David Lifton

Lets instead go TO AUTHORITY to debunk the silly video technician dave healy Zavada to Horne: You identify your primary reference sources to support alteration as the presentation by David Healy "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED at Jim Fetzers May 2003 conference and Professor Fieldings book The Technique of SPECIAL EFFECTS Cinematography.In my early discussions with David Healy, and as noted in his paper, he was not aware of the daylight loading procedure of the Zapruder camera and misidentified the film types and was not knowledgeable about the types of films used in post-production. Therefore Davids analysis appears to follow the mindset of other proponents of alteration that they were working in a professional film content/reproduction special effects capability environment. Nothing could be further from the truth as the amateur 8mm film original introduced insurmountable constraints to the purported special optical effects changes.(pg 15) Horne to Zavada: Experienced film editor David Healy presented a stimulating and convincing lecture at Duluth in 2003 proving that the technology did exist in 1963 to alter 8 mm motion picture films by removing frames, and altering image content; and Professor Raymond Fielding, who discussed in depth the commonly used Hollywood techniques of traveling mattes and aerial imaging in his seminal 1965 film textbook on special visual effects in cinematography, have both provided evidence that the Zapruder film could have been altered in 1963 using existing technology. Zavada nails the silly video repairman dave healy to the wall... I have always believed that there are many film technology and time constraints that preclude the Zapruder film from having been altered and then reproduced as an undetectable KODACHROME II facsimile of the original. With the challenges to authenticity based on image content being the subject of Professor Fetzers May 2003 conference, I decided to reinforce my process film technology knowledge and background by visiting professor Raymond Fielding at the Florida State University and to review with him copies of the Zapruder film and selected still frames. Our conclusion following a lengthy discussion was that it would not be possible to introduce significant scene content changes without producing easily detectable artifacts.Subsequently in the fall of 2006, when David Healy was requesting a web interchange of information, I submitted his chapter "HOW THE FILM WAS EDITED and my analysis to Professor Fielding for review and received comments that included: You may quote me if you wish in saying that (1) I agree with your interpretation of the data and evidence available and with the conclusions that you have reached, including questions of technical feasibility and the time line involved, (2) in my judgment there is no way in which manipulation of these images could have been achieved satisfactorily in 1963 with the technology then available, (3) if such an attempt at image manipulation of the footage had occurred in 1963 the results could not possibly have survived professional scrutiny, and (4) challenges regarding the authenticity of the NARA footage and assertions of image manipulation, as are suggested by Mr. Healy in the document you sent me, are technically naïve. you sound like a broken down old record-fossil, Lampoon... Zavada to Healy: "yes, KODAK manufactured double 8 film with no edge markings.." use your imagination toots..... whoops, with no film-image compositing experience you haven't a clue do ya? It would benefit your inexperienced, lone nut teammates and yourself if your experience extended a bit further than simpleminded Adobe Photoshop layers... you need a full understanding of the craftmanship and compositing skills of 1963 optical film lab artists, not to mention glass painters.. Carry with the disinfo, thank you -- Management LMAO! Poor tape recorder repairman. Stuffed under the bus by the very guy who you tried to use as a source to play your "I edit film, listen to me" baloney.Earth to Davy. I got my chops in a production house and went on to produce MANY pieces composited on film that withstood PROLONGED inspection as advertising stills. What you gonna bring to the table, repairman? Corporate HR videos? Roflmao. Oh, consider yourself refuted BY authority. The problem with you, Lamson, is that you "got your chops" in advertising. I'll tell you where your services would have been useful, and my suggestion as to how to proceed. Get yourself into a time machine, go back to 1963, and offer your talents to those who produced the "Wanted for Treason" posters. I'll bet you could have done a much better job than they did. No doubt. DSL 5/26/13, 10:55 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

(If there's a duplicate post--my apologies. . through a glitch, I apparently lost it. . but "as I was saying". . .). Also note (5/25/13 -9:PM, PDT): I have edited this post to eliminate spelling errors, but also to include certain information about Oswald's two letters to his brother, mentioning the U-2. * * * BELOW THIS POINT - - - MY EDITED and Augmented POST * * * To begin with: the date on the Corbis photo (which is given as November 17, 1959), is incorrect.The correct date is October 31, 1959. Here's the sequence (as I understand it) of what happened that. So let's start by going to calendar date October 31, 1959. Sat., October 31, 1959: At about 12:30-1240 PM local [Moscow] time, Oswald goes to the American Embassy, and has the encounter with Consul Snyder. (Note: according to an account in John Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA [see the author's Chapter #1 "Defection in Moscow"], LHO was well dressed. (Quoting from Newman: “Oswald was dressed immaculately, in a dark suit with a white shirt and tie—‘very businessman-looking,’ Snyder later recalled. But Snyder soon noticed odd things, like the fact that the man had no coat or hat on this brisk October thirty-first morning. . and then there were those thin, dressy white gloves that he wore into the room and removed rather deliberately as he came to a halt in front of Snyder’s desk.” (Newman, p. 2) Oswald, too referred to these gloves in his own diary entry of the moment he sat down: “I wait, crossing my legs and laying my gloves in my lap.” (ibid). Somehow—and it may have been from a personal conversation with John Newman, I have retained the impression that Oswald was not wearing “any old gloves” but the white gloves that were part of his USMC dress uniform 2. Oswald returns to his room at the Hotel Berlin 3. Later that afternoon, Korengold (of UPI) goes to Oswald's room; attempts to interview him. Keeps foot in door. etc. Oswald refuses. (FYI: There is a brief FBI Interview of Korengold somewhere in the 26 volumes. Much much shorter than this very interesting article he wrote in Bonjour Paris, which was published in November [i'm assuming that was the month] 2003). 4. Korengold returns to his office; tells Aline Mosby about Oswald, and what has just transpired. 5. Aline Mosby goes to LHO's room--with a camera--and does interview him. And she takes his picture. That's the photo of the nicely dressed Oswald, with suit, vest, tie, etc. now being sold by Corbis (and mis-dated as having been taken on November 17). At some point, and apparently wearing these same clothes, but this detail should be checked carefully, Oswald sat for a formal portrait at the Hotel Berlin. That's the "other" picture (or pictures) showing him nicely dressed). 6. Mosby's story is datelined 10/31/59 and runs in many newspapers--certainly on Sunday, November 1 (but perhaps also in late evening editions on Saturday night, 10/31/59. Not sure of that. But remember: Moscow is "nine hours ahead" of Dallas, for example, so there would probably have been plenty of time to make a late evening or "Xtra" edition of U.S.newspaper). 7. Mosby takes the picture that is now at Corbis (and which Corbis incorrectly states was taken on November 17, 1959) 7A: For the record: Another reporter, Goldberg, of the AP, also attempted to interview Oswald that same day. A brief FBI report about that is in the 26 Volumes). His encounter is also mentioned in Epstein's LEGEND. 8. Two weeks later, on Saturday, November 14, Oswald calls Mosby (at the Moscow UPI office) and invites her to come over and interview him. By that time, he is being treated much more sympathetically by the Soviets and is at the Hotel Metropole (remember: LHO attempted suicide on 10/21, and went to Botkin Hospital. When he was released, circa 10/28, the Soviets transferred him from the Hotel Berlin to the Hotel Metropole). 9. This Mosby interview was widely published on Sunday, 11/15/59, and a copy of it --as it ran in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (with the headline Fort Worth Defector Confirms Red Beliefs)--is Warren Commission Exhibit 2716. The same story ran in he Dallas Morning News (again, on 11/15/59, but this was not published in he Warren Commission's 26 volumes) under the title: "Fort Worth Boy Tells Why He Left U.S.") And, fyi, Oswald's own "Historic Diary" entry of that same encounter with Mosby is WCE 2717. 10. In this interview, Mosby said that LHO had a "chop-top" haircut. 11. I don't know (for certain) if Mosby took any pictures of Oswald on this occasion, but I don't believe she did. 12. On Monday, November 16, Priscilla Johnson (McMillan) learned about Oswald being at the Metropole Hotel (where she, too, was staying), and she then arranged to interview him that evening, and spent some hours with Oswald. But note this important difference: Priscilla Johnson (McMillan) was with North American News Alliance (NANA), not a wire service, and so her story (as Korengold notes in his Bonjour Paris piece) was distributed by mail, and to a limited number of subscribers; and so, when it appeared, was published many days--if not several weeks--later. (Also note: no photos were taken by McMillan). Anyway. . .my main purpose in setting out to write this post was simply to note that Corbis is selling a historically important picture of Oswald which is incorrectly dated. Also, it is very likely that this same picture is in the Kennedy collection at the National Archives, but I'm not sure of that at all. (And, even if its there, its perhaps same picture, but an inferior copy. I just don't know). I also find it very interesting--and indeed, most informative--that Korengold and McMillan happened to be together on November 22, 1963, when the news arrived of Oswald being arrested in Dallas--so of course they swapped stories and recollections, and of course they "matched". Remember: they both saw Oswald on the same day (October 31, 1959) and within minutes of one another. Priscilla McMillan's story versus Mosby's Story (per the Warren Commission materials) Two other things are worth noting (and keep in mind that Priscilla McMillan was deposed as a Warren Commission witness, whereas Aline Mosby was not). In the case of Mosby, there is simply a WC exhibit of the text of her notes, and draft that she wrote, just after the assassination [see CE 1385]. But no testimony--which I have always found weird. Obviously, she was just as (historically) important as McMillan, and certainly should have testified. Now, on to these points: (a) The Priscilla Johnson story and the Aline Mosby story are almost line by line similar. So--essentially--Oswald said the same thing to both of these reporters just days apart. Consequently, I have never understood why so much suspicion is focused on Priscilla Johnson (McMillan) --for having once attempted to join the CIA, or whatever the details are--when a nearly identical story was published by Aline Mosby, and no one raises an eyebrow. My point is that Priscilla--imho--has come in for a lot of unjustified criticism and suspicion. As far as I'm concerned, its entirely unwarranted. Each reporter simply wrote down what Oswald told them, and then published based on that information. So their two stories represent written accounts of two conversations that Oswald had with these two journalists to days apart. But. . please do read on, because there's plenty of questions that can be raised about Aline Mosby, and they are potentially far more important than the rather unwarranted barrage of criticism (unwarranted criticism, imho) that has been aimed at McMillan--and in writing this, I'm referring to the two stories that each journalist wrote in the aftermath of their two encounters with Oswald--Mosby, on Saturday, 11/14/59, and McMillan (then Priscilla Johnson), on 11/16/59. (b ) There is reasonable evidence that Oswald--somehow--got from Minsk to Moscow, and (perhaps) attended one of the three days (or part of one of the three days) of the sensational U-2 trial of Gary Powers in August, 1960 (8/17, 8/18, 8/19)--based on the fact that he twice mentioned to Robert Oswald (in letters written in Feb., 1962, after Powers was in the news, because he had been exchanged for Soviet spy Rudolph Abel) that he had "seen" Oswald in Moscow. I don't know how Oswald somehow managed to get to Moscow (if he did). I'm just pointing out that that's a natural inference, based on what he wrote his brother. Here are the two quotes from two consecutive letters to his brother, Robert. The first, from LHO's letter to his brother on 2/15/62 (the birth date of his first child, June, and the proximate cause for his writing to his brother, congratulating him on now being an uncle): I heard over the Voice of America that they released Powers the U-2 spy plane pilot. That's big news where you are, I suppose. He seemed to be a nice, bright American-type fellow, when I saw him in Moscow." (WCE 315; underling added) Then came a second mention, in his next letter to Robert: I heard a "Voice of America" program about the Russians releasing Powers. I hope they aren't going to try him in the U.S. [for] anything. (WCE 316). So much for Lee Oswald mentioning Gary Powers. But now, also significant (and potentially more important), here's my next point. . . (c ) Aline Mosby almost certainly covered that trial. (She was, after all, one of UPI's reporters). So first of all, if Oswald was at the U-2 trial, and if Mosby covered it, and if she saw him there, the absence of any mention of the "former defector" being there would of course be significant. And that's just conjecture. Because I can't prove Oswald was at the trial, and