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 these  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

31,948 profile views
  1. Hello Michael Clark: After I first began posting on this thread, I was told (i.e., as in "warned") privately about Walton, and his general behavior; i.e., that he was a "know-nothing" who was a pest. It was obvious, just from the way he responded to my posts, that he doesn't understand the case. Perhaps he's just slow-witted; or, as they used to say back in my college days, he was "someone whose elevator doesn't run to the top." I don't want to waste even a minute on him. I'm willing to entertain any competent criticism from anyone who is willing to deal with the evidence, or sensibly deal with the model of conspiracy that I am proposing. That's why I wrote the post that I did; its a "preview" of sorts to a lot of "other" information that I have, and that will be in Final Charade. If someone has objections to any thesis that I have advanced, I'm interested in hearing about what those objections are. For example, there are some people who are unwilling to believe that this was a body-centric plot; or unwilling to believe that any Secret Service agents could be involved; or unwilling to believe that anyone would "Plan in advance" to alter the President's body, in the aftermath of the shooting; or that the body could be removed from the coffin ("no matter what the evidence is" etc). I'm interested in becoming familiar with the psychological attitudes of those who follow the case; and, of course, what is perhaps most valuable of all is when someone points out a genuine error in my own analysis (which I would then immediately seek to correct); or perhaps can add a piece of evidence that I had neglected to take into account in the first place. Thanks to all. DSL 3/15/2018 - 10:50 PM PDT Orange County, California
  2. Andrej: No, it was not a "random" choice. (But, presently at least, I do not believe it was sinister). FYI: The Parkland Hospital reports (see Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes) contain at least one where Clint Hill states that a casket is needed, that he is told of ONeals Funeral Home, and either he gets on the phone directly (or tells someone who is on the phone) that they (ONeal) should select "the finest." So no, it was not random. The "finest" were the operative words, and Vernon Oneal then chose the "top of the line" Elgin Brittania. In general, I would be very careful, if not very wary, about inferring that because an SS agent said to bring "the finest", that that person (making such a specific request) already had in mind that the body would be removed from the coffin, and so deliberately wished to see that a rather heavy casket be selected, and brought to Parkland. I think that "the finest" would be language that would be reasonable for an SS agent to use, in view of the fact that the coffin was being requested for the body of the President. Candidly, I've never viewed that language as being suspicious--although in the JFK case, "anything is possible," and you are correct that if an ordinary "shipping casket" had been brought to Parkland, and if it was intended to remove the body from that type of casket, then the "empty casket" (after such a removal) would be rather obvious. Still, my belief would come down on the side of "innocence"--that it was reasonable to request "the finest" casket, since it was the president of the U.S. DSL - 3/15/18 - 11:08 AM PDT Orange County, California
  3. THIS POST HAS BEEN RE-EDITED FROM THE TIME WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED Rick McTague: I see that you are a relative newcomer to this forum, and that you seem to be interested in the matter of the arrival of more than one casket (in fact, two caskets) at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63, each of which supposedly contained JFK's body, but --in fact--only the first actually did. The second was empty. Then there followed some rigmarole in which the second casket (the Dallas casket, the one which arrived in the naval ambulance, carrying Jackie and RFK, and which was empty) was brought to the Bethesda morgue (the 7:17 PM entry), "loaded" with JFK's body, brought back outside, and then brought back in at 8 PM (under the watchful eye of the tri-service honor guard) in order to conceal the fact that the body had been intercepted in the first place. I have referred to this "three entries of two caskets" and the situation in treated in considerable detail, and with appropriate timelines, in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence. That chapter is titled "The Lake County Informant"--the "informant" being Dennis David (who died recently) and whose account, if true (and I am certain that it is ) establishes that the coffin in the naval ambulance that arrived at 6:53/6:55 PM at the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital. was empty. Why? Because Dennis David had already witnessed the true arrival of the body, some 20 minutes before, in a black hearse, and in a shipping casket. In fact, he had assisted by arranging for some of his men to bring that casket to the morgue; and it was only some "20 minutes later" (as he originally described it to me) and after he had gone "back upstairs" and to the front of Bethesda, that he witnessed the arrival of the naval ambulance carrying Jackie and Bobby. (This sequence was later corroborated by documentary evidence--i.e., by the discovery of the Boyajian document (Sgt. Boyajian being the USMC person in charge of "morgue security", which indicates that the body was delivered to the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM). The discovery of this situation was truly remarkable, and marked a major turning point in my JFK research. I interviewed Dennis David on July 2, 1979--and you can read what he told me. verbatim, in Chapter 25. Then, about two weeks later, the HSCA report was released, and there was the statement --in Appendix Volume 7 (devoted to the medical evidence) --that JFK's body arrived in a body bag (!). That led to my interviewing Paul O"Connor on 8/25/79. The combination of Dennis David (on 7/2/79) and then Paul O'Connor on 8/25/79, was dynamite. If these accounts were true, that mean the Dallas coffin in the naval ambulance was indeed empty; and that led to a meeting with the top people at Macmillan (my publisher) as to what to do in light of these new and startling developments. That led to agreement--in effect--to a lengthening of the book (which originally would have ended at about Chapter 24, but now, as a consequence of these discoveries, extended out to chapter 32), and to a changed due date. Meanwhile, I had to contend with another "research" issue. which can be boiled down to one word: "When?" When was the body removed from the original Dallas coffin? Just how did that happen? "When and where"? THE "WHEN AND WHERE" PROBLEM Within an hour of getting off the phone with Dennis David, I knew that the President's body must have been removed, from the Dallas coffin, prior to takeoff. This was apparent, indeed obvious, just from a careful studying of time lines. Just from studying the time line of events, the following proposition (which I viewed as an important corollary) was crystal clear; "An empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty coffin upon take-off in Dallas." See Chapter 25 of B.E., where this is all spelled out, just as I experienced it. To the explain this (originally to myself, but then to the reader), I thought of it as running a hypothetical picture film, with the focus on the Dallas coffin, "in reverse," starting with the arrival of that coffin in the naval ambulance,at the Bethesda front entrance. If you "ran it backwards," it was very clear that nothing could have happened after Jackie entered the ambulance at Andrews. The naval ambulance never stopped anywhere between Andrews and Bethesda. Then, continuing the "thought experiment" of "running the film backwards," it was clear that nothing happened between the time Jacqueline stepped onto the mechanical lift, when it was in the "raised position" and when it was lowered to ground level, at Andrews. Finally, by running it backwards one more step, to takeoff, it was clear that nothing happened once Air Force One took off from Dallas. Sp again, let me repeat the corollary: an empty casket at the Bethesda front entrance meant an empty casket upon takeoff from Dallas. The logic was airtight: the question was: when could the body have been removed from the coffin (i.e., when, "before take-off") could that have occurred? At the time (July 2, 1979, and in the days following) I was well aware of the dispute over the circumstances of the LBJ swearing in and how the swearing in of LBJ caused a delay in the take-off of the flight back to Washington. The dispute centered around why the necessity for such a swearing in before the take-off? Lyndon Johnson said it was necessary because "Bobby told me I should be sworn in before take-off" ( and so that was the reason the take-off was delayed); but Bobby--upon hearing this version of events, directly from Jackie and Kenneth O'Donnell, after the Kennedy party arrived back in Washington, denied any such instruction. In other words, there was a direct conflict between what Lyndon Johnson said was the reason for the delay, and what RFK said. And all of this burst into the public discussion in March 1967, when the Manchester book was published. Because that's when it was first brought to light, and aired publicly. And so, from the beginning (again, July 1979), I focused on the swearing in, with all those people being drawn towards the area with LBJ, at the time this covert removal (of the body, from the coffin) must have occurred in the tail compartment. As I say, this was my original view, but.this initial conclusion turned out to be incorrect; but that's the way it appeared to me, initially. THE PRESENTATION IN BEST EVIDENCE (as published in January 1981) Anyway, I gave an accurate account of how I reasoned with the known evidence, and presented it that way in Best Evidence, which, by the way, was not reviewed by TIME, but instead, in a break with standard procedure, the publication of my book was covered as a news story --two full pages splashed across the National Affairs section of TIME, January 19 1981. (Furthermore, there had been serious consideration at TIME of buying first serial rights--i.e., and publishing it in TIME, as series of magazine articles). But. . The "but" is that within a month of publication, General Godfrey McHugh (JFK's Air Force Aide, who was on the Dallas trip, and made it his personal mission, almost as a matter of honor, to always "stay with the coffin" wrote a letter to TIME Magazine saying, in effect, "This coudn't have happened, the way the author states it did. Why? Because I was there, in the tail compartment, the whole time. I never left! And no one took the body out of the coffin." I respected Godfrey McHugh, having spoken to him twice, in lengthy conversations, in connection with the researching and writing of Best Evidence. So . . what to do about this? If McHugh's account was accurate, then when could the body have been removed from the casket? WHAT WILLIAM MANCHESTER SAID ABOUT McHUGH (in The Death of a President, published in March 1967): When I consulted Manchester's The Death of a President, he provided some important detail. He painted a picture of McHugh so upset by the delayed departure, that he was constantly leaving the area, at the back of Air Force One, and going to the front, and to the pilot's cabin, wanting to know what the delay in the take-off was all about? (McHugh did not realize that Johnson was aboard the plane--"somewhere"--and had ordered the pilot not to take off until (a) the body arrived and (b) until he personally gave the order to take-off. Manchester paints a picture of McHugh as so upset that if that plane didn't take off soon, he would fly it! (He was an Air Force Brigidair General). Anyway this is where matters stood by about February 1, 1981. This event, the removal of JFK's body from the Dallas asket --which was dictated by the sequence of the arrivals of the two ambulances at Bethesda later that day (the black hearse at the back at about 6:35 pm and the naval ambulance at 6:55 pm) represented a logic which made clear that if the body was no longer in the Dallas casket---then the "removl" must have occurred during the swearing in. Because there was no other time that Jackie wasn't with the casket. Or so I thought. . . Now flash-forward to the summer of 1984 --three full years after the publication of the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence. I was back in Los Angeles (I was living in New Jersey at the time, but was on a visit to L..A., where I maintained an apartment); and was up at the UCLA campus. It was a beautiful bright sunny day, and I was walking across the campus, and suddenly, I had this very important insight: the swearing in of LBJ was not the only time that (at Love Field) the Kennedy party was separated from the casket prior to take-off. That was an incorrect statement, and I could hardly believe that I had made such an error. The Other Time Period (when Jackie wasn't with the casket) . . first "discovered" in the summer of 1984 The "other" time period was when the cream colored ambulance from Parkland had first arrived, and Jacqueline and others congregated on the tarmac on the port side of Air Force One. As photographed by White House photographer Cecil Stoughton, a group of SS agents, led by senior agent Roy Kellerman, carried the Dallas coffin up the stairs, and into the tail compartment. Then they had to turn left, which caused the coffin to be lost from sight, and there followed a brief pause as there was the activity of supposedly "securing" it against the wall of the airplane. So that took a bit of time; not much, but some additional seconds. Very likely a minute (or maybe at most two minutes). It as during this period that Kellerman (et al) were with the coffin, in the tail compartment, while Jacqueline Kennedy, and others, were still down on the tarmac. There is no "Zapruder film" of Jacqueline Kennedy's ascension up the steps, but it was not immediate. There was a small time interval. Most important: That was the only "other" period, and I now realized that, back in July 1979, when I first interviewed Dennis David, I had never taken that into account. So now, everything changed, and I had to deal with what is sometimes referred to as a "paradigm shift." I was forced to re-examine the "old" data and forced to deal with certain "new" possibilities and conclusions. MY OWN INFERENCES FROM THIS "NEW" DATA It was during that period, that Kellerman (and others) opened the coffin, and hustled the body across to the starboard side of the aircraft (a very small distance, inside a Boeing 707) and to the rear starboard door --actually a "half-door"-- and off the plane. That was just a hypothesis (at the outset of this reevaluation, in the summer of 1984); but then, in the years following, I found more evidence - -evidence of a forklift truck being utilized on the starboard side of AF-1. It was even better than that: I had an important witness who saw something being offloaded or onloaded via the forklift. I'l have much more to say about all this in Final Charade, but rest assured that, with certain additional evidence, the conclusion I have reached can be stated quite succinctly: JFK's body was removed from Air Force One between the time Kellerman was at the top of those rear port stairs (and again, I refer you to the photographs taken by Cecil Stoughton), and the time that Jacqueline Kennedy (and others) ascended those same stairs, entered the tail compartment, and took their seats, assuming an immediate takeoff--which, as is now known, did not occur At least not immediately. Because as the Kennedy party soon found out, Lyndon Johnson was aboard what they viewed as "their" airplane, and was now telling Kenneth O'Donnell and Larry O'Brien that there must be a delay, because he (LBJ) had to be sworn in prior to take-off. And why was that so? Because, said LBJ, Bobby told him that he must do that. There is additional detail about what occurred, and when, etc. The bottom line: JFK 's body was removed via the rear starboard door, and it ended up in the forward luggage compartment. More later. Well, there is --in fact--one other matter that I'd like to mention, something that I believe I wrote about back in 1982, when the first paperback edition of Best Evidence was published. IMPLICATIONS OF A BODY-CENTRIC PLOT The only reason that Kellerman (et al) were able to act so quickly (with regards to the body) is that, from the outset, this was a body-centric plot. I used this phrase in describing the basic structure of the JFK murder plot, in my talk at Bismarck State College in November 2013 (Google: David Lifton Bismarck, for a video). From the outset, there was a "twin focus" if you will: (a) to murder the President and then (b) to alter the body (retrieve bullets, and alter wounds) so as to lay the groundwork for a false autopsy, one designed to "doctor the body" so as to change the basic facts of the shooting, and incriminate a pre-selected patsy. To elaborate just a bit. . : from the standpoint of plotters, JFK's body was viewed in two separate contexts: (a) a person to be murdered; and then (b) after death, a target to be altered. However, the plan (as originally conceived) didn't work as intended--and a major problem developed --when Governor Connally was unexpectedly shot. This not only led to major confusion, but a serious malfunction in the original plan, and much of which then occurred was sheer improvisation --i.e., was done "ad hoc" (as they say in Latin). First of all, there was now an extra "body"--and Gov JC wasn't dead. But whether he lived or died, the true circumstances of how he was shot would have to be falsified (if the original "lone nut" scenario was to be maintained). Furthermore, there was still another complication to Gov JC having been shot: had he not been shot, and if there were complications with getting JFK's body out of the state without an autopsy, the Governor (a close and lifelong friend of LBJ) could probably be relied upon to issue an executive order going along with such a request. But once shot seriously (as he was), it was hardly possible for an aide to show up in his Operating Room, clipboard in hand, and say, "Governor, would you mind signing this? They want to take the President's body out of Texas, without an autopsy." And that's just one of several problems. So many things happened after the shooting of JC that were strictly ad hoc; and --in Final Charade--I hope that there will be sufficient evidence to persuade the reader that this was a plot that was "elegant in conception, but bungled in execution." I bring up this subject not only because I have written about it before, publicly (but probably not at this length, and with such specificity); but because unless one understands the basic concept (and implications) of this being a "body-centric" plot (one in which the conclusions of a future investigation could be "structured in advance' via alterations on the body) it is difficult to comprehend how, upon reaching Love Field, anyone would be prepared to remove JFK's body from the Dallas casket, in order to change its condition (and future autopsy conclusions) so as to harmonize with some pre-conceived scenario. DSL 3/15/2018 - 3 AM PDT; edited, 5:35 AM PDT; edited 10:50 AM PDT) Orange County, California
