Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Lifton

Members
  • Content count

    848
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Lifton

  1. REVISED AND EDITED - 4/17/2018 - 6:35 AM PDT Micah: The basis for all medical statements made in the report of the two FBI agents who attended the autopsy is a serious issue, which came up from the very first day day that I brought the Sibert and O'Neill report statement about "surgery of the head area" to Libeler's attention on October 24th, 1966; an issue which he then stressed as a major point that ought to be addressed in his memo to Chief Justice Warren (and the others ) in his 13 page memo dated 8 November 1966, and which was transmitted on to all recipients on 16 Nov 1966. That "medical" statement has nothing too do with the FBI agents observations of a "scalp flap from a craniotomy" --even though I would agree (and wrote in chapter 18 of Best Evidence [titled "The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy"] that the scalp was indeed "flapped," as I quoted Dr Boswell as having stated exactly that in his appearance before the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) of the HSCA. But again: that (i.e., that "data," or that "visual appearance") is not (i.e., "was not" ) the basis for the FBI statement--at least not according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and the FBI hierarchy. After I made a fuss about that "surgery" statement (when I called FBI Agent Sibert on November 2nd or 3rd, which led to Sibert sending an FBI "telex" to Headquarters; and after I laid out the issue in writing (in my letter to Director Hoover on November 9), and after Professor Liebeler flagged the statement in his Memorandum dated Nov. 8th (which was widely distributed on November 16th, as I have noted)--all of this happening in November 1966--Director Hoover then issued a statement to the press, which was published in the New York Times on 25 November 1966. This FBI statement laid out the guidelines for how to properly interpret "medical statements" in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report. These statements, explained FBI Director Hoover, were based on (or "recorded") "oral statements made by the autopsy doctor(s) at the time of autopsy." And they were based on notes made by the FBI agents at the time. Bottom line: they are evidence of words spoken, i.e., of an oral utterance. Think of them as the "FBI soundtrack" of what happened during the autopsy. I addressed all of this in Chapter 12 of Best Evidence, and that is why I titled that chapter "An Oral Utterance." Therefore, it is completely unwarranted for you to ascribe to the FBI agents that they made visual observations about a scalp "flap". They recorded what the doctors said, and the doctors were focused (according to a detailed conversation I had with Sibert in 1990) on the enormous size of the hole in JFK's skull. (and yes: the doctors may well have been focused on the existence of any flaps; and if they were, then that may have influenced what they said). But. . . : it is what Dr. Humes said--not what he saw--that was recorded in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report. And that is the key to understanding what the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report is all about. As I said, it is akin to an "FBI soundtrack" of the event--at least, that is (or "was") the stated position of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. And that is why he (Hoover) was able to say to the press, on November 25, 1966, that there was no fundamental inconsistency between the FBI report of the autopsy, and the Naval autopsy report published by the Warren Commission. Said Hoover: "FBI reports record the oral statements of the examining doctors at the time of autopsy; the autopsy report records the final conclusions of the pathologists." (Approx., from memory). For more on the centrality of the sheer "hole size," just view the Best Evidence Research Video, and the part where Paul O'Connor describes the reaction of those in the room when he pulled the sheet down exposing the head. O'Connor said --and this was filmed in October 1980): "There was a gasp in the room, and I looked down and said "My God, there's no brain." As FBI agent O'Neill told Wayne C., the businessman who was a personal acquaintance of O'Neill (and who I got to know quite well, circa 1992), "Wayne, there was no brain." Of course, common sense suggests that when O'Neill made that statement (years later), he didn't have to be "told" by a pathologist that there was no brain; he could simply look, and see that for himself. On this score: remember what Paul O'Connor told the HSCA when interviewed in August 1977 (and repeated to me when I first spoke with him two years later, in August 1979, and then on camera in October 1989: "the cranium was empty.") As O'Connor said to me on camera (in October 1980), when I stated --in the spirit of a mild cross examination--that the Warren Report contained an official document (as part of the Bethesda autopsy protocol) that purported to be the examination of a brain, he looked directly at the camera, and said, very calmly and with great sincerity, "Well I don't know where they got it from; because it certainly wasn't the President's." O'Neill lied when he appeared before the ARRB in 1997, and attempted to rewrite history on this point (claiming one third of the brain was still there. Not true.) By that time, O"Neill was voluble, in conversation(s) with third parties, expressing his intense dislike (if not outright hatred) of me and my book. Too bad, but he couldn't deal with the fact that, if my analysis was correct, the FBI "blew it," and were played for fools, when it came to the goings on at Bethesda on the night of President Kennedy's assassination. IMHO: your focus should not be on "fragment delivery" but on "words spoken" because therein lies the critical evidence, historically speaking, as to "who knew what" (and "when") and that is what is at the heart of the case for "obstruction of justice" that could have been pursued had there been a Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate the JFK assassination, in the aftermath of the January 1981 publication of Best Evidence, DSL - 4/16/2018 - 6:40 PM PDT Orange County, California
  2. Micah: No, I do not believe they intentionally lied. Rather, I believe that Humes "faked" the end of the autopsy, essentially communicating "Its over, so you can go home now"; and then, after they left, other activities began (and by "other activities" I'm referring to reconstruction done in accordance with the approval of 'higher authority'). Its because of these new insights that my opinion of Humes has changed. One really must hear the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, in early November 1966, and most importantly, the second one, with the confrontational moment which occurred (as described in Chapter 8 of B.E.). . .At some point, I must set up a website, and put that conversation (or at least, that part of it) on the net, so anyone can hear it and make their own judgement. The fact is that that was the first time Humes ever learned that the two FBI agents who were present had written a report that stated that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." His first reaction (of several) was: "I'm not responsible for their reports". Then, as I pressed harder, and aggressively asked him if he thought any such thing had occurred, any kind of messing with the body which involved "removing bullets" etc., and I asked, pointedly, "You would have told the Warren Commission about that"? He responded: "I would certainly hope I would!" And then, as I started to reply, and with considerable emotion (and volume) in his voice, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done!" (pause); and "when" (pause); "and where!" Of course, people can listen to this conversation and interpret it differently; but it was very clear to me that I had scored a bulls-eye in my questioning; and he really sounded rattled; because I was phoning him in the context of a student doing a paper at UCLA for a law professor who had been on the Warren Commission; and that it was anticipated that there might be a new investigation; and, if so, what was he going to say? To which he replied (as I recall): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I performed the autopsy (or "I wrote the report") , I gave sworn testimony, (pause) and that is the end of it!" Dr. Humes remained close with Dr. Boswell throughout the rest of their lives; and when Prof. Liebeler flew to Washington, later in November, and attempted to see Boswell, he refused to see him. Another piece of data: When Josiah Thompson met with Boswell--again, this was in later November 1966--and took the S and O report out of his briefcase to "show" him, Thompson said that Boswell "turned white as a sheet" (approx., from recollection). Of course, Thompson--who was unaware of the surgery statement--was simply wanting to show the report to Boswell, in the context that it provided powerful evidence against the Single Bullet Theory. During that same trip, Liebeler tried to see Allen Dulles, and there was communication with Dulles' office, but there were scheduling problems, and the meeting couldn't be arranged. Some of the more "traditional" JFK researchers have tried to dismiss all of this, but I don't think that will ever wash. I was personally a witness to the fact that Liebeler called Arlen Specter, Joe Ball, and Burt Griffen (on 10/24/1966- see Chapter 9 of B.E.); and its also a fact that he was in touch with Ed Guthman, who had been close with RFK and was then a senior editor at the Los Angeles Times. So if RFK didn't know about any of this beforehand (and I don't think he did), he certainly knew about it by the end of November 1966. Moreover, there is the 13 page memo--dated 11/8/1966--that he sent out on 11/16/1966, that (essentially) called for a reopening of the medical part of the WC investigation, with additional sworn testimony to be taken, as necessary. The 13 page memo listed a plethora of problems with the autopsy, and concluded with a full page spent on the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of skull." As I noted in Chapter 9 of Best Evidence ("A Confrontation with Liebeler") which records in detail what happened on October 24 1966, when I first showed him that passage (which was a discovery that I made the day before), he was astonished; and when he wrote the memo, I met with him and one of his law students, the late Stephen Myers (who co-founded Jacoby and Myers), for a "prep session."In the memo, Liebeler gave me full credit for making the discovery mentioning me twice by name. I don't believe there's any other researcher who had a comparable experience--i.e., finding something of that significance in the published records of the Commission, and being taken so seriously by a former WC attorney that he wrote a memo about it to Chief Justice Warren, the other Commissioners, the entire legal staff, plus RFK and the White House. In the years following, I came upon other data which has left no doubt in my mind that by the time Air Force One landed at Andrews, RFK (and very likely Kenneth O'Donnell) knew perfectly well that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin (and that "the situation" had been conveyed to RFK, via radio communication with someone else); but (and this is important) that Jacqueline Kennedy had no idea that this was so, and (frankly) would have freaked out if she had ever thought that that was the case. Of course, the fact that JFK's body was not in the Dallas coffin is not proof that it was altered; the two issues are quite separate. Stay tuned. DSL 4/16/2018 - 10:50 AM PDT Orange County, California
