David Lifton

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/02/28/us/fletcher-knebel-writer-81-dies-co-author-of-seven-days-in-may.html I believe you are misreading what Hornberger wrote, and the phrase "with the feeling being mutual." The "mutual" contempt was between Kennedy and General LeMay. Knebel was just an observer, reporting on the situation. He was not part of it. DSL

As to how Dulles got on the Warren Commission, the actual transcript of the 11/29/63 telephone call from LBJ to Dulles is available at the LBJ LIbrary and is posted online at the History Matters website. Excerpts from the transcript--LBJ speaking to Allen Dulles ("AWD") are as follows: LBJ: have a little unpleasant news for you. AWD: Yes. . . LBJ: We're going to name very shortly a Presidential Commission made up of 7 people, 2 from the House, 2 from the Senate, 2 from the public and 1 from the court. . . as a study group to go into this FBI Report . . . this Court of Inquiry and all the incidents in connection with the assassination of our beloved friend (!!-DSL)) and you've got to go on that for me. AWD: ((tone, apparently, one of incredulity)). . . You think I can really serve you? LBJ: I know you can..I know you can. . there's not any doubt about it. . .just get ready now to go in there and do a good job. . We've got to have. . .America has got to be united in this hour. AWD: I would like to be of any help. . [apparently a "pause" --DSL] and you've considered the work of my previous work (sic) and my previous job (!! -DSL) ? LBJ: I sure have. . and we want you to do it. . [so] that's that. (Who is "we"? --DSL) AWD: Well, I'll follow. . . LBJ: You always do what is best for your country. . I found that out about you a long time ago. ((Where? At Dealey Plaza? --DSL)) Thank you very much. AWD: Thank you. LBJ: Thank you. . I'll be talking to you, my friend. AWD: And I'll keep this entirely quiet. . ((Hmmm --DSL)) LBJ: Please do. . please do. . because I haven't [yet] cleared it but with one other man. AWD: I understand. I'll do. . . and am at your orders. . .[As in "am at your beck and call" --DSL] LBJ: Thank you. . sir. . AWD: Thank you. END OF TRANSCRIPT BEST QUOTE: LBJ: ". . . this Court of Inquiry . . .in connection with the assassination of our beloved friend. . ." ((Ouch! - DSL)) RUNNER-UP: AWD: " . . .and you've considered the work of [i.e., as in 'my previous work' --DSL] my previous work and my previous job [e.g., of arranging assassinations of foreign leaders? --DSL ] 2nd Runner-up: LBJ's Response: "I sure have." (!! - DSL) Final DSL Comment: You can't make this stuff up !! Archival Source: "History Matters- LBJ Phone Calls - November 1963". FWIW: I was sent a large blue binder containing hundreds of pages of these phone transcripts some 20 years ago; and I learned in 2008 that History Matters put them all on-line. (Good for them!). Another of my favorite quotes (from a transcript of LBJ speaking with House Speaker McCormick --this, unfortunately, from memory; but when I find it, I will check it word-for-word against what follows): McCormick: Is there anything I can do? LBJ: Stop investigating. * ADDENDUM - - ADDED ON 9/27/15 - 9:15 PDT *I still haven't located the original blue binder, sent to me by the LBJ Library, but here is the nearly identical quote, as published in Michael Beschloss' book Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963 - 1964 (Edited with Commentary By Michael R. Bescloss) -published by Simon and Schuster, 1997. Comment preceding the excerpt, by author/editor Beschloss: With an emotional appeal, Johnson has just persuaded Chief Justice Earl Warren to chair what will now be called the Warren Commission. Now he asks the Speaker of the House (McCormack—DSL) to clear the way on Capitol Hill. Transcript of LBJ/McCormack from page 62 (as typed by DSL): LBJ: We don’t want to be testifying, and some fellow comes up from Dallas and says, “I think Khrushchev planned this whole thing and he got out president assassinated. (fn 1) . . . You can see what that’ll lead to right quick. . . . You take care of the House of Representatives for me.” McCormack: How am I going to take care of them? LBJ: Just keep them from investigating! McCormack: Oh that. I’ve been doing it now. (!! –DSL)* Listen, outside, I had Otto Passman in here. (fn 2). . . I want to call him in and would like for you to say hello to him. LBJ: OK, you betcha. . . put him on. . . etc. *DSL Comment, 9/27/15 – Were these guys raised in any home that taught the meaning of the word “truth”?

Been waiting and waiting . I will order now. IMHO DULLES THE CEO OF DALLAS . gaal To readers of the London Forum: I have believed--for decades--that Allen Dulles was (more or less) the "CEO" --or at least a major player--in the synthesis of the JFK plot. As many of you may know, I had a personal--and rather intense and elaborate--meeting with Allen Dulles at a small gathering at UCLA in December 1965. It lasted for some 15 -30 minutes, and is described in detail in Chapter 2 of Best Evidence. Rest assured: it was a highlight of my years at UCLA. When I went to that meeting--which took place in Hedrick Hall at UCLA (and in front of a group of about 50 students) --- I had no idea that Allen Dulles had played the role (re Dallas) that I subsequently concluded he must have. In December 1965, I was simply a UCLA grad student (in engineering) --employed at the time at North American Aviation (on Project Apollo, the moon landing program); had the right to attend this (relatively) small meeting, wanted to confront Dulles on the matter of the Zapruder film headsnap (which is exactly what I did), and made arrangements to have this "public altercation" with him. I sat next to Dulles on a large sofa in a student lounge area, showed him enlargements of the sequence of Z frames showing the head moving backwards (courtesy of Ray Marcus), and had to sit there while Dulles loudly denied the evidence saying, "The head does not go back!" repeatedly. (See chapter 2, B.E. ,for details). [And if any details differ, I defer to what was published in B.E.; I am writing this from memory.] Basically, I had to establish my own bona fides and (hopefully) prove--to an audience that never had heard any of this (remember, in 1965, there was no Internet, and no publicly available display of the Zapruder film--that Allen Dulles was a damned xxxx (!). The experience was remarkable, and one-of-a-kind. As far as I know, no one ever had a confrontation with Allen Dulles. He was always treated with great deference by journalists, and no JFK researcher ever confronted the man directly. Dulles was 72 at the time of our encounter; he died three years later, at age 75. Later that evening, flush with the experience I had just had, and very aware that memory fades, I sat down at my Smith Corona typewriter, in the apartment where I lived, and I wrote a 10 page (approx) single spaced memo about the experience. (This memo--copies of which went to Sylvia Meagher, Vincent Salandria, and a few other others-- was also provided to David Talbot for use in his book). Subsequently--and by "subsequently" I'm referring to some 10 months later (i.e., October 1966, when I discovered the first evidence that the President's body had been covertly intercepted and altered [see Chapters 9 - 12 of Best Evidence]) --my view of the nature of JFK's assassination (as involving a very well planned strategic deception) changed considerably. That's also when I had changed view about the "political origins" of the assassination. Of course, people like David Von Pein are still roaming around in the intellectual equivalent of Jurassic Park, wedded to the sophomoric view that the "sniper's nest evidence" at the TSBD is the be-all and end-all of the JFK case; of course, nothing could be further from the truth --especially once one understands the basic fact that this was a body-centric (political) plot (as explained in my Bismarck address, in November 2013. Just Google "David Lifton Bismarck" --its about an hour long). But I digress. Once one understands that this was a sophisticated covert operation (and part of a larger strategic deception, designed to permit LBJ to advance to the presidency under the appearance of legality) the proper paradigm to understand what happened in Dallas can best be explained (I believe) in the book Coup d'etat (1969), by the American military strategist, political scientist, and historian Edward Luttwak. His book has become a minor classic, has gone through many printings, and is still readily available today. (FWIW: Luttwak's book [imho] is must reading for any serious student of the JFK case, i.e., anyone who is seeking a proper model for the events of Dallas). DALLAS WAS NOT A SIMPLE ("shooting") PLOT The Kennedy assassination was not a simple "shooting" plot; but a complex operation involving not just a shooting, but the coordinated falsification of an array of key evidence the purpose of which was to erect a false reality and create the false appearance that Oswald was the assassin. Bobby Kennedy was aware of the general nature of the plot that took his brother's life, a point I will be discussing in Final Charade. The actual operation in Dealey Plaza probably involved the complicity of quite a few people. It (necessarily) involved substantial corruption and "buried money" (i.e., graft and pay-offs) and its almost certainly the case that just about all of the lowest level operatives (i.e., the Dealey Plaza "foot soldiers")--were eliminated within 1-2 days of the shooting, if not within hours. No one got their expected "pay" or "airplane ticket" to Nirvana. There were no "happy endings." Instead, they were deceived and shot. This was like a multi-level marketing program, in which the bottom level was simply done away with, after it was all over. Why is any of this important? Because, over the years, I have concluded that although it may well be true that Allen Dulles can properly be viewed as "CEO" (or at least a key person on what can be viewed as the "steering committee" of this operation), he was simply too old and feeble (and I make this statement based on my own experience and observation that night at UCLA) to explain the actual complexities of what happened in Dallas. Yes, I can see Allen Dulles doing the preliminary political "networking" and giving a "thumbs up" etc.--yes, he was probably a "cheerleader" of the operation--but I cannot see him doing the "heavy lifting" that must have been involved in (a) putting together this plan and ( b ) actually executing it. There must have been a "middle level tier" of people who were in their 40's (plus or minus) who formed the core group of this affair. Unfortunately, we really do not have good information about this "middle level" --exactly who they were, and what became of them; although Final Charade will present some startling new information in that regard. But in the public discussion and debate as it now exists, the focus has been on much higher level people, because they are public figures and their political motivations are readily visible and can easily be theorized about. But believe me, there is much more to the picture. This was like an iceberg, where only the top part was visible. I'll have more information to say about all of this in Final Charade. But rest assured that regardless of the importance of Allen Dulles, or Dean Rusk (who took so many of the JFK cabinet out of the country) or even Lyndon Johnson himself (who, after all, advanced to the presidency as a consequence of this crime) there is (i.e. "was") a "middle level" that must have existed, played a major role, and which consisted of persons who then lived out their lives without ever facing justice. The vacuum created by this lack of information about the basic structure of the Dallas plot has permitted the appearance of phonies and fraudsters like James Files (or Judyth, when It comes to LHO himself); but historically these faux "participants" will be a passing phenomenon. The bottom line: The key to unraveling the "who-done-it' starts by understanding the "how-done-it". That's what Best Evidence was all about, and Final Charade will add an important addendum to the saga. DSL 9/26/15 - 2:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Revised, 9/26/15 - 2:05 p.m. PDT Certain additions added 9/27/15--4:45 a.m. PDT P.S. (re Jim DiEugenio's Post #157 below): The reason this particular UCLA event was not taped by any of the attendees is that the technology simply did not exist for audience members to carry what--just a few years later--became common place: cassette recorders (i.e., "shoebox recorders"). As I recall, the smallest "civilian recorders" at the time was a 3.5" reel-to-reel recorder (manufactured by Craig), but no one present in the room was carrying any such device. Of course, UCLA could have arranged to tape the session with the standard type of audio equipment (e.g., a 7" reel-to-reel tape deck), but no such recording equipment was utilized. If there was a single word to describe the way the 1965 student audience treated Dulles, it would be "worshipful." One of the closing questions asked--in all seriousness--by a student in the audience was: "Mr. Dulles: Can you tell us about the methods of torture used when spies were captured?" (Really: that was just about the wording of the question, from some starry-eyed student. It is described in B.E., Chapter 2, quoting my memo). Can you imagine such a question being asked a former director of the CIA by a student today?) -DSL, 9/27/15 -5 a.m. PDT).

