David Lifton

http://www.ctka.net/talbot_bug.html Again, I ask: why don't you tell us your real name, and just who you are--instead of creeping around under an alias? DSL

I find the notion that Hoover was in Dallas (or Fort Worth) in the days before the JFK assassination unlikely for a number of reasons. First of all, and as far as I know, Hoover did not fly around the country on any commercial airline. Nor could he (or did he) have the ability to "order up" an Air Force jet. (Am I wrong on this? If so, please provide some evidence). Second: if he were in Dallas or Fort Worth (and somehow got there by private jet) that surely would have been picked up by local journalists, and become quite well known immediately following JFK's death. ("Hey, guess what. . . did you know that Hoover was here the other night?" etc.) Third--and this is purely my personal opinion: although I'm not saying there was not any "inside man" (or men) inside the FBI (and have wondered as to just who he (or "they") might have been) I personally do not think that J. Edgar Hoover had any foreknowledge of Kennedy's assassination. I'm open to any reasonable evidence, but the notion of some "party" he was supposed to have attended is just urban legend, as far as I'm concerned. DSL

Again, I ask: Is "Mike Rago" your real name? And if not, why are you posting under an alias? Is that even allowed on this forum? That some weirdo can come on board and start using a false name?? DSL

Is "Mike Rago" your real name? If not, why don't you go somewhere else to peddle your stuff. I don't want to waste my time communicating with someone who hides behind an alias. DSL

RE: "No one should be afraid to speak that the Israeli factors were highly involved in the hit on JFK, but they didn't act alone and they had lots of help to include the criminal president of the US. One will always hear those trying to downplay and expunge any talk that Israel Factors were involved with the JFK hit, but what would one expect to keep the US money flowing to the Israelis, which would stop if the elements of the JFK murder included a huge cover up of the Israel factors among the plotters." This is a bunch of crap. . .why don't you go and peddle your wares elsewhere. DSL

The United States Government did not have a “policy” vis a vis the murder of President Kennedy. Around November 30, 1963, the FBI publicly announced that Oswald was the assassin. And that's properly characterized as a "conclusion" of the FBI. The Warren Commission was then appointed and its report was not yet completed, and not submitted to LBJ until 9/24/64. At no time was there any “policy of the United States Government” on the murder of JFK. And your choice of words is an indication of (a) inaccurate thinking and (b ) an apparent willingness to kow tow to authority, even before the “official pronouncement” of the President’s Commission was made (9/28/64, publicly)—and then improperly call that “policy” and then, in addition, attribute that to the Attorney General, who you apparently believe was making a statement “completely inline (sic) with the official policy" (and, for the benefit of the Polish people!). I think you had better recheck your definitions, and be more careful in your wording. Sorry, but: (a) No “official policy” on June 29, 1964. (b ) Or ever. (c ) Bobby Kennedy was not making a statement so as to be in compliance with any official policy--or, to quote your language, to be “completely inline with the official policy of the United States Government.” DSL 9/7/12 Los Angeles, California

I think that is an absurd position. Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States, and the brother of the murdered (and martyred) President. The whole world wanted to know what he "really thought" about who killed his brother. This was his first public statement, and the "target audience" was the entire world. Either by pre-arrangement (or simply because of its obvious news value), his rather detailed statement was placed on page one of the next day's New York Times. For anyone to believe that his statement was anything but very deliberate, and/or that his audience was merely intended for "the consumption of the Polish people and other people in the Soviet Union" is, imho, just absurd; and shows a rather limited understanding of the "realpolitik" that was unfolding at the time. June 29, 1964 marks the time when Bobby Kennedy "officially" came on board, and publicly sanctioned the official position that would be set forth in the Warren Report (which was then being drafted, or rather "crafted") and which was then publicly released on 9/27/64. DSL 9/7/12; 2:45 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

