David Lifton

Thanks for weighing in. But, as is often the case with your posts, you are missing the main point ---in this case, the main point of the Wall Street Journal editorial, which you criticize by bringing up a host of irrelevancies (to which, apparently in the interest of pedagogy, you assign numbers). But Pat Speer: here's the bottom line: If Smith writes something negative about Jones, and some unhinged supporters of Smith's view then come out of the woodwork and threaten Jones' welfare, or even Jones' life, is that the responsibility of Smith? Should he be seen as a provocateur in a murder plot? Or someone expressing his views in the realm of free speech? This issue is about free speech, and defining the "legal landscape" in that area of life. The lawyer defending McAdams sees that very clearly, and his letters are really quite impressive. This case is not about whether McAdams is a nice guy, by this or that person's standard; or whether he "should have known better" etc. Instead of providing us with a catalogue of irrelevancies, I suggest you go back and read your Voltaire. FWIW: I too regret that an assortment of Internet creeps came out of the woodwork, and threatened Cheryl Abatto's well being. And that's apparently what happened. But there's another principle here, that's what the courts are going to have to address, and that was the focus of the Wall Street Journal editorial. So again, instead of making numbered lists, go read Voltaire. DSL 5/7/16 - 3 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

I posted this because I thought it would be of interest to those following this case. Obviously, the courts will have to weigh in on all of these matters. But I do request that you present some factual backup for some of your assertions: QUOTE: The thing is McAdams then got on Fox and tried to say that he only wrote about the incident once on his blog. . . . That was false. . . .He wrote about it several times, and he then went on talk radio also. UNQUOTE 1. What is the basis for your statement that McAdams wrote about it "several times" (i.e. three or more times), when McAdams states that he wrote about it "only once." Could you please provide citations to the other times? (Some months ago, I went to McAdams' blog to see what this was all about; and I recall him writing about it once. Please supply specifics. ) 2. Your post also states: "He then dug into Abbate's academic writings and tried to smear her even more with those." Exactly what are you referring to here--i.e., that he "dug into Abbate's academic writings and tried to smear her even more with those"? Are you referring to something in the field of philosophy that he debated? If so, how does that become the basis for your statement that he "tried to smear her even more with those"? Bottom line: some specifics would be appreciated to put this in context, and understand the basis for your statements. Also, and again this is in the spirit of seeking specifics: is there a transcript available of what McAdams said on talk radio that could shed further light on all this? If so, please post it, or a link. Thanks. DSL

Those who follow the attempt of Marquette University to fire John McAdams because of a blog post he made may be interested in today's Wall Street Journal editorial on his case. From today’s Wall Street Journal editorial page (A12) - -Friday, May 6, 2016 Speechless on Campus John McAdams sues to keep his tenured position at Marquette We told you recently about Marquette University professor John McAdams, who writes an independent blog called the Marquette Warrior. In 2014 a Marquette student told Mr. McAdams about an exchange in which his philosophy instructor, a graduate student named Cheryl Abbate, told him his [McAdams’] views about gay marriage were homophobic and not open for discussion in her classroom. Mr. McAdams blogged the exchange and Ms. Abbate got nasty letters, a result that prompted the school to suspend Mr. McAdams, bar him from setting foot on campus and threaten him with termination unless he admitted by April 14 (2016) that his actions were “reckless.” In a letter to Marquette President Michael Lovell, Mr. McAdams declined to do so.* *In fact, McAdams referred to it as “compelled speech” and refused to abide. -DSL The University did not rescind its position and Mr. McAdams Monday filed suit in Milwaukee County Circuit Court on grounds that the school has abrogated academic freedoms it guarantees. As a private university, Marquette is not subject to the First Amendment, but the school guarantees academic freedom by contract. According to the school’s faculty statutes, “dismissal shall not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” The school says it is acting because Mr. McAdams should have known that his blog would generate criticism of Ms. Abbate, but by that standard freedom of speech is limited by what we can predict others in the online free-for-all will say about what we write. Universities are meant to be bastions of vigorous debate. When a tenured professor can lose his job because of what strangers on the Internet said, what speech is safe? DSL Los Angeles, California 5/6/16 - 8:15 p.m. PDT

FWIW: As I recall --from extensive newspaper research done many years ago--Roy Truly's wife was interviewed by one of the major Philadelphia newspapers, about the encounter. And her account of what her husband told her--was published on either Saturday or Sunday (11/23 or 11/24). Sorry, but I don't have those files readily at hand. If someone has microfilm of the Bulletin or the Inquirer, I am sure it can be ferreted out. It was simply a paragraph or so in the early coverage of the JFK case. The reporter called the Truly residence, and he wasn't available, and his wife answered the reporter's questions. DSL

Was part 2 ever published, at the CTKA site? If so, can someone post a link that works? Thanks. DSL

Perhaps its a flaw in my computer, but none of these links to the two-part article (at CTKA) on the June 1967 CBS program on the Warren Report work. Every time I click on any of the links provided here (at the London Forum,) a page comes up with the notice: "Page Not Found." When I went to the CTKA website, I could not find the 2-part article that is supposedly there. In fact, the two-part article about the June 1967 CBS show does not appear anywhere on page one of the CTKA site. (Is it "hidden" behind some other tile, or box? I have no idea.) Request: Can someone post here, in response to my post, links to this two-part article? OR: simply email me links that work to: dsl74@cornell.edu Also, I do not understand why, at the CTKA page, this two-part article is not prominently featured, and easy to find. Thank you. DSL 4/25/16 - 7:35 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

