In pursuit of one's own tale...

[David Von Pein]

Tell us, Greg, when Hoover told LBJ in that same 11/29/63 phone call that the shooter was located on the fifth floor and an intact bullet had rolled out of the head of JFK and all the shots had been fired "within three seconds", was Hoover just "running the story by" the new President when it came to all of those erroneous things too?

And if not, then why would you treat Hoover's cluelessness about "Connally being in the way" any differently than all of those other things that Hoover got wrong when he spoke to LBJ on November 29th?

[Cliff Varnell]

It was in Johnson's interest to foreclose any talk of conspiracy because in the minds of many LBJ would have been the top suspect.

I think Hoover wanted to keep the door open for an official change of heart -- let's pin the crime on Castro after all!

They had the same professional agenda -- blame Oswald -- but their personal agendas differed.

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points:

1. Bravo, Greg, for speaking from the heart. I've watched a lot of presentations over the years, and quite often find myself rolling my eyes when the speaker gets to listing fact after fact that's not quite a fact. Your approach was a lot more honest, IMO.

2. You made a mistake, David, in your criticism of Hoover. Yes, Hoover was talking out of his booty. But at the time he spoke to Johnson on 11-29 the FBI did not know the autopsy report claimed a bullet exited the throat. The FBI, one should recall, failed to acquire a copy of the autopsy report, and initially REFUSED one when offered. This is important, IMO. Whether or not one comes to ultimately believe there was a conspiracy behind the murder of President Kennedy, one should readily accept the obvious--that the FBI BLUNDERED its way through the initial investigation, and that much of the continuing controversy over Kennedy's murder is the fault of J.Edgar Hoover and his cast of sycophants... NOT Mark Lane, or Oliver Stone, etc..

[Ron Ecker]

On Hoover's cluelessness and phone calls, whose son was it (I can't remember) who said Hoover told him that the truth about the assassination "would be bad for the country"?

[David Josephs]

I have to somewhat disagree with Pat on some of thes FBI accusations.

The FBI rpoerted what they were told by the CIA and Secret Service. DURING the autopsy Sr Staff at FBI is told that the SS has one bullet and another is lodged behind JFK's ear.

There was no THROAT SHOT in the original autopsy or the autopsy that the WC reviewed... this is from the January 22, 1964 Exec Session. Whatever autopsy THEY were looking at was not the autopsy report in the archives since that one does talk about an exit from the throat of the shot, not a fragment.

There is no real discussion about the SBT until the Zframes and Tague enter the equation in March/April.

I'm sorry - I don't see the FBI blundering, only reporting what they were given - except for the Sibert/O'Neil report which makes all the difference. As much as we'd like to believe the FBI was included at Bethesda... they weren't. And the more I study the more I see the CIA/STATE/Military giving the FBI and I&NS the run-around. The FBI's report would be the basis for the WCR... the FBI report is based on the info given it and the supressing of the reports they themselves initiated and found to be puching the investigation into the "wrong" direction.

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

On Dec 2,3 & 4th SA Gauthier creates WCD298 showing three shots, three hits, no bullets coming out the front and a shot hitting JFK 40 feet past Z313. This was presented to the WCs in early January. Only one exhibit comes from this model which - explains the event so well that in lieu of going to DP, these models will tell the investigator everything they need to know.... and the exhibit drops the strings showing the shots and the position the cars during the shots... in essence the entire model was scrapped since it did not support the conspiracy.

4/27/64 - Redlich to Rankin

Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=6&tab=page

I've always found Greg's presentations to be fact filled and right on point.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Ron, I've thought often about the words Hoover allegedly told the son and have wondered, what could be so damaging to the country?

An obvious idea is that Hoover meant loss of faith in the U.S. Government on the part of the American people. But that was well underway and growing by the mid- to late-1960s, for various reasons. LBJ, whether or not he had a hand in the assassination, was doomed politically as 1968 began to unfold, all because of the war. So Hoover couldn't have been talking about loss of faith due to LBJ's culpability.

Another obvious idea is that Hoover meant that truth about the assassination would lead to a war, a nuclear war. But if this was the case, Hoover meant the commies got away with it, which is absurd. Besides, if the Soviets or Castro did it, the U.S. could have retaliated in quite effective ways without going to war against Cuba or the USSR. The most effective way would have been to lay out the proof in the United Nations and demand justice.

A third idea is Paul Trejo's: The truth, that Edwin Walker did it, would set off a civil war between Left and Right. Paul may be correct. I don't think there would have been literally a civil war, though I can imagine acts of vengeance. Hoover was in a position to protect the country against organized insurrection, however.

I tend these days to believe Hoover didn't know why JFK was killed or who had him killed. I'm inclined to believe Hoover merely had suspicions.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[David Lifton]

And off the track it goes.

So soon, Tommy?

The "details" be damned in this thread.

The "why" is everything. No matter "the how or the who."

What it means supersedes what it is...

I posted a YouTube of my presentation, Assassination of JFK: Assimilating the Anguish, on the EF the other day.

The silence is deafening.

It has received nearly 200 views. Yet, not a single peep.

From anyone. Not even from those who would normally criticize anything I offer if only out of spite.

Did it mean so little? Did it bring no value? Did it fail to strike a chord or hit a single nerve?

Did I miss the mark?

This is not an appeal for praise. It is not an appeal for recognition, kudos, a slap on the back or an "Atta-boy, Greg" --

It is an appeal for understanding.

Of human connection.

I awoke this morning with a "Gregorianism" twisting in my mind:

"When a man who labors under the false illusion that he is destined by fate to lead, nonetheless attracts not a single follower, he is doomed to forever run in circles pursuing the allusive relevance of his own tales."

I must revisit "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" for a tune-up. I'm overdue for mine by a hundred thousand miles or a hundred million words, whichever came first. I've apparently lost track.

Greg:

I listened to your talk this afternoon and I had a number of reactions, but not the time to do a fair job presenting the response it deserves.

Here are some initial reactions:

1. I think it took courage to express the hurt and anger you feel over this event, after all these years. I think we all want closure. To those below a certain age, its just "history." To those of us who lived through it, and the issuance of the Warren Report, and the gradual realization (for one reason or another) that the official "answer" was all wrong; and further, the connection between the Nov 1963 murder of JFK and then the Spring 1965 escalation of the Vietnam War- - all of that represents something entirely different. It was not an "abstraction"; rather, it was "what the heck is going on? Why are we suddenly sending such huges forces to Vietnam?" And, for many: "Where the hell is Vietnam, anyway?" And: "What is this all about?"

2. I would like to see a printed version of what you were reading, because there were a number of interesting ideas, and turns of phrases that deserve to be seen in text--and not just experienced as as a moment that flits by in a video presentation.