As I think I indicated in an email sent a short while ago--just minutes after midnight,and just prior to a 3.5 earthquake, which really jolted where I live, and whose epicenter, I now learn, was only one mile away--I am going completely on recollection, and do not have any documents which "prove" what happened. What I remember is a conversation, or perhaps more than one (or perhaps remarks Liebeler made in the weekly seminar, which I was attending) in which he was dealing with the issue of why the WC didn't call all the Dealey Plaza witnesses. To me, that was an outrage, and I know I brought it up, more than once. Of course, one of the things that came up, in those conversations, was that the WC "relied upon the autopsy" to determine where the shots came from, and not bystander recollection. To which --I now also remember--I darkly joked that well, the autopsy only recorded "hits," not "misses"--and didn't the WC care about those who may have fired, and missed? Wasn't that pertinent?? And so, round and round it went. Now, about the witnesses that Liebeler did interview. I'm sorry its so vague, but the distinct impression I got was that some of this was (or may have been) on his own initiative. However, I do remember, from my archives research, a memo with a list of who he was going to see in Dallas. And I recall seeing Mary Moorman's name on that list--and then, somewhere along line, learning that either because of illness or an injury, Moorman was not in fact deposed. (But she was supposed to have been. That is clear.) Very likely, Gary Mack knows more about the details of what happened there--i.e., what illness she had, or what injury she had--than I do (at this late date). DSL 9/7/12; 2:20 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

FYI: In March, 1967, Earl Warren made remarks (when he was in Lima, Peru) defending the Warren Report. It was, as I recall, the first time he had spoken out on the subject. Somehow, I determined that the US Information Agency had a recording of his remarks, and obtained the tapes. There were one (or 2 or 3) reel to reel splendid recordings, of a detailed press conference, and what happened when the entire affair became dominated by intense questioning of Warren, by various reporters, all firing questions at him (in Spanish) and then the Spanish-to-English translation, and then Warren's answers. So. . . at some point many years ago, I tried a "repeat" of all this, and I believe I contacted USIA. Do you have any audio coverage of Robert Kennedy, in Cracow, Poland? I asked. Anyway, the answer was "no," they did not have any recording. (Or at least, that's what I was told at the time. It never hurts to inquire again, and perhaps someone reading this post will do so.) The reason USIA did have such great audio coverage (in the case of Warren) was that Warren's appearance --i.e., his press conference--was actually held inside the American Embassy in Lima, Peru. Also, FYI, I have the actual download of the NYT story of the Warren appearance (which was in the NYT of 3/4/67). If you provide an email address, I can send it. As for the rest of your post: I agree. Most JFK researchers apparently "don't know" about RFK's appearance in Cracow, Poland, or what he said on that occasion; or about this front page NY Times story, or its importance, even though it was a page one story in the NY Times of July 1, 1964. Furthermore, I believe I am the first person to point out--at least publicly, anyway--that RFK refered to LHO as a "professed Communist," and to focus on the implications of that wording. DSL 9/7/12; 12:35 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

DSL RESPONSE: FWIW: I think your calling attention to the above information is very interesting. Specifically, the Airgram which you quote is indeed significant (could you please supply a reference to that, at the Ferrell site? Perhaps you can email me, or just amend your post) : QUOTING FROM YOUR POST: A July 6 Airgram from the American Embassy in Rome found in the CIA's files reports that Kennedy's statements "were given particular prominence in the Italian Press." As the CIA had a number of assets in the international press, this could very well have been bragging. There is a note of discord, however. The Airgram also reports that the Communist paper L'Unita has chosen to comment on Kennedy's comments, and has noted "Kennedy's declarations about the death of his brother and about the personality of Oswald seem disconcerting and...are in striking contrast not only with numerous facts but also with Robert Kennedy's attitude, declarations, and initiatives after the Dallas tragedy." While it's unclear which "declarations" and "initiatives" are being referenced in this article, it seems possible that Russian Premier Khruschev or one of his emissaries has been indiscreet about Robert Kennedy's