You are "right on". There so much fuzzy reasoning on this issue; but the best evidence--the original evidence--is quite clear. Thanks for taking the time to remind everyone of the obvious. DSL

QUOTE: this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you,. .UNQUOTE Glenn: with all due respect, this is an absurd statement. Pat Speer runs rough shod over the record, wherever and whenever it conflicts with his preconceptions. So why shouldn't someone who holds the truth in high regard, want to set the record straight, which --often--means defending a witness. This afternoon, I spent about an hour (or more) at Speer's website, perusing his manuscript. It was a very irritating experience, because he tends to de-focus everything. its like being in a math class, where you're trying to learn number theory, and there's this student who raises his hand and says, "But I don't understand something. Why can't it be the case that 2 + 3 equals 6? And then holds forth on some completely extraneous line of argument, which distracts attention away from the issue at hand. Sometimes we read a book and really get turned on by the material; with Speer, its as if you read and read and fall deeper and deeper into a pile of rubble. Not "rubbish". . . mind you. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "rubble." The man dissembles and wanders and indulges in the extraneous; and brings up things that are immaterial, all of this packaged in such a way that we think we're dealing with a serious thinker. You've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? With Speer, fasten your seatbelt, because nothing ever gets resolved. In his bio, he says: "I had a midlife crises and so I decided to look for truth in the Kennedy assassination." Then he goes off on one tangent after another after another. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to Nowhere. One black hole after another. Just look at his chapter titles: "19b: Stuck in the Middle with you" ; 19C: "Lost in the Jungle with Kurtz"; 21: "Rorschach Test". Let me contrast Speer's style with that of someone who was one of my original "teachers" on this case: Vincent Salandria. SPRING 1965- UCLA It was the Spring of 1965 when--probably on the recommendation of Ray Marcus--that i went to the Periodicals Room of the UCLA Library, and read Salandria's original articles on the medical evidence. There it was--clear as a bell--laid out out so a child could understand it: the back (or shoulder wound) was lower than the throat wound. It wasn't just the measurement: it was the damn clothing holes, in both the shirt and jacket. I remember reading the sentences pointing out that if a bullet entered (from the rear) down where the clothing holes were, and then (somehow) really exited at the front of the throat, it would be following an upward path through Kennedy's body and fly harmlessly--and that was the word he used, "harmlessly"--over the Governor's head. Of course, I used this in writing my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence ("The Case for Three Assassins") that was a cover story in the January1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine, but who knew--back in 1965--that 40 years later, a so-called "researcher" would come along, inform us that he got involved because of a mid-life crisis (and that he personally assembled a library of over 1,000 books); that he had analyzed all this closely and--ta da!--all previous analyses were wrong! I've stopped debating this sort of thing, but I don't blame Cliff Varnell one bit for reacting as he does, and for framing his reaction as a defense of witnesses. Another example: Having assembled a list of 64 witnesses who believed the shots came from the front (and specifically, the knoll), AND (in addition) having assembled and published a 32 chapter book [best Evidence] which lays out the case that the body was covertly intercepted and altered ("hijacked" is the term preferred by Cliff V.) how do you think I react when i see Speer glibly informing those reading his posts that it is illogical to believe that shots were fired from the knoll; or that it is illogical to believe that the President's body was altered? Speer is not nearly as bad as DVP, of course. He uses words like "loopy" and "zany" Speer, imho, is someone whose writing and thinking results in a series of de-focused arguments which, if one does not know the record, appear to be superficially credible. If he doesn't like a witness (like Nurse Audrey Bell, who I interviewed in person in 1982, and then on camera in 1989) --and who says that that JFK's head wound was at the back of his head--Speer asserts she has no credibility. Really! Speer even says she wasn't in the room. If he doesn't like a witness who--along with two others--spent over an hour in a personal meeting with Dr. Kemp Clark (who told him that JFK was shot twice from the front--a simple statement) out comes the knives and we are treated to a bunch of ad hominem nonsense. Over 50 people say the car stopped, or slowed seriously--an event not on the Zapruder film. Not a problem. Speer vouches for the film (anyway) He places great weight on the backward and leftward "head snap", apparently unaware that no one actually saw such a motion, and (consequently) that that motion is an artifact of the alteration (i.e., good evidence of the editing process; of editing --and frame removal--to eliminate the car stop). But Speer is hopelessly blind to this sort of data. The list goes on. Here's another example of what happens when one follows Speer into his defocused pile of rubble. SPEER ON LBJ AND AND AF-1 (when the plane was on the ground at Love Field). . . I really liked Speer's chapter about Lyndon Johnson on AF-1. Speer lines up a dozen reasons Johnson has to be lying --asks "What is he hiding?" (my quotes)--and concludes that Johnson was part of the plot. (Really! He says that. . . ) But. . .the notion that the body was removed from the coffin prior to takeoff is zany? So let me see if I understand Speer's "logic": Johnson is guilty of being party to a state crime (because he lied to Robert Kennedy on a whole bunch of details). almost all of which are related to the bod; but shots did not come from the knoll and the autopsy photos are authentic representations of the body? (which was not altered?) Confused? Don't worry about it. . . its just Speer laying out another argument that perhaps 2 + 3 equals 7. Speer is going to be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Lancer Conference. People will fly in from all over probably not because they believe the Warren Report but because they don't--and are looking for the truth. I hope that when he stands up and addresses this group, he will--in the interest of full disclosure--read the passages from Aubrey Rike's book where Rike describes how, in moving Kennedy from the hospital gurney to the Dallas casket, that he could feel the hole in the back of Kennedy's head. That's right--the hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head. That's what Rike told me (also) in 1980, in an on-camera interview at his home. Oh. . . I know., Speer will say that 25 years later, while straightening things out during his mid-life crisis, he met Aubrey at another conference, and that Aubrey told him something different, and so the games he plays will go on. And on. And on. Get it? Its like a game without end. Like a non-convergent Taylor Series in mathematics. Nothing converges. Truth can't be found, because--by the time Speer gets through massaging the data--there's nothing left but an out-of-focus illegible mess. DSL 8/2/15 - 9:55 p.m.PDT Los Angeles, California

More than a half-dozen Parkland personnel described the throat wound as an entrance. According to Pat Speer they all got it wrong. More than a dozen witnesses described a back wound location consistent with the holes in JFK's clothes. According to Pat Speer they all got it wrong, and JFK's clothing behaved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality. Pet Theorizing run amok. Well stated. Succinctly put. Sentiments with which I completely agree. Speer has put in a lot of work, and has good clipping files. But. . so what? What's the use of collecting tons of data if--at the end of the road--you fail when it comes to "connecting the dots". This case is not about being "wedded" to a theory; its about accurately interpreting data; and drawing proper inferences. Making outrageous pronouncements--seemingly to get attention--is not the same as drawing reasonable conclusions. DSL 8/2/15 - 5:15 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Pat: Starting with the month Best Evidence was published, I have received communications from many people who read my book and had information they wished to communicate. So you shouldn’t make assumptions what has arrived in my ‘inbox’ (so to speak). In the case of Dr. Kemp Clark, the neurosurgeon who pronounced Kennedy dead, I first spoke with him in November 1966 (See Best Evidence, Chapter 12, for example). Pat Valentino and I met with Dr. Clark at his office in Parkland Hospital in January 1983; Doug Horne and/or Jeremy Gunn had communication with him during the life of the ARRB (1995 – 1998). It was also brought to my attention—some time ago—that David Naro had a multi-hour in-person meeting with Clark, and that he was not alone at the time. In fact, there were two other people who attended that meeting. Clark died in 2007. Now here you are—in July 2015—and clearly you have never spoken with or communicated with Clark. You learn of someone who has—and who was not alone when he did—and you start attacking the source. What’s your justification for doing so? You start innocently enough (“I don’t mean to be a stick-in-the-mud” you write); but in fact that is exactly the way you in fact behave. Did you ever sat down with Clark? (No). Did you ever have a conversation with Clark on the phone? (No.) Did you ever speak with David Naro? (Not as far as I can tell). Are you aware that three people attended the meeting he had with Clark? (Not as far as I can tell). Did you ever speak with any of those three people? (Not as far as I can tell). But, nonetheless—and having done “none of the above”—you proceed to vent (apparently –as far as I can tell—because what you are hearing that Clark said goes against your own hypotheses). Let’s review your concerns about my approach to this situation: • “You unquestionably accept the word of a guy named David Naro” you write, without (1) really having any direct knowledge of my source; or (2) having absolutely no knowledge as to whether I “unquestionably” accepted anything he—or anyone else—may have told me. DSL RESPONSE: Really? How do you know all this? • You proceed to describe Naro as “a guy . . who appeared out of nowhere to claim he’d conducted detailed interviews with the otherwise silent Clark” DSL RESPONSE: Please, Pat. . save us from these histrionics. The bottom line is—or at least appears to be—that you never had any communication with Clark yourself, or with any person who did: in this case, with any of the three people who did. • Then you say: “Well, who was David Naro? If he was a legit researcher, why did he disappear as fast as he arrived? Why did he never present any documentary evidence proving he'd interviewed Clark?” DSL RESPOSNE: Please Pat. Subside. How do you know that this or that person “disappear[ed] as fast as he arrived?” Have you ever spoken to him? (No.) Do you have any direct knowledge of any records that were kept? (No.) Really: What is the basis for any of these negative statements that you are making? • Then comes your attempt at a coup de grace:“And, you know what? No one had ever followed up on Naro. Have you?” DSL RESPONSE: Short answer: Yes. Remember the advice given lawyers trying a case. Don’t ask a question, if you don’t already know the answer. Well, in this case, you have goofed, big time. Of course I have appropriately “vetted” the entire situation. Hence, my response: So glad you asked , Pat. Because the answer is: Yes, I certainly did. Years ago. And I have good records of my follow-up activity. Then comes the advice that you proffer. You say that you would “hate for you to taint your book with your acceptance of . . . claims when there's a heretofore unknown reason (insanity, dementia, a history of incredible claims) that we should dismiss them.” Please Pat: Take a look at what you have just written. Who said anything about “insanity” or “dementia” or “a history of incredible claims”? The answer is not hard to find: You did. You are raising these negative possibilities, without a shred of evidence. Then, instead of evidence, you bring up the case of Joe O’Donnell, and the fact that Doug Horne found him “credible” , and you add: “even though Horne's ARRB report on his interview of O'Donnell indicated pessimism.” Then you add: “After the interview, it was discovered O'Donnell had been suffering from dementia at the time of the interview, and that this had revealed itself in many false stories about the Kennedy family, including that he'd taken the famous picture of John-John saluting his father's casket. Well, Horne turned around and used O'Donnell anyhow...” First of all, I know nothing about O’Donnell. But what—pray tell—does O’Donnell have to do with any of this? Aren’t we talking about someone else? (This is worse than Apples and oranges; this is Apples and Hot Dogs). Then, attempting to clarify, you write: “I'd hate for you to make this same mistake.” Well, thank you for being so concerned. Yes. Pat: I try to avoid witnesses who have dementia. Your final advice: “But I'm skeptical of Naro's story, and believe you should be as well.” Yes; I’m skeptical of all incoming data; and try to be very careful; and, turning your advice around, “you should be as well.” Instead of worrying about David Naro, and whether he had dementia, let’s turn to a much more basic matter: the question of whether you exercise good judgment in evaluating the data about the head wounds. ON THE MATTER OF FAKED AUTOPSY EVIDENCE (AND WHAT --AND WHOM--TO TRUST) Last night, I was reading the late Aubrey Rike’s account, as published in book “At the Door of Memory,” published in 2008. Here is Aubrey Rike, describing his experience of lifting up President Kennedy’s body off the gurney and transferring him to the Oneal casket. Quote: “The first time we began to pick up the President, I put my right hand underneath his head; I could feel the back of the skull had been blown out—it was literally blasted away. I felt the serrated edge of the hole in the skull on my hand. It was not painful, but I could feel the jagged edges of the bones through the sheet on the palm of my hand.” Aubrey first told me this when I filmed him at his home in October 1980. I didn’t include that in the Best Evidence Research Video because the emphasis was on the wrappings on the body (sheets, not a body bag) and on the coffin (ceremonial casket; not a body bag, etc). But that’s what he told me—on camera—and I have it on film. So. . .here’s my advice: instead of attacking the credibility of a source you have never interviewed, I suggest that when you appear this coming November as a featured speaker at the JFK Lancer event, and address people who have traveled to Dallas and spent over a thousand dollars to hear some truth about the facts of the assassination, and want to know “who killed President Kennedy,” I suggest that—in the interest of full disclosure, and before you hold forth on your theory that there was no wound at the back of the head, and that the autopsy photographs and x-rays supporting that view are authentic, that perhaps you should read aloud the statement of the late Aubrey Rike, who felt that awful wound with his own hand, as he attempted to lift Kennedy’s body from the hospital gurney and place him in the Oneal casket. Unfortunately, Pat, when it comes to evaluating evidence. I think our views differ sharply on what’s credible (and what’s not). DSL 7/31/15 – 1:20 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

David - It's obvious you have the time to address questions - just not this one? You make this sweeping statement about the evidence "Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation)." yet do not provide any examples... so again. DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up? Thanks DJ David (Josephs): Was not my intention to avoid answering. . . and FYI: I thought I already had: The March 1963 order for the rifle (from Kleins). Of course, I assume you do realize ---based on my analysis as set forth in Best Evidence--that i do not believe that rifle to have been the murder weapon. See Chapter 14 of Best Evidence where all this is spelled out in considerable detail, with diagrams explaining the basic concept(s); but. . For a video explanation as to my views on this situation, I refer you to my November 2013 speech in Bismarck, North Dakota. (Just Google David Lifton Bismarck). I just noticed that my talk has now had almost 13,800 views. Here's the Internet link: I think that my position --re the validity of the so-called "sniper's nest" --is stated rather clearly there. DSL 7/30/15 - 4:15 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

As detailed in my 2013 presentation, the Harper fragment's disappearance was most probably related to its having both entrance and exit beveling, and its proving the fatal head shot was a tangential shot. Well, this, in turn, suggested there'd been two shots to the head, and two shooters. As far as Cairns...it's grossly unfair to assume Cairns would ever have testified as to the fragment's being occipital bone. He speculated as to the location of the bone based upon a brief inspection, at a time when many of the news reports were claiming Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. There is no reason whatsoever to believe he would have stuck to his opinion after viewing photos showing no hole on the back of the head, or after speaking with a forensic anthropologist...THE experts when it comes identifying bone fragments. I'm not sure I understand your argument, and wonder if you would clarify. 1. Is it not the case that three doctors--Dr. Harper, Dr. Cairns, and Dr. Noteboom--all concurred that the piece of bone was occipital bone? 2. Regarding your speculation as to what Doctor Cairns "would have" testified to, after --hypothetically--"viewing photos showing no hole in the back of the head", I find this argument seriously flawed. Just about everyone who saw the President's body in Dallas on November 22 --and who wrote a report or was interviewed by the press or testified--said that the large wound they observed was (a) located at the back of the head and (b ) was an exit. There is no indication whatsoever in the original Parkland Hospital medical reports that President Kennedy was shot from behind. (Surely, you are aware of that?) The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind*, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1963. *As originally posted,this read: "from the front". That was an error. Aside from the record the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses created, both Pat Valentino and I showed a number of these doctors and nurses the autopsy photographs: myself, in December 1982, and both Pat and I in January 1983. All of this is laid out in detail in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). Almost uniformly, their reaction to being shown these photographs was to reject them as being valid. To shake their head from side to side and say, in effect, "No, that's not what I saw." Or: That's not what "we" saw For whatever reason, you seem to be living in a reality which (a) rejects the first (and very official) record of the Dallas doctors and (b ) rejects their reaction when shown the autopsy photographs years later. For whatever reason, and I suspect its related to your belief that the autopsy photographs are genuine--which seems to be the basis for all your theorizing--you then seem to feel free to speculate on "what would have happened" had doctors you never interviewed were called to testify at a hypothetical legal proceeding, and were shown evidence that just about every medical observer I ever interviewed claimed to be false. Based on my own interviews, and my own study of the Parkland record, I think the outcome of such a hypothetical legal proceeding would have been entirely different than what you claim. You are welcome to this journey in your (hypothetical) time machine, of course, but Pat Valentino and I personally sat down with many of these folks (again, in January 1983) and can report--based on a reality-based experience--that they rejected these photographs. One other matter: in the later years of his life, Dr. Kemp Clark permitted himself to be interviewed, at some length, by a third party--apparently to set the record straight. He only wanted two questions answered, before he would agree to the interview: (1) Are you a lawyer? (2) Are you an author? Satisfied that the answers to both were "no", he then agreed to the in-person meeting, and to be questioned. Dr. Clark maintained that President Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the throat, and the other in the head, by a shot that caused the exit at the back of the head, exposing the cerebellum etc. (Reminder: Clark was there; he pronounced JFK dead). You'll be reading more about this in Final Charade. Again, you are certainly entitled to your views that the autopsy photos are authentic, and to build a reality based upon that, and to then proceed to posit various hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical journeys in a time machine, and to postulate the outcome of hypothetical legal proceedings that could have or might have occurred. But Pat Valentino and I sat down with Dr. Clark--for at least an hour--in January 1983, and I/we have had the experiences enumerated above. I'm sorry, but --based on the available evidence and the legitimate historical record (and not on postulated hypothetical proceedings that might have taken place in some alternate reality) --I reject the autopsy photographs as representing an authentic view of the back of President Kennedy's head at the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital. Consequently, I agree with Dr. Clark that President Kennedy was shot in the head from the front, and I reject the various hypothetical outcomes you posit from journeys in your hypothetical time machine. I think they are better suited to a description of a discussion that Capt Kirk, and Spock might have had during a coffee break on the Enterprise (if, between attacks by aliens, they were shooting the breeze about the Kennedy assassination) and not to a reality-based analysis of the legal record suitable for a university seminar on American history. DSL 7/28/15 = 5:40 pm PDT Tweaked 7/29/15; approx 2 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California I'm confused by what you've written about Clark, David. I've read the updated Best Evidence, with your account of talking to Clark, and don't recall your claiming he told you the shots came from the front. I seem to recall, in fact, that he changed his mind about seeing you, and that you ended up talking to his secretary, or some such thing. And, besides, everything we know about Clark suggests he was not a conspiracy theorist. 1. He was friends with single-assassin theorist extraordinaire Dr. Lattimer, and helped Dr. Lattimer with his experiments. 2. One of the few times he spoke on the record about the assassination was when he gave an interview to UPI for an article published on the 20th anniversary. Here is what he told them: "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." Now look at the timing. You tried to interview him in 83, and he turned around and broke his silence in 83, only to denounce those trying to get him to talk. Well, he was talking about you, right? Pat: Your confusion seems to have resulted from combining two entirely separate events--the meeting Pat Valentino and I had with Clark in January 1983, and an entirely different meeting that Dr. Clark had with someone else about ten years later (1990s). The former meeting (the one Pat V. and I had) is accurately reported in the Afterword to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (and republished in the 1993 Signet [mass paperback edition]. As I wrote, Dr. Clark--hearing that I was in town, and had copies of the autopsy photos--called me at the hotel where I was staying (the Fairmont). Here's what I wrote in that Afterword: "By at my hotel, I was astonished to receive a call from Dr. Kempt Clark, the neurosurgeon in attendance, whose reputation for animosity towards assassination researchers was well known. To my surprise, Clark was both cordial and cooperative in his willingness to see me the net day. Clark apparently had spoken to Jenkins [referring here to Dr. Marion Jenkins, who Pat and I had previously seen] and it seemed clear to me that he wanted to see the pictures." Then came what happened when we visited Dr. Clark, which I reported on most briefly in this Afterword: "Then I kept my appointment with Dr. Kemp Clark, the neurosurgeon who had pronounced Kennedy dead. The cordial Dr. Clark who had called me the previous day had vanished. His opening remark set the tone: "Well, I guess the only person who got anything out of this deal was Specter," (referring to Arlen Specter, father of the Single Bullet Theory, who went on to become a U.S. Senator). Clark refused to let me open the envelope containing the pictures. Apparently he had thought about it overnight and changed his mind. He was unmoved by any please about history, truth, etc. "If you think the body was altered after it left our charge," he said, "then I suggest you speak to the Secret Service about that." (Source: B.E., Carrol and Graf edition, Afterword, p. 705-706). That's all I wrote about Dr. Clark in the Afterword to Best Evidence. At no time during this meeting was the issue of the direction of the shot (or shots) that struck Kennedy discussed). However, other matters of considerable importance were discussed, and I will be discussing that--and elaborating on this meeting--in Final Charade. Some ten years later, Clark had a meeting with a third party, and I reported on that quite accurately. In that meeting, Clark said that Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the neck and the other time in the head. Now let's return to what you wrote (about me) and correct the record. I accurately quoted (above) exactly what I wrote in the "Afterword" to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence. Now let's compare what I wrote--with what you said. You wrote, QUOTE: David. I've read the updated Best Evidence, with your account of talking to Clark, and don't recall your claiming he told you the shots came from the front. I seem to recall, in fact, that he changed his mind about seeing you, and that you ended up talking to his secretary, or some such thing. No, Pat. You've got it all wrong. He didn't "change his mind" about seeing me; and it wasn't the case that I "ended up talking to his secretary, or some such thing." But, as I mentioned above, when I met with Clark, we did not talk about the issue "shots. . from the front." (But that's exactly what he did talk about when he spoke with the third party, ten years later). Finally, as to what Dr. Clark said (or didn't say) to Dr. Lattimer, of that I have no idea. The difference between my post and your response is that I (and Pat Valentino) actually met with Clark, and you are relying on third hand gossip from a wire service account. Your inferences stemming from "everything we know" (meaning what "you" believe you know) about Dr. Clark are trumped by the experience that I and Pat actually had--starting with his call to me at the hotel, asking me to come and see him; and by the detailed and accurate account I have from speaking with the third party with whom Clark actually met--personally, and in his office at Parkland Hospital--some ten years later. My advice: I suggest you take your clipping file--which records second hand hearsay--and put a warning label on it, and use it much more judiciously in the future. Anyway, thanks for the quote, because I'll probably be able to use it to show the marked inconsistency between the way Clark behaved with me (and Pat) --and also with the third party I have mentioned--and the way he presented himself when speaking to UPI on or about November 1983, which was the 20th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination. DSL 7/30/15 - 4 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Mark: Short answers to your questions--no time for elaborate analysis. 1. "Are we sure JFK's body was in the O'Neal casket that left Parkland?" RESPONSE: Without question. (Aubrey Rike and Oneal are dispositive on this issue). 2. "Are we sure it wasn't swapped into a "shipping casket" prior to the arrival of the O'Neal casket at AF1?" RESPONSE: There was no stop in the short motorcade from Parkland Hospital to Love Field. That was an uninterrupted journey. The evidence for this statement: the accounts of Jacqueline Kennedy, the SS, Dr. Burkley, the media, the cycle cops etc. 3. "I ask because I seriously doubt that any casket swap was done aboard AF1 en route to Washington. . . " RESPONSE: Agreed. There was no "casket swap...aboard AF1" Secondly: Nothing was done "enroute to Washington" --i.e., while the aircraft was airborne. 4. "If JFK's body was NOT in the O'Neal casket when it was loaded onto AF1, [then. . etc etc. ] RESPONSE: The President's body was most definitely in the Dallas casket when it was loaded onto Air Force One. Just look at the Stoughton photos. You can see SS Agent Roy Kellerman, struggling with the weight, as he leads the effort to carry it up the ramp and on board the plane. 5. "If the "shipping casket" was not aboard AF1, was it aboard AF2...which did NOT have the Johnsons aboard for the return flight? [i bring this up because next to nothing has been mentioned about AF2's return to DC. Are there AF2 tapes from that flight, as there are the edited AF1 tapes?] DSL RESPONSE: You are asking many of the questions I did when drafting the final chapters of Best Evidence in late 1979 and early 1980. See chapter 31, where I laid out the possibilities, and discussed the alternatives. I did not have definitive answers when the manuscript to Best Evidence was submitted to Macmillan on April 1, 1980. I do now. That's all I'm going to say at this time. 6. "I'm seriously trying to make sense out of the conflicting testimony, so I'm asking these questions with all sincerity. I'm not claiming that one scenario or another is the truth, because I honestly don't have enough information before me to determine that." RESPONSE: Yes, its very confusing. Like a seemingly impossible-to-solve Rubik's Cube. Thanks for being honest, and admitting your confusion. I went through the same process for awhile. I'm glad I went to Cornell and majored in math and physics for 5 years; and then spent additional time at UCLA taking post graduate courses. I'm not saying it takes a math major to solve the Kennedy assassination. But it sure helps to have a logical mind, and a willingness to probe beneath the appearance and get to reality. Otherwise, you can end up with a great photo and media collection (like our friend David Von Pein) but never get beyond the surface appearance of things, and to the truth. Hope this hurriedly written post helps. DSL 7/29/15 - 7:25 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim: If (for some reason) someone does not wish to use the language of camouflage and strategic deception, then--I suppose--one could state that this could be described as "a plot with a built in coverup." I prefer the language of "strategic deception" because that best describes what actually unfolded in the months, weeks, and days leading up to November 22, 1963, and in the hours, days, weeks, and months following. This is not a minor preference of vocabulary, or a matter of semantics. Words have meaning. As E.B. White wrote many decades ago, words are the "tools of thought." What happened in November 1963 has to be described accurately to be understood. Years ago, I gave considerable thought to the issue of what words to employ, and all of that is reflected in the vocabulary I have chosen. DSL 7/29/15 - 7:10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

In regards to the murder of JFK the only significant open question relating to the head wound/s is -- how many times was he struck in the head? Short of digging up Kennedy, that question cannot be answered by the extant evidence. David, as you point out, the greater significance of the Harper fragment lies in what it tells us about the cover-up. In fact, a study of the head wound/s is not a study of JFK's murder but a study of the cover-up. Same thing with Oswald/s -- studying the cover-up, not the murder. Cliff, These are interesting points you make, and I won't debate (or dispute) the one about the head wounds, because that leads into various complexities concerning time lines, and questions of intent. As to Oswald, I will plant my flag in what I believe to be solid earth. If one draws a time-line representing Oswald's life, one finds that it consists of--essentially--four segments (and this is reflected in the FBI filing system, and the Warren Commission's, too): Youth (birth [10/18/39] through 10/24/56 when, at age 17, he enters the Marines) Marine Period (10/24/56 - 9/11/59, when he exits the USMC with honorable discharge) Russian Period (9/11/59 [approx] through June 13, 1962, the date of his return to NYC on the SS Maasdam Post Russian: June 13, 1962 - 11/22/63 (actually, 11/24/63, the date of LHO's death) Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation; and to provide a false narrative for the Kennedy assassination). What it comes down--with regards to the events of Oswald's life--is whether (or not) LHO had a handler. In either case, when Oswald does something that is plot-related and intended (when viewed retrospectively) to falsely implicate him in the crime (or --in some way--to mislead any future investigation), then that is not a "cover-up" because--by definition--a "cover-up occurs "after the fact." For example, if he orders the rifle from Kleins--and I certainly believe he did--then he is purchasing, for about $20, the rifle that will --in the future, and after JFK's death--be (falsely) alleged to have been the murder weapon. That rifle (ordered months before the assassination) will end up --in this case--in the U.S. National Archives as the murder weapon in the Kennedy homicide. Did Oswald order the rifle because he was knowingly part of a plot to murder President Kennedy --someone he much admired? (Certainly not, imho). Or did he order the rifle because he was credulous and manipulated and given some cock and bull story as to why a rifle was needed for his "assignment" or "mission"? Whatever the precise reason, all of that (the rifle order) occured "before the fact" and so --imho--the rifle order can not and should not be thought of as part of a coverup, but rather just how far back in time the plot to kill JFK extends. In short, the Klein's rifle order is not part of an after-the-fact coverup; rather, it is "Exhibit A" of the camouflage that was employed (or deployed, is perhaps a better verb) as part of this crime. I could provide other examples. "Coverup" does not accurately explain what is going on here. Because "coverup" germinates after-the-fact. The Klein's rifle order--if my analysis is correct--is strictly "before-the-fact". Consequently, if Oswald actually ordered the rifle (and I personally believe he did), then--however the manipulation worked-- he was an unwitting participant in his own frame-up. Oswald got conned--and it went on for months: he was not (imho) some randomly selected person who showed up on the radar "after-the-fact." Anyway, what I have just explained (immediately above) is why I prefer the vocabulary and terminology of "camouflage" or "strategic deception" to the far more restrictive terminology of "coverup." A cover-up germinates (and is deployed) after-the -fact. Things that occur "before-the fact" are not "coverup". They are integral to the design of Kennedy's murder. They are part and parcel of the strategic deception that was used to camouflage the crime by (a) manipulating the event itself (and that included the manipulation of Oswald) and then ( b ) altering critical facts, and then assembling the result in such a way that it concealed what actually happened and provided a false (historical) narrative. DSL 7/29/15 - 8:15 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, CA

Jim DiEugenio: Yes. The agent was Elmer Moore, and his report—officially designated “SS 633”—was not published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission. (SS 663 was part of either CD 87 or CD 320, the two large SS reports submitted to the Warren Commission). But there was a serious typo in my original post, which I went back and corrected. The paragraph you quote –when corrected—would read (and I have corrected it, so it does read properly as follows): The first time these [Dallas] doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings,-- i.e., that JFK was shot twice from behind. That autopsy document was not sent to the FBI until December 23, 1963, and to the Warren Commission about a month later. What follows is a more detailed narrative, dealing with the autopsy conclusions. December 11, 1963 - the Secret Service visits the Dallas Doctors What happened was that the Dallas doctors were visited by a Secret Service agent (Elmer Moore) who showed them the Bethesda autopsy report, which recorded two entry wounds on the back of the body, entry wounds which had not been observed or reported by any of the Dallas doctors. One was just above the shoulder blade; the other, at the bottom of the back of the head. The interviewing agent suggested that the Dallas doctors had “missed” these two rear entry wounds because “you hadn’t turned him over.” (my quotes). As far as is known, none of the Dallas doctors had the temerity to say, “Yes, that’s true; we didn’t turn him over; but two of our nurses washed the body, before putting him in the coffin, and they didn’t notice any such entry wounds either”. The story of the Secret Service visit was told by Dr. McClelland to reporter Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Dudman then published it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of December 18, 1963 under the headline: Secret Service Gets Revision of Kennedy Wound. The wound being referred to as having sustained a “revision” was the wound at the front of Kennedy’s throat. With the official appearance of a small entry wound on the back—more precisely, just above the shoulder blade—that wound was now said to be the entry point for a bullet which entered from the rear, and which traversed JFK’s body on a downward-sloping trajectory, exiting at the front of the throat. It exited via the throat wound which—on the day of the assassination (and in the days following)-- had (originally) been described as an entry wound. But now, in this official autopsy report that the doctors were shown on December 11, 1963, the throat wound was described as an exit wound. Moreover, the Secret Service agent (or agents) who visited the Dallas doctors on December 11 1963 wanted them to see this autopsy report (for themselves) so they would cease making public statements that the wound at the front of the throat was an entry wound. "Schematics". . .(i.e., diagrams showing trajectories). . . In fact, they didn't just show the doctors the Bethesda autopsy report (which was subsequently transmitted to the Warren Commission as CD 77 on December 20, 1963). They also displayed to the doctors certain "schematics"--i.e., drawings, apparently illustrating the back-to-front trajectory with an arrow passing through the neck (similar to, but not identical with, Rydberg drawings). "Now, look here," the Dallas doctors were (in effect) told. The Bethesda autopsy reports a wound on the back of the body—a wound which you missed—and that explains why the wound at the front of the throat (which you fellows misinterpreted as an entry) was really an exit wound (!). Essentially, that was the nature of the transaction on December 11, 1963. Remember: it was written that day, and published in the next day's Times-Herald. Dudman’s article in the 12/18/63 St. Louis Post-Dispatch is discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence, which is devoted to the wound at the front of Kennedy's throat, and to the "transaction" described above. This Dudman article was first shown to me in 1965 by Ray Marcus, who was collecting all available information for inclusion in a large scrapbook he was compiling at the time, attempting to keep track of the evolution of the official story of the neck wound. Of course, in the course of writing Best Evidence, I subsequently ordered all of this material on microfilm, via the UCLA Research Library, and gave it very close study. In that regard, there is one other news story connected with this affair, which is of equal—if not far greater ---importance; and that, too, is discussed in some detail in Best Evidence, also in Chapter 3. THE “OTHER” NEWS STORY - Dec 12s 1963 4/25/22: What follows is my investigation of what turns out to be a planted news story about the JFK autopsy conclusions (which was a front page in the Dallas Times- Herald)-- and my discovery of who was the source, an important Dallas doctor. ** ** ** ** On December 12, 1963, the Dallas Times-Herald—an evening newspaper—published a story (on page one) by its science writer Bill Burrus which ran under the headline: KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK The story was datelined “Bethesda, Md.” and the lead paragraph read: President Kennedy was shot in the back and the bullet, which had a hard-metal jacket, exited through his throat, a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital revealed Thursday. Other key sentences in this account read: It was a surprising disclosure that President Kennedy had been shot in the back. The wound had not bled externally, and doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital missed it in their 22 minutes of futility—trying to save the President’s life. Most worldwide press and medical reports have described the neck wound as one which entered there, or one which went tangentially across the President’s throat. The complete Bethesda [autopsy] report shows that the first bullet fired . . . (and now came language that was almost identical with the official autopsy report transmitted to the Warren Commission on December 20 1963). . . . . . entered above President Kennedy’s right scapula—commonly called the shoulder blade. It did not hit any vital organs and came out just below the “Adam’s apple” in the throat, said the Bethesda report. The story went on to explain—in some detail—why the bullet that passed through President Kennedy’s throat came out undamaged (i.e., just like bullet 399) and why the Dallas doctors were wrong in initially identifying the throat wound as an entrance: Unlike an ordinary lead bullet, a jacketed bullet does not spread out upon contact. This explains why the President had no external bleeding from the entrance wound in the back, and why the neck wound was no larger—making it appear to doctors handling it as an emergency case as an entrance wound. The final paragraph of the Burrus story read: Investigating officers explained that the trajectory of the bullet from back to front is in line with one that could have been fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Lee Harvey Oswald. This story, published locally in Dallas (again, in the Dallas Times-Herald ), was true remarkable, and yet was never carried by the wire services. What made it special was that whoever provided the information clearly had access to the Bethesda autopsy report (not provided to the FBI until December 20th); and, furthermore, there were phrases and terminology in this account that appeared to be setting the stage for the single bullet theory. (Yes, by that date in December 1963!) Imagine that: all of that taking place on December 11, 1963 (the day the story was written). But now let's go back to that point in time. TIME AND PLACE: March 1978: DSL (yours truly) in Rockaway Beach, New York -- (aka "Belle Harbor, Long Island," to those who prefer the more fancy designation)- - writing the manuscript of B.E. Specifically, at that time, I was writing the final draft of Chapter 3, "The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?"). Although my "official residence" was West Los Angeles, California, I was --temporarily-- residing at my parents home in Rockaway Beach, (a suburb of New York City). Our family home was located three houses from the beach, and I was occupying two rooms on the second floor, and racing against editorial deadlines. I had promised my folks that my stay would be temporary, but now this matter of Bill Burrus and his unusual story came up, and it could not be ignored. It was essential that I get to the source for this news story, in order that it be included in Best Evidence. The story was datelined “Bethesda, Maryland” and so the implication (as could be inferred by the "Bethesda" dateline) was that the source was "east coast". And that was my initial belief: that the JFK autopsy results were being "leaked" by some Navy official connected with the Bethesda autopsy. But that was not the case. Not at all. Where My Pursuit Led Me Battling time deadlines, I set out to find Bill Burrus who, it turned out, was no longer in Dallas and no longer working at the Dallas Times-Herald. Then, a stroke of luck-- and that's what it was: pure luck. Remarkably, I located him (by phone) in New York City—then working as a free lance. I started to question him in detail about his story; and he started to provide some rather tantalizing answers--but then he stopped. Suddenly. It was as if he turned off a gushing water faucet. Nope, he said, he was busy. He was a working writer, and had things to do. He didn't want to discuss it right then; but he would tell me "the whole story" --the whole story of his amazing "scoop"-- but under one condition: if we could meet, later that day, at his favorite bar in downtown Manhattan, and if I would buy him beer. Really. That's what he said, and that's what governed what happened next. We arranged a meeting, a fully on-the-record tape-recorded meeting at a colorful bar and grill in downtown Manhattan. The location was only 13 miles distant, by the way the crow flies. But, being no crow, and carrying a bulky reel-to-reel tape recorder (a SONY TC 800, as I recall), I had to use public transportation. So the trip was closer to 20 miles (or more), and involved taking a bus ride of about 30 minutes from Rockaway Beach to the "last stop" of an IRT subway, located near the Brooklyn College campus. But I stopped everything I was doing, grabbed my tape recorder, ran to the nearest bus stop for the Green Bus Line (the way to exit Rockaway Beach, and get to Brooklyn), and then take a subway to Manhattan. I managed to get there by 5 p.m., our agreed upon rendezvous time. March 1978: My Meeting with Bill Burrus in downtown Manhattan (at the "Portuguese Bar") The meeting--with Burrus drinking one beer after another, and me grilling him incessantly--lasted several hours. By the time it was over, I had a full account—to the extent Burrus was willing to share with me—about what happened on the night of December 11, 1963 and certain important information --critically important information-- about the source of the story he had published on December 11, 1963. A Big Surprise About the Source DSL Note, 4/25/22 (reviewed and tweaked, for improved clarity) Bill Burrus never told me the source of this remarkable story (he stressed that it was highly confidential), but he seemed to want me to know it. Consequently, he dropped numerous hints, and basically implied that I should be able to figure it out for myself (which I later did). Quite to my surprise, the source of the story was not someone in Bethesda, Maryland, even though Burrus had "datelined" his story as if it was. But that was false. Completely incorrect. Of singular importance was that Burrus had deliberately "false sourced" the story to “Bethesda, Maryland” in order to hide the true source. As Burrus explained to me) back in December 1963, Burrus would not reveal (i.e., refused to reveal) the true source, even to a high executive at the Associated Press the following day. Consequently, Burrus's story was never run nationally (as it otherwise would have been). In other words, because of a stubborn streak, Bill Burrus lost his "scoop". (As I later came to understand: Burrus attempted to have it both ways --to have a scoop, but also honor a promise he had made not to reveal his source). To repeat: Burrus's sloppy compromise was to "false source" his story implying to the reader that the source was "Bethesda"(i.e., someone connected with the naval autopsy), but concealing an important truth: that the source was Dallas; and specifically, the neurosurgeon who pronounced Kennedy dead. Because of his false sourcing, Burrus story created confusion; and was not perceived as a scoop. He was bitter and never got the recognition he believed he deserved. His story never became the "official leak," of the Bethesda autopsy conclusions, as --apparently--it was intended to be. Instead, by losing his scoop, the result was that certain incorrect accounts--of a previous version of the Bethesda autopsy--were then unearthed and widely published (e.g., Nate Haseltine in the Washington Post of 12/18/63, etc.) But now let's return to Burrus and my meeting with him in March 1978: As Burrus drank beer and my tape recorder turned. (FWIW: I don't drink, and anyway, I was listening, and making notes, and making sure my tape recorder was working properly, with the needle appropriately oscillating as Burrus held forth). At some entered into the most important part of our dialogue. . Who provided this information? How did it happen? Would he tell me? What follows is Burrus's account, as he related it to me. And it begins with a telephone call to Burrus' residence about three weeks after President Kennedy's murder. As I later determined, the caller was Dr, Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, and the Dallas physician who pronounced Kennedy dead. Burrus's story is important because it permitted me to identify the Dallas doctor who was involved in behind the scene machinations to plant a story about the Bethesda autopsy results-- attempting to plant a story strongly stated Kennedy was shot from behind, and implying the source was some Navy official in Washington, when the source was himself. Now back to Burrus's account.s THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 11, 1963: AT THE BURRUS RESIDENCE Burrus was the science writer for the Dallas Times-Herald, and when the caller identified himself, Burrus was speechless. Dr. Clark was calling to tell him "the truth" about the Dallas autopsy results-- and specifically, the trajectory of the shots that struck JFK. There could be no hotter news story at the time, but there was an important condition -- Burrus must not ever reveal the source. Burrus was being provided information that some "higher authority" clearly wanted published as a news story as soon as possible. Each detail was important; the language had to be precise; with Burrus calling back his source more than once on that evening to verify this or that point; and to make sure that he "got it right." In a way, it was just as good as the Deep Throat story about Watergate, only better. Deep Throat was about a burglary; Burrus' story was about murder. A President's murder. I put a footnote about this in Best Evidence (stating that I had interviewed Burrus in March, 1978, and that the source of the story was not “Bethesda, Maryland” etc.), but I didn’t elaborate, and include the "remaining" details. I did so because a full account would have required hundreds of additional words, and certain additional information; and would have—as a practical matter—added an additional chapter to the book. My focus had to be the covert alteration of the President's body, not who was involved in leaking the autopsy results on Decmber 11, 1963. Also, there were certain "additional insights" that I myself did not have in March 1978, and which came later, and turned out to be essential to properly deciphering the full implications of the Burrus story. The result: there were complications to what Burrus (who died in 1993) told me (in March 1978) that prevented me from incorporating his account in Best Evidence. However, I intend to place a full account in Final Charade, and I think (that is, I hope) it will be apparent, to anyone reading that account, that, Burrus's full account implicates one of the Dallas doctors in playing an important "behind the scenes" role in the cover-up. What role? This Dallas doctor planted a new version of the Bethesda autopsy conclusions about trajectory, creating a page one story in the Dallas newspaper (the Times-Herald), providing it to the reporter on one condition: that the reporter hide the Dallas source, and create the appearance that the source was a Navy official in Washington. In addition, the following facts became evident: (a) the case for the "low" back wound being false (as stated in Best Evidence) is a very strong one; and . . ( b ) the groundwork for the "timing problem" being recognized as a critically important problem, and the Single Bullet Theory being the "solution" was being laid no later than December 11, 1963 and involved some very important people. Most important, the "timing problem" completely ante-dated the formation of the Warren Commission; i.e., the arrival of WC attorney Arlen Specter on the scene (in Jan. 1964) etc.; and. . (c ) Arlen Specter, upon arriving at the WC in Washington, D.C., simply assembled the “pieces” of the double-hit SBT trajectory, like a child assembling the components of a leggo toy: the back-to-front downward-sloping trajectory through JFK was the first element. That involved getting Specter to believe that the wound at the front of the throat had been an exit (not an entry). Then Specter had to “join” that belief with a similar trajectory through Connally. The result ("voila!") was the Single Bullet Theory. New Information about the "first appearance" of the Single Bullet Theory From what I can see, Specter apparently thought he came up with the whole concept himself. Based on what I later learned, I do not believe he did. I think that the pieces (the individual segments) of the Single Bullet Theory were "fed" to Specter (as a hypothesis); and that Specter -- with regard to the result-- honestly believed that he had "thought it up" all by himself. On this point: Of particular importance to me was a discovery that I made (back in the late 1960's) when reviewing microfilmed records of the two Dallas newspapers: the Times-Herald and the Morning News. Reviewing these microfilmed records, I was startled to find an unnoticed paragraph buried in a December 1963 Dallas news story. The story published the statement from an unidentified source that speculated that both JFK and Governor Connally had been struck by a single bullet. (That story and that paragraph --or sentence-- must be "re-discovered, because it constitutes published evidence [circa December 1963] that the concept of a one bullet/two victim trajectory preceded the arrival in Washington of the Warren Commission legal staff (mis-Jan., 1964) by at least a month.) To repeat: the original concept of the Single Bullet Theory was something that went back to mid-December, 1963, and ante-dated Specter's arrival in Washington by at least three weeks). ASIDE: If this had happened in the field of physics--which of course it never would--it would be as if Albert Einstein got a phone call one night at his home from someone who said, "Albert: Have I got a theory for you! Now get out your pencils and some paper, and write this down. First, the speed of light is constant in all reference frames. Got that? Good! Now lets move on. . Second (now write this down carefully, Albert): "E equals M C squared" OK, get some rest. Good night!" (No. . . I'm just kidding, only this isn't funny. . .We're talking about the birth of one of the critical parts of the "official solution" to the Kennedy assassination. END ASIDE Bottom line: the whole thing—iMHO-- was contrived. Kennedy was shot in the throat from the front (just as Doctor Malcolm Perry originally stated [3 times, during the news conference on November 22, 1963—see Chapter 3 of Best Evidence for exact quotes from the White House transcript, which I obtained from the LBJ Library and published for the first time.] But then, the "medical facts" were physically changed. They were changed via (1) the creation of a false back wound, (2) the covert extraction of that bullet (prior to the official autopsy), and then (3) from a combination of pressure on Humes (the chief autopsy doctor) plus careful management of public information. From all this, the appearance was created that (a) the throat wound was an exit and (b ) the bullet that (supposedly) traversed Kennedy’s body back-to-front and which exited at that front of the throat went on to hit Connally. (And, supposedly, was the practically undamaged missile found on the stretcher!). This was the essence of the "final version" of Bethesda autopsy report, which was sent to the Warren Commission on December 20, 1963 (where it was logged in as "Commission Document 77", and then became Warren Commission Exhibit 397) and was then sent to the FBI three days later. I will elaborate on all of this in Final Charade. DSL Note, 4/25/22): Re additional words below: Can be deleted. P.S. And no, no one calls me up in the middle of the night with secret answers to the many puzzles connected with the Kennedy assassination. I have had to do all the work myself. DSL 7/29/15 – 5:45 A.M. PDT (Tweaked w/minor revisions, 4/25/22) Los Angeles, California

(pardon the much-delayed response {!} ). . . Yes, I did. And of course its very significant. By 1996, Jeremy Gunn knew all about the games that Humes played with facts, his expertise with language. Assisted by Doug Horne, who prepared many of the questions, he asked a carefully phrased question which was like a dart aimed right at the heart of the matter. Humes, always mindful (I believe) that he could --conceivably--face legal charges if he lied, fudged a small amount (perhaps); but essentially told the truth. "6:45 pm or 7 o'clock" . . . At 6:45, the Dallas coffin was still in the naval ambulance, which was on Wisconsin Avenue, and heading towards Bethesda, where it arrived at 6:53 or 6:55, depending on whether you go with the time in the SS report or the Washington Star. (See Ch 16 of B.E.) By 7 o'clock, the Dallas coffin was sitting in the naval ambulance, now parked out in front. Jacqueline Kennedy and RFK had exited the ambulance and had entered Bethesda. At 7:12 (as I recall. . could be off by a few minutes). . Admiral Calvin Galloway entered the ambulance and drove off. (See Ch 16, B.E.; reported by the Washington Post, as I recollect). Thence followed the "ambulance chase" - - see Chapter 16 of Best Evidence, based on my interviews with the MDW tri-service casket team. Finally, keep in mind that Dennis David --who witnessed the offload of the shipping casket from the black hearse at the back--told me that the shipping casket arrived "a good 20 minutes" before the arrival of the naval ambulance at the front, which he witnessed, because (after its arrival) he went to the front, and was upstairs, on the 2nd floor, and could witness the arrival of the naval ambulance Finally (part 2) - the Boyajian report (which was "discovered" by the ARRB** and was publicized in its public releases, and then extensively discussed in Doug Horne's 5-volume book) states that the body (meaning the shipping casket which contained the body) was delivered at 6:35 p.m. ** See "Footnote" at the tail end of this post So--concerning the "arrival time"-- the account of Dennis David and Boyajian are consistent with one another; and both are certainly consistent with Humes' ARRB testimony that the time he first "saw" the body "was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately." DSL 7/29/15 - 4:35 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California ** FOOTNOTE: The Boyajian report was first made public by the ARRB, through the good efforts of Doug Horne.It is a vital historical document, and provides strong support--if not complete validation--of the account of Dennis David, who was a "legal lynchpin" of Best Evidence and was the subject of Chapter 25 of Best Evidence. Dennis David--students of the assassination will recall--knew that the body was delivered at the morgue loading dock (at the back of Bethesda) some 20 minutes before the arrival of the naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and the Dallas coffin (which was empty) at the front. My discovery of Dennis David on July 2, 1979 changed the entire structure of the ending of Best Evidence. Besides Chapter 25, Dennis David can be seen--on video--in Best Evidence: The Research Video, now available on the Internet. But back to the Boyajian document, which has proved to be so important; because there is a not-so-nice back-story about its discovery. The Back Story: This terribly critical document was in fact discovered some 18 months before the ARRB was notified of its existence. It was discovered by a JFK researcher who--for purely personal reasons--withheld the document from me for well over a year; and in fact, delayed so long that its use in cross examining FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill was seriously compromised. This same researcher, during this period, maintained a pseudo relationship with me (i.e., was in superficial contact with me, while holding --that is, "withholding"--a vital "missing piece" of the chain-of-possession puzzle, which this researcher well knew would validate a critical part of my book). During this same period, this researcher also had contact --some of it in person, in Washington--with ARRB staff, advising them not to pay attention to me or to Best Evidence, as I had nothing to offer (!). The deliberate withholding of the Boyajian document for about a year and a half--by a JFK researcher who remained in touch with me, and who fully understood its importance, i.e., that it strongly supported (if not definitively validated) the account of Dennis David (Chapter 25 of Best Evidence) --will be discussed in another writing. It is a stunning example of a lack of ethics and collegiality in the JFK research community.

As detailed in my 2013 presentation, the Harper fragment's disappearance was most probably related to its having both entrance and exit beveling, and its proving the fatal head shot was a tangential shot. Well, this, in turn, suggested there'd been two shots to the head, and two shooters. As far as Cairns...it's grossly unfair to assume Cairns would ever have testified as to the fragment's being occipital bone. He speculated as to the location of the bone based upon a brief inspection, at a time when many of the news reports were claiming Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. There is no reason whatsoever to believe he would have stuck to his opinion after viewing photos showing no hole on the back of the head, or after speaking with a forensic anthropologist...THE experts when it comes identifying bone fragments. I'm not sure I understand your argument, and wonder if you would clarify. 1. Is it not the case that three doctors--Dr. Harper, Dr. Cairns, and Dr. Noteboom--all concurred that the piece of bone was occipital bone? 2. Regarding your speculation as to what Doctor Cairns "would have" testified to, after --hypothetically--"viewing photos showing no hole in the back of the head", I find this argument seriously flawed. Just about everyone who saw the President's body in Dallas on November 22 --and who wrote a report or was interviewed by the press or testified--said that the large wound they observed was (a) located at the back of the head and (b ) was an exit. There is no indication whatsoever in the original Parkland Hospital medical reports that President Kennedy was shot from behind. (Surely, you are aware of that?) The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind*, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1963. *As originally posted,this read: "from the front". That was an error. Aside from the record the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses created, both Pat Valentino and I showed a number of these doctors and nurses the autopsy photographs: myself, in December 1982, and both Pat and I [did so] in January 1983. All of this is laid out in detail in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). Almost uniformly, their reaction to being shown these photographs was to reject them as being valid. To shake their head from side to side and say, in effect, "No, that's not what I saw." Or: That's not what "we" saw For whatever reason, you seem to be living in a reality which (a) rejects the first (and very official) record of the Dallas doctors and (b ) rejects their reaction when shown the autopsy photographs years later. For whatever reason, and I suspect its related to your belief that the autopsy photographs are genuine--which seems to be the basis for all your theorizing--you then seem to feel free to speculate on "what would have happened" had doctors you never interviewed were called to testify at a hypothetical legal proceeding, and were shown evidence that just about every medical observer I ever interviewed claimed to be false. Based on my own interviews, and my own study of the Parkland record, I think the outcome of such a hypothetical legal proceeding would have been entirely different than what you claim. My Interview with Dr. Kemp Clark in January 1983 You are welcome to this journey in your (hypothetical) time machine, of course, but Pat Valentino and I personally sat down with many of these folks (again, in January 1983) and can report--based on a reality-based experience--that they rejected these photographs. One other matter: in the later years of his life, Dr. Kemp Clark permitted himself to be interviewed, at some length, by a third party--apparently to set the record straight. He only wanted two questions answered, before he would agree to the interview: (1) Are you a lawyer? (2) Are you an author? Satisfied that the answers to both were "no", he then agreed to the in-person meeting, and to be questioned. Dr. Clark maintained that President Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the throat, and the other in the head, by a shot that caused the exit at the back of the head, exposing the cerebellum etc. (Reminder: Clark was there; he pronounced JFK dead). You'll be reading more about this in Final Charade. Again, you are certainly entitled to your views that the autopsy photos are authentic, and to build a reality based upon that, and to then proceed to posit various hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical journeys in a time machine, and to postulate the outcome of hypothetical legal proceedings that could have or might have occurred. But Pat Valentino and I sat down with Dr. Clark--for at least an hour--in January 1983, and I/we have had the experiences enumerated above. I'm sorry, but --based on the available evidence and the legitimate historical record (and not on postulated hypothetical proceedings that might have taken place in some alternate reality) --I reject the autopsy photographs as representing an authentic view of the back of President Kennedy's head at the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital. Consequently, I agree with Dr. Clark that President Kennedy was shot in the head from the front, and I reject the various hypothetical outcomes you posit from journeys in your hypothetical time machine. I think they are better suited to a description of a discussion that Capt Kirk, and Spock might have had during a coffee break on the Enterprise (if, between attacks by aliens, they were shooting the breeze about the Kennedy assassination) and not to a reality-based analysis of the legal record suitable for a university seminar on American history. DSL 7/28/15 = 5:40 pm PDT Tweaked 7/29/15; approx 2 a.m. PDT; tweaked 4/25/22, 11:55 PM Los Angeles, California

Haven't they already been "dead" for five decades? All Mantik has done is bounce the rubble. b Cliff (and to anyone else who follows the issue of the Harper fragment): In connection with writing Best Evidence, I collected everything there was on the Harper Fragment--A file that ran close to 200 pages, as I recall--and boiled it down to a good writeup of just over 3 pages in Chapter 22 of Best Evidence, with its own breaker titled (of course) "The Harper Fragment." My own conclusion (and I, too, had to deal with Dr. Angel's incorrect report for the HSCA): This leaves the following question for history to decide: Whose identification of the Harper fragment is more reliable--that of Dr. A. B. Cairns, who actually held the bone in his hand and examined it, and said it was occipital bone, an opinion concurred in by two other [Dallas] doctors who also saw the bone? Or the memorandum of Dr. Angel?" If the Harper fragment is occipital bone, then that is deadly for the "official" conclusions in two areas (or, stated differently, for two different reasons): 1) The Harper Fragment is then medico-legal evidence that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front (i.e., 2nd assassin, etc.) 2) If its occipital bone, the Harper Fragment then establishes that the official X-rays in this case have been falsified, because on those X-rays, the occipital bone --at the bottom of the back of the head--is clearly visible on the body. Obviously, the Harper fragment can't be lying in the grass in Dealey Plaza for a day or and also be present on JFK's skull on the night of his autopsy. As readers of Best evidence know, item one raises the issue of a "second gunman"; but --as far as I'm concerned--its item two that raises the truly most significant issue of all: fraud in the evidence. DSL 7/28/15 - 7:10 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Excuses excuses, Greg Parker. Despite all the huffing and puffing, you have not addressed the data as I have clearly laid it out in my post. Further, please don't imply that I am a supporter of Armstrong, because I most definitely am not. Moreover, I have made that fact clear --over the years--on any number of occasions. I do not subscribe to the "doppleganger" theory, as laid out in Armstrong's work. And my record on my opposition to the way Armstrong has interpreted the record is crystal clear. Remember: I had personal contact with Armstrong for several months in 1995, and found it impossible to communicate with him on the case, because every inconsistency was interpreted as a "second Oswald." Now back to the period that Oswald was at 1026 Beckley Street: Your objections notwithstanding, the FBI interview of Brand--about someone whose last name was "Lee" and who lived across the street at Beckley, and who had not yet purchased a car (but was intending to): all of that, when combined with the Bogard account of Oswald test driving a Mercury Comet in that same period, is important circumstantial evidence that the Lee Oswald who test drove the Mercury Comet is the same person who inquired about buying automobile liability insurance, and who spoke with Brand at Tower Insurance, during that same time period. You can complain, and yell and scream all you want Greg Parker: the basic facts will not go away. And, for the rest of the picture, all one needs to do is keep in mind that Lee was taking some driving lessons from Ruth Paine, and even was intending to get a driver's license on November 9th, but missed that appointment and arrived at the Texas DMV office after it had closed. Returning to the Brand FBI interview, please don't forget the way Brand left it with the FBI on that date: QUOTE: he did recognize OSWALD's photograph as being the individual who contacted him regarding insurance under the name of O. H. Lee. UNQUOTE What do you want? Greg Parker. As a friend of mine here in L.A. would say: "Must I send flowers?" Or, as Posner would say: Case Closed. DSL 6/23/15 - 5:35 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Sometimes, i agree with a person in one area, even if I am in complete disagreement with that person in another. And that applies here, to Greg Parker's general remarks about Bogard. FWIW: I believe that Bogard dealt with the real Lee Oswald, and there was no impersonation. For the life of me, Don, I have no idea why you keep insisting that this and that events are impersonations, when it is simply the real Lee Oswald living his real life; and unaware, of course, that he was being used, and the end of the road was a short distance away. In the case of the test drive of the car, and his intent to purchase one, Greg Parker omitted a fact which is quite relevant: sometime in the first week or two following the assassination, the FBI turned up evidence that Oswald visited an insurance agent, and inquired about buying automobile liability insurance. The fellow's name was--as i recollect--Brand. Are you unaware of that? The notion that there was "two Oswalds" and that that concept has to be invoked to "explain" why Oswald would want to buy a car is unnecessary and, imho, just plain silly. And while I'm on the subject of impersonation: I also believe that Oswald --yes, the real Oswald--visited Odio. ODIO One can't address the Odio situation properly unless one takes into account Oswald's visit to the Austin office Selective Service, where he spent about 30 minutes speaking with Ms. Lee Dannelly. That visit (according to Ms. Dannelly) occurred shortly after noon on Wednesday, September 25th, and --unless Ms. Dannelly was hallucinating, that visit with Oswald establishes that Lee Oswald had airplane transportation on the morning of Wed., 9/25; that he flew from New Orleans to Austin (almost certainly for "other" reasons); and, while there, dropped by the Selective Service office and saw Ms. Dannelly. The Dannelly story was first investigated and reported by Ron Dugger, in the Texas Observor; then she was interviewed, in detail, by the FBI. She most definitely should have been called as a WC witness--but was not. I interviewed her in 1991. And while on the subject of Oswald and "air transportation": Another piece of evidence bearing on Oswald's "itinerary" during this very period was when he called Horace Twiford, of the Socialist Labor Party, on his way back from Dallas to Houston (where he boarded the bus going south). Mr. Twiford, a seaman, was "out at sea," but his wife took the call; and she told the FBI that Oswald said he was "flying to Mexico". Note: ". . . flying to Mexico. . ." No, he didn't go to Mexico by plane; but clearly, "flying" was on LHO's mind. The "traditional" way of interpreting all this data--going back decades to the time of Popkin's "Second Oswald"--is that all of this was the work of an imposter. IMHO: That is flat out wrong. And finally, for what its worth (and sorry, Don), I also believe that Lee and Marina visited that furniture store. Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Marina says"--that's another canard. Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Ruth or Michael Paine say"--another canard. All of this is the outgrowth of the oversimplified view of Oswald which began in the 1960s--that he was just some ordinary lefty worker, living his ordinary lefty life, while evil forces pounced on his existence, and --through an evil imposter--created the false impression that, for example, he was (he thought) coming into money, and might be genuinely looking into buying a car; or buying furniture; or moving into an apartment with his wife. I hope you do realize, Don, that Lee thought he had a future; and did not think he was going to die on November 22, 1963. As a novelist, I'm sure you do realize that. . . so why do you insist on "connecting the dots" in this totally incorrect way? DSL 6/22/15 - 4:10 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California Wrong. I knew about it. It was not Oswald. In my opinion, it was Herbert Lee (H. Lee - who, unlike LHO, actually did live at the N Beckley Boarding House). I refuse to use something just because it would boost my theory. Here is the document. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408&relPageId=176&search=%22tower_insurance%22 Note that it starts out stating that the person identified himself as OH Lee and lived at the Johnson's b/h. It also says he had come from San Antonio. Neither LHO nor Herbert had come from there. They had both come from Louisiana, so that can be put to down to either the person lying, or Brand misremembering. This person produced a license in the surname Lee. Note now that brand says he could not recall if the initials were OH. I believe it was just "H". Also ask yourself why LHO would be looking to buy a car in his real name but seeking insurance for it under an alias and having a license in that fake name. The document finishes by saying that after the assassination, Brand didn't recognize Oswald as the person he had dealt with. He only put it together after he learned Oswald had supposedly lived at that address under the name OH Lee. QUOTE: I think it depends on how one reads the FBI interview of Brand, which is dated 12/2/63. The closing paragraph states: "Brand concluded by saying he did not immediately recognize Lee Harvey Oswald's photograph in the Dallas newspapers, or on television, until after reading OSWALD had in the past used the name LEE, at which time he did recognize OSWALD's photograph as being the individual who contacted him regarding insurance under the name of O. H. Lee." UNQUOTE Well Greg. . . I disagree with your analysis. I think that last sentence speaks for itself. Brand in fact recognized Oswald from the photograph; and Oswald was in fact registered at the rooming house with a last name of "Lee." Also, please note: If another living person --e.g., "Herbert Lee"--had inquired about buying automobile liability insurance with Edward Brand, then the FBI almost certainly would have had a followup interview that person, and that FBI 302 would be in the file. In other words, Herbert Lee would have been interviewed, and that person (.e.g. Herbert Lee) would have said: "Yes, that was me." As far as I know, there is no such follow-up interview. Therefore, I find it persuasive that Lee Oswald--using the I.D. "O H Lee" during that very period (and intending to buy a car)--in fact inquired about buying automobile liability insurance from Edward Brand at Tower Insurance approximately two weeks before JFK's assassination. Furthermore, there is one other detail which you have failed to mention: Brand notes that he had "inquired of LEE what type of car he owned" and that Lee "replied he did not own a car, but intended to buy one in the near future." That, of course, is perfectly consistent with his behavior with Bogard, when he test drove the Mercury Comet. Also keep in mind: According to Brand (as reported in this FBI interview): "This individual . . stated (that) he resided directly across the street in a rooming house owned by A. C. Johnson." So. . let's see how all this adds up: a) He lived across the street in the rooming house owned by A.C. Johnson ( b ) He was registered there under the name O H Lee c) He did not own a car (yet) but was intending to buy one. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. .. methinks its a duck. Yes, sure sounds like Lee H. Oswald. The only detail that does not fit is when he told Brand that (quoting the FBI report) "he had just moved to Dallas from San Antonio, Texas." But I find that understandable. Certainly, LHO would not want to say, "Oh yes, I was in New Orleans, where I was parading around as a supporter of Fidel Castro"; or "Oh yes, I lived in Minsk, USSR, for 2 plus years. . . and if you check the news clippings, you will see that I said that I hated America and wanted to remain in Russia for the rest of my life." Such behavior would not be designed to get the lowest insurance rates. (Even a Geico agent might not save you that 15% which appears in all their ads). Greg Parker: I am so glad to see that you "refuse to use something just because it would boost my theory." How noble of you. The question is: in your zeal to be the perfect researcher and theoretician, perhaps you are ignoring data that supports the most obvious hypothesis. Quack quack. . DSL 6/22/15 - 2 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Karl: You write: "IMO JFKs proposal for a joint effort ( USA-SU)to reach the moon, in his UNO Speech on 20.9.1963 had nothing to do with an alien presence on earth. . ." To which I respond: How do you know? Don't you think its a bit extraordinary that--with all the Cold War tensions--JFK would 'reach out' like that to the Soviet Union? And then, look at the NSAM he wrote, and the people to whom it was addressed. Don't you find all this a bit, er, unusual? DSL

Well, I don't agree with Armstrong's Harvey and Lee analysis, or his theory, or his methodology---and I'm certainly not a lone nutter. DSL

What?? The case for conspiracy is prima facie and has been with us from the beginning. Anyone who is "scrambling" to "prove" conspiracy is someone who isn't in possession of the physical facts of the case. The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound. 2 shooters proven. Many have concluded otherwise -- no one can factually argue otherwise. No one. The US gov't, the corporate media, and the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community have been suppressing/ignoring/dismissing the physical evidence since the night of the autopsy when the doctors weren't allowed to observe JFK's clothes. CT/LN Pet Theorists despise the physical evidence in this case. A relentless focus on the clothing evidence arouses dark & incredible passions in places like ROKC where folks like Lee Farley and Hasan Yusuf claim I deserve to have my head kicked in for this relentless focus. It's a murder case -- physical evidence is always paramount in a murder case. But not this one! So Greg Parker is finally going to "answer" a question that was answered officially in the office of Arlen Specter almost 50 years ago. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WCTandAS.html Gaeton Fonzi rolls in his grave... Cliff: I agree with you. The clothing holes proves the official version to be false. Of course--and I'm sure you know this--this point was argued by Vincent Salandria in his original articles in Liberation Magazine (Spring 1965); and Gaeton Fonzi emphasized the point in his interviews with Arlen Specter, and the original article he published in Philadelphia Magazine. I have always wondered whether Arlen Specter was obstinate and/or incompetent, or simply knowingly complicit in developing a false solution to the crime, and then going on and defending it for the rest of his life. DSL 6/22/15 - 4:30 am. PDT Los Angeles, California

Sometimes, i agree with a person in one area, even if I am in complete disagreement with that person in another. And that applies here, to Greg Parker's general remarks about Bogard. FWIW: I believe that Bogard dealt with the real Lee Oswald, and there was no impersonation. For the life of me, Don, I have no idea why you keep insisting that this and that events are impersonations, when it is simply the real Lee Oswald living his real life; and unaware, of course, that he was being used, and the end of the road was a short distance away. In the case of the test drive of the car, and his intent to purchase one, Greg Parker omitted a fact which is quite relevant: sometime in the first week or two following the assassination, the FBI turned up evidence that Oswald visited an insurance agent, and inquired about buying automobile liability insurance. The fellow's name was--as i recollect--Brand. Are you unaware of that? The notion that there was "two Oswalds" and that that concept has to be invoked to "explain" why Oswald would want to buy a car is unnecessary and, imho, just plain silly. And while I'm on the subject of impersonation: I also believe that Oswald --yes, the real Oswald--visited Odio. ODIO One can't address the Odio situation properly unless one takes into account Oswald's visit to the Austin office Selective Service, where he spent about 30 minutes speaking with Ms. Lee Dannelly. That visit (according to Ms. Dannelly) occurred shortly after noon on Wednesday, September 25th, and --unless Ms. Dannelly was hallucinating, that visit with Oswald establishes that Lee Oswald had airplane transportation on the morning of Wed., 9/25; that he flew from New Orleans to Austin (almost certainly for "other" reasons); and, while there, dropped by the Selective Service office and saw Ms. Dannelly. The Dannelly story was first investigated and reported by Ron Dugger, in the Texas Observor; then she was interviewed, in detail, by the FBI. She most definitely should have been called as a WC witness--but was not. I interviewed her in 1991. And while on the subject of Oswald and "air transportation": Another piece of evidence bearing on Oswald's "itinerary" during this very period was when he called Horace Twiford, of the Socialist Labor Party, on his way back from Dallas to Houston (where he boarded the bus going south). Mr. Twiford, a seaman, was "out at sea," but his wife took the call; and she told the FBI that Oswald said he was "flying to Mexico". Note: ". . . flying to Mexico. . ." No, he didn't go to Mexico by plane; but clearly, "flying" was on LHO's mind. The "traditional" way of interpreting all this data--going back decades to the time of Popkin's "Second Oswald"--is that all of this was the work of an imposter. IMHO: That is flat out wrong. And finally, for what its worth (and sorry, Don), I also believe that Lee and Marina visited that furniture store. Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Marina says"--that's another canard. Please don't invoke the much overused cliche "you can't trust anything Ruth or Michael Paine say"--another canard. All of this is the outgrowth of the oversimplified view of Oswald which began in the 1960s--that he was just some ordinary lefty worker, living his ordinary lefty life, while evil forces pounced on his existence, and --through an evil imposter--created the false impression that, for example, he was (he thought) coming into money, and might be genuinely looking into buying a car; or buying furniture; or moving into an apartment with his wife. I hope you do realize, Don, that Lee thought he had a future; and did not think he was going to die on November 22, 1963. As a novelist, I'm sure you do realize that. . . so why do you insist on "connecting the dots" in this totally incorrect way? DSL 6/22/15 - 4:10 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Doug: I watched the entire show. It was very interesting, and I hope others on this forum will watch it too. John Simkin should be pleased with the recognition you gave him, and to this forum, in general--and thanks to those who have permitted its continued existence on the Internet. When time permits, I will reply to you privately by email; meanwhile, here are some comments: 1. You ought to get a better picture of yourself for this forum. A frame grab from the TV show would be helpful. The photo posted here does not do you justice--at all. The TV image shows you as a senior citizen off the pages of Esquire magazine. My advice: get a better picture! 2. Until I watched this show, I really had no idea how you came to be involved with Howard Hunt or Billie Sol Estes. This show offers much clarification; and completely undercuts the notion that you were "just a CIA lawyer" (or some such thing). I wonder how many people understand the true story of how you came to be involved with Howard Hunt; and then later with Estes. (You sound like the legal equivalent of Forrest Gump of the 70s and 80s). 3. Until I watched this show, I had never heard about Howard Hunt's remarks to you as to "why" Kennedy was assassinated. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I'd never heard anything like that (i.e., the reason he offered). I'm sort of curious as to why his proffered "explanation" should be accepted. Was he just "theorizing" on his own? If not, how did he come by such, er, exotic information? (Because, if we don't have an answer to that question, then how can we evaluate his credibility on that particular issue?) 4. I believe I am the one who discovered NSAM 271 (dated 11/12/63)--many years ago--and sent it to someone connected with JFK's interest in the UFO issue. And then it made the rounds. Yes, I believe it to be a very important NSAM, spelling out to many top government officials Kennedy's (original) intent to cooperate with the Soviets in space and very likely in going to the moon--and making this very clear statement on November 12, 1963. Your interviewer--Ray Hill--is absolutely correct when he said that such a policy would have infuriated the Texas right wing; and it did. (I have documentary evidence about that, and pursued it at some length). 5. You made a passing reference to the Brooking Institute study on what the effect would be if it were revealed that there was an "alien presence" (as you so delicately put it). But what you did not do (and I don't know why not) is actually obtain a copy of the Brookings study. Some 20 years ago, I obtained a copy of that study; and what is remarkable about it is that here is President Kennedy--with only his thousand days to govern, and so many other weighty issues on his mind--actually requesting Brookings to do such a study. I am writing this from memory, but its my recollection that Kennedy actually requested that study. When that is joined with NSAM 271, it brings a whole new dimension to the fore, in discussing JFK's death. Kennedy was a very forward looking man with a huge "curiosity about everything" --my quotes. So it does not surprise me at all that he would order the Brookings study; and personally be involved in assessing the potential impact of an "alien presence." Also: it puts his decisions about Vietnam, Cuba, etc. in a new and different context. I'm sorry you didn't bring the Brookings study to your TV appearance, and actually show pages of it on camera. When it is joined to NSAM 271, it cast a new light (or shadow?) on Kennedy's assassination. I know that Doug Horne told me--based on his conversations with Dino Brugnioni--that Kennedy had an intense interest in the subject. Insofar as the assassination is concerned, the important question is not one's position on UFO's, but whether Kennedy believed it to be a significant issue, and whether that was used (by his detractors, such as Hunt) to "paint him in a false light" (to use the language of tort law) and to undermine his credibility. Again, the Brookings study would have been useful to join with NSAM 271. 6. In private email, I will tell you why I believe Corso is not credible--and is just a story-teller. 7. In private email, I will explain to you my own personal relationship with someone who was very high up in the SDI program--very high indeed--and why his behavior on the subject (in private, with me) supports the idea that something important is being kept secret. 8. The assertions about Lyndon Johnson at the beginning of the interview are not new, but are damning. The question I have--and which was not addressed--is why, after Asst AG Trott made the offer to Estes--that Estes did not follow up and permit himself to be interviewed in detail. It would appear that after all the sexy assertions, he backed down when it came time to "put up or shut up", and I wonder what you might have to say about that. 9. I'm curious to what the record shows--and what you might believe--on the subject of just when it was that President Kennedy and his brother became aware of the serious evidence that might be "out there" that linked LBJ to the murder of Henry Marshall, the supposed official who committed suicide by firing 5 (or more?) shots at himself with a bolt action rifle. (And what role that may have played in their coming to a private decision that "Lyndon had to go" (insofar as his being on the 1964 ticket was concerned). All in all, a very interesting and provocative interview. Doug: you have an important story to tell; and I wonder if you have considered getting it all down in manuscript form, and publishing a book about it. Your Houston TV appearance could be on DVD, tucked into the book's jacket. Just a suggestion. DSL 6/15/15 - 10:45 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Its my understanding, from talking to someone who studied Dulles' calendar (which is at the Princeton University library) that he was at Camp Perry on November 22. This could be wrong, but that's what I was told. DSL

Steve: Prompted by your post, I went to Amazon looking for "The Improbable Triumvirate"--which I remember seeing many years ago. The listing there says it was published in 1984 (by Norton); but--for reasons I do not understand--its not " $ 0.01" or a bit more; rather, even a used copy is up in the vicinity of 38 pounds. Yikes! (And then comes shipping). I'm curious as to where you obtained your copy, because perhaps --with that information---I can order one via Interlibary Loan. Please reply to me directly at dsl74@cornell.edu Many thanks. DSL 5/24/15 - 5:15 a.m. pdt Los Angeles, California