David Lifton

No text. Sorry. This is superfluous.

Text below added today, 12/09/20 - 11:45 PM PST To clarify a bit, here are certain other insights: 1. It was never planned, in advance, that President Kennedy would be shot and that his body would then be flown 1500 miles away (and to Bethesda Naval Hospital) for autopsy. In other words (and IMHO) there was a serious divergence between the assassination “as it actually happened” and the assassination “as it was planned.” Think of it this way: there was a script, but then events went "off script." 2. One key to understanding the difference between “what actually happened” versus “what was supposed to happen [but did not]” is to recognize (and identify) the unexpected event, the event which interfered with the execution of the event ‘as planned.’ 3. IMHO: The unexpected event was the shooting of Governor Connally. 3A: IMHO: the unexpected shooting of Gov. Connally meant that --when the limousine reached Parkland --there were "two victims" (and not one). 3B: IMHO: the plot (as designed) was structured around the idea that, upon reaching Parkland Hospital, there would be one victim. Period. 3C; That may sound odd; and yes, I would concede that it doesn't speak very well to either the intelligence (or the foresight) of those who planned this affair. But that (presently) is my opinion. If, someday (and even at this late date), someone comes forward --or evidence is found --that sheds further light on this situation, then so be it. 3D: There are a number of other "what ifs" that --if fully known --might shed important additional information. For example: Originally, Jackie was not going to go on the Dallas trip; that changed in early September when she told JFK she wished to go. But had she not been there, the 'seating arrangement' in the car might have been considerably different. For example, and this is just a possibility; JFK might have been completely alone, in the back seat. 3E: There's more information that will be published in Final Charade --information that, I believe, will address (and satisfactorily answer) any remaining objections to the thesis that Dallas-- in terms of its conception (i.e., and by design)-- was a "plot with a built-in coverup." Bottom line: the plot to murder JFK was more than just a murder; but a crime in which it was "planned in advance" to falsify the autopsy. Of course, events did not unfold "as planned." 4. The shooting of Connally was not part of any sane (or rational) plan; and led to serious confusion, because —once it occurred —events did not unfold “as planned”; instead, there was a lot of improvisation, and that makes proper interpretation rather difficult (but not impossible). 5. To repeat: The original plan (IMHO) called for a simple shooting —a shooting of only President Kennedy; followed, a short while later, by a pronouncement of death, and then a Dallas autopsy. Most importantly: : the Dallas shooting "as planned" (IMHO), was to result in one victim, not two. 6. It was never intended that there would be a “second victim”; along with the many complications that then resulted. 7. In Final Charade, I will spell out —with specifics, and certain “new evidence” —what was intended. Armed with that information, most readers -- I believe -- will then agree (or at east understand) that the shooting of Connally was an unexpected event, one that led to a lot of "real time confusion," along with a public record that is somewhat difficult (but not impossible) to properly interpret and decipher. Stay tuned. DSL (12/5/20, 12:05 AM PST); 12/09/20, 11:45 PM PST)

Sorry, but you cannot tell whether or the coffin was (or was not) empty by simply observing that "Those guys are working pretty hard to carry that casket.” That is totally subjective, and cannot be used as a valid criterion to determine whether the coffin was empty at that point in time. The proper (and logical) way to proceed is to develop an accurate timeline as to just when the body was removed from the Dallas casket. That's the path I followed, as described in Best Evidence, and that provides the answer as to what actually happened -- i.e., when the body was removed from the casket. Jumping to the answer: it (this subterfuge) occurred in Dallas, when AF-1 was still on the ground and when LBJ delayed the take-off by insisting that he be sworn in before takeoff. Inside the aircraft, everyone was asked to move towards the front of the plane, and it was during this period that the body was removed from the Dallas coffin (at the rear), removed from the plane via the rear starboard door, and placed in the forward luggage area. A fork lift truck was involved in this maneuver. Also, there is "blood trail" evidence that supports this statement (as will be spelled out in Final Charade). Finally, the explanation for the shenanigans at Love Field was (the usual): "security measures" (or "national security"). Stay tuned for more details in Final Charade. (DSL, 12/04/20)

Kennedy aides and SS agents carried the casket the few feet to the Naval ambulance. Press coverage shows Hubert Clark assisting in getting the coffin inside the Navy ambulance. The reason the casket team wasn't permitted to carry the casket was that, having participated in many funerals, they likely would have sensed that the casket was empty --which it was. ( Remember the sequence, as laid out in Best Evidence: At Bethesda, JFK's body arrived --in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, at 6:35 PM --some 20 minutes before the Naval ambulance arrived (at about 7 PM). Specifically, and according to the Boyajian report (discovered by the ARRB), the body arrived at the Bethesda morgue at 6:35 PM; The Naval ambulance containing the Dallas coffin (which was empty) did not arrive at the Bethesda front entrance until about 7 PM. As analyzed and laid out in detail in Best Evidence, the "empty coffin" constitutes definitive evidence that the President's body must have been removed from the Dallas coffin after it was placed aboard AF-1, at Love Field (in Dallas), at 2:05 PM (approx); and before the take-off, at 2;48 PM, a few minutes after Johnson was sworn in. (DSL, 12/3/20 8:15 AM PST)

I'm writing this post in order to publicize the fact that someone I consider to be an important witness --to events connected with President Kennedy's assassination -has recently died. His name is Hubert Clark, and he was one of the pallbearers who took part in the memorial ceremonies on the weekend following the assassination, and in the burial ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery on November 25th, 1963. Clark is readily identified in photographs of the arrival of Air Force One at Andrews: (a) He is black; (b) He was a sailor and wears his sailor cap in the photographs. Clark is prominently mentioned in Best Evidence (see Chapter 16) because he had direct knowledge of the goings-on at Bethesda Naval Hospital, after the Navy ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Adm. Burkley (the White House Physician, and several Secret Service Agents, arrived at the front entrance of Bethesda Naval Hospital. To get a more comprehensive picture, one must go back in time by about an hour. Specifically, Clark's assignment began on Friday night, 11/22/63, when Air Force One landed at Andrews Air Force Base, shortly after 6 PM EST. When Air Force One landed at Andrews Air Force Base on the evening of November 22, 1963, Hubert Clark was a member of a group of pallbearers from the Military District of Washington ("MDW") that met the plane, and assisted in the offloading of the Dallas casket. When the plane rolled to a halt, a mechanical lift was rolled up to the rear port door. Inside the plane was the Dallas coffin, supposedly carrying the body of JFK. When the plane rolled to a halt, the rear port door was opened, and the Dallas coffin was placed atop the lift. Jackie and Bobby stepped out of the plane, and onto the lift. The lift was lowered to ground level, where a Naval ambulance had pulled into place. Kennedy aides and Secret Service agents carried the Dallas casket from the mechanical lift which pulled up at the rear port door of AF-1--and over a few yards to the waiting Navy ambulance. Press coverage shows that Hubert Clark, of the MDW casket team, assisted in putting the Dallas coffin into the Navy ambulance. That ambulance --containing Jackie, RFK, Adm. George Burkley, and several Secret Service agents, then drove the approximately 45 minutes to Bethesda Naval Hospital, arriving at about 7 P.M. EST There, Jackie and Bobby --escorted by Secret Service agents --entered the Bethesda front entrance, and took the elevator up to the executive suite on the 17th floor. Meanwhile, the Naval ambulance drove around to the rear entrance of Bethesda, and to the morgue loading dock, where the Dallas coffin was brought inside, and to the morgue, where the official autopsy was performed, the official starting time being 8 P.M. In Best Evidence, I highlight the account of Hubert Clark, the sailor who who was a member of the MDW casket team, and who appears in the nationally broadcast TV coverage of the arrival of Air Force One. Clark was important because he had knowledge of events at Bethesda which indicated that a strategic deception was carried out that night, in connection with the arrival of JFK's body at Bethesda --specifically, that two Naval ambulances were involved, one being called the "decoy." Hubert Clark's account of a "decoy ambulance" --and its implications --is described in detail in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence, titled: "Chain of Possession: The Missing Link." Hubert Clark is an important witness to history. I first interviewed him in 1968, and (as already noted) a detailed account can be found in Chapter 16 of Best Evidence. I'm writing this post because I have received apparently reliable information that Hubert Clark has recently died of lung cancer. If anybody has further (and reliable) information about this, please do send it to me. If I have enough reliable data --I am going to approach the New York Times and see if an obituary about his passing can be posted. Those who follow the JFK case, and my own work, may be aware that a "letter- to- the editor" (about the coronavirus) that I wrote the New York Times (about two months ago) was published. So I am acquainted with one or two of the editors up there, and have been hopeful that perhaps Hubert Clark's obituary would be published by the New York Times. I would like to see that Hubert Clark's death is properly memorialized. He is a significant witness to history, and an integral part of the case that the Dallas coffin was empty, which is a central thesis of Best Evidence. If anyone reading this has additional information about the circumstances of his death --i.e.., when he died, where, etc. --please send me that information; or post it right here on this thread. FYI: my e-mail is dlifton@earthlink.net. Thanks. DSL