3. I think the issue of foreknowledge on the part of high government officials is very important; and Dean Rusk's arranging to take so many of the Kennedy cabinet to Tokyo is of great importance. Rusk, of course, played a major role in the "post assassination foreign policy switch". The manner in which he was foisted on Kennedy--in December 1960--causing Kennedy to veer away from his original choice of Sec State (Fulbright) is important. One person in Kennedy's "inner circle" stated--in 1965--that Rusk was "a plant." For those who have the time, there is an important article by Milton Viorst that was published in Esquire Magazine back in March, 1968: "Incidentally, Who is Dean Rusk?" For those following that issue, i.e., carefully tracking what--in retrospect--was clearly a "post assassination foreign policy switch," Rusk became of interest, and this article by Viorst laid out Rusk's history: that he was a "China hawk" from way back in the Truman administration.

All very well. . so much for Rusk, but. . . : here's where we diverge, big time:

No, I do not agree with your interpretation of the fourth paragraph of that draft NSAM 273. Let me type it out and insert it here:

QUOTE:

It is of the highest importance that the United States Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination from one part of it against another, and the President expects that all senior officers of the Government will take energetic steps to insure that they and their subordinates go out of their way to maintain and to defend the unity of the United State Government both here and in the field.

UNQUOTE

In your talk, you presented the argument that this paragraph refers to the upcoming murder of President Kennedy.

I do not agree with that at all.

I completely agree that Kennedy --who did not buy into the "domino theory"--had wrestled with the Vietnam issue and had made the decision to de-escalate and exit Vietnam. He also understood that, if he didn't do it properly, he would have a political problem on his hands from those on the political right who did buy into the "domino theory," who would cite this as an example of Kennedy being "an appeaser" ("just like his father!", etc.) and had the attitude that Rusk basically projected: "if we don't fight them in Asia, we will have to deal with them in Santa Monica." I remember those days, and coming up against such nonsense in teach-in situations at the UCLA campus.

Anyway: We both know the evidence that, within a short while (and I believe it was within 48 hours), LBJ made clear (behind the scenes, and certainly not for public consumption) there was going to be a change in direction in Vietnam policy. The difference between NSAM 263 (expressing Kennedy's original intention) and NSAM 273 (representing the outcome of the Honolulu conference, or at least the outcome that some persons wanted) --deserves careful study. One piece of data I have always taken seriously is what President Kennedy said to Michael Forrestal, who had just returned from a Vietnam fact-finding trip. JFK told Forrestal he was questioning the basic assumptions of the U.S. policy--and (quoting from memory) "whether we should be there at all."

In evaluating the draft of NSAM 273, we must keep in mind that there were people inside the Kennedy White House (and State Department) who had nothing to do with his murder, and who were (quite simply) Cold War hawks, to one extent or another. I was at Ramparts Magazine in July 1966 and Dugald Sturmer, their cartoonist, had a field day with this theme in designing one of the Ramparts Magazine covers. Besides that fact, there was another: there were some--and I believe McNamara was one such person--who would "go along"with whatever "the president" wanted (and whoever the president might be).

I can understand why the language of NSAM 273 raises issues that are subject to the interpretation that the drafter (McGeorge Bundy) had foreknowledge of JFK's murder--but I don't agree with that interpretation at all. At the Honolulu Conference, McNamara (supposedly) learns, for the first time, that the war is going badly, that he's been lied to for months, etc . There are serious questions raised about his reaction (or non-reaction) to this startling news.

And --let's not forget--Diem has just been assassinated in early November (which was definitely not Kennedy's intention; he just wanted a change in government); and Diem's death only added to the instability and to the attendant policy complications to a president wishing to withdraw.

So Kennedy had to navigate through this mess, and (imho) had to assuage those on the right who wanted to escalate versus his own conclusion that we should withdraw.

Years ago, when I was deeply involved in studying this quagmire--and at the time that John Newman was then writing his Ph.D. thesis (and we spent probably 100 hours talking all of this out, and then I arranged to film Newman in an excellent multi-hour professionally filmed interview when he was stationed at Fort Ord, and just prior to the time he was sent to China, for a posting), I coined the term that JFK had a "Janus-faced" policy, which Newman later used in his book (which--originally, and at the time we did the filmed interview---was John's PhD thesis, later converted to a book).

So I'm very familiar with these issues; and at the time, John said to me: "I've found a 'war conspiracy'" or words to that effect. At issue was: Just who was "in on" this conspiracy? We discussed that all the time. Constantly.

About a year ago a friend of mine was making a close study of this same matter as part of a paper he was doing for an advanced degree in history. And again, I found myself discussing this issue frequently.

I took the position then--and maintain it today--that its the policy mess and the quagmire that explains some of the weird wording of 273, and not advanced knowledge of Kennedy's murder.

The Honolulu Conference of (Wed.) November 20, 1963 marked a definite turning point of sorts; and McGeorge Bundy sure did draft the draft of NSAM 273, but would Kennedy really have signed something that marked such a departure from NSAM 263, which he had signed just the month before?

Hmmmm. . .

In any event, I think that it is a major error to believe that NSAM 273 includes a paragraph that is "signaling" to those high in the government (and particularly those aboard this aircraft heading to Tokyo) that they shouldn't argue with, or take a position against, the explanation that will soon be forthcoming about the soon-to-occur murder of President Kennedy.

I think that's a totally incorrect interpretation of this document. It implies (does it not?) that a paper trail was created in advance of President Kennedy's murder (!), warning those high in the government of what was in the offing, and communicating to them that they should "toe the line" (choose your phrase; you know what I mean).

However, having said all that, I completely agree that the reports of what was coming from the White House situation room--about one man being responsible, that he's now in custody, etc.--all of that is very fishy. Yes, its weird; and certainly those reports raise the issue of either foreknowledge, or of a very rapidly evolving after-the-fact cover-up.

But keep in mind: we still don't have an Air Force One tape which actually has a voice saying what Theodore White reported. (Am I wrong on this? If so, please do correct me.) What we have is what Theodore White wrote in the opening chapter of his book The Making of the President, 1964.

On that score, I have two observations to make, and all of this falls under the subject of strategic deception.

STRATEGIC DECEPTION --Its early impact

#1: I recently came across a document that clearly indicates that FBI Director Hoover was stating, at 4:15 p.m. CST, that the Dallas Police already had someone in custody and that he appeared to be "the assassin" --at 4:15 p.m. Central Time (!) That's just two hours after the sniper's nest was found, and before the FBI Lab had any bullets or the rifle, and when Air Force One carrying the body (but not inside the Dallas coffin, if my analysis is correct) was still 50 minutes away from landing at Andrews AFB. So: What Hoover was saying represented--more or less--his completely biased state of mind, and not the sort of inferences one would rationally draw from 'the evidence.'