private communication in December via William Walton, and has told Communist organizations and newspapers worldwide of Kennedy's private suspicion his brother was killed by a domestic conspiracy. UNQUOTE I think you're correct. Here is independent corroboration --from a Soviet source--of what Walton is reported to have conveyed to the Soviet government, as first reported by Naftali and Fursenko, in their book One Hell of a Gamble. So basically, what appears to be going on (by early July, 1964) is this: reading what RFK is supposed to have said in Cracow, Poland, some of the high-level Soviet officials (who were aware of what Walton had told them, some 7-8 months earlier) were probably wondering: "What is it with this fellow [RFK]? That's not what he told us in November/December, 1963! Why is he now saying it was "Oswald alone" when he was telling us, via Walton, that there was a high level domestic plot?!" Also. . . : Please read the "CORRECTION" notice I posted in my post #5 on this thread, and the discussion there about the difference between what the NYT (and the AP) reported--that Bobby referred to LHO as a "professed Communist"--and how that statement was incorrectly stated by Talbot (i.e., that RFK said LHO was a "confessed" Communist, not a "professed Communist"). Big difference. And an important one, I think, in terms of evaluating Bobby's (possible) knowledge (and/or awareness) about who Oswald was. DSL 9/6/12; 5:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, Ca

FWIW: You talk of a "deliberate decision" to ignore the witnesses, etc. Is that your own opinion? Or do you have a document from the office files? I ask because it has always been my understanding--and this comes from conversations with Liebeler back in the period 1965/1966--that he undertook his trip to Dallas, and the depositions that he took, more or less out of personal curiosity, than anything else. Remember: his area (and that of Jenner) was Oswald's biography--and the writing of Appendix 13 to the Warren Report. So why, in July of 1964, did he suddenly go to Dallas, and interview Dealey Plaza witnesses? (And remember: if it wasn't for the fact that Mary Moorman had suffered some sort of personal injury, she would have been deposed, too.) If there's a Warren Commission internal memo bearing on this question, I'd be interested. All I can say, for now, is that when I went through all the WC attorneys "office files" (in the summer of 1970 or 1971)--and I went through every single file-- each of them had, say, one or two boxes; Liebeler had a dozen, maybe twice that many. (I don't recall just now). But the difference was huge. There was just no comparison. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he put in for "permission" (whatever that amounted to) to go and depose Zapruder, Altgens, Emmet Hudson, etc. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't depose even more of them: e.g., Brehm, Sitzman, Mr. and Mrs. Franzen, the Newmans, Hester, Summers, the two motorcycle cops on the right hand side of the limo, and others. . etc. As I described in BEST EVIDENCE (See Chapter 1), when I first met him (May, 1965), he was very interested in the shooting, as well as his nominally assigned area--Oswald's bio. And the extremely detailed 13 page memo he wrote to Chief Justice Warren (11/8/66) which followed the 10/24/66 multi-hour meeting we had (see Chapter 9 of BEST EVIDENCE) --when I showed him the FBI report about there having been pre-autopsy surgery on JFK's body--demonsrates how fluent he was not just in matters pertaining to "Oswald's biography" but to many of the intricasies of the medical evidence, as well. DSL 9/7/12; 5:15 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Don: You are not the only one who --for reasons I have never understood--was not aware of Robert Kennedy's detailed statement in Cracow, Poland, and the manner in which it was a page one news story in the New York Times of June 30, 1964. Recently, I provided that NY Times clip to another author, who I believe is going to be using it in a book. However, please do re-read my "Post #5" on this thread, for I have posted an important correction, and added some other information. #1: I was wrong in stating that Talbot did not mention the RFK statement in Poland, in BROTHERS. (How I missed that, I do not know). #2: I have taken the opportunity (in this Correction" that I posted), to dwell on a particular matter of vocabulary; and to elaborate on the difference between the statement that Oswald was a "confessed" Communist (which is the way Talbot incorrectly quoted the Times, or AP dispatch) and the word Robert Kennedy actually used (as reported in the New York Times, and in the AP dispatch): that Oswald was a "professed Communist." Anyone sensitive