I'm writing to attempt to clarify the record, and correct two mis-statements (or misunderstandings) concerning the origin of the rumor about a dead Secret Service agent. #1: That the rumor originated via the wire services: (i.e., AP or UPI): INCORRECT. QUOTING FROM YOUR POST (i.e., DVP's post): "The false rumor about the SS agent most probably first ran on the UPI or AP wire services, because it was widely being reported very early in the afternoon on November 22 by several different local and network TV and radio outlets [see the videos below]. In the first video, Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV in Dallas can be heard saying "a Secret Service agent was killed" as early as 12:56 PM CST, which was certainly before Officer Tippit was shot. I was able to pinpoint that time (12:56 PM) precisely by comparing the raw KRLD-TV video below with the uncut CBS-TV network video that I also have in my collection. UNQUOTE DSL COMMENT: Years ago, I obtained the teletype printout for both the UPI and AP "A" wire. There was no mention of any Secret Service agent being shot prior to 12:56 pm. The only mention of an SS agent being shot appeared well after the Tippit murder; and that was a single dispatch saying something to the effect that a Dallas policeman and a SS agent were shot in the Oak Cliff area (from memory). The teletype records I obtained were definitive: there was only one AP "A" wire; and the same for UPI. There were indeed instances where a network anchor in New York were simply "reading the wire"--and usually, when they did, they acknowledged it. But, rest assured, that prior to 12:56 p.m. CST, there was no statement on either the UPI "A" wire or the AP "A" wire that a Secret Service agent had been shot. #2: That Seth Kantor was somehow responsible for the dissemination of the rumor: INCORRECT. Again, quoting from your post: "It would appear as if the rumor made its way into the media through reporter Seth Kantor, but it certainly didn't originate with him. Kantor was merely writing down in his notes what someone else had told him." DSL COMMENT: Well, we agree on that; i.e., it didn't "originate" with him. So then, was he (Seth Kantor) somehow involved in the dissemination? I don't think so. And here's why. . . : When Kantor testified in June 1964 (See WC Vol 15 pp 91-93) he provided 19 pages of single spaced notes (actually, not notes; but complete sentences). He explained the origin of these 19 pages as follows: that when he returned from Dallas, he had much information that he hadn't written about, all resident in his head; and he wanted to make a record. So he rented a tape recorder, spoke into it, and then--using a typewriter--personally transcribed his own dictation. The result: about 19 pages of transcription totaling about 17,000 words. In the middle of the eighth page is the story of what he heard at Parkland Hospital. Anyway, these 19 pages weren't completed until sometime during the first week of December 1963, and--as far as we know--were not turned over to anyone but the Warren Commission, and that took place in June 1964. My conclusion from all this: Seth Kantor had nothing to do with the dissemination of information pertaining to radio and TV broadcasts about a Secret Service agent being shot which--as you have pointed out--began at about 12:56 p.m. CST (on Friday, 11/22/63). Hope this helps. DSL 4/21/16 - 9:25 p.m. PDT; edited 4/22/16; 8:58 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Re the Spat T Raikin interview: I suppose you do know that "John Harris" is "Jones Harris" --a JFK researcher (who I knew reasonably well way back when (1979-81).) DSL

Michael Walton: I tend to agree with your commentary, but skipping all the "optical" details, the main point I would like to make is this--we must look at this crime from the standpoint of "what was planned" versus "what actually happened" as a consequence of mistakes made in its execution. If JFK's murder was carefully pre-planned (and I think it was); and if that plan involved Oswald-as-scapegoat (and I think it did), then what can be called--for want of a better term--the "fatal intersection" between Oswald and Kennedy was integral to the original design of the plot. In other words, it cannot possibly be viewed as coincidence that a returned defector--one of a half doze such persons in a nation of almost 200 million--ended up being employed on the President's parade route. If so, then it was planned in advance to create the (false) appearance that President Kennedy was shot by an assassin who was located in the Texas School Book Depository. To that end, a so-called "sniper's nest" was set up, and the "assassin's rifle" was placed nearby. (Exactly how that was arranged is besides the point, for the purposes of this post). If this--in principle, anyway--was how this scheme was supposed to work, then I see no reason--none at all--to have a police officer run into the wrong building. That's what the Dal-Tex building would appear to be--an incorrect destination if (and I stress "if") --what I have just described was the original design of this scheme. To have the officer heading into the wrong building would have been a whopper of an error. For these reasons, I am reluctant to enter into, and then attempt to descend, into this "rabbit hole", which I believe to be (a) incorrect and (b ) (largely) irrelevant. The DPD radio transmissions--as well as the behavior of Baker--makes eminently clear that the TSBD was the pre-planned location of the pre-selected scapegoat. (See Ch. 14 of B.E.) Personally, I think Officer Marion Baker was a bit of a dope, but that is besides the point. From his earliest statements (11/22 and 11/23) there was never any question as to his destination--based on what he himself said. What changed--over the first 24 hours--was his "probable cause" for running into that building. (First, he "decided" that the shots came from there; later, it was "pigeons flying". etc.) Also: don't forget what Baker himself said--according to Truly's testimony--after the lunchroom encounter, and as the two of them ascended the stairs to the roof. This is in the testimony of Roy Truly: "We must be careful. This man can blow your head off." (From memory). I'm sorry, but IMHO, I don't believe that the Dal-Tex building played any role whatsoever in terms of the frame-up of Oswald. DSL

No, I did not in Don: No, I did not interview Baker, but I know of someone who did--back around 1985 (plus or minus) and sent me a VHS copy of the interview (now in storage). The interviewer was a southerner, and perhaps thats what broke the ice. Recollection is fuzzy, but. . Baker struck me as very nervous, and came off as non-credible. He was interviewed along with some of the other cycle cops. As I recall, Baker came off as "the worst", but none of them were superstars, when it came to credibility. FWIW: I think the constant repetition of this false (or, at least, this "peculiar") story made it easier, with the passage of years, to repeat it; so his delivery got better with time. One other thing: I am very suspicious of Baker's account. Had I been a special prosecutor, I would have done an in depth investigation of his finances, to see if there was any evidence of his having received unexplained money. Having said that, I must also report that someone who met Baker--years later---assured me that he was living in the m ost modest of circumstances, in a trialor (or RV), and did not appear to have a lifestyleof somene who had been "paid off." DSL