#2; I caution anyone following this case to understand--and not mis-interpret--what appears to be the "early release" of information about Oswald's background in the media. Decades ago, pursuing this issue, I obtained the AP and UPI "A" wires and carefully analyzed when the name "Oswald" was first mentioned; when the "sixth floor" was first mentioned, when "three shots" were first mentioned, etc.--and, finally, when Oswald's background became known, etc. I do not have those files in front of me (just now), but the Fort Worth Star Telegram played an important role. Why? Because --back in 1959--Oswald was considered a "Fort Worth boy." So. . .: Oswald was known because stories had been published at the time of his October 1959 defection, and then again at the time of his June 1962 return. That material was already on file, and then --on November 22, 1963--was promptly retrieved and written up in wire service dispatches immediately after the name "Oswald" was released by the Dallas Police Department.

Finally, one other thought. . . I realize this is sliding way off the topic (somewhat); but I thoroughly disagree with the psychological interpretation promoted by Shotz and Salandria (if I've got this correct) that the Warren Report represented an effort (or strategy) "to psychologically enslave the American people through the destruction of critical thinking.”

". . . psychologically enslave the American people through the destruction of critical thinking. . ."?

Oh pleez. . .

THE PROPER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS-- IMHO. . .

What you're looking at--on November 22, 1963--is the successful execution (in tandem with President Kennedy's murder) --of a strategic deception; the creation of the false appearance that Lee Oswald was President Kennedy's assassin.

On November 22, 1963, that's how it "looked" in Dallas--over at the Dallas Police Department--and that's how it appeared if you were reading the copy being distributed by the two major wire services.

In other words, this was a carefully executed plot, with a well-designed set-up: not an after-the-fact frame-up, but a before the fact set-up; and a willingness to distribute this story nationally via the two major wire services.

Once it was on the wires, that "story" was then read nationally over the three major broadcast networks--both on the radio, and on TV.

But central to this entire operation was the distribution of this story by the Dallas Police Department and then it being "backed up" --that evening--by the falsification of the autopsy. That made it very clear to anyone following the story--that not only was the Dallas Police Department saying that this man they had arrested was the assassin, but the Bethesda autopsy was establishing that as fact, and the FBI Laboratory was reporting that "the gun found on the sixth floor" was in fact the murder weapon.

STRATEGIC DECEPTION (more)

Setting aside--for the moment--the nonsense that emanates from some of the defenders of the WCR, I find it really deplorable that there are those --on the left--who truly believe that Oswald was innocent, but then instead of recognizing the mechanical apparatus that created the (false) appearance of his guilt, instead indulge in false and unwieldy "political theories" that the entire Commission (and its staff) were engaged in a deliberate cover-up, and so on and so forth.

Such people--imho--don't understand where the line is to be drawn between the deceiver and the deceived.

One of the advantages I had back in school year 1966/67 was attending Prof. Wesley Liebeler's class. (Liebeler, to those reading this who don't know, was the member of the WC legal staff who [along with senior attorney Jenner] was charged with investigating--and writing--Oswald's biography; which is Appendix 13 of the Warren Report). As I described in Chapter 6 of Best Evidence: "Redefining the Problem: The Autopsy as 'Best Evidence'", attending that law seminar was a revelation, for the class was composed of talented law students and--from the standpoint of my perception--functioned as a miniature Warren Commission.

Attending that class--I have come to realize (in retrospect)--was akin to attending a workshop on the power and efficacy of this strategic deception; and what happens if the medical and ballistic data is falsified at the source, i.e., from the get-go.

Those students--just about every one of them--bought into the validity of the official version. And not because they were part of a conspiracy; but because they believed the evidence.

The notion that the Bethesda autopsy results could not be relied upon--that those conclusions had been deliberately falsified--was (to them) incomprehensible. Completely out of the question.

So the way the tenor of this legal seminar evolved--at the beginning of the fall term (1966) was that Oswald was ("of course") the assassin, because the autopsy proved the shots were fired from his rifle, found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Meanwhile, on October 22 and October 23, 1966, I discovered the first evidence suggesting that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy--i.e., that bullets had been removed and wounds altered prior to the autopsy conducted that evening at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

In Best Evidence, I describe what happened on October 24, 1966, when I confronted Liebeler with this entirely new concept--that bullets had been removed and the wounds altered prior to autopsy. He was astounded that the FBI report contained a statement stating (a) that when the President's body arrived at the Bethesda morgue there was a "second" blood soaked wrapping on the head (quoting from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "that the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood") and (b ) that when that "second wrapping" was removed, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." (Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, starting at page 288 of CD 7).

Liebeler also immediately grasped the potential significance of it--that here was the explanation divergence of opinion between the Dallas and Bethesda doctors as to the direction of the shots: i.e., that the Dallas doctors said the President was shot from the front, while the Bethesda doctors --who examined the body six hours later--said he was shot from the rear. Some weeks later, I came to the realization that the wound descriptions were different.

I am skipping many details here, but Liebeler soon was on the phone with Arlen Specter, the attorney in charge of the medical area, and ascertained that Specter did not know about this passage in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report. When Liebeler emerged the office where he had been speaking privately with Specter, I asked (naturally) "What did he say?" Liebeler, clearly agitated but also excited, wouldn't answer. But then he said: "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact."

That's the kind of day it was; and I refer interested readers to my book for many more details. That includes the fact that over the course of the next four weeks, Liebeler asked my assistance in drafting a 13 page memo that went to Chief Justice Warren --and all the other commissioners and legal staff of the WC, and to the Kennedy family attorney, and to the Department of Justice--that laid out many of the anomalies concerning the Bethesda autopsy protocol. The list included the fact that the FBI report of agents Sibert and O'Neill--which was unpublished in the 26 volumes--included this passage reporting the existence of "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull."

In Best Evidence, and writing in the first person, I attempted to bring the reader back to that point in time to appreciate the importance of this discovery, and then back to November 22, 1963, to understand the consequence of the falsification of the major medical and ballistic evidence in this case.

One of the key insights that emerged from my discovery and our subsequent conversations was that the "best evidence" in the case was not the JFK autopsy report, but JFK's body itself. The autopsy report was just a verbal description of "the body"; the 'best evidence' was the body itself.

