David Lifton

Your response is not clear; but let me add this: in the aftermath of the publication of Best Evidence I received hundreds of letters, and one stands out: it was written by a professor of medicine. He complimented me on the accuracy of my analysis, and said that his initial impression was that I must be a doctor (or at least had gone to medical school). Of course, that wasn't the case at all, but I did study Grants Atlas of Anatomy, plus some beautifully illustrated books on neuropathology (The CIBA brain drawings.) UCLA was a fabulous resource; its Biomedical Library -- part of its Health Sciences center, and supposedly larger than the Pentagon-- had numerous books, and the hallways were adorned with wonderful anatomic illustrations. Also, there were any number of professors who were readily accessible and more than happy to answer any questions that I had.

Each time you post, you reveal your abysmal lack of understanding. The short answer: Yes, prior to publication, Macmillan hired a law firm to review the manuscript, in detail. Page by page. Because in view of its content, there was concern about litigation. The result: there was not a single lawsuit; not one peep from the legal community. I am writing this not because I give a hoot about what you think, but because of the widespread reach of the Internet. Now why don't you go pester someone else Mr. Allison? . . .but before you leave please tell us about your credentials. Are you a lawyer? A doctor? An accountant? Did you complete high school? Just asking. .

PERSONAL NOTE TO Jim DiEugenio: You write: "Technically, Lifton did not create that idea." Oh really? Is this another one of your ventures into the Twilight Zone? Or what. If my Grandmother were still alive, she'd probably suggest that someone should wash out your mouth with soap. Please note the following sequence: July 1966: While employed at Ramparts (magazine), I co-authored "The Case for Three Assassins," a 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence (First pub date:11/22/66, in the UCLA Bruin); then, in a cover story in the January 1967 issue of Ramparts. October 1966 - I discovered the statement in the Sibert and O'Neill Report about "surgery of the head area" (See Best Evidence, Chapter 7) Later, Oct., 1966: I interviewed Dr. Perry about the length of the tracheotomy incision that he made ("2-3 cm" --See Ch 11, B.E.); and realized it had been enlarged (See B.E., Chapter 7, 8 and 11) Early Nov 1966: I interviewed Commander. Humes (who conducted the JFK autopsy, at Bethesda) about the FBI statement about pre-autopsy surgery. (His response: "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where!" [B.E., Ch 8]) Early Nov 1966: I assisted Prof. Liebeler---and his two UCLA-paid assistants--in writing the Liebeler memorandum (of Nov 8 1966), in which I was given full credit for having made this discovery.(See Ch. 9 of B.E., "The Liebeler Memorandum") Nov 16, 1966: Liebeler transmitted his 12 page memo to every member of the WC, the entire staff, Atty Gen. RFK, and the White House Nov 1966, and beyond: I commenced interviewing all the Dallas doctors, and then the members of the MDW casket team, to ascertain evidence as to when the body could have been intercepted and altered.(Ch. 16, B.E.) All this is a matter of record. The Liebeler Memo is now part of the documents at NARA, in the "JFK Collection". Please note: The following year, I first met Fred Newcomb; and subsequently (around 1970 - 1971) I told him about my research. His first published article about "surgery of the head area" appeared about 1974/75. NOTICE TO JIM DiEugenio: STOP LYING ABOUT THIS SEQUENCE . Surely you know better. Stop pretending that you are unaware of this sequence; stop saying that all this was discovered by Fred Newcomb, who I had not yet even met (until 1967); at which point he learned about my work. Let me now repeat the false statement that you made: QUOTE: "Technically Lifton did not create that idea. It was Newcomb. But Lifton will say he gave it to Fred." That is flat out false. Jim DiEugenio: Get real: Body Alteration is a concept that was discovered by me, and is laid out in the Liebeler Memorandum of November 8 1966, a memo that went to Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to every member of the Warren Commission, and to the White House (and is today at the National Archives, as part of the JFK Collection). Furthermore, all of this is described--in detail-- in BEST EVIDENCE (Chapters 7 - 10; published in January 1981). Jim DiEugenio: If you continue to promote and disseminate these falsehoods, then Pat Valentino and I will appear on Black Ops radio, discuss this sequence in detail, and expose these falsehoods, to the detriment of any objective assessment of your character. I will also amend my Oral History at the Sixth Floor Museum to make sure this entire matter is discussed in detail, including your many misrepresentations. One other matter (and that concerns the issue of ghost writers): Everything in Best Evidence was written by me. I didn't (and do not) employ ghost writers, nor do I avail myself of "contributors" --as is your practice--who write much of what appears in your publication ("Kennedys and Kings") along with the description: "Written by Jim DiEugenio," when that is clearly not the case. No wonder you slipped up, and recently wrote that "we" would have something "soon" about the Dylan situation and "Murder Most Foul." Who is the "we" Jim? Why did you not state "I will write" or "I plan to write." Have you forgotten how to use the English language? Again: who is "we"? Who's the ghost behind much of what appears under your own name? David S. Lifton - 4/2/2020 - 9 AM PST

