe it is a more valid explanation than anything I have read (so far) on the London Forum. Also, it is a hypothesis that I shared with a CBS producer at the time, and he became interested in this issue too. Unfortunately, there were no personal computers back then, so my "memos to file" were not scanned, and not easily retrieved, unless I went to certain storage boxes and searched for my original typewritten material. So let me explain, and I'd be interested in the reaction of those who have spent so many hours studying this particular puzzle. A NEW AND DIFFERENT HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THE MYSTERY MAN PHOTOS First of all, lets start with the fact that there are not photos of Oswald entering or leaving either the Soviet Embassy, or the Cuban Consulate, and that seems highly implausible, not to mention improbable. (And, in fact, its really absurd). Instead, we have this photo of "mystery man." So. . what is going on here? My hypothesis --and this is from recollection--went as follows: (a) Oswald had a handler, and was reasonably obedient, and followed instructions. (b) In the case of Mexico City, some person--perhaps the handler, or perhaps some associate--accompanied Oswald to one of the diplomatic facilities. (c ) Photos were taken, and included the image of the handler--which was a major error. I stress: a major error. (d ) Those involved in setting up Oswald (in the service of the forthcoming assassination of JFK) immediately realized a serious snafu had occurred, and the question became: How to get rid of that (incriminating) photo record? (And, perhaps, substitute another?). (e) Consequently, sometime between October 1 and (approx) October 8th, another person visited the Embassy, perhaps someone claiming to be Oswald, and the purpose of that visit was to create a false (i.e., spurious) photo record which could then be substituted for the original (and authentic) record. (f) Sometime before October 8th (again, "approx."), the files were manipulated (i.e., physically accessed), the LHO photos removed, and a substitute file created with the mystery man photos instead. (g) Meanwhile, transcripts had been created, the bureaucratic wheels turned, and the telegraphic traffic (which has become the subject of so much study) ensued. (h ) Per this hypothesis, incorrect descriptive data was included in that telegraphic traffic, because the photo record had been altered. In other words, because of the alteration of the photo record, anyone going to the file would come up with an incorrect description. Of course, historically, this has led to the situation in which it has now been alleged that Oswald was impersonated. But, if my hypothesis is correct, that's not the proper explanation for the conflicting data. Bottom line: the price paid for "correcting" this snafu--which involved some "heavy duty" file manipulation--was to create the appearance of impersonation. (Again, keep in mind this is just a hypothesis). BUT . . there is one other addition, one I am quite confident about, based upon my many years of study of LHO. REGARDING THE AUDIO RECORD Oswald was a jokester and a punster. (Just ask Marina, which I did, and this is described in some detail in Priscilla McMillan's book, Marina and Lee. When Oswald was in Mexico, and when asked to make a phone call, he could easily have disguised his voice, speaking in a more guttural "European" fashion, and also have spoken English as if he was a foreigner (i.e., "broken English" etc). Because of this, it disturbs me every time I read that someone who studies this record, then states (as if its a fact), that the person who made a particular phone call "could not have been Oswald" because the transcriber noted he spoke "broken Russian" or "broken English." These are hardly reliable identifiers when dealing with a jokester and punster like LHO. Currently, I am re-reading Simpich's manuscript, and trying to understand the hypothesis of the "mole hunt' as an explanation. At this juncture, I remain unpersuaded. I really don't wish to become immersed in Mexico City just now, and the purpose of this post is to recall my own involvement with this area of the case, back in 1975. (As I recall, the CBS producer who was interested was one "Harry Moses.") Also, and this is directed at those who are citing Sylvia Odio. . there is little question in my mind (or in the minds of those who studied the matter closely for FRONTLINE, back in 1993) that the Sylvia Odio encounter occurred on Wed. evening, September 25th. So those who are citing 9/27 as the date are postulating an incorrect date, and then using that incorrect datum as the reason for claiming "it couldn't have been" Oswald. But I will address that matter in a separate writing, perhaps a separate thread on the London Forum. Meanwhile, I would like those who are studying this matter (of the "mystery man" photos) to seriously consider the possibility that the root of this whole problem is that Oswald was photographed in the company of a third party, that this occurred between 9/27 and Oct 1, and that strenuous efforts were made, on the part of someone (or some persons) connected with the planning of the Dallas scenario, to retrieve those photos from the file, to literally "flush them out", because of the major problem they would have posed, after JFK was shot, when these photos revealed Oswald to have been associated with some third party. DSL 11/12/2017 - 8:20 p.m. PST; Revised, 9:20 p.m. PST