(For further elaboration, and a more up-to-date view, watch my one-hour talk at Bismarck State College (in November 2013. Just Google "David Lifton Bismarck"; you can also view the Best Evidence Research Video, using filmed interviews from October 1980 to establish that the body was covertly intercepted between the time it left Parkland Hospital --wrapped in sheets and inside an expensive ceremonial casket, and the time it arrived at the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, inside a body bag which was inside a standard military type shipping casket. Just use Google to locate it in cyberspace.

THE REACTION OF SOME ON THE POLITICAL LEFT

For reasons I have found rather irritating, there are those on the left who would rather indulge in political theories about the Warren Commission itself being involved in a "conspiracy to lie" rather than face up to the real problem, which was the covert alteration of the body which was at the heart of a strategic deception to change the "medical facts" about Kennedy's death, and thus falsify the story of how he died. It was that falsification which buried the truth about what really happened at Dealey Plaza, and erected--in its place--a completely false story about what happened that day.

The evidence of the manipulation of this event abounds. Properly execute such a deception--i.e., properly alter the body of the deceased--and that is the reason for the focus on Oswald's rifle; and, hence, on Oswald as "the assassin"; i.e., there is no reason to resort to hypotheses which involve "enslaving the American people through the destruction of critical thinking."

There was no "mental enslavement" which prevented people from reading the Sibert and O'Neill report and understanding what those words meant; further, there as no "enslavement" that prevented someone from reading Best Evidence --first published in 1981 and then by three different publishers over the ensuing 17 years--and grasping the basic fact that there was a "before" and "after" condition on President Kennedy's body.

There was no "mental enslavement" that prevents people from understanding that it wasn't "just the pictures" (or the X-rays) that were tampered with, but the President's body, itself.

Its a very simple idea; its just that it is disgusting, and horrific and people just don't want to believe it. As Liebeler (somewhat cynically) said to me about a year later (and I put this in the closing chapter of B.E.) he would always be able to beat me in a debate on the subject: why? I asked. Because, he replied, the public wanted to believe that the emperor was clothed.

Consequently, I don't believe there is much validity to this "enslavement" concept; sure, people respect "authority"--perhaps excessively so; but that's not new. Its been around for ages.

The real problem in the case of President Kennedy's murder--imho--is the reluctance, or inability to come to terms with what actually happened. Its easy to believe in a "conspiracy" that exists of "a second assassin" on the grassy knoll. Dealing with the issue of falsified evidence is a completely different story. It is the psychological inability ---on the part of some--to believe that certain high level officials were involved in a plot to murder President and then arrange to falsify the story of how he died; i.e., to alter the "legal diagram" of the shooting, that is just impossible to accept; "too evil" to believe, as one researcher said to me years ago. And why is that? I can only surmise: Because to believe that means one must ineluctably take the next step--to believe some officials participated in a scheme to disguise a political murder as a quirk of fate, an "accident of history", etc., so that the constitutionally ordained line of succession would operate in the normal fashion, and Lyndon Johnson would then advance to the presidency. Its one thing to read about evil people in Shakespeare; quite another, I gather, to come to terms with that sort of thing inside our own government.

Bottom line: The problem was not the Warren Commission--or at least, not "just" the Warren Commission. The problem begins with the alteration of the most critical evidence on which the Commission relied, and the inability to come to terms with the idea that any such thing could have occurred. Failure to recognize that leads to a completely incorrect analysis of this event, and that extrapolates not only to the autopsy conclusions, but to many closely related issues, ranging from the Kennedy automobile to the person of Lee Oswald.

I could write much more on this subject, but I'll just leave it at that, for now.

DSL

5/12/15 - 6:35 p.m. PDT

Revised at 8:30 p.m. PDT

Revised (again)at 11 p.m. PDT

And still again at 4:10 a.m. on 5/13/15

Los Angeles, California

Edited May 13, 2015 by David Lifton

[Paul Brancato]

Greg - bravo and thanks. I personally think Salandria and Shotz were right, as are you. Strange isn't it, that 51 years have passed and we still haven't figured out that the only thing that matters is whether we can ever put this world right and bring Peace. I know I feel hopeless about this, and I know that was the point of the '60's assassinations. To some, this desire and hope for peace is just foolish idealism, not realistic. The world has never known peace for any length of time. But like you I am convinced that JFK wanted peace on earth and was earnestly trying to move the world in that direction, and that it was this that led to his death at the hands of the Masters of War. If we really want to honor his life and avenge his death we should work towards his vision. It's a tall order.

[Pat Speer]

I apologize if I'm reading too much into your comments, David, but I think the probability some of the evidence was fabricated or mis-represented to the commission fails to absolve them of guilt. The evidence is quite clear, IMO, that Earl Warren, at the very least, knew he was whitewashing a very dark day.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

The Warren "No-No"s

One needn't be a believer in conspiracies to see that the Warren Commission's investigation was not all that it was cracked up to be--a tireless investigation performed by dedicated men whose only client was the truth, blah blah blah.

The year 2013 marked the 50th anniversary of the assassination. Two books on the Warren Commission--one by New York Times reporter Philip Shenon and one by Warren Commission attorney Howard Willens--were pushed upon the public. Although Shenon's book held out that Oswald may have been put in motion by some Cubans he met in Mexico, both were essentially Oswald-did-it books.

Still, included within these books were some startling facts...that only added to what we'd already come to know...

Here, then, is a partial list of Warren "no-no"s, as we now know them.

1. Chief Justice Warren was determined from the outset that the commission investigating President Kennedy's death limit its scope to the investigations already performed by the Dallas Police, Secret Service and FBI. Yes, unbelievably, the transcript of the commission's first conference reflects that Warren wanted the commission to have no investigators of its own, no subpoena power, and no public hearings.

2. When the Attorney General of Texas, Waggoner Carr, persisted in his plan to convene a Texas Court of Inquiry, a public hearing at which much of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald would be presented, Warren convinced him to cancel his plan by assuring him the commission would be "fair to Texas." No record was made of this meeting.

3. Not long thereafter, the commission became privy to the rumor Oswald had been an intelligence asset. Although commissioner and former CIA chief Allen Dulles assured Warren and his fellow commissioners the FBI and CIA would lie about this, he also told them the only way to get to the bottom of it was to ask President Johnson to personally tell them not to lie. Warren did not do this. And the transcript of the hearing in which this rumor was first discussed was destroyed.

4. The commission's staff had questions about the medical evidence. They were particularly concerned about the location of Kennedy's back wound, which may have been too low to support the single-bullet theory deemed necessary to the commission's conclusion Oswald acted alone. Even so, Warren personally prevented Dr. James J. Humes from reviewing the autopsy photos he'd had taken, and wished to review.