Micah: Re the last last four (4) words of your post.. :I think you meant to write "or" instead of "of"; so it would read: "or the suspicion thereof." DSL

Your syntax and grammar make it impossible to understand what you are trying to say.

Matt Allison's ignorance shines through, along with his arrogance. First of all, the body is/was evidence. The body had to be controlled, in order to create a "politically correct" story about the assassination. The goal, in this case, was for there to be a stable operation of the presidential line of succession. The Dallas doctors -- basically truth tellers --- said President Kennedy was shot from the front. Oswald -- the key to the lone assassin "solution" --was located behind. For this to be implemented, the autopsy conclusions had to be falsified, So. . .either the autopsy doctors were crooked, or the evidence they examined , the body, had to be falsified. Oswald running out the front door, and grabbing a flight to Mexico, would not have solved that problem. Had Allison been on the Board of Directors of the "Assassination Committee," his suggestion(s) would have been dismissed as absurd, and he would have been fired. IMHO. P.S. I can just see the public reaction to Oswald having exited the front door of the TSBD, and gone to Mexico, if the autopsy results were not falsified. CRONKITE: "And we have a report that one of the employees of the Texas School Book Depository went to Mexico. We're not sure what this means, since the shots appeared to have come from an area in the front of the President, known as the "grassy knoll."

Hi Mr Niederhut: Set aside the entire discussion of the wounds. Simply focus on the issue of chain of possession of JFK's body. Can there really be any question that JFK's body left Dallas wrapped in sheets, inside a ceremonial casket; but arrived at the Bethesda morgue, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket? DiEugenio and Cranor (and their ilk) ought to get together, and seek treatment for denial. Their psychology resembles those in the Flat Earth Society. The reason I tend not to wish to debate with them is that its largely a waste of time. (And they present themselves s truth seekers)? Pretty sad state of affairs. DSL P.S. Another problem with some of these people is that they are so heavily invested in the idea that the WC was part of a deliberate conspiracy, that there's no room in their thinking for the idea that the WC --whatever its flaws (and there were many)-- was also up against a strategic deception. So their fury about B.E is that they (mistakenly) believe that I'm an apologist for the WC -- which is nonsense. I believe we had a coup in 1963-- the operation of the presidential line of succession, disguised as a quirk of fate. Does DiEugenio think this was engineered by David Ferrie? Maybe he can teach that to some sixth grade class, but that won't fly historically. As for Milicent Cranor, she's very bright, but I think she mostly suffers from a "Not Invented Here" complex. If B.E. is correct, what's left for her to do? Study microphotographs of ant colonies? Or daydream about coffee dates with Gary Aguilar? (Just speculating, of course). I think she should collect her writings, and publish a book. If she has an overall (political) view of the JFK case, I'd like to know what it is. DSL

