David Lifton

On 10/29/2022 at 1:02 PM, David Lifton said:

According to a statement issued by FBI Director Hoover about 11/26/66 (and published in the NY Times at the time), the statements in the FBI report about the Bethesda autopsy (i.e., in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report) were made by the autopsy doctors at the time of the Bethesda autopsy. (10/29/22 - 1 PM PDT)

10/30/22 Postscript:  IOW: FBI Director Hoover's statement took the following position re the S& O report and the  (Bethesda) Naval autopsy report (and addressing any differences between the two): that the S & O FBI report recorded "oral statements" made by the autopsy doctor(s) at the time of the autopsy examination;  whereas. . .the Naval autopsy (dated 11/24/63) represented the "final conclusions" of the autopsy.  IMHO: that's an interesting prescription for a cover-up, but that's what Director Hoover said, as reported in his statement of 11/25/63 (and which was published in the NY Times, either that day or the next. (DSL, 10/30/22 -10:40 PM PDT)

12 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Thanks so much David for recounting some of your experiences from your journey. As time goes on, first and even second- hand testimony becomes harder and harder to come by. It's irreplaceable and invaluable.

American Cinematographer is actually the journal of motion picture photography rather than editing and post-production but obviously covers a lot of those areas. Did you have a chance to speak to Haskell on any of these issues regarding the possible manipulation of the film? He certainly would be regarded as a leading authority in the world at that time.

Yes, I spoke with Haskell Wexler --and so did Fred Newcomb.  In fact, it was Fred who made the connection with Haskell; and Haskell  who then arranged for us to spend a day (at the Beverly Hills Office of Time-Life), looking at (i.e., examining) a beautiful 16mm copy of the Z film; plus the collection of 4 x5 frame-by-frame transparencies.  As I recall, we did not get into (or pursue) any issues of authenticity with Haskell (who, BTW, passed in 2015).  His contribution was permitting us to have access to this important film material.  As you may also be aware: I arranged to rent a full-sized 35 mm microfilm reader (from somewhere in Beverly Hills) and trundled it up the multiple stairs to the Time-Life office.  Once the Z images were viewed on a microfilm reader, it became pretty obvious that the large JFK head wound --the one located towards the front-right-hand-side of the head, and which no one saw at Parkland -- looked "painted on"; also, the back of JFK's head (from Z 221 & Z-223 [as I recall] plus  Z 335, Z337) -- where the Dallas doctors saw the "occipital wound" -- appeared to have been deliberately "blacked out"  (DSL)

P.S. It is very difficult today--in 2022 --to reach back into the past, and recall (or resurrect) my astonishment at some of these visual (or "optical") discoveries. To quote Josiah Thompson (author, Six Seconds in Dallas), the Zapruder film was, as he once said, "the closest thing to absolute truth."  Of course, as events evolved and various discoveries were made, it became clear to me,  nothing could be further than the truth.  The Z film --our precious "time clock" on the assassination -- was a fraud, just another item of falsified evidence.  It still contains very valuable data, of course, but in the final analysis --and if the English language is to have any meaning--it is an optical forgery; and best viewed as an artifact, not a fact.

As to its being a "time-clock," that idea can be --and should be --discarded. 

Another factoid:  Sheriff Bill Decker was sitting in the back seat of Chief Curry's car, which was stopped near the mouth of the Triple Underpass --when JFK's limo was midway down Elm Street and shots were fired.  Either when he testified --or that night, in the Dallas Times-Herald --Decker gave his estimate as to the "length" (in time) of JFK's assassination.  It was not "six seconds" or anything like that.  As I recall --and I will change this writing if need be --it was closer to 20 seconds.  DSL

16 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Many speculate that the murder of JFK was supposed to implicate the Cuban government in the triangulated fire with a few participants and that it was after-the-fact that the conspiritors changed the plan to then implicate a lone wolf.

If the original plan was to implicate the Cuban government, then controlling the body and all bystander films would not have been necessary.

So, I'm going to guess that those things were not planned in advance and were done in great haste after-the-fact.

What are your thoughts on that DL?

