David Lifton

Agreed: Dulles did not visit the ranch the weekend before the assassination; more precisely, the picture showing Dulles and LBJ and Ladybird at the ranch that was published in the Fort Worth Press about 5 days before Kennedy's November 22 visit to Dallas was taken in July 1960 after Kennedy's nomination, and after LBJ was announced as his running mate. Shortly thereafter, Dulles went to the ranch in connection with the (relatively) new law that the candidates would be briefed by the CIA.' I remember how excited I was--some forty years ago--when I first saw the photograph in question, published in the Fort Worth Press about five days before JFK's visit; but then it turned out the picture was from July 1960 (I don't recall now how that was determined) and there was quite a let down. DSL 5/22/15 - 3:50 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California P.S. One other thing: Dulles' first name --contrary to the title of this thread--is spelled "Allen," not "Alan." FWIW.

Robert Oswald had thoroughly imperfect recollections of where his brother attended various schools. For example: in early news interviews (in Oct/November 1959, when Lee's defection first become public), Robert was interviewed and incorrectly stated that Lee attended Arlington Heights High School for a year--that's right, for a year. In fact, after Lee and his mother moved from New Orleans to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956, Lee signed up for school at Arlington Heights High School on September 5, 1956, and then withdrew on September 28--that's three weeks plus 2 calendar days. Yet, for whatever reason, Robert erroneously recollected that his brother attended Arlington Heights H.S. for a year. So, when Robert said--and I believe he did--in a 1959 newspaper interview that Lee had attended Stripling, then of course the FBI--having seen that statement--might very well have called at Stripling (in good faith) to retrieve such records. Robert Oswald's statements about Lee's attendance at Stripling and about attending Arlington Heights H.S. (for a year) are both incorrect. Lee never attended Stripling; and he was only registered at Arlington Heights HS for about 3 weeks. But, to followers of John Armstrong, the assumption is made (or the presumption is made) that whatever Robert said was the truth; and (therefore) that the existing records were false or were doctored to hide something. In other words, for Armstrong followers, this kind of thing constitutes "evidence" that something is being hidden, that there was a "second Oswald" etc etc. This kind of "reasoning" occurs with Stripling, with tax records,. .whatever. Whenever Armstrong wants to make the evidence "go away," he argues it was falsified. I had some intense personal contact with Armstrong for a few months in 1995, and I found this persistent inability to explain practically any inconsistency in terms other than a "second Oswald" as really annoying. Let me spell this out: if two people look at the President's windshield at two different times, and each is a credentialed observer, and one sees a hole and the other doesn't, then that may well constitute credible evidence of a windshield switch. And the same applies when credible observers differ on the President's wounds, and both were looking at the same body, but the observations were separated by, say , 5 hours. However: when Robert Oswald "says" his brother attended Stripling, and that is not supported by the documentary record; then he was simply in error. When Robert Oswald says that his brother attended Arlington Heights H.S. "for a year" but the record clearly establishes that he was registered there for only 23 days, then the documentary record is the better evidence--and one should not taking Robert Oswald's erroneous observations as the "truth" and constructing a "second Oswald" out of that data. And, my favorite example: when Palmer McBride --who worked with Oswald at pfisterer Dental Labs in the Spring of 1956--mistakenly said that he knew Lee Oswald in 1958, when the employment and tax records at Pfisterer Dental Labs clearly indicate that the year was 1956, one should not be postulating a "second Oswald." But this is the sort of thing that is spread across page after page of "Harvey and Lee" and constitutes the "evidence" for Armstrong's various hypotheses. Sometimes I wish that those who have immersed themselves in such "data" and have spent years constructing different rooms in this castle in the air, would have attended law school and taken a good course in "Evidence" or had read a good book on Evidence. From personal experience, I can say that Armstrong is someone who simply mines the records for inconsistencies, and uses them to shape and support his various hypotheses. I've maintained that for years, and my position is no different today. Yes, I'm aware that here and there, he comes up with some factoids that are useful--even, in some cases, important--but basically, what i have described is essentially the way he functions, and that's why his overall theory has little validity (or relevance). For the most part, it could be used as a textbook for a graduate school history seminar, on how "not" to analyze evidence. DSL 5/18/15 - 6:30 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. Re the statement: "Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald." Priscilla Johnson's interview with Oswald was on Monday evening, November 16. Re the photograph: I don't believe that the CIA provided any photographs of Oswald at the time of his defection. It has always been my understanding that Mosby took a picture of Oswald on either 10/31 when she first called upon him, at his hotel; or on Saturday, 11/14, when she met with him a second time (and which was the basis for the next day's article ("Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs"--doing this from memory). The picture of Oswald dressed in a nice suit is currently owned--I believe--by UPI. They have the wrong date on it (11/17, as I recall). I believe I have seen the picture of Lee Oswald (hands on hips) standing against the background of the frame house, and that it was associated with the original publicity concerning the defection (i.e., 10/31 or in the days immediately following). DSL 5/15/15 - 8 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California DSL - The photo taken on Oct 31, if there was one, would not be the same as one taken in Japan while in the marines, right? The Marine photo had to have been acquired somewhere... from Oswald? the photographer? how would that photo have gotten to that newspaper? Did Oswald bring his USMC clothes to Russia? I would assume--and its just an assumption on my part--that when Robert Oswald was interviewed, he supplied some photos ('snapshots" as they were called, in those days) of Lee. Robert would have had photos of Lee taken while Lee was in the Marines; and he almost certainly had photos of Lee from when he had visited--on one occasion or another--while he was in the Marines. DSL 5/18/15 - 6 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, Ca

There are (probably) many things I disagreed with Jack White about, but he and I got along fine, and there were clearly many things we agreed upon. Also, Jack White, being from Texas, was clearly skeptical of the character and motivations of Lyndon Johnson, years--if not decades--before it became "fashionable" to go down that path. Bottom line, and FWIW: I don't think Jack White would ever alter a photograph to advance his own, or another's research. That was simply not in his character. He might disagree with you on the interpretation of something, but he would never alter evidence. FWIW: That's my opinion. DSL 5/18/15 - 5:55 p.m. Los Angeles, California

Don: Just open an account at "photobucket" on the web. James Gordon explained that to me, and I did it. Its easy. Then you have a "link" which you can paste into your post. Click on the link, and up comes the image. DSL