  3. As I recall, the vehicle was identified as the ambulance from which Jackie (and RFK) exited. Very likely, it was referred to as "the ambulance" or "the naval ambulance." I do not know whether it was identified by color. Of course. at Andrews, the network radio announcer said, "And a gray navy ambulance is backing up towards the side of AF-1" or some such thing. You can check the Best Evidence Reearch Video for the soundtrack of that. DSL
  4. The vehicle (containing Jacueline Kennedy, RFK, Dr. Burkley, etc.) that arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital was a naval ambulance, and it was driven by SS Agent William Greer. This is obvious from motion picture footage covering the Andrews arrival. You can see Jacqueline Kennedy getting into the ambulance at Andrews Air Force Base. As recorded by live TV coverage, the naval ambulance left Andrews at 6:10 PM PST. The naval ambulance, under motorcycle escort, and followed by limousines carrying (for example) FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, made an uninterrupted journey from Andrews AFB to Bethesda. I repeat: it was an uninterrupted journey. No stops. In 1967, I interviewed SS Agent Greer by phone, and he agreed to send me a map of the route he took. It matched perfectly what Manchester reported, based on his interview with Greer. The notion that that the vehicle that pulled up at the front entrance of Bethesda was "without a doubt a black Cadillac" is completely incorrect; and a complete contradiction of the known historical record. Its a seriously incorrect recollection; or, alternatively stated, an assertion that is not based on any credible data. A novelist can get away with an assertion like that, but not anyone practicing the craft of journalism or history. DSL 4/15/2018 - 3:05 PM PDT Orange County, California
  5. Karl Kinaski and Ron: 1. The Naval ambulance with Jackie, RFK, and the Dallas coffin (which was empty, per Dennis David--see Ch. 25 of B.E.) arrived at the front of Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:53/6:55 pm. Jackie and RFK exited, and entered Bethesda via the front entrance. These facts, and the sources, are laid out in Chapter 16 of B.E. ("Chain of Possession The Missking Link") 2A. The naval ambulance remained parked there for some 12 minutes, not 5 (or any other number). The time lapse was 12 minutes, and that is specified by a reporter for the Washington Star, William Griggs, who was on the scene that evening. What he witnessed, was reported in the next day's Washington newspaper. (All of this is spelled out in the chapter of B.E. devoted to the arrival of the naval ambulance at Bethesda, and the goings-on at the front of the hospital). As reported in Chapter 16, where the Griggs account is quoted: QUOTE ON: On page three of the November 23, 1963 Washington Star, I found a story headlined: MRS KENNEDY SPENDS NIGHT AT HOSPITAL, by William Griggs. There was useful information about the ambulance: ". . . hundreds of persons formed a partial circle around the ambulance when it stopped. . . . For at least 12 minutes after Mrs. Kennedy entered the hospital, the ambulance remained in the driveway. Many spectators would see the simple casket within. Military officials, leaning on the open front door of the vehicle, apparently were not sure where the body should be taken. When word finally came, the crowds were pushed back and the ambulance took the President's body to a entrance at the far rear of the hospital." CONTINUING THE QUOTE. . : According to Griggs, the pause in front of the hospital was twelve minutes. Griggs also reported that the time of arrival of the ambulance at Bethesda was 6:53 P.M., two minutes earlier than the hour in Secret Service Agent Hill's report Thus Grigg's account implied the ambulance moved off at 7:05 or 7:07, depending on whether Grigg's 6:53 or the Secret Service's 6:55 was used as the time of arrival." UNQUOTE 2B:. Then came another important quote, this one from the Washington Post. "On page 11 of the Washington Post for November 23, 1963, I found another story: OFFICIALS TO VIEW BODY TODAY AT WHITE HOUSE. Several paragraphs dealt in detail with Bethesda, indicating the reporter must have been there. "More than 3000 persons were crowded onto the Hospital grounds in Berthesda and they surged around the ambulance when it arrived about 7 P.M. . . . The Attorney General escorted the President's widow through the front door and the ambulance containing the coffin sat unattended for several minutes. A Navy cordon finally pushed the crowd back about 15 feet from the vehicle. Then, in the final paragraph, came this detail: "Adm. Calvin B. Galloway, commandant of the medical center, pushed into the front seat and drove to the rear of the Hospital, where the body was taken inside." CLOSE QUOTE 3. My interviews with the casket team--and specifically, Sgt. James Felder, and Hubert Clark--were conducted in December 1967 --that's over 50 years ago. They were all carefully taped and transcribed, and laid out in detail in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence. Further, it is all corroborated by the mid-December 1963 memo written by Coastguard person Barnum. 4. I think it is completely improper to take the account of any witness, written a half century later, and rely on that instead of the interviews and that I conducted in 1967. 5. There was no TV coverage of the arrival of the naval ambulance at Bethesda. I looked into this very carefully at the time I was conducting my own telephone interviews (1967) and then again a decade or so later when I was writing Chapter 16 of Best Evidence ("Chain of Possession: The Missing Link") 6. IMHO: Gary Mack was correct when he said there was no film coverage. 7. Also please note: Had there been film coverage, that's exactly the sort of evidence that Manchester would have relied on, screened, and reported in his book. (Ron: I appreciate what you believe you saw, but the NBC logs, and other media --the AP "A" wire and the UPI "A" wire--constitute credible evidence that your recollection is incorrect. To those following this discussion: the data I have quoted above is data was published on November 23, 1963 (Washington Star) and November 24th 1963 Washington Post). As I believe any historian or attorney would agree, the "earliest recorded recollection" is the best (or "better") evidence. These accounts, which I unearthed through laborious library research back in 1967, and featured in Chapter 16 of B.E. (published in Jan 1981) far exceed in credibility and significance the account of anyone who --today--is basing their account (i.e., today in 2018), one something they believe they "remembered" from over 50 years ago. In general, what is important is not just "who was there" and "what was witnessed" but when the "read-out from memory" occurred; i.e., when that person made a written record of what they witnessed; or, in the case of the members of the casket team, when they were first interviewed. As far as I know--and with one important exception (the missing taped account of team leader Lt. Bird)--I am the only person who interviewed these people. So in a way, I was history's first responder; and its for that reason that I am "speaking up" here on this forum, to sound a warning about the recollections offered by whose who, over half a century later, come up with accounts based on what they claim to have "remembered", when in fact they made no record at the time. In real estate transactions, it is well known that nothing "said" is what is important; all that counts is what is "in writing." A similar situation exists in history. Barring some very unusual circumstances, we don't credit what someone "says they remembered" happened at Ford's Theater in 1915. We do care about what they wrote down, or told a reporter, in April 1865, or in some reasonable time thereafter. DSL - 4/15/2017 - 2:45 PDT Orange County, California
  6. Hello Paz: If you wish to email me, please use DSL74@Cornell.edu Please put JFK (or "from Paz" in the subject line. Thank you. DSL
  7. Hello Ron Ecker: Photography at Love Field in the 2-1/2 hours following JFK's assassination is an important area of JFK Research. That means collecting information about the following: a) All photographs that were taken at Love Field--who the photographer is, where the pictures are available (on the Internet) etc. b ) All info re attempts to suppress photography (I'm aware of at least two) c ) Careful analysis of any photographs taken showing the starboard side of AF-1, during the time period that eyewitnesses report the activities of a forklift truck) Like any area of the JFK case, this one can be a serious "rabbit hole." I thank all those who have sent me information or pointed me to photography I had not known about. Thanks so much. DSL Monday, 4/9/2018 - 1:30 PM PDT Traveling aboard the AMTRAK Coast Starlight heading south from San Francisco, back to the Southern California area. (Not supposed to have Internet on the Coast Starlight, but it turns out there's a secret password someone tipped me off to, so I can watch these lovely vistas presented by this southbound train, and be keeping track of the London Forum at the same time. Small world.)