5. The commission's staff had questions about Oswald's trip to Mexico. What did he say to those he spoke to? What did he do at night? Did he actually go to the Cuban consulate and Russian embassy on the days the CIA said he'd visited the consulate and embassy? And yet, despite the commission's staff's fervid desire they be allowed to interview Sylvia Duran, a Mexican woman employed by the Cuban consulate, who'd handled Oswald's request he be allowed to visit Cuba, (and who, it turns out, was rumored to have entertained Oswald at night), Chief Justice Warren personally prevented them from doing so, telling commission counsel David Slawson that "You just can't believe a Communist...We don't talk to Communists. You cannot trust a dedicated Communist to tell us the truth, so what's the point?"

6. The commission's staff had questions about Russia's involvement in the assassination. Oswald, of course, had lived in Russia. His wife was Russian. While in Mexico, he'd met with a KGB agent named Kostikov, who was believed to have been the KGB's point man on assassinations for the western hemisphere. Shortly after the assassination, a KGB officer named Yuri Nosenko defected to the west. Nosenko told his handlers he'd reviewed Oswald's file, and that Oswald was not a Russian agent. The timing of Nosenko's defection, however, convinced some within the CIA that Nosenko's defection was a set-up. The commission's staff hoped to talk to Nosenko, and judge for themselves if his word meant anything. The CIA, on the other hand, asked the commission to not only not talk to Nosenko, but to avoid any mention of him within their report. Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting alone, agreed to this request. He later admitted "I was adamant that we should not in any way base our findings on the testimony of a Russian defector."

7. The commission's staff had questions about Jack Ruby's motive in killing Oswald. Strangely, however, the commission's staff charged with investigating Ruby and his background were not allowed to interview him. Instead, the interview of Ruby was performed by, you guessed it, Chief Justice Earl Warren. Despite Ruby's telling Warren such things as "unless you get me to Washington, you can’t get a fair shake out of me...I want to tell the truth, and I can’t tell it here. I can’t tell it here…this isn’t the place for me to tell what I want to tell…” Warren refused to bring Ruby to Washington so he could provide the details he so clearly wanted to provide.

8. The commission's staff had even more questions about how Ruby came to kill Oswald. It was hard to believe he'd just walked down a ramp and shot Oswald, as claimed. As Ruby had many buddies within the Dallas Police, for that matter, it was reasonable to investigate the possibility one or more of the officers responsible for Oswald's protection had provided Ruby access to the basement. Commission counsel Burt Griffin even found a suspect: Sgt Patrick Dean. In the middle of Dean's testimony in Dallas, in which Dean said Ruby had told him he'd gained access to the garage by walking down the ramp, Griffin let Dean know he didn't believe him, and gave him a chance to change his testimony. Dean was outraged and called Dallas DA Henry Wade, who in turn called Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin. Dean then asked that he be allowed to testify against Griffin in Washington. Not only was he allowed to do so, he received what amounted to an apology from, you guessed it, Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren told Dean "No member of our staff has a right to tell any witness that he is lying or that he is testifying falsely. That is not his business. It is the business of this Commission to appraise the testimony of all the witnesses, and, at the time you are talking about, and up to the present time, this Commission has never appraised your testimony or fully appraised the testimony of any other witness, and furthermore, I want to say to you that no member of our staff has any power to help or injure any witness." It was later revealed that Dean had failed a lie detector test designed to test his truthfulness regarding Ruby, and that the Dallas Police had kept the results of this test from the Warren Commission. If Griffin had been allowed to pursue Dean, this could have all come out in 1964. But no, Warren made Griffin back down, and the probability Dean lied was swept under the rug. (None of this is mentioned in Willens' book, of course.)

9. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and wanted all the evidence viewed by the commission to be made available to the public, he (along with commissioners McCloy and Dulles) came to a decision on April 30, 1964, that the testimony before the commission would not be published along with the commission's report. (This decision was over-turned after the other commissioners objected.)

10. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and wanted the public to trust the commission's decisions, he wanted to shred or incinerate all the commission's internal files, so no one would know how the commission came to its decisions. (This decision was over-turned after commission historian Alfred Goldberg sent word of Warren's intentions to Senator Richard Russell, and Russell intervened.)

11. Although Warren was purported to have worked himself day and night in order to give the President the most thorough report possible, he actually flew off on a fishing trip that lasted from July 6 to August 1, 1964, while testimony was still being taken, and the commission's report being polished.

12. Although Warren was purportedly all-concerned about transparency, and felt the commission's work should speak for itself, he (according to Howard Willens' diary) asked the National Archives to hold up the release of assassination-related documents that were not used in the commission's hearings, so that said documents could not be used by critics to undermine the commission's findings.

So let's review. The Chief Justice, who was, by his own admission, roped into serving as chairman of the commission by President Johnson through the prospect of nuclear war, refused to allow important evidence to be viewed, refused to allow important witnesses to be called, cut off investigations into controversial areas, agreed to keep the testimony before the commission from the public, tried to keep the commission's internal files from the public, and ultimately asked the national archives to help hide some of the evidence available to the commission from the public until a decent interval had passed in which the commission and its friends in the media could sell the commission's conclusions.

Now if that ain't a whitewash, then what the heck is?

[David Lifton]

I apologize if I'm reading too much into your comments, David, but I think the probability some of the evidence was fabricated or mis-represented to the commission fails to absolve them of guilt. The evidence is quite clear, IMO, that Earl Warren, at the very least, knew he was whitewashing a very dark day.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

The Warren "No-No"s

One needn't be a believer in conspiracies to see that the Warren Commission's investigation was not all that it was cracked up to be--a tireless investigation performed by dedicated men whose only client was the truth, blah blah blah.

[deleting. . to save space. . . ]

(your ending. . .). . .

The Chief Justice, who was, by his own admission, roped into serving as chairman of the commission by President Johnson through the prospect of nuclear war, refused to allow important evidence to be viewed, refused to allow important witnesses to be called, cut off investigations into controversial areas, agreed to keep the testimony before the commission from the public, tried to keep the commission's internal files from the public, and ultimately asked the national archives to help hide some of the evidence available to the commission from the public until a decent interval had passed in which the commission and its friends in the media could sell the commission's conclusions.

Now if that ain't a whitewash, then what the heck is?

Pat:

This investigation of Kennedy’s assassination is akin to a game with many innings.

As you well know, unraveling this thing is like peeling off the layers of an onion, because there were a multiplicity of investigations.