It was just a few days ago that I had the extraordinary experience of being on line, very late at night, and learning—quite unexpectedly— of Bob Dylan’s just released song, Murder Most Foul. Reading the lyrics, I was astonished to learn that Dylan had focused on— and incorporated into his lyrics—the essence of Best Evidence, or at least, of its final chapters: autopsy fakery via body alteration; specifically, fakery that involved the (covert and illicit) removal of JFK’s brain, prior to autopsy. But there is was, in plain English, from Hamlet (Act I, Scene 5), where Hamlet is talking to the Ghost; now quoting: And each particular hair to stand on end, Like quills upon the fretful porcupine. But this eternal blazon must not be To ears of flesh and blood. List, List, O, List! If thou didst ever thy dear father love— Hamlet. O God! Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder. Hamlet. Murder! Ghost. Murder most foul, as in the best it is, But this most foul, strange, and unnatural. A friend of mine—who also noticed—telephoned me (the first of many calls I received) and asked how I felt; how I felt about my work being mentioned, almost explicitly, in the lyrics of a song written by someone (Dylan) who had recently won the Nobel Prize for Literature (2016). “I feel proud,” I replied, and I did (and still do). The late Pat Lambert, who played a major role in editing Best Evidence, used to say, “David, your work will seep slowly into the culture.” She didn’t have any prediction as to when that would occur, just the certainty that eventually it would. I hoped she was right. And maybe now it has, but in a way I would never have expected. Best Evidence was published in January 1981. After years of isolation, I was proud when it was selected Book of the Month Selection (Sept 1980, approx), was on the New York Times best-seller list (for about 3 months, starting in February 1981); and (to my considerable surprise), was briefly number 1 on the wire service lists (Feb - April, 1981). (Aside: I know that many of you are waiting for Final Charade. You will not be disappointed. I've had some personal problems, plus other factors, one of which was the late arrival of some very important--and 'new"--evidence; which led to some re-design). Meanwhile, I have followed the public reception to Murder Most Foul, and so it was, just a few hours ago, that I visited the London Education Forum to see what was going on in the JFK discussion group there, and came across a writing by James DiEugenio. I don’t make it habit to follow much of what DiEugenio writes, because he and his brainy pal, Milicent Cranor (who is very smart, much smarter that DiEugenio, and very likely much smarter than I) have exhibited an inexplicable hostility to Best Evidence that dates back some 20 years (or more). In any event, as i read DiEugenio’s writing, and I was impressed. “Wow,” I thought to myself, “This is pretty good. He (J. D.) must have really grown, as a writer and a thinker.” But then, within a few minutes, reality dawned. And my initial reaction was “Oh no! Is that what’s going on here?” Along with: “Here we go again!” To what am I referring? What I am referring to is the fact that —when it comes to anything fairly technical (and highly analytic) the author of certain writing at "Kennedy and Kings" is not DiEugenio at all, but a third party. Now. . who might that be? Over the years I learned exactly who that was. This brings me back to this latest piece of writing, supposedly by “Jim DiEugenio,” but obviously written by that third party—specifically, by Milicent Cranor. Everyone has their sources—their Deep Throat, or perhaps a mole, and I am no exception. ** ** ** I am writing this post to state —for the record, the historical record—that the latest writing by Jim DiEugenio about Murder Most Foul,—a fairly good essay, allegedly by DiEugenio (and just under 3000 words, which would be about 12 pages, double spaced) was not written by DiEugenio, but by Milicent Cranor. I notice that towards the bottom of page one (in the single-spaced version), she gives herself a literary cameo (in much the same way that Alfred Hitchcock —the great English film director, who passed away in April 1980— would insert himself into one of his films). So towards the bottom of page one (single spaced), the piece states: Many writers on the JFK case, including our own Milicent Cranor, have referred to the murder of JFK as a “magic trick”. Yeah sure, Milicent. A very nice gesture. A nice pat on the back --your e-back, if I might coin a phrase. But the only “magic trick” here is that Cranor is posing as DiEugenio -- or, to state it differently (and referring back to my posts on this subject years ago) DiEugenio has a talented ghost writer, but pretends he wrote all of this himself. C’mon Jim. Its time to ‘fess up,' and end this farce. Wasn’t it Abraham Lincoln who said: “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” No, in fact it wasn’t—and there’s quite a debate about the origin of that phrase. No matter: this famous quote about deception captures the essence of how I feel about this situation, and the false attribution (to Jim DiEugenio) of words (and ideas) written by a third party, someone whose initials are "M. C.". And that’s about all I have to say - - at this juncture. There may be more in the future. Stay tuned. DSL 3/31/2020 - 9 AM PST