to language will see the difference, and recognize the importance of Bobby using "professed," which leaves open the door to the possibility that Bobby knew (or suspected) that Oswald's October, 1959 defection was phoney. This is an interesting subject, and can be pursued further another time. DSL 9/6/12; 5 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Boy oh boy. . the more you talk, the more your various agendas become visible. What makes you think Jack Ruby was a "lone nut"? (Oh, pardon me, "the Lone Nut"). Who are you going to put on the grassy knoll - - the Lone Ranger? But back to Ruby. . . Do you think he just showed up, at that time and place, by coincidence? And then lunged forward after multiple, unrelated blasts, on a car horn? And what about that provocative interchange with Chief Justice Earl Warren, asking that he be flown to Washington, so that he could talk freely? Do you think that was all an act? That he was just playing games? Just adding drama "for drama's sake"? Just trying to be mysterious? Please do expand on your views. Inquiring minds want to know. DSL 9/6/12; 10:25 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Don, Thanks for the compliment(s). First things first: No, I am not all that skeptical of David Talbot’s central thesis: that the Bay of Pigs was JFK’s trial by fire; and that after that, he was extremely skeptical of military advice from the so-called “experts”—and further, as the book (and film) “Virtual JFK” amply demonstrates, he turned down the key advice he was receiving from the hawks some half dozen times, from Vietnam to Berlin. And, finally, that he and Bobby were, to some extent, virtually at war with some of those in the national security apparatus. FYI: I used to keep a “JFK/Premonition” file, and it seemed clear, from the number of items in that file, that JFK sensed that something was afoot, and that his days were numbered, although (and this is easy for me to say in retrospect) he never really suspected the magnitude of what that “something” was. Nor did he suspect the Secret Service (because if he had, I think that he (and/or Bobby) would have seen to it that there was a complete re-shuffling of the White House Detail). That would have been one way to bust up a brewing plot—just shuffle the deck so that any “inside people” were simply no longer in positions of power, even if you can’t identify exactly who “they” are. But none of that happened, so instead there was a situation in which the Secret Service was "all smiles" and "Yes, Mr. President" and "Of course, Mr. President" and "Anything you say, Mr. President" and any rotten apples in the barrel remained well concealed. On the subject of premonition, I published one of the most striking ones as an epilogue of sorts to BEST EVIDENCE. It is the report of James Reston, which appeared in the New York Times of November 23, 1963. Did [Kennedy] have a premonition of tragedy—that he who had set out to temper the contrary violences of our national life would be their victim? Last June, when the civil rights riots were at their height and passions were flaring,he spoke to a group of representatives of national organizations. He tolled off the problems that beset him on every side and then suddenly, to the astonishment of everyone there, suddenly concluded his talk by pulling from his pocket a scrap of paper and reading the famous speech of Blanche of Spain in Shakespeare’s King John: The Sun’s o’ercast with blood; Fair day, Adieu! Which is the side that I must Go withal? I am with both; each army A hand, And in their rage, I having Hold of both, They whirl asunder and dismember Me. * * * But now. . back to your main point (re Talbot): my chief criticism was not with his overall thesis, but that he could write the book he did, and not include the “RFK-in-Poland” matter, which was page one news in the New York Times (on June 30, 1964) and which I’m sure received comparable wire-service coverage all over America and the world. That's like ignoring the 500 pound elephant in the room. (No?) Yet he apparently did just that and no one "called" him on it. Anyway, here’s my question to you. You write: “I am skeptical of this speech in Poland.” ". .. skeptical. . . "? In what sense? Could you please elaborate? Do you mean that you are “skeptical” that the event occurred—at all? Or that you are skeptical (as I am) that it was all that “spontaneous”? DSL 9/6/12; 10:10 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