When I have talked about changing the "medical facts" in the JFK case, I am referring to altering the wounds so as to create a false story of how JFK died.  (I am referring there to the geometry of the shooing (i.e., how many times JFK was hit, and from what direction etc.).  But that has nothing to do with "the Cuban government" per se. Yes, the Cuban government was dragged into this, but that was by implication; because LHO was framed for a murder he did not commit; and--once that case "emerged" -- LHO's prior political stance, his admiration of Castro, and his travels (attempting to go to Cuba etc.)  became pertinent.  DSL

17 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

... to add on the source of Audrey Bell's statements on the location of the head wound, here is an excerpt from Dr Aguilar's chapter from "Murder in Dealey Plaza" book edited by J. Fetzer (2000):

"The Globe immediately refuted that speculation, reporting. "But others, like (Dr. Richard Dulaney) and (neurosergeon Dr. Robert) Grossman, said the head at some point was lifted up, therefore exposing the head wound". Similarly, author David Lifton reported that Parkland emergency nurse Audrey Bell, who couldn't see JFK's head wound though she was standing on the right side, asked Dr. Perry. "Where was the wound?", Perry pointed to the back of the President's head and moved the head slightly in order to show her the wound". During sworn interviews with the ARRB in 1998, Dr. Paul Peters reported , "(anesthesiologist Dr. Marion T.) Jenkins said, "Boys, before you think about opening the chest, you'd better step up here and look at his brain." And so at that point  I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President's head...". The ARRB's Gunn inteviewed neurosurgeon Robert Grossman, M.D. on March 21, 1997. reporting, "He (Grossman) and Kemp Clark (Chairman of Neurosurgery at Parkland) (sic) together lifted President Kennedy's head so as to be able to observe the damage to the President's head." (page 193).

Quoted from Aguilar, G, The converging medical case for conspiracy, In: Murder in Dealey Plaza, J. Fetzer (ed.), Chicago Press, 2000.

Re:Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was. Response;  this occurred during our filmed interview of Nurse Audrey Bell --in the summer of either 1989 or 1990.   I believe --but am not certain --that she made a similar statement when she was interviewed by Doug Horne of the ARRB (circa 1995- 1998).  DSL

On 10/23/2022 at 9:49 AM, David G. Healy said:

oh-brother... enjoy? whats to enjoy about a cold blooded murder?

David. . .   miss communicating with you. 

Please send me your  present email address.

David

dlifton@gmail.com   (d l i f t o n @ gmail.com).

On 7/28/2012 at 8:44 AM, James R Gordon said:

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

Changing the subject slightly:

Re: 

Daniel,

"Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was."

My answer (DSL answer): When I first interviewed Nurse Audrey Bell -- on camera - in 1971 (approx.)  We went over this point --repeatedly-- because I was fully cognizant of its importance.

On 8/22/2012 at 7:35 PM, Daniel Gallup said:

Perhaps I should have put quotes around the word "jogging" when I described Toni Foster, the "running woman." Then you would have seen more clearly I was not attempting to describe the speed at which she was moving. Then you conclude that I pick and choose what I want to about the Z-film. Let me be very clear about something, Mike. Since the limo stop has been excised, and the ejecta from the back of the head excised, and whatever else may have happened during the limo stop, I do not appeal to the Z-film for any information about how the shooting occurred, unless it is corrobrated by eye-witness testimony, and hopefully multiply corroborating eye-witness testimony. But since the central part of the film has been edited, I find it best not to appeal to the film at all, but rather to Clint Hill's description of the wound as he climbed aboard("I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing..."), Jackie's description of what she saw ("from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back youi could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.") and the Parkland doctors and nurses observations, all of which form a consistent picture. So no, I do not pick and choose with the Z-film. That piece of fraud is too dirty to lay a foundation for any decisive knowledge of the shooting.

Who "busted" the limo-stop "myth," Mike, and how did they do it? I'd be interested in your take on this.

Re the car-stop:  The limo came to a brief halt - it stopped completely --and then sped off.  How do I know this? Because I interviewed the Newmans, in person,  back in 1971 (or 1972).  Some years later, I raised the money to do filmed interviews, and returned to Dallas, and went over this same subject, now with a fully professional 16mm film crew.  (As I recall, the cost for each such filmed interview-- travel expenses, and all -- was between $3K and $5k).  The Newmans said the car stopped; more important, Mary Moorman --in her FBI interview of 11/24/63, published in the WC's 26 volumes --said the car stopped. If memory serves, Vince Palamara did significant research in this area, compilimg a comprehensive list of witnesses who said the car stopped.   Depending on how one defines "car stop", the number of "car-stop witnesses" ranges between 16 (at least) to nearly 60. 