To describe the opening innings of this “game”, which has gone on for some 50 years, and going back on the time-line to the very beginning--and I am referring here to November 22, 1963 and in the next few days, weeks, and (let's say) two months, we have:

a) the initial media reporting (on 11/22/63 and in the days, weeks, and months thereafter)

b ) the Dallas Police Department investigation

c) The Dallas Sheriff’s investigation

d) The FBI investigation—with its initial December 9, 1963 Summary Report

(and then its January 12, 1964 Summary Report)

e) The Secret Service Report (CD 3, of the Warren Commission)

f) The Warren Commission investigation, which commenced—for all practical purposes—in late December 1963, and then really was underway by January 1964.

Yes, I’m perfectly well aware that the Warren Commission investigation had serious deficiencies (as you enumerated)—no doubt about that. But that doesn’t address the issue I have raised: the importance of autopsy fraud in creating a “false reality” –in real time, starting on the evening of the assassination, and then going forward in time.

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and then codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report), but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that provided a semblance of authenticity (i.e., of factual and legal validity) to the sniper's nest evidence found within an hour of JFK's murder. Lawyers have a "term of art" which describes the connection (or legal nexus) to which I am referring: the sniper's nest evidence (without a valid autopsy) is arguably "irrelevant"; but with a valid autopsy, it becomes "relevant."

Now moving forward (in time) approximately one week. . .

I have little doubt that (on November 29, 1963, when he accepted the WC appointment) it was made clear to Earl Warren—when his arm was twisted (by LBJ) and he accepted the job of being chairman of the Commission—that there was some “other reality” lurking beneath the surface. That's what many JFK researchers--myself included--have called the "World War 3 cover story." No doubt Lyndon Johnson scared the wits out of Warren by talking of the possibility of a nuclear war with 40 million dead in the first hour if he (Warren) didn't (a) accept the job and (b ) didn't tread carefully. And no doubt, either deliberately or otherwise, that awareness resulted in a Chief Justice who was very likely aware that there were "other issues" that better be left un-investigated and untouched--i.e., in short, behavior that resulted in a seriously flawed investigation.

But. . .so what?

That doesn’t change the basic point I was making: that the covert alteration of Kennedy’s body—the removal of bullets and the alteration of wounds—fundamentally changed the story of how he died (compared to the true story that would have emerged had an honest autopsy been conducted immediately after Kennedy was pronounced dead).

By comparison: If you affix a “calendar date” to each of the flaws you have cited, none of that compares—in importance—with the falsification of the autopsy results; and the creation—starting the night of Kennedy’s death, and certainly extending to the point where the “final” autopsy report was sent to the Warren Commission (on December 20, 1963) --of a false reality about what actually occurred in Dealey Plaza, a false reality that can be traced back to false "medical facts" ascertained at this thoroughly tainted autopsy proceeding.

Your list of Warren Commission “no no’s” only adds to the problem of a blue ribbon legal investigation which –unbeknownst to those conducting it—was based on a false autopsy report containing false medical facts and false conclusions which then resulted in a false (and fraudulent) linkage to a phony sniper’s nest.

So. . .please note: I don’t dispute your list of “no no’s”. I’m simply attempting to put it all in context. I'm asserting that your list is completely secondary to the primary issue at hand, and the one that I am emphasizing of being of primary importance: the mechanics of a deception that unfolded in real time starting that night at the Bethesda morgue with ancillary activities at the FBI Laboratory, where "incoming bullets" (and bullet fragments) were ballistically "matched" to "K-1", a rifle that had nothing to do with the actual shooting.

That's where the investigation went off the rails. That's when there was a substitution of artifacts for real facts.

To understand what happened in this country on November 22, 1963, you have to start with the way this deception functioned, and the manner in which the major media carried the story in the first 24-48 hours—i.e., the “Oswald did it, and did it alone” story; and not be mislead by focusing on the "other problems" (which you have noted, and that developed days, weeks, and months later). All of that provides additional circumstantial evidence that "something's rotten in Denmark," but it does not address the primary issue or provide the key to the case.

Anyone who has analyzed a complex problem and uses a time-line to follow the sequence of events can immediately see what I am talking about: the power of a deception that unfolded in real time, and which then led to major false reporting about "what happened," reporting which was then (seemingly) backed up by a false autopsy report, a report which (normally) would be something that lawyers would routinely rely upon, and which they routinely refer to as the "best evidence."

So. . this is not about "no no's". Those are, by comparison, blemishes. Some serious no doubt, but still blemishes nonetheless.

IMHO: those blemishes--legal blemishes or deficiencies if you will--are merely perturbations when considered in the context of the major (and immediate) consequences of autopsy fraud. Its that which is the core of the problem.

I do not deny the instances of "whitewash" that you have described; I'm simply saying that all of that is distinctly different from the "core of the problem." And it is that "core" that is at the heart of the deception that occurred on November 22, 1963 which resulted in "Oswald's rifle" being viewed as "the murder weapon". Recognizing that falsehood--that false nexus--is what legally invalidates the major conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

If you compare the Warren Commission Report to a house with some half dozen rooms (corresponding to the different chapters of the Warren Report), it is a house without a proper legal foundation because the President's body was altered.

The reason I believe Oswald is innocent and did not murder President Kennedy is not that I believe he was a nice man of good character who admired the President (all of which is true), but because I am positive that the President's body was altered as part of a plan to falsify the autopsy and create the false appearance that Oswald was guilty.

DSL

5/12/15 – 11:55 p.m. PDT

Edited, 5/13/15, 5:04 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited May 14, 2015 by David Lifton

[Greg Burnham]

I'd like to thank David Lifton for edifying us by publishing an entire chapter from his upcoming book in this thread!

Seriously, though...

David: Imagining that any of the Cabinet members on the Tokyo flight had a "need to know" anything about the TOP SECRET Honolulu Conference and Vietnam Policy is ludicrous. The DRAFT of NSAM 273 is entirely and unequivocally about Vietnam Policy. Paragraph 4 is the ONLY paragraph that stands alone without any apparent context applying. IT MADE NO SENSE for the presumably still sitting President to instruct the Cabinet Members to refrain from ARGUING about the contents of the Honolulu Conference when they had NO KNOWLEDGE of it in the first place!

There are more factors at work here than the mere "mechanisms" utilized to transition power from one man to another. It is a very nuanced operation that is perhaps more real on the psychological level than it is on the political.

There was no need to tell the Cabinet to avoid the appearance or reality of recrimination of one part of the government against another in the context of TOP SECRET talks (to which the public was not even privy) regarding an area of Government Policy that was not related to any of the Cabinet members' roles within government who were aboard that flight. The Secretary of Agriculture? Puleeeez! It has absolutely no context.

Even if my interpretation is partially flawed, yours appears entirely irrelevant.

BTW: ". . . psychologically enslave the American people through the destruction of critical thinking. . ." -- is a Burnham quote. Not Salandria.