  4. Mili Cranor on the Wide Tracheotomy

    Andre - - post whatever you wish, and whatever you deem necessary to make your points. Walton's objections (and many of his statements) are pure rubbish. When it comes to photo evidence and "truth," this is a guy who changed his avatar from a true picture (he's just under 50) and tries to pose as a teenager. Enough said. FYI: when (in 1988) I made the decision to publish the autopsy photos (in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence), I had to face the possibility of offending certain partisans of the Kennedy family, if not Kennedy family members themselves. I wrote an Epilogue making the point that the publication of these photos raised "competing interests." Specifically, that while, in an ideal world, everyone would want sensitivity towards the living, we should also pursue the goal of justice for the dead. And that's the key: truth in history, and justice for the dead are closely related. Some people just don't "get it." They can't even be relied to tell the truth about their own age, much less answer simple questions about their education. They'd rather pose as someone they're not, and raise a bunch of disingenuous objections about how "oh so upset" they are, by autopsy photos. This is the kind of pretentious phony that might appear as a fringe character in a novel, but is not to be taken seriously in a discussion of the most important evidence in this murder case: the body of President John F. Kennedy. Carry on. DSL 3/13/2018 - 10 PM PDT Orange County, California
  5. Hello Michael Clark: Still no email. . You may be making a common error. . The proper address is DSL74@Cornell.edu Not DS174@Cornell.edu To repeat: the third character in the email address is "L", not "1" Inserting some spaces, for clarity. . : Again:. . DSL 74 @Cornell.edu (written: DSL74@Cornell.edu) Not DS 174 @Cornell.edu FYI: Still have not received any email from you. See what you can do to correct the situation. DSL
  6. David Von Pein: As I recall--and I'm not certain of this--I first heard of Dr. David Stewart because of the major news story that appeared in a Tennessee newspaper. Perhaps someone sent me that newspaper, or perhaps I obtained it via UCLA's "Interlibrary Loan" facility. But I clearly remember possessing it, and opening a separate manila file folder for it. What was unusual about it (to the point that I was rather skeptical) was that Stewart was stating that Dr. Perry did not have to make a tracheotomy incision; and that (somehow) he ws able to use the pre-existing bullet hole in the front of the neck as the entry point for the tracheotomy procedure. Now jumping to the present. . . : Because of time constraints, I have to postpone any further discussion of Dr. Stewart at this point, but I do intend to return to the subject, and Pat Valentino has been reviewing the June 1989 filmed interview with Stewart. The only point I wish to make here: Dr. Stewart never said (to me) that he was in ER-1. Ever. To the contrary, he made clear that he was not. He made that point in my 1982 telephone conversation with him, and again in the June 1989 filmed interview. With regard to JFK's wounding, he was a witness to what the other doctors told him, not to what he saw. If you could compile what he said on the few occasions that he spoke publicly (as you have been doing) that would be helpful. I am endeavoring to get the major story in the Tennessee newspaper (the Nashville Banner, as I recall) which was the first time I had heard of him. What was most impressive about that story was not just its detail, but the "early" date (1967, I think). Both Pat and I met him in person, at his home (June 1989), and spent at least 5 hours with him. He is very well spoken and impressive. He would make a very credible witness before a jury. Despite all of that, I did not believe what he said when it came to the word Dr. Perry used because--at that point in time (the night we filmed him)--I believed (erroneously as it turned out) that the filmed interview of Perry had him saying "invalid" and not "inviolate." I believed that because of the CBS transcript as published in the Stephen White book. When we went to Groden's home the next day (or the day after that--i.e., 2 days later) and were watching the CBS Perry interview, Pat and I were both astounded to hear Perry very clearly use the word "inviolate." We both rose up out of our separate chairs, simultaneously, exclaiming "What??!!!" And such things as "Robert, please back it up and play that again!" etc. The rest of what happened I have previously written about. Now there are two other matters I will hurriedly report here, to be further elaborated upon when time permits: ITEM #1: What Robert Groden told us during the filmed interview - - A New Fact Pat Valentino, reviewing the video tapes over the last few days (before he had to leave town on personal business) emailed me that the following repartee took place when Groden (and the Baltimore reporter) visited Dr. Perry at his New York City office. Upon being shown the face-up ("stare-of-death") autopsy photo, Perry told Groden that he would discuss it, but only on the condition that what he had to say remained confidential, and that Groden would not ever talk about it. (This was actually stated during the filmed interview). Groden agreed, and that is when Perry said "OK" (or words to that effect); and it was then that he shook his head from side-to-side, and said that that was not the way he left the wound. Why I bring this up: This is in response to your question, DVP, as to (possibly) why Groden may not have reported the incident when he wrote his book, The Killing of a President. Remember what I said: I said that (in 1993) he wouldn't want to say anything which would indicate an agreement with body alteration; but based upon the June 1989 filmed interview that Pat V has been reviewing, Groden may have felt constrained by an (informal, and certainly legally unenforceable) agreement with the late Dr. Perry. ITEM #2: Audio analysis A friend who has audio expertise has been examining the a record of what Perry said at that crucial point on the tape. He notes that when Perry's lips are moving, there ought to be words on the tape; and when not moving, there ought not to be the sound of any words. He states that, without any question, there are serious anomalies in this regard, and he believes that they constitute evidence that tape has been altered ("monkeyed with," in my prior posts). He is preparing some exhibits, and when his work is completed, and I have reviewed it, I will pass it along. DSL 3/9/2018 - 9:40 PM PST Orange County, California
  7. Michael Walton: QUOTING FROM YOUR POST (above): QUOTE ON: Yes, they were Ray and even if they weren't who and what in the world were they doing grabbing a bloody corpse out of a coffin mid-flight in a tight place like an airplane? Come one, Ray. Do you really think this could have happened unnoticed and not a single person has EVER gone on the record who was in that airplane state anything suspicious? UNQUOTE Just a minute, Walton: "bloody corpse". . . "mid flight" etc etc ? This is a good example of how you function. I never said--nor does anything I have ever written (or stated) anywhere or anytime--say or imply any such thing. As far as I'm concerned, this guy should be disqualified from participating in any discussion on the JFK assassination. Michael Walton: Go see a good therapist and get your psyche checked. To those who may be reading this post: I don't care what this shmuck says to the "local people" at this website, most of whom are sensible, know better and already have their own "war stories" from dealing with him. I do care, now that the Internet has international reach, that the nonsense he distributes could be read, and lead to serious misunderstanding about my work, on a global scale., FWIW: I do not have the time to spend refuting all of the nonsense this jerk promotes, but this is a perfect example and so I jumped in here just to make a point. I was tipped off early on about his behavior and so that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned. I cannot afford to spend time doing "clean-up" with the garbage trail left by a person with such a loose connection to reality. Also note how, despite multiple requests, he has failed to respond to my request(s) and post reliable background info. Obviously, he has something to hide, and FWIW I'm no longer interested in what that "something" is. DSL 3/9/2018 - 8:45 PM PST
  8. 3/9/2018 - 8:35 PM PST Michael Clark, Re your statement, "Hi David, it looks like I already e-mailed you. I'll look back and see if I have anything new." RESPONSE: No, Michael;I have not received any email as yet. Please try again. Use: DSL74@Cornell.edu Thanks. DSL
  9. Friday, 3/9/2018 - - 7:05 PM PST Hi Michael Clark: I really did appreciate your email, which I found not just informative, but genuinely amusing. OK. . . here's the email address that I believe you wanted: DSL74@cornell.edu Repeating: DSL74@Cornell.edu Looking forward to hearing from you. Please put "JFK" or "Friend from Education Forum" in the subject line. Many thanks. Best, DSL