At this moment, I do not recall O'Connor's exact words, but he made clear that the esophagus was "ripped out" or "hanging out," or something of that sort. In other words, Humes' description of the throat wound as having "widely gaping irregular edges" -- which, in my research notebooks, I always abbreviated as "WGIE" -- did not come close to describing the major damage as described to me by O'Connor. (Further, and as I recall, O'Connor's statement about that was during our filmed interview at his Florida home in October, 1980. But he may have said essentially the same thing during our original August 1979 telephone interview). From the standpoint of a criminological analysis, and treating this as a covert operation, the point, as I recall, was that whoever did this was probably working rapidly and crudely to retrieve any missile that had entered at the front of the throat. Remember: the the President's body was evidence. And any such "extra" metal that reached the FBI Laboratory that night -- and associated with a frontal throat entry--would have constituted definitive evidence of a shot from the front, and that would have provided powerful evidence of a "second" -- or "frontal" shooter. And that --had it been discovered-- would have seriously sullied LBJ having a legitimate "claim" to the presidency But "second shooter" would quickly be overshadowed by another--closely related-- issue: the issue of "fraud in the evidence". Both issues are relevant, but one has much more politically potent implications than the other. "Second shooter" could be "anybody." "Fraud in the evidence" points to an "inside job." Viewed in that manner, the more important issue was -- or should have been: who had messed around with President Kennedy's body, in the area of the throat, prior to the Bethesda autopsy? Framed that way, the legal issue is not "second assassin," but rather "fraud in the evidence" (and, frankly, "obstruction of justice.") The jump from "second assassin" to "obstruction of justice" is an important one; because if RFK had been privy to anything like that, then, IMHO, he would have then had the evidence that his brother's death was an "inside job." And that could have possibly led to his acting to prevent the "automatic operation" (my quotes) of the presidential line of succession. However, I do not today believe that on the evening of 11/22/63, RFK had any inkling that anyone was messing around with his brother's body, in order to create "false facts" about his death; i.e., about what had happened in Dallas. I could be wrong, but that's my present view. I believe that the first indication that RFK had of any such truly gruesome (and outrageous) activity was three years later, i.e., on October 24th 1966. That was when-- as described in B.E. (Ch. 9)-- having just made the discovery about "surgery of the head area" (as reported in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI Report), I met with Liebeler (at Joe Ball's law office in Beverly Hills) and showed him my discovery. (see Ch 9 of B.E.). At that point, Liebeler called Eddie Guthman, as I recall. (Guthman was close with RFK, and later was his press aide). All of that -- "what RFK knew, and when he knew it"-- is a whole "other story" and I may have more to say about that in Final Charade. (DSL, 11/24/20, 1045 AM PST)

I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption. 1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.? 2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back? Re Question #1: Answer: Because the Single Bullet Theory was the creation of the Warren Commission staff, and wasn't advanced until mid January 1964. (It was first advanced, as a 'suggestion' in a Dallas Morning News story in late December 1963. The autopsy occurred (in real time) on the night of 11/22; and the trajectories posited were unrelated to the timing problem was not apparent on Friday night, 11/22, at the time of autopsy. As far as the hole "matching" the downward trajectory: the original 'downward' trajectory was "in" the back of the head, and then an "out" (or exit) caused by a fragment exiting at the front of the throat. FYI: All this is discussed in B.E. Re #2: If you look carefully at the "early" Z film frames -according to Groden --one can see the body being thrust slightly forward--this, according to Groden. I believe there is merit to this argument, but I haven't analyzed it in detail. DSL