David (Josephs): First, a preliminary observation: the co-mingling of red and blue fonts is confusing, because--on this forum--a change in color usually is the way a third person inserts a comment. When, instead, red is inserted into text that is blue, as a substitute for italics, or "boldface," it doesn't create emphasis, but just confusion. Now, to the rest of my post. . . IMHO: The original FBI report was simply wrong--not because the FBI agents made a mistake, but because McBride made a mistake. Its that simple. Here was McBride,on November 23, 1963, having just learned that JFK was shot, and that this person he worked with was supposed to be JFK's murderer. Palmer McBride was not a researcher. He didn't keep a journal. He was doing it all by recollection; and he made a mistake. So what? Not only do the Oswald tax records establish that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1956, there's the corroboration coming from the William Wulf episode. (There's also the fact that McBride reports Oswald having written their supervisor a letter, from Fort Worth, saying "hello" to everybody, and talking about the racial demonstrations in Ft Worth--which occurred in late summer of 1956). Only by doing a lot of pulling and hauling is it possible to "argue" that the year all this occurred (i.e., when McBride knew Oswald at Pfisterer) was 1957 or 1958, and not 1956, which is obviously the correct date. When time permits, I can return to this subject and provide you with my own personal hypothesis as to why McBride was vulnerable to the sort of "pitch" that Armstrong gave him (and other witnesses), and which turned his "investigation" into more or less a "witness recruitment program". But for now, here is more of the Q and A between myself and Palmer McBride during that filmed interview on October 2, 1994. In this section, he is able to place his employment at Pfisterer as following his brief employment at the Weyerhauser Box company, which he vividly remembered as being between October, 1955 and January, 1956. Then, following Weyerhauser, he went to work at Pfisterer. Here is that excerpt, and how it occurred. When, on camera, I read him his official statement (“In about June 1956, I went to work as a dental messenger for the Pfisterer Dental Laboratories,”) McBride cut in and said: “No, that’s a typo, it was ’56.” And then he reflected back, told me about Weyerhauser Box company (which became an important time-marker in our conversation) and how his employment there was followed by Pfisterer, etc. We summed it up: DSL: I want to make this clear: you’re pretty sure Pfisterer comes after Weyerhauser Box? McB: Oh yeah, absolutely. DSL: [so] is it a fair statement to say that we go from Ebauma Food Company (phonetic), where you [worked] in New Orleans, and then in October 1955 to January 1956, you’re at Weyerhauser Box? McB: There you go, yeah. DSL: And then after Weyerhauser Box, comes Pfisterer [Dental Labs]? McB: Pfisterer, yeah. DSL: OK. McB: That was in January, 1956, not June [1955, as his FBI statement read]. * * * McB: I worked at Pfisterer; he (Oswald) came about April [1956]. April or so; April, May. Something like that. [For] about six weeks I knew him. DSL: OK. In this statement, you also write, “during his first visit to my home, in late ’57 or early ’58. . . “ McB: No, that’s not right. Its gotta be ’56. Its gotta be ’56. It can’t be ’57.” . . . . DSL: I want you to go through this. Do you have any theory as to why you were confused, why you thought it was ’57 or ’58 back when youmade the statement? McB: No. I can’t figure it out as to why I thought it was ’58. If he was already in the Marines in’56, he sure as hell wasn’t at Pfisterer. DSL: Well, let’s put it differently. You went to work at Pfisterer in January of ’56, after the Weyerhauser Box Company? McB: Right, after Weyerhauser. DSL: So it wasn’t too many more months—you didn’t have to wait a year to meet Oswald, did you? McB: No, it was a couple of months. Maybe March or April [1956]. I don’t remember exactly. DSL: And we don’t have exact [employment] records, either. And then later, after again going over his prior employment at Weyerhauser Box Company, he said, of the time he met Oswald at Pfisterer: McB: It was in ’56. It wasn’t in ’57 or ’58, no. It had to be ’56. * * * I really don't see the difficulty in understanding why, on November 22, 1963, and in the throes of being astonished at his supposedly having known the man who murdered Kennedy, McBride might not have made an error of the kind it seems obvious to me that he did. We're talking here about getting the chronology correct about exactly when he was employed somewhere seven and a half years before. Its most unfortunate that the Warren Commission did not (a) request the FBI to re-interview McBride and (b ) get McBride's (and Oswald's) employment records at Pfisterer; and (c ) call McBride as a witness. But back to Armstrong: just look at the way he behaved. When the ARRB unearthed the Oswald tax records, and it showed he (Oswald) was employed at Pfisterer in 