  8. Thanks to everybody for taking part in this discussion. No time just now to contribute. I'm on the AMTRAK Surfliner which must be hitting speeds of 60 MPH (at least) as I race north across Orange County towards Los Angeles, and then board another train to San Francisco. This train rocks back and forth, and I'm truly amazed that I can open up my laptop and get email! DSL Heading north. . from San Juan Capistrano to L.A.
  9. Hello Robert Harper: The Boeing 707 has four doors--two "full doors" on the port side--one at the front, which goes up to the cockpit, and the other at the rear, which goes up to the tail compartment. The other two doors are "half doors" and are on the starboard side--one at the rear galley, and another in the forward area of the plane, just to the rear of the cockpit. Usually, stairs with a ramp are used to access the two doors on the port side. As to the half doors on the starboard side, the normal procedure is for one of those trucks, which bring the food aboard, to pull up against the starboard side of the airplane, and that is how material is brought aboard from the starboard side. What happened in Dallas--according to the pilot of Air Force Two--is that a forklift truck (fully extended) was used on the starboard side, at the rear half-door. Sorry to hear of your confusion, but I do understand. In pursuing this matter, I had to get full four-color drawings from Boeing (showing the exact dimensions of the aircraft, and the exact location of its four doors), and all of this became a major research project. Very likely, you can find these materials somewhere on the Internet. DSL
  10. Hi David Josephs: I disagree with your terminology. A forklift is what was described, in detail, by the pilot of Air Force Two, to me. Thats what he observed on the starboard side of the aircraft. A "forklift" is not what was used at Andrews (on the port side, and at the rear port-side door). What was used at Andrews was properly described, in media reports, as an "enclosed" mechanical "lift." I don't know what the exact name would be (in US Army terminology) but it was certainly not the classic "forklift" which you can see in use if you go to any warehouse (e.g., to a COSTCO). What you see being used at COSTCO to move merchandise around the area is a forklift truck. That's not what was used at Andrews. And, of course, no one at Costco is using a forklift to retrieve bodies from an upper shelf of a Costco warehouse. Mostly stored on those shelves are paper goods and cleansers. Not bodies. Of course, if I'm wrong, and if anyone should see any such activity at a COSTCO, please do photograph it using an iphone and send me the picture so I can publish it in Final Charade with an appropriate caption (joke). DSL
  11. Hello Joe Bauer: You wrote: "You also can't help but contemplate and consider the possible tie in of this type of government change to the JFK assassination. " Yes, in the current vernacular, its called "regime change." And, if my analysis is correct, and this was an 'inside job," then that's what happened in this country on November 22, 1963. JFK was "removed from office" (as Sec State Rusk characterized it in his Warren Commission testimony) using a sophisticated deception operation which created the outward appearance that this was a quirk of fate, a historical accident. To the contrary, it was a political murder, with a specific political purpose: to change the occupant of the Oval Office. The political purpose (once again): To operate the USG constitutionally-mandated "line of succession," and replace Kennedy with Johnson. In other words, it was a political murder, designed to look like a quirk of fate; designed to look like a historical accident. As Theodore Sorensen said, not too long before he died, he believed it because, to all outward appearances, it looked like "a Marxist who got lucky with a gun." Yes, that's the way it appeared on November 22, 1963, and in the days and months following. But anyone who persists in seeing it that way, particularly in the year 2018, has never gotten past the original disguise, which hides a much darker reality. DSL 4/6/18 - 9:40 AM PDT - Orange County, California
  12. Brian, Sandy, and others who are interested in the goings-on at Love Field: I am quite familiar with this picture,and have been for years. Do you know by whom it was taken? And when it was first released? That's my first question. But here's some more commentary. Let me number the points for convenience of future discussion: 1. The witness I interviewed, and who knew all about the forklift truck on the starboard side of Air Force One was the pilot of Air Force Two. I have no doubt about his credibility, or the accuracy of his recollection. (Remember: He's sitting in the cockpit, located in a more forward position, and can look directly across the space between the two aircraft; which, according to Manchester, were parked "wingtip to wingtip"). 2. I dispute your glib contention that you can tell, from this single photograph, and the angle from which it was taken (which is aft, on the starboard side, and one to two hundred feet away) that you can properly infer what persons on the port side can see, especially if they are pre-occupied with the offload of the Dallas coffin, from the arriving ambulance (which is what the photo appears to show; and which has not yet occurred). Moreover, many of those on the port side were SS agents of the White House Detail, some of whom were involved in getting the body "onto" AF-1, so it could immediately be opened and "offloaded" on the starboard side. Do you think anyone on the port side was going to say, "Hey, Kellerman, look at that forklift truck!" (after it arrived); or, if before, might he exclaim: "Hey, Roy, where the heck is that forklift truck, that was supposed to be on site, and waiting?" 3. Furthermore, even if a forklift was seen on the starboard side (by an "inquiring mind" on the port side, who happened to focus his gaze, at ground level, across the underside of the AF-1) that wouldn't necessarily mean that there would seem to be anything improper about it being there. The rear starboard side door was a "half-door" and normally used to service the rear galley area (although normally, of course, by one of those trucks with an "upper level" used to "match" with the starboard rear- entry door). 4. I call your attention to the "blackened out" area on the rear starboard side. I call this area to your attention because, if it represents photo alteration, then the picture was altered to hide whatever was going on (An opened starboard half-door? Who knows.). This is an area that needs more work, but its important because of point #1, so let me repeat. 5. The pilot of AF-2 saw the fork lift, on the starboard side ofAF-1, fully extended, and with what he believed to be a coffin. This is a tape recorded telephone interview which I had around Feb/March 1980, some 38 years ago. (And I omitted it from the publication of B.E. because, at the time, I was certain that if anything had occurred, it would have happened during the swearing in. And it was only after publication, when Gen. McHugh wrote the letter to TIME disputing my contention, that I was forced to rethink the entire issue, which puzzled me for a good three years). It was not until the summer of 1984, when paying a summertime visit to the UCLA campus, that I suddenly realized that the swearing in wasn't the only time that "Jackie wasn't with the coffin." In view of the above. . . the first such time period was when she (and the others) were down on the tarmac (as the photos taken by White House photographer Stoughton show), and the coffin was being (or had just been) brought "upstairs" by the men who carried it up the stairs on the rear port side). 6. I think that your quick-to-judge notion that the inferences I have drawn about the goings-on on the starboard side is "ridiculous" is seriously flawed. 7. I have additional information about the fork life truck that will be in Final Charade, and which I cannot release at this time. 8. If you (or anyone else reading this) be able to ascertain who took this photo, and when it was processed and released, please let me know (at DSL74@Cornell.edu). Just look at the high quality of this picture. It doesn't appear to be taken by someone with an ordinary "Brownie" type camera. But it does appear to have been taken by someone seated inside the airplane. (As one poster has noted, you can see part of the window frame). So. . what (i.e., "who?") was the source? 