  10. To all those who are following this person and his posts.. .: Walton is setting up his own "reality distortion field" for those naive, credulous or foolish enough to believe (or rely upon) anything he has to say. When it comes to my book, practically every single statement he makes about how this covert operation worked (or how and where the body was altered) is either factually wrong or a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said in Best Evidence. His postings --sentence after sentence- -are filled with falsehoods and straw men containing multiple misrepresentations about my supposed beliefs. His most bizarre assertion is that I "took a word here and there and turned it into a body alteration theory." What total nonsense, as anyone can see from reading Best Evidence, and the very careful way I went about reporting what was in the record. When the book was first published, a law school asked me for permission to use part of it in a class. ("Earth to Walton. . are you there?") I asked him earlier to provide some personal history as to his personal background and education. The reply: NADA. A deafening silence. (Does anyone have reliable information as to who he is?) If you believe this uninformed person and his goofy posts, which repeatedly misstate facts and weave together his imaginings into a fabric of sheer fantasy, then implicitly one must subscribe to the following absurd proposition: that, by cleverly misquoting a few documents "here and there," I cleverly deceived the top executives at Macmillan (and also at Book of the Month Club), along with hundreds of thousands of readers whose interest led to my work being at the top of the best seller lists for 3 plus months in the spring of 1981, and then being published by three additional major publishers (Dell, Carrol & Graf and New American Library [1993]). And oh yes: I also deceived UCLA law prof Liebeler, who was so concerned with the evidence I brought to his attention in October 1966 that he drafted a 13 page memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the entire staff of the Warren Commission, Senator Robert Kennedy and LBJ. And, oh yes, I somehow caused all the witnesses, whose accounts I documented in Best Evidence (and which can also be viewed on the Best Evidence Research Video) to not have remembered what they witnessed and which a wide assortment of official documents reported as fact). Its difficult to describe this individual --and his strained connection to reality--accurately without violating the rules for civil discourse on this forum. But OMG! If only Michael Walton had been around, and sharing his profound wisdom and insights for the past several decades. .. : just think! So much of this JFK controversy could have been avoided! Sure Michael Walton . . . in your dreams. Meanwhile, how about addressing the questions that I previously asked? Surely you have some general idea of who you are? Surely you are able to describe that, without engaging in falsehood and fantasy? Why not share it? Its so easy. Just pretend you are taking a selfie, only doing it with words. You know how to employ words in the service of truth. . .don't you? What are you hiding? DSL 3/9/2018 - 3:10 PM PST
  11. DSL NOTE - 3/7/2018 - 6 PM PST For those readers who may be interested in background on the original discovery of the "empty casket" evidence (and the body bag)--which began in July 1979--and how that changed the structure of Best Evidence (as originally designed) and the subsequent process of publication of the book, the following information is provided. Thank you all for the ongoing interest in my work. DSL BEGINNING WITH Rick McTague (i.e., starting with your commentary from a previous post): Running the risk of being included in your insults and vitriol [directed at Michael Walton --DSL], I would like to ask your explanation of the three documented multiple casket entry times, multiple caskets (ornate bronze / pink shipping) and multiple conditions of JFK's body (covered in sheets, in a body bag) that are a matter of record and hard evidence, none of which match the condition of the body matched to the casket as it left Parkland. Thanks for your support. The fact that someone is voluble (but ignorant) does not mean that what they are saying is true (or that it has any validity). My advice: ignore that kind of uninformed "commentary." JULY 2, 1979 - - HOW THE "Published" VERSION OF BEST EVIDENCE REALLY BEGAN FYI: The evidence of the multiple casket arrivals was first discovered (by me) on July 2, 1979, when I first spoke with Dennis David (as described in detail in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence ["The Lake County Informant"]). Then came the next event: it was corroborated by the release of the HSCA Report (within one or two weeks, which reported that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, and then all of that was corroborated by my (first) conversation with Paul O'Connor [Aug 25, 1979]). At that point, my literary agent (Peter Shepherd) arranged for a special meeting with the top executives at my publisher, Macmillan, because it became imperative to explain what I had discovered, and to change the "due date" for the book (and that was done). A description of all this "high drama" will be contained in Final Charade. As my interviewing continued, and the overall findings became apparent, the Macmillan executives became increasingly excited by the potential importance of the book. On the one hand, they were in the business of publishing a hardcover book; but on the other, they were dealing with something that had the quality of a "fast-breaking news story." They wanted it to be accurate, but they didn't want to see it "stolen" or to be scooped. They made clear to me that this would be the "number one" book , on their "A list", when it was published, and they even gave me an office on the main executive floor, at Macmillan [866 Third Avenue, NYC, if anyone cares to check]. Really: think about that. After the manuscript was finally turned in (4/1/1980), I had an office on "executive row" at Macmillan! The whole experience was surreal, and I've written it up for inclusion in Final Charade. I've never heard of a writer being given an office at the publisher, but that's what happened to me. Then Book of the Month Club stepped up and made arrangements for it to be a BOM Selection (an "alternate" for one of the Spring 1981 months). Macmillan's executives realized it could be a dynamite book, but they also demanded accuracy. The publication of the information, even though in hardcover (which normally takes a year) had the quality of a fast-breaking news story, and to speed production, the President (Albert Litewka) came up with the plan to split the 1877 page triple-spaced manuscript into two parts: each had a code name, and each went through the production process separately (e.g., copy-editing, legal, etc.) and then the two parts would be "joined" together towards the end of the production process. It worked, and B.E. was brought to market in record time. Then Macmillan bought the cover of Publisher's Weekly , the industry trade magazine, around September 1980, to announce the forthcoming publication of the book. Also: they then agreed with my suggestion that the key witnesses that I had just discovered and interviewed by phone, ought to be re-interviewed on camera. I was worried that the TV program 60 Minutes would "re-interview" my key witnesses, do some tricky editing, and create the appearance that I had misrepresented their accounts. I was particularly concerned about Dan Rather, who was one of the top producers at 60 Minutes, and was CBS's so called "Kennedy expert." So my suggestion was to, in effect, stage a "pre-emptive strike" against such a possibility. If we interviewed the witnesses first, and they confirmed their accounts, as told to me via telephone, that would greatly minimize the possibility of some "wise guy" editing, aimed at undercutting the credibility of the work. October 1980 - - the creation of the Best Evidence Research Video So I was thrust into the role of being a documentary film producer, without ever having had any film-making experience. Fortunately, I had a few great friends and associates and my learning curve was rapid. I departed New York City, with a fully professional film crew (16mm cameraman, and first rate sound man) in late October 1980, when B.E. had already been sent to the printer. We visited five cities and interviewed five key witnesses, returning to New York City with thousands of feet of film that had to be processed (at Duart) and then properly edited. The editing expert was Arnon Mishkin, a recent Yale graduate who was also a key editor and producer at WNET-TV, the New York City PBS station. Mishkin and I spend hundreds of hours going over and over the footage, and constructing a "program" that used the style and technique of 60 Minutes. I vividly remember spending many hours in a 10th floor editing room overlooking Broadway; and particularly the time we spent there on Thanksgiving 1980, at the time of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. As we worked making decisions and executing the edits, the Macy's float with the traditional (and very giant) Mickey Mouse balloon floated right by our window. At one point, we had a visit from Dan Rather's producer (Steve Glauber) who was astounded at what we had found, and said--repeatedly, as he viewed our footage-- "Oh boy, Dan [Rather] is going to