No, Vince. It's not "[about] Lifton!" Its about the data - data that establishes that President Kennedy's brain was (illicitly and covertly) removed from his cranium, prior to autopsy. Dylan was using that to allude to the degradation of our society, and as evidence that, as in Shakespeare, this was "murder most foul." Let's put this in the context of your work, shall we?: The possible disloyalty (and criminality) of this or that Secret Service agent would be about the data, and not "about Palamara." DSL

I heard about this just a few hours after this song was released. and was astounded at the specific nature of the lyrics: "They mutilated his body and they took out his brain." The poem is very powerful; and for me it had a special significance: It seemed obvious that Dylan was familiar with Best Evidence. The incredible references to body mutilation and the removal of the brain-- so stunningly explicit--obviously refer to the removal of President Kennedy's brain, prior to autopsy, which I documented in B.E., and then backed up with filmed interviews of the key witness (Paul O'Connor) in B.E. Further reading established that Dylan spent four days after 11/22, with his girlfriend, in his New York apartment, watching the events of those memorable four days. I am proud that the research I published in 1981 plays such a central role in a major work --a poem focused on JFK's death, and the falsification of the autopsy-- by a Nobel Laureate. DSL 3/29/2020 - 7:20 AM PST

I do not understand your question--and specifically, what you mean when you write ""whether a full chest tube procedure was performed". Could you please clarify? Thanks. DSL

DVP scolds me, writing "Don't you think it's about time for you to STOP relying on bad information? How ironic. This is written by DVP who sincerely believes--and promotes---a completely false view of what happened on 11/22/63, because he is wedded to a simplistic belief in falsified evidence. DSL; 5/21/19 (7:15 EDT)

I'm writing this additional "P.S." to highlight the serious difference between FBI Agent Sibert's statement in 1978 (cited by DVP) and what Sibert told me some years later. Sibert's statement quoted by DVP derives from an affidavit he was asked to sign by HSCA General Counsel Blakey, after I had spoken to Blakey for well over an hour, giving him a serious preview of the manuscript I was writing, which presented the evidence that JFK's body was altered prior to autopsy. Blakey listened--again, this conversation was at least an hour--and assured me that he understood what I was saying, and that he would "look into it," (my quote). As far as I can see, what Blakey then did was prepare an affidavit for Sibert to sign that said that the "surgery of the head area" quote was determined not to be true, etc. So that's the kind of "investigation" that Blakey conducted. But when I spoke to Sibert, as I have stated in my prior "DSL Response," Sibert told me that he would "swear on a stack of bibles" that (based on his recollection) the autopsy doctor (referring to Humes) said it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull." DVP writes (quote on): And, YES!, of course I'm going to "cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin". What Lone Assassin believer wouldn't be citing that Carcano rifle as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if not THE most important)? Get real, David L.!" QUOTE OFF After all his years of study and analysis, DVP still has not advanced beyond the point of citing the Carcano rifle "as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case (if to THE most important)." Can it the case that DVP does not realize how absurdly shallow this sort of "reasoning" is? Can it be that all it takes to deceive DVP is to have placed a rifle mail ordered to LHO's post office box up there on the sixth floor? I could understand him reasoning in this fashion if this was December 1963, or into the first half of 1964. But. . . for G_d's sake- - this is 2019! We now know that the JFK wound descriptions (as reported in Dallas) were entirely different than the wound descriptions at Bethesda. We now know that there was a serious break in the chain of custody on JFK's body--that it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, and in a 400 -plus pound expensive ceremonial casket, and arrived at Bethesda inside a body bag, which was inside a shipping casket. All of this is spelled out in great detail, and with great clarity, in Best Evidence. We now know, that (as I have cited above) that when Humes (the autopsy surgeon) was handed a piece of bone, the FBI agents reported what he was told: that he was "instructed" that this had been "removed" from the President's skull. It should be very obvious, at this late date, that (a) the President's body was altered (i.e., his wounds were altered); and (b) there was no valid chain of possession. Is it possible that, despite all the contrary evidence, all it takes to deceive DVP is for Oswald's rifle to have been placed among some cartons on the sixth floor; and so, ipso facto, that's enough for him to accept Oswald's guilt as "the assassin." Is he really that credulous? If so, that's rather sad. DSL 5/21/19 (7 PM EDT)