9. Please keep in mind that photography in that area, and particularly on the starboard side, was prohibited. A TV cameraman, as I mentioned, had his film and camera confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Chief of Police (Fisher), and a Texas Highway Patrolman was threatened with arrest, by the Secret Service (and specifically, by Agent Rufus Youngblood) if he kept filming. So I think your snap judgements are entirely incorrect, and in fact represent an oversimplified and one-sided view of this issue. Having spoken at length to the pilot of AF-2, I can assure you that he did not imagine the particulars of what he told. me. 10. Regarding the timing of the photo: it would appear, form the cluster of people at the rear of the Dallas ambulance, this was a moment when the coffin was about to be removed from the back of the Dallas ambulance. I don't know if the fork lift truck had yet "arrived" (and was photographically removed); assuming that was not the case, then when it did arrive, a more reasonable question to ask would be: once the agents started carrying the Dallas casket up port side stairs, is it not reasonable to believe that all eyes would be glued on those fellows, struggling with the Dallas coffin, and not the movements of an apparatus on the starboard side which, in any event, would appear to be legitimate. DSL (Edited, 4/6/18 - 5:55 PM PDT)
  13. DVP: You wrote: "John Connally never claimed to be hit by more than one bullet. Never. " Going back to November 22, 1963, when Gov. JC was still emerging from anesthesia, and it was his wife who was "doing the talking". . . : Perhaps you have forgotten, but Nellie Connally--in her original (Fri., 11/22, or perhaps Sat 11/23) press statements released either via a direct interview (or possibly by JC's press aide Julian Reade) explicitly stated that Governor Connally was struck twice--once in the chest, and a second time in the wrist. (As I recall, she did not mention the left thigh at all). Her (original) account was changed within a day or two, but that was her original account. Perhaps someone can look it up in newspaper files; but Nellie Connally definitely said that the shooting of her husband consisted of two bullet strikes, the second one being the wrist. As fas as I recall, neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission questioned Mrs. Connally about this change in her account. DSL - 4/3/2018 - 10:10 PM PDT
  14. Hi Ray, You wrote: " LBJ was aboard Air Force One quite some time before the Kennedy clan got aboard. LBJ was there when the coffin with the President in was loaded. What on earth could he have been up to whilst he was on there?" Good question. (And I like your use of the word "whilst"!) Short answer: Arranging for the covert egress of the body on the starboard side ( via the rear starboard half-door) as soon as the Dallas coffin, containing the body, was brought into the tail compartment on the port side, via the rear "full door" at the rear port side. IMHO. DSL 4/3/2018 - 8:28 AM PDT Orange County, California
  15. Hi Ron: You wrote: "Fascinating stuff. Thanks. If your account is accurate, it suggests to me that LBJ was literally a hands-on conspirator. " Yes, that's true (unfortunately). I state that its most unfortunate, because there's no way to sugar-coat the implications of the timeline evidence. And that means that anything I have to say on the subject will (no doubt) be viewed as seriously "politically incorrect." But if we can get past Johnson's psychopathy (and the matter of what is "politically incorrect" (which is really quite besides the point), then the way is cleared to ask (at least) these three questions: (1) How many Secret Service agents (who, as the Stoughton photos show) carried the coffin up into the tail compartment) know about what happened next? My answer: maybe not everyone, but certainly quite a few. It was a known fact among a small number of agents on the White House Detail that JFK's body was removed from the coffin within minutes of its being carried into the tail compartment, and that the Dallas coffin, from that point forward, was empty. The explanation: "security". Which brings me to the next question. (2) How did Johnson justify this action? Answer: Almost certainly, by some argument about "national security"--that it was a "security measure" to insure that no one would "get to" the body; or that the Dallas Police Department would not be able to halt the take-off and insist on recovering the body for autopsy. (This last notion is a joke, since Chief Curry was right there, on the plane, and could countermand any such an attempt (in the [highly] unlikely event that it occurred, which--of course--it did not). So that whole idea is nothing but a bogeyman; and I mention it only because it was, apparently, a possibility that seriously worried Ken O'Donnell, according to Manchester. Now all of this leads to the next question. . . . (3) Did Bobby Kennedy know that this had occurred? And that his brother's body was not in the Dallas coffin? Answer: Yes, he did. He learned of this situation after AF-1 was en route back to Washington, via communication with Sec Def McNamara, who learned the truth from Johnson; along with some screwball justification that LBJ offered to "explain" why this was the case, i.e., why this "had to be done." I will address this subject ("what Bobby knew, and when he knew it"; along with another closely related question, "what Bobby knew, that Jackie did not" (and rest assured, the First Lady did not know that the Dallas coffin was empty, and would have freaked out had she been told) in Final Charade. But back to your original observation, and I will now address it by adding a little bit more information: yes, once the Dallas plot failed (and yes, there was a Texas plot to alter the body, but it went seriously awry, because of the unexpected shooting of Governor Connally, among other things), LBJ was (then) involved in a series of actions that was tantamount to pulling the plotters' chestnuts out of the fire. Of critical importance was getting JFK's body (which was unaltered, except for the trach incision [i.e., if an incision was really made, etc.]) out of the coffin, and arranging for an alternate autopsy site. I'll have more to say about this in Final Charade. Stay tuned. And thanks for your commentary. DSL, 4/3/2018 - 8 AM PDT Orange County, California
  16. DSL NOTE, 4/3/2018 - 7:55 PM PDT: This post has been edited and revised, from the time it was originally written. DVP: Quoting from your post, QUOTE ON: Now, can you think of ANY reason why the "Tape Alterers" would have wanted to LEAVE IN the word "inviolate", even though it comes right alongside the words "cutting through the wound", so that the end result of their tampering was an incoherent mess?! UNQUOTE You seem to believe--or think--that those who murdered President Kennedy (and then altered evidence in an attempt to hide what they had done, and blame the crime on Oswald)--were following certain rules of "logic" (DVP style) and were perhaps engaged in prim and proper behavior. And so you say such things as, "Well, the Z film couldn't have been altered, because look, see!?. . the head snap is still in the film. Since the inclusion of that in the film presents important evidence of conspiracy, ergo, there could not have been an (or "any") alteration." This is bizarre and nonsensical logic, or "logic." Suddenly, you have become Mr. Psychologist, making judgements about whether evidence has been tampered with based on whether those involved in this tawdry affair had a deep commitment to performing "the perfect crime." First of all, the crime was far from perfect (and this applies to the cover-up, as well). But let's start with the crime: Do you think that anyone in their right mind, planning to shoot Kennedy (and, let's say, to frame Oswald) would then also shoot Connally? Obvously not. Certainly, Connally was not a target, and yet,he got shot. So that should tell us (and particularly you) something right there. This crime, however (elegantly) it was planned (in the abstract), was imperfectly executed. And I would suggest to you that the cover-up was (that is, "is") also