I have no direct evidence (at this juncture) that Aline Mosby in fact covered the Powers trial, although its likely she did. In any event, let's now move on to 1961, at which point Mosby was under contract to write a book for Random House, about her experiences in Russia. Aline Mosby had two occasions in which she spoke with Oswald--first, on October 31 (as explained in detail by Korengold, in his 2003 Bonjour Paris piece); and then again on Saturday, November 14, 1959, which resulted in the longer story she did and which was published in various US newspapers on Sunday, November 15, 1959. And yet, when it came time to write her book about her time as a journalist in Moscow--The View from No. 13 People's Street, published by Random House in 1962 --she mentions nothing about Oswald. The jacket of her book sports the statement: "The only woman correspondent in Moscow reports on Russia, and the Russians." The book is 308 pages long and, as noted, was published by Random House. It is no longer in print, but has chapters on all sorts of things. How come there's no mention of Oswald? FWIW: For quite a few years now, I have suspected that --somehow--CIA Director Allen Dulles (who was "connected to everyone" [my quotes] and had great connections in the world of publishing) somehow heard about her book and (somehow) requested that she not write about Oswald; or, if pages or paragraphs were already in the book about LHO, that they be deleted. Of course, I can't prove this, but I just don't understand how such an interesting and newsworthy person as Oswald, whom one writes about on two previous occasions (someone interesting enough that the reporter even takes his picture, and includes that in her wire service story!) is then omitted from such a memoir. So much for my thoughts on the late Aline Mosby. But now let's turn to Priscilla McMillan, and her writings on the JFK case. WHY PRISCILLA McMILLAN CAME TO BE SO DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THE KENNEDY CASE (and the source of her "Oswald did it" viewpoint) (d ) With regard to McMillan: I don't wish to dredge up personal matters (unnecessarily), but it should be pointed out that she had a personal relationship with Senator Kennedy, back in the mid -fifties, and was--to speak frankly--in love with him. (Please note: Priscilla Johnson --as she was then known--knew Senator Kennedy well enough to be visiting him in his hospital room, along with JFK's sisters, when he was recovering from his major back surgery). Of what relevance is this? Well, here's why its important. Priscilla's Initial Reaction to Hearing the News of President Kennedy's Murder Priscilla's reaction--upon hearing the news of Kennedy's murder (and it was devastating to her, on a personal level)--was along these lines: "OMG: I knew both the man who was murdered and the man who murdered him! I personally knew both Jack Kennedy himself, as well as this young man who is (apparently) his assassin." And --I believe (and I think she has almost said as much, in a writing of hers that I have read, perhaps in Marina and Lee)--that she was then driven to understand how this young man with whom she had spent a snowy evening in Moscow, on November 16, 1959, could then, just four years later, do something like that. For her, it was an existential mystery of sorts: How Lee Oswald, who she thought she understood fairly well, had come to assassinate the man she had loved, John F. Kennedy. So that's how it began. That's the root (and the origins, psychologically) of Priscilla's interest in Kennedy's assassination, and Lee Oswald as his assassin. How That Led to Her Involvement With Marina Oswald And so of course it was natural for her to seek a link-up with Marina, which then resulted in Marina and Lee published in 1977. When someone we love is murdered, we want to know "what happened?" and "Why?" That's what happened with Priscilla McMillan. Again I remind anyone reading this who insists on attempting to "explain" Priscilla McMillan's 1959 writings as part of some nefarious CIA scheme: what she wrote (and published) in November 1959 (and in December, 1959) is no different than what Aline Mosby wrote (and published) on November 15, 1959. These two reporters interviewed Lee Oswald two days apart; and he essentially said the same thing to both. The Important Difference Between McMillan and (the late) Aline Mosby But note this important difference: When Mosby wrote (and published) her 1962 memoir about her Moscow days ("The View from No. 13 People's Street," published in 1962 by Random House, and over 300 pages long) there is not a word about Oswald in it. And that--as far as I'm concerned--is a serious example of a "dog that does not bark." To repeat what I said above: I simply do not understand how a wire service reporter who interviewed Oswald twice--on October 31, 1959 and then on November 14, 1959 (and who took his photograph on the first occasion)--could then go on to write a memoir (very likely written in 1961, since it was published in 1962), and not mention Lee Harvey Oswald. I'd sure like to have someone explain that to me. DSL 5/25/13; 2 PM PDT; edited, 9:15 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Which "David"? DSL

FWIW, here's what I posted in the "Comments" section of the Huffington Post yesterday: When I was writing Best Evidence (circa 1977-1979), I tried to contact Paul Mandel about his story in Life magazine (12/6/63 “End to Nagging Rumors, The Six Critical Seconds”) which said that the Zapruder film showed that JFK turned almost all the way around, exposing his throat to the alleged “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and that was why President Kennedy had an entry wound at the front of his throat. How could he write such a thing, I wondered, since the published Zapruder frames showed no such “turn.” So I wanted to speak with Mandel and publish his explanation. Unfortunately, I soon learned he had died more than 10 years before. I concluded that someone gave him false information as to what the film showed. I am well aware of Paul Mandel’s fine credentials as a writer–and am left (along with many others) to wonder just how such a serious error was made–and without any published explanation in the days, weeks, and months following (and not even after the Warren Report was published in September, 1964). Given the reliance the American people placed on what they read in Life magazine, some sort of “errata” should have been published at the time. I think the failure of LIFE to publish a correction notice (as I indicated in my comment, above), is a dead give-away as to their lack of ethics or responsibility. It is absurd for a magazine which controlled such a critically important piece of evidence to have misinformed the public, and then simply stay mute. What kind of people were in charge at Life magazine, at the time, and who gave them the right to lie to the American people? I don't know why Paul Mandel wrote what he did, but he's responsible for what he did, and as soon as it became clear he was in error, it was his responsibility to issue a correction notice. But neither he (nor LIFE) did anything of the kind. DSL 5/23/13 - 4:10 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Its my understanding that this photo was taken in Moscow, at the Hotel Berlin, between the day Oswald arrived (Friday, 10/16) and the day of the suicide attempt (10/21) after which he went to Botkin Hospital. Oswald apparently sat for a hotel photographer, and had a couple of pictures taken. (I base my conclusion on extensive discussions I had with Gary Mack [back in 1999] about various photographs of Oswald taken in Moscow). FYI: When Oswald was interviewed by UPI's Aline Mosby (on Saturday, 11/14), she reported --in her article--that he had a "chop top" haircut, per the military style. One other thing: its very likely this photo is available at the Natonal Archives, and in the Kennedy collection. DSL 5/23/13; 3:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Paul, No, you're not missing anything, and I agree with you 100%. This thread --in facts--has a cornucopia of important quotes about Lyndon Johnson, perhaps the most telling being the material coming directly from Arthur Schlesginger, based on his conversations with Moyers, and the information about Moyers and Goodwin both seriously looking into the question of LBJ presenting a serious mental health problem. Also important: Moyers observation about it being difficult to write about LBJ because "nobody would believe it" etc.. The material from George Reedy, about Johnson, is critically important: he paints Johnson as a 5 star bully, and a mentally unstable, rather sadistic, fruitcake. Robert Kennedy's observations about Johnson being almost a pathological xxxx are also relevant. FWIW: I was particularly annoyed to see Robert Caro --on his most recent appearance on Charlie Rose--stating that Moyers was obviously not going to write a book about Johnson. I think he has written something, but its unpublished. Please note: Moyers kept a journal--a detailed journal--of his daily interactions with Lyndon Johnson. I know that to be true because, on one occasion, he published a series of detailed paragraphs from that journal, that were important, and revealing. Its my personal opinion that Moyers is troubled by the ethics of the situation: first of all, he genuinely liked Ladybird, spent a lot of timewith her (this is before Johnson got the Veep) and he probably felt that telling the truth about Lyndon would drag her through the mud. Second, he had a complicated relationship with LBJ---who, by the way, arranged for him (Spring 67, just after the Manchester book was published) to leave the White House and then take over as publisher of the Long Island Press (as I recall). I knew someone who worked for (and with) Moyers, at the time Best Evidence was published (Jan 1981). From that person, I learned that Bill Moyers would never talk about the Kennedy assassination--the subject was completely off limits. Back to Johnson: I have a vivid image of Johnson, back in 1965--the picture was in Newsweek, and showed LBJ sprawled out at his desk, obviously drunk (or so it seemed to me) with Valenti, Moyers, and others, all standing around him, very attentive, each with pencils poised over notepads, as if nothing was wrong. Around the same time, in a London paper, was this incident. At a press briefing, a British reporter asked some question that LBJ didn't like, and he responded: "Why do you come here, and ask me, the President of the United States, a chicken-xxxx question like that." I remember that photo and that incident with the LBJ quote. It was around that time that I became persuaded LBJ was surrounded with sycophants, and that he wasn't quite right, mentally. DSL 5/18/13; 2:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

And as part of this "sophisticated strategic deception", the conspirators decided it was a good and sensible idea to make it as difficult as humanly possible to hide the conspiracy by deliberately firing all of the shots at President Kennedy from the FRONT, while firing ZERO shots from the rear (which is where they planted their one and only patsy named Oswald). Is that correct, David L.? (Not to mention the difficulty that the plotters deliberately set up for themselves regarding the altering of the President's wounds after the shooting.)I think we can take out the word "sophisticated" in David Lifton's above quote and replace it with "idiotic". Because that latter word is much more appropriate. Please, David Lifton, explain to me what was going through the collective minds of those silly conspirators in the days and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they DELIBERATELY tried to frame a guy in the DEPOSITORY by firing ONLY from the Knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision? I doubt that you can reasonably explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking, and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake. In addition -- How do you, David L., explain away witnesses like Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Bob Jackson, and Mal Couch -- each of whom said they saw with their own eyes a rifle sticking out of the sixth-floor window on the southeast end of the Book Depository at the exact time when the President was being shot with rifle bullets on Elm Street? Did those witnesses merely see a person who was only PRETENDING to fire a gun at JFK? You don't think that sixth-floor rifleman fired ANY shots from that gun seen by those witnesses? And what about Harold Norman? Was he lying when he said he HEARD the rifle being fired from directly above him in the Depository? Is Harold yet another one of the many people you must call a xxxx in this case, DSL? But, then again, what does silly old DVP know about logic? I'm merely, according to David Lifton, "a garden variety xxxx" who is "committed to a false reality". (Anybody got a really big "POT/KETTLE" icon I can use? I need one here badly.) TO: DVP (and Vince Bugliosi, who I am sure will be reading this): I do not think you (or your pal Vince Bugliosi) have ever understood what the Kennedy murder was all about. You both seem to view it as a simple homicide. But it was not. It was not simply about "killing the President"; It was about murdering the President and getting away with it. That could not have been accomplished by simply firing shots and leaving the evidence undisturbed, because the evidence, in that case, would have pointed to the guilty party. And by "the evidence," I am referring to the standard view of "the evidence" in this case. Surely you are familiar with that "evidence": The rifle, the shells, etc. So that's why, in this case, the evidence had to be altered,messed with, replaced, substituted, planted, choose your own terms; and that's why the standard techniques of investigation did not (and will not) work in this case. Critical evidence has been changed, and replaced with a false overlay, if you will. Some of that was done before the actual shooting (and I'm referring here to the creation of the so-called "sniper's nest"); and some afterwards (e.g., the planting of a bullet on a stretcher, or bullet fragments in the presidential limousine). Unfortunately for you and your pal, Vince Bugliosi (who I suspect vets most of your posts, assuming he does not provide actual draft materials for your posts) he views Dealey Plaza (and Oswald) as if he were retrying the Manson case. A madman was responsible; a psycho named Oswald. But Oswald was not Charlie Manson, and Vince Bugliosi doesn't seem to understand that. And I doubt he ever will. If the President's body was altered, then this was a body-centric plot; that is, it was a plot not just to murder President Kennedy by shooting him, but then (i.e., afterwards) to alter the medical facts of the case (i.e., alter the wounds, remove bullets, etc.) --all of that done to change the story of how JFK died. To alter the "medical facts" and thus change the "legal facts" as to how JFK died for the FBI, and for any subsequent investigation, whether it was a presidential commission, a congressional investigation, whatever. It would not matter. Viewed that way, this was a plot "with a built-in cover-up"--and was akin to a piece of domestic espionage. If the President's body was altered (i.e., if the wounds were altered, and bullets removed.) then there were two distinctly separate functions operative in this murder plot--the first, to kill the President; the second, to alter the medical data--i.e., the medical information--so as to change the legal facts as to how he died. The first has to do with the murder; the second, with the cover-up. The first has to do with Kennedy's shooting; the second, with a plan to carry out an elaborate scheme designed to obstruct justice. That's why I have said that in approaching the issue "what happened in Dallas?", a collateral question must first be addressed: Was the body altered? Was there a plan to deceive subsequent investigation? Not: would I plan a crime this way? That is not the issue, DVP (or Mr. Bugliosi). No one cares how you would have planned the crime. That's irrelevant. Rather, the issue is: what happened in this case? Do you (Bugliosi) think that what you "would have done" supercedes in importance the evidence of what actually happened in this case? Someone like yourself, (DVP) or Vincent Bugliosi apparently cannot grasp this concept, and/or simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of the critically important evidence of body alteration (which is the tell-tale sign that there was a serious strategic deception employed in connection with this murder). That would be like refusing to face the fact, in a complex financial transaction, that certain key documents are forgeries, refusing to face the fact that an embezzlement occurred, and insisting on investigating the crime as a normal bank robbery. But just because Buliogsi wants to play "deaf and dumb" to the contrary evidence does not mean we must follow him down that absurd path. Why? Because he wrote Helter Skelter? Why? Because he often behaves like a sneering bully? So back to basics: what is the answer to this critically important question? Was the body altered? Or not? That evidence is plentiful, and is the subject of my 32 chapter book Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of President Kennedy first released in January, 1981, and then re-published by three more publishers in the years following. In all, Best Evidence was published by four publishers, was a New York Times best seller, and a Book of the Month Selection. It remained in print for 17 years (and will be published again). Moreover, if you wish to go "beyond the text" and judge the demeanor of the witnesses, then view the 37 minute documentary film that I produced in 1989: the Best Evidence Research Video, based on the witnesses responses to my questions put to the them over 30 years ago in interviews that were filmed in October, 1980, about a year after my original telephone interviews, and just prior to the January, 1981 release of my book. In your post, you (or Bugliosi, perhaps) ask: "please. . explain to me what was going through the collective minds and weeks before JFK went to Dallas? Were they all just nuts when they deliberately tried to frame a guy in the depository by firing only from the knoll? Please explain the logic of that decision, because it defies all logic and rational thinking and is a plan that only a total lunatic would undertake." " . . all just nuts. . ."; ". . only a total lunatic. . . " ? Oh pleez. . . Please spare us the histrionics. This constant hand-wringing. This "Oh my Gosh. . do you really mean it? "; "Can you really believe this?"; "Oh my gosh. . please explain! " Etc etc. Grow up and face the true legal record in this case--and what it really states, not what you or Bugliosi believe it ought to be were either of you planning President Kennedy's murder. Now back to your anguished question(s) and your anguished appeal that I respond . . . : Sorry, but I already did, in Best Evidence, which was published in January, 1981. A book which was covered on two full pages in Time magazine, not as a book review, but as a news story. An article in the National Affairs section of Time which noted that this was the first time questions had been raised about the "the deceptive handling of the body." You bet. (And that's a polite way of stating it.) As to how and why it may have been planned that way, see my chapter laying it all out, and which is titled "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception" There you can read the logic of such a plan. Its all laid out, simple enough for a child to understand. Simple enough even for anyone who went to law school to understand; and certainly simple enough for someone who tried Charlie Manson to understand. There it is explained why it would be sensible to fire a weapon from one direction, while creating what is tantamount to a diversion designed to create a false public perception as to the origin of the shots. There it is laid out that support for this hypothesis comes from the existing record, where just about all the Dallas doctors, who saw the body before alteration, all said that the shots came from the front. Moreover, there is also laid out the rather peculiar behavior of certain Dallas Police officers who, according to the DPD tapes, immediately (and rather prematurely) radio'd observations calling attention to the sniper's nest, yet (officers who) were never able to produce the identity of the supposed "witness" who provided that information. You (and/or VB) can bluster and scream and wail and cry all you wish, but I suggest you stop throwing a tantrum, because it comes down to three questions that must be addressed: (1) Was the body intercepted? (2) Were the wounds altered? (3) Was this planned in advance, or was it an ad hoc cover-up? Here are the facts: a) Was President Kennedy's body intercepted? Is there evidence of that? Answer: Yes, there certainly is such evidence and, in the words of an experienced investigative reporter who held a top position at CBS network news, said it was "courtroom quality evidence." Read the chapters concerning all that in Best Evidence, or get a copy of the video and, in 37 minutes, watch the contrasting accounts of Aubrey Rike, who put the President's body, in a 400 pound ($4k) elegant bronze coffin in Dallas; versus the account of Bethesda witnesses who know that it arrived in a shipping casket; Read the accounts (or see the video) that the body left Dallas wrapped in sheets, but arrived at Bethesda (inside that shipping casket) inside a body bag. Really, I don't have the time to spoon feed you (or Bugliosi) evidence which has been published 30 years ago, and which has been filmed and even shown on YouTube. So you can stop the hand-wringing, chest thumping, the raised eyebrows, the screams, the cries, and all the theatrical angst: those are the facts. Furthermore, the time sequence (of arrivals at Bethesda Naval Hospital) proves the case. It is a fact that the body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35 P.M. EST, twenty minutes before the coffin (in the naval ambulance, which arrived at 6:55 PM): that is attested to by the accounts of Dennis David, Don Rebentisch, and the Boyajian document ("18:35," or 6:35 PM). TV producer Stanhope Gould, who handled the Watergate coverage for Walter Cronkite at the CBS network, worked on this material, re-filmed much of it for a 60 minute documentary on KRON-TV (in San Francisco and its sister station in St Louis). He told the San Francisco newspapers in the fall of 1988 that David Lifton had developed --and filmed-- "courtroom quality evidence" that established that the President's body had been intercepted. Let me repeat that for the benefit of Mr. Vince Bugliosi: "courtroom quality evidence." Do either of you understand what that means? Or are you both so self-involved, and so wedded to the "Oswald hypothesis" that you just are incapable of understanding what the evidence indicates in this case? So please, DVP (and please, Vincent Bugliosi) you can cut out the histrionics, the squeals and cries of disbelief, and just examine the evidence. Mr. Bugliosi: You're a lawyer, right? You went to law school right? You understand what a chain of possession is, and its importance? And you think, in light of this evidence, that President Kennedy's body was not intercepted? Oh pleez. . . But let's now move on to the next question. . . (b ) Was the body altered--i.e., were the wounds altered? (Is there evidence of that?) Yes, there is. Plenty of such evidence, both in the area of the head and neck. And that, too, is laid out, chapter and verse, in Best Evidence. In Chapter 11 ("The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda") is laid out the evidence that the small penetrating wound of the neck, through which Dr. Perry made a "2-3 cm" trach incision, became --by the time the official autopsy commenced at Bethesda--a horizontal gash that Humes testified was "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges." By the time the body reached Bethesda, there was no evidence whatsoever of the underlying wound which had been there--that, according to the testimony of Commander James Humes, who conducted the autopsy. All he had was that horizontal gash. There was no remaining evidence of the original ound that had been there, even though Dr. Malcolm Perry said publicly that he ahd left the wound "inviolate"! In Chapter 13 ("The Head Wound: Dallas vs. Bethesda") is the evidence that the wound size dramatically increased by some 400% percent between Dallas and Bethesda. In Dallas, that wound was the size of “a hen’s egg” and located at the bottom of the back of the head. The cerebellum, at the underside of the brain, “protruded” through that wound. At Bethesda, the wound had increased dramatically in size, and extended all the way to the top and forward-right hand side of the head. I’m well aware that some students of this case believe that this was the result of photo forgery—but I’ve interviewed the doctors who dealt with the body—not with photos of the body—and the descriptive discrepancy is rooted in two different views of President Kennedy’s body, regardless of whether photos were also altered in this case. c) Was this planned in advance? Or was it an ad hoc coverup? This requires some analysis; and it could go either way--at least that's what I thought when I first addressed this problem back in December, 1966. In either case, it would be a horrific obstruction of justice. Even if it was an ad hoc "after-the-fact" plan, it would still be awful and of course extremely important. But I don't believe it was ad hoc. Not at all. I didn't believe it when I wrote Best Evidence, and I don't believe it now. And my reasons are spelled out in Chapter 14 of Best Evidence - - "Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception." This chapter describes what, in effect, was tantamount to the "geometric algorithm" that could have been used to deceive future investigation--even if the precise details of the wounding was not known in advance. In Best Evidence, I argued that case based on "wound geometry": specifically, based on the medical records from 1963-64, not a single doctor or nurse, in Dallas, saw any back wound. And I can assure you with the publication of my next work, my analysis will go beyond "wound geometry," and the answer will still be "yes." Without a doubt: the alteration of President Kennedy's body was pre-planned, and an integral part of the overall assassination plot. But for now, let's just briefly recap the way I approached the issue in Best Evidence. The question really boils down to (c ): if there were no rear entries, then this was clearly planned in advance. Because If there were no rear entries, then this was a "designer shooting." Based on the medical reports (and testimony) from JFK's treatment in Dallas, there were in fact no rear entries. None, based on my interviews with the Dallas nurses: no wounds on the rear surface of Kennedy's body. Re Governor Connally I am well aware that Connally was shot--and I believe that most students of this case would agree that his shooting was an unexpected event. My research in the Connally area goes back to 1967, when I interviewed Dr. Charles Gregory (who was in charge of Connally's wrist surgery), and Dr. Robert Shaw (who was in charge of his chest). In addition, there is my in-person tape recorded interview (1982, about six months before her death) with Nurse Doris Nelson who was the first nurse to attend to Connally; and, in addition, I have two interviews--one, an in-person taped interview, and another a detailed filmed interview--with another nurse who played a significant role of the Connally medical treatment. No, I do not believe the official conclusion that Connally was shot "once from behind," and will be dealing with this whole matter in Final Charade. The wounding of Governor Connally, and the cover-up that occurred in that area in no way affects my conclusions about the covert interception of JFK's body, the removal of bullets from his body, and the alteration of wounds--all of this done in order to create false autopsy conclusions about the gunshot trajectories in this case. THE CONVERSATIONS Dr. HUMES (at Bethesda) HAD WITH PERRY (in Dallas) - 11/23/63: Buttressing the case for medical alteration --and the Bethesda doctors keen awareness that this had occurred--is what Dr. Humes asked Dr. Perry when he called him late that night: "Did you make any wounds in the back?" And then there is the other question he asked him: "Why did you do a tracheotomy?" As [bethesda medical technician] Paul O'Connor, who said the body arrived with an empty cranium, commented during a filmed interview: "You wouldn't do a craniotomy on a man without a brain." (DSL FYI: A craniotomy --i.e., a clinical craniotomy--is a surgical exploration of the head, done during life. A "pathological craniotomy" is surgery of the head done in death, e.g., in connection with an autopsy.) In other words, O'Connor could not understand the anomalous state of the body--an empty cranium, plus a wide gash that was supposed to be trach incision (!). But how could that be? he wondered. Why would anyone do a trach on a person without a brain? Someone who was obviously dead? Etc. He was genuinely confused, and I captured all that on camera. But of course, you would like to ignore all this. The evidence of interception, the evidence of wound alteration, the evidence of what was said when Dr. Humes first saw the body--all of it. Like ostriches, the two of you insist on sticking your head(s) in the sand and pretending such evidence doesn't exist. So of course the body was altered, and the doctors at Bethesda recognized that. Immediately. That's why Dr. Humes said--and this was written down by the two FBI agents witnessing the beginning of the autopsy--that it was "apparent" that there had been"surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." No such "surgery" had been done in Dallas. And when, later in the examination, someone showed up in the autopsy room and handed Dr. Humes a large piece of bone from President Kennedy's skull, the two agents recorded what was said to Humes at the time: that this had "been removed." So yes, as JFK researcher Paul Hoch wrote decades ago, there was a perception in the autopsy room that there had been "surgery" prior to the commencement of the official autopsy. But of course, you would like to ignore all this. The evidence of interception, the evidence of wound alteration, the evidence of what was said when Dr. Humes first saw the body--all of it. Moreover, you would also like to ignore this critical data, even though the FBI internal documents I located (via FOIA) and quoted from in Chapter 12 of Best Evidence ("An Oral Utterance") confirm that, in 1966, agent James Sibert re-affirmed that what he (and O'Neill) wrote in the FBI report was a faithful and accurate account of what Dr. Humes said, at the outset of the autopsy. Still further, you persist in ignoring what is written there even though both FBI Agent Sibert and O'Neill were each called to testify before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in 1997, and re-affirmed, under oath, that that is what Humes said. But you (DVP) and your pal (Bugliosi) don't like any of that, do you? DVP: You note that I once called you a xxxx. I'll make you a deal: stop making these grandiose sweeping (and completely false) statements that there is no "evidence" (when clearly there is), and I'll stop characterizing your statements in that fashion. But if you insist on making these false statements that "2 and 2 equals 5," then don't expect me to believe you're reacting to the existing record with honesty and integrity. But let's now return to what seems to be one of the "main points" of your post. You ask: what about the witnesses who saw someone poking a rifle out of the sixth floor, or appearing to fire one? What a pathetic rebuttal. (But so glad you asked, because the answer is perfectly clear--and already laid out in my book. Did you bother to read it?) If so, then you certainly know that I never denied any of that evidence. To the contrary, I accepted it (and still do). And I have studied those accounts most carefully. Not only that, on one of my visits to Dallas, I interviewed Harold Norman, on site, in Dealey Plaza. If the wounds were inflicted from the front (only), then what you're witnessing on the sixth floor of the TSBD is a diversion. Is that so difficult to grasp? (Are you so wedded to the idea that Oswald was a murderer that you cannot conceive of a plan to frame him for a crime he did not commit?) Mr. Bugliosi: Are you so (hopelessly) wedded to your life experience (with regard to the Manson case) that you must view Oswald (and Dealey Plaza) through that lens? But that's absurd. Here's your choice: either one accepts that there's a gunman up there, or it's a decoy. Agreed? Its one or the other. Can't be both (agreed?) To repeat: I have never rejected any of the witnesses. To the contrary, I have studied them carefully, and believe that they are truthful about what they saw. Are either of you saying you cannot conceive of that? That as the presidential limousine proceeded down Elm Street, a diversion was carried out with regard to the sniper's nest, while the real shots were fired from another location? (Please do tell me, because if the answer is “yes,” I’ll try looking up some old Western’s on the Internet, which show how ambushes work, and which I will commend for you to study. . .to raise your level of awareness. . . Let's see. . . "Hopalong Cassidy". . the Lone Ranger. . even John Wayne. . surely you know how ambushes often work--not only in old western movies, but in real-life military situations. (Do you need instruction in such matters? If so, let me know; and I'll find you a tutor.) I think your problem, Vince Bugliosi (but also DVP) is a failure to think conceptually. Because if you did, you would tone down the incredulity, tone down the histrionics (and name calling) which pervade your book (and, DVP, your web site) and perhaps be able to understand and differentiate between facts, and artifacts in this case. FACTS VERSUS ARTIFACTS The facts are that the body was altered. The artifacts are primarily the elements of the phoney sniper's nest. As CBS-TV producer Stanhope Gould stated to the media, circa 1988 (after going over the ground covered in Best Evidence and re-filming the same witnesses): David Lifton has developed "courtroom quality evidence" on that point. To those reading this post: someone I know took a law class from Mr. Bugliosi some decades back, at a small West Los Angeles law school before he became "rich and famous" as a result of the Manson case. His observations: "He's no dummy, but he's not that smart, either. He was very anal, and very linear. A 'by the book' kind of guy." I tend to agree. And its easy to see how he became involved with the JFK case. First, there was Helter Skelter (not exactly a profound mystery as to who as responsible); and then Vince was offered the job of being the prosecutor on "Trial of Oswald", in London, and distributed by Showtime here in this country. So there he was, "prosecuting" Oswald, and on national TV (via Showtime) day after day, week after week. Unfortunately, for Vince B., and when it came to Dallas: he was attracted to the appearance, not the reality; to the artifacts, and so he missed the facts. The artifacts, for the most part, are those items --really "props"--that create the appearance that Oswald shot the President. And they certainly qualify as "artifacts" if the President's wounds were altered, and the autopsy results falsified. (And by "autopsy results," I'm referring to bullet trajectories). To get beyond the artifacts, and to the facts, you have to think conceptually. You have to address the authenticity of the evidence. You have to look at the evidence critically, take into account all the data, and grasp the fact that a disguise was in force at the time of the assassination. A philosophy instructor whose lecture I once attended once tried to explain what that means. He offered the following illustration. THINKING CONCEPTUALLY. . . A lecturer is standing before the class, and he begins his lecture... He says, "There were three men in a boat. . . "; A student raises his hand, interrupting, and shouts, "Which boat?" Yes, he really asked that: which boat? When I first heard that, I burst out laughing. What a great example. Perhaps the two of you can benefit from that example, because I sometimes wonder about your collective ability to grasp abstractions. All to often, you both behave like the guy that stands up and proudly advertises his inability to think conceptually by shouting "Which boat?" Try thinking conceptually. Try thinking abstractly. AN EXERCISE TO PONDER Here's an exercise to ponder: you want to shoot the President. How are you going to do it, and get away with it? Think about it, fellas. And then consider all the evidence that, in this case, the body was altered. What it means is that this was no ordinary murder. I shouldn't have to tell you that, but it bears repeating. Someone came up with the idea of falsifying the facts of the case. Is that so hard to comprehend? Nothing's easy, but it can be done (and apparently was done, in this case). That means killing the President and then changing the facts about how he died. Is that a concept too hard to grasp? Stop approaching this case like the guy that raises his hand, in class, and exclaims: "Which boat?!" The President was killed and the truth is not known because bullets were removed and wounds altered prior to autopsy. That's what happened in this case. The victim’s body—the most critical evidence in this case (or in any murder), evidence that normally could (and would) be relied upon to provide a fount of reliable data and a legal foundation for ascertaining the basic facts—was corrupted. That's why an old and decrepit rifle the police recovered on the sixth floor of the TSBD appears to be the murder weapon. Your 1500 page book , Vince, is a monument to your obstinacy, your ego, and, unfortunately, your gullibility; because you have accepted falsified evidence as real. Because of that, you took seriously the false version of history that was created on 11/22/63, by Kennedy's murderers, to hide the truth about how he died; falsified evidence which then became legal foundation for concluding that Lee Oswald was Kennedy's assassin. You swallowed all that hook, line and sinker. Stop ignoring the evidence, Vince. Stop behaving like someone standing up and exclaiming: "Which boat?!" This was a body-centric plot. President Kennedy was a person to be killed; and then his body was treated like a target to be altered. That's why Commander Humes called Dr. Perry that night and asked: "Did you make any wounds in the back?" That's why Dr. Humes said--in front of two FBI agents--that when the body as first viewed, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." That’s why the FBI also reported that the autopsy doctors, when they first examined the body, “were at a loss to explain” why “they could find no bullets.” All of this sailed right by the Warren Commission and that's why their conclusions are wrong, even though they are based, supposedly, on the "best evidence." They did their work in 1964, and I can understand why they may have been deceived. But you came along years later. Many years later. Four years after the 1981 publication of Best Evidence. Why can't you "get it"? The issue is not who put the bullets into the President's body, but who took them out. If you persist in ignoring the plentiful evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted and altered, and that's how the autopsy results in this case were falsified, you will persist in making false pronouncements about this case. You will persist in bragging about the "50 plus things" that prove Oswald was guilty, always turning away from the truth, and blind to the fact that your entire edifice is built --legally speaking--on a foundation of sand. You will persist in failing to recognize the importance of the evidence of interception. You will persist in failing to recognize the serious obstruction of justice that followed the President's murder. You will fail to understand that by the time the President's body arrived at Bethesda, and certainly by the start of the official autopsy, a second crime had occurred, a serious obstruction of justice. You will persist in claiming that Oswald shot the President, which is both silly and false. You will not have "reclaimed history" at all, and you are seriously self-deluded if that's what you think you have accomplished. To the contrary: you will go down in history as a prosecutor who became famous because of the Manson case, but who, in the case of President Kennedy (which is far more complex) was duped by a disguise. Someone who, viewed historically, became an enabler of the plotters. Let me remind you of the cautionary note spoken by Lee Oswald, to his brother, during their brief jailhouse visit, the day before he was murdered while in police custody: "Do not form any opinion on the so-called evidence." (1 WCH 468) That is advice you ought to heed while you sit on your porch in retirement, smug and comfortable in your waning years, while you believe you have arrived at the truth. You're under a serious misapprehension if that's what you think you have accomplished. You have not done that at all. You have simply demonstrated that, with all your training in the law (or perhaps because of it?), you were incapable of distinguishing the false from the real. DSL 5/2/13; 4 AM PDT Revised and corrected, 5/3/13, 8 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Robert Morrow: In answer to your question: the physicist was B. K. Jones of the U.C.L.A. physics department. Professor Liebeler met him (I don't know how) and got him to write a report laying out the "jet effect". I believe this occurred sometime in late 1966 or early 1967. Jones wrote out his analysis, and I recalled it was put inside an official looking UCLA binder. Liebeler showed it off in class, and it became the subject of some debate. I am sure that I chimed in stating that there was no reason to believe that so much matter thrown forward fast enough to account for the backwards snap--but I don't recall the details. I have no doubt that Liebeler used the "B K Jones report" whenever necessary to rebut the backwards-and-to-the-left headsnap shown on the Zapruder film. The headsnap, remember, was the subject of the UCLA's Dr. James Riddle's statement, which was featured in "The Case For Three Assassins," which I co-rote, and which was published in the January, 1967 issue of Ramparts. (Also note: the entire text of The Case for Three Assassins was also published in a special edition of the UCLA Bruin, on November 22, 1966, the third anniversary of JFK's assassination). As I recall, Liebeler was proud of this report because, to anyone listening to a debate about the Zapruder film, it