love this!" Well it didn't work out that way. Dan did not "love" the footage--at all. To the contrary, he pretended "not to understand". In other words, the same guy that misreported the Zapruder head snap would claim that he "didn't understand" why anyone would alter the body. (Read on. . ) DECEMBER 1980- DSL AT 60 Minutes (and meetings with Don Hewitt, and another with Dan Rather) In mid-December [1980], I and the President of Macmillan (Albert Litewka) and the Editor in Chief (George Walsh) and Mishkin: all of us attended an important meeting with Don Hewitt, Executive Producer of 60 Minutes, and screened the original "cut" of the footage. It was about 45 minutes long., When the lights went up, an incredulous Hewitt almost couldn't believe what he had seen; and most specifically, as I later came to realize, that a private citizen had unearthed material of such importance, and was bringing it to him, already documented., "Did you pay these people?!" he yelled, very angrily. By this time I had had enough, and shot back, "Yes, a dollar for the release!" (You're supposed to get a legal release, before filming anyone, and of course we had done exactly that. WHAT HAPPENED NEXT. . .There was some back and forth, and then Mishkin, who had a personal relationship with Hewitt, said, "C'mon Don, calm down. This is important stuff, and David's got it on film" (or words to that effect). In fact, Hewitt calmed down, and soon was an enthusiastic proponent of getting it broadcast nationally. He said that Dan Rather (then one of the key 60 Minute producers [there was so many of them that the show was called, by insiders, "60 Producers"] should be the next to screen the material. Mid -DECEMBER 1980 --I MEET WITH DAN RATHER Within a week, I was seated alone in a screening room with Rather, and once again, and for the umpteenth time, watched the film. When the lights came on, it became apparent that there was a problem. At first I almost couldn't believe it, and when relating what happened next, anyone reading this (net post) must understand that I was much more naive in December 1980, and than I am today. Here was "the problem": Rather said (or pretended) that he was confused, and didn't understand why anyone would want to "alter the body." At one point he actually said, ":Since Oswald killed the President, why would anyone want to alter the body?" This is the same Dan Rather who, back in 1966, had interviewed Humes in detail as to exactly how many holes there were in President Kennedy's body, and which ones were entrance, and which were exit. (See the CBS Program, broadcast in June 1967). Without question (I later realized, in retrospect), Dan Rather of course (!) understood that "the body" was the key evidence, and that "the wounds" (i.e., the holes on the body ) constituted "a diagram of the shooting". In retrospect I realized this (i.e., that Rather's reaction was disingenuous), but at the time, I didn't fully realize it; and so initially, I was simply amazed, and flabbergasted. I gave him (Rather) the benefit of the doubt, and thought he was serious. So, believing that to be the case, I tried to explain,. .one point, after another, as if I was "explaining" the basic concepts of body alteration to a retarded high school student. (Privately, I was thinking: How can this be? How can a person who appears to be so dumb, such a complete blockhead, be in such an important position at CBS?) Finally, after a few innings of this (of playing this "game", I asked him: "Dan,what do you think of these witnesses?" Oh, replied Rather, I just think you found some people who remember things a bit differently. Really, Dan Rather said words just about like that., In a future writing, possibly in FInal Charade, I will have more, a lot more, to say about Dan Rather, because I now know considerably more about him, and what he knew [on 11/22/63], and when he knew it. As he told a media producer who is friend of mine, about the JFK's murder (in the late 1970s), and in that clipped repertorial twang: "I have a private and a pubic opinion about the JFK case." Dan Rather declined to be "the producer" for the show, which had been approved by Don Hewitt, and so Best Evidence was never aired on 60 Minutes, even though it became a New York Times best seller, was number 1 in several cities, was number one at least one of the two wire services (and possibly both). Meanwhile, and now going back to mid-January 1981, as publication date approached, TIME magazine expressed interest in buying the serial rights to the book (i.e., for magazine publication), but that didn't work out. (But it almost happened). What did happen was that, in the January 19, 1981 issue, TIME devoted 2 full pages to Best Evidence, as a news story, in the National Affairs section. "Now, a Two Casket Argument" was the headline. I will try to place exhibits, up here on this thread, to illustrate these events. (For context, please remember: this was the week that President Reagan was inaugurated). mid- January 1981: Macmillan kicked off the publicity tour for Best Evidence with a major event at the Hay-Adams hotel in Washington, D.C. I screened the the full length Best Evidence Research Video for a roomful of reporters. (Seth Kantor was there)., Also present was Jim Lesar, who never supported my work (and who had once tried to lock me out of the AARC offices, in Washington, after the late Bud Fensterwald (a good friend) had approved my visit, but then had to attend to some business, outside the country, leaving everything "in Jim's hands"). I watched as Lesar (along with a friend of his) were trying to walk off with as many copies of Best Evidence (the hardcover) as they could stuff into their jackets. It was not a pretty sight. Within a day or two, I departed NYC for a 20 city cross country book tour. About the second week of February, I was having lunch with a friend in Chicago, when the restaurant manager called me to a telephone (there were no cell phones back then). It was mid-week (about Wednesday), but the person in charge of publicity at Macmillan was calling to tell me the good news; that this coming Sunday, we would be on the New York Times best seller list. That was extraordinary. Hurray! In the above writing, I have described some of the main features of the unusual experience I had between July 2, 1979, and my first conversation with Dennis David, and mid-January, 1981, when my book was featured, in two full pages, as a news story, in TIME. On July 2, 1979, and for the first time, I discovered the evidence that made it clear that the Dallas coffin, the one that was off-loaded from Air Force One, upon its arrival at Andrews Air Force Base at 6 PM, was empty. I know knew that to be true because, according to Dennis David's account, the body had arrived earlier, some 20 minutes prior to the coffin. In the space of 18 months, I investigated this radical thesis, found additional supporting witnesses, re-written the entire ending to Best Evidence (adding seven additional chapters, starting at chapter 25), and made a documentary film. In July 1979, I was 39, living in my parents home in Rockaway Beach, New York, with no particular employment other than my Macmillan book contract and no major support except for Peter Shepherd, my literary agent; Dr. Bernard Kenton, a dear friend and family man with a PhD in physics, my parents, Pat Lambert, and JFK researcher Paul Hoch. By January 1981, I was 41. The whole experience was akin to a roller coaster ride, in which many of the days were like a living nightmare, working against seemingly impossible deadlines; then came sleep, and then I'd wake up the next day to a continuation of the same nightmare, with the roller coaster always seeming to be about to come off the rails. Yes, there was a happy ending, a first -rate happy ending, but the journey to the finish line was unforgettable and very scary. Today, anyone can view the 37 minute "Best Evidence video" --containing the interviews conducted in late October 1980- - on the Internet. It now has almost 45,000 views. Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAWFvcrp-ao DECEMBER 1982 to the present: I now have conducted many more interviews than I had back in 1980, and have much more footage. With the assistance of family funding (my father, who emigrated from Russia, had four brothers, and my mother was the youngest of 8, so I had many cousins) I conducted major additional filmed interviews in 1989 and 1990, and then additional interviews as I thought necessary (and could afford) afford, over the years. The total cost of my work on the JFK assassination, most of it plain ordinary expenses such a food, rent, auto insurance, etc., but extenting over a period that began in mid-1966, and has extended to the present, has been about 1.8 million dollars. (And that's not a typo). Moreover. . : Final Charade has become not just a definitive book about Lee Oswald (which was its original design) but a full blown sequel to Best Evidence; and very possibly it may have to be published in two volumes, because both stories (the one about Oswald and the new info about the medical evidence [i.e., the body] are each rather complex, and, when conjoined, there is just too much information). But it will be published, and I can assure you it will be well worth the wait. They say you get only one chance for a such a "happy ending" in life. I'm hoping for a second one, and doing everything I can to bring it about. Those who have honestly followed what I have published on this thread have gotten a good glimpse --but only a glimpse--of what is coming. Genuine feedback (and not the fulminations of an ignoramus) is always welcome. Stay tuned. DSL, 3/7/2018 - 12:30 AM PST; Edited: I shifted the location of this writeup from a previous location on this thread, 3/7/18; 6 PM PST