riddled with similar problems, i.e., similar inconsistencies. In other words, whatever the original plan--it was bungled in execution. Bottom line: both the crime, and the cover-up had serious same flaws. So. . .if it was desired to remove a car-stop, for example, "they" didn't have a month to take their time and "get it right." Consider the time line. The Z film came out of processing by 5pm, or thereabouts. The film--just as it exists today at the National Archives--was sold to LIFE by about 9 - 10 AM the next day (in a rather peculiar auction; but that's another story). So do the math, DVP. . . that's not very much time. Whatever was done was done very hurriedly--i.e., essentially within the first 15 hours (approx) and I am sure that those involved were not pleased that the result. Why? Because it contained something as powerful and telling as the Zapruder film headsnap (regardless of how you and your apologist friends try to explain it). But the "head-snap" was the result of the film editing done to remove the car stop. By eliminating frames in that area of the film, the acton was speeded up and so JFK's "slump" was turned into a backward "snap." I realized this back in 1969, when I first spotted the existence of all these "car-stop witnesses" in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes. The car stop was gone, but now the head "snapped" back. This artifact of film editing does not change the fact that so many people saw the car stop--and I know, because I interviewed five of the car-stop witnesses in November 1971. I wanted to hear these car stop witnesses personally, and brother was that an experience. When I spent an evening with William and Gayle Newman, and told him, after hearing his account (which focused on the stop), that there was a film at the Archives which showed no stop, (remember: this was four years before the film was shown by Groden on national TV in March 1975), Bill Newman was somewhat exasperated and said words to the effect that "I don't give a fig what any film shows! We were there, and the car stopped, right in front of us!" (This interview was recorded on audio tape--using a reel-to-reel TC 800, the same recorder used by Nixon to record his Oval Office conversations). So now we turn to the audio record of Dr. Perry's interview (by Eddie Barker); and we find that Perry used the word "inviolate" --clearly heard on the tape (by both me and Pat Valentino) --and for me, that key word (clearly audible on the tape) worked to confirm what he told Groden in 1977, when Groden (and a Baltimore reporter) showed Perry the autopsy stare-of -death photo; and what he told Dr. Dave Stewart, on November 22, 1963: that he left the wound inviolate. Here's what I don't understand. Why can't you seem to understand that the audio record, when considered in the context of the two different transcripts--one from CBS and another from the writer of the show (Stephen White)--which differ in just one word ("inviolate" versus "invalid") clearly indicate that something is amiss? DVP: You think that my argument leaves the debate about the audio record an "incoherent mess". But what about the body, DVP? Does it not bother you at all that, as I described in my previous post(s), that JFK's nody left Dallas with a small bullet entry wound, and --possibly, but not definitely--a small and modest trach incision ("2-3 cm", according to what Dr. Perry told me on 10/27/66) ; and arrived at Bethesda with a wide gash, measured at "7 - 8 cm"? And which, according to the autopsy report, had "widely gaping irregular edges"? And that's just the beginning: what about the fact that, according to O'Connor, the throat area was such a mess that you could see the esophagus through the wide gash; and that the larynx was destroyed? Can you face yourself in the mirror and tell me that your honest response to all this is what we see in the face-up autopsy photograph, which I published for the first time in October 1988, in the Carrol & Graf edition of Best Evidence, is a tracheotomy incision? And then, now moving forward to the Bethesda morgue, and the time the two FBI agents arrived, there's credible evidence that, at some point before the two FBI agents arrived, it was "sutured shut". And the FBI agents were mislead into thinking that what they were looking at was a trach, which had been sutured at Parkland. Do you think that's legitimate? (This matter will be developed at length in Final Charade). What I have described above--with regard to the President's body, and this area at the front of the throat--is what was an "incoherent mess." You ought to get your priorities right, DVP, before preaching the lone-nutter story to your political "base"--i.e., your "audience"--while the evidence is so very clear that something really awful happened to the President's body, and viewed in context, the alteration of collateral evidence (such as the Perry interview) some three years later, would be mere "collateral damage" in the larger scheme of things. DSL, 4/2/2018 - 10:30 PM PDT; edited/revised on 4/3/2018 - 7:55 AM PDT
  17. DVP: You refer to my "outlandish" altered CBS tape theory. To begin with, I know how to separate theory from fact; and I'm well aware that its not a "fact" (yet) that the CBS tape was altered; what is a fact is that two transcripts of the show exist, that differ (principally) in just one key word: "inviolate" versus "invalid." The official CBS transcript--which I obtained in 1967 after these broadcasts aired, and is at the Ford Library--says "inviolate." And that supports the accounts of two people with whom Perry spoke: Dr. Dave Stewart (on 11/22 and over that weekend); and Robert Groden. He told Stewart that he left the wound "inviolate." He said the same thing when he met with Groden (and a Baltimore reporter) at his office in New York City, and was shown the "stare-of-death" autopsy photo, which shows that wide, horizontal gash in the neck. "Inviolate" was used on both those occasions, by Perry, to state that he didn't touch the wound; that it left Parkland Hospital exactly the way it was when he saw the wound in the Trauma Room One. But what Perry said changed in the transcript of the Barker interview of Perry. According to that transcript, he now (supposedly) admitted to making an incision through the wound, which action (on Perry's part) "rendered it invalid." Full quote from the CBS transcript as publishe on page 242 of the White book: "I didn't think abut cutting through the wound--which, of course, rendered it invalid as regards further examination and inspection. The transcript published by the late Stephen White--and he was the primary writer of the CBS show says "invalid", the context being that Perry's "cutting" rendered it "invalid." But Perry told both Dr. Dave Stewart, and Robert Groden--approximately four years apart--that he "left the wound inviolate." Since the two transcripts each say something entirely different, and since the word "inviolate" could be clearly heard (by myself and Pat Valentino, on the audio, when Groden played his super-special 3/4 " tape, obtained from God-only-knows where at CBS, the suspicion naturally arises that someone monkey'd with the audio in connection with changing the meaning of what Perry said. And yet trace evidence of what he originally told Stewart ("inviolate") and Groden ("inviolate") is right there on the tape. So did Perry just change his story, or did someone monkey with the audio, or was it some combination of both? That's the issue. Now here's something that could be done, if Groden was willing to assist. The 3/4" tape of the CBS show, the one that he played for us (Pat Valentino and me) in June 1989, is in Robert Groden's possession. A high quality digital copy could be made of that part of the show; and we could all listen to it, and decide. Is what Groden possessed (and played for us, in June 1989) superior to what is available today--for example, at the Dan Rather site? Or is it identical? That would be an interesting matter to pursue, and I'd like to see it done. DSL; 4/2/2018 - 7:40 PM PDT
  18. Hello Geoff: What a small world! Perhaps you can locate a transcript of the show? Or, if you can send me the audio, I know someone who will produce a letter perfect transcript. Let me know. You can respond privately to me at DSL74@Cornell.edu Thanks for showing up here, in this dialogue.
  19. David Von Pein: You say I'm ignoring this or that "fact" and quote me as follows, QUOTE ON: In the 1967 interview [here], Dr. Perry says that he did some "cutting through the wound" just before he says the word "inviolate" or "invalid". But regardless of which word he used there, it's a moot point because of the words he uttered immediately prior to that --- "cutting through the wound". UNQUOTE But you, David [Von Pein] are ignoring the fact--the published fact--that on November 23, 1963, Perry told writer Jimmy Breslin, in an article quoting him and which was published on Sunday 11/24/63 that he made the trach incision "below" the bullet wound. Also, you are ignoring the account of Dr. Dave Stewart that Perry told him that he left the wound "inviolate"--which is exactly the same thing that he told Groden when Groden visited him in his New York City office (circa 1977) and showed him the face-up "stare-of-death" autopsy photograph. What's clear is that Perry said different things to different people on different days. So the issue is: why is Perry behaving this way, and which account is to be believed? If the issue was as straightforward as you would like it to be, Perry wouldn't be saying these different things to different people at different times. I don't understand how you can invoke Perry's statement, on camera, about "cutting through the wound" (made around December 1966, when this interview was filmed) and ignore what he told Jimmy Breslin the day after JFK was murdered (i.e., on 11/23/63, that he made his cut "below" the wound) or what he told Dr. Stewart --according to Stewart--on 11/22/63 (that he left the wound "inviolate"); or what he said in his office to Groden (and a Baltmore reporter) in 1977 (again, "inviolate"). If Perry had been brought before a Federal Grand Jury investigating President Kennedy's murder, how do you think he would have handled all these discrepancies? Do you really believe he could have ignored everything he said on these different occasions, and simply used your selective approach to the record? And, of course, had there been such a Federal Grand Jury inquiry, perhaps one of the questions would have been: "How do you explain the fact, Dr. Perry, that you told David Lifton on 11/27/1966, that the incision you made was "2 - 3 cm", when the autopsy doctor testified it was "7 - 8 cm"? And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that you used a knife, while the autopsy report states that the wound had "widely gaping irregular edges"? (See Ch. 11 of B.E.) And: "How do you explain the fact, sir, that when the autopsy was conducted, and Colonel Finck examined this wide gash (i.e., the so-called "tracheotomy incision"), and examined the edges very carefully, he said he could not find any evidence of the previous wound; even going so far as to say, "I don't know why it is not there"? And perhaps, if Paul O'Connor had been called before such an inquiry, he would have testified to what he told me, both in the telephone interview in August 1979, and then in my filmed interview in June/July 1989, that the situation in the area of the neck was so bad that the esophagus and the trachea were clearly visible and "through" the so-called trach incision, and perhaps one of the Grand Jurors would have asked Perry: "Did you make a wound that was so big that the esophagus and the trachea could be seen through the hole that you made?" And perhaps another of the Grand Jurors, hearing about the fact that the wound was "sutured shut" when he saw it, might ask that Dr. Humes, the autopsy pathologist, be called to testify, and to explain: "Hey, Dr. Humes. . do you mind telling this jury who stitched up this wound? And when that occurred?" And perhaps another question: "Dr. Humes, would you mind explaining why you told the FBI that this suturing was where a trach had been performed, in Dallas? And implying that the suturing was done in Dallas? Were you attempting to mislead the FBI, Dr. Humes?" So you see, DVP, there's a lot more to this issue than what you are trying to focus on. And its kind of peculiar--even laughable--that you would take one piece of evidence out of an entire array of facts, and just focus on that one datum, and ignore the rest. No one is denying what Perry said on camera. The issue is why he said so many other things, at other times; and why there's such obvious evidence that this particular wound area was altered, and in a most ugly fashion, before the body arrived at Bethesda. That's the bigger picture, DVP; and no matter how much you try to focus on just one little tree, there's a whole forest out there. DSL 4/2/2018- 6:55 PM PDT Orange County, California
  20. Andrew Prutsok: Thanks for finding and distributing this article about Dr. Dave Stewart. And to Paul Rigby for also distributing it. I am working with an archivist in Tennessee attempting to locate the major article in the Nashville Banner that --I believe (based on 30 year old recollection, was a front page item)--preceded this one. In the article that I vividly remember, and which is (unfortunately) located in a file in a storage box, Dr. Stewart's main point was that (based on conversations with Perry on 11/22) Dr. Perry did not have to make an incision, and simply "pushed the tube" through the pre-existing bullet hole (something along those lines). I carefully photocopied, and filed that Nashville Banner article; unfortunately, its in "storage." But that article led to my original interest in Dr. Stewart, who I interviewed in detail by phone in 1982, and then came the hour long (at least) professionally filmed interview at his home in Tennessee (with Pat Valentino present) in June of 1989; and then (one or two days later) the multi-hour visit with Groden at his home in Media, PA (alng with a multi-hour filmed interview of Groden) at which time (but not during our actual interview, with the camera running) he played for us an excellent 3/4" copy of the Perry interview, by Barker, in which Perry clearly and unequivocally stated that he left the wound "inviolate.". I'm postponing further comment on all this until I can (hopefully) locate the original article in the Nashville Banner. With one exception: Pat Valentino has pointed out another possibility (and I hadn't thought of this until recently): That Groden's 3/4" video of Perry--a very special item that he had "obtained" from someone at CBS, and very early on--was so clear compared to what's available today (via the Internet) --and which is "muddled" and is subject to interpretation as to which word was being spoken (i.e., "inviolate" or "invalid") that its entirely possible that there was further hanky panky with the audio record of this interview in the years following. In other words, there is the possibility that Groden obtained his very special (and very clear) 3/4" copy of the CBS tape (which he played for us in June 1989, but obviously had possessed for many years previously); and then came another round of messing around with that tape, perhaps (for example) in connection with the 1993 CBS documentary on JFK's assassination produced by Dan Rather in 1993. So among all the things that Groden may have "obtained" and stored away --somewhere--is this very special (and very early) copy of the Barker/Perry interview, in which the word "inviolate" is clearly (and quite unequivocally) audible. It is pretty obvious that this particular sentence that Perry spoke received some special attention (over the years) since the official CBS transcript that I received from CBS in New York back in 1967 (and which is on file at the Gerald Ford library) uses the word "inviolate", whereas Steve White's book (which was published in 1968, which means it was likely written in late 1967/early 1968, and which I just ordered from Amazon recently) has the identical transcript, except for one word: "invalid" (instead of "inviolate"). FWIW: White--who died many years ago--was the senior writer on the CBS program. So he took what he was given, and then wrote the script. And his book, by the way, is really good. It documents the path he took in arriving at the conclusion that the Warren Report just had to be correct. ("Should we NOW believe the Warren Report?" was the title). Of course, White had no idea that there was a pile of evidence that the autopsy had been falsified (as a document); with the one published in the Warren Report being the third version (as documented in Horne's book); or worse, that JFK's body had been altered prior to autopsy (my thesis, as originally published in Best Evidence, first published in January 1981; and with 3 different publishers after that. And there will be another publisher, plus an e-book, coming). IMHO: The persons responsible for "playing around" with the audio record are Dan Rather (who produced the CBS programs) and Eddie Baker (who conducted the original 1966 interview). Anyone reading this please note: There weren't any gremlins who fooled around with this record. There were real people who sat at editing machinery and --whatever the rationale provided--wanted to make the word "inviolate" go away, and make it sound like (or close to) "invalid." (And, unfortunately, they succeeded in fuzzing up this issue). But remember what was said years ago, "Truth is the daughter of time," and that's what's going to happen in this case. DSL; 4/2/2018; 4:40 PM PDT