Daniel: Very nicely stated; but DiEugenio says he "looked but coudn't find." "There simply is not any credible witness testimony or photographic evidence that will bear this out. Believe me, I looked.--DiEugenio. Well, Jim. . we'll give you a B+ for effort; maybe you didn't "look" hard enough. Are you sure you were in Dallas, and in Dealey Plaza, and not in Disneyland? When I visited Dallas in 1971, armed with my TC-800 tape recorder, I got vivid accounts of the car slowing sharply and/or stopping from Moorman, the Newmans, Franzen, Chism, etc. In particular, I spent well over an hour in Bill Newman's home, and both he and his wife were adamant that the car stopped, right in front of them. Again, that's November 1971. That's over 40 years ago, when memories were much fresher than today. When I told Bill Newman that the Z film at the Archives (hadn't been broadcast nationally yet, that was in March 1975) didn't show any stop, he replied strongly that he didn't care what any film showed at the Archives. "I was there, and it stopped." This sort of evidence persuaded me that there was good reason to believe the car stopped; and, once one goes down that path, one is'rtalking about film alteration. The opening pages of Sylvia Meagher's book lays out a list of those who believed the car stopped. I remember when I first became aware of this--around 1969--I set to work combing the eyewitness accounts, and was amazed at home many stated the car stopped. Too many witnesses said the car stopped. And then many of the Dallas doctors saw a blowout at the back of the head. Its highly unlikely that all this was the result of "mis-perception." Dealey Plaza was not the Bermuda Triangle. DSL

David, I thought Paul Rigby's list was reasonably impressive. "Non one reportng pistol-like shots can place their origin or identify a perpetrator. . " Re Jackie: She was trying to get out of the car, desperate to do so. Do you believe the story that she was out on the turtleback lookng for a piece of JFK's head? If so, then that is your right (of course); but if not, then her attempt to get out of the car, the way she did, is circumstantial evidence she viewed the threat as coming form "the front". When she exclaimed, "They have murdered my husband, I have his brains in my hand". That doesn't sound like a g-knoll quote. DSL

Roibert: I fail to see how you can make this claim. On November 22, 1963, Truly was interviewed by FBI Agents Doyle Williams and Nat Pinkston. (Their interview report is CD 5, p. 322-323); The next day, Truly was interviewed by FBI Agent Kenneth Jackson. In both interviews, Truly describes in detail how he saw Baker heading towards the building, and then joined him in entering the building. Here is an excerpt from the 11/22/63 FBI interview of Truly: "Shortly after 12:30 p.m., as the presidential motorcade did pass in front of the building, he heard what he to be three shots. . . . He then noticed a Dallas City Police officer wearing a motorcycle helmet and boots running towards the entrance of the depository building and he accompanied the officer immediately up the stairs to the second floor of the building where the officer noticed a door door (INSERT: He "noticed a door"??) and stepped through the door, gun in hand, and observed Oswald in a snack bar there, apparently alone. . . . The officer pointed to Oswald and asked if Oswald was an employee of the comany and, TRULY, assured the officer that OSWALD was an employee. He and the officer then proeeded onto the roof of the building. . ." etc. FYI: As I noted, there's another FBI interview of Truly, by a different FBI agent, the next day, which says essentially the same thing. I don't understand how,given this data, you can credibly maintain that Baker's story is ("in part") fabricated. Perhaps you can explain. IMHO: The problem with Officer Baker's story is not that he fabricated his entry to the building. The problem is the manner in which he immediately headed towards the building, and then veered off at the lunchroom, gun in hand, to confront Oswald. FYI: In the original handwritten draft of his statement, he said that he "imagined" (or words to that effect) that the shots came from the building. It was a day or so later that he came up with the story that he ran to the building because he saw pigeons flying from the roof. (Clearly, a substantive change in his "probable cause" from one day to the next). I could elaborate on other details of Baker's account that are problematic, but that is the essence of the problem. WHy did he immediately dismount and run toward the building, why did he seem to know where Oswald was? Why was he approaching the lunchroom, with its closed door, gun already in hand? etc. I think your emphasis on whether or not he entered the building, and your suspicion that his entire story was "fabricated" is unwarranted. DSL 4/17/16 -2:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Ron: Thanks for locating this thread, and posting the link. For those following this particular subject: The thread you cited spans about 5 web pages and (presently) has 63 posts. It provides a useful collection of just about everything publicly written to that point in time (Jan 2010). If I were doing a master's thesis in history, this would be a good topic to choose, because it provides an opportunity to study (in depth) how the media handled an important matter, how it was (if the initial reports are true) successfully covered up; and how it remains an unresolved mystery to this day. Of course, if the initial reports are true (and the solution can be found), it probably qualifies as more than a master's thesis. Suggestion to James Gordon: You might consider "sealing off" the previous thread, so it doesn't contain material duplicated on this thread, but remains readily available as a reference of "past posts" on the subject. DSL 4/15/16 - 6:12 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