  12. Paul Rigby: Thanks. I'm using another archival source and attempting to get the actual newspaper story as it originally appeared in that Nashville, Tenn. paper. We'll stay in touch, because there's other things we should talk about. . soon. DSL
  13. DSL NOTE, 3/7/2018 (12 noon PST) This post has been considerably augmented (and once again "edited") from the time it was first drafted, and posted. Rick McTague: Starting with your commentary from a previous post: Running the risk of being included in your insults and vitriol [directed at Michael Walton --DSL], I would like to ask your explanation of the three documented multiple casket entry times, multiple caskets (ornate bronze / pink shipping) and multiple conditions of JFK's body (covered in sheets, in a body bag) that are a matter of record and hard evidence, none of which match the condition of the body matched to the casket as it left Parkland. Thanks for your support. The fact that someone is voluble (but ignorant) does not mean that what they are saying is true (or that it has any validity). My advice: ignore that kind of uninformed "commentary." For a detailed discussion of the discovery of the "empty casket" evidence (commencing on July 2, 1979, with my discovery of --and first conversation with--the late Dennis David), and how that conversation, plus the publication of the Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) just a few weeks later changed the structure of Best Evidence, scroll down a bit further on this thread, and to my post which begins, "DSL NOTE - 3/7/2018 - 6 PM PST". Thanks to all for your interest in my work. DSL, 3/7/2018 - 6:05 PM PST) * * * * On the subject of helicopters. . : Many years have passed (and newcomers may not know this because we take for granted what we ourselves have done, and sometimes don't realize that the intervening years has changed as to who is in the audience [so to speak]). . but: Back in 1996, I actually located the helicopter pilot who flew the mission to the starboard side of Air Force One. It all happened by accident because, in a school somewhere in the western part of the U.S., a teacher was discussing the Kennedy assassination (6th grade, as I recall); and a little girl raised her hand and said "My daddy was there!" The teacher proceeded to follow-up, established the facts, was quite excited by what he had learned and telephoned me. I was soon talking to the pilot, who was an Air Force Captain who --in 1963-- was part of a special unit that was on call to fly top government officials "to the mountain" in the case of a nuclear alert. It was called the "HMX squadron" and his code name on the night he flew the mission was "Nighthawk One." We then made arrangements for a filmed interview, which occurred in late 1966. During the interview, he showed me his logbook, and did something I (pesonally speaking) would never have done. He let me take the log book, so when I returned to L.A., I could get it photographed. Then we lost touch, and it was partly my fault. Years later, he wanted it back, and I know he was very pleased when he called me up, and I returned it to him, via Express Mail or Fed Ex, within a few days. It had always remained right near my desk, on a special shelf on my bookshelf, and I always wanted to write a chapter called "The Flight of Nighthawk One." At the time I did this interview, I had part of--but not the whole story--of the transportation of the body, from Dallas to the Bethesda morgue. This particular chopper pilot--who met AF-1 on the starboard side (and you can actually see his flashing flights on cameras of the Andrews arrival--did not retrieve the body. He was sent there to get Bobby and Jackie off the starboard side, and fly them either to the White House or to Bethesda (I think). But the real point of the story was that Jackie refused to exit the plane on the starboard side (the "dark" side); she would not leave the coffin (which was offloaded, as is well documented) on the port side. The consequence of Jackie refusing to leave the plane on the starboard side--of refusing to leave the Dallas coffin--was a major contributing factor to the situation where she (Jackie) and the Dallas coffin ended up in a Navy ambulance, instead of she (Jackie, with Bobby) leaving AF-1 from the starboard side, and so the Dallas coffin (being offloaded on the port side) was not flown to Walter Reed in the twin-rotor MDW chopper; which, apparently, was the plan, and what the "Walter Reed" radio transmissions were all about. (See Chapter 31 of B.E.; but also, what I have said about this subject in a previous writing on this thread). I have already written about this previously on this thread, and--as I recall (but I may have the year wrong)--I showed a brief snippet of my filmed interview with the helicopter pilot at JFK (Lancer) Conference in either 1996 or 1998. (I believe that Doug Horne writes about this in one of his 5 volumes). As to the rest of the story--my understanding as to exactly where the body was on AF-1 and how it was offloaded and transported etc--all of that will be set forth in Final Charade. Stay tuned. And again, thanks for your support and here's my advice: ignore those who talk loudly and vociferously, but don't know what they're talking about, and really don't have much to say. DSL 3/6/18 - 2:15 PM PST; edited, 12 noon PST Orange County, California
  14. DSL NOTE, 3/6/18 - 11:20 PM PST. The writing below has just been reviewed, and slighly re-edited. DVP: Your post marks the first time I have ever been aware of what Groden said on the subject of the throat wound (and the issue of the tracheotomy) in his 1993 book (The Killing of a President) which I always viewed, more or less, as a “picture book” and never really paid much attention to the rather skimpy. But now I realize that that assessment was incorrect, at least insofar as this particular issue (the tracheotomy) is concerned. In any event, the question you have posted is interesting and truly important, and deserves a thoughtful response. Unfortunately, I am deluged (at the moment) with other (“non-JFK”) matters; but I am giving it careful thought and discussing it with other people as well (Pat V., and another, presently). Whatever I say on the subject will end up being somewhat speculative because it necessarily deals with the psychology and general behavior of Groden, who I knew very well, and for a period of some 20 (or more years) starting around 1971. All of this is discussed in great detail in my 100-plus page essay “Pig on a Leash” (addressing issues of authenticity in the area of the Zapruder film, which I do not wish to deal with in this post), and which appears in the Fetzer anthology “Hoax” (2003). The relevance of that essay is not the Z film, but the detailed discussion of my 20-year history with Groden (1971-1991, approx.) and what I learned from that experience about him personally. April 1990 - Fed Ex Receipt - - Documenting shipment of autopsy photos to Groden (for free) In the course of a quick file review, I came across the April 1990 Federal Express Receipt for the JFK autopsy photos which I sent to Groden at that time. That’s how he obtained the autopsy photos—from me. I gave them to him, gratis, because I never wanted to be accused of selling those materials to anyone for profit. Groden then promptly turned around and sold the photos to a tabloid (the National Enquirer, as I recall) for $50,000. The contract for that transaction was unearthed by a JFK researcher, provided to me, and I provided it the lawyers involved in the OJ Trial. This led to a national broadcast in which TV journalist Nancy Grace was exclaiming, in outrage, “Robert Groden? Groden sold the autopsy photos to the National Enquirer!” etc. I bring this up because that was just one example of the Groden story. In the period 1976-1979 (approx.), the HSCA employed Groden as a consultant, giving him access to an array of precious (and priceless) original materials. Today, both the original Nix film and the original Muchmore film are simply gone. 1996: My Heavy Liaison with ARRB re Z film, Groden, and his "arrangement" with Weitzman When the ARRB commenced its investigation (1994-1998), I was in very heavy contact with the two top lawyers, Marwell, and Jeremy Gunn since one of their jobs was to pursue the matter of the Zapruder film, in the area of authenticity. Through telephone and written communication, I made very clear my views that Robert Groden showed all the signs of kleptomania. Of particular importance is a 12 page 1996 letter (with numerous attachments) that I sent to Gunn, and which, no doubt, was useful in connection with the subpoena to Groden. During that sworn deposition, Groden denied, under oath, ever possessing various items that the signed contract that I provided (as an attachment) showed that he had sold (copies of) to me in June 1989, for the sum of $5,000! Robert Groden (and the issue of his credibility) All of this bears on the credibility of Groden, and his relationship with me. When I visited him at his home in late 1982, and he realized (because I showed him) that I had crystal clear black and white copies of the autopsy photographs, he was astounded, and green with envy. When (in 1978/79) he set out to write his “minority” report on the authenticity of the photos to the HSCA, I told him that I