1956, Armstrong immediately came up with the hypothesis that the tax records were forgeries. (And, of course, those who believed in his hypothesis went along with that extrapolation, too.) Go figure. DSL 9/5/12; 5:45 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Mike, I appreciate your focusing on Zapruder’s statement, but your focus, imho, is not quite right; in fact, it is seriously misplaced, because you are dealing with a small, relatively unimportant, piece of data that is far downstream from the source of the problem. Also, you are missing another such “endorsement” of the Single Bullet Theory, this one coming from Jacqueline Kennedy herself, on June 5, 1964, during her Warren Commission deposition, sworn testimony taken by Chief Justice Earl Warren himself, and with Atty General Robert Kennedy sitting besides the witness. So, to begin with, one must back up all the way to the point where the Warren Commission’s legal staff decided to conduct a “re-enactment” in Dallas. MAY, 1964: THE WC RE-ENACTMENT If you will examine the working papers of the Warren Commission, you will become aware of the major (and very public) reconstruction done, in Dealey Plaza, supposedly to “re-enact” the assassination. There were news stories about that, and I believe that a careful reading of those stories will reveal one (or more) raising the issue of a single bullet passing through Kennedy’s body, and then wounding Connally. I don’t have a file of those stories in front of me just now, but let’s move forward in time, just a bit, to the beginning of June, 1964. JUNE 1, 1964 Of greater significance—far greater significance—is the front page story in the New York Times of June 1, 1964, bearing the headline “PANEL TO REJECT THEORIES OF PLOT IN KENNEDY DEATH,” and the sub-head: “Warren Inquiry is Expected to Dispel Doubts in Europe That Oswald Acted Alone.” This story was written by Anthony Lewis, the Times’ reporter who covered the Supreme Court, and –basically—covered the ongoing Warren Commission investigation. The lead reads: Washington,May 31 –A special appendix to the Warren Commission’s report will consider in detail the various theories circulating abroad about the assassination of President Kennedy. The second paragraph reads: Unless it finds new information, the commission will unequivocally reject these theories that the assassination was the work of some kind of conspiracy. It has no credible evidence of any conspiracy. And then: “The commission’s report is expected, in short, to support the original belief of law enforcement authorities in this country that the President was killed by one man acting along, Lee H. Oswald.” Then comes a breaker (“A View Hard To Accept”) and these words: It is the idea that Oswald was the lone assassin that many persons abroad have apparently been unable to accept. Reports from major capitals in Europe indicate that many persons believe this view of the assassination is insufficiently logical, without ideology, senseless. The Warren Commission is aware of and concerned about the foreign skepticism. It considers that its job is to dispel uncertainty and suspicions about the possibility as far as possible. I would now suggest to you that much of this is “code” for—or at least an important prelude to—the unveiling of the Single Bullet Theory. So now, if you (literally) “turn the page” –specifically, to page 19, column 1 of that same New York Times—to where this front page story continues, we find considerably more detail about what the Warren Commission attorney (or attorneys) who were behind this story were (in effect) announcing to the world, through the New York Times, in what was clearly an officially sanctioned news release. Specifically, Page 19 has a major eight-column headline, across the top of the page, which reads: Warren Panel To Reject Theories of Conspiracy Behind Kennedy’s Assassination And now we come to the heart of the matter: what happened during the “re-enactment” and how KRLD –TV (which filmed that event) was used to promulgate what was supposedly "proven" or "established" --at least as a possibility--at that time. THE FIRST PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE SINGLE BULLET TRAJECTORY Immediately beneath the headline ("Warren Panel To Reject Theories of Conspiracy...") is a photo from the (or “a”) re-enactment, showing two FBI agents seated in the limo—one is the stand-in for JFK, the other, for Connally. The photograph is taken from the rear (right hand side) and it shows a white dotted line that has been drawn in, indicating a back-to-front bullet trajectory, passing through both the “JFK” figure and then striking Connally on the right side, just beneath the armpit. The picture is copyrighted (with the "c" [with a circle] copyright symbol), and is credited to “KRLD-TV-Dallas, Tex.”