Mark, Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street." Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation." As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location. It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter). DSL 5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California An obvious explanation for all the interest "down the street" while Baker or some other policeman is running towards the TSBD front door: that's where JFK's limo was when the shots rang out and people hit the ground and others started yelling or screaming. Due to the confusing acoustics of Dealy Plaza, most who realized that Kennedy had been shot (or shot at) would have naturally assumed that the shooter was down there somewhere, too. --Tommy Sorry, Tommy, but the shots rang out after the limo had passed the TSBD. Correct, Ray. DSL pointed out that most people near the TSBD were interested in what was going on down on Elm Street (and the Grassy Knoll area) right after the shots rang out, and the fact that Officer Baker was apparently more concerned that the sniper might be inside the TSBD kinda sticks out like a sore thumb. Why was Baker practically the only person whose actions, as caught on film, suggest that he somehow "knew" that the shots had come from inside the TSBD or perhaps its roof? I personally can't see how a bunch of pigeons' leaving the roof of the TSBD, as Baker claimed, would have suggested to him that the shots had been fired from that building, to the exclusion of all of the other nearby buildings. Did Dealey Plaza's pigeons only hang out on the roof of the TSBD, or did some of them hang out on the roof of the DalTex Building or any of the other nearby buildings? If so, didn't those also take off upon hearing / "feeling" the gunshots, or were they so totally laid back and so nonplussed by the "far away" gunshots that they continued to do whatever pigeons do on rooftops? In other words, why only the TSBD? Did Jack Dougherty put some bread crumbs up there every lunchtime, and therefore most or all of the Dealey Plaza pigeons happened to be there at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63? Or was Baker's unspoken assumption correct -- pigeons only suddenly leave those buildings that gunshots are fired from inside of? Maybe we need some input by a big city pigeon behaviorist here. --Tommy For those following this particular issue: keep in mind that in his original handwritten statement, Baker mentioned nothing about pigeons. Nada. He simply stated that he ran to the building because he "thought" or "believed" the shots came from there. At some point in the next 12-24 hours, someone must have had a talk with him and made it clear that his original statement was insufficient, and lacked any semblance of containing "probable cause" to justify what he did. So when interviewed just hours later, his later statement contained the "pigeon" story. Had this been a more in-depth (or more perceptive) investigation, a good attorney would have pursued this change, put Baker under oath and asked for an explanation --indeed, demanded an explanation--as to why his original statement was worded as it was, and just what it was that caused him to come up with the "I saw pigeons flying" explanation. If/when time permits, I will return to this post and insert the exact quote from Baker's original statement so anyone can see Baker's switch from his original statement to the "I saw pigeons" story. DSL 5/17/15 - 1:20 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Um, David, Frankenstein has clearly been posted over the top of the original photo in an attempt to "differentiate" "Lee" from "Harvey"This is from the book: Why weren't you aware that Armstrong claims the photo came from the CIA? Which is just rubbish. It has to be the work of Jack White. Re the statement: "Priscilla Johnson was the 2nd person to interview Oswald, but not until November 15, and there was no indication she took a photograph of Oswald." Priscilla Johnson's interview with Oswald was on Monday evening, November 16. Re the photograph: I don't believe that the CIA provided any photographs of Oswald at the time of his defection. It has always been my understanding that Mosby took a picture of Oswald on either 10/31 when she first called upon him, at his hotel; or on Saturday, 11/14, when she met with him a second time (and which was the basis for the next day's article ("Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs"--doing this from memory). The picture of Oswald dressed in a nice suit is currently owned--I believe--by UPI. They have the wrong date on it (11/17, as I recall). I believe I have seen the picture of Lee Oswald (hands on hips) standing against the background of the frame house, and that it was associated with the original publicity concerning the defection (i.e., 10/31 or in the days immediately following). DSL 5/15/15 - 8 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is available on microfilm, so that should be easy to verify. (Added later in the day: When I wrote the above, I had in mind getting the whole reel of microfilm on Interlibrary Loan. However, if all that is needed is to get a copy of this one story, one can call the Ft Worth Library, ask for the reference desk, and arrange for them to take their roll of the film, locate this story, and make a printout. I do not know what the fees would be. But my impression is that it would be modest. They would then remit the image via email or one could request that a photocopy be sent by ordinary mail.) I have another question: Quoted in the post is the report of one of the Soviet doctors who is quoted as saying "A 'show' suicide,' since he was refused political asylum, which he had been demanding." I have never seen that quote before, and--as I recall--I examined the Soviet medical records as turned over by the USSR to the US Government in December, 1963. Does anyone know the source of the statement that it was a ". . 'show' suicide..." quote? Thanks. DSL 5/15/15 - 8:30 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Mark, Yes, I am aware of that thread, primarily because I am interested in the Darnell film, and because those exhibits show Officer Baker running towards the building and the steps into the building, while the focus of everyone else appears to be "down the street." Many people are unaware that although Baker came up with an explanation that he ran into the building because he saw pigeons flying off the roof, that was not his "first day" explanation; in the very first draft of his statement, he said something to the effect (this is from memory) that he "thought" the shots came from an upstairs window, and that was his "explanation." As to the image over on the left hand side, I realize there's an image there--and yes, I have looked at it--but its very indistinct, and certainly not of the quality necessary to make an identification. I notice that most of the posts on that thread do not cite the image in isolation, but rather as part of a wider argument using a process of elimination as to who it might be at that particular location. It has always been my belief that if Oswald was downstairs anywhere on those steps (or near it) at the time, other employees would have mentioned seeing him there. There are no such reports. The only such "early" reports concern him being (possibly) in a nearby storage room, a minute or two following the shooting; and those reports are (historically and legally) far more important (and potent). As I recall, they were not properly followed up by the FBI investigation (or the Warren Commission, for that matter). DSL 5/14/15 - 4 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Whoa, hang on there Kemosabe. The body alteration and the false autopsy report gave "them" a semblance of factual and legal validity? Who's them? The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor? The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint? The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window? The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit? I can understand you wanting to inflate your own importance by overstating the super-coolness of the body alteration theory. But no, Dave. Your statement is silly. Rigged or not, there was plenty of legal and factual validity to LHO's arrest. Seeing as how he was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting, all of this evidence would have most likely been tossed eventually. But at the moment of arrest, frozen in time, there was validity to the action. MV May 13, 2015 7:57 AM PDT Santa Monica, California Mark, You ask “who’s them”? To clarify, I have reworded that paragraph—written rather hurriedly, and very late at night—and perhaps you will now understand the point I was making. With regard to those who made the various discoveries of “the evidence” on the sixth floor, I do not now maintain (and never have said or implied) that the ordinary officers at the lower levels of the Dallas Police Department ‘food chain’ --ordinary uniformed officers in the patrol division--were involved in any plot. I don’t believe that today, and never did. However, its important to understand the dividing line between those who are the deceivers, and those who are deceived. The chief exception I would make to the above statement pertains to the clique of motorcycle officers who rode escort to the presidential limousine; but that is a separate topic. What I have believed—and maintained for decades (see Best Evidence)—is that in a scheme in which the autopsy was falsified (the purpose being in effect to “change the diagram of the shooting,”) then the investigation at the Texas School Book Depository (and the “discovery” of the sniper’s nest) more or less resembles a scavenger hunt designed by those who engineered this deception. When an officer searching the northwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD sees the butt of a rifle protruding from amongst some cartons and says (in effect) “Hey, over here! I found it!”, he is not in any way involved in a conspiracy. He’s simply doing his job. Personal Motive? Your statement attempting to attribute to me a personal motive (“to inflate your own importance”) by writing the post I did is silly and way off point. Oswald’s apprehension at the Texas Theater is arguably legitimate since police were looking for a suspect who ran away from the Tippit murder scene, but –if you know the record—then you should be aware that Oswald was not charged with the crime of JFK's murder until 11:26 p.m. (12:26 p.m. Eastern time), after the FBI agents had left the Bethesda morgue and the autopsy was essentially completed, and after Humes had already articulated—in front of them—his original “conclusions” about the autopsy: that JFK was struck twice from behind. (I stress this point in Best Evidence). Perhaps you are unaware of the time sequence, but these details are critical in understanding the chronology of the unfolding sequence of events and the public statements by the Dallas Police Chief that Oswald’s rifle was identified as the murder weapon. The Time Sequence (re the "ballistic match" between alleged murder weapon and retrieved bullets) Specifically: By Saturday morning, 11/23, in the early a.m., the stretcher bullet from Parkland and the two large fragments found in the presidential limo had arrived at the FBI Laboratory and—when the rifle arrived—would be tested for a ballistic match. Based on the FBI Laboratory Report dated November 23, 1963, he match between the K-1 ("rifle. .with telescope sight Serial No. C2766") and Q 1 (“bullet from stretcher”) and Q2 (“bullet fragment from front seat cushion”) and Q3 (“bullet fragment from beside front seat”) was the basis for the identification of “Oswald’s rifle” as the murder weapon in this case. Also: it was that same FBI Laboratory Report—dated November 23, 1963 (and available in the Dallas Police File and published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission)—that was couriered from the FBI Lab (in Washington) to “Mr. Jesse E. Curry, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas” and which forms the heart of the Government’s ballistic “case against Oswald”. It was that FBI Laboratory report which was the basis for Chief Curry’s statements, the day after the assassination, that the FBI Lab had established that the rifle found on the sixth floor (“of the building where Oswald worked” –my quotes) –a rifle which had been “traced” to Oswald because it had been mail-ordered to his Post Office box the previous March—was the murder weapon. An Incorrect Belief About Oswald’s Whereabouts. . . Undoubtedly the most bizarre part of your post is your statement that Oswald “was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting.” Is that what you believe today, in 2015? I hope you are aware that this has been thoroughly analyzed, dissected and refuted decades ago. Yes, there is a resemblance between the “man in the doorway” and Oswald, and back in the mid-sixties, I used to wonder about that. But then came my work --as "researcher"--on the film Executive Action in 1973. 1973: Executive Action (and the discovery of film footage showing Oswald and Lovelady in the same fame) As researcher on Executive Action (see the film credits), I ordered whatever films were available from the major New York City film libraries. One day, watching the footage of Oswald’s arrival at the DPD under police escort, I was rather astonished to see Oswald being marched right past Billy Lovelady, who was seated in one of the rooms at the DPD. I called over other members of the production team—notably, Ivan Dryer, the film editor—and we all watched the footage. Clearly, the shirts both men were wearing were similar; and there was even a similarity when photographed from this or that angle, but Oswald and Lovelady were two different people; and they were certainly not “twins.” I made arrangements to make 35mm slides of those frames, and subsequently showed them to senior members of the HSCA staff in January 1977. (See the memos presently available at NARA). Robert Groden was then tasked—among other things—with following up. He flew to Colorado, photographed Billy Lovelady in the shirt he was actually wearing that day (not the striped shirt which was an FBI mistake); questioned him, etc.--and it was established beyond any doubt that the man in the doorway was Lovelady. I am not citing the above to ‘inflate” myself, Mark. I am citing the above to establish that you are dead wrong if your beliefs about the Kennedy assassination include the mistaken idea that Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD as the motorcade passed by the building. That is a completely untrue proposition, but no doubt will linger on as an urban legend, and be subscribed to by those who are unfamiliar with the finer details of the evidence of this case, and perhaps are looking for a "simple explanation" to justify their belief in Oswald's innocence. Oswald may well have been telling the truth when he denied "shooting anybody" (I personally believe he was), but the surest way to lose credibility --imho--is to base that belief on the notion that he was "standing in the doorway" at the time of the president's murder. DSL 5/13/15 – 7 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Pat: This investigation of Kennedy’s assassination is akin to a game with many innings. As you well know, unraveling this thing is like peeling off the layers of an onion, because there were a multiplicity of investigations. To describe the opening innings of this “game”, which has gone on for some 50 years, and going back on the time-line to the very beginning--and I am referring here to November 22, 1963 and in the next few days, weeks, and (let's say) two months, we have: a) the initial media reporting (on 11/22/63 and in the days, weeks, and months thereafter) b ) the Dallas Police Department investigation c) The Dallas Sheriff’s investigation d) The FBI investigation—with its initial December 9, 1963 Summary Report (and then its January 12, 1964 Summary Report) e) The Secret Service Report (CD 3, of the Warren Commission) f) The Warren Commission investigation, which commenced—for all practical purposes—in late December 1963, and then really was underway by January 1964. Yes, I’m perfectly well aware that the Warren Commission investigation had serious deficiencies (as you enumerated)—no doubt about that. But that doesn’t address the issue I have raised: the importance of autopsy fraud in creating a “false reality” –in real time, starting on the evening of the assassination, and then going forward in time. Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and then codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report), but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that provided a semblance of authenticity (i.e., of factual and legal validity) to the sniper's nest evidence found within an hour of JFK's murder. Lawyers have a "term of art" which describes the connection (or legal nexus) to which I am referring: the sniper's nest evidence (without a valid autopsy) is arguably "irrelevant"; but with a valid autopsy, it becomes "relevant." Now moving forward (in time) approximately one week. . . I have little doubt that (on November 29, 1963, when he accepted the WC appointment) it was made clear to Earl Warren—when his arm was twisted (by LBJ) and he accepted the job of being chairman of the Commission—that there was some “other reality” lurking beneath the surface. That's what many JFK researchers--myself included--have called the "World War 3 cover story." No doubt Lyndon Johnson scared the wits out of Warren by talking of the possibility of a nuclear war with 40 million dead in the first hour if he (Warren) didn't (a) accept the job and (b ) didn't tread carefully. And no doubt, either deliberately or otherwise, that awareness resulted in a Chief Justice who was very likely aware that there were "other issues" that better be left un-investigated and untouched--i.e., in short, behavior that resulted in a seriously flawed investigation. But. . .so what? That doesn’t change the basic point I was making: that the covert alteration of Kennedy’s body—the removal of bullets and the alteration of wounds—fundamentally changed the story of how he died (compared to the true story that would have emerged had an honest autopsy been conducted immediately after Kennedy was pronounced dead). By comparison: If you affix a “calendar date” to each of the flaws you have cited, none of that compares—in importance—with the falsification of the autopsy results; and the creation—starting the night of Kennedy’s death, and certainly extending to the point where the “final” autopsy report was sent to the Warren Commission (on December 20, 1963) --of a false reality about what actually occurred in Dealey Plaza, a false reality that can be traced back to false "medical facts" ascertained at this thoroughly tainted autopsy proceeding. Your list of Warren Commission “no no’s” only adds to the problem of a blue ribbon legal investigation which –unbeknownst to those conducting it—was based on a false autopsy report containing false medical facts and false conclusions which then resulted in a false (and fraudulent) linkage to a phony sniper’s nest. So. . .please note: I don’t dispute your list of “no no’s”. I’m simply attempting to put it all in context. I'm asserting that your list is completely secondary to the primary issue at hand, and the one that I am emphasizing of being of primary importance: the mechanics of a deception that unfolded in real time starting that night at the Bethesda morgue with ancillary activities at the FBI Laboratory, where "incoming bullets" (and bullet fragments) were ballistically "matched" to "K-1", a rifle that had nothing to do with the actual shooting. That's where the investigation went off the rails. That's when there was a substitution of artifacts for real facts. To understand what happened in this country on November 22, 1963, you have to start with the way this deception functioned, and the manner in which the major media carried the story in the first 24-48 hours—i.e., the “Oswald did it, and did it alone” story; and not be mislead by focusing on the "other problems" (which you have noted, and that developed days, weeks, and months later). All of that provides additional circumstantial evidence that "something's rotten in Denmark," but it does not address the primary issue or provide the key to the case. Anyone who has analyzed a complex problem and uses a time-line to follow the sequence of events can immediately see what I am talking about: the power of a deception that unfolded in real time, and which then led to major false reporting about "what happened," reporting which was then (seemingly) backed up by a false autopsy report, a report which (normally) would be something that lawyers would routinely rely upon, and which they routinely refer to as the "best evidence." So. . this is not about "no no's". Those are, by comparison, blemishes. Some serious no doubt, but still blemishes nonetheless. IMHO: those blemishes--legal blemishes or deficiencies if you will--are merely perturbations when considered in the context of the major (and immediate) consequences of autopsy fraud. Its that which is the core of the problem. I do not deny the instances of "whitewash" that you have described; I'm simply saying that all of that is distinctly different from the "core of the problem." And it is that "core" that is at the heart of the deception that occurred on November 22, 1963 which resulted in "Oswald's rifle" being viewed as "the murder weapon". Recognizing that falsehood--that false nexus--is what legally invalidates the major conclusions of the Warren Commission Report. If you compare the Warren Commission Report to a house with some half dozen rooms (corresponding to the different chapters of the Warren Report), it is a house without a proper legal foundation because the President's body was altered. The reason I believe Oswald is innocent and did not murder President Kennedy is not that I believe he was a nice man of good character who admired the President (all of which is true), but because I am positive that the President's body was altered as part of a plan to falsify the autopsy and create the false appearance that Oswald was guilty. DSL 5/12/15 – 11:55 p.m. PDT Edited, 5/13/15, 5:04 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Greg: I listened to your talk this afternoon and I had a number of reactions, but not the time to do a fair job presenting the response it deserves. Here are some initial reactions: 1. I think it took courage to express the hurt and anger you feel over this event, after all these years. I think we all want closure. To those below a certain age, its just "history." To those of us who lived through it, and the issuance of the Warren Report, and the gradual realization (for one reason or another) that the official "answer" was all wrong; and further, the connection between the Nov 1963 murder of JFK and then the Spring 1965 escalation of the Vietnam War- - all of that represents something entirely different. It was not an "abstraction"; rather, it was "what the heck is going on? Why are we suddenly sending such huges forces to Vietnam?" And, for many: "Where the hell is Vietnam, anyway?" And: "What is this all about?" 2. I would like to see a printed version of what you were reading, because there were a number of interesting ideas, and turns of phrases that deserve to be seen in text--and not just experienced as as a moment that flits by in a video presentation. 3. I think the issue of foreknowledge on the part of high government officials is very important; and Dean Rusk's arranging to take so many of the Kennedy cabinet to Tokyo is of great importance. Rusk, of course, played a major role in the "post assassination foreign policy switch". The manner in which he was foisted on Kennedy--in December 1960--causing Kennedy to veer away from his original choice of Sec State (Fulbright) is important. One person in Kennedy's "inner circle" stated--in 1965--that Rusk was "a plant." For those who have the time, there is an important article by Milton Viorst that was published in Esquire Magazine back in March, 1968: "Incidentally, Who is Dean Rusk?" For those following that issue, i.e., carefully tracking what--in retrospect--was clearly a "post assassination foreign policy switch," Rusk became of interest, and this article by Viorst laid out Rusk's history: that he was a "China hawk" from way back in the Truman administration. All very well. . so much for Rusk, but. . . : here's where we diverge, big time: No, I do not agree with your interpretation of the fourth paragraph of that draft NSAM 273. Let me type it out and insert it here: QUOTE: It is of the highest importance that the United States Government avoid either the appearance or the reality of public recrimination from one part of it against another, and the President expects that all senior officers of the Government will take energetic steps to insure that they and their subordinates go out of their way to maintain and to defend the unity of the United State Government both here and in the field. UNQUOTE In your talk, you presented the argument that this paragraph refers to the upcoming murder of President Kennedy. I do not agree with that at all. I completely agree that Kennedy --who did not buy into the "domino theory"--had wrestled with the Vietnam issue and had made the decision to de-escalate and exit Vietnam. He also understood that, if he didn't do it properly, he would have a political problem on his hands from those on the political right who did buy into the "domino theory," who would cite this as an example of Kennedy being "an appeaser" ("just like his father!", etc.) and had the attitude that Rusk basically projected: "if we don't fight them in Asia, we will have to deal with them in Santa Monica." I remember those days, and coming up against such nonsense in teach-in situations at the UCLA campus. Anyway: We both know the evidence that, within a short while (and I believe it was within 48 hours), LBJ made clear (behind the scenes, and certainly not for public consumption) there was going to be a change in direction in Vietnam policy. The difference between NSAM 263 (expressing Kennedy's original intention) and NSAM 273 (representing the outcome of the Honolulu conference, or at least the outcome that some persons wanted) --deserves careful study. One piece of data I have always taken seriously is what President Kennedy said to Michael Forrestal, who had just returned from a Vietnam fact-finding trip. JFK told Forrestal he was questioning the basic assumptions of the U.S. policy--and (quoting from memory) "whether we should be there at all." In evaluating the draft of NSAM 273, we must keep in mind that there were people inside the Kennedy White House (and State Department) who had nothing to do with his murder, and who were (quite simply) Cold War hawks, to one extent or another. I was at Ramparts Magazine in July 1966 and Dugald Sturmer, their cartoonist, had a field day with this theme in designing one of the Ramparts Magazine covers. Besides that fact, there was another: there were some--and I believe McNamara was one such person--who would "go along"with whatever "the president" wanted (and whoever the president might be). I can understand why the language of NSAM 273 raises issues that are subject to the interpretation that the drafter (McGeorge Bundy) had foreknowledge of JFK's murder--but I don't agree with that interpretation at all. At the Honolulu Conference, McNamara (supposedly) learns, for the first time, that the war is going badly, that he's been lied to for months, etc . There are serious questions raised about his reaction (or non-reaction) to this startling news. And --let's not forget--Diem has just been assassinated in early November (which was definitely not Kennedy's intention; he just wanted a change in government); and Diem's death only added to the instability and to the attendant policy complications to a president wishing to withdraw. So Kennedy had to navigate through this mess, and (imho) had to assuage those on the right who wanted to escalate versus his own conclusion that we should withdraw. Years ago, when I was deeply involved in studying this quagmire--and at the time that John Newman was then writing his Ph.D. thesis (and we spent probably 100 hours talking all of this out, and then I arranged to film Newman in an excellent multi-hour professionally filmed interview when he was stationed at Fort Ord, and just prior to the time he was sent to China, for a posting), I coined the term that JFK had a "Janus-faced" policy, which Newman later used in his book (which--originally, and at the time we did the filmed interview---was John's PhD thesis, later converted to a book). So I'm very familiar with these issues; and at the time, John said to me: "I've found a 'war conspiracy'" or words to that effect. At issue was: Just who was "in on" this conspiracy? We discussed that all the time. Constantly. About a year ago a friend of mine was making a close study of this same matter as part of a paper he was doing for an advanced degree in history. And again, I found myself discussing this issue frequently. I took the position then--and maintain it today--that its the policy mess and the quagmire that explains some of the weird wording of 273, and not advanced knowledge of Kennedy's murder. The Honolulu Conference of (Wed.) November 20, 1963 marked a definite turning point of sorts; and McGeorge Bundy sure did draft the draft of NSAM 273, but would Kennedy really have signed something that marked such a departure from NSAM 263, which he had signed just the month before? Hmmmm. . . In any event, I think that it is a major error to believe that NSAM 273 includes a paragraph that is "signaling" to those high in the government (and particularly those aboard this aircraft heading to Tokyo) that they shouldn't argue with, or take a position against, the explanation that will soon be forthcoming about the soon-to-occur murder of President Kennedy. I think that's a totally incorrect interpretation of this document. It implies (does it not?) that a paper trail was created in advance of President Kennedy's murder (!), warning those high in the government of what was in the offing, and communicating to them that they should "toe the line" (choose your phrase; you know what I mean). However, having said all that, I completely agree that the reports of what was coming from the White House situation room--about one man being responsible, that he's now in custody, etc.--all of that is very fishy. Yes, its weird; and certainly those reports raise the issue of either foreknowledge, or of a very rapidly evolving after-the-fact cover-up. But keep in mind: we still don't have an Air Force One tape which actually has a voice saying what Theodore White reported. (Am I wrong on this? If so, please do correct me.) What we have is what Theodore White wrote in the opening chapter of his book The Making of the President, 1964. On that score, I have two observations to make, and all of this falls under the subject of strategic deception. STRATEGIC DECEPTION --Its early impact #1: I recently came across a document that clearly indicates that FBI Director Hoover was stating, at 4:15 p.m. CST, that the Dallas Police already had someone in custody and that he appeared to be "the assassin" --at 4:15 p.m. Central Time (!) That's just two hours after the sniper's nest was found, and before the FBI Lab had any bullets or the rifle, and when Air Force One carrying the body (but not inside the Dallas coffin, if my analysis is correct) was still 50 minutes away from landing at Andrews AFB. So: What Hoover was saying represented--more or less--his completely biased state of mind, and not the sort of inferences one would rationally draw from 'the evidence.' #2; I caution anyone following this case to understand--and not mis-interpret--what appears to be the "early release" of information about Oswald's background in the media. Decades ago, pursuing this issue, I obtained the AP and UPI "A" wires and carefully analyzed when the name "Oswald" was first mentioned; when the "sixth floor" was first mentioned, when "three shots" were first mentioned, etc.--and, finally, when Oswald's background became known, etc. I do not have those files in front of me (just now), but the Fort Worth Star Telegram played an important role. Why? Because --back in 1959--Oswald was considered a "Fort Worth boy." So. . .: Oswald was known because stories had been published at the time of his October 1959 defection, and then again at the time of his June 1962 return. That material was already on file, and then --on November 22, 1963--was promptly retrieved and written up in wire service dispatches immediately after the name "Oswald" was released by the Dallas Police Department. Finally, one other thought. . . I realize this is sliding way off the topic (somewhat); but I thoroughly disagree with the psychological interpretation promoted by Shotz and Salandria (if I've got this correct) that the Warren Report represented an effort (or strategy) "to psychologically enslave the American people through the destruction of critical thinking.” ". . . psychologically enslave the American people through the destruction of critical thinking. . ."? Oh pleez. . . THE PROPER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS-- IMHO. . . What you're looking at--on November 22, 1963--is the successful execution (in tandem with President Kennedy's murder) --of a strategic deception; the creation of the false appearance that Lee Oswald was President Kennedy's assassin. On November 22, 1963, that's how it "looked" in Dallas--over at the Dallas Police Department--and that's how it appeared if you were reading the copy being distributed by the two major wire services. In other words, this was a carefully executed plot, with a well-designed set-up: not an after-the-fact frame-up, but a before the fact set-up; and a willingness to distribute this story nationally via the two major wire services. Once it was on the wires, that "story" was then read nationally over the three major broadcast networks--both on the radio, and on TV. But central to this entire operation was the distribution of this story by the Dallas Police Department and then it being "backed up" --that evening--by the falsification of the autopsy. That made it very clear to anyone following the story--that not only was the Dallas Police Department saying that this man they had arrested was the assassin, but the Bethesda autopsy was establishing that as fact, and the FBI Laboratory was reporting that "the gun found on the sixth floor" was in fact the murder weapon. STRATEGIC DECEPTION (more) Setting aside--for the moment--the nonsense that emanates from some of the defenders of the WCR, I find it really deplorable that there are those --on the left--who truly believe that Oswald was innocent, but then instead of recognizing the mechanical apparatus that created the (false) appearance of his guilt, instead indulge in false and unwieldy "political theories" that the entire Commission (and its staff) were engaged in a deliberate cover-up, and so on and so forth. Such people--imho--don't understand where the line is to be drawn between the deceiver and the deceived. One of the advantages I had back in school year 1966/67 was attending Prof. Wesley Liebeler's class. (Liebeler, to those reading this who don't know, was the member of the WC legal staff who [along with senior attorney Jenner] was charged with investigating--and writing--Oswald's biography; which is Appendix 13 of the Warren Report). As I described in Chapter 6 of Best Evidence: "Redefining the Problem: The Autopsy as 'Best Evidence'", attending that law seminar was a revelation, for the class was composed of talented law students and--from the standpoint of my perception--functioned as a miniature Warren Commission. Attending that class--I have come to realize (in retrospect)--was akin to attending a workshop on the power and efficacy of this strategic deception; and what happens if the medical and ballistic data is falsified at the source, i.e., from the get-go. Those students--just about every one of them--bought into the validity of the official version. And not because they were part of a conspiracy; but because they believed the evidence. The notion that the Bethesda autopsy results could not be relied upon--that those conclusions had been deliberately falsified--was (to them) incomprehensible. Completely out of the question. So the way the tenor of this legal seminar evolved--at the beginning of the fall term (1966) was that Oswald was ("of course") the assassin, because the autopsy proved the shots were fired from his rifle, found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. Meanwhile, on October 22 and October 23, 1966, I discovered the first evidence suggesting that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy--i.e., that bullets had been removed and wounds altered prior to the autopsy conducted that evening at Bethesda Naval Hospital. In Best Evidence, I describe what happened on October 24, 1966, when I confronted Liebeler with this entirely new concept--that bullets had been removed and the wounds altered prior to autopsy. He was astounded that the FBI report contained a statement stating (a) that when the President's body arrived at the Bethesda morgue there was a "second" blood soaked wrapping on the head (quoting from the Sibert and O'Neill report: "that the head area contained an additional wrapping which was saturated with blood") and (b ) that when that "second wrapping" was removed, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." (Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, starting at page 288 of CD 7). Liebeler also immediately grasped the potential significance of it--that here was the explanation divergence of opinion between the Dallas and Bethesda doctors as to the direction of the shots: i.e., that the Dallas doctors said the President was shot from the front, while the Bethesda doctors --who examined the body six hours later--said he was shot from the rear. Some weeks later, I came to the realization that the wound descriptions were different. I am skipping many details here, but Liebeler soon was on the phone with Arlen Specter, the attorney in charge of the medical area, and ascertained that Specter did not know about this passage in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report. When Liebeler emerged the office where he had been speaking privately with Specter, I asked (naturally) "What did he say?" Liebeler, clearly agitated but also excited, wouldn't answer. But then he said: "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." That's the kind of day it was; and I refer interested readers to my book for many more details. That includes the fact that over the course of the next four weeks, Liebeler asked my assistance in drafting a 13 page memo that went to Chief Justice Warren --and all the other commissioners and legal staff of the WC, and to the Kennedy family attorney, and to the Department of Justice--that laid out many of the anomalies concerning the Bethesda autopsy protocol. The list included the fact that the FBI report of agents Sibert and O'Neill--which was unpublished in the 26 volumes--included this passage reporting the existence of "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull." In Best Evidence, and writing in the first person, I attempted to bring the reader back to that point in time to appreciate the importance of this discovery, and then back to November 22, 1963, to understand the consequence of the falsification of the major medical and ballistic evidence in this case. One of the key insights that emerged from my discovery and our subsequent conversations was that the "best evidence" in the case was not the JFK autopsy report, but JFK's body itself. The autopsy report was just a verbal description of "the body"; the 'best evidence' was the body itself. (For further elaboration, and a more up-to-date view, watch my one-hour talk at Bismarck State College (in November 2013. Just Google "David Lifton Bismarck"; you can also view the Best Evidence Research Video, using filmed interviews from October 1980 to establish that the body was covertly intercepted between the time it left Parkland Hospital --wrapped in sheets and inside an expensive ceremonial casket, and the time it arrived at the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, inside a body bag which was inside a standard military type shipping casket. Just use Google to locate it in cyberspace. THE REACTION OF SOME ON THE POLITICAL LEFT For reasons I have found rather irritating, there are those on the left who would rather indulge in political theories about the Warren Commission itself being involved in a "conspiracy to lie" rather than face up to the real problem, which was the covert alteration of the body which was at the heart of a strategic deception to change the "medical facts" about Kennedy's death, and thus falsify the story of how he died. It was that falsification which buried the truth about what really happened at Dealey Plaza, and erected--in its place--a completely false story about what happened that day. The evidence of the manipulation of this event abounds. Properly execute such a deception--i.e., properly alter the body of the deceased--and that is the reason for the focus on Oswald's rifle; and, hence, on Oswald as "the assassin"; i.e., there is no reason to resort to hypotheses which involve "enslaving the American people through the destruction of critical thinking." There was no "mental enslavement" which prevented people from reading the Sibert and O'Neill report and understanding what those words meant; further, there as no "enslavement" that prevented someone from reading Best Evidence --first published in 1981 and then by three different publishers over the ensuing 17 years--and grasping the basic fact that there was a "before" and "after" condition on President Kennedy's body. There was no "mental enslavement" that prevents people from understanding that it wasn't "just the pictures" (or the X-rays) that were tampered with, but the President's body, itself. Its a very simple idea; its just that it is disgusting, and horrific and people just don't want to believe it. As Liebeler (somewhat cynically) said to me about a year later (and I put this in the closing chapter of B.E.) he would always be able to beat me in a debate on the subject: why? I asked. Because, he replied, the public wanted to believe that the emperor was clothed. Consequently, I don't believe there is much validity to this "enslavement" concept; sure, people respect "authority"--perhaps excessively so; but that's not new. Its been around for ages. The real problem in the case of President Kennedy's murder--imho--is the reluctance, or inability to come to terms with what actually happened. Its easy to believe in a "conspiracy" that exists of "a second assassin" on the grassy knoll. Dealing with the issue of falsified evidence is a completely different story. It is the psychological inability ---on the part of some--to believe that certain high level officials were involved in a plot to murder President and then arrange to falsify the story of how he died; i.e., to alter the "legal diagram" of the shooting, that is just impossible to accept; "too evil" to believe, as one researcher said to me years ago. And why is that? I can only surmise: Because to believe that means one must ineluctably take the next step--to believe some officials participated in a scheme to disguise a political murder as a quirk of fate, an "accident of history", etc., so that the constitutionally ordained line of succession would operate in the normal fashion, and Lyndon Johnson would then advance to the presidency. Its one thing to read about evil people in Shakespeare; quite another, I gather, to come to terms with that sort of thing inside our own government. Bottom line: The problem was not the Warren Commission--or at least, not "just" the Warren Commission. The problem begins with the alteration of the most critical evidence on which the Commission relied, and the inability to come to terms with the idea that any such thing could have occurred. Failure to recognize that leads to a completely incorrect analysis of this event, and that extrapolates not only to the autopsy conclusions, but to many closely related issues, ranging from the Kennedy automobile to the person of Lee Oswald. I could write much more on this subject, but I'll just leave it at that, for now. DSL 5/12/15 - 6:35 p.m. PDT Revised at 8:30 p.m. PDT Revised (again)at 11 p.m. PDT And still again at 4:10 a.m. on 5/13/15 Los Angeles, California

Steven, Who is the person whose email address --"g.hasan.yusuf@gmail.com" --is inside your post? DSL

Mark: I know this case and I got confused by this presentation. Could you please edit your post so we know who is speaking, and when this 'n that was said? The London Forum is likely read by people all over the world. Obviously, "two sides" are at loggerheads here, but--as presented--its hard to keep track of who's saying what to whom. This back and forth deserves to be presented with clarity, and without the ambiguity that pervades the current presentation. DSL 5/11/15 - 11 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

I'd like to see these additional photo IDs in Dealey. Well, David, here's one that I think is James Jesus Angelton. What do you think? Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul: I just saw your post. FWIW: I don't think that looks like Angleton--at all. Of course, I would like to know who it is; in the spirit that I'd like a complete identification of all the images in all the photographs. I wish someone had organized a project to identify all the bystanders in all the principal photos. DSL 5/8/15 - 4:20 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, CA

Greg Parker: You're excessively suspicious. A third party who was reading this thread sent me additional information. Regardless of what you find "curious," sometimes a rose is just a rose. Similarly for cigars. Similarly for data about Fort Worth in September 1956. * * * As previously stated on this thread, my focus on Lee Oswald in Ft. Worth goes back decades--and (as previously stated)--I interviewed Palmer McBride by phone in September 1994, and then on camera, in a professionally filmed interview on October 2, 1994 at his home in Sun Valley, California. (Substantial excerpts from the transcript of that interview have already been posted on the "Two Oswald Explained" thread on this forum). Also, the following month, Debra Conway (at my request) spent substantial time at the Fort Worth Library examining microfilm records of the Ft Worth Star Telegram. N.B.: To put this in perspective, all of this took place some four to six years before before you first read Tony Summers book, which (according to your own statements) marked the start of your research in the Kennedy assassination. One other date that folks reading this thread might keep in mind: today (May 3, 2015) is the second anniversary of the death of Palmer McBride, who knew Oswald when both were messengers at the Pfisterer Laboratory in New Orleans in the Spring of 1956. Further: it was McBride's incorrect statement in his November 23, 1963 affidavit to the FBI (Warren Commission Exhibit 1386, in which he said he knew Oswald in 1958) that was a principal starting point for Armstrong in postulating his "two-Oswald" theory (since, by 1958, Oswald was in the Marines and serving in Japan and other locations in the Far East). DSL Sunday, 5/3/15 - 7:10 PDT Los Angeles, California

David, I have made a commitment to be more accommodating here, so let me try and help resolve this. We are dealing with a person whose memory we know with absolute certainty was fallible (i.e. 1958 vs 1956). Can we really nip pick about the about the type of school it was? This story in regard to Austin mentions an elementary school. Close enough? Your post states: “This story in regard to [Lloyd] Austin mentions an elementary school. Close enough?” My response: No. Not at all. A “called meeting of residents. . . at the Riverside Elementary School” is entirely different than a “riot on a high school grounds in Ft. Worth.” However, I have additional information and, when time permits, will post it. DSL 5/3/15 – 6 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

". . a great video for the uninformed. . "? Did you watch the same video as I did recently? What about all that stuff about Tippit being shot because he was a body-double for JFK, and his body supposedly being placed in a coffin and brought to Bethesda Naval Hospital? How does that promote understanding of the basic facts and issues of the Kennedy assassination? And how about the graphic that shows Air Force Two passing Air Force One in flight, and--supposedly --landing at Andrews AFB ahead of Air Force One; when it is a matter of fact that AF-2 arrived at Andrews some 30 minutes after AF-1? And, oh yes, how about the fact that Tippit's body was (supposedly, according to this film) was brought to Bethesda Naval Hospital? And (all this notwithstanding) you say that "this is a great video for the uninformed. . "? Could you please name some people and groups that meet your criteria of being "uninformed" and who would benefit from watching and imbibing in this historical malarky? DSL 5/3/15 - 10:50 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Jon, I think your daughter’s analysis is right on the money, and supports Oswald as the author of the Walker note. Of course, the note was in his handwriting, and there was never any question—in the context of the Marina/Lee relationship—that Lee was the author-i.e., there was no mystery about who wrote it and left it where she found it that evening. (To spell this out: Marina never said: "Did you write this?! I can't believe you wrote this!" . . .or any such thing. Rather she demanded an explanation for what the heck the note was all about, and when Lee told her --i.e., when he "confessed" to having shot at Walker--she was horrified). Also keep in mind these “other” factors (or factoids): 1. His verbal skill (in Russian) far surpassed his written skill; and that makes perfect sense because: (a) he was an aural learner (b ) when it came to writing Russian, which has a different alphabet, he would have problems not at all that different from what happened when he wrote in English—terrible spelling, etc. (aggravated by his dyslexia, as documented and diagnosed by Dr. Rome, of the Mayo Clinic, at the tail end of the WC investigation). 2. By April 63 he was 10 months past the time he was living in the U.S.S.R., and was having what linguists sometimes refer to as “total immersion” in the language and the culture. So. . . : Marina—Lee's on-site companion with her perfect command of Russian—was Lee’s “aural link” (or “linguistic link”) to the language he loved so much; and Lee was quite aware of this, i.e., his "neediness" in this regard. That was why he didn’t want Marina to learn English, because he selfishly wanted to “use” her (as his dialogue partner) to maintain his fluency. 3. After the assassination, Marina’s fluency in English went up sharply; of course, she also took the Michigan course, which is quite well known; but she always retained her Russian accent. 4. George and Jeanne DeMohrenshildt were two excellent witnesses to Oswald’s (verbal) command in the Russian language. Jeanne used to say—to Mary Ferrell—that Lee spoke “booteeful” Russian (mimicking Jeanne’s own accented English). DSL Friday, May 1, 2015 – 4:10 p.m. Los Angeles, California

Hello Brad, Thanks for your kind remarks. Regarding the questions you posed, please understand that I can’t speak for Marina, so what follows are my own (somewhat speculative) answers. I don’t know whether Lee felt his mail was being intercepted (in Russia), but he certainly did believe the apartment was bugged. McMillan –who interviewed Marina extensively—includes some humorous passages in Marina and Lee in which Lee (and Marina) would “talk to the light bulb” (or light fixture) in the ceiling, mocking these attempts at Soviet eavesdropping. As far as impersonation, you’re asking the wrong person, because--putting Mexico City aside as a "special case"--I happen not to believe that Lee was impersonated either at the rifle range or at the Lincoln-Mercury dealer (i.e., I think it was him; and I’ll expand on that somewhat in my work). Re visitors, I think that if Marina knew of any such activity, she would have told the FBI and/or testified about it to the Warren Commission. She professed not to know any such thing, and I believe her. Re photos: I never heard of any allegation that –at her request--Lee planned “to take photos of JFK on Friday [11/22]”. Based on what I know (and remember), I doubt that Marina is likely to get involved in any Internet discussion. Regarding your very first question (“If you had a chance to ask Marina Oswald questions about Lee Oswald (and anything else), what would you ask her?”), just such a matter arose when I was interviewing Marina on camera in 1990. As I recall, as we were winding up the shoot, just a few minutes remained on the last camera reel, and I was trying to think of a “just one more question” to ask. . . “Marina,” I said, “If Lee were to come back, and you could ask him just one more question, what would it be?” There was a brief pause, and then she began. . . “Years ago,” she began (and I’m writing this from memory, so I may not have every word down perfectly), “I might have asked him ‘Did you do it?” But now I know he didn’t.” Then she paused, thinking about what she wanted to say next. Then she looked straight into the camera and said, slowly and carefully, and in her heavily accented English, “I would say to him. . . Who are you?” Marina met Lee in mid-March 1961, they were married on April 30, 1961. They arrived back in America --with a four-month old baby--on June 13, 1962. In retrospect Marina came to understand that she didn’t know who her husband really was. I don’t believe that was because he had any criminal intent, but rather because he was role-playing inside his own marriage and never shared the full truth about what he was doing with his own wife. (And I'll have much more to say about all of this in Final Charade). DSL 5/1/15 – 4:45 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Interesting background, Jon. BTW, when I was in high school, all I wanted was to be a psychoanalyst; Freudian, not Jungian. In any case, I agree that Marina and Lee are the key to the JFK Conspiracy. The first thing to bear in mind, is their young age. Lee Oswald had just turned 24 and Marina had recently turned 22, when JFK was murdered. Lee Oswald was basically a good guy, but very misunderstood, and could not compete in a free market in the USA, because even with his high IQ, he had no college (and his family owned no businesses) and so he had zero opportunities outside the military. Yet he had spurned the military, too, as shown by his discharge status. His only hope, as far as I can see, was to prove himself with the Intelligence Community. This would have been his personal salvation, if he could pull it off. He watched Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine, around his age, with tons more money than he had. (He had a second kid on the way, and no steady job; he was getting desperate.) Compare this with his status in the USSR -- he had an average job in a radio factory, but the Red Cross almost doubled his salary, which was spectacular, so that he made almost as much as the Director of the factory. Also, OSWALD was allowed to stay in the new, upscale apartments in Minsk. He was relatively rich in the USSR, which is one reason Marina was swept off her feet, being the "material girl." In fact, he was a real success in the USSR, and he let himself believe that he did this all by himself -- so he decided to take his good fortune -- his wife and baby -- back to the USA to show it all off, and become successful in the USA as well. Well, he was slapped down at every turn in the USA. First, his job as a welder, paying him $1.25 hourly, would not let him move out of his mother's house. What a humiliation. Then, George De Mohrenschildt told OSWALD that his "historic diary" was a bore to read (and that he should have stayed in the military). Then, after George introduced Lee and Marina to the Russian Exiles in Dallas, the heavy hitters there started to hit on young Marina, and Lee started beating her for the first time in their relationship, so that George felt justified in breaking them apart for awhile. Notice the great contrast of Lee in the USSR and Lee in the USA. The contrast was pushing him to the breaking point. To cap it all off, George DM, Michael Paine, Volkmar Schmidt and others started pressuring Lee to hate, hate, hate Edwin WALKER. Lee finally snapped by trying to murder WALKER. I'm not saying that Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have been driven to murder JFK; I'm saying that the material evidence shows that the JFK murder was far beyond the ability of any single individual. So, Lee fell in with the wrong crowd, obviously. (Thanks to Jim Garrison and Harry Dean, we know who they were.) It was all downhill for Lee after that. But that background, I think, gives us hints toward a psychological profile of Lee -- which would be mandatory for understanding his behavior. Regards, --Paul Trejo This post --# 86 on this thread--is (unfortunately) about "packaging," and I am writing it to avoid any future confusion. In his opening statement (in his post #85) Paul Trejo said “I find I agree with David Lifton on most issues here,” and went on to note that “although Marina lied to the FBI and SS immediately after they moved her from Ruth Paine’s house (especially about Mexico City), this was because she was terrified.” All well and good. Thanks for recognizing that single area of agreement. However, I want to emphasize that I completely disagree with most of Trejo’s statements following that opening remark, and they are not to be confused with my own long-held beliefs. Specifically: Number One: I do not agree in any way whatsoever with the notion that money Marina received from a sympathetic American public had anything whatsoever to do with Marina’s telling the truth when under oath before the Warren Commission in February 1964, or at any time thereafter. That’s cynical and false, and I do not want to be associated with that view in any way. Second: I do not agree in any way whatsoever with Trejo’s many negative and demeaning beliefs about the character of Lee Oswald, or Trejo's notion that Lee Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy or was part of a plot to murder President Kennedy. That, too, I believe to be completely false. To make this very clear: I never believed that (or said any such thing) when I wrote Best Evidence (published in 1981) and I do not believe any such thing today; and I do not want Trejo’s statements about what he believes (which were sort of “tacked on” to the statement of my own beliefs about the Walker note) to lead to any confusion in this matter. Bottom line: this slender “area of agreement” or overlap between Trejo's views and my own (in the area of the Walker note) is not to be confused with any endorsement (on my part) about his beliefs about Oswald’s role in the Walker affair; nor should anyone be led to believe I am in agreement with Trejo's negative views about Oswald’s character, in general, or his beliefs about Oswald as President Kennedy’s assassin; or his beliefs about Oswald's participation in a plot to murder President Kennedy (someone who, as a matter of fact, Oswald much admired). Paul Trejo is of course entitled his beliefs on these matters (I fully recognized that) but I want to make clear that I do not share those beliefs at all. Thanks. DSL 4/30/15 – 12:45 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

To those who may have attempted to wade through this seemingly impenetrable mass of verbiage (what David Andrews called a "baloney sandwich"). . . : In the midst of all these words--which, without proper paragraphing, makes if difficult to read--there is one quote that Marina recalls Lee saying (during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis) that really does stand out: "Marina told me about a conversation they had during the Cuban Missile Crisis. During this time, she wondered if she should to go back to Russia, her fatherland. Over there people would have duties to perform in a time of war. However Lee Oswald said President Kennedy was going to get everyone out of this mess." To repeat: "Lee Oswald said President Kennedy was going to get everyone out of this mess." Lee Oswald "said" that? In October 1962. . . during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Really? How did he "know" that? This is another example --there are quite of few (during the 17 month "post Russian" period [6/13/62 - 11/22/63] )--of what I call "insider talk." Statements made by a young man who was just turning 23 and who, for some reason, talks as if he "knows" what's going on "inside" the upper echelons of the U.S. government. (This supports my belief that Lee had a handler who "pumped him up" and provided re-enforcement making him feel very important and knowledgeable about the inner workings of the government --and even President Kennedy's thinking--at that time). In any event--and however you "slice it"--that's certainly not the language of an anti-Kennedy pro-Castro revolutionary Marxist. No way! DSL 4/30/15 - 1 a.m. PDT Los Angeles, California (Last 3 paragraphs augmented and modified on 5/1/15)

Thanks very much for your kind remarks. You have no idea how many hours of “research”—research on my own “past”—it took to organize, write, edit, and rewrite this particular post. But, once started, I was determined to untangle (or at least to attempt to untangle) the mess that had been created about me (and my work in this particular area) on the Internet. Turning now to your questions re Marina (and answering as briefly as possible): 1. I met Marina when Best Evidence was first published (January 1981) and I was in Dallas twice (both in January and March) on my book tour. She came to the studio when I was on the radio, and that’s how we met. Also (and later on that very same day), she was introduced to Mary Ferrell, with whom she then remained in contact for quite a long time. 2. In the aftermath of that meeting, we had many phone calls, extending over many years. She was friendly, and open, and we talked about her “situation” for hours on end. I remember being overly optimistic and attempting to reassure her that the truth was “of course” going to emerge, and Lee would surely be exonerated, etc. That turned out to be a gross oversimplification. In talking to her –and attempting to explain what had happened to her, through no fault of her own—she often wondered if she had been manipulated by Lee, and if so, to what end? And the unfairness of it all. I remember –more than once—bringing up the story of Job, from the bible. As you probably know—and I am quoting Wikipedia (rather than rely on my own very imperfect knowledge): The Book of Job addresses (QUOTE) “the theme of God's justice in the face of human suffering—or more simply, "Why do the righteous suffer?"[2]— it is a rich theological work setting out a variety of perspectives.[3] It has been widely and often extravagantly praised for its literary qualities, with Alfred, Lord Tennyson calling it "the greatest poem of ancient and modern times".[4] UNQUOTE I always felt there was no “excuse”—i.e., “existential excuse”-- for what happened to Marina, and that was the closest I could come to any “explanation.” 3. I never felt she was trying to fool me. Not at all. 4. She knew that I had studied the case—and was immersed in a plethora of details. She had many questions to which she sought answers; and I did the best I could to provide them, or at least provide an informed opinion. (Another JFK researcher, Wallace Milam, played a similar role in her life). 5. No, I don’t think she ever saw me as “hanging on her every word” and I challenged her and asked her serious questions whenever the need arose. I really did "push the envelope" (as the saying goes. I once challenged Marina way too hard, and she got mad—but that was OK, because her reaction persuaded me she was telling the truth). 6. I’m sure she was honest –sometimes brutally honest—in the answers she gave me. If Marina knows something that she has chosen not to divulge, then its because she has made a personal decision to carry something to the grave. I can’t elaborate on this statement (now) except to say that her children meant more than anything else to her, and she would never do anything to injure them in any way or place them in jeopardy. Bottom line: Marina was an excellent mother. 7. I told Marina that it was very important she go on camera and make a filmed record of (a) how much Lee admired Kennedy and (b ) her beliefs in his innocence. We agreed to do this, and we had an extensive filmed interview in the summer of 1990, filmed by a first rate professional film crew under the auspices of Michael Grasso (director-writer-producer). Marina didn’t charge a penny, and when I was paid a good fee for some of the footage by the TV program HARDCOPY, Marina let me keep all of it, and it supported me for a year. Subsequently, I let it be posted on YouTube (without objection) because I wanted to let the world see, for themselves, what she was all about and how strongly she felt about Lee’s innocence. 8. Marina (on camera) sometimes has a mysterious quality which I have compared to Greta Garbo, and I will elaborate on that a bit in Final Charade. Hope this answers your questions. That’s all I can say for now. DSL 4/28/15 -10 p.m. PDT Los Angeles, California

Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum recently sent me an email on 4/25/15) stating that my information about Oswald being in Fort Worth in 1956 "[was] quite correct and, ironically, the racial problems that year were the focus of a recent TV news story." Gary points out that he worked for the Dallas-Fort Worth NBC affiliate from 1981 - 1993 "and, among other things, I worked with the station's news film archive which spanned 1948 - 1978." He went on to provide the following information (quoted with permission): QUOTE ON: Among the hours of footage I examined were scenes of the September 1956 racial strife in Fort Worth. Last year the station, KXAS but then known as WBAP, donated its news film to the University of North Texas. Recently, as the school started making the footage available online, KXAS aired a five-part series highlighting some of those films. By pure chance, the first part looked at one of the September 1956 problems . . and here it is. UNQUOTE For anyone wishing to watch the 1956 news report, the internet "link" Gary provided (at "here", quoted above) is the following: http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/North-Texas-in-Black-and-White-in-1956_Dallas-Fort-Worth-288476801.html RESUMING THE "QUOTE ON": (By the way, the footage KXAS showed does, indeed, date from September of that year [i.e., 1956]. As co-producer of the station's 40th anniversary, one-hour special, I included some of those same scenes.) END QUOTE The news report the reader of this post can view (using the above link) shows what happened when Lloyd Austin (now 91) and his wife purchased a house on Judkins Street and crowds gathered yelling racial epithets, attempting to frighten him into moving. (He did not, instead using his rifle to defend his life and property; at which point the police were called, and they dispersed the rioters). Anyway, watch the clip for details. DEBRA CONWAY'S RESEARCH IN NOVEMBER 1994 This is the same incident that Debra Conway found in November, 1994--a month after my October 2, 1994 filmed interview with Palmer McBride. At the time, I had asked Debra if she would be willing to go to the Fort Worth Library and review microfilmed copies of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. As I recall today (i.e., in 2015), the reason for my request was to search for local TV listings and determine if (and when) Oswald's favorite TV program, I Led 3 Lives, was broadcast. (Oswald [along with his mom] moved from New Orleans--where they had lived for 2-1/2 years (and watched the program together regularly)--to Ft. Worth on July 1, 1956. Lee Oswald lived in Ft. Worth from that date until October 24 1956 when he enlisted in the Marines. It was during the course of Debra's search--looking for data re I Led 3 Lives broadcast dates (to repeat, research she was doing in November 1994) --that she came across the September 1956 articles about the racial strife in Fort Worth. I believe it was Debra who pointed out the connection between the article(s) she found and the statement in Lee Oswald's letter to Palmer McBride, as recollected by McBride in his original 11/23/63 statement. At some point, Debra then sent that material to me by mail (i.e., snail mail); and it was through phone conversations at the time (and the receipt of the package, probably some days or weeks later) that I became aware of these "Fort Worth" stories and their potential significance in evaluating the factual accuracy of McBride's original statement to the FBI, dated 11/23/63 (Warren Commission Exhibit 1386). In that statement, made at Patrick Air Force Base, McBride--then known as "Airman McBride", and now looking back on events that had taken place 7 years earlier--had stated (erroneously): "In April or May, 1958, OSWALD stated he was moving to Ft. Worth, Texas, with his mother. In about August, 1958, I received a letter from him saying he was employed as a shoe salesman in Ft. Worth. In this letter he also stated he had gotten mixed up in an Anti-Negro or Anti-Communist riot on a high school grounds in Ft. Worth, Texas (all emphasis added, by DSL). OSWALD did not elaborate on this statement. I did not answer this letter, and I have not had further contact or communication with Oswald." (Aside: it is worth noting that the details of Oswald's letter do not match the content of the Ft. Worth news reports--i.e., the news stories do not contain (insofar as I am presently aware) any information about a "riot on a high school grounds in Ft. Worth." I do not mean to imply that such an event --or events--did not occur; just that they are not included in any "Ft Worth news stories" of which I am presently aware). The Fort Worth news stories about racial strife--which Debra found in November 1994--supported the idea that McBride's memory as to the year ("1958", as stated in his 11/23/63 statement) was simply incorrect. (Again, keep in mind that seven years had passed, and so such an error was quite understandable; i.e., McBride's mistaking what happened in the early fall of 1956 being something he mistakenly recalled as having occurred in 1958). That's exactly what McBride said to me in our filmed interview the month before (2 October 1994). That the date he profferred in his 11/23/63 statement was simply a mistake. We went over this very carefully in this on-camera interview. Shown the fact that Oswald had enlisted in the Marines on October 24 1956 and was in the Far East in "August 1958" (and coming to the end of a one-year overseas tour), McBride readily conceded --if he did not volunteer--that his memory had been incorrect. Furthermore, he said there was nothing to the assertion that he had discussed the October 1957 launch of Sputnik with Oswald--a matter which had come up somewhere in a JFK discussion group. (The issue came up because McBride stated, in his 11/23/63 FBI statement, that he had stated to Oswald "that I did feel more emphasis should be placed on the space program"). But, McBride said on camera, he could not have had a discussion with Oswald about Sputnik, because Oswald was overseas and in Japan at the time. At one point, McBride said that the date ("1958") was simply "a typo." The Weyerhaueser Box Company (another factoid bearing on this issue) A most interesting facet of this filmed interview was McBride's on-camera reconstruction of why he was so sure he was at Pfisterer Dental Lab (where he and Oswald were both messengers) in the spring of 1956, and not two years later (i.e., 1958). That turned on his recollection of his prior employment. McBride told me--all of this was on-camera--that he had previously worked at Weyerhaueser Box company (from October 1955 until January 1956) and that it was his prior employment there (at Weyerhaueser) that made him certain he had worked at Pfisterer Dental Labs starting in January, 1956. Why? Because he was certain that Pfisterer was the job he had immediately after the one at Weyerhauser Box company, and McBride seemed certain of the Weyerhauser employment dates. My Assessment After the Completion of this on-camera interview As far as I was concerned, that was the end of the "two-Oswald" theory--which, largely, was built around the existence of this erroneous "first statement" of Palmer McBride, something that could easily have been cleared up had the Warren Commission called McBride as a witness. (Why he was not called, I have no idea; he obviously ought to have been deposed during the Warren Commission investigation. Had such a deposition been conducted, I don't think there would ever have been a "two-Oswald" theory. Because it was Palmer McBride's incorrect statement (CE 1386)--after all--that was at the heart of that theory). What I have set forth above --events which occurred in 1956, and then were explored by me (and Debra Conway) in October and November of 1994 --sets the stage for what happened almost 18 years later in 2011 and then carried over into 2012. Remember: in 1994 there was no Web-based Internet. As NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman has noted (in his book The Earth is Flat) the first major shipment of Web browsers (Mosaic, I think) occurred in 1995, and it is generally conceded (I believe) that the massive explosion (at 100%/year) that led to what I am calling the "modern Internet" didn't occur until 1996/1997. December 2011: The LEF Thread "Two Oswalds Explained" (DSL Note: For newcomers: "LEF" stands for "London Education Forum". I do not know its exact founding date; but John Simkin could supply that information). The above-titled thread was begun on 25 December 2011 by Greg Parker, who has stated that he first became seriously involved in JFK research in the late 1990s--a good five to seven years after Oliver Stone's JFK (December 1991) and after he had read a copy of Summers' Conspiracy. Currently, this particular LEF thread consists of 21 web pages and over 300 posts, which are numbered sequentially. My first post on that thread was #34, and dated 27 December 2011. My post dated 5 September 2012 (Post #112) was the first of several reporting what had occurred during the course of my filmed interview with Palmer McBride on October 2, 1994, at his home in Sun Valley, California. (And it was the next month--November 1994--that Debra Conway did the research I have described at the Fort Worth Library). Now "flash-forward" to 2012 on this "two-Oswald" thread. At that point in time, Greg Parker mentioned this problem, and noted the "Fort Worth evidence", his source being wire service stories that he found via Google News, one from a newspaper published in Sydney, Australia, and another from a newspaper in Calgary, Canada. ASIDE: Neither Google--nor what I am calling the "modern Internet"--existed in 1994, when I interviewed McBride, or when Debra did her newspaper research "the old fashioned way"--i.e., reading reels of 35 mm microfilm at the Fort Worth Library. But now back to 2012. . . (and my original post on the matter): In "Post Number 123" on that thread, I wrote about my own experience, as I recalled it at that time. It was almost 18 years after-the-fact, and my own recollection was imperfect, but here's what I wrote (in a post in which I had numbered the points being made. This was my point number 13): 13. As has been pointed out (and according to McBride, himself) Oswald –who, with his mother, moved to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956—subsequently wrote a letter to a supervisor at Pfisterer. In that letter, he talks of racial tensions and demonstrations in Fort Worth. Back around 1995, I had someone go to the Fort Worth library, pull microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and actually locate news stories mentioning that. More recently, Greg Parker, using Google, came up with similar corroboration. There were no “digital scanners” back in 1995—certainly, I did not have one—or I would have scanned those items). My point is that that data also corroborates the fact that we are dealing with the year 1956, and certainly not 1957 or 1958. 2012: Greg Parker's Reaction to my Post At that point, Greg Parker blew a gasket. . and it was downhill from there. His reaction was really quite amazing. He had discovered this. It was his. His original work! How could anyone else have found it? Specifically, how could I have found it? Had I ever published anything on this? It just went on and on. Parker asked one question after another, in the style of a nasty cross-examiner; and –18 years having passed—my first answers were not accurate. Later, Parker would compare the first with the second and the third as I attempted to think back and remember: just how the heck did I get that research task done? In the beginning, I mistakenly said I did it, then I said I paid a researcher; then I remembered the details—aha! It was Debra Conway who had done the work. (Parker, who had difficulty accepting any of this, referred to Debra in insulting terms, and asked how much I had paid her. [The answer: zero.] ) I telephoned Debra, we talked, and she checked her records and determined that it was November 1994. But all this played out over a number of weeks, with Parker proclaiming that I was a xxxx, that my changed answers proved I was engaged in a deception; that if I really had such important information, I would have put it on the Internet (there was no modern Internet until several years afterwards, and anyway, that was not my style. Once I had the filmed interview, with a signed release, that was the end of it, as far as I was concerned. I would use it as documentation for my book, and perhaps in a future documentary ). Parker ominously warned that if I ever dared to say, in a published book, that I had discovered this information, he would publicly denounce me and expose me as a xxxx. When it was pointed out (by moderator Don Jeffries, and by John Simkin himself) that all of this was unjustified and in bad taste, and against the rules, he refused to back down; indeed, he "doubled down" (to use gambling terminology) and reiterated his position. “I don’t owe anyone an apology!” he proclaimed. He had caught me in a deliberate lie; and by God, he was intent on exposing me. All of this was rubbish; utterly false. In one post, Parker refused to believe that I (working with Debra) could have been looking in the Fort Worth newspapers for the “summer of 1956” for the stated reason our search began (i.e., looking for the nights that I Led 3 Lives was broadcast) and he actually exploded: “The ONLY logical reason to look in those papers was the reason I did. . .(!)” Can you imagine that? I mean: who writes something like that, and expects to be taken seriously? OTHER THOUGHTS BEFORE ENDING THIS POST. . . I have more to say about this, and may write more about this in the future. Meanwhile, this post should limn in--for those interested--the relationship between Palmer McBride's original FBI statement (incorrect as to date, i.e., 1958, rather than 1956); the Fort Worth news stories about racial strife, what Palmer McBride said during our October 2 1956 filmed interview, and what Debra Conway found at the Fort Worth library in November, 1994. For those who wish to read generous excerpts from my October 2 1956 filmed interview, see post #112, post #116 (re Weyerhaeuser). Also see post #143 (for a good summary of the history of my relationship with McBride); post #175, and post number 178. (Note to readers: I have yet to double check the list of the posts I am citing here--i.e., in which I quoted from the transcript of my 10/2/94 filmed interview. Further (and anticipating the question): No, I cannot put the entire un-edited interview on YouTube at this time, because it is involved with a larger documentary film project.) 1995 and the ARRB--and the matter of Palmer McBride I had good relationships with certain staff of the ARRB (Marwell, Gun, Doug Horne, and others) because they were calling some of the "Best Evidence witnesses" for depositions; and I made clear the importance of the Oswald tax records in addressing--and perhaps resolving--this issue. Towards the tail end of the ARRB's life (the "sunset date" was 9/30/98) Doug Horne --chief of Military Records at the ARRB--was able to engineer a release of the Oswald tax records which established--without question--that Oswald worked at Pfisterer Dental Labs in 1956 (and not 1958). Had time permitted, and had the ARRB followed up, I am sure that a request for McBride's tax records would have established when he worked both at Weyerhauser Box and at Pfisterer, and so this "historical puzzle" would have been definitively settled once and for all. Unfortunately, those final steps were never taken. Now getting back to John Armstrong. . . : In late 1994 (and early 1995), after Armstrong learned of my filmed interview with Palmer McBride, he went into "damage control" mode. Quite swiftly, Armstrong did his usual "selling job" --what I call his "witness recruitment program". He contacted McBride and persuaded him that his original account was not an error--no, not at all--but (rather) a valuable reality (!). By "talking to" McBride in this manner, he then put McBride back on the path which he then defended for the rest of his life: that his original statement (previously acknowledged to have been mistaken, in our Oct 2 1994 filmed interview) was in fact correct (!). But that's a whole other chapter in this saga, and that includes McBride's letter to the ARRB (when he learned that I had put in writing a request that they should look into the matter). In other words, McBride then became a partisan in the "two Oswald" debate (!). FWIW: Palmer McBride (whose DOB was 11/29/37) died on May 4, 2013, at age 75. Ancestry.com lists the location as Winnetka, California, which is defined --in Wikipedia--as a "neighborhood" in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. (When I interviewed McBride on October 2, 1994, he was living in Sun Valley, California). As for Greg Parker, he will have to stew in his own juices. He's responsible for creating much of this messed up record on the Internet--and specifically, on the thread that he personally launched in December 2011. It is a thread loaded with false charges against me, which--because of his own psychology--he cannot concede are in error. But I am not the only person who is the target of his irresponsible "analysis", packaged with much pomposity and delivered with a false sense of certainty. His recent statements and posts on this thread ("Who Wrote the Walker Note?") that Ruth Paine was part of a conspiracy because (says Parker) she turned in a pre-fabricated and forged note re Walker (concealed in a cookbook) is another example of his false reasoning. Still another is his very recent (and absurd) claim that Oswald never lived at the Neely Street address (the site of the infamous "back yard photos"). I have to wonder whether he will include that doozie in a future volume of his e-book. More when I have time. Meanwhile, I stand by my 2 October 1994 interview with the late Palmer McBride. It was good journalism and a chance for McBride to set the record straight. (Which he did.) And thanks again to Gary Mack for calling my attention to these 1956 filmed interviews. DSL 4/28/15 Los Angeles, California (edited, and tweaked - 4/28/15, 4:05 p.m. PDT)

Sorry for the extremely delayed response: In response to your question: I believe they encountered the real Oswald. Not an impersonator, but the real Lee H. Oswald. At Lincoln Mercury (Bogard) and at the firing range (Dr. Wood, and his son) --without question. Re Sylvia Odio--I still return to the matter and re-analyze it; but basically my conclusion remains the same: yes, it was Oswald. The real Oswald (of the Warren Report). FWIW (and by way of background). . . : In communicating with Armstrong--extensively and in detail for several months prior to October, 1995-I found that he was almost congenitally incapable of dealing with contradictory data. So. . . : no matter what the contradiction was, Armstrong immediately postulated "duplicate Oswalds" (my quotes). Again and again he did this--always resorting to these improbable (perhaps impossible, is more accurate) "explanations", rather than simply addressing the contradiction (or conflict) as any historian would, and in less extreme terms. The result (imho): he has compiled a book full of data that is sometimes useful, but which is almost always mis-interpreted. ARMSTRONG AND THE OSWALD TAX RECORDS: The most extreme example of this approach occurred during the latter days of the ARRB, when Doug Horne was able to unearth the tax records for the period 1955/1956 (speaking here from memory). Those records definitively established where Oswald worked --i.e., based on the tax returns filed. Almost immediately, Armstrong and his followers erected an "adjunct" hypothesis: that the tax records were (as in "must have been") falsified. That was an absurd hypothesis, and there was no credible data to support it; but that's what was said, and so his theory then "lived on." (As it does, apparently among some folks, today.) DSL 4/25/15, 11:55 a.m., PDT Los Angeles, California