Hello Adam, I’m addressing your post, and writing much of which follows on the basis of recollection, so please keep that in mind.: IMHO:Governor Connally was struck in the chest, from the front, when he interfered with the shooting by lunging to the front. (See Z frames 312 - 330, which show the “lunge.’ Taking this step by step (and I am numbering the points, for easier reference, if one has any questions): 1. Connally was struck in the chest from the front ( based on the medical evidence in the record, and my interview with nurse ER supervisor Doris Nelson in December 1982; and then again later, on film. 2. Turning now to the Zapruder film: During this very small time period (i.e.,, between Zapruder frame 300 and frame 330), Connally can be seen, on the Zapruder film, lunging to the front. (The images are not all of equaly clarity, but some are pretty good). 3. Nellie Connally mentioned this lunge, in her testimony before the HSCA. 4. When Connally lunged to the front, his right hand was outstretched, pointing forward. 5. Now to revisit this “lunge,” Connally’s wife Nellie testified —either to the Warren Commission, or the House Select Committee —that after the shots were fired (and after she had pulled her husband down, into her lap), Gov Connally had risen up and “lunged to the front.” (from recollection). 6. Either it was Gov Connally (or his wife, Nellie) who noted something else: that during this period (when Gov. JC was “lunging to the front”), that the SS agent in the front seat on the passenger side (Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman), was punching certain buttons on the front dashboard. 7. On the front dashboard was a button that would operate a one-half horsepower motor —installed sometime prior to Dallas— and which could raise the rear seat by about 10 inches. (I have obtained official documents about this). 8. A small (but significant) number of Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses said that they thought that— during the shooting—President Kennedy “rose up” or (momentarily) stood up. (But, IMHO, that is not quite what happened; what happened is that the seat was raised, via the electric motor, activated by the push of the button). That operated an electric motor and the associated apparatus, installed in the trunk. After JFK was shot, the rear seat was immediately lowered (from its raised position) to its “lower” position. 8. When JFK was in the “raised” position (and Kellerman was operating the button[s] that raised the rear seat) one can readily see (on the Z frames) a white “flare” in the area of the front windshield (Z-320 to Z 330). This flare has not gone unnoticed by some who have examined the individual slides of the Z film. (I first noticed this flare, and studied it carefully, some decades ago). Some have remarked that it is simply a reflection of light, but I disagree. Some years ago, i had access to one of the original 35mm copies of the Zapruder film —not the original Zapruder film itself, but one of the original 35 mm copies of the Zapruder film, made by Moses Weitzman for LIFE magazine. These frames, made by Weitzman, were published in the LIFE issues shortly after the assassination; and then again, in September 1964, when the Warren Report was published; and then again, in October 1966, when the controversy about the Warren Report and the Commission’s “lone assssin” conclusion was again in the news. There were very few of these 35 mm copies, and the one to which I had access was a crystal clear copy that was used by CBS producer Robert Richter, in the production of one of the major CBS documentaries. By that time (early 1990s), I had excellent black and white copies of the Kennedy autopsy photos, and CBS wanted them for use in their documentary. In exchange, I was permitted access to their copy of the Zapruder film. 9. I was not just handed a role of 35 mm film; rather, I was provided access to their 35 mm copy of the film for about an entire week, and was permitted to put it on a modern state-of-the-art Oxberry optical printer. (See my essay, “Pig on a Leash,” published years ago, for details.) 10. An Oxberry Optical printer is about size of a small Volkswagon. One sits at the controls — wearing a face mask to shield one’s eyes and nose from the smell of acetone (acetone being part of the process by which the film frames are viewed, via a "liquid gate.". (Aside: The frames require liquid to ‘hide’ or obscure any scratches, and to produce a clear image, by using the liquid to adjust the 'index of refraction."). Peering through an eyepiece, one can then examine the film frame-by-frame, and —while doing so —make 35 mm copies of the original film frames, and so that’s exactly what I did. FWIW: The cost of rental —i.e., for use of that apparatus, for that 5 day period—was over $10,000; and I raised the money from a number of friends, certain JFK researchers, and my family. 11. Examining that copy of the Zapruder film on that apparatus, frame by frame, (and now returning to the matter of the readily visible “flare”), it seemed clear to me that this was more than a mere optical illuion or optical artifact — i.e, an artifact of sunlight reflecting on the windshield. Rather, upon close examination, it seemed clear that Zapruder’s camera had recorded a collision caused by something that hit the windshield, and damaged it. Moreover, the “flare,” when examined carefully, contained the image of particulate matter (akin to very small pieces of glass) flying off the windshield, and back towards the inside of the limo. (Again, this imagery was clearly visible between Z frames 325 - Z-330). 12. The original Altgen’s photo —showing the limo racing away, towards the underpass—shows the damage to the windshield. (This was first published, i believe, in Six Seconds in Dallas). Subseuently, I obtained high quality black and white photos from either AP or UPI in New York that showed the damage to the front windshield, as the limo headed for the Triple Underpass, with SS Agent Clint Hill on the rear bumper. 13. The original SS report, about the limo (when parked in the White House garage), states that there was a hole in the windshield. (Commission Document 80). However, the windshield that was removed and sent tothe FBI Laboratory (and subsequently produced for the Warren Commission) shows no such hole. Its just not there. 14. Around 1971, upon my written request to the National Archives, I had that windshield uncrated and made available to me; and I studied it carefully, spending hours examining it. It was obvious that there was no hole in the windshield— just a very small defect on the outer surface (which, since this was multi-layered safety class, indicated that it [the windshield provided to the Warren Commission] was struck from the rear). 15. As to the matter of whether there was a hole in the windshield, or simply relatively minor damage on one surface, the FBI and Secret Service reports were contradictory.(As I will show soon, the FBI said there was crack; the Secret Service said there was not.) It was these seriously divergent descriptions that led me —and others —to conclude that there had been a windshield switch. 16: Now to summarize, here’s my reconstruction of what all this means; During the assassination, Governor Connally was first grabbed by his wife, and pulled down into her lap. That was before Connally was shot. At the time the fatal shot struck (Z Frame 313), Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman —seated in the front right seat—was observed (as previously noted)— punching a button on the front panel. This button operated a powerful motor that had been installed in the trunk of the car, and which raised the rear seat, by about 10 inches. 17. I have official documents pertaining to the installation of this motor, an installation that occurred prior to the delivery of the new Lincoln to the White House in mid-June 1961. I have little doubt that President Kennedy liked this feature, because JFK liked being easily visible when he rode in a motorcade. in fact, JFK loved motorcades. Riding past throngs of people lining the street, JFK could —as explained by Governor Connally (in a LIFE article published in January 19670)—make “eye contact” with hundreds (even thousands) of people, all in the space of a relatively short period of time, while riding past them in a typical motorcade. But the installation of this feature (of the raised seat) had a “downside” —i.e., it made JFK vulnerable; an easier target for assassination. But i don’t think he really thought of it that way; indeed, IMHO, that was probably the furthest thing from his mind. As he was quoted, the Secret Service was there to protect him; and, being a fatalist, he said; if 'they are determined to get me, they'll even get me in church.' 18. As far as the official investigations (which occurred in 1963 and 1964) were concerned, there was little or no notice paid to this situation. I don’t believe that the Warren Commission paid very much —if any —attention to when the motorized device that was installed, or to the possible implications. 19. As far as the installation of the motor was concerned (and the connecting apparatus between the motor installed in the trunk, and mechanism to raise the rear seat), none of this seemed to be noticed. From what i can see, it was one of those “500 pound elephants in the room.” This matter, or its possible implications, was never investigated or pursued by either the Secret Service or the FBI. Furthermore, it went unnoticed by the legal staff of the Warren Commission. They seemed to know nothing about the installation of the motor, and the seat-raise apparatus; and --when it came to the actual assassination, were focused (on the ‘sniper’s nest evidence” —i.e., the cartons piled up by the window at the SE corner of the TSBD, the three shells by the window, and the the bolt action rifle, mail ordered to LHO’S PO Box (in March 1963); a rifle that was found amongst some cartons, towards the rear, and near the elevator on the sixth floor, about 40 minutes after the assassination. 20. Nor was it ever officially noticed —as far as I can see—that Kennedy was “raised” during the shooting. (That original observation —or discovery (i.e., that the seat was in fact raised)—was made by the late Fred T Newcomb —co-author of Murder from Within— who showed it to me around 1969. To pursue the matter further (which iI'm not prepared to do in this writing), one becomes entangled in an assortment of minutiae, pertaining to whether the Zapruder film was altered. Aside from the fact that dozens of witnesses said that the car stopped completely, or slowed down, during the shooting, eliminating all of that, plus doing what was necessary (to conceal —or minimize—the fact that the seat was raised; would be another reason to alter the motion picture record, something which I do not wish to explore in this writing. 21. To summarize: After the JFK limo entered Dealy Plaza, and during the Elm Street shooting, Secret Service Agent Kellerman, a senior agent in charge of the White House Detail on the Dallas trip, was observed punching buttons on the front panel of the limo; and, at that time, the rear seat was raised, and a number of witnesses thought Kennedy either “rose up” (my quote) or was “standing.” Then, after Z frame 313, when he was struck fatally, and by frame Z-330, Connally was lunging forward, and Z film frames show this flare at the front windshield, and then the limo was beginning its acceleration, to speed away, towards the Triple Underpass. All of this happened ver quickly. By the time the limo reached Parkland Hospital, the rear seat was no longer in the “raised’ position. ** ** ** For those who wish to pursue the matter of the front windshield, I refer you to Chapter 24 of Best Evidence, titled `”Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”; and specifically to the sub-section titled “Before the fact" (PP 370- 371. in the Macmillan hardcover, or Carroll & Graf [trade paperback] edition). There you will find a detailed account of my research about the windshield (as matters stood as of summer of 1980), when B.E. was already in galleys. (FYI: B.E. was published in mid-January 1981). My favorite quote —summarizing the situation—appears in the middle of that chapter, and in the longest footnote that I wrote for Best Evidence. Its about 500 words long, and akin to a small, carefully edited, essay. The quote appears at the very end, where I contrast the two different descriptions of the windshield —one coming from FBI Director J. E.Hoover (and based on what his agents reported, when they observed the car in the White House garage, on the night of November 22, 1963); and the other, coming from Service Chief James K. Rowley, who took possession of the windshield, when it was removed from the limo a day or two later. Quoting that passage in Best Evidence: “The contradiction of the FBI and Secret Service records of windshield damage is epitomized by a clash between the FBI Supplemental Report, dated January 13, 1964, and Secret Service Chief Rowley’s letter to the [Warren] Commission, dated January 6, 1964. FBI Director Hoover reported: “. . .the windshield was cracked…” (CD 107, p. 5, the FBI Supplemental Report); Secret Service Chief Rowley wrote: “ There is no hole or crack through the windshield.” (CD 80, p2; the Secret Service Report on the limousine). ** ** ** To those who are students of the assassination, I have this advice: focus on the integrity of the evidence —i.e., on issues of authenticity —and not on endless debates about the Single Bullet Theory (which are often highly subjective, depending, for example, on making a proper determination as to exactly when Gov. Connally was struck). Experience teaches me that there is little chance that believers of the official version will ever change their mind; whereas evidence of authenticity changes the nature of the argument entirely; and often turns on matters of readily ascertainable fact (e.g., the size of a wound, or whether or not there was a hole in a windshield).. IMHO: those who persist on viewing “conspiracy” as the existence of a “second assassin” are not approaching the problem properly, and will get lost in the quagmire of endless debate—what has sometimes been described as a “wilderness of mirrors.” In Best Evidence, besides addressing the specific issue of whether the President’s autopsy was falsified (i.e., via wound alteration, prior to autopsy), I try to address this wider issue —i.e., to determine who was responsible for the “false facts” — i.e., the falsification of evidence. Solve that problem, and you are on “the trail of the assassins," and on a journey that takes one directly to the identification of the murderers of President Kennedy; and, more generally speaking, to the authors of this crime. DSL 11/09/20 - 5:30 AM, PST; 11/12/20 12:45 AM

Re the issue of whether Gov JC said "all" (per his WC testimony) or "both" (per Manchester's DOP): I believe that "both" probably comes from Jackie;s interview with Manchester.