Another quite disappointing portion of your lengthy post, IMO, involves your lack of appreciation of some pertinent facts. One such fact is the reason that McNamara felt he had been lied to was because he had, in fact, been lied to (or misled) on the orders of JFK. The McNamara/Taylor Report was based on JFK's long standing opposition to our involvement in Indochina that dated back to 1951, when he first gave a speech to that effect as a Congressman. He gave an even stronger speech in opposition to our involvement in Indochina while he was a member of the Senate in 1954.

At the time of the signing of NSAM 263, JFK had effected an "end run" around both the SECDEF (McNamara) and the CJCS (Taylor) by dictating the content of the McNamara/Taylor Trip Report, which spawned NSAM 263, without their participation and without their knowledge while they were still in Vietnam. It was written BEFORE they returned and before they even had time to compile their notes from the trip. JFK knew that, at the very least, he needed the "stamp of approval" at the highest levels (CJCS and SECDEF) if he was to extricate us from Vietnam. In an otherwise brilliant--had it not proved so dangerous--move he went a step further: He made the Vietnam Withdrawal Policy THEIR idea (McNamara/Taylor Trip Report * ) so that it appeared that he was approving THEIR recommendation (NSAM 263), thus avoiding the politically suicidal label of "soft on Communism" from sticking to him before the beginning of an election year. Moreover, the "Vietnam progress reports" that came into the White House were carefully screened and selectively chosen so that only those that could be interpreted to mean that the war effort was succeeding and that the GOV of SVN no longer needed our presence to sustain themselves would be reviewed.

McNamara probably didn't sign off on the plot. I never said he did. He was a "company man" bred to run a big corporation, like say, FORD Motor Company. He got to be the President of that Company by being a "Yes man" up the chain of command. Once high enough he secured his power there. At some point during his tenure as SECDEF he appears to have reverted back to being to a Yes Man again.

You are correct that not all of those in Washington wanted JFK dead. Nobody said otherwise. Indeed, in order for JFK to have gotten even as far as he did in his withdrawal policy there was much help garnered from those of a like mind or who were loyal to their Commander-in-Chief.

Finally, as to the comments regarding the changed political "climate" in Vietnam as the result of the assassination of DIEM, the State Department Cable of November 13 sets out the purpose of the Honolulu Conference as per the Policy of the USGOV delineated in NSAM 263. It refers to discussing the implementation of the recommendations (approved by the President) from the McNamara/Taylor Trip Report. This is nearly two weeks FOLLOWING the assassination of Diem. There is no mention of reevaluating the current US Policy in light of the changed political landscape following the fall of the Diem Regime. The purpose of the Honolulu Conference was to begin the process of working out the logistics of a complete withdrawal from Vietnam within the timeframe of NSAM 263. That the State Department's: Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) documents are very sketchy as to the conference's discussions is suspect, but, even relying on the scant record, there is NO indication that any discussions took place that would have led to a conclusion that NSAM 263 was being reversed or even delayed. I have been unable to find a record of any official discussions from the Honolulu Conference that could have logically led to the DRAFT of NSAM 273 being signed on the evening of November 21, 1963.

-------------------

* The ONLY section of McNamara/Taylor Trip Report that JFK approved by signing NSAM 263:

[sECTION] 1: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

B. Recommendations.

We recommend that:

1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:

a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
c. Emphasis on “clear and hold operations” instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.

2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Cliff Varnell]

From NSAM 273:

4. The President expects that all senior officers of the Government will move energetically to insure the full unity of support for established U.S. policy in South Vietnam. Both in Washington and in the field, it is essential that the Government be unified. It is of particular importance that express or implied criticism of officers of other branches be scrupulously avoided in all contacts with the Vietnamese Government and with the press. More specifically, the President approves the following lines of action developed in the discussions of the Honolulu meeting, of November 20. The offices of the Government to which central responsibility is assigned are indicated in each case. <quote off>

From A Death in November: America in Vietnam 1963, by Ellen J. Hammer, pg 185, describing the fallout from Cable 243, sent on Sat., August 24 authorizing So. Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to organize a coup against Diem.

<quote on, emphasis added>

Washington, August 26-27, 1963

...In the cool halls of the White House the hectic plotting of the weekend took on an air of unreality. Robert Kennedy had talked with Taylor and McNamara and discovered that "nobody was behind it, nobody knew what we were going to do, nobody knew what our policy was; it hadn't been discussed, as everything else had been discussed since the Bay of Pigs in full detail before we did anything--nothing like that had been done before the decision made on Diem, and so by Tuesday we were trying to pull away from that policy..."

President Kennedy belatedly realized that no one had spelled out to him the ramifications for the policy he had approved so lightly [Cable 243]. He was irritated at the disagreement among his advisers. Taylor, McNamara, and McCone all were critical of the attempt to run a coup in Saigon. Even Rusk seemed to have second thoughts. "The government was split in two," Robert Kennedy recalled. "It was the only time really in three years, the government was broken in two in a very disturbing way."<quote off>

Edited May 13, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

From NSAM 273:

4. The President expects that all senior officers of the Government will move energetically to insure the full unity of support for established U.S. policy in South Vietnam. Both in Washington and in the field, it is essential that the Government be unified. It is of particular importance that express or implied criticism of officers of other branches be scrupulously avoided in all contacts with the Vietnamese Government and with the press. More specifically, the President approves the following lines of action developed in the discussions of the Honolulu meeting, of November 20. The offices of the Government to which central responsibility is assigned are indicated in each case. <quote off>

From A Death in November: America in Vietnam 1963, by Ellen J. Hammer, pg 185, describing the fallout from Cable 243, sent on Sat., August 24 authorizing So. Vietnam Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to organize a coup against Diem.

<quote on, emphasis added>

Washington, August 26-27, 1963

...In the cool halls of the White House the hectic plotting of the weekend took on an air of unreality. Robert Kennedy had talked with Taylor and McNamara and discovered that "nobody was behind it, nobody knew what we were going to do, nobody knew what our policy was; it hadn't been discussed, as everything else had been discussed since the Bay of Pigs in full detail before we did anything--nothing like that had been done before the decision made on Diem, and so by Tuesday we were trying to pull away from that policy..."

President Kennedy belatedly realized that no one had spelled out to him the ramifications for the policy he had approved so lightly [Cable 243]. He was irritated at the disagreement among his advisers. Taylor, McNamara, and McCone all were critical of the attempt to run a coup in Saigon. Even Rusk seemed to have second thoughts. "The government was split in two," Robert Kennedy recalled. "It was the only time really in three years, the government was broken in two in a very disturbing way."<quote off>

Perhaps the government continued to be split in two.

Bundy was on the other side...