did not believe the pictures were photo composites, but that any fakery had been achieved by “reconstruction” –late at night, and at the time of autopsy. Groden believed otherwise, and showed me a draft of his report. It was poorly written, and I told him so. I said that although I didn’t agree with his view, it should be rewritten if it were to have any credibility. So I rewrote the part of his report dealing with the fakery of the autopsy photos, and which can be found (as I recall) in Volume 6 of the HSCA volumes. (I wrote the part of that report dealing with the back of the head). Throughout that period, and when I would visit Groden at his home (then in Hopelawn, New Jersey) I concealed from him the entire content of my book, Best Evidence, which was contracted for in December 1978, and published in January 1981. I did so because he behaved like a juvenile “collector,” and I sensed that he couldn’t be trusted. I remember that one of his reactions, after publication, came down to this: “Why didn’t you tell me [about this]?” etc. Anyway, I provide this as background. When the B.E. Research Video was released (via Rhino, and then Warner) in 1989 as a VHS cassette, and I gave Groden a copy, he said something like “What are you trying to do. . .torture me?” GRODEN AND “B.E. Envy” It was during that period that he became affiliated with Harrison Livingstone, another character, who told the NY Times that he was trying to sell the autopsy photographs for a million dollars, and who actually filed a lawsuit against me in Federal Court, accusing me of being a part of a plot to kill him, and suing me for $50 million dollars. (Yes, I’m not joking. And that cost me about $250 to get it dismissed). GRODEN AND OLIVER STONE (and “JFK,” released in December 1991) Then we come to Groden’s being hired by Oliver Stone as his principal consultant in the photo area. Groden told Stone that I had his screenplay (which I certainly did not) and that I had provided it to George Lardner, of The Washington Post, who then wrote a widely read and very damaging article about Stone and his film, months before the film was ever released (December 1991) . I know exactly what Groden was saying about me to Oliver Stone, on the movie set, because it was witnessed by John Newman (who was present, and who was a very good friend of mine), and who would telephone me at night and tell me what he was witnessing as Groden merrily went about assassinating my character, with Stone apparently believing him (!). (In fact, it was Groden who carelessly gave the screenplay to Harold Weisberg, who hated Stone, and who provided it to George Lardner at The Washington Post). Very late in the game, I think I managed to (finally) convince Stone that I had nothing to do with the Post getting his screenplay, writing him a long-ish letter explaining the situation with Groden, and which ended, “Oliver, I’m just a patsy.” Stone eventually paid me some money, and my name appears in the film credits to JFK, but basically the damage was done (and what could have been an entirely different relationship never happened). I am providing this information not to debate any technical details about the Zapruder film, but to shed light on the matter of Robert Groden’s general behavior and credibility. RETURNING NOW TO JUNE 1989 (and my detailed interview of Groden, on camera) Do I believe what Robert Groden told me (and Pat Valentino)—on camera—in a lengthy and very detailed interview in June 1989, about what happened when he visited Dr. Perry in New York in 1977, and showed him (an HSCA copy) of the face-up (stare-of-death) autopsy photo? Absolutely. And remember (and as I believe I’ve already written on this thread): I spoke with the Baltimore reporter who accompanied Groden, and he confirmed Groden’s account. He remembered Perry shaking his head from side to side and saying that wasn’t the way he left it. Did Groden play for us the Barker/Perry interview, and did both Pat and I hear “inviolate”? Yes, without question. Was there a problem with the lip-sync etc., and did we all (Groden included) go to a audio house in Trenton (or Philadelphia) and give it further study ? Yes, just as I described previously on this thread. Did Groden have good technical equipment on which to play the cassette? Absolutely. (Groden will eat dog food for a week, if necessary, but he will always find the money to buy the best electronics.) And did we interview Groden, extensively, and in detail, about his New York City visit with Dr. Perry? Yes, absolutely. On camera, for at least 30 minutes, on camera, on this subject alone. And did Groden say what Perry said, and is it what I’ve reported? Yes. So now, back to your question, DVP. What happened between 1989 and 1993? What happened such that—in writing the text for his 1993 book (probably written in early 1993) –Groden ignored what he told us (on camera, in 1989) and set forth (instead) the “conventional” version of Dr. Perry and the tracheotomy? What happened was the relationship with the late Harrison Livingstone and the publication of High Treason. HIGH TREASON (Orig pub date: March 1989) Groden could not accept the fact that the throat wound was altered—on JFK’s body—without endorsing one of the major tenets of Best Evidence (see Chapter 11 of B.E., on the changed length and character of the trach incision, Dallas vs. Bethesda). Again, please note: Groden’s entire adult life was devoted to the thesis that the photographs (of the body) were altered—the photographs, but not the body itself. (At least this is the case with regard to JFK’s head wounds). On Amazon, his book got plenty of good reviews (because of the major conspiracy stance), but here’s what a negative reviewer said: The authors are the "Odd Couple" of JFK assassination researchers. Neither are good writers and neither seems to understand that the value of their writing is directly proportional to the value of their sources and the authenticity and authoritativeness of their documentation. Almost all of the claims and conclusions in this book are insufficiently sourced and cannot be accepted until corroborated by other, sufficiently referenced works. Once you realize this, you conclude that your time is better spent with the top-quality books like David Lifton's "Best Evidence". . . So now let’s go to 1993. . . Groden is writing some text for his “Killing of a President” book, and has had this big “Ooops!” moment: He cannot say that the throat wound was altered, without undermining his own thesis that it was “the pictures” that were altered, and not the body (!). (Livingstone has a similar problem, and he was much more of a researcher than Groden, but they were both tied, like siameese twins, to this hypothesis that it was "the pictures," and not "the body" that was altered. As I learned, decades later, from examining correspondence in the Weisberg files at the Hood College library, Livingstone personally interviewed the witnesses I did, confirmed what they said, admits in private correspondence to certain third parties that I am correct ("Lifton is correct, that. . .etc.), but continues to attack me in public, in the most vicious terms!) GRODEN AND THE ARRB (1995 - 1998) If you now move forward to the period 1995- 1998, you enter the period of the ARRB, and the fact that, because of my correspondence with Gunn and Marwell (the two top persons on the staff at the ARRB), and my relationship with Horne (who was the senior person in the area of militar records, but also headed up the depositions of the medical witnesses), the jig is up. The “magic” of how Groden does what he does is revealed, and its not all that complicated. You just have to understand what an optical printer is, and how it works. (I did all of that, renting time on one, in New York City, for about 4 or 5 days, and then I actually met with Groden’s guru, Moe Weitzman, and who was a wizard in this area; a meeting which infuriated Groden; because Weitzman now learned that Groden was getting tens of thousands of dollars for work done with film negatives obtained from Weitzman, and on Weitzman’s equipment, no less!) For awhile, Groden was in Weitzman's dog house, and the two hardly spoke. (But somehow, Groden managed to "get back" into Weitzman's favor). On hearings that were nationally televised (on C-Span), Tunheim personally acknowledged my contribution in writing memos to the ARRB explaining how an optical printer worked, how film duplication was done, and then Groden was seriously questioned under oath as to how the got this or that film, what happened to this or that one, what negative was used, where did he get it from? etc etc. (Doug Horne said that I was so active, what with my book, and sending in tapes of my 1966 telephone interviews, and video copies of my 1989/90 interviews, that Doug Horne, who I had lengthy phone conversations with several times a week, jokingly called me "the 'sixth man' on the ARRB). Now here's another important point to understand:. . . Groden ended up with this great picture book, with all these wonderful high quality photos , not because he was a great collector (the way someone is said to be an “art collector.”) Not at all. Groden’s “collection” is entirely different, and the outgrowth of an entirely different kind of activity. All of it was a consequence of his employment by the HSCA, and his relationship with Moe Weitzman of EFX (the NYC optical house (i.e., lab )where he could reproduce motion picture film. Furthermore, EFX is where Groden originally obtained his "superior" prints of the Z film (when he was an employee