NOW CONTINUING: 1. That Connally's account, to his friend (Doug Thompson) , makes clear he was shot in the chest -- from the front. 2. That Connaally's account, to his friend (and if true) makes clear that he deliberately lied to the Warren Commission. He even admitted that to his friend. And in fact, its worse than that; because (NOW GO TO Point #3): 3. Connally began telling this false story of "how" he was hit, goes all the way back to 11/22/63, within 30 mnutes (approx), 4. By simply arranging his statements in chronological order, on Tuesday 11/26. and -- I believe -- going back to Monday, 11/25; I discovered that this pattern (of lying) goes back to 11/22/22, in connection with his original admittance to Parkland (!) When asked by a wire service reporter how it happened, Gov. JC responded: "From behind, I think." (The reporter immediately telephoned put that on the wire (by telephone the UPI office), and it was piblished with a time-stamp of "1:15" PM, approx. So Gov JC was providing false information about his wounding that early. 5. Here is further relevant data. I don't have the energy to debate this issue here on this Internet thread, but note this: When I first interviewed Nurse Doris Nelson, in December1982--she told me in no uncertain terms that (a) Gov. JC was shot from the front, and (b) there was no entry wound on the rear surface of his body (i.e., in the area of his right shoulder or armpit) when his shirt was first taken off his body. DSL, 11/04/20 - 11:40 PM PST

John: Thanks for posting Doug Thompson's account. I believe it is an essential part of the history of Dallas. The two main conclusions I believe we can draw, and this goes well beyond the issue of whether there was a "second assassin." ((TO BE CONTINUED SHORTLY) . . .

See also prior discussion. (There may be some repetition. Will try to further revise later). DSL

Micah: The source was Thompson himself (as related to me, in the time period November 1966, "plus or minus"). In the fall of 1966, Josiah Thompson ("JT") visited Boswell. (I assume Thompson has the exact date; but, in general terms, it was when he was employed by LIFE, as a consultant). Sometime later that month (as I recall), JT was in Los Angeles and related this incident to me. I may have contemporary journal entries on this; but what I clearly remember is Tink personally relating this to me. As I'm sure you know --and as spelled out in law books on evidence--the demeanor of a witness is important in evaluating his or her credibility. As I recall, Thompson --at that time--possessed the FBI Sibert and O'Neill Report (because it was discovered by Paul L. Hoch (now Paul Hoch, Ph.D), then a UC Berkely grad student, in the Spring of 1966, and Paul distributed copies to several JFK researchers). But Thompson, even though he possessed that FBI report, was unaware of the presence (and/or significance) of the statement (on page 3) that, at the time of autopsy, it was "apparent" that there had been --i.e., as in "already had been" --"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," the statement which (as described in Best Evidence, I had discovered on Oct 22/Oct 23rd, and which I had already brought to UCLA Prof. Liebeler's attention (on Monday, 10/24/66). This is the statement which became an important point in Liebeler's November 8, 1966 12-13 page memorandum, which he (Prof. Liebeler) sent to Chief Justice Earl Warren, every member of the WC and its staff, to Senator Robert Kennedy, and to President Johnson (via DOJ Deputy AG Katzenbach. Also remember: it was during this period --early November 1966 (see B.E., Chapter eight (8)--that I telephoned Commander Humes and confronted him with the "surgery of the head area" statement in the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report. (See B.E., Chapter 8, etc., for details, and for his reaction). Bottom line: it was during this period--after my discovery of the "surgery" statement in the S & O report (and when the Liebeler Memo was, you might say, a "work in progress") -- that Josiah Thompson met with me. (Presently, I do not recall the exact date). So when Josiah Thompson told me that Boswell had turned "white as a sheet" (when Thompson reached into his briefcase and retrieved the S & O report), I (of course) found that significant, definitely pertinent. But I said nothing about my recent discovery. In other words -- in view of my discovery, and the fact that Liebeler was incorporating what I had found (and much else) into his memorandum of November 8, 1966, to Chief Justice Warren (et al, and that included Katzenback and RFK)--I did not reveal any of that to Josiah Thompson. However, and this is significant, I distinctly remember what happened after Liebeler's memorandum of Nov. 8, 1966 was competed (or perhaps was in "first draft" form, and after he had a multi-hour meeting with me, and two of his UCLA-paid teaching assistants, one of whom was Stephen Myers). Liebeler had gone to Washington (perhaps as part of a trip to appear on TV, not sure), and --as he related to me after his return -- it was on that occasion that he (Liebeler) telephoned Boswell, in an attempt to meet with him. Boswell refused (i.e., refused to meet with Prof. Liebeler). Now please note: anything I write here is based on "present recollection." These events were over 50 years ago. I have earlier correspondence that describes all this (and I have voluminous correspondence files, so I would defer to what ever is stated in such writing(s). (DSL, 10/24/20; 9:10 PM PDT; corrected and very slightly edited, 10/26/20_ 11:55 AM PDT) P.S. On other thing —offered here in the manner of a “postscript.” Best Evidence will stand the test of time not because I came up with a new fangled idea (re body alteration) and argued it persuasively in my book, Best Evidence, published in mid-January 1981. Rather, It will stand the test of time because what I discovered is inherently a fundamental fact of the record —i.e., the historical record —and will be there (i.e., remain there) forever-- just like the Grand Canyon is "there," regardless of whose interpretation of "how it got there" turns out to be true. Specifically, I discovered —and properly interpreted — the evidence that there is a serious disparity between the medical observations in Dallas (i.e., at Parkland Hospital) and those at Bethesda. Best Evidence —i.e., my thesis as published — is built on that foundation, i.e., on that disparity: specifically (and now to use the language I learned in physics and engineering classes) -- that there was a “before” and “after” condition on JFK’s body; and that the wounds observed at Parkland Hospital (circa 1 PM CST) were fundamentally different than the wounds observed at Bethesda (when the official autopsy began at 8 PM, EST). That disparity— or bifurcation —is a fundamental part of the historical record, will never go away, and that is why Best Evidence (and the thesis it propounds) will stand the test of time. (10/26/20 - 1:40 PM PDT) P.P.S.: Now, adding some additional data: when I first heard about this —back in November 1966, or a few months later— I reconstructed the situation as follows: Boswell turned “white as a sheet” (when Thompson showed him the S & O report) because he (Boswell) knew about the statement it contained about “surgery of the head area” —possibly because of my early November 1966 conversation with Commander Humes (and/or perhaps Liebeler’s contact with Boswell, by phone) — whereas Thompson did not know that; i.e., Thompson was not aware of the potency of the statement that it contained. The result: Thompson had the experience of confronting Boswell with the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, stating that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," but was unaware of this crucial statement it contained. Nor was he aware of certain other events that were taking place at the time, e.g., Liebeler's call to Boswell. Consequently, IMHO, Thompson accurately reported that Boswell turned "white as a sheet" (when shown the S & O report); but did not quite (i.e., fully) understand why. In other words, what was it --about the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report --that caused Cdr. Boswell to turn "white as a sheet"? (DSL 10/26/20, 2 PM PDT) ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND COMMENTARY (11/10/2020): Much of an FBI agent’s work consists of conducting interviews, making notes, and then writing a report. That report—because of the USG “302” form used— is called a “302,” or an “FBI 302.” It is a Federal offense —a felony —to lie to an FBI agent. So what an interviewee tells an FBI agent, and which is usually summarized in an “FBI 302” has particular legal significance; and can be used as the basis for a perjury prosecution. (People can, and so, go to prison for lying to the FBI.) One should understand that statements made by Humes, during the performance of the JFK autopsy, were considered to be “oral statements” made at time of autopsy, as recorded by the two agents, in handwritten notes, and then written out, in prose, in the FBI 302 report that Sibert and O’Neill wrote, on the basis of notes made at the time of autopsy.” (After the FBI report was written, those notes were destroyed —which was standard FBI procedure.) The statements made by Humes —i.e., the ‘oral statements,’ made by Commander Humes (the autopsy surgeon), at the time he performed the autopsy— were viewed as “oral statements” by the two FBI agents (Sibert and O’Neal). So as Humes spoke, one of the FBI agents made notes of what was said; and then, when their “FBI 302” was written, that report constituted what was, essentially, a chronological narrative of the JFK autopsy. Furthermore, that report has a narrative quality; e.g. (and what follows are not exact quotes, but written to demonstrate the style; 'Here are the wounds we observed. Then Commander Humes made such and such incision on the body. .The doctors couldn’t find any bullets (specifically, the doctors were “at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets”) etc. When--in the summer of 1966--this report was first published, and I found the "surgery of the head area" statement, I telephoned Commander Humes --in a recorded call --and confronted him what the S & O report stated (i.e., that, at the time he performed the autopsy, there had [already] been “surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull.”) His initial response was: “I’m not responsible for their reports!”. In the second of the two calls, when I pressed for an explanation, quoting the passage that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull,” Humes blurted out, “I’d like to know by whom it was done! (pause) And when! (pause) And where!” (See Best Evidence, Ch 8 -9, for details). When I said that I too, was puzzled, and had shared this information with a UCLA Law Professor, and told Humes that he (Professor Liebeler) might be making a public statement about the situation, and calling for a new investigation, and asked Humes what he might say, in that event, Humes responded (saying, among other things — i.e., “inter alia”, in Latin) “I don’t know what I’m gonna say.” adding that he examined the body, performed the autopsy, wrote a report, and as far as he was concerned, “That was the end of it.” (See Chapter 8 and 9 of Best Evidence), for what happened next; and, in general, for the rest of the investigation and research I performed, and how all of that led to Best Evidence, published in January 1981).-- DSL, 11/10/20)