[David Lifton]

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report) but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that gave them a semblance of factual and legal validity.

Whoa, hang on there Kemosabe. The body alteration and the false autopsy report gave "them" a semblance of factual and legal validity?

Who's them?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint?

The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window?

The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit?

I can understand you wanting to inflate your own importance by overstating the super-coolness of the body alteration theory. But no, Dave. Your statement is silly. Rigged or not, there was plenty of legal and factual validity to LHO's arrest. Seeing as how he was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting, all of this evidence would have most likely been tossed eventually. But at the moment of arrest, frozen in time, there was validity to the action.

MV

May 13, 2015

7:57 AM PDT

Santa Monica, California

Mark,

You ask “who’s them”?

To clarify, I have reworded that paragraph—written rather hurriedly, and very late at night—and perhaps you will now understand the point I was making.

With regard to those who made the various discoveries of “the evidence” on the sixth floor, I do not now maintain (and never have said or implied) that the ordinary officers at the lower levels of the Dallas Police Department ‘food chain’ --ordinary uniformed officers in the patrol division--were involved in any plot.

I don’t believe that today, and never did. However, its important to understand the dividing line between those who are the deceivers, and those who are deceived.

The chief exception I would make to the above statement pertains to the clique of motorcycle officers who rode escort to the presidential limousine; but that is a separate topic.

What I have believed—and maintained for decades (see Best Evidence)—is that in a scheme in which the autopsy was falsified (the purpose being in effect to “change the diagram of the shooting,”) then the investigation at the Texas School Book Depository (and the “discovery” of the sniper’s nest) more or less resembles a scavenger hunt designed by those who engineered this deception.

When an officer searching the northwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD sees the butt of a rifle protruding from amongst some cartons and says (in effect) “Hey, over here! I found it!”, he is not in any way involved in a conspiracy. He’s simply doing his job.

Personal Motive?

Your statement attempting to attribute to me a personal motive (“to inflate your own importance”) by writing the post I did is silly and way off point. Oswald’s apprehension at the Texas Theater is arguably legitimate since police were looking for a suspect who ran away from the Tippit murder scene, but –if you know the record—then you should be aware that Oswald was not charged with the crime of JFK's murder until 11:26 p.m. (12:26 p.m. Eastern time), after the FBI agents had left the Bethesda morgue and the autopsy was essentially completed, and after Humes had already articulated—in front of them—his original “conclusions” about the autopsy: that JFK was struck twice from behind. (I stress this point in Best Evidence).

Perhaps you are unaware of the time sequence, but these details are critical in understanding the chronology of the unfolding sequence of events and the public statements by the Dallas Police Chief that Oswald’s rifle was identified as the murder weapon.

The Time Sequence (re the "ballistic match" between alleged murder weapon and retrieved bullets)

Specifically: By Saturday morning, 11/23, in the early a.m., the stretcher bullet from Parkland and the two large fragments found in the presidential limo had arrived at the FBI Laboratory and—when the rifle arrived—would be tested for a ballistic match. Based on the FBI Laboratory Report dated November 23, 1963, he match between the K-1 ("rifle. .with telescope sight Serial No. C2766") and Q 1 (“bullet from stretcher”) and Q2 (“bullet fragment from front seat cushion”) and Q3 (“bullet fragment from beside front seat”) was the basis for the identification of “Oswald’s rifle” as the murder weapon in this case.

Also: it was that same FBI Laboratory Report—dated November 23, 1963 (and available in the Dallas Police File and published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission)—that was couriered from the FBI Lab (in Washington) to “Mr. Jesse E. Curry, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas” and which forms the heart of the Government’s ballistic “case against Oswald”. It was that FBI Laboratory report which was the basis for Chief Curry’s statements, the day after the assassination, that the FBI Lab had established that the rifle found on the sixth floor (“of the building where Oswald worked” –my quotes) –a rifle which had been “traced” to Oswald because it had been mail-ordered to his Post Office box the previous March—was the murder weapon.

An Incorrect Belief About Oswald’s Whereabouts. . .

Undoubtedly the most bizarre part of your post is your statement that Oswald “was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting.”

Is that what you believe today, in 2015?

I hope you are aware that this has been thoroughly analyzed, dissected and refuted decades ago.

Yes, there is a resemblance between the “man in the doorway” and Oswald, and back in the mid-sixties, I used to wonder about that. But then came my work --as "researcher"--on the film Executive Action in 1973.

1973: Executive Action (and the discovery of film footage showing Oswald and Lovelady in the same fame)

As researcher on Executive Action (see the film credits), I ordered whatever films were available from the major New York City film libraries. One day, watching the footage of Oswald’s arrival at the DPD under police escort, I was rather astonished to see Oswald being marched right past Billy Lovelady, who was seated in one of the rooms at the DPD. I called over other members of the production team—notably, Ivan Dryer, the film editor—and we all watched the footage. Clearly, the shirts both men were wearing were similar; and there was even a similarity when photographed from this or that angle, but Oswald and Lovelady were two different people; and they were certainly not “twins.”

I made arrangements to make 35mm slides of those frames, and subsequently showed them to senior members of the HSCA staff in January 1977. (See the memos presently available at NARA). Robert Groden was then tasked—among other things—with following up.

He flew to Colorado, photographed Billy Lovelady in the shirt he was actually wearing that day (not the striped shirt which was an FBI mistake); questioned him, etc.--and it was established beyond any doubt that the man in the doorway was Lovelady.

I am not citing the above to ‘inflate” myself, Mark. I am citing the above to establish that you are dead wrong if your beliefs about the Kennedy assassination include the mistaken idea that Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD as the motorcade passed by the building.

That is a completely untrue proposition, but no doubt will linger on as an urban legend, and be subscribed to by those who are unfamiliar with the finer details of the evidence of this case, and perhaps are looking for a "simple explanation" to justify their belief in Oswald's innocence.

Oswald may well have been telling the truth when he denied "shooting anybody" (I personally believe he was), but the surest way to lose credibility --imho--is to base that belief on the notion that he was "standing in the doorway" at the time of the president's murder.

DSL

5/13/15 – 7 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited May 14, 2015 by David Lifton

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Lifton,

I believe you are confusing the "controversy" over Altgen 6 with the more-recent discussion on this very forum on the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread. It's pretty much accepted that Oswald is NOT seen in Altgens 6. But there are other films that show another man in the corner BEHIND Lovelady, who is not visible in Altgens 6, who may--or may not--be Oswald.

Check out the "Oswald Leaving the TSBD" thread and educate yourself on the issue. You may or may not believe it's Oswald back in the corner. But it's also not Lovelady, who IS the man seen in Altgens 6.