Pat Speer

Uhh...no. It is your bias that is evident. As stated, I asked David a number of times if he had any evidence to support some of his wilder theories, and he avoided the question, and instead repeated that it made sense. He was working backwards--"I need to explain how Connally got shot"--and then conjuring up a scenario that explained it...even though there was no evidentiary support. When you take the time and study the case, and read hundreds of interviews about what happened that day--you get a feel for what is plausible and what is not. And it is simply not plausible that a secret service agent jumped into the limo and physically fought with Connally. Do you believe otherwise?

To be clear, as one who spoke to Lifton on occasion, sometimes for as much as an hour, he was quite lucid when discussing the history of the case, and his own investigation of the case. He jumped the shark, however, whenever he started musing on what "really" happened. He could conjure up something--like Ready's fight with Connally--which no one witnessed--and act as though it made perfect sense.

One of the problems with David's earlier theories was that he failed to account for Connally's back wound. This was discussed on this forum. The "Godzilla" theory, as I understand it, was in part David's explanation for Connally's back wound. As I understand it, he suspected Connally was accidentally wounded by Ready, after Ready jumped into the car. This is what I've been talking about. David's latter-day theories solved one problem while creating a whole slew of others.

I think we can agree that this thread should be on David's latter-day claims, and not Best Evidence. In Best Evidence David latched onto a wild theory, and then supported it. He offered up these latter-day claims without offering any real support.

What was the "Godzilla" theory he expressed in the videos? Because the "Godzilla" theory he expressed to others was a doozy, and really damaging to his reputation.

I can also say that I have spoken to another who'd been sworn to silence, and he described some theories that were way beyond what Lifton had shared with me. But they followed the same pattern. I think a tendency to David's thought process made evident in his earlier works had grown out of control in his latter-day thoughts. While he once confronted problems through creative thinking--and then went back to see if there was any factual basis for his possible solution--in his conversations with me he expressed creative solutions to problems without providing a factual basis. As but one example, he told me that the plot involved JFK's corpse being transferred to an ambulance after the shooting--so his wounds could be altered before reaching Parkland--but that Connally's being wounded made them go straight to the hospital. Now, as I remember it he called this a "breakthrough". So I asked him what evidentiary support he'd obtained that this was the original plot--did he have witnesses who saw an ambulance standing by or anything. As I recall, he said it would all be in his book. But as he spoke enthusiastically about this "breakthrough" it occurred to me that he considered the possibility itself a "breakthrough"--whether or not he ever found any support. I remember thinking at the time, and again over the last few days, that David and I had much in common. But that we approached the case in a vastly different manner.

Ok. I'll go second. While I have not watched the videos, I am told that within them David proposed the involvement of a number of Parkland doctors in the plot. This is one of the things he told me. I remember that I said something about perhaps they were forced to lie after the killing, but he laid out a scenario in which they had foreknowledge. I remember thinking that this was never gonna float.

I think maybe we should start a separate thread in which we can discuss some of Lifton's latter-day claims. I haven't watched the videos, but I've been told that within them he floats some of the theories to which he'd sworn me to silence. I think perhaps he knew that if he published these theories or presented them on the forum, I would have been among those expressing great doubt about them. It's a bit perplexing.

There is a lot more to this story. In his 11/22 report, McClelland described a wound of the left temple. He told a journalist shortly thereafter there was nothing about this wound to indicate a shot from the front. Months later, after the reports of McClelland and his co-workers were published in a medical journal, and he saw that he was was the only one to describe a wound on the temple, he testified before the Warren Commission, and described a wound on the back of the head. Years later, when contacted by Harold Weisberg, he denounced Garrison's investigation, and said he supported Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission. He told Weisberg that Garrison's people had contacted him and wanted to know about his claim there was wound of the left temple, and that he'd told them it had been a misunderstanding, and that he'd been misled by Jenkins. Five years or so later he saw the Zapruder film on TV. He would subsequently claim he thought the shot came from the front, and muse that there must have been an entrance on the front of the head that went unseen. Still later, he would say the shot from the front created a large wound of entrance and exit. Shortly after this he was shown the so-called McClelland drawing, created for Tink Thompson in 1967. McClelland said the wound depicted was too low on the back of the head to reflect the wound he saw. He was also shown the autopsy photos, and said they looked legit but that sagging scalp must have been pulled over the wound on the back of the head. Around this time, he became a darling of the research community. Under their influence, his claims became less and less credible. He started claiming he'd supervised or even drew the so-called McClelland drawing, and apparently sold drawings in which he pointed out the location of the wound he saw--which was now low on the back of the head, in the location of the wound in the drawing--which he'd repeatedly said was inaccurate. I met him. He was a gentle man, with a soft voice. I don't believe he lied about any of this stuff. His recollections were just erratic, that's all. He was human.