I just clicked on the link. It worked OK on my Mac. I just tried it again, using the link provided in the original email that I sent (see email above, the earliest one). That works on my Mac. Don't know how to fix the glitch you are experiencing.

I do not understand why. . . Here's the link that works on my MacIntosh, a link sent to me by someone in Southern California, who simply sent it from his cell phone. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwKhqmknBdJmrCkfKjFMBWXTxGb?projector=1 I can only suggest that someone follow up with the British TV source ("This Week"), or with YouTube. Its certainly worth watching. DSL

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwKhqmknBdJmrCkfKjFMBWXTxGb?projector=1 Never saw this filmed interview before. Very illuminating,nIMHO, not so much for specific content (i.e., quotes) but because it illuminates his personality. DSL

DSL NOTE TO READERS (10/7/20, 9 PM PDT): In posting this edit, I am seeking to correct an important error. As originally posted, I wrote that Dr. Perry called Dr. Humes and asked, "Did you make any wounds in the back?" Pardon my error, but it was the "other way around"; i.e., it was Humes who called Perry, and asked that question, and (IMHO) that constitutes important evidence that the back wound was man-made. The source for this information was one of the two times that Perry testified. See Best Evidence, Chapters 7 - 8, for further details. Again, sorry for the error. Hi Jim; Re your post, NOW QUOTING: I am doing an article that will include some work disputes between the early critics. One aspect of that is Ray Marcus' idea about a slow bullet, referring I think to CE 399, and a fast fragment; this I think is referring to the Thompson idea of the throat wound being an exit from a skull fragment. But I am just speculating, as I do not really know what this means. Perhaps David Lifton does? He worked with Marcus back then. UNQUOTE I met Ray Marcus around the fall of 1964, shortly after the (Sept. 1964) release of the Warren Report (and then the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission). As I recall, Vincent Salandria was suspicious about the legitimacy of CE 399; further, he and Ray were in communication fairly early on, and Ray set out to "prove" that 399 had to be a plant. I remember that one of the things Ray did was to actually call Tomlinson (who found the bullet) and have a detailed conversation with him about his reaction to finding such a bullet, in such a practically pristine (and "store-bought") condition. The idea that the bullet was planted --back in those days--seemed radical, and so Ray set out to prove that this "must be so" (my quotes). Ray set out to list all the possible trajectories that could possibly exist (to account for such a bullet). i.e., Ray set out to actually list each one, and then use published testimony to logically explain why, in each case, none of the possible trajectories made any sense. The result of this kind of detailed discussion --listing all of the possible trajectories, and rejecting each one of them--led to his (privately published) monograph, titled "The Bastard Bullet. Ray Marcus' work is entirely his own. I had nothing to do with its authorship. I was simply a neophyte, and a frequent visitor to his home at the time he was doing his original research on the JFK case, and-- as I recall -- actually engaged in the writing of The Bastard Bullet. Furthermore, when I met Stanley Sheinbaum (because of a referral by Ray) and was subsequently hired by RAMPARTS --as a temporary writer, at Ramparts--and co-wrote "The Case for Three Assassins," (published in the Jan 1967 issue) with Ramparts staff writer David Welsh, we utilized Ray's concept; and attacked the legitimacy of the bullet (and the manner in which the Warren Commission used it as the "instrument of injury" in the case of the Single Bullet Theory), referring to it as "SUPERBULLET". One other point (and this is important, in relating my own development: once I originated the basic idea of "body alteration' (Oct 1966) and developed the basic idea --by analogy to many situations in physics (which was my major at Cornell) -- that there was a "before" and "after" on the body (with the Dallas observations being the "before"), I then expanded on Ray's original thesis, as follows: I came to realize that the back-wound was man made (which is why Dr. Humes [the Bethesda autopsy doctor] called Dr. Perry, and asked him: "Did you make any wounds in the back?" [See Ch. 7,- 8, Best Evidence ]). From there (and taking into account other data, e.g., that the Dallas and Bethesda wound observations were markedly different), I then developed the hypothesis that this was all part of a wider scheme of trajectory alteration (and fabrication]). (See Chapter 14 of B.E., titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception"). In other words: via these alterations, JFK's body was made to tell a "false story" of the assassination. Furthermore: these insights led to the concept that CE 399 (and its "match" to the back wound) was not the only "false fact" in the medical area of the JFK case. Specifically, I am referring to the situation of JFK's head wound(s); with the two major bullet fragments being found in the limo around 10 PM when the limo was parked in the White house Garage. Then, in October 1966, came (IMHO) a major development: my Oct 1966 discovery that the report of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended the Bethesda autopsy, stated that at the outset of the autopsy, the two agents noted that it was "apparent" that there had been --as in "already" had been-- "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." That discovery became an important part of UCLA Prof. Liebeler's November 8, 1966 memorandum -- transmitted to both Chief Justice Earl Warren and Robert Kennedy -- alerting them to the possibility that (according to the report of the two agents who attended the Bethesda autopsy) JFK's body had been altered; i.e., that it (JFK's body) was a medical forgery at the time of the Bethesda autopsy. Years later-- this became the foundation for my book Best Evidence (1981). BOTTOM LINE: the ballistic link between Oswald's rifle (CE 139, mail ordered to his Dallas PO Box, in March 1963) is a total fabrication; as are the trajectories (based on an altered body) that-- supposedly -- constitute the so-called definitive "link" between the sniper's nest found at the SE corner of the Sixth Floor of the TSBD, and the crime that took place in the street below. Bottom line (again): the rifle that was ordered to LHO's PO box (in March 1963) is simply another facet of the faked (and contrived) evidence that --taken seriously by the FBI and the Warren Commission-- leads to the incorrect perception of Oswald as "JFK's assassin." A better way of describing all of this: This scheme (of altering the body to tell a false story) was at the core of a strategic deception designed to mask a transfer of power from Kennedy to Johnson, by making Oswald appear to be responsible for Kennedy's death; and thus, the transfer of the presidency from Kennedy to Johnson appear to have been a quirk of fate. DSL 10/06/2020 -2:15 AM PDT; CORRECTED AND EDITED: 10/7/20 9:20 PM PDT

I interviewed James Jenkins at length back in September 1979 (approx), just prior to the publication of Best Evidence. He made no such statements to me at that time. (See Chapter 27 of B.E.) Further, I then conducted a multi-hour filmed interview with him, at his lakeside home. Again, Jenkins had no such recollections. Only after --well after--- Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981) did Jenkins' account change. Bottom line: only after Jenkins read the account of Paul O'Connor (to whom he was distantly related), and who described --in detail-- that the cranium was empty), did Jenkins then --years later!-- suddenly come up with the account you are quoting (As if: "Oh yes. . now I remember!" And. . : {"The damn thing fell to in my hands.") For these reasons, I do not place any reliability whatsoever in Jenkins' "new and improved" account. Nor should you. (Again, IMHO). Yes, I am sure there are authors who, perhaps unaware of this history, will quote O'Connor (per Best Evidence); and then quote Jenkins (as if his account constitutes corroboration). But that is not true. And historically -- there is no equivalence. Simply put: they are on not on equal footing. I wish that were not so. But that's the reality. And let me remind you what Jenkins said, when I first interviewed him, and when --after a lengthy conversation --he made no mention of any "empty cranium" or anything like what O'Connor had said. When I decided to spell it out, and see what his response would be, here's what happened. He listened to what I had so say, and then denied the essence of it, saying, "That's 'blue sky' stuff David." Again: "Blue sky stuff" - -that's was his response to me. Then (months later) came the publication of B.E. (Jan 1981) and thereupon followed-- some years later-- James Jenkins "new and improved" version. . And, pardon me, but that's how I think it should be treated, because I have no patience for those who attempt to fictionalize history with a false account. I wish a label could be affixed to such accounts so that writers who wish to rely on them could do so by introducing it in just that fashion: "According to the 'new and improved' version provided by James Jenkins. . " etc. (DSL, 6/28/20).