DSL RESPONSE: I spoke with FBI agent James Sibert at length some years later (in the early 1990s, but I will try to determine the exact date), At that time, he told me (and he was quite emphatic on this point): "I would swear on a stack of bibles that the doctor (referring to the autopsy surgeon) said there had been :surgery of the head area.." So I'm not making any of this up. Furthermore (and I did not discover what follows until years later): when, during the "latter stages" of the autopsy, a bone fragment was brought to the autopsy room and handed to Humes (the autopsy surgeon), Humes --according to the two FBI agents--was "instructed" that this "had been removed" from the President's skull." Note the FBI agents choice of words: not "blasted" away; not "found in the street"; not "found in the car" etc. Rather: that this bone fragment had been "removed" from JFK's skull. Again, another strong indication that, at the time of autopsy, it was the perception in the Bethesda autopsy room that there had been pre-autopsy surgery on JFK''s body--i.e., on his wounds. DSL, 5/21/2019 (3 PM EDT)

5/20/2019 - 11:20 PM EDT Ron, The way events evolved is not what was supposed to happen. JFK's body was supposed to be altered, in Dallas, and then there was to be a Dallas autopsy. But none of that happened, once Connally was unexpectedly shot. The result: the focus shifted to getting JFK's body out of Texas, without an autopsy, and focusing on Connally's medical treatment, so that his unexpected shooting did not foul up "the best of well laid plans." I'll be publishing about this soon. DSL

The legal (and historical) record in this case clearly establishes a serious bifurcation in the record (i.e., the medical record) between the wound observations at Parkland Hospital and what was reported at Bethesda, at the time of autopsy. The fact that the two FBI agents present (Sibert and O’Neill) would report that, when JFK’s body was laid out on the autopsy table, it was “apparent” that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull,” should afford a rather clear explanation as to what the explanation is for this bifurcation: the wounds had been altered, somehow, in the six hour period between the time of the Parkland observations and the official start of the Bethesda autopsy. All of that was established and spelled out in my 1981 book Best Evidence. If the body was altered, then—as I have said—this was a body-centric plot: that is, the alteration of the body and the concomitant planting of ammunition linking Oswald’s rifle to the crime was the basic modus operandi of this crime. Let me remind those reading this post of the basic definition of that important term: “modus operandi” - - “a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established.” I haven’t visited the London Forum in quite a while*, and perhaps it should come as no surprise that David Von Pein is still at it, beating a dead horse, basically denying the evidence that JFK’s wounds were altered prior to autopsy; in other words, the President’s body was a medical forgery by the time of autopsy. But Von Pein, ignoring all that, and employing “kindergarten logic,” basically argues that since ammunition found in the presidential limo ballistically matched Oswald’s rifle, that that somehow validates the case against Oswald. *I originally wrote "in years." That was incorrect. I can only speculate as to what would happen if DVP were involved in a card game and it turned out, from simple card-counting, that there were two “Ace of spades” or three Jack of Diamonds? Would he continue to play? Or would he understand that the game was permeated with fraud? As I have stated in public lectures, JFK’s body was akin to the sun in the solar system of evidence. Once its established that the body was altered, the evidence that there was fraud in the evidence (and that the Dallas sniper’s nest evidence was a source of artifacts, not legitmate “facts”) becomes “the” major issue; and has logical consequences. Von Pein doesn’t seem to understand that. He wants to keep dealing the cards, and keep playing the game, with the stacked deck; i.e., even though there’s clearly fraud in the evidence. His attempt to focus on the limousine, and cite one of the two fragments (that matched Oswald’s rifle) as legitimate evidence is both pathetic and illogical. Von Pein doesn’t seem to understand that once fraud is established in the most basic evidence in this case—i.e., the body of the deceased, which was the basis for the Naval autopsy—the entire legal case is kaput. It is almost comical to see him, all these years later, focusing on one of the two “Oswald fragments” recovered from the limousine, and attempting to use that as the basis for arguing that the sniper’s nest evidence is legitimate because. . .because why? Because (of course, in DVP’s world!) Oswald assassinated the President! By that flawed methodology and absurd logic, why stop with the fragments? Why not cite the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as evidence that Oswald was JFK’s assassin; ergo, the body was not altered (to create that false appearance)! If this is the way DVP “reasons,” I can only image what would have happened if he had displayed this sort of reasoning in a mathematics class or one on basic geometry. DSL