reduced the issue of the backward headsnap from something that had been viewed as dispositive to "an argument between experts." I have no doubt that Liebeler provided copies to any reporter who was interested, and I'm sure that a copy ended up with Jim Phelan. Assuming that to be true, I can easily imagine Phelan, before a group of fellow journalists, espousing the argument of B. K. Jones, and using that by way of rebuttal when the Zapruder film was screened--multiple times--at the Shaw trial in New Orleans. However (and as I have noted in an earlier post on this thread), I do not remember it becoming the source of any comment in the national media at the time. (Its possible I am wrong--that was 40 years ago). When the Rockefeller Commission was created (Spring of 1975, to look into CIA abuses such as mail opening), the staff also re-examined the Kennedy assassination (up to a point). At that time, the B. K. Jones report was submitted and may have been admitted in evidence. I know that Robert Groden was present during a screening of the Z film when David Belin jumped out of his chair, and was shouting "Neuromuscular reaction!). When Liebeler testified before the ARRB, he brought with his "old reliable"--yes, you guessed it, the B. k. Jones report. According to the record of my 9/17/96 ARRB testimony, Liebeler brought up the B K Jones report when he appeared. And I made the following comments about that: QUOTE ON: Liebeler appeared here this morning and put the B.K. Jones report, a fellow from UCLA, on the table here and his contributing it. Thank you very much Professor Liebeler; we already have that in the Archives. That was contributed 15 or 20 years ago with the Rockefeller Commission when that was already submitted to try to explain the backward snap of the head. But in anyway it's being resubmitted and I suppose there's no real danger in recycling that sort of thing. UNQUOTE So that's all I know about the B K Jones report. It was, as I experienced it, Professor Liebeler's way of challenging the Zapruder film headsnap, and reducing the impact of the argument and transforming it into an "argument between experts." DSL 5/1/13; 8:40 PM PDT Edited, 5/2/13; 12:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim DiEugenio, You’re behaving like a juvenile attempting to constantly link me to Phelan and “spin control.” The "package deal" you're promoting by innuendo is sophomoric and doesn't become your profound training as a historian. Are you running for Senator McCarthy’s seat in cyberspace? Please produce a single quote from the media coverage of the Shaw trial in which the jet effect was mentioned. (I don’t remember any). What I do recall are stories emphasizing the importance of the head snap. Can you produce stories to the contrary? If so, please do so. In my cover story for Ramparts Magazine (“The Case for Three Assassins”) published in January 1967, when you were a teenager—I featured a UCLA physicist in a major piece about the headsnap, and dealt with these arguments—the “jet effect,” the equally incorrect “neuromuscular reaction” etc.. My article was the first in a major national publication featuring and emphasizing the head snap, from a physicist, and it appeared a year or more before even Tink Thompson’s book. No sooner than I published in Ramparts that Professor Liebeler recruited a physicist to argue the "jet effect" and of course he distributed that particular item to anyone who was interested. Are you really sophomoric enough to think that Jim Phelan “controlled” the media by renting a house and giving his contrary opinion about these matters? Is that part of the same mentality where you said (in your book) that the CIA had “real time coverage” of the Shaw trial by subscribing to the New Orleans Times Picayune and States-Item? “. . real time coverage. . “ eh? By reading the newspapers? Oh pleez. . Jim DiEugenio. .. get real. . The Zapruder film headsnap—mentioned in Lane’s Ruth to Judgement, and by Salandria, and featured by me in Ramparts, and then broadcast by Robert Groden in March, 1975—was a major force in causing a pubic outcry that led to a new investigation. (And I spend a chapter on it in BEST EVIDENCE, including my face-off with former CIA Director Allen Dulles). But the real power behind a new investigation came from the June, 1976 Shweiker-Hart report –i.e. the Schweiker-Hart Subcommitte of the Church Committee--officially stating that there had been a cover-up. Have you read the Schweiker-Hart report? Do you understand that it explicitly said that? That made major headlines in late June, 1976. In your book, you mention Schweiker and Hart “here and there” but never once do you state the importance of their Senate report in creating the legislative foundation for a new look at the Kennedy assassination. Which makes me wonder whether you have any fundamental grasp as to how these events occurred—which, as I say, occurred when you were in your teens. And way before you became such a keen analyst of the record that you now promote such profound insights that Jim Phelan’s rental of a house in New Orleans led to some sort of “sinister control” of the national media. Is this the sort of thing you taught in your history classes at Los Angeles High school? Heaven help us. DSL 4/30/13; 6:15 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

I've been saying this for years. These wild and whacky theories that have absolutely no basis in reality will be the death of us all. They already make it easy for Warren apologists to lump us in with moon hoaxers and UFO enthusiasts. Frankly, John Kennedy deserves better. Martin Hay: Your commentary is foolish, and displays a mindset that is sure to lead nowhere when it comes to making progress towards finding the truth. The bottom line in the Kennedy assassination is not whether “Oswald was guilty” (he wasn’t) or whether he “acted alone” etc. The bottom line is whether, in connection with President Kennedy’s assassination, a strategic deception was employed (perhaps “deployed” is a better word) to hide the truth and create a false solution to the crime. I am referring,of course, to the notion that the President’s murder was simply the result of a person firing three shots from a bolt action rifle from a sniper’s nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Either that is the truth, or it is a construct fabricated as part of a sophisticated strategic deception. Ultimately, that's what this case is all about--and, in the long light of history, that's the way it will be viewed. In other words, the bottom line is whether it was planned in advance to falsify the key evidence so as to frame a pre-selected scapegoat, and create a false reality which was then fed to the media in real time, and then went into the main arteries of all subsequent investigations. Remember what Lee Oswald himself said to his brother in their brief jailhouse meeting on 11/23/63: "Do not form any opinion on the so-called evidence." (1 WCH 468) And you might also be interested in what he told Marina (that same day), although this does not appear in her testimony: "There's been a mistake." The shallow labeling and sophomoric ridicule you employ reveals a shallow intellect that –apparently—is incapable of understanding the critical concepts to which I'm referring. Without them, you are bound to a futile and endless debate about such things as the single bullet theory, or whether Oswald could fire three shots fast enough, and a host of other irrelevancies. In other words, Martin Hay, you’re swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool, and you will always lose that debate, because, in this particular case—i.e., the murder of the President of the United States—the best evidence has been falsified, and your opponents will always be able to cite that evidence and boast that they have found "the truth." Continue swimming there, if you must, and splash around there all you want. I hope you enjoy your “kiddie debate.” On one thing we agree: President Kennedy deserves better. DSL 4/30/13; 2:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim DiEugenio: In my post (#20 on this thread), I pointed to numerous deficiencies in your approach to the Kennedy case, and critical absences of relevant material in the “second edition” of your book—which is in fact a completely different book, which uses the same title. I then listed one point after another after another. Your reply doesn’t address a single point I raised. Instead, you recycle the same old junk. . and you still (apparently) can’t get over the fact that I spoke at the memorial service of James Phelan, someone I knew for many years, and with whom I debated the Kennedy assassination much of the time. (We disagreed on that- - do you "get it"?) ................................ So there is no misunderstanding: I was always interested in the medical witnesses who were called to testify. . .but when it came to the case against Clay Shaw, I hate to break it to you, DiEugenio, but you’re attempting to put lipstick on a corpse. The man was acquitted within an hour, and no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him. DSL 4/29/13, 5:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Odds Favor Conviction Of Jim Garrison's Patsy .By .Ayneswort... ‎Pittsburgh Press - Feb 3, 1969 Clay Shaw has been nearly wiped out by the megalomaniacal Garrison, and many others have lost jobs, friends and all semblance of peace of mind..... David, you, Weisberg, and a number of others including "journalists" who had priorities other than uncovering the secrets of the powerful, aligned with the wrong side. That is not Jim's fault. Your opinion quoted above, has to compete with this, and this.: Tom Scully, on 02 May 2011 - 02:09 AM, said: You're welcome, Joseph, and you are correct avout the RIF #. I found it here.: .......................................... David, you fashioned your own legacy more than forty years ago, and you confirmed it in the portion of your post I quoted, "no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him." Shout it from the mountain, you're unrepentant. Shooting the messenger will not erase the still developing record which doesn't seem to be lining up in your favor. Tom Scully: In my opinion—and I have believed this for years—the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a major political plot, and one result was the escalation of the Vietnam War. Because of what happened in Dallas, Lyndon Johnson became president under circumstances that appeared to be a quirk of fate—but that was just a superficial appearance. In fact, it was (in the vernacular) an “inside job.” I knew this was true once I discovered the evidence that the body had been altered, and that was the key to how the Kennedy autopsy was falsified. From that point forward (as I wrote in BEST EVIDENCE), I felt that "there was a pirate flag flying over the White House." So for all practical purposes--and even if I didn't have all the details--as of 1967, I believed we had what was tantamount to a coup. Now along came Garrison in February, 1967, and he seemed to be saying something similar. And that’s why I got in touch with him, and in fact met with him alone, for several hours. One thing I learned fairly early on—he was a blowhard, and a publicity-seeking demagogue. Now here’s the issue Tom Scully: do you think I could support someone who mouthed these wonderful generalities (about conspiracy) but who, when it came to specifics, accused innocent people of murder? You’ve got to be kidding, right? (But no, unfortunately, you’re not). You talk about being on the right side of history. . . but what happened to justice? Solving the assassination of President is not a public relations problem. It’s a matter of paying attention to data and evidence. The falsification of the Bethesda autopsy is the key to understanding Dallas. When you use language that I’m “unrepentant” and that I’m the “wrong side” of history, I have to wonder about your judgment--and your grasp of the particulars of the evidence in this case. The reason I, and Sylvia Meagher, and others, became disillusioned and disgusted with Garrison, rather early on, is that it became evident that he could “talk the talk” and “walk the walk” but in the end, he was accusing innocent people of murder, perjury, and other crimes. No, I’m not on the wrong side of history, nor was I then. To the contrary, I was on the right side—and was interested in truth and justice, and not your version of being “politically correct.” There's a relationship between means and ends, and you can't get to a proper end, via corrupt means. It was Garrison who was on the “wrong side,” apparently thinking he could surf the waves of public discontent with the Warren Report, but never produce credible evidence that would be believed by a jury, when it came to specifics. He couldn't produce "the evidence" because he was leveling accusations at innocent people. If you're a math professor, you can’t solve a math problem by cluttering up the blackboard with impossible to read inanities, waving your arms, and expecting your students to somehow “understand.” And the same goes for attempting to solve a homicide, when you don’t have credible evidence. So that’s right, Tom Scully: I’m “unrepentent" --as you have stated. I was correct about Garrison (back in 1968)—and the conclusions I arrived at after meeting with him alone, for several hours, remain my conclusions today. And regardless of whether he subscribed to a number of “conspiracy theories" (which, in a general sense, I too subscribed to) or whether he was a good writer (which he was), that’s no excuse for charging innocent people with murder. Or have you forgotten what our court system is all about? Indeed, what this country is all about? The assassination of President Kennedy does not pose a “P.R.” problem—as your language seems to suggest. Nor is it a theological issue (as your use of the word "repentent" suggests). Nor should those who support the prosecutor be having a religious or cult-like experience. Its about solving a complex crime, that was the result of a high level plot, and the key issue, to solve it, is to recognize the falsification of certain key evidence. Or have you forgotten that in your zeal to get to the finish line, and be “on the right side of history”? DSL 4/29/13; 8:15 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Duplicate. Deleted.