I first discovered the "car-stop witnesses" some decades ago, when the late Pat Lambert and I embarked on a project to review all the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and tabulate their recollections by category.  Pat and I had at least a dozen categories (focusing, for example, on how many shots were heard, from where, etc.)  It was during this joint research effort that I had the sudden realization that one witness after another mentioned the "car-stop," almost in passing.  Pursuing this insight, It was at this time that I discovered --right there on page one (of Chapter one) in Sylvia Meagher's book, Accessories After the Fact (1967) -- that one witness after another mentioned the car stop (!).  Prior to my insight, no one gave it any particular emphasis, but I sure did.  I immediately realized that if the car stopped --however momentarily --then the Zapruder film (which showed no stop whatsoever_ must have been falsified   But (I asked myself). . .how was that possible?  How could a motion picture film be falsified?  (At that time, I knew little about film alteration).

Some Notes Re my Own Path of Discovery

Fortunately, I was living in West L.A., UCLA was just minutes away, and I immediately went to the UCLA film library at the Melnitz Film School (again, these details are from memory).  Within 30 minutes, I was looking at bound volumes of a professional journal, the American Cinematographer, devoted to editing and optical printing. (Name may be slightly incorrect.)  That's when I learned all about "optical printers"  --the basic tool for "special effects" photography --and that's when I went into full immersion mode as to how these machines work. 

CBS Producer Robert Richter loaned me a rather special item --his own personal 35 mm copy of the Zapruder film. (Another person who provided important assistance was producer Haskell Wexler). 

Subsequently, I raised about $10,000 (from, among several others, Mary Ferrell, and my own family) to rent time (using that 35 mm Z film) on an Oxberry Optical Printer so as to really have some first hand experience on the subject. (Interested readers should Google "optical printer").

Skipping many details and applying the lessons I learned to Dealey Plaza and the JFK assassination, certain insights became rather obvious (at least to me): one was that you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president, unless you also planned in advance to alter the medical evidence (i.e., the body) --via wound alteration and bullet removal -- so as to fabricate a false story about how the President had died.  Another insight: you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president (and control all civilian films) unless you arranged in advance to confiscate the key films, and be prepared to do some serious editing (again, using an optical printer).  On this point, see the essay  that I wrote years ago (on this subject) called "Pig on a Leash."

Bottom line: murdering JFK and preparing to fabricate a false story about his death could not be done without controlling at least two important pieces of evidence:  (a) his body; and (b) all bystander films.  Had I not majored in Engineering Physics at Cornell (and then later, more of the same at UCLA), I would not have had the "intellectual tools" to properly analyze (and address) this situation. (Yes, a smart "english major" might be able to "figure it out" but it took the 5 years of applied math, at Cornell, to really have the mathematical tools to understand and properly analyze the situation).

My Experiences with John Tunheim

There is much more to the story.  But one incident --and my recollection of it --stands out.  I had some detailed interaction with Judge Tunheim (of the ARRB).  After reading some written analyses that I had sent to him, he completely grasped what had (possibly) been done to the Zapruder film, and the problem(s) that presented to any future investigation.  At one of the ARRB hearings (which was nationally televised), Tunheim began his own brief remarks by publicly thanking me --on national TV  (!) --for my contribution with their work. I was in my apartment, attending to my own housekeeping chores and with the TV on, watching the nationally televised hearings; and was flabbergasted when I heard Judge Tunheim mention my name, and compliment me in that fashion.

** ** ** ** **

Its amazing to me that, all these years laters, there is still any serious dispute as to whether the JFK limo stopped --ever so briefly-- during the shooting, or the full implications of that fact; i.e., the implication of that fact on another key issue: the authenticity of the Zapruder film; which is-- after all -- the "time-clock" of the JFK assassination.  (DSL, 10/29/22, 3:20 PM PDT)

On 7/28/2012 at 8:44 AM, James R Gordon said:

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

According to a statement issued by FBI Director Hoover about 11/26/66 (and published in the NY Times at the time), the statements in the FBI report about the Bethesda autopsy (i.e., in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report) were made by the autopsy doctors at the time of the Bethesda autopsy. (10/29/22 - 1 PM PDT)

On 7/28/2012 at 8:44 AM, James R Gordon said:

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

My comments:

The Sibert and O’Neill FBI report (“S&O report”) —written by the two FBI agents present at the autopsy — was based on what the two FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy heard  (and saw) as they witnessed the autopsy proceeding; and made detailed notes on what they heard (or were told, or personally observed).

Why do I say that?  Because --in Nov. 1966, a few days after the third anniversary of the assassination -- Director Hoover issued a clarifying statement:

Around November 26th 1966, and in response to reporters and citizens inquiries, (then) FBI Director Hoover issued a detailed statement — published in the Washington Star (and then the NY Times) — that spelled out just what was the basis for  statements in the S&O FBI report.  Hoover’s statement — prepared by the Washington Field Office of the FBI —received considerable media attention.

Hoover’s statement said:  “FBI statements record the oral statements made at the time of autopsy; the Bethesda autopsy recorded the actual conclusions of the autopsy.” (approx, from memory).

This distinction —between what was said at the time of autopsy (i.e., actual words spoken), and the final conclusions of the autopsy report (dated 11/24/63, two days later) —is crucial.  

 Basically, Director Hoover was saying: “We don’t know the full story, but here’s what we do know as of this date”; and he then focused on (and made an important distinction between)  “words spoken” at the time of autopsy (what he properly called an “oral utterance”) and the “final conclusions” of the autopsy (dated 11/24/63). In other words, Hoover was focusing on the distinction between what his agents heard at the time of the autopsy they attended, and the conclusions of the autopsy, as stated in the Naval autopsy report dated two days later (on 11/24/63).

This distinction —and its implications —bears directly on the question of “What Director Hoover knew, and when he knew it”; and is discussed in detail in Chapter 12 of Best Evidence (titled, “An Oral Utterance”). (DSL 10/29/22_ 12:30 PM PDT)

On 7/26/2012 at 10:42 PM, Steven Skeen said:

By concensus, and I will quote sources if pressed, a team of leading plastic surgeons at the time could not have altered Kennedy's head in the way Lifton claims in the time period given. Morningstar's theory of Tippet being postop Kennedy is impossible. The hairlines are all wrong and couldn't be imitated today much less in 1963...absurd ideas that far too prominent theorists hang their hats on. The pictures of badgeman are absurd. The foreground objects are way out of perspective compared to more distant objects. Were all shots from the snipers nest obviously not the only ones, surely evidence proves it, the muddy water doesn't help at all!

You write as if I argued (in my book Best Evidence [1981, 1982, 1988, 1993]) that JFK's head --and its wounds, as observed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital autopsy -- had somehow been "sculpted" (in some sophisticated fashion) to tell a false story of the shooting. Not true, at all. At autopsy, JFK's head exhibited evidence of grotesque "smashing and bashing" (my words), which was confusing, at best, to the Naval pathologists assigned to perform an autopsy. (See Chapters 7 thru 9 of B. E.; also see Ch 18.)

 As the Bethesda autopsy surgeon (Navy Cdr. Humes) exclaimed to me in 1966 (when I first spoke with him, and confronted him with these medico-legal facts), "I'd like to know by whom it was done!  And when! And where!" (approx, fr memory; See B.E., Chs. 7-9  for exact quotes).  The two FBI agents in attendance at Bethesda, Agents Sibert and O'Neill, made careful notes of what the naval pathologists said as they conducted their examination; and they wrote that, based on the anatomical damage that they witnessed (and by what was said by the naval pathologists as they performed their examination), it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  Of course, there had been no such "surgery of the head area" in Dallas, and Commander Humes (at Bethesda) did not perform any such (post-mortem) medical procedure at Bethesda. But the President's head was (IMHO) such a mess, that that was their initial impression; and that's what they said at the time.

"plastic surgery"?

Steven Skeen's introduction of the term "plastic surgery" has nothing to do with the medico-legal realities of November 22, 1963, nor with anything I wrote in B.E.  What it does reveal is that (apparently) Skeen does not understand the basic facts laid out in Best Evidence; and how, viewed objectively, they add up to one undeniable conclusion: that, sometime during the 5-6 hour period between Dallas and Bethesda, JFK's wounds were altered.  IOW: Skeen has jumped into deep waters he apparently  barely understands, and has unnecessarily confused an already complex situation by introducing the term "plastic surgeons," which has everything to do with his misunderstanding,  but nothing to do with the data carefully presented in my book.

My advice is twofold: (a) he should reread --carefully reread -- Chapter 18 of B.E.; (b) he should view the 35 minute video documentary (available on the Internet) which I made in 1981 (and used on my 1981 book tour, and then again in 1988 and 1993), titled "Best Evidence: The Research Video"  (DSL, 10/29/22 -9:20 AM PDT).   Nobody that I know has ever argued for the existence of "plastic surgery" on 11/22/63. What is plainly evident --plain as day --is that JFK's wounds were crudely altered sometime during the six- hour period between the time the body was observed by the Dallas medical staff (at Parkland Hospital) -where JFK was pronounced dead at 1 PM PST -- and 8 PM EST, the time of the start of the official autopsy, at Bethesda Naval Hospital; where it was reported -- by the two attending FBI agents-- that there had been (as in "already had been") "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."  (10/29/22 -9:40 AM PDT)

13 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Totally incorrect. Witt is without a doubt the Umbrella Man.

Agreed.  Witt was the umbrella man. 

On 10/22/2022 at 10:22 PM, James DiEugenio said:

LOL, ROTF.

Gary said they let in the high class restaurants first.

But the fast food chains would not give up no matter how many time Hanoi resisted.

So they finally gave in, I bet that was a pretty penny they paid someone in Hanoi to get in finally.

I agree, that Vietnam could have easily been an ally.  Recall Ho Chi Minh and the OSS, who actually nursed him back to health when he was deathly sick. A guy with the unbelievable name of Archimedes Patti.  And Ho's letters to Truman, which are still rather touching to read. Ho actually used the ideals of the Constitution to appeal to Harry T.  I read those in a book by the illustrious historian William Appleman Williams. 

Those were the days: when you had vaunted academic historians united with the New Left. Did not last long--the rise of the Neocons was right around the corner.

 

If you could: I would like to see the book with Ho's letters to Truman.  Could you provide the title?  (And perhaps even the chapter title?)    The more we learn of data like this, the more the escalation of the Vietnam War in the first quarter of 1965 (after Johnson was sworn in) seems unnecessary and contrived.  

DSL, 10/23/22 -3:15 AM PDT

On 10/2/2022 at 8:51 AM, Micah Mileto said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUKeXpBhRiE

 

Never heard of this one.

Hi Micah:

RE: Report of JFK being placed in a "plastic casket"

I'm (a bit) surprised that you never heard of this before. But, as the saying goes,  "better late than never".   FWIW: I pursued this matter, in detail, many years ago, and prior to the publication of B. E. (Jan 1981). But I was unable to include any of what I knew in B.E.

Please send me your email address (I may be able to tell you more).  Its a very important issue, but, IMHO:the poster's interpretation  is seriously incorrect.  

DSL

10/19/22 - 9:50 AM PDT

My email: dlifton@gmail.com).

10/19/22 - 9:45 AM PDT

No text. Sorry.  DSL

3 hours ago, Miles Massicotte said:

Perhaps this is the passage:

To Miles:  Sorry to disappoint, but no, that is not the passage to which I was referring. I believe you're searching on the word "role."  That's completely different than the two-word expression, "role player."  DSL

8 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

A quick check shows that in her March 20, 1964, WC testimony, Ruth Paine

is questioned about Lee's "role" as husband. She

says she didn't use that expression but wasn't

sure what she had said in the conversation

being discussed.

Prefatory remark (added today, 10/17/22, 11:50 PM PDT:

Hi Joe,

IMHO, you cannot go to the present statements made by Ruth Paine about what she presently recollects about what she testified to  — under oath —to the Warren Commission over 50 years ago; and then rely on that (what the law calls her “present recollection”) as a valid indicator of what she actually testified to at that time. Unfortunately, one must return to the actual original transcript record.  