  21. I mean no disrespect to David Josephs, in posting this notice about my own writing. I simply want to point out that the essay that I wrote just prior to this post (scroll up, just one item) represents an effort to present, in one post, a rather complete and up-to-date summary of my views of what was going on at Love Field on the afternoon of 11/22/63, starting when Johnson boarded Air Force One at 1:40 PM CST, and extending through the time the plane departed Love Field to Washington (2:47 PM CST). By "up-to-date summary," I'm referring to the fact that much of the information in the above writing was developed in the years since the original release of Best Evidence in January 1981. That, and more, will be presented in Final Charade. DSL -4/1/2018 -9 PM PDT Orange County, California
  22. DSL NOTICE, 3/31/2018 - 7:40 PM PDT: This post has been amended (and expanded) several times. Steve (and all others who may be interested in the "Air Force One" problem, and, in general, the details re the chain of possession of JFK's body after it left Parkland Hospital [at about 2 PM CST], and prior to its arrival at Bethesda for the autopsy [which officially commenced at 8 PM EST]): No, I don't remember when we spoke. . that was a long time ago. Now, about the goings-on in and around Air Force One, when it was parked at Love Field (and which was the site of the swearing in of LBJ at 2:38 PM CST) and which didn't take off until 2:47 PM CST. FYI: Based on my present understanding and much interviewing, the body bag (and the shipping casket) were introduced in connection with the arrival of Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base, at about 6 P.M. EST. (There was no body bag or shipping casket, earlier. Details to follow in Final Charade.). Going back to Web Page 32 on this thread: For a detailed exposition of the "where and when" problem, go to Web Page 32 of this thread, and the long post that I wrote (dated March 15th), with the section labeled "The Where and When problem, Reconsidered." Keep in mind that if JFK's body arrived 20 minutes before the coffin, at the Bethesda end of the line (which it did, based on the accounts of Dennis David [Ch. 25 of B.E.], Don Rebentisch [see 1982 Epilogue to B.E., a witness who completely corroborates Dennis David, and was just as important] and documentary evidence [i.e., the Boyajian receipt, unearthed by the ARRB investigation, which records the arrival time as 18:35 (6:35 PM EST)], then the the body must have been removed from the Dallas coffin prior to the take-off of AF-1 in Dallas. This inference, or "conclusion," is just logic, and is discussed in detail in Chapter 25 of B.E. It is based on the sequence of arrivals at Bethesda and the simple fact that (as explained in detail in Chapter 25) Jacqueline Kennedy and one or more Kennedy aides (e.g., Kenneth O'Donnell) were always with the Dallas coffin from the time of the Dallas take-off (2:48 PM CST) until the time of the Bethesda arrival (6:53 PM EST, referring here to Jackie's arrival at the Bethesda front entrance, along with RFK, in the naval ambulance). Consequently, if the body arrived (at Bethesda) in a shipping casket some 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin, then the Dallas coffin must have been empty. This analysis leads to an unavoidable conclusion: "An empty coffin at the Bethesda front entrance means an empty coffin upon take-off from Dallas." I can't go further than that, until Final Charade is published. But one additional fact should be noted. Johnson's Arrival at Air Force One: According to Secret Service reports, Lyndon Johnson left Parkland Hospital (accompanied by SS Agent Rufus Youngblood) at !:26 PM CST, and that event, showing the two of them exiting, was photographed. He (and Youngblood) arrived at Air Force One at 1:40 PM CST. LBJ was driven from Parkland Hospital to Love Field by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. Traveling a short distance behind (i.e., in a separate police car) was DPD Captain Perdue Lawrence, 52, a 19 year veteran of the DPD and a captain in the Traffic Division. His chief passenger was Ladybird Johnson. I conducted a detailed, professionally filmed interview of Captain Lawrence in the summer of 1990. One of the more interesting statements he made concerned his observations as to what was occurring as Curry's car (carrying LBJ) and his own (carrying Ladybird) had entered Love Field and were approaching Air Force One. He saw people scurrying down the ramp(s) and carrying seats off the airplane. At first he was puzzled. "I knew they were making room for something," he told me. (All of this is on camera). And then, of course, it became obvious what the "something" was: that the coffin containing JFK's body would be brought to Air Force One. As the record shows, LBJ (followed by Ladybird) ran up the stairs to AF-1 at 1:40 PM. What This Implies: That the plan to remove JFK's body from the coffin that was to be placed aboard AF-1 was hatched back at Parkland Hospital, when LBJ made it a point to tell JFK's top aide, Kenneth O'Donnell, that he was leaving for Love Field, and leaving O'Donnell with the clear impression that he would be promptly leaving for Washington (aboard his own plane, AF-2). In other words, when the Kennedy group arrived at Love Field (led by SS Agent Kellerman), they (Jackie, O'Donnell, Gen. McHugh, etc.) were thoroughly unaware ("disarmed" if you will) and believed they would have AF-1 "all to themselves" (my quotes) for the trip back to Washington. That, of course, was based on what Johnson had said (and led them to believe) back at Parkland Hospital, before he departed for Love Field. But that's not what Johnson did (which raises the question of whether he was involved in a deliberate deception). What Johnson Did. Instead, and immediately upon entering the plane (AF-1), Johnson personally began hurriedly closing all the windows on the plane (lowering their plastic coverings) and pulling all the drapes shut, and demanding assistance from others, so this could be done expeditiously, throughout the plane. He then made a beeline for the cockpit and instructed the pilot (Col. Swindal) that there would be no takeoff without his say so, and that they would be waiting for "the widow and the body". (Verbatim, from SS reports, and Colonel Swindal's account). What Happened Next: As to what happened next, and here I am referring to the very public (and well photographed) on-load of the Dallas coffin, at the rear port door, followed by the covert (and almost immediate) offload of JFK's body (on the starboard side, and onto a forklift truck). Only the first event was photographed. The Secret Service prevented photography on the starboard side, and threatened to arrest a Texas Highway Patrolman who had a camera, and was trying to film. (Source: Interview with patrolman). The offload took place within a minute or two, once the Dallas coffin was placed aboard [between 2:14 PM and 2:18 PM], the times given here according to the official Secret Service chronology. For details about how this happened (i.e., the actual "mechanics" at Love Field, prior to take-off), note (i.e., "Go To") the breaker on my post which appears on Web Page 32 of this thread, with the label indicating "another" period when Jackie (et al) weren't with the coffin. That state of affairs (on the port side) was actually photographed by White House photographer Stoughton, from his vantage point standing at the top of the forward port-side staircase, as Kellerman and his clique of agents carried the coffin up the rear ramp. Those pictures--or at least some of them---were published in the late 1960s. July-Aug. 1980: The Stoughton Photos and my discovery of the "wink" photograph FYI: I obtained these photos (from the LBJ Library) in the summer of 1980, and was the first person to publish the entire set, in Best Evidence (released in mid-January, 1981). By the "entire set," I deliberately mean to include the (now infamous) "wink photograph" (showing Houston Congressman Al Thomas, who played a major role in inducing JFK to make