Cliff: Very nice summary. Brief, cogent, etc. Now adding to what you have written. . . : Remember the quote from the Sibert-O'Neill report: that the individuals performing the autopsy were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets. (Think about it: That's a remarkable statement, written by two FBI agents who were witnessing Humes' bafflement at their being no bullets in the body). The most reasonable answer, of course, is that bullets were removed, prior to autopsy. The one place we (perhaps) disagree is that I do not believe that the back wound is genuine. A fact to remember: Dr. Perry testified that he received a call from Humes who asked him (Perry) "if we had made any wounds in the back." So not only were bullets fired from the front "removed," but --to complete the picture of trajectory falsification, and a critical part of understanding the overall deception: two entries, one at the back of the head, and the other just above the shoulder blade, were added to the rear. As I have spelled out in Best Evidence, this was part of the overall plan to (a) conceal the fact that shots struck from the front and (b) create the false appearance (at autopsy) that JFK was struck--in the back (or low neck) and in the head, from behind. I have still further evidence of contrivance at the time of autopsy. What some people studying this don't seem to fully understand is that this was more--much more--than a "coverup"; but a plan, from the outset, not just to murder JFK, but (after his death) to create a false story of how he died. Pre-autopsy bullet removal was one part of the plan; changing the bullet trajectories was another. This is all spelled out in Best Evidence. And I have additional (and powerful) evidence that will be set forth in Final Charade. Anyway, Cliff, thanks for your cogent summary, which makes clear why the official version cannot possibly be true. DSL

Note date change: it was 1965, not 1985. Sorry. That was a typo. DSL Paul, I telephoned Jack Chrichton--for all the obvious reasons--back around 1965 (date, fuzzy). What I recalled is that he was a very friendly and outgoing fellow, who explained to me the role he had played in getting an interpreter for Marina, when she was brought down to the Dallas Police Department. If you have something specific that might jog my memory, please do let me know. FYI: I have always wondered about the other names you mentioned, but never contacted any of them. I have a vague recollection of attempting to speak with Lumpkin, but he wouldn't talk. I never heard of Frank Brandstetter (or his book). Thanks. DSL 8/28/18 - 6 AM PDT Southern California

So soon to be so late in thanking you for your very complimentary post. Re Executive Action (on which I was credited as being the "Researcher" [see the film credits]); and your question: Its a good question, and I don't know the answer. I tend to think the cabal that took JFK's life was partly "outside" and partly "inside" the USG; and, even more significantly, the municipal government of Dallas. I believe Dallas mayor Cabell had significant foreknowledge and would have "lent a hand" wherever his assistance was required. I don't believe (anymore) that this was a "Pentagon plot," although I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it had some significant Pentagon sympathizers. I do not believe that Sec State Dean Rusk taking so many of the "Kennedy loyalists" out of the country (for that Trade conference in Tokyo) was an accident; to the contrary, it was plot connected, and I think that Rusk had significant foreknowledge and was a "player." I believe the highest echelons of the DPD were involved up to their ears; but so was Lyndon Johnson. I believe there was an "operational cadre" of top level people, many ex-military, who "ran" the Dallas operation; and that there was major Secret Service involvement--including SS Chief Rowley, and White House Detail Gerald Behn, and a clique of agents (Kellerman, Roberts, etc.) Suggestion: read Luttwak's "Coup d'erat" to understand how a plot like this is structured. For the rest, I'm racing to finish Final Charade. DSL 8/27/2018; 6:20 AM PDT

DVP: Filing is a problem when one has collected the large amount of material that I have. Anyway: I found the notebook that I created when I spent the time examining the Dallas Radio Station Tapes back in 1970-1972. As soon as possible, I'm going to devote some time to reviewing it, and will let everyone know what I find, and what seems pertinent to post. A companion document is a detailed inventory of 16 hours of audio excerpts that I made from the collection. DSL

This is an exceptionally clear print, and I have re-examned it carefully. I want to withdraw my previous remarks that the cyclists were smiling. I no longer believe that to be the case. DSL 6/15/2018 - 1:35 AM PDT

DVP: No, I don't. (But I should locate and check my "Dallas Radio Tape" notebooks, to verify. But I don't think so.). DSL

DVP: FWIW. . Yes, it does sound like it. . . but: the document I was looking at was at least 100 pages. Some background (for you as well as those reading this) Here's what I learned, from the transmittal document(s) connected with that item. To begin with, a question: how come all of these "Dallas radio tapes" ended up at the National Archives. Surely, they played no role (at least, no discernible role) in the WC investigation. . . so. . one might ask: What is going on here?" Let me begin by asking another (closely related) question: Why did I want to review all of the Dallas radio station tapes? Very simply: because I believed there had been a significant (i.e., politically significant) conspiracy; and I felt that, if that was so, then there was a high probability that there might be (i.e., "might have been") a leak of some sort, made by this or that person, who said something significant on one of the local radio broadcasts. So, that's how my interest began. Sometime around 1969/70, I ordered the "inventory", which --as I said--ran over 100 pages (at least). Which leads to the next question: Who made this inventory? i.e., how did it come to exist? And who (and for what purpose) were all these Dallas radio tapes collected? The answer: at some point shortly after the assassination, Secret Service agents were dispatched to Dallas to collect all--and I mean "all"--of the Dallas radio station tapes. Then, those tapes had to be reviewed, as to content. Now. . who the heck was equipped to embark on such a project? Sure, the FBI could do it (i.e. "could have done it") -but it would take quite a few people, and then become a very public "matter of record." Which then leads me to recount how all this was accomplished. . . So. . .read on. HOW THE COLLECTION EFFORT WORKED. . . After the Secret Service "collected" all these tapes (and I do believe they were the original broadcast tapes, from each and every Dallas and Fort Worth area radio station), they were sent to. . .guess where? . . .Tinker Air Force Base, in Oklahoma. NEXT STEP: Tinker Air Force Base--and a complete review of the content Apparently, teams of USAF people, wearing headsets, sat at their desks, or consoles, and reviewed the contents of each and every tape. In each case, they made a "list" --or "inventory" --of the contents of each tape. Those lists, when gathered together, became the Commission Document in question--and I'm not really sure its CD 976 (because there's a second "list", which was made strictly of WFAA tapes, and made by WFAA, not the US Air Force). . . so please do check carefully. . Anyway, that document produced, let's say, 200 pages of "inventory." (N.B.: This is the "inventory" that i ordered, back around 1970, and it was large enough that I had it sent to me on 35 mm microfilm). What this inventory permitted (at the time of its creation): What this inventory permitted was for someone--some third party--to "review" the content of the hundreds of hours of radio broadcasts, without taking the trouble to personally listen to each and every one of the tapes. In other words, that part had been "delegated". So once that part was executed, these detailed lists existed. So on to the "next step": If the "reviewer" found something interesting, he (or she) could simply pull the reel in question, listen to the tape, make a transcript, or perhaps note the item, e.g., "Not important"; or perhaps "Please review" etc. OTOH: If something "important" was found--e.g., an audio-taped record of the Perry press conference--that could be pulled, reviewed, and possibly even excised from the tape, before its return. (I'm speculating here, based on what I saw, as to the purpose of what this was all about). What this smacks of: Shortly after JFK's murder, someone in "high authority" wanted to get a definitive record of the entire "audio tape record" of all the radio stations in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, looking for "something." What was the "something"? When I did my review of all this material, I speculated that it was the Perry press conference. Some time later--as in "quite a few years later"--I came up with a superior hypothesis, which I cannot disclose at this time. But I no longer think that the Clark/Perry press conference is what this humongous "collection effort" was all about. Anyway, the 100 plus pages of listed content were then turned over to the Warren Commission (or, perhaps more accurately, for I don't know the details) were sent directly to the National Archives (perhaps with an innocuous transmittal document saying "Please include this in the WC collection," or some such thing). And then, at some point (and I don't know when), the tapes (or perhaps dupes) were also sent to NARA. So that is the backstory--such as I have been able to learn--as to how and why all these many Dallas radio tapes were (a) collected and then (b) analyzed to create a detailed list as to content. NOW. . a question: who was behind all of this? (i.e., who "wanted to know" and what were they searching for?) My personal hunch (no direct evidence. . . yet): Sec Def Robert McNamara (with the full approval of RFK). Anyway, now you know the backstory. ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS. . : What's interesting about the account I have just related is this: I reviewed the Dallas Radio Tape collection thinking, "Oh my! What a good idea! I can see if any morsel of significant information may have slipped into the public record, via some interview or info broadcast locally!" . . in other words, that was my thought., And so I spent at least two weeks at NARA, reviewing all this stuff; only to come to realize --somewhat later--that "someone was here 'before me". . and that's why all these lists exist! And that's why all this audio tape was collected, in the first place!" In other words, these lists--and these audio tapes--don't exist at the U.S. National Archives ("NARA") because some good soul, out of the goodness of their heart, thought it was a nice idea to "collect" all this stuff., This material--the lists, and the audio--exist because "someone was here before me". In other words, just as I--as a civilian--was "looking for something" (i.e., accidental leaks of information), I have come to believe that this collection was created, in the first place, by someone who had a similar goal, a similar agenda; and was carrying out the complex task of (a) collection and (b) analysis with that goal in mind, and on the orders of some "higher authority." That's about all I know, and can say for certain, for now. SOME ADDITIONAL DETAIL: To do the work I did, which (as I recall, took at least 2 solid weeks, and perhaps more), I sat in the office of the NARA audio archivist, Les Waffen, with two SONY decks--one provided by NARA, on which I could play the original materials; and the other, rented by me, from an audio shop in Washington. So I arrived every day in Les's office, shortly after he did, and sat at that table for the entire day (and sometimes had lunch with Waffen) reviewing all the tapes--each and every one. Looking for any elusive "piece of data" that I might find, and only aware, towards the end, that the very collection I was searching constituted circumstantial evidence that "Hey, someone was here before me!" Also, FWIW: the only reason I was able to do all this work was that--as I recall--I was extended hospitality by the late Bernard Fensterwald, who permitted me to spend every night as a house guest in his home, at Arlington, Virginia. And still another note: It may have been --and I think it was--during this period that I spent one evening, having rented a car, going out to the home of William Greer, and spending several hours with him, engaged in what began as a gentle Q and A, but ended up in a very aggressive one-of-a -kind cross examination. And with him almost scolding me, as I left his home, saying to me in a not-so-friendly tone: "Well, I'll tell you one thing. Chief Rowley would sure be interested in knowing what you're doing!" (Another subject, another time). And finally, this little vignette. At the end of my multi-week stay with Les Waffen, I wanted to leave with a momento--an audio momento--of my time there. Les had supervisory control of a huge audio collection. He suggested that I might want an audio copy of William Jennings Bryant's "cross of gold" speech (which closed: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold!"), but I declined that offer when he told me of some of the other possibilities. And so I selected the US Army's official audio recording of the hanging of those convicted after the Nuremberg trial. Its a very dramatic tape, with the voice of Army radio, broadcasting from Nuremberg, describing how each convicted Nazi war criminal person ascended the gallows, how a black bag was put over his head, a rope tied around his neck, one or two proclaiming "Heil Hitler," and then "the trapdoor was sprung, and they went to their maker." * * * So much for my experiences at NARA, circa 1970/71. And perhaps some of you reading this can understand why I--and someone like Pat Valentino, to whom I related much of this--find it totally laughable that the truth of the Kennedy assassination can be found by pursuing the matter of David Ferrie or Clay Shaw. Each to his own. DSL 6/10/2018 - 6:30 PM PDT

No. I don't think there were any such items in that collection. Sorry. DSL