there, which is how his original odyssey began) because of a contract that Moe Weitzman had with LIFE, back in 1967. (This is all spelled out in Pig on a Leash). Anyway, Groden could make excellent duplicates of anything he possessed (and from anything Weitzman had retained, from the days of his original LIFE contract). With regard to the former, Groden had access to numerous originals; because Robert Blakey (unwisely) trusted him, and granted him such access. Today, the original Nix and Muchmore are missing, and Gale Nix Jackson is involved in a never ending search for her grandfather’s original film. GRODEN TODAY. . . (and for many years since the movie JFK, released in December 1991) . . . So Robert Groden now makes his “home” on the Grassy Knoll, selling his wares, and using a car battery to run a Visa and Mastercard machine. And if someone asks him about DSL and B.E., he often parrots Livingstone’s line, and says that I am a fraud. I know because I periodically check, when friends of mine visit Dallas (and, of course, the Dealey Plaza area, where Groden can often be found, encamped with his wares). He has been arrested over 50 times, and has a lawyer who has broken some new legal ground, at least in Dallas, in this area (on whether Groden has the right to sell his goods where he sets up his table); or so I am told. The anti-DSL and anti- "Best Evidence" Clique (and DiEugenio and his use of ghost-writers0 Finally (of course), Groden is now a card-carrying member of the “Hate DSL” and “Hate Best Evidence” club, featuring Dr. Cyril Wecht and his pal, Gary Aguilar (and I could name others), with supporting roles played by someone like DiEugenio, whose claim to fame was his uncritical belief that Garrison was the be-all and end all (when he charged Clay Shaw with conspiracy, and put him on trial in 1969, which lasted less than an hour when he was acquitted); and who still believes that JFK and his brother didn't know about the CIA's assassination plots, and---apparently, and perhaps most importantly--DiEugenio doesn't have the intellectual capacity to understand that autopsy falsification (via body alteration) could be conceived of (and planned) before the fact. From his website, DiEugenio often chimes in, using his site to launch similar snide (and sometimes nasty) commentary about me and my work (often from one of his “writers”; and often signed "by Jim DiEugenio [i.e., as if written by DiEugenio. when it was not)]. He does this quite a bit, so he appears to have detailed knowledge on a wide range of subjects. He doesn't. He promotes this false illusion about himself. DiEug --who prides himself in saying that he has me on "ignore" (an accomplishment in which a small mind can take some pride)--is reasonably good when it comes to issues like Vietnam (but even there his ghost-writing operation takes over). DiEugenio doesn’t understand the medical evidence and won’t discuss it, usually referring people to Aguilar (who probably listens carefully, when he is on his meds). My last conversation Aguilar (who is tightly wound, and has a barely controlled temper, and often flies off the handle), occurred in March 2000 (yes, that long ago) . It ended with Aguilar having the telephone equivalent of "road rage" and in a screaming cursing tirade, like an out-of-control child, with his multiple uses of the “F” word, directed at me personally and screaming that no, he didn't believe the body was altered; saying that I wasn't even a good Jew, and if I appeared at "his" hospital, where a JFK gathering was scheduled to take place, he would have me arrested and thrown out by security, if I dared to open my mouth. Nice guy, whose temperament has perhaps improved, over time. An interesting question, for those who enjoy the theoretical, is whom would you rather have to dinner: DVP, Aguilar, or DiEugenio? (I'll take DVP, anytime. At least I know I'll be able to finish dinner, using my knife and fork to eat with, and not to defend myself; and maybe I'll get the chicken for free!*). *DSL Joke Alert: DVP owns a KFC franchise (or perhaps more than one) in the Indiana city where he lives. Have I now explained the situation, DVP? I never really expected to write all this out, in this detail. But perhaps its necessary to explain what is going on here. To properly appreciate one of the major splits in the JFK research movement: was it the body that was altered, or was it "just the photos"; and who is really the fraud in this whole area, and who has conducted an honest investigation? And, finally, to properly depict Robert Groden –in context. And to do attempt to do so in a reasonably fairly and accurate manner, and without—as the saying goes—throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And there is a lot of bathwater. DSL 3/6/2018 - 1:05 PM PST; reviewed, re-edited 3/6/18, 11:20 PM PST Orange County, California
  15. Andrew Danjek: Thanks for your detailed laying out what you see as 3 possibilities. There’s one point I wish to make, but the reason I’m delaying a further response (at this point in time) is that I want to retrieve the original story in the Nashville Banner that was published (to the best of my recollection, and it could be incorrect) in November 1967. That’s the first time that Dr. Dave Stewart ever made a public statement, and it has a power all its own, simply because it was published at such an “early” date. As I recall, Stewart said that Perry told him he didn’t have to make an incision, and that was the chief reason (again, based on my current recollection) that the story was newsworthy (and was published). FURTHER COMMENT ON YOUR THREE POSSIBILITIES. . . As to your three possibilities, I believe you should understand something else: there is no doctor or nurse (or anyone) at Parkland Hospital who has ever (or who would ever) support the idea that Dr. Perry (or anyone else) made any stitches whatsoever on the President’s body. That just didn’t happen. Had it occurred (in connection with JFK’s “treatment” at Parkland), it would have been witnessed and/or “known about” by numerous people in the room, would have been mentioned in official reports (and/or testimony) and in media accounts. That’s just the way “history works” (my quotes) and how it worked in this case. Had there been any suturing in Parkland, accounts about that would have appeared in the New York Times and in all major media. But there’s no “trace evidence” of any such event—i.e., no trace evidence of any suturing at Parkland. So, with all due respect for the effort you have put into your post, I believe you can (and should) set that aside and “edit it out” of your possibilities. THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF SUTURING (presently published). . . The only evidence of sutures—at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan. 1981)—is laid out in Chapter 23 (“Allegations of Dr. John Ebersole”) and it is quite thoroughly set forth and discussed there. Not only did I draw on official documents (the HSCA testimony of Dr. Ebersole, which Blakey conveniently “locked up” for 50 years, and was only released earlier as a consequence of Stone’s movie, and the subsequent 1992 JFK Records Act) but I had a wonderful audio tape to work with from a local high school teacher (Art Smith) who Ebersole trusted, and to whom he granted a detailed interview. In addition, I had (actually, a document of an audio) the transcript from local reporter Gil Dulaney, of the Lancaster (PA) Intelligencer-Journal who interviewed Ebersole on the subject prior to his trip to trip to Washington to be interviewed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). CERTAIN “NEW EVIDENCE” OF SUTURING.. . . About four years ago, and through something of a fluke, I discovered certain “new evidence” regarding suturing. And that forms the basis for the statements on the subject that I have made on this thread (and which will appear, in full form, in Final Charade). Specifically: first, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, the area of the throat wound was so torn up and damaged that the esophagus (as well as the trachea) were visible through the “hole” in that area (consult your anatomy text to understand how serious the damage had to be for the esophagus to be visible); and second, what would qualify as “new evidence” on the subject, some credible data that I have that the suturing was done in the Bethesda morgue and just prior to 7:17 p.m. when the two FBI agents arrived (See Chapter 28 of B.E. for timelines, if you wish to know more detail). I have already written about this in one (or more? I don’t remember) previous posts on this thread, but this latter event (the discovery of certain new data) has led to a substantial revision in my understanding of “what Humes knew and when he knew it”; or, more accurately stated, what Humes and Boswell knew, and when “they” knew it. I cannot say more at this juncture. Pat Valentino is currently engaged in a careful review of our records (the June 1989 filmed interview) of Dr. Stewart, as well as the lengthy filmed interview of Groden; and I am trying to obtain a copy of the original November 1967 (I think is the date) publication of the Nashville Banner news story, in which Stewart says that Perry told him he didn’t have to make an incision. Please note: I’m not saying that because this account was published in November 1967 it necessary represents “the truth” about this event; just that it is an important historical document, and is what the lawyers call “probative.” Stay tuned. DSL 3/6/2018 - 1 PM PST Orange County, California