I would be very interested in seeing the episode where Dan Rather started to cry. (Does anyone have a clip?) What I remember is a stone-faced person who failed to deal with very clear evidence. I am not claiming that he had to be an uncritical apostle or an advocate for my book. What I am saying is that--as a decent journalist, and faced with the fact that a major New York publisher was about to release Best Evidence (a book which, incidentally, was not reviewed by Time Magazine but, instead, was treated as a news story, and given a full two pages in the National Affairs section; and was also a Book of the Month Club Selection). . .Dan Rather instead looked at the evidence, pretended ignorance, and said (in effect) to me: "I don't understand; since Oswald shot the president, there'd be no need to alter the body." That's almost akin to saying: "Since Oswald shot the president, there's be no need to falsify the autopsy." (And so I won't bother to look into the matter of burned notes, or a burned "first draft") That's how illogical and absurd his statement was. Then he continued to keep his head in the sand throughout his tenure at CBS, pretending that Best Evidence had never been published and making remarks in the 1992 show as if the case for conspiracy rested not on good evidence, but on mistaken perception of people who "thought they heard echos" from the grassy knoll (or words to that effect). (Once, I ran into Rather on a street in Manhattan, and he wished me well, and spoke briefly with me, as if he were a completely disinterested third party). There's something peculiar about Dan Rather, and the way he has handled the Kennedy assassination. Former CBS producer Stanhope Gould--who (along with Sylvia Chase) did a one hour special on Best Evidence (when he was at KRON-TV in San Francisco)--publicly stated that I had found "courtroom quality evidence" that the President's body had been intercepted before its arrival at the morgue of Bethesda Naval Hospital. (Gould was Cronkite's chief producer of the 1972 Watergate TV coverage). Dan Rather pretended "not to see." Instead of doing a program in which he certainly would have been free to agree--or disagree--with what I set forth in my book, and even had put on film (!), he chose to pretend it did not exist. (Throughout the months of its initial publication [spring 1981] and then for years afterwards.) So, for three months, while Best Evidence was on the NY Times best-seller list, rising to position #4, and while it was #1 in both the AP and UPI listings (and #1 in quite a few cities, e.g., Philadelphia, for one), Dan Rather--the great "Kennedy assassination expert"-- continued his pretense that it wasn't there, and declined to go forward with a project that Executive Producer had approved, and given the green light to, in my presence (and in the presence of the top executives at Macmillan). There may be a number of other issues at CBS (e.g., the handling of the four-part 1967 documentary, which "rehabilitated" the Warren Report) but that's the one that I personally witnessed, and experienced in 1981. For a number of months, I was left to wonder: Was Dan Rather really so thick-headed that he failed to "notice" the evidence spelled out in my book, and presented on camera, in meetings at 60 Minutes, including the private that I had with him? How could that be? With the passage of years, and in reviewing my own experience and also taking into account how he misreported the Zapruder film, I I have reluctantly concluded that Dan Rather may well have had not just a bias, but a hidden agenda. DSL 4/15/16 - 7:50 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

I don't agree that this was a "halfway decent" show, but then, my experience with Dan Rather was somewhat different. I met with him--alone--for well over an hour in December 1980, when Best Evidene was just weeks away from publication, and after CBS Executive Producer Don Hewitt --after viewing my documentary footage--gave a provisional "green-light" to doing a 60 Minutes show on the forthcoming publication of Best Evidence. Sitting alone with Rather in a screening room at "Black Rock" (the CBS headquarters in Manhattan), Rather watched the full documentary--then cut at about 45 minutes. (Google BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO, to see for yourself what Rather saw that day). So Rather saw the footage of Paul O'Connor describing how JFK arrived in a shipping casket, inside a body bag, and all the rest. It was an in-depth briefing. When the lights went on, there was silence. "Well, what do you think?" I asked him. Rather looked at me, somewhat blankly, and maintained that he "didn't understand." Then he explained: "Since Oswald shot the president, I don't see that there was any need to alter the body." From this exposure (to Rather, his personality, and his "logic"), and much else, I am positive that Dan Rather knew all too well what the implications were of a false autopsy. As he related to CBC (Canadian Broadcasting) producer Brian McKenna years later, when sitting in a bar in Rome, he had a "professional opinion" about the assassination, but then also a "personal opinion." The fact of the matter is that when the chips were down, Dan Rather did not do his duty as a journalist, and follow the path to the truth. At every step of the way--from his original false description of the Zapruder film in November 1963,to much else--he sidestepped the truth, and became a mouthpiece for the false official version. This episode, and much else (about Rather) will be in Final Charade. DSL

I believe it was Ayn Rand who described art as the "selective recreation of reality" in accordance with the values of the artist. From the NY Times description, this is such total garbage one has to wonder where these people were during the days, months, years and decades following President Kennedy's murder. Or what kind of "Virtual reality" goggles they were wearing as they studied the past. The fanciful reality which they present (and in which they seem to be living) bears no reasonable relationship to the true character of Jack Kennedy, his true role in history, or the historical significance of his death. Shame on them. DSL

FWIW: As I recall, that was actually stated, on the air, by a local radio person, as a conjecture.

Vince Palamara: You have collected a mass of important data about the U.S. Secret Service, and I am one (of many) researchers who has benefited from your efforts. In particular, I was very impressed--and think I told you this private, via email--when Brian Lamb (on a C-Span broadcast, a few years back) used video clips of you reading from your documents, to engage Secret Service agent Clint Hill in debate, Now about this particular matter being addressed on this thread: It is understandable that sometimes a rumor can achieve a life of its own, even when it is completely untrue. As Internet-savvy readers know, "Snopes.com" is a website entirely devoted to pursing a wide assortment of allegations and separating what is true from what is false (or, at least, attempting to do so). In that spirit, and just for the record: I have never believed, nor do I believe that I ever speculated--either publicly or privately--that the report of a "dead Secret Service agent" was deliberately begun as a rumor, in order to permit the FBI to enter the investigation of President Kennedy's murder. I've been researching (and writing) about the JFK case for many years; but--as far as I can recall--I never believed--or espoused--any such theory. PERSONAL REQUEST: If anyone reading this thread has any Internet post (or even a private communication from me) to the contrary, please do bring that to my attention. Either post the information here; or email it to me at: DSL74@Cornell.edu As to the late Vincent Bugliosi's description of the matter: in a detailed "Endnote" to Reclaiming History [see the first post on this thread, by David Von Pein, referencing pp. 710-711 of Bugliosi's "End Notes"] Bugliosi wrote that the rumor was started as a consequence of Seth Kantor's "scribbled notes" (and then VB references "Kantor Exhibit 4" in Volume 20 of the Warren Commission's 26 Volumes). That's not quite accurate. It is neither reasonable nor fair to describe Kantor Exhibit 4 as consisting of "scribbled notes." Rather, it is a single-spaced type-written document --apparently typed by Kantor himself (as he transcribed a tape recording he had made)--and published in Volume 20 of the 26 Volumes, and extending from page 403 to page 421. On the subject of "scribbled notes": Kantor Exhibit 3 does consist of handwritten notes--that exhibit is a photostat of Kantor's personal notebook (showing every handwritten note that he made on 11/22, and in the days following), and that exhibit exhibit extends from page 338 out to page 402. (In that exhibit, there is no mention of any "dead SS agent".) My personal appraisal of the situation: It would appear that when, in the aftermath of JFK's murder, Seth Kantor sat down with a tape recorder and dictated everything he thought was relevant, the matter of the dead Secret Service agent was resident in his memory, and so he dictated what he knew into his tape recorder, but he had not made any handwritten notes on the subject--at least, none are recorded in his personal notebook (Kantor Exhibit 3). I think David Von Pein is to commended for collecting all of these reports about the matter. (Whether history establishes that his final evaluation is--or is not-- correct, his data collection is very valuable). I am aware of another researcher whose collection goes well beyond KRLD (and CBS) and whose collection effort extends to all 3 networks. I think its safe to say that --false rumor or not--there are dozens of reports about the matter. Regarding the previous post on this thread (Post #11, by Steve Thomas): somewhere in Sylvia Meagher's book -- Accessories after the Fact (1968)--I believe there is a statement that the death of a SS agent was (supposedly) confirmed --or "affirmed" (as the case may be)--and that the source was the Dallas County Sheriff's Department. As I recall, the statement was made that "it came over our teletype". If someone can locate that reference, please let me know, so I can amend this post. Thanks. DSL 4/14/16 - 7:05 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim, I'm a little rusty on the Z-film. (IOW my brain is getting rusty.) Who excised frames from the film, who found them and inserted them, and how if at all was the excision explained in the first place? If frames are known to have been excised (and then restored), I don't know how anyone can say that the Z-film wasn't altered. Michael explained this above. There were about four frames that Hoover said were missing because of a "printing error". These are about at the point where Kennedy disappears behind the sign. Groden got these frames from another copy of the film. So the one he showed at Harvard was the most complete version extant. When he showed it on an auditorium sized screen, it seemed to me to be obvious as to why there was a "printing error". When you see the entire sequence of Kennedy disappearing behind the sign, his body freezes, his hand stops waving, his head buckles forward. I believe Hoover deliberately got rid of those frames from his copy that he released for the WC. Kennedy was hit at about 190. Before he disappears behind the sign. The FBI and WC concealed this to make the interim between the shots shorter. Jim DiEugenio: I was the one who wrote the 1965 letter to J Edgar Hoover about the reversal of Zapruder frames 314 and 315 in Volume 18 of the Warren Commission. Having a security clearance at North American Aviation at the time, and having no experience in any of that--the letter was written in the name of a friend, Judith Schmidt. FBI DIrector Hoover's answer --on an FBI letterhead--came back rather quickly: that this was a "printing error," he said. Your statement that this this concerned "four frames" that were "missing" and that this occurred when President Kennedy was about to disappear behind the sign is completely false. Try paying attention to detail, Jim DiEugenio, before glibly making statements and disseminating false information. DSL 4/6/16 - 5:40 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life. Who is the female witness, David? And who's the "supervisor"? I'd love it if that story could somehow be proven to be true, though, because such a "fishing pole" lie being uttered by Lee Harvey Oswald would be just that much more of a solid indication that the package he was carrying on November 22nd contained his Carcano rifle. Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the day that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it. You'd then have to ask yourself this question: Why didn't Oswald just stick with the same story about curtain rods that he started the day with when he drove to work with Frazier? Because the more nonexistent things he tries to cram into that brown paper package, the more obvious (and provable) his lies become. But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place, much the same way Robert Groden's bombshell "I Was Giving LHO Change At The Time Of The Assassination When We Heard The Shots" witness, Mrs. Reid, was a hoax too, with that wholly unbelievable story being invented many years later. Because if that story allegedly told by Mrs. Reid had even a grain of truth in it, we would have heard it coming from the mouth of Lee Oswald himself after his arrest --- "Hey, why am I being accused of shooting the President?! I was in the office on the second floor at that time, getting change for the Coke machine! Just ask Mrs. Reid. She was right there with me!" (Oswald, of course, never said anything of the kind to the police after he was arrested.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Oswald's Many Lies (Part 1) DVP: I'm not going to go further at this point in time. But the witness(es) exist and --from your post--you clearly understand the implications. You make a serious error when you refer to it as "that fairy tale" and I find it telling that you were unaware of the witness. Saying "I've never heard that fairy tale before in my life" is revealing. Surely you do understand that just because you are unaware of something does not mean it is non-existent. Proving something like that to be true is important for the very reasons you stated: if true--i.e., if Oswald provided two separate (and different) explanations for the package would imply that Oswald was involved in deception; and of course, the ultimate implication was that what was in the package was neither curtain rods nor fishing rods. I'll pursue this matter further in the future. With regard to Buell Frazier. . I go way back to the original work done by the late George O'Toole, who emphasized how totally frightened Frazier was that weekend. Really "freaked out" (to use the more current vernacular). FWIW: I spent time with Michael Paine in 1995--at his home in Boxboro, Mass.--and he revealed how frightened he was; and actually started crying during my taped interview. I completely disagree with DiEugenio's oversimplified notion that these people (the Paines, Marina, etc.) are all crooked, etc. My impression, from watching several filmed interviews of Ruth Paine (particularly the ones you have archived on your thread #87) are very enlightening. FYI: I also spent hours with Arthur Young, back around 1995, and Ruth Paine (Michael's mother). Rest assured I approached the situation with skepticism, and asked the tough questions. DiEugenio doesn't do any of that. He just draws incorrect inferences, talks glibly, postulates false hypothese (particularly about Ruth Paine), and then mounts his high horse and engages in slander. To close again with your own quote: "Such a "fishing pole" tale, if true, would mean that Oswald told different lies to different people throughout the day on 11/22/63 -- with Lee telling Buell Wesley Frazier that the package contained "curtain rods", while (allegedly) telling someone else later in the morning that the (presumably) very same package had a "fishing pole" in it." Agreed. That is exactly the case; only I would not say "throughout the day." That an inaccurate characterization of the situation. There are only two points on the time line. Two separate times when he spoke to the issue of what was in the package. Regarding the question you posed, its a reasonable one. And I don't have a great answer. But one possibility does occur to me: that when Frazier saw him with the package (early in the morning of 11/22) the rifle was "disassembled", whereas when the "elevator" witness saw him with it, it had been completely assembled and was "thinner" and somewhat longer; consequently, "curtain rods" would not be an adequate explanation for the second observer (or observers). To recap (and this is just speculation): "curtain rods" would be a reasonable explanation for the way he described the package to BWF (early on Friday morning) but not the way it appeared when seen on the elevator sometime later. Just a thought. Without a time machine, or modern day security cameras, perhaps we'll never know. Re your final comment: "But I doubt any such "fishing pole" or "fishing rods" encounter ever happened in the first place" is quite incorrect; and there is no comparison between the situation to which I'm referring and the sort of nonsense promulgated by Robert Groden re Mrs. Reid. Mrs Reid-as you well know--was interviewed by the FBI and Secret Service, and then testified to the WC. From the standpoint of valid historiography, she cannot "amend" her account a half century later, and be credible. Assuming her late arriving account is the truth, I can only say this: If she indeed had "made change" for Oswald, then she would have to have stated that from the beginning. That's not something that can be added to a story a half century later.. Once she doesn't say it when originally interviewed, then she cannot expect that account to be believed. DSL 4/6/16 - 5:50 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim, I'd never heard of these frames being excised from the Z film. When were they removed? Is there evidence of their removal? I take it you saw the film before those frames were removed. Pat Speer says on his website that the hit at Z190 is clear, but I can see nothing despite trying for 20 minutes, looking at various films and frame-by-frame. JFK gets blurry right at Z190 and stays blurry for a few frames. (I'm not saying there's nothing to see there... I'm saying only that I don't see it.) I do see his waving hand move to his forehead before he goes behind the sign. FWIW: Ray Marcus--back in 1964/65, and working with the poor reproductions of the Z frames in Volume 18--blew them up, studied them carefully, and one of his conclusions was that JFK's hand starts the swoop towards his throat at about Z-189. that's what I remember him believing, and demonstrating to me, on several occasions. He called this the "early hit" hypothesis. (FYI: Ray always believed the throat wound was an entrance); and I agree with that. See Chapter 3 of B.E., where all the evidence for hat is laid out in detail). I believe the throat was an entrnace, and that slug was removed at Bethesda prior to the 8 p.m. start of the "official autopsy." Curiously, in recent years, a number of people have come to believe that the throat wound was an exit--these include Dr. Cyril Wecht, and the late Roger Feinman. DSL

Michael, A valuable piece for whom? If you are interested, take the gif and count the total number of frames. Compare it (frame count) to the same segment in the extant Zfilm? Minus your preconceived notion that the extant zfilm is authentic, what major difference is there between the two? chris I know this is subjective, but its always seemed to me that the two vehicles (plus that single cycle towards the left, were on some sort of "optical trolley" that was worked on separately and then inserted (i.e., re-inserted) into the larger picture. Back in 1965, there was a "special effects" seminar --open to the public--given here in West Hollywood; and some expert (from the film industry) was lecturing on how "special effects" (at the time) were synthesized. The movie used by the lecturer--probably someone very well known at the time--was Androcles and the Lion (1964) starring Audrey Hepburn. Decades later, I still remember the talk about the 'optical trolley'. Projected on screen was film, with a black patch of some sort, that needed special artistry to create. Then that item was "inserted" into the area where the black patch was located. The lecturer demonstrated how Aurdey H. and "the lion" appeared "together" but were in fact created separately. Everytime I see the Z film with the two cars following each other with such precision, I think back to that evening. I wish i had the program, and the name of the "high tech" speaker---"high tech", at that time. DSL

You're being way too kind to call Hay's review "flawed." I just read through some of his writings and they are absurd. He writes well, but his facts are screwed up, and he's guilty of terrible cherry picking--which he loves to accuse others of. Some quick examples: 1. Ruth Paine was --imho--not part of any conspiracy. But he refers to her as "the custodian" of the evidence against Oswald. That's just sheer nonsense. (She's a custodian because Oswald kept a rifle in the garage?) 2. Hay says no one saw Oswald with "the" rifle or "a" rifle (which is not clear) for two months perior to the assassination. Has he (conveniently) forgotten about those who saw Oswald engaged in rifle practice, the week before? What about Dr. Wood, and his son? They were deposed by Liebeler. Has Hay (convieniently) forgotten about that testimony? 3. Hay makes it appear that because Ruth Paine telephoned the TSBD, she "got him" the job. More nonsense. Hay clearly does not know the "back story" of that situation. Its not so simple, Martin. I think you need to study up on that situation. 4. He says that the call to Ruth Paine from Michael Paine was a collect call (huh?) and made on 11/22. Pardon me, but I remember seeing those FBI reports, and I think they are dated 11/23. (If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. But for Hay to reference that to John Armstrong is very "iffy". And his whole rendition of the situation is akin to a novelist telling a story. 5. In the area of the medical evidence--it seems to me that anyone who is a sentient human being with an IQ above room temperature has to realize that-wound sizes and such discrepancies aside--there is definite evidence that JFK's body did not make an uninterrupted journey from Parkland to Bethesda. It left in a ceremonial casket, arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket; it left Dallas wrapped in sheets; arrived at Bethesda in a body bag. All of this was established by interviews I conducted in 1979 (and published in Best Evidence) and then in filmed interviews in October 1980. (Google: Best Evidence Research Video) Stanhope Gould--the senior producer at CBS (under Cronkite) who later worked at KRON-TV in San Francisco, and who (along with Sylvia Chase) did a TV recap of my work (1988) re-interviewing the key witnesses, said that I ("David Lifton") had "courtroom quality evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda." But, our friend Martin Hay, who decries cherry picking, and tells us that WC attorney Willens was "in denial," engages in that very same behavior when it comes to the issue of autopsy fraud, and , in particular, autopsy fraud that began with the covert intercept of the body, and then the matter of bullet removal and wound alteration. How anyone can engage in this sort of behavior and remain credible is completely baffling. 6. Does Hay believe that Lyndon Johnson became president because Harold Willins (and others on the Warren Commission) endorsed the single bullet theory? IMHO: Martin Hay emerges as a propagandist with a very narrow view of conspiracy and who wears blinders as to what kind of conspiracy he finds to be "politically correct" (by his standards). And he is often ill informed. A writing style that is stylish is not a substitute for getting one's facts correct, or avoiding key areas of data that any historian or law professor would understand are in the realm of 'best evidence.' Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin. Then Hay has the gall to package his ill-informed beliefs as if he knows the truth, and everyone else is either mistaken or intellectually dishonest. (And, of course, he will be the judge, excusing himself, of course, when he indulges in such behavior). Does Hay understand that documents--and about 10 witnesses--establish that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda, about 20 minutes before the Navy ambulance carrying the coffin? Or has that escaped his notice? Does Hay understand that serious minded lawyers for Macmillan checked and reviewed the evidence of intercept before accepting my manuscript for publication? And before running ads across the nation showing the AF-1 offload and proclaiming: "The coffin was empty?" Does Hay understand the screening process that goes into the selection of a book for "Book of the Month" selection? And which resulted in the selection of BEST EVIDENCE --from over ten of thousands of books, as a Book of the Month alternate in early 1981? Does Hay understand that my book was published by four separate publishers over a 17 year period (yes, there will be a fifth) and that there was not a single lawsuit? Instead of dealing with real data and the most important data of all--that resident in the President's body--Hay crawls into his shell, this cocoon that I call a "1967 view" of the JFK case, fourteen years before the publication of Best Evidence, and reports back from his time-capsule as if the truth wasn't found because of a political conspiracy on the staff of the Warren Commission. Oh yeah. . sure. . dream on, Martin Hay. The truth wasn't found in this case because of fraud in the evidence. Not all of the evidence, but a critical part of it. The truth wasn't found, in this case, because of the successful execution of a strategic deception on November 22, 1963, and in the days immediately following, which created the false appearance that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon; and that Oswald was the assassin. The notion that Hay's kind of oversimplified, juvenile analysis--his oversimplified view of "political science"--circa, 11/22/63 ( Martin Hay style)-- is continually posted at CTKA, where--apparently--it receives the blessing of DiEugenio is most unfortunate. Does Martin Hay really want to solve the Kennedy assassination, or is he interested in an interminable debate? I recall what a law professor said --most unfairly--about Mark Lane, but which certainly applies to Martin Hay: "Great lawyers have an instinct for the jugular; Martin Hay has an instinct for the capillaries." DSL 4/2/16 - 6:49 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California It's nice to hear from you, David. But I do think your outrage is misplaced. If one is to conclude that everyone doubting the body was altered en route to Bethesda is somehow unqualified to write about the assassination, as you have apparently concluded, then one will be forced to conclude that 80-90% of all negative reviews of Oswald-didi-it material have been written by people unqualified to write about the case. Well, if this is so, then you oughta get busy. Someone needs to confront these books, articles, and programs. Perhaps you think there is an army of CTs who fully embrace your theories willing to pick up the slack. But I spend too much of my time online, and have attended 6 conferences in the past three years, and can assure you no such army