Jim DiEugenio: In my post (#20 on this thread), I pointed to numerous deficiencies in your approach to the Kennedy case, and critical absences of relevant material in the “second edition” of your book—which is in fact a completely different book, which uses the same title. I then listed one point after another after another. Your reply doesn’t address a single point I raised. Instead, you recycle the same old junk. . and you still (apparently) can’t get over the fact that I spoke at the memorial service of James Phelan, someone I knew for many years, and with whom I debated the Kennedy assassination much of the time. (We disagreed on that- - do you "get it"?) So for that, I am now labeled as someone who, with regards to “what really happened in New Orleans,” who “tried to cover it up.” What a dumb, asinine comment: is that the best you can do? I do not want to waste time on your goofy post, but I can’t resist pointing to one of the many peculiar observations in your book. On page 293, in your chapter titled “Anticlimax: The Shaw Trial,” we have your potent observation: “The CIA also decided it needed not just wall to wall coverage of the trial, but coverage in real time.” Now before going further—I hope you do realize what “coverage in real time” would mean: it would mean, for example, a wiretap or a secret movie camera inside the courtroom. Do you believe that the CIA wiretapped the courtroom where Shaw was being tried? (No.) Do you believe they put a secret camera in there, for "real time" coverage? (No.) So just then do you believe? So let’s proceed to your next sentence, because here we have on display Jim DiEugenio’s peculiar intellect and odd interpretation of reality. QUOTING: “Declassified [CIA] internal memoranda reveal that the Agency subscribed to both local papers for the trial coverage: the State-Item and Times-Picayune. Hunter Leake of the New Orleans office would then forward clippings from the papers to Richard Helms’ assistant at CIA HQ.” The footnote for this is to be found on page 437, and reads: “CIA routing sheet of Feb 12, 1969.” Wow. . what a discovery! (The CIA subscribed to both New Orleans newspapers! Wow!) Well, first of all, that is not—as noted above –“coverage in real time” would mean—so I think you should check in with your dictionary. But putting that aside, I wonder if you realize how nutty this sounds: do you really think its somehow nefarious that the CIA arranged to subscribe to the two local New Orleans newspapers, for coverage of the Shaw trial? Oh pleez. . . FYI (in case you forgot): There was no Internet in 1969, and I know someone else who ordered both newspapers and had the delivered by mail: me. That’s right, I ordered both newspapers, and, as I recall, so did Pat Lambert, and so did Lilean Castellano—and probably many others. So save these “observations” for the gullible, or the witless, Jim. And just so there is no misunderstanding: I was always interested in the medical witnesses who were called to testify or the Dealey Plaza witnesses, but when it came to the case against Clay Shaw, I hate to break it to you, DiEugenio, but you’re attempting to put lipstick on a corpse. The man was acquitted within an hour, and no amount of huffing and puffing on your part is going to change the absurdity of the case against him. DSL 4/29/13, 5:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim DiEugenio: When you talk so disrespectfully to Dan Gallup, you really don't know who the heck you are dealing with. Dan Gallup is a fine mathematician--who was close to the late Bernard Kenton, Ph.D. (in physics)-- one of my closest friends during the period Best Evidence was being researched and written (1976-1980). And, on the subject of who was involved, and when, I have to wonder: were you even interested in the Kennedy assassination, back then? Moreover, your shallow comment--asking whether Dan Gallup is interested in the Kennedy assassination "outside of body hijacking and Z-film alteration"--gives away a mindset that is mind-bogglingly shallow and juvenile. The falsification of the Kennedy autopsy is fundamental to any critical study of the Kennedy assassination, and nothing could be more important than that issue, whether that falsification occurred because of outright perjury on the part of the autopsy doctors, the alteration of photos and/or X-rays, or whether the foundation of the falsification (as I believe, and have demonstrated in Best Evidence) derives from the actual alteration of wounds, pre-autopsy. Moreover, issues pertaining to the falsification of civilian movie film of this event are just as potentially important. So your statement, "Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?" . . is like asking a chemist: "Hey there: do you have any interest in chemistry outside of the elements listed in the Periodic Table? Here, let me show you the cookbook I use when I study (and teach) chemistry." That kind of remark a give-away to your mental compass. Unlike you, and your foolish hero worship of Garrison--and the utter stupidity of believing, for example, such propositions that Kerry Thornley had anything to do with JFK's death, or your nonsense in believing that JFK and his brother were unaware of Castro plots, or your nonsense in believing that Ruth Paine was a "conspirator" in the Kennedy assassination, or your uninformed nonsense that Kennedy "really wanted" LBJ as his running mate--just where does it end? Is this some kind of comic book version of your personal "conspiracy theory"? No, I'm not saying that everything in your book is that way--but far too much of it is. I'm aware that I get a discount on certain goods if I go to a Target store, and an even deeper discount at Costco. But what kind of discount shall we apply to some of the nonsense in which you indulge? For example: in one of your appearances on Black Ops radio, you indulged in the absurd speculation that the reason there were "two coffins" at Bethesda was that the naval ambulance that met Air Force One at Andrews, and which carried Jackie and AG Bobby Kennedy to Andrews "perhaps" made a stop en route. And a coffin-switch might have a occurred at that point. Oh really. . .. ". . .made a stop between Andrews and Bethesda?. . " With Jackie and Bobby in the ambulance, with Greer driving, and SS agent Kellerman in the front seat, along with Dr. Burkley, and a full motorcycle escort from the local police. . and no one noticed? Is that that your idea of responsible commentary? My opinion: that comment is worthless, and can be discounted 100%. There's also the matter of the way you went about "re-writing" your book, leading to a rather confusing mish-mash. Normally, when one rewrites an entire book, one has the intellectual courtesy of employing a different title. One does not engage in "bait and switch" shenanigans, putting an entirely different product between the same covers, as if this was a marketing ploy. Moreover, when you go on and on, in the book, and on the Internet, about how no book written after the ARRB's work can be the same as anything written before--if that is true, then how come your new (and rewritten) book mentions nothing about THE major contribution of the ARRB, in calling the major autopsy witnesses? Did that escape your attention? Let me remind you: some of those witnesses were people whose accounts first appeared, in detail, in BEST EVIDENCE? (Do you have a problem with that?) Do you have a problem with the fact that Doug Horne wrote an important memo showing that--in the case of President Kennedy--there were two brain exams? On two different dates? And employing two different specimens? Are you aware that Horne's memo received major media attention--including a major story in the Washington Post, by none other than George Lardner? Do you think that's not relevant? Or is your problem with the fact that Horne read my book, and was obviously affected by it--as, I should add, was Jeremy Gunn? Yet I don't find Jeremy Gunn's name anywhere in your work, or Horne's name either--yet you have plenty of pages on Bill Boxley, the alleged infiltrator of Garrison's investigation, and time spent discussing Ho Chi Minh. If you're going to write about me, then how about mentioning my book, which was published in 1981, and then by three more publishers since then, each time with a different Afterword? Instead, your idea of "scholarship"--and your silly attempt to demonize me--is mentioning that I delivered a eulogy at Phelan's memorial service. You bet I did--I knew him since 1984, and I think I can speak to his character--and I say that while also stating that, when it came to the JFK case, I disagreed with Phelan on any number of matters. Unfortunately for you--and your band of true believers--Phelan had Garrison's number rather early on. Your sophomoric notion that because Phelan rented a house, and argued the "jet effect" to some reporters one evening, was the way the national media was "controlled" is juvenile, and childish. I used to argue the same points with him over lunch. Frankly, it doesn't pass my "So what?" test--yet for you, its somehow important and relevant. Part of the DiEugenio world view, I gather, about how the "national media" was "controlled." Oh pleez. . .. Also, if you're going to "re-write" your book, what happened to the dozens of pages in your previous version in which you extolled John Armstrong, and some of his goofy hypotheses? Just disappeared, without a word, eh? I notice he's not mentioned anywhere in the index. Did you change your mind? Remember how he based so much of his thinking--about "two Oswalds" --on the account of Palmer McBride? Well, now I looked up McBride in your "second edition"--and, ooops. . he's gone too! Let's see now, Jim. . . I just thumbed through the index of your most recent "second edition" to check on some other matters. Any word of FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who said that when the President's body arrived, it was "apparent" that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull"? Or that the doctors were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets? Nope. No mention of that. Any word about the fact that when I met with Liebeler, in October, 1966, and showed him what was in the FBI report, along with much data from the 26 Volumes supporting the notion that wounds had been altered, he decided to write a 13 page memorandum to Chief Justice Warren about the matter? A memorandum with copies to every member of the Warren Commission, and Robert Kennedy, and the White House—pointing out that the staff of the Warren Commission were unaware of this matter, and it ought to be investigated? So: Any mention (in your book) of this 13 page memo which called for a limited re-opening of the Warren Commission investigation in the medical area, to deal with this critical issue? Nope. Not a single word. Hey Jim DiEugenio, let me ask you something: do you know of any other instance, in the 45 plus years since the Warren Report was issued, that a Warren Commission attorney called, in writing, for a limited re-opening of the investigation, based—in part—on new research and information presented to him by a JFK researcher? The answer is “no”—because what happened at that time was really rather extraordinary—but, apparently, not enough to interest Jim DiEugenio. But let’s move on to other things which, based on a perusal of your book’s index, you chose to omit. Any mention of the late Paul O'Connor, the subject of Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, and who said that the president's body arrived in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, and that the cranium was empty? He not only told that to the Florida newspapers, after he was interviewed by the HSCA, but he told it directly to the HSCA, and its in their documents, which were locked up until 2029 (and only released in 1993 as a consequence of the 1992 JFK Records Act). But, in January, 1981, I was touring the country with my filmed interview of O'Connor saying just that, while Blakey was attepting to tout his "mob theory" of the assassination. Any mention of O'Connor in your book--or the statements he made to HSCA, which were locked up for 50 years? Nope. Any mention of Dr. Humes, the autopsy surgeon? The guy who inserted the words "presumably" before "entry" and "exit,"--leading to such phrases as a wound being "presumably of entry" etc.-- clearly signaling his doubts about the validity of those wounds at the time the autopsy was drafted on 11/24/63 (or thereabouts). Any mention of him, or of that issue? No. Any mention of Dr. Humes' call to Perry, asking him "Did you make any wounds in the back?" Or Humes' other question to Dr. Perry: "Why did you do a tracheotomy?" And Paul O'Connor's similar statement, to me, that "you wouldn't do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain"--in other words, and in plain English: "I couldn't understand this whole business of a tracheotomy, because he had no brain!" Any mention of any of that? Nope. Nothing about that either. Any mention of navy man Hubert Clark, who was one of the members of the MDW tri-service casket team, and whose 1967 account is published in Chapter 16 of my book--detailing the subterfuge of two Navy ambulances at Bethesda, one called the decoy? (And what about James Felder, who corroborated what Clark had to say). Any mention of either of them? No. I must ask you, Jim DiEugenio: is this the way you teach history --or taught it--at Los Angeles High School? Just ignore the past, when dealing with it is an inconvenience? Is that how you advise your students to proceed? So now, we have --in your "second edition"--such important facts (or "facts") as this, on page 294, which you list as "one more important aspect to what happened before the [shaw] trial"--at which point you tell us that "For instance, Richard Case Nagell had a grenade thrown at him from a speeding car in New York." And that "Nagell brought the remains of the grenade to Garrison and told him he did not think it wise for him to testify at Shaw's trial." Did that really happen? Did the grenade explode? Funny, but I never heard about that in any of the media. No, Jim DiEugenio. . . I'm not saying that everything in your book is worthless. But too much of it is just that. It borders on gossip and trivial anecdotes, with footnotes going back to some obscure issue of Probe, which is akin to saying, "Well, I said this before, umpteen years ago. . and here's the issue. Go buy it if you wish to check it out." As I said, when I'm looking for a discount, I go to Costco, and I know I'm getting seriously discounted prices, but at least I'm getting value, and even "value added." What about the content of your work? What discount should be applied--chapter by chapter, and subject by subject; and just what is the value? No, its not all bad--but when someone writes, addressing a professor of mathematics, who writes textbooks on differential equations: "Do you have any real interest in this case outside of body hijacking or Z film alteration?" - - - I have to wonder what standards you have in the way you approach the JFK case, and whether you have any grasp at all on what is truly relevant, if not critically important. DSL 4/28/13; 9:20 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Not necessarily a sign of guilt, no, but certainly a sign that he was involved in some way. Sean: Was trying to contact you via London Forum. Please check your messages. Thanks. DSL Hi David, I've tried emailing you twice in the past few days, most recently at dlifton2003[at]yahoo.com. Did neither message reach you?? Sean Sorry, but I did not receive either one. Please try the Yahoo address again. Or check your Forum messages for other contact info. Sorry for the snafu. DSL