the Texas trip, winking at Johnson, during the swearing in). I discovered this remarkable photo within days of receiving the package of photos from the LBJ Library, and I immediately showed it to Macmillan's top executives. They agreed to include this particular photo in the about-be-published book, along with a neutral caption, and that's how the "wink photograph" (as it is now known) came to be published. I also promptly interviewed --in detail, and by telephone--photographer Stoughton, then living in Florida. Stoughton was astounded that I had that particular picture, angrily demanded to know how I had obtained it, was very surprised that my source was the LBJ Library, and then--finally--calmed down and related to me his own experiences with that picture. What Stoughton Told me by phone: He had immediately seen the wink photograph, when his pictures were processed on 11/22, and arranged a personal meeting with RFK (within a day) and showed him the picture. It was too late to include any of this (Stoughton's account) in the hardcover edition of Best Evidence, but I did discuss my experiences, and in detail, when I appeared on certain talk shows (e.g., the Larry King radio show, on which I appeared for at least two hours, circa Jan-March, 1981) and will include all of this in Final Charade, and/or in an epilogue to an e-book release of Best Evidence, which is currently in the planning stages . Now back to Air Force One, on 11/22/63, and what happened at Love Field . . . What we don't have (of course) is a photo of (or a direct eyewitness to) what happened once the Dallas coffin was actually inside the plane, and during the brief period before Jackie (et al) were given the "green light" that it was OK to come on board. Also, and in the spirit of FYI: At the time the Dallas coffin was brought up the portable stairway at the rear port door and then into the tail compartment of AF-1, Johnson was in the tail compartment, "helping" (according to one USAF witness), but not visible through the open rear port door. So the Kennedy group, standing down on the tarmac, were completely unaware that LBJ was on "their airplane," Bottom line: there's no "Zapruder film" of the event, but there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that that's when it (the covert offload) occurred. The presence of a fork-lift truck on the starboard side (witnessed by the pilot of Air Force II, who I interviewed about this), and the logic of the "sequence of arrivals" at the Bethesda end of the line, is the key to understanding what occurred at Love Field. Now changing the subject just a bit. . . : Re the "hallway fight" at Parkland.. . : That had nothing to do with getting the body out of the Dallas coffin. That had everything to do with preventing a Dallas autopsy; i.e., getting the body out of Parkland Hospital (and then out of Dallas), without an autopsy (as required by state law). The President's body was not removed from the original coffin at Parkland Hospital. Again: that event occurred at Air Force One, after the coffin was brought up the rear port "on-ramp", placed in the tail compartment, moved around a bit, and then "fastened" with straps. Only then was Jackie (and the other Kennedy aides) given the green light to ascend the stairs. It was doing that brief period--while Jackie (and the rest of the Kennedy party) were down on the tarmac, and before Jackie entered the aircraft--that the Dallas coffin was opened, the body hurriedly and (in effect covertly) removed via the rear starboard door, and placed on a forklift truck. Photography on the starboard side was not permitted, and one photographer, shooting with a telephoto lens from the roof of a nearby structure, was spotted doing so, had the misfortune of having his camera (and film) confiscated by a Dallas Deputy Police Chief as soon as he descended a ladder from his perch. His camera, but not his film, was later returned to him. He was told that what he had filmed was "sacrilegious," but he didn't see to understand what he may have filmed, or why that term was used. What upset him was that both his film and camera were confiscated, and that he never got his film back. (Source: DSL interview with photographer, 11/22/1998). The pilot of AF-2 witnessed the activity on the starboard side of AF-1, witnessed the fork lift truck, and I interviewed him at length, back in 1980. A clique of Secret Service agents (also) know all about what happened on AF-1, and the "national security" rationale (apparently offered by LBJ) for removing the body from the coffin and placing it "elsewhere" on Air Force One. Johnson's Whereabouts on Air Force One: Also (and again, in the spirit of "fyi"): Shortly after the "unload" (or "offload") was complete, and when the Kennedy party had ("finally") boarded, and Jackie (and others) were actually seated in the tail compartment, General McHugh--still unaware that LBJ was aboard what the Kennedy's considered "their" airplane--could not understand why there was not a prompt take-off. So McHugh, quite agitated, went forward to the cockpit. As described by Manchester, the pilot (Swindal) told McHugh that Johnson was on board, that he (LBJ) was now the president, and that he had given the order not to take off (yet). All this is spelled out in Manchester's 1967 book "The Death of a President." McHugh and O'Donnell then went looking for Johnson, who they (mistakenly) believed had already departed for Washington, on "his" airplane (AF-2). So where was Johnson? What follows is not in Manchester's book, but is in HSCA interview reports and in a radio interview with McHugh broadcast in the early 1970s. McHugh and O'Donnell found Johnson at the rear of the plane, apparently hiding in the bathroom connected with the presidential bedroom. He was hidden behind a curtain and excitedly exclaimed to McHugh (and Kenneth O'Donnell, who was with him): "Leave me alone!! (or "Get out of here!"). The Secret Service told me to hide in here! There's a worldwide conspiracy!" LBJ, according to McHugh was very panicky. As noted, this incident is detailed in HSCA interview reports of McHugh, and in a detailed radio interview of McHugh on CBC, back in the early 1970s. Further details can be supplied; and I do remember the name of the show: a very detailed radio documentary titled "Thou Shalt Not Kill." (Its a well known interview to JFK researchers.) Johnson's Changed Shirt. When Johnson emerged from the bathroom, and was next seen in the Stateroom for the swearing in, it was noted (by JFK aide Larry O'Brien, in his memoir No Final Victories) that Johnson had changed his shirt. So much for the goings-on aboard Air Force One. Admiral Burkley was noted with blood on his sleeves. (He later told Manchester that that was the result of his having reached into a trash can at Parkland Hospital, to retrieve a rose to give to Mrs. Kennedy, as a souvenir.) The lack of a proper investigation. If the Warren Commission--not to mention the FBI--had interviewed the people I and an associate managed to locate and interview, and done the kind of detailed analytic work that I have done with timelines and chronology, there would not be so much mystery about what happened aboard Air Force One in the period between the 2:05 PM arrival of the ambulance, with the coffin, from Parkland; through the coffin unload (2:14 to 2:18, according to SS reports), and then the swearing in (2:38 PM), and--finally--the take-off of AF-1 from Dallas, which occurred at 2:47 PM CST. ( Its not "rocket science".) This whole period is discussed in Chapter 31 of Best Evidence, based on what I knew by April 1, 1980, the final due date for the Best Evidence manuscript. But I know more about it today, and additional details will be included in Final Charade. * * * As far as Walton is concerned, you can ignore just about everything he says. He seems to repeat the same points, over and over, posing questions that have already been addressed (as if his repeated posts make what he has to say valid) , behaving like a slow-witted learner who constantly raises his hand, asks absurd questions, and drags an entire class down. He presents as an ignoramus, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can really be that dense. I think he's motivated by a certain degree by malice, plus an apparent need to call attention to himself, no matter how absurd his comments and observations. Most of his posts appear to be a juvenile effort to weaponize his own (supposed) stupidity. DSL 3/29/2018 -6:15 PDT; amended at 10:35 PM PDT; again on 3/30/18 at 11:35 AM; and 9:30 PM; 3/31/18 at 7:40 PM.. Santa Monica, California
  23. 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
  24. 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
×