((edited and modified, 6/21/2020 - 430 AM PST)). The numbered list you provided --while attempting to be "comprehensive" --does not provide an accurate picture. The idea that what happened in Dallas on 11/22/63 represented a coup was first voiced by M.S. Arnoni in a series of articles in his publication "The Minority of One," (TMO). TMO was available at the UCLA Research Library and I spent hours studying his writings back in 1965/1966. Another pioneer was Vincent Salandria who (along with Thomas Stamm) went to the National Archives, and viewed the Zapruder film and then came his (Salandria's) articles in Liberation magazine. Still another "first generation" researcher was Josiah Thompson, who --in 1966 (approx) --was hired as a consultant by LIFE, visited Dallas, interviewed witnesses, and had "early access" to the Zapruder film. Furthermore, and speaking only for myself, I learned a lot from speaking with--and meeting with - Raymond Marcus, during that same period. Another member of the SoCal "group" was Maggie Field, and still another Lillian Castellano. All of this activity by "first generation" researchers--this complete immersion in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission, and the realization that the Warren Commission was not just "wrong" but perhaps deliberately so (i.e., an outright fraud) --- took place between 1964 and late 1966. (Furthermore, all of it was "pre-Internet," by several decades). District Attorney Garrison entered the scene in February 1967, making his headline-producing announcement that he had "solved" the Kennedy assassination; and then, in March, charging New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiracy. It was around May 1967 (or perhaps a bit later) when I first met with him --- more than once, and for several hours. (The chronology of my own involvement is laid out, in detail, in the opening chapters of Best Evidence, which was first published (in hardcover) in Jan 1981, which was a Book of the Month Club selection; and then (again) by three more publishers: Dell [1982], Carroll and Graf ["Trade paper," 1988], and Signet [paperback, 1993]). Your point number 8 --that Garrison was "[the] first critic who said JFK's murder was a coup d'etat," is incorrect-- completely incorrect. I had any number of conversations with Ray Marcus on this very subject (back in 1964/1965). Also, and on the subject of "coup," a most important book is (i.e., "was") "Coup d'etat," by Edward Luttwak, first published by Harvard University Press in 1968, and reprinted a number of times since. That book provided a methodical way to examine the JFK assassination (from the standpoint that it was a coup); and led me to focus on the Secret Service -- specifically, the White House Detail ("WHD") of the Secret Service as the key to understanding the mechanics of any plot. Bottom line: there's a very solid published record about how thinking developed --among early JFK researchers --about the JFK assassination; and, should you wish to get an overview, there are two lengthy articles in Esquire Magazine --one in December 1966, and then a follow-up several months later (Just Googe "Esquire" and "assassination theories"). Garrison was not the progenitor of the ideas on your numbered list, and to believe that is a gross oversimplification. The original books on this case -- "Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy," by Joachem Joesten (1964 or 1965), Inquest (by Edward Epstein, July 1966), and Rush to Judgement (by Mark Lane, August 1966); marked the beginning. Two other "first generation" researchers were Ray Marcus and Maggie Field. Later (in 1968, I believe) came Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, and my own work (Best Evidence ) was published in 1981. My final chapter -- Ch. 32 ("The Assassination as a Covert Operation")-- explicitly argues that the assassination was an "inside job" and leaves little doubt that we are talking about a coup. FWIW-- and this is admittedly subjective --it was always my impression that Garrison's "political theory" (i.e., his very public talk about a "coup") emerged after a Spring 1967 trip to Los Angeles, and the extensive contacts that he had--at that time--with Ray Marcus and Maggie Field (mentioned above). In particular, your point #9 --that a purpose of JFK's murder was to change the foreign policy of the U.S. (a polite way of saying, "to escalate the Vietnam War", e.g., starting with Tonkin Gulf, august 1964) -- is developed in The Minority of One (TMO), and was a subject of intense discussion among the two Southern California researchers (mentioned above, along with another, Lillian Castellano) with whom I was in contact back in those days. A good "snapshot" of the situation can be found in a New Yorker article published in June 1967, called "The Buffs," by writer Calvin (Bud) Trillin. Years later (circa 1992), some of this history blossomed into a Ph.D. thesis of John Newman, which then (in 1992/93) became his published book, "JFK and Vietnam." If you will study the materials I have mentioned, and arrange everything in "chronological order," you will have a much more accurate understanding of how the JFK controversy emerged, and the role played by District Attorney Garrison. I am not taking issue with some of the "particulars" you raise; rather, I'm trying here to focus on "the big picture." In many ways, Garrison can be viewed as "just another JFK researcher" --the big difference being that, as D.A. of New Orleans, he could charge people with crimes, and actually present evidence to a Grand Jury (which he did). Unfortunately (and this was the serious downside of his investigation) the principal person he charged --businessman Clay Shaw--was, IMHO, completely innocent of any wrong doing. The result was legal proceedings which produced national publicity and historically important testimony (e.g., the Shaw Trial testimony of Col. Finck, one of the Bethesda autopsy doctors) and much other testimony and documentation-- all if which led to a "not guilty" verdict (Spring 1969). The trial also led to the first public showing of the Zapruder film (in a New Orleans courtroom) which shows that JFK was thrust "back and to the left" by the force of a shot to JFK's head (which received world wide publicity, and was featured in Oliver Stone's 1992 movie, "JFK"). Personally, I don't believe the Clay Shaw had a blessed thing to do with JFK's death, but his prosecution --the prosecution of an innocent man, and a situation that was right out of Kafka -- became the center of Garrison's "quest" for the truth.

Re Dr. Stewart (6/6/20): Dr. Dave Stewart’s statement was first published in a Tennessee newspaper -- part of a major article about him published a few years after the assassination. Somehow I learned of it and ordered the original microfilm record of the relevant article (from a Tennessee library, as I recall). Flash foward now to 1989 (or 1990): When I set out on my trips to Dallas (and other cities) with a film crew, I planned the itinerary divert to Tennessee, and to include a filmed interview with Dr. Stewart, in which he provided a detailed account of his background, and his activities on 11/22/63; and stated all this “on the record.” Some Background (for those perhaps not familiar) with the details: As set forth in Best Evidence. . . and now recapping some of the history of how I came to write the book: When the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital on Friday evening, 11/22/63, Commander Humes (the autopsy surgeon) wrote in the report that the damage at the front of JFK's through was a horizontal gash measuring 6.5 cm. (and when he testified, under oath, he swore that it was "7 - 8 cm"); and further, and as recorded in the autopsy report, the throat wound had "widely gaping irregular edges." In Dallas, of course --and as verified by my 1966 interviews---the wound (a) was described as a small (1/4" diameter) puncture, and (b) with "smooth edges." (See Chapter 3, and beyond, in Best Evidence). So now flashing back to 1966, when I first pursued this matter: My original discovery of alteration of JFK's wounds (i.e., "body alteration") pertained to the alteration of the head wounds (i.e., "surgery of the head area," as reported in the FBI 302 report of Agents Sibert and O'Neill, who attended the Bethesda autopsy). As I say, that was my starting point, i.e., my original discovery. But then, within a few days, I realized that the wound at the front of JFK's throat had (also) been altered, as well; and that discovery was made when I first interviewed Dr. Perry, in detail, about the tracheotomy incision he had made. (Again, see B.E. for details). These two discoveries-- that there was evidence that both the head wound(s) and the throat wound had been altered, then led to another discovery --or insight. That second "discovery" --or insight --was the (sudden) realization that none of the medical witnesses in the Dallas ER reported any wounds in the president's back. In other words --not only was there no entry wound observed in the back of JFK's head; there was no entry wound observed in his upper right shoulder (or back). This was important because not only did the late Dr. Carrico (at Parkland) testify that he performed an examination of JFK's back (looking for any such wound); but, more significantly, after the pronouncement of death, the President's body was sponged down by two nurses at Parkland and they didn't report any such back wound (either). Had they observed any such wound, they (those nurses) would surely have reported it. And not just "reported it," such a discovery would have been major news. Rest assured: that the discovery of any entrance wound on JFK's body (and certainly the discovery of an entrance wound on the rear of the body) at Parkland Hospital would have been major news. The media was hungry every scrap of news, and had any such discovery (or "observation," to use more polite language) been made at Parkland Hospital, it would have been reported in the Dallas media (the Dallas Morning News,and the Dallas Times-Herald); not to mention the two wire services --UPI and AP; plus the New York Times, etc. But that was not to be. None of the Dallas doctors reported any entry wound on the back of JFK's body on 11/22/63. That's just a historical fact. Consequently, there were no such reports in the media. And that was the situation on November 22, 1963, and on Sat., 11/23, Sunday 11/24; 11/25 (Monday, the day of the funeral); and this situation persisted for another two weeks (!)--approx. THE FIRST REPORTED OBSERVATION OF A DALLAS REAR ENTRY WOUND (on JFK's body) In fact, the first time any Dallas doctors reported that Kennedy had a rear entry wound on the back of his body occurred on Dec. 10th (or 11th) 1963, in an article published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The article--by journalist Richard Dudman --was written after two Secret Service agents from Washington visited the Dallas doctors, and showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report. That document reported an entry wound at the top of the shoulder (approx) as a fact, i.e., as a medical reality. Only then, faced with such irrefutable evidence (i.e., that the wound was on the body at Bethesda, according to the Bethesda autopsy), did the Dallas doctors concede that there might have been such wound on the body i(in Dallas). They proceeded to speculate that perhaps it wasn't noticed because the president had not been 'turned over." etc. ** ** ** A NEW VIEW (or Concept) - SET FORTH IN Best Evidence: "before vs after" on JFK's body ("before" was Dallas; "after" was Bethesda). To utilize the language normally used in physics (when studying the physics of collisions), there was a 'before" and "after" condition on JFK's body --"before" being its condition at Dallas (as observed at Parkland Hospital); "after," at Bethesda (at the autopsy). And that is why two groups of doctors who saw the President's body on 11/22 came to diametrically opposite conclusions about trajectory: the Dallas observers, concluded that JFK was shot from the front; the Bethesda doctors concluded he was shot from the back. This "difference of opinion" did not result because the President wasn't "turned over" -- a facile explanation provided several weeks after the murder. In fact, the president was "turned over" -- when his body was washed down before being placed in the expensive Dallas coffin. The difference (in opinion, between Dallas and Bethesda) resulted from the wounds having been altered. All of this is laid out, in detail, in Best Evidence, with separate chapters devoted to each of these conflicting wound observations; and then my own conclusions about the results are recapped and summed up in Chapter 14, titled (appropriately): "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." In plain English: President Kennedy was ambushed from the front, but then --prior to the autopsy- -bullets were removed and the wounds altered to create the false appearance (at autopsy) that he (JFK) was shot twice from behind. The alteration of JFK's body --and the resultant false autopsy conclusions-- provided the foundation for the false history of November 22 1963. Oct. - Nov 1966: MY OWN INTERACTIONS WITH FORMER WC ATTORNEY LIEBELER The late UCLA Law Professor Wesley J. Liebeler, to whom I revealed much of this on Oct. 24 1966, understood the implications completely-- that the issue was no longer whether there was a "second assassin," but (rather) whether there was fraud in the evidence; i.e., (autopsy) fraud; and how that led to false conclusions about JFK's murder. Indeed, that's why Prof. Liebeler wrote the 13 page memorandum that he then spent several days writing (circa November 1966), and then sent to Chief Justice Warren (and all the other members of the Commission, and its legal staff) explaining what I had discovered and why it was important. "Second assassin" or "fraud in the evidence"? Without question, Prof. Liebeler understood the ultimate implications of this discovery: no longer was the issue whether or not there was a "second assassin." At issue was the legitimacy of the ascendancy of LBJ to the presidency-- i.e., in plain English, the legitimacy of the Johnson government. I believe I quoted (what follows) in B.E.; specifically, I remember there was one point -- after I had made my presentation (and when I asked "What are we going to do?";)he made this observation: "Sometimes we get involved in things that are bigger than us." (See B.E.) It took a lot courage for Liebeler to write the memo that he did; the sad part is that he had no "takers." Can you imagine how different it would have been if other lawyers on the staff --instead of being focused on (and transfixed by) the "sniper's nest evidence"-- had instead recognized that the body had been altered, and that there had been autopsy fraud. And consequently, that the official story of the assassination (originally presented by the Dallas Police Department) was false, and based on phony evidence. Furthermore; that --contrary to the "sniper's nest" evidence first presented by the Dallas Police Department (and taken seriously by the Warren Commission)--the assassination of President Kennedy was an inside job. Once one goes down that path, not only is the legitimacy of the JFK-to-Johnson transition in doubt, but the subsequent escalation of the war in SE Asia then becomes "part of the same package" and becomes the subject of legitimate historical inquiry. On this point: the subsequent release of the Pentagon Papers (summer of 1971) makes clear that the esclation of that war (in the aftermath of Johnson's inauguration (Jan 1965) was part of "contingency planning' that extended back in time to the earliest days of JFK'S '1000 days." RETURNING TO THE PERIOD - JULY - NOVEMBER 1966 I co-wrote "The Case for Three Assassins" (with David Welsh, a Ramparts staff writer) in July 1966, and it was first published on November 22, 1963 (in the UCLA Daily Bruin) and then nationally, about a month later, in the January 1967 issue of Ramparts magazine. I have often wondered what would have happened, if other members of the WC legal staff had joined with Liebeler, and made a public statement to the effect that they had been the victims of fraud in the evidence. But that was not to be. In early November 1966, I was at the UCLA Law School Building, and in an adjoining office when Liebeler called WC attorney Arlen Specter --who had been in charge of the "autopsy area" of the WC's investigation. After speaking to Specter for a good 15 minutes (maybe more, I defer to whatever I wrote in B.E.), I asked, "What did he say?" Liebeler's unforgettable response: "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." And no wonder Specter had that reaction: the President's body (and not the X-rays and photos, which the WC had not bothered to examine0 was the key evidence in the case; and not only had Specter failed to establish a legally sound "chain of possession" on JFK's body -- Specter had instead come up with his own rather unique "explanation" for why this was a two-victim shooting, leaving trail of nine (count 'em) wounds, with no complete bullets (or reasonable side fragments) in either victim's body. THE BIG PICTURE But I digress. The covert interception of JFK's body (and the alteration of the wounds) is the best evidence that JFK's assassination was an inside job. That's the importance of Dallas, and it's also why -- IMHO -- its possible to make the jump from the Dallas assassination to the subsequent escalation of the Vietnam War. Yet today -- with the Vietnam War now history (and Saigon now Ho Chi Minh City) -- a number of JFK researchers have lost sight of the "big picture". So now--decades later -- one can fill the requisite application, and --if approved --visit the National Archives, and examine the JFK X-rays and photos, focusing on this or that piece of evidentiary minutia, arguing (for example) for a "fourth shot" struck. Evidence of conspiracy. . correct? Yes, but. .(as far as I am concerned) that is largely irrelevant; is it not? A prominent doctor from San Francisco recently (and once again) visited the National Archives. I remember his reaction when Best Evidence was first published. To say he was interested in the book is a vast understatement. But then something happened; and I'm afraid it was simply this; if the body was intercepted and altered, then all this minutia about the X-rays and photos would be largely irrelevant. At some point, I think he realized this. The good doctor has a violent temper -- something quite to behold (if one has the misfortune to provoke the good doctor) -- and some twenty years ago (at least), he called, engaged me in a discussion about the subject-- and- screamed at me, at the top of his lungs. "The body was not altered! the body was not altered!" The words were not "spoken", as in normal conversation; but screamed, violently yelled at me, at the top of his lungs.* *which is why I put the words in red font. The good doctor can repeat that as many times as he wants; and, when not treating patients for various problems with their vision (which I assume he does when he is calm, and not exposing his violent temperament), he can squeeze in a flight to Washington ( and perhaps a visit to the National Archives), and prepare still another inconsequential presentation to students of the JFK case. Another tiny metal fragment, perhaps, that he reports that he can now can "see" on the X-Rays that wasn't noticed before. The good doctor has never written a book -- and probably never will. And aside from his generalized theory about not trusting the government (he's a proud libertarian) I am not sure what his political views are. (Further: if another fragment was to be found, or if there was a "fourth shot," does that mean we had a coup? No, it would not. But covert body alteration presents an entirely different situation. Because the alteration of the body provides a "historical shortcut" of sorts, between the falsification of the body and the subsequent change of foreign policy, and sharp escalation of the war. So. . .What about the copious evidence that the President's body was intercepted, and altered? . Returning to my own views: What I do know is that back ion November 22, 1963, President Kennedy's body was intercepted (and the wounds altered) prior to autopsy, in order to promote a false story of how he does. And if this fact is not recognized (and addressed), then one cannot possibly come up with a proper explanation for what happened in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63, much less a political explanation. Without recognition of that fundamental fact, one cannot properly decipher what happened in Dealey Plaza; or understand the political motives of the plot that took President Kennedy's life. President Kennedy had to be brought to Texas --and specifically to Dallas --for his death to occur; and then, some 18 months later-- the focus would shift to Saigon, to see the political result; and I am referring here to the sudden Vietnam escalation (which Kennedy never intended) and which marked the readily observable foreign policy switch, which began just a few months after the inauguration of Lyndon Johnson.* DSL 6/06/2020 - 6 PM *For a close analysis, see "JFK and Vietnam," by John Newman (Warner books)