exists. Most CTs today hold some sort of personal hybrid theory...some shots from behind, some from the front. Many if not most of those thinking the body was altered believe it was done so at Bethesda, as opposed to en route. It seems clear then that while your theories were ground-breaking, and influential, that they haven't been fully embraced. But who knows? Things could always circle back. I think it strange, moreover, that you have opted to go after a review most of us have forgotten, of a book very few will ever read, and that you have chosen to go after Mr. Hay over some aspects of the case where his perspective is far more popular than your own. Now, you could always be correct on this. But you're not gonna win many converts to your cause by attacking Mr. Hay for his mistrust of Ruth Paine, when the vast majority of CTs similarly mistrust Ruth Paine. And then there's this: "Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin." What? Martin is 100% correct on this issue and you are 100% wrong. Ms. Randle approximated that the bag was 3 feet long and then said it was much shorter once the FBI re-enacted the bag and showed her what a 3 foot long bag would look like. She also deferred to her brother, who got a much better look at the bag, and swore from day one and continues to swear that the bag shown him on the night of the shooting was not the bag he saw Oswald carrying early that morning, and that this bag was both way too big and made from a different kind of paper. And that's not all--what's with your claim Oswald practiced with his rifle? Martin Hay was correct. The FBI and WC looked into it and found no credible evidence Oswald had practiced with his rifle in the months before the shooting. A number of witnesses had popped up claiming he had done so, but they were all shot down for various reasons. Are you claiming the FBI and WC were wrong about this, and that they were overly-generous to Oswald in rejecting these "sightings"? Pat: You write: "What? Martin is 100% correct on this issue and you are 100% wrong. Ms. Randle approximated that the bag was 3 feet long and then said it was much shorter once the FBI re-enacted the bag and showed her what a 3 foot long bag would look like." Sorry, Pat Speer, but its you who are mistaken. Here's what Linnie Mae Randle said according to the report of FBI Agent Bookhout on 11/22/63--a report which was not published in the 26 volumes but represents the earliest recorded recollection of the witness. It can be found in Commission Document 5, at page 320: QUOTE: Randle stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile." UNQUOTE Randle's original description, if true, makes clear that the package she saw was certainly big enough to contain a rifle. What happened next is that Buell Wesley Frazier did not want to be in the position of being accused of having transported Oswald (and his rifle) to the TSBD. So he (subsequently) claimed the package was smaller, and his sister then went along with that story. But let's take a closer look at this situation. There is a major difference between a 36" long package and a 27" long package. The increase in length--from 27" to 36" in 30%. Buell Frazier was scared to death that he was going to be accused of having knowingly transported Oswald--AND his rifle--to work, if his sister's longer description was the case. You write that she changed her story after the FBI "showed her what a 3 foot long bag would look like." Are you serious? Are you telling me that Randle did not know, from common everyday experience, "what a 3 foot long bag would look like"?? Are you implying that agents of the FBI had to "show" Linnie Mae Randle what a 3 foot long bag "would look like", in order for her to understand what she had originally described? Surely you do understand that this is not a subtle matter; this is not the difference between 1 and 3 centimeters. We're talking about a 30% difference between 27" and 36". Also, in your eagerness to embrace Martin Hay's "politically correct" argument, you omit the other dimension: it was not just the length (of 36"); Linnie Mae Randle added a dimension of width: "approximately 3 feet by six inches." And there's still more. Later that morning, Lee Oswald was observed on the elevator, going upstairs, and passed a witness (and her supervisor) and they both saw him carrying a long package. "What'cha got there?" he was asked. And Lee responded that it was a "fishing pole." Are you unaware of that evidence? Very likely you are. So what have we got here? Let's recap: 1. Linnie Mae Randle told the FBI on Friday night that the package was "a long brown package approximately 3 feet by six inches". 2. Oswald told Frazier it was "curtain rods" 3. Later that morning, he told two employees of the TSBD--who observed him with a long package--that it was a fishing pole (or "fishing rods") The Warren Commission legal staff--specifically, Joe Ball and David Belin--did not publish the original FBI account in which Randle described it as "3 feet by six inches." By doing so, they rendered that important FBI report invisible to the public until (as far as I know) I received it in a microfilmed order in 1969. I know that I discussed it --multiple times, and at length--with JFK researcher Todd Vaughan some 20 years ago. Further, Todd produced a memo showing that the Bookhout report was noted --within a day or so--at the Assistant Director level of the FBI. The Warren Commission legal staff did not do what any normal homicide investigation would do. THey did not confront Linnie Mae Randle (now deceased) with her original description. The Warren Commission legal staff did not call FBI agent Bookhout to testify and get him to give sworn testimony about his report. No doubt he would have stood by his report. (And that could have set the stage for a confrontation between Bookhout and Randle). Instead, the WC legal staff became complicit in a re-enactment which involved a "smaller" bag, and concealed the "problem: presented by Randle's original statement by shunting that report off to the archives and mentioning nothing about it in the Warren Report. jAnd you go along with all this? The witnesses who saw Oswald with the longer package (that he explained as a "fishing rods") did not make their statements to the FBI, but certainly did talk about it years later. It was first published in 1988 in American History Illustrated. I communicated with the author --Ed Oxford--and found his research and interviews, to be quite credible. (But that's a whole other story). Meanwhile, Buell Wesley Frazier, IMHO, has gotten away with elaborating on a completely false story and then has further embellished it with Fritz coming in and slapping him, and demanding that he sign a confession. (Do you believe that story? . . told decades after the fact?) And you, Pat Speer, now buying into this "group think" and this orthodoxy of political correctness rather than dealing with the original statements and what they clearly imply? And so now you tell me that "Martin [Hay] is 100% correct on this issue and you are 100% wrong". Oh pleez. . . Turning to the matter of rifle practice. . I have to ask if you have ever studied the original FBI investigation--and by that I mean Commission Document 5, 7, and the other early FBI Field reports (i.e., the Gemberling Reports). Each of them has a section dealing with "Alleged Rifle Practice." Obviously, not all of the reported incidents were Oswald, but to make the blanket statement that none of them were Oswald I find surprising. Are you unaware of the WC deposition of Dr. Wood, and his son? They were at a rifle range, and saw someone who appeared to be Oswald practicing. (Do you dismiss their accounts?) And what about the original media reports in which Oswald was identified as being at a rifle range. You dismiss all of that, too? In one of them, another person present, was identified by name as Frazier. (That was actually published in the newspaper). I do not have all of that material in front of me at this moment, but if you are taking the position that there is no case to be made that Oswald was ever at a rifle range, between the time he returned from Mexico City on October 3, and the day of the assassination, I think you are mistaken. DSL 4/3/16 - 9:30 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

You can reach me at DSL74@Cornell.edu DSL