Not necessarily a sign of guilt, no, but certainly a sign that he was involved in some way. Sean: Was trying to contact you via London Forum. Please check your messages. Thanks. DSL

Unfortunately, Dawn is probably most serious. And Professor Fetzer has now jumped into the fray. As you can see,it didn't take Prof. Fetzer too long to figure out what happened in Boston. From a communication from someone who has gathered together the good professor's insights: http://www.veteranst...boston-bombing/ In a performance that would have made the Marx Brothers proud, DHS and the FBI managed to turn themselves in an international joke with their amateurish “false flag” attack in Boston during the marathon. http://chemtrailspla...se-flag-fiasco/ http://www.veteranst...r-american-way/ This is an all-out psy op at this point with bizarre claims of “double agents” and future attacks in the works. Having been caught with their pants down–where the younger Tsarnaev brother, Dzhokhar, was photographed at the scene with his backpack, which was completely different than those used in the bombings, and spent his week as a normal college student–and and now they are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink, including fantastic stories of him and his brother, Tameran, as “double agents”, which is nearly as ludicrous as the original story. My own (DSL) Comment: Believe me, the 50th anniversary of the assassination is going to be a cakewalk for those who believe the official version, if this is the sort of thinking associated with the JFK movement. Its unfortunate that someone who has studied the JFK case for so many years--and can engage in debate on a host of issues (whether he proves to be right or wrong)--now pushes pedal to the metal, accelerates to "warp speed,"and "extrapolates" into another universe that, imho, is the equivalent of "la la land." I wrote about this over a year ago ("Fetzer as a public relations disaster" --or something akin to that) and that thread had over 65,000 views. Well, here we are, the 50th is upon us, and the chickens are coming home to roost. DSL 4/24/13; 12:50 AM Los Angeles, California

I tried to do the best I could in Best Evidence--from memory. FYI: As you may know, I actually got in there on a Sunday morning (as described in B.E.) and stayed in there for a good 10 minutes. Of course, I am very sorry that I did not think to bring a camera with me. Those pictures would have been definitive. Essentially, there were two autopsy tables, and, along one wall, a very steep set of ascending rows of seats, like bleachers. Perhaps five rows of seats in those bleachers. DSL 4/22/13; 9:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

David, do you have an exact cite for the part in red? It would be most helpful to establish that such information from Truly's wife was indeed printed so early. Sean: I was trying to contact you via the London Forum, but it didn't work. Please email me at dlifton2003@yahoo.com. Thanks. DSL

John: Ron Dugger did an important story about Lee Oswald appearing at the office of the State Selective Service, in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday, 9/25/63, and speaking to one Lee Dannelly for a good 30 minutes. This led to FBI interviews of Dannelly. FYI: Some years later, I also interviewed Dannelly. Here is the link--at the Mary Ferrell Foundation--to his story on Dannelly, which appeared in the Washington Post on December 20, 1963, under the headline: "Oswald Appeal on Service Discharge is Recalled." http://www.maryferre...418&relPageId=2 The story also contains this critically important sentence (from Dannelly): "He had been in the Governor's office to see how to get his discharge corrected." FYI: Connally (et al) deny Oswald was ever there. (I'm not so sure they are correct. Anyway, that's what Dannelly said that Oswald said to her, on 9/25/63). DSL 4/22/13; 8:55 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

I'm with you on this one, Martin. It seems apparent there is no support for these latter day stories. As a result, it seems quite possible these "witnesses" had heard the "curtain rods" story somewhere along the line, and had 1) misremembered the story as being about "venetian blinds" and 2) come to exaggerate their own role in history through telling people Oswald had lied to them as well. [deleted --to save space] Pat: Regarding the matter of fishing rods or fishing pole. . . : You are incorrect when you state that there is "no support" for these "latter day stories." In the instance of Mary Hollies: the research and reporting was originally done by writer Ed Oxford and published in the first of three articles in American History Magazine back in 1988 (yes, the 25th anniversary; and that is seven years before the advent of the Internet!) In 1995, I was in touch with Oxford, and he went over his notes with me. In short, all this took place almost 25 years ago --and I see no reason to doubt the validity of what Hollies said to Oxford at the time (circa 1987 or 1988, when he interviewed her). There is more to the story, but this is her original account. In my opinion, its most unfortunate that Hollies did not offer any of this when interviewed by the FBI back in 1963 or 1964. If its true, then Lee Oswald was observed with a large package at work. Furthermore, if its true, he was involved in deception--and thats really the main (if not the only) point I was making. Of course, if true, then Hollies' account offers strong support to Linnie Mae Randle's original account--to FBI Agent Bookhout--that Oswald's package was 3 feet plus. But my primary focus here is not Randle's estimate of size (as reported by Bookhout); rather, its what Oswald said (by way of explanation), as recalled by Hollies. I am sure you would agree that had that been in an FBI 302 interview dated November or December, 1963, Hollies would have been an important Warren Commission witness, and would have been deposed in detail about the incident. DSL 4/21/13; 12:30 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Mr Lifton, You may not find the fact that the 302 represents nothing more than hearsay to be a relevant fact, fair enough. But surely you can see some significance in what I wrote in post # 154? Let me repeat: To go back to your earlier point about how “making false statements” can lead to a conviction for obstruction of justice, I find it telling that after repeated questioning from the FBI and the Warren Commission no one suggested Randle should be confronted with the 302. After all, it was in the best interests of both the Bureau and the commission to have her swear that the package was 3 and half feet long and not a little over 2. To me, this says that everyone who questioned her found Randle to be honest and credible. If they believed otherwise surely she would have been, at the very least, reminded that it was a felony to make false statements. But this never happened. Instead they accepted her sworn testimony which included a description of the way in which Oswald carried the bag (with his hand at the top and the bottom not quite reaching the ground) which seems to preclude the possibility that the package was 3 feet 6 inches long. Martin Hay: Your commentary belongs in the woulda/coulda/shoulda file. Apparently, you have this theory about what the Commission “should have done” (my quotes); and because they didn’t do it, you then find that “telling”. From that, you proceed to draw inferences that, imho, are completely unwarranted and unjustifiable. Specifically, because the FBI (or the WC) did not go back to Linnie Mae Randle and warn her about the possible legal consequences of perjury, why therefore, she is (somehow) credible. Quoting your post: “To me, this says that everyone who questioned her found Randle to be honest and credible. If they believed otherwise surely she would have been, at the very least, reminded that it was a felony to make false statements.” I’m sorry to disappoint you, Martin, but the Commission did not rule on the credibility of each and every witness. They did not sit down, meditate, or ponder, or collectively analyze, and then pronounce such judgments. You cannot (and certainly should not) go from the fact that this or that witness wasn’t “warned” about perjury to the notion that the witness is “honest and credible.” So this theoretical edifice you have postulated has no foundation in reality. You are entitled to live in that world, and draw such inferences, but they are not reality-based. Here and there, Norman Redlich (or whoever drafted the WCR chapters) would employ the phrase that “the commission finds” etc. But that was almost literary license. Having said that, I think you should remember that, in this particular case, “the Commission” indeed found that Randle and Frazier under-estimated the bag length, and here are the words they used. QUOTE: “The Commission has weighed the visual recollection of Frazier and Mrs. Randle against the evidence here presented that the bag Oswald carried contained the assassination weapon and has concluded that Frazier and Randle are mistaken as to the length of the bag.” UNQUOTE The Report here is referring to Randle’s estimate of the bag as about 28 inches . As you well know, Martin, the Commission believed the bag to have been substantially longer. I happen to agree (with the Commission Report) on this particular point: The bag Oswald took to work was indeed considerably longer. A possible difference between me and the Commission is that not only do I believe the bag to have been longer, but I believe Linnie Mae Randle said exactly that, when first interviewed by FBI agent Bookhout, and that’s why Bookhout wrote the report he dido--that the bag was 3 feet plus in length. For some reason, you want the bag to be shorter. And I think I know what the reason is, and its not much of a mystery. If the bag is longer, then you can’t deal with the fact that Oswald may have carried a bag to work that was large enough to carry a rifle. Poor Martin Hay. . now what is he going to do about that? It goes against his internal orthodoxy. Of course, that is just one of many things you can’t deal with in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy. I notice that you don’t address the fact that Oswald is reported to have said that the package he was carrying contained a fishing pole; or that, to another person, it was venetian blinds; and to Frazier, it was curtain rods. As I have repeatedly pointed out, this suggests that Oswald was involved in a deception. You don’t like that, Martin, do you? And I’m sure you don’t like a litany of other facts that I could lay out here, in connection with the autopsy, with which you would also vehemently disagree. Methinks you like to live in a nice tidy world in which, at this very late date, you are most comfortable when telling us what we "cannot know," and in pronouncing these judgements: “The Warren Report is wrong! The single bullet theory is wrong!” Yes, Martin, we know that. We knew that starting back in 1965. What else do you have to offer? DSL 4/20/13; 8:45 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton, I don't wish to get into a pointless tit-for-tat here but you're still missing the point which is that there exists no proof that Bookhout's report acurately reflects what Randle told him on November 22. Nor does it give an idea under what circumstances any estimate she gave was achieved. The report represents unsigned hearsay and, as I believe Mark Lane pointed out way back in 1966 (or earlier) would have been worthless in court. That's my only point, Mr. Lifton. Martin Hay: You’re “upping the ante” by using the word “proof” in your first sentence, and then linguistically going in the opposite direction in your last three words, in stating that Randle’s statement (as reported by FBI agent Bookhout) “would have been worthless in court.” IMHO: The first sets the bar way too high; and the second is largely irrelevant. First of all: no, there “exists no proof” that Bookhout’s report accurately reflects what Randle told him, but that can be said about any FBI 302 report (and about a lot of other things in life, as well). But raising the bar that high then precludes accepting as relevant (and potentially important) all the original written reports of any police (or Secret Service or FBI) investigation (unless they were audiotaped or videotaped) not to mention the accounts of journalists who make notes and publish information within 24 hours of receiving it. Second: Your statement that Randle’s statement that Bookhout’s FBI report “would have been worthless in court” is really way off the point, in judging its importance as evidence to all of us, historically. It’s a written record, and it was made within a day. That's what is most important, and then our analysis can proceed from there. FWIW: I think I can speak to the competence of some of these FBI agents, since I interviewed a number of them by telephone, and had forma. sit-down interviews, on camera, with at least four of them: Vincent Drain (1990); Doyle Williams (1990) and Robert Barrett (1998). In addition, I spent hours in a detailed in-person audio-taped interview with Richard Rogge (1984), the FBI Supervisor who was flown to Dallas and handled much of the FBI investigation. I found all of these individuals credible, and certainly competent to take notes and write a proper report. So, yes, there’s “no proof” that Linnie Mae Randle said what she did, to FBI Agent James Bookhout, nor do we know the exact question that Bookhout put to Randle that elicited the answer which he reports (that the package was “over three feet” etc); and its also possibly true that the FBI 302 Reports would not have been admissable in court. But so what? And, as I have pointed out, Martha Stewart went to jail for “making a false statement” to FBI agents, and I have no reason to be all that skeptical of Bookhout’s report of what Linnie Mae Randle said about the length of the bag. I think the “problem” posed by Bookhout’s report, to many researchers on this case, is that it supports the notion that Oswald brought a package to work that was big enough to have contained a rifle. Its as simple as that. In any event, the written record, imperfect though it may be, is what we have. If Bookhout’s report can be relied upon, then Linnie Mae Randle said the package was over three feet long. And within a day or so, she substantially reduced the size of the package, which substantially reduced the odds that he could been carrying a weapon (even a disassembled one) in the package. Over the years, and as I studied this matter, what has been particularly striking to me is not just the reported package length, but that Oswald appears to have been involved in some kind of deception, because he told three different stories about what was in the package on three different occasions: to Frazier, it was curtain rods; to someone else, it was venetian blinds; and to a secretary at the TSBD, it was a fishing pole. It is the combination of the varying stories, plus the initial account of Randle (as reported by FBI Agent Bookhout) that makes it all so very relevant, historically, in attempting to decipher this puzzle. DSL 4/18/13; 11:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California Two questions, David. 1. You say you interviewed Vincent Drain. Did you ask him about his report on the bag, and why it was changed after being sent to the Warren Commission? 2. You claimed, once again, that Randle changed her appraisal of the bag length a day or two after the shooting. From what I can gather, she failed to change her appraisal until more than a week later, AFTER being contacted by the FBI, and asked to approximate the bag length while LOOKING at an actual bag. What, then, is your source for her changing her appraisal within days of the shooting? Have I missed a report or interview? Thanks, Pat Pat, I interviewed Drain, for 1-2 hours, in the summer of 1990, in a professionally filmed on-camera interview. I'd be glad to address your question, but --unfortunately--that was 23 years ago (!). So I'd have to locate and peruse the transcript. (Today, I would have scanned it; I had no scanner then; I'm not even sure they existed). However, having said that, I do not believe I questioned Vince Drain about "the bag." No. As I recall, the focus was on the medical evidence, his flight to Washington with the rifle, etc. But, if I'm in my storage area, I'll check. Regarding when Linnie Mae changed her story --that is, when she was next interviewed: If you have collected the reports, and if it was a week later, then so be it. In fact, a chronology listing the number of interviews, the dates, what she said, etc., would be useful. I don't know that record by heart. What I do know is what she said on 11/22 to Bookhout (that is, what Bookhout reported she said) and which appears in CD 5. Also, I am aware that Bookhout's 11/22 account then became the source of a memo at the Assistant Director level in Washington, which is the document from which I first learned that Linnie Mae had said the bag was 3 ft plus. (As you know, in her DPD affidavit, she just described it as a "long" bag--again, from recollection). I should also add that I don't think I would have focused in on any of this, as much as I have (and this was years ago) had it not come to my attention that Oswald (carrying the "long" package) encountered a TSBD employee while on an elevator, and was asked "What's that?" and he responded that it was a fishing pole. Of course, I don't believe Oswald brought a fishing pole to work (and I don't suppose you do, either), so if that account is true, then he was involved in deception that day. But also do note this as to the length: its doubtful that if he was carrying a package that was only 2 ft or even 28" long, he would have responded: "fishing pole." So that "fishing pole" response, in itself, is further evidence that Oswald had brought something that was in a rather long bag to work, something long enough to be reasonably passed off as a "fishing pole." As I have emphasized, I think the fact that Oswald was engaged in deception is quite pertinent in analysing this situation. And is far more relevant than Martin Hay's constantly harping on the fact that Bookhout's report of his interview with Linnie Mae is "unsigned" and so therefore its not "proof" or that Mark Lane said 40 years ago that it wouldn't be admissible in court, etc etc. Nobody's on trial; this is a historical puzzle, and the issue is the proper way to analyze it, given the data that we do have. DSL 4/19/13; 3:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Mr. Lifton, I don't wish to get into a pointless tit-for-tat here but you're still missing the point which is that there exists no proof that Bookhout's report acurately reflects what Randle told him on November 22. Nor does it give an idea under what circumstances any estimate she gave was achieved. The report represents unsigned hearsay and, as I believe Mark Lane pointed out way back in 1966 (or earlier) would have been worthless in court. That's my only point, Mr. Lifton. Martin Hay: You’re “upping the ante” by using the word “proof” in your first sentence, and then linguistically going in the opposite direction in your last three words, in stating that Randle’s statement (as reported by FBI agent Bookhout) “would have been worthless in court.” IMHO: The first sets the bar way too high; and the second is largely irrelevant. First of all: no, there “exists no proof” that Bookhout’s report accurately reflects what Randle told him, but that can be said about any FBI 302 report (and about a lot of other things in life, as well). But raising the bar that high then precludes accepting as relevant (and potentially important) all the original written reports of any police (or Secret Service or FBI) investigation (unless they were audiotaped or videotaped) not to mention the accounts of journalists who make notes and publish information within 24 hours of receiving it. Second: Your statement that Randle’s statement that Bookhout’s FBI report “would have been worthless in court” is really way off the point, in judging its importance as evidence to all of us, historically. It’s a written record, and it was made within a day. That's what is most important, and then our analysis can proceed from there. FWIW: I think I can speak to the competence of some of these FBI agents, since I interviewed a number of them by telephone, and had forma. sit-down interviews, on camera, with at least four of them: Vincent Drain (1990); Doyle Williams (1990) and Robert Barrett (1998). In addition, I spent hours in a detailed in-person audio-taped interview with Richard Rogge (1984), the FBI Supervisor who was flown to Dallas and handled much of the FBI investigation. I found all of these individuals credible, and certainly competent to take notes and write a proper report. So, yes, there’s “no proof” that Linnie Mae Randle said what she did, to FBI Agent James Bookhout, nor do we know the exact question that Bookhout put to Randle that elicited the answer which he reports (that the package was “over three feet” etc); and its also possibly true that the FBI 302 Reports would not have been admissable in court. But so what? And, as I have pointed out, Martha Stewart went to jail for “making a false statement” to FBI agents, and I have no reason to be all that skeptical of Bookhout’s report of what Linnie Mae Randle said about the length of the bag. I think the “problem” posed by Bookhout’s report, to many researchers on this case, is that it supports the notion that Oswald brought a package to work that was big enough to have contained a rifle. Its as simple as that. In any event, the written record, imperfect though it may be, is what we have. If Bookhout’s report can be relied upon, then Linnie Mae Randle said the package was over three feet long. And within a day or so, she substantially reduced the size of the package, which substantially reduced the odds that he could been carrying a weapon (even a disassembled one) in the package. Over the years, and as I studied this matter, what has been particularly striking to me is not just the reported package length, but that Oswald appears to have been involved in some kind of deception, because he told three different stories about what was in the package on three different occasions: to Frazier, it was curtain rods; to someone else, it was venetian blinds; and to a secretary at the TSBD, it was a fishing pole. It is the combination of the varying stories, plus the initial account of Randle (as reported by FBI Agent Bookhout) that makes it all so very relevant, historically, in attempting to decipher this puzzle. DSL 4/18/13; 11:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Jim, This is probably the third time I've see you express a desire for me to return to posting on the forum and what can I say? It's very flattering when a genuine expert (something I'd never claim to be) such as yourself believes I have anything valuable to contribute. (Yes, I like having my ego stroked as much as the next guy LOL) The reason I haven't been posting is because I got tired of the BS that goes along with it. Take the post I made a few days back as an example. All I did was correct Mr. Lifton when he was incorrectly claiming that it was a "fact" that Linnie May Randle had said the package she saw was over 3 feet long. It is not a fact, it is unsigned, uncorroborated hearsay that is contradicted by sworn, corroborative and consistent testimony. So how did Mr. Lifton react? Well, instead of simply admitting his error, he spat out his pacifier, threw his toys out of the pram, and went on a rant about my non-existent "professions of scholarship". He did his very best to belittle me and questioned my motives simply to distract from the obvious fact that he was wrong. And really, what was the point? How did that help any of us in our research? How does that type of behaviour further our understanding of the case? In short, it's a waste of time and energy to respond to that crap and I just cannot be bothered with it anymore and that's part of the reason I'd stopped posting. In case anyone should think I'm acting all holier than thou, believe me I know that I've behaved badly in the past and that is the other, probably more important reason that I stopped posting. As I recall, last year I exchanged a few childish attempts at one upmanship with Mr. Lifton, had a silly spat with Pat Speer, and was more than a little rude to Gary Mack when he sent me messages I neither wanted nor asked for. And I don't want to be that person. Ask anyone who knows me, I speak my mind and use way too much "colorful" language but I never like to upset or belittle people. It never leaves me feeling good. So I realised that the best way for me to put an end to it, to improve myself as a human being, was to stay away from the type of folks who do enjoy behaving that way and do get a kick out of disparaging others so that they can feel superior in some way. All that being said, maybe I just need to suck it up and stop being such a whiny little runt. When the inevitable personal attacks appear, I always have the option of simply closing my laptop. Martin Hay, I think you ought to educate yourself about the importance of FBI 302 reports. No, they are not “sworn” statements, but it is a felony to make a false statement to an FBI agent during an interview, and people have gone to jail for doing that. A striking example occurred in 2004 with Martha Stewart. I happen to like Martha Stewart, and so I don’t want to belabor the point. But if you will simply Google “Martha Stewart conviction story,” you will have hours of reading about how, in connection with an insider trading scandal, Ms. Stewart ended up being convicted not so much because of the charge of “insider trading” but rather because of allegedly making false statements to the FBI. In other words, had she not met with FBI agents and "tried to explain" etc, there would have been no case, and no conviction and she would not have ended up going to jail. It was a major life changing event for her, and she made quite a comeback after serving time in a Federal correctional facility. “Making false statements” (you can Google that, too) is a violation of federal law. It is a felony. And such statements—with the FBI reports (and the testimony of the agents who wrote them)—are often the evidence used to convict people of obstruction of justice, another felony. So for you to come along, at this late date, ascend your high horse, and tell us that we can ignore, or set aside, what Linnie Mae Randle said on Friday night, 11/22/63, to a federal agent investigating the assassination of President Kennedy, because days, weeks, or months later, she gave “sworn” testimony in which she said something different is just absurd. The change is particularly significant since the underlying issue is whether Oswald brought a rifle to work (or appeared to have done so). FBI reports cannot be dismissed and belittled in the manner in which you do—and in fact, any historian will tell you that the “earliest recorded recollection” is the better evidence. Yes, its nice if a stenographer is on hand, and if an oath can be administered, but that is really not the primary point. The primary point is when the statement was made, because what we are dealing with is the freshness of the recollection. That is true if one is in an auto accident, and a police officer at the scene writes down what you said happened; it is also true if Linnie Mae Randle is questioned about the length of a bag, and an FBI agent makes a written record of what she said on Friday night, November 22, 1963. If Ms. Randle said the package was “over three feet long”—yes, that is significant. If, in 1963, she had a cell phone camera and could have taken a picture of “the bag,” that would perhaps have been the “best evidence” of all. Unfortunately, no such technology existed at the time. DSL 4/17/13; 9:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California