Hi Micah: I do not understand what you are driving at, when you ask if the Bryce Miller (UPI) story "has an exclusive source". Please clarify; i.e., please reword and/or provide additional context -- because (as presently worded) I don't understand what you're trying to ascertain. Thanks. DSL (You might also email me directly at dlifton@earthlink.net, and elaborate as you wish. Thanks.)

The Zapruder film was altered to hide basic facts about the murder. The "car stop" was one of those basic facts. Another concerns the parameter of time-- and specifically, the matter of "elapsed time." If the limo stopped, then the assassination was not a "six second" event, or even seven seconds. If the car stopped, the assassination was very likely closer to a 20 second event --which, by the way, is what Sheeriff Decker (who was in lead car,) said was the case. Why do I estimate 20 seconds? Because (if the car stopped) you can't bring a two-ton vehicle to a halt, and then re-accelerate it (to 12 or 15 mph), without the passage of that length of time (approx). T

Sandy. . thanks. See my separate post, which is posted "above". DSL (5/26/20 - 7:15 AM PST)

REVISED/EDITED, 5/16/2020 - 7:15 AM PST Sandy: I was not aware of your post until now (5/16/20: 430 AM PST) Best Evidence describes my discovery of the images in the Moorman photo in Chapter 1. What is not included in the book (first published in Jan 1981) --because I discovered it years later-- is the image located on JFK's right shoulder, and which (for purposes of description) I have described as a "shoulder patch." In fact, that's a fragment of scalp and bone from the right rear portion of JFK's head, caught in flight by Moorman's camera, as she snapped her photo. Pulled downward (by gravity), that fragment then fell (or "descended") into the rear seat of the limo, and is (apparently) the one described by SS Agent Clint Hill when he wrote (in his report, and then later testified to that same effect): that the "back" of JFK's head was "missing" and that it was "lying in the rear seat of the car." (Approx., from memory). Now lets turn to 1965 (approx - date uncertain), and my discovery of important photo corroboration, and what I will now describe is how I came into possession of an important photo negative, which bears on the question of the authenticity (and relevance) of that image (of the "shoulder patch"). Around 1965 (or perhaps July 1966, in connection with my temporary residence in San Francisco, when I drafted "The Case for Three Assassins" [which was punished in January 1967 as a Ramparts Magazine cover story], I was living in San Francisco, and was working out of Ramparts' offices located at 301 Broadway. While there-- I decided to visit the office of Associated Press. My purpose--or at least one purpose--was to see what photos (i.e.,what prints) they might have (on file) of the Moorman photo -- because I was aware that her original had been copied (on 11/22, in the afternoon, as I recall) and transmitted via wire by both wire services--i.e., by both AP and UPI. To my considerable surprise, the AP office had wire service prints-- and negatives--of lots of photos; and one of them was of the Moorman photo. (In other words, they had the wire-service negative of the Moorman photograph, as received over the wire-service photo machine). This wire service negative, having been created by the wire-service telephoto machine, had horizontal scan lines -- that is, it consisted (on magnification) of horizontal scan lines; but, (my reaction was) "so what?" The scan lines weren't even visible unless you enlarged the photograph to a fairly high magnification. In any event, the basic content (i.e., the basic image) was clearly visible--- and there, on JFK's shoulder, was the image of that "shoulder patch." The person in charge --call him the "supervisor"--noted my intense interest, and said words to the effect that if wanted that negative I could have it. Because (get this) he said that there were a whole bunch of these negatives, they did not save them, and if I didn't want it, they were just going to discard them. When I was studying the image, probably using a magnifying glass, the person in charge said something like: "We don't save that stuff, so if you want it you can have it. Its yours." (Really! That's what he said.) Obviously, I accepted the offer, and that's how I came to possess the San Francisco wire-service negative of the AP Wire photo designated "DN-22," a negative created (in San Francisco) when the Moorman photo was first transmitted -- nationally-- on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. The shoulder patch --which I don't believe I was aware of at the time-- was right there on the negative, but so were the various images of "the men" behind the wall, which was my main focus. These were the images that had so excited me and started me down the path of my original research -- as described in Chapter 1 of B.E. So that's how I came into possession of San Francisco (AP) wire service negative labeled "DN-22" of the Moorman photo. Again, I don't (presently) recall what year it was that I first became aware -- on the image of the Moorman photo -- of what I (later) came to call the "shoulder patch," but its significance has only increased with the passage of time. WHAT I BELIEVE TODAY: Today, I believe Kennedy was struck in the head twice from the front-- once in the left temple (per the statement by Dr Robert McClelland, that JFK died "of a gunshot wound of the left temple). ); and once in the right temple (or on the right side). (See Chapter 2 of B.E.) Because the car-stop occurred (and some 30 frames, or more, on the Z film, have been eliminated, to "eliminate" the car stop (as I discussed in my essay, "Pig on a Leash", published around 2003) its obvious (to me, anyway) that the Zapruder film has been altered (and thats a whole other subject). I bring up that subject (of Z film alteration) because that (doctored) film record is the only one (or at least the most important one) that provides a detailed pictorial record of the Kennedy head wounding during those crucial few seconds (Z-232 on out to 330). And what does it show? Basically, that the back of the head has been "blacked out" (rather obvious in frames 309 - 330, approx)--another manifestation of film alteration. But, setting aside the actual imagery as shown on individual Z frames, and now considering the frames as a sequence, it also shows the rapid backward movement of the head after the impact of the fatal shot (i.e., the "head snap") --a subject I discussed at length in B.E. (Chapter 2). Of course, its the (backward) "head-snap" which attracted so much public attention, starting with the 1975 Geraldo Rivera broadcast (on his TV show) which --IMHO--played such an major role in leading to the several re-investigations of the Kennedy case. Somewhere in my personal records may be one or more memos I wrote when (years later) I discovered the image of the "shoulder patch." That discovery looms more and more-- with the passage of time --to any complete and thorough "micro-study" of the JFK assassination. (DSL, 5/16/20; 5:45 AM PST; Revised, 7 AM PST).