** ** ** **

I hope some member of this forum can find (or locate) just where it was --during one of her several appearances before the  Warren Commission --that Ruth Paine opined (almost as an aside) that Oswald either was a role player, or (she said) engaged in role playing.  Also, I'm wondering -- again assuming my memory is correct -- whether what I vividly recollect occurred not during one of her Warren Commission testimonies (Spring 1964), but whether it was during her (televised) appearance as a witness in that British documentary which was shown on SHOWTIME.  That show was produced by London Weekly Television (LWT) and the the producer was Mark Redhead.  As you may recall:  Bugliosi was prosecutor, and the defense attorney was Gerry Spence..

In any event, the search for the location of this simple two-word phrase --role player --and the difficulty in locating it in the published record provides a good example of why researching the JFK assassination has proven to be so difficult.  Just restricting oneself to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes, that represents a huge amount of available data.  Until personal computers (and search engines) became available, one could spend hours reading (and studying) the testimony, making notes, looking again at the testimony; doubling back and wondering "Now where the heck did I see that?" etc.

I remember Maggie Fields, one of the first-generation researchers who was very well off and lived in a lovely section of Beverly Hills, spending hours and hours and hours preparing "exhibit boards" (she had a more sophisticated term for them, "panoplies") -- each devoted to a separate facet of the case.  For example, one might be focused on the conflicting reports about the rifle recovered from the sixth floor of the TSBD.  She would tabulate reports that said the "found" rifle was "40" in length; others that said it was 36" long.  Maggie's exhibit would include clear photocopies of each exhibit, placed adjacent to one another.   In her Beverly Hills home, she had purchased two sets of the 26 volumes --one called the "upstairs" set; another, the "downstairs" set. Like many of us, she couldn't stop thinking about the case, and didn't want to waste time running up and down the stairs.

Now back to my concern, in this post: I know -- almost without question --that I read somewhere in Ruth Paine's testimony (I believe) -- that she (Ruth) referred to LHO as a role-player. As I recall, it was stated in passing.  Almost as an "aside."  I promise anyone who can come up with that quote (along with a proper citation)  an acknowledgment in FINAL CHARADE, and a good bag of chocolate chip cookies (or a reasonably priced bottle of wine).  

I'm sure that the truth --in this particular matter --is "out there"; I did not imagine reading it. So my sincere thanks, in advance, to whomever it is that can find it. (DSL, 10/17/22_ 5:10 PM, updated 11PM PDT)

On 10/13/2022 at 7:40 AM, Pete Mellor said:

Ruth Paine was asked by the WC if she thought that LHO was a Soviet agent or a U.S. agent.

This testimony appears in WC Vol 2 pgs 510-512 with no mention of 'role playing'.

She also appears in Vols III, IX and XI, which will take some time to check. 

Somewhere in Ruth Paine's testimony (i.e., in one of her several appearances, since she testified more than once) she used the term "role player" (or possibly "role playing"; but I think it was the former).  As I recall, it was just a very brief one-time mention, and it is easily missed.   Please email me, if/when you locate it.   Please send your finding(s) to me at "dlifton @ gmail.com".  Thanks. DSL (10/17/22 - 2:30 PM PDT; 11 PM PDT)

Just now, David Lifton said:

Hi Vince:

Thanks very much. I appreciate the time and effort you took to answer  my question, and assemble the detailed info that you did.

I have some other thoughts, but would prefer to communicate in private. 

If that's OK with you, please send your email address to me at: dlifton@gmail.com

Repeating (and spacing out the letters for easier reading): d l i f t o n @ gmail.com

Thanks.  DSL 

DSL (10/17/22; 7 AM PDT)

P.S.: I looked for your third book ("The Not So Secret Service") on Amazon.  Its not there --or at least, I could not find it.

Please send me the relevant Internet link so I might obtain a copy,  Thanks.  DSL 

On 10/13/2022 at 6:43 PM, Vince Palamara said:

[From my third book THE NOT-SO-SECRET SERVICE, pages 153-155] At the time of the assassination, the White House Detail was in a weakened condition due to recent resignations and transfers. Nearly one-third of the 34 agents on the White House Detail assigned to protect JFK, including a number of experienced agents, had recently resigned or been transferred. [quoting THE KENNEDY DETAIL, page 19] “In the past two months alone, eleven of the most experienced agents on the Kennedy Detail had been replaced. It had been a purely personal choice by the agents–they’d requested, and had been granted, transfers to field offices… [N]early a third of the agents had decided they just couldn’t do it anymore. Too many missed birthdays and anniversaries, too many holidays away from home.” (This means that despite several known plots to assassinate the president, the Secret Service nonetheless was permitting numbers of its experienced agents to leave the Detail. Shouldn’t it have been obvious under the circumstances that allowing so many experienced agents to depart was unwise?). Based on years of intensive research, here are the experienced veteran agents who left in 1963: Tom Fridley, Bill Skiles, Scott Trundle, Milt Wilhite, Tom Behl, Charlie Kunkel (Summer 1963), Jimmy Johnson (Aug 1963), Ed Z. Tucker (Summer 1963), Jerry Dolan (Fall 1963), Bob Lilley (Fall 1963), Larry Newman (Oct 1963), Anthony Sherman, Jr. (Oct 1963), Thomas B. Shipman (DIED 10/14/63), and Ken Wiesman (10/23/63).

The new agents were Robert L. Kollar, Robert R. Burke (Summer 1963), Radford Jones (Summer 1963), George W. Hickey (July 1963), Robert R. Faison (Sept 1963), William T. McIntyre (Fall 1963), Chuck Zboril (Fall 1963), Henry J. Rybka (Fall 1963), William Straughn (10/17/63), Bill Bacherman (11/10/63), Dick Metzinger (11/10/63), John J. McCarthy (11/10/63), Roy “Gene” Nunn (11/11/63), Gerald W. O’Rourke (11/11/63), Kent D. Jordan (11/15/63), Andrew M. Hutch (11/18/63), Ed Morey (11/20/63), Dale Keaner (11/23/63), Ken Thompson (11/23/63), Glenn Weaver (11/23/63) and Bill Livingood (11/23/63). Regarding Metzinger: His daughter Julie wrote to me on 6/19/16 and said: “My dad got sent home unexpectedly from the detail the day before Kennedy was shot” Also, PRS agent Glen Bennett was made a temporary agent of the WHD on 11/10/63.

Hi Vince:

Thanks very much. I appreciate the time and effort you took to answer  my question, and assemble the detailed info that you did.

I have some other thoughts, but would prefer to communicate in private. 

If that's OK with you, please send your email address to me at: dlifton@gmail.com

Repeating (and spacing out the letters for easier reading): d l i f t o n @ gmail.com

Thanks.  DSL 

DSL (10/17/22; 7 AM PDT)

On 10/12/2022 at 5:56 PM, David Lifton said:

Vince: Could you please provide a concise summary of what these two sources said? Thanks.  DSL

10/17/22 - 6:30 AM PDT.  Hi Vince, thanks for your detailed response.  DSL

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Oswald was an FBI informant infiltrating

the plot and had met with the bureau

at least three times in November

before the assassination. DA Henry

Wade, a former FBI agent, told me

Oswald met with the FBI a day or two

before the assassination. Two earlier November

meetings had previously been established. Oswald

did not know before the shootings of Kennedy and Tippit that he 

had been set up as the patsy in the plot.

Joe: Not doubting the quote you provided, but I'd like to ask: in what year did Wade tell you that?  DSL (10/12/22_ 6:10 PM PDT

47 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

Yes- he is correct. This is based off of Gerald Blaine (and, later, Clint Hill's) statement in THE KENNEDY DETAIL. See my third book- I list all the names.

Vince: Could you please provide a concise summary of what these two sources said? Thanks.  DSL

No text. Sorry.

13 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

( There's no right or wrong answer, just looking for opinions )

Would Kennedy have still been assassinated ?

Oswald was the pre-selected patsy, the built in "solution" to the crime.  His supposed guilt provided "closure"  for many.  A way of pointing the finger of guilt at a supposed political leftist.  Without a patsy -- a political scarecrow of sorts -- there would not have been any such closure.  Dallas, without Oswald, would have been just a naked murder -- which is the way it was perceived by many, anyway.   IMHO.   DSL (10/12/22 - 5:45 PM PDT)

No text. Sorry. DSL