It is my understanding that Malcolm bought Harry's archives and gave them to Bart to put online, along with a lot of his own materials.

Why waste my time? You need to read the transcripts, and watch the videos, and read the books, and come back with some support for your claim McClelland actually saw a wound on the left temple.

McClelland was asked about this a number of times. He said he never saw a wound on the left temple, and was fooled into thinking there was such a wound when Jenkins pointed at Kennedy's left temple. The problem is that he failed to report anything about the wound he would later claim he'd inspected, and told Richard Dudman a few days later there was nothing about Kennedy's head wound to indicate the shot was fired from in front of Kennedy. So McClelland's subsequent claim was that he reported on a wound he did not see, but failed to report on the wound he did see. I take from this that the wound he saw was actually by the temple, and that he changed his recollections to match others. And no, he wasn't threatened by someone before talking to Dudman. He denied that he was ever pressured by anyone, long after he took to claiming the back of the head was blown out. As he would later come to claim he'd created the "McClelland drawing" made without his knowledge or input, it seems clear to me that the man was highly susceptible to suggestion, and that he almost certainly came to believe he'd observed what he later claimed to observe. But we have strong reason to doubt the wound he saw was where he would later claim he said it was.

1. Pulling out? Probably. Pulling back? Definitely. My understanding of politics and Kennedy's politics in particular lead me to believe he would have distanced himself and the country from S. Vietnam while maintaining some financial and material support. It's clear I believe that he would absolutely positively have not sent hundreds of thousands of American boys to fight in SE Asia, and absolutely positively have not bombed civilians in the name of diplomacy. 2. I'm skeptical the military was the driving force behind the assassination, but remain open-minded, and supportive of John Newman's journey into that mindfield.

I talked to Matt and he said Lifton's hard drive crashed about two months ago. Not to be dramatic, but it's hard not to see this as a factor in David's passing. I know that when I was in the hospital last year fighting cancer and google updated my site, and scrambled all the images, I was incredibly depressed. My poor health--where I was given a 1 in 3 chance to survive--in combination with the thought I'd spent thousands of hours creating something that had essentially disappeared--was just too much. I was nearly catatonic. Fortunately, however, my wife was there for me, as were the rest of my family and friends. They made a difference.

I talked to Matt earlier. He doesn't have access to the manuscript. And he is in the dark beyond that Lifton's phone has been disconnected.

Steven Kossor started this thread. He would be the one to know.

That's not surprising. They wouldn't publish anything if the family hasn't told them. I talked to another researcher who'd been in recent contact with Lifton, and he confirmed that Lifton had been living in Vegas and that his phone number has been disconnected.

A quick comment. It sounds like Buzzanco is of the mindset "No right-winger would kill Kennedy because JFK was a cold warrior and his Vietnam policy was the same as LBJ's." We used to hear this a lot. But it's just not true. Some of the earliest conspiracy theorists were right-wingers who thought it unlikely a wanna-be commie like Oswald would kill Kennedy, since they considered Kennedy a commie himself. IOW, it doesn't matter what some "historian" using 20/20 hindsight says today, the right-wingers of 1963 considered JFK a major obstacle to be overcome.

The presentation dealt with some recent polling. Apparently half of the 20-somethings interviewed rejected the possibility of conspiracy as some dumb boomer nonsense, and dismissed it out of hand. It follows that they would think any further release a waste of time.

That's not how it works. It wasn't an article on the assassination. It was an article on a press conference. For decades and decades the media has been repeating what government sources or "experts" like Lattimer have told them. This was just a CT version of that. You make an appointment at the press club. You call a press conference. And you talk about your recent discovery etc. Someone then reports it. But they do not double-check it. if a former governor called a press conference at the press club and said he'd talked to Bigfoot, that would get reported as well.

The two times I met up with David, it was in Beverly Hills. I believe he lived in the area. As we know he went to UCLA, and I don't think he ever moved very far from there. Until recently. The last time we talked I think he did mention something about Las Vegas. As far as family, he never married, and I believe he spent most of his life living alone. Long before I met David, or even got obsessed with the Kennedy case, however, I worked with a guy in the record biz, who told me Lifton was his wife's uncle. So he had extended family here in Southern California. As far as his records...David told me that the vast majority of his stuff was either given to the National Archives or in storage and not readily accessible. On at least three occasions, he called me in hopes I could help him find a primary source for something mentioned on my website, or posted on the Ed Forum. As far as his book... It started out as a bio of Oswald, built upon interviews with Marina. I believe he could have finished this decades ago. But he was stuck on his body alteration theory, and wanted to double-down on that. So his final book was to be a two-parter--a history of Oswald merged with an update and expansion of his thoughts on the medical evidence. Will it ever come out? That's anyone's guess. I will say that if his departure is confirmed, I will share what he thought was an important breakthrough in his thinking. I didn't write it down, but I can only assume others will have more details and help fill in the blanks. P.S. I called his phone number and the phone number was no mas. As it was a local number, however, it might only mean he got a new number after moving to Vegas.

Newsweek reported on what was claimed. That's what they do. That's why you call a press conference. So someone will broadcast what you say. I've met Jeff and he is not a fraud. When I first met him he'd already been looking into the Joannides angle for a decade or more. And yet he refused to say he thought more than Oswald was involved. He just knew--because the evidence strongly suggested as much--that the CIA was lying and stone-walling and hiding something. He has now reached the point where he thinks Oswald was a patsy, I believe. But he doesn't know if he or anyone will be able to prove it. The document he refers to is not a smoking gun regarding the assassination, but is another piece of the puzzle. In fact, to my understanding, it could very well provide the CIA with a plausible excuse for all the lying and stone-walling. Oswald had been part of operation. They didn't want anyone to know. Lie. Stone-wall. Not a smoking gun. But a disturbing revelation that adds fuel to the conspiracy fire.

This may surprise some but I knew David a bit. Although we disagreed on a lot of stuff, we met up after a movie screening once, and actually attended another one together a few years back. He was obsessed with the JFK case and was extremely protective of his work. Within the past year he called me up to tell me his most recent theory, and then threatened to kill me if I revealed it before the release of his new book. He then stressed this point by telling me he knew where I lived. I subsequently asked a fellow researcher if he'd had a similar experience and he laughed and immediately told me the theory for which David had sworn me to secrecy. Evidently, he'd told a number of people of this theory, and had then threatened them in a similar manner. In any event, I liked David and enjoyed his company. He got sucked down the rabbit hole long before I, and he often expressed surprise that I could be so obsessed with the case while having a family. We shared a bond I suppose in that our lives were derailed when we realized something smelled in Denmark and the powers-that-be could give a rat's-ass. RIP.

You know nothing about me. I am in many ways still the newbie bringing fresh ideas to this forum while arguing against stuff that should have been tossed decades ago. As far as Christianity... I am not a Christian. I am not a believer. But I do not have a bias against those who do believe...in Christianity. Roman Catholicism is another story. It is, in the eyes of many if not most American Christians, a distortion of Christianity, incorporating elements of paganism, etc. It has been a haven for scoundrels, for decades, if not centuries. I mean, it's hard to get over that whole Inquisition thing, and that whole rubbing up against Hitler thing. Now, that said, I find some Catholic Churches insanely beautiful, and find some Renaissance-era Christian-themed art inspiring. And, yes, I applaud the works of charities of all stripes and denominations. So I am not one to talk of the Church as a great evil (a la Tony Alamo, who papered the parking lots of my youth with papers denouncing the Virgin Mary as the Whore of Babylon). I see it as yet another flawed institution, kinda like the Republican Party. Reform it. Don't destroy it. P.S. You know why it's called the Renaissance, right? It's because the Church, which celebrates the return of Jesus from the dead, killed scientific and artistic progress in its tracks, once it gained control of Western Society. Pretty much stopped it dead. The Renaissance was the re-birth of science and art. It got moving not because the Church changed its ways, but because an emerging class of businessmen embraced science as a way of getting ahead, and embraced art as a way of immortalizing themselves (as opposed to Biblical characters) in paintings and sculptures. So...yikes...Capitalsim saved western society from...the Church. P.P.S. Pope Francis is kinda cool. Let this be my final words about religion, at least until the next time I run into John Newman at a bar and ask him about the apocrypha.

Only one wound was noticed at Parkland. it follows that he was describing that wound.