—which means, imho, that this composite (the photo, plus the dashed white line) was likely the journalistic endeavor of the late Eddie Barker, who apparently believed they had a big scoop. The caption on this photo reads: POSSIBLE PATH OF FIRST SHOT: Two F. B. I. agents re-enacting the assassination of President Kennedy. One, left, has a chalk patch on back of jacket, where first bullet hit President. Other, at right, with circle around dot on his jacket, is seated in position of Gov. John Connally of Texas. [Dotted] Line indicates the possible path of the first bullet.” (boldface added by DSL). So. . . there you have it, the first “public revelation” of the Single Bullet Theory, in the New York Times, on June 1,1964, spelled out in the caption to this picture, which was copyrighted to KRLD-TV. I have little doubt that the “New York Times News Service” distributed this story to its various clients, and very likely there was also AP and/or UPI wire service distribution of this story. But note: curiously, there was no actual mention of the “single bullet theory” or of a one-bullet/two-victim trajectory in the text of the story itself--which suggests to me that whoever was orchestrating this affair wanted to climb out on the limb, but was (perhaps) worried about going out too far. (Pretty slick, eh?) THE TEXT OF THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY CARRYING THE KRLD-TV PHOTO DEPICTING THE SINGLE BULLET TRAJECTORY Here’s how the story actually reads, in broaching this, er, rather sensitive subject. The skeptics also have raised questions about the number of shots fired. The Commission’s data show that there were three. One hit Mr. Kennedy in the back, wounding him but probably not fatally. The fatal show followed. A third bullet, fired either before or after these two, went wild. Now read that again: The Commission’s data show that there were three. One hit Mr. Kennedy in the back, wounding him but probably not fatally. (DSL NOTE: No mention about the “continuation” of this "first" bullet, going on to strike Connally! Again, I say, “pretty slick, eh?”) In my opinion, and knowing what I do about the Warren Commission's staff, this story came from the likes of Norman Redlich, Arlen pecter, and/or David Belin, with full sanction of General Counsel Rankin. Notice also the following rather arrogant remarks, which then follow the “non-description” of the one-bullet/two victim trajectory, in which the text mentions nothing about the most critical fact of all (the "double hit"), and the important detail has been concealed in the caption. “The commission spokesman expressed the conviction that its report, when issued, would completely explode the theories published by such persons as Mr. [Thomas] Buchanan [author of “Who Killed Kennedy?”] He said not even the authors of the theories would sand by them.” “We’ll knock them out of the positions,” he said. “However, he said, that he did not expect those who wanted to find a conspiracy to cease looking for one. “They’ll probably shift to something else,” the spokesman declared, “though we can’t know what.” So much, then, for the “public revelation” or “public prelude” to the Single Bullet Theory. Now, let’s move forward to the first witness to mention it, and that is Jacqueline Kennedy, sitting next to her brother-in-law, Bobby, when her sworn deposition was taken at her Georgetown, Washington, home, on June 5, 1964. JUNE 5, 1964 - THE TESTIMONY OF JACKIE KENNEDY Present: Chief Justice Warren; Rankin, General Counsel; and RFK, the Attorney General. Location: Jackie's Georgetown, Washington, D.C. home. The testimony is printed starting on page 178 of Volume 5 of the WC’s 26 volumes. Note this excerpt, which contains a “plug” for the Single Bullet Theory. Rankin: Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots? Jackie: Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. And then, continuing. . . : But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. (etc.) Finally, to put all this in perspective, we come to Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, in Cracow, Poland, on June 30, 1964. June 30, 1964 - - Page 1 –New York Times Robert Kennedy Says Oswald Acted on Own in Assassination This exclusive news story, published on June 30, refers to what occurred the day before, in Cracow, Poland, when RFK was answering questions at a meeting of the “City Council of Cracow.” At that point, RFK—in what appears to me to be a somewhat contrived “Q and A” --made his first public pronouncement on his brother’s death. The TImes storywas written by one "Arthur J. Olsen." Here's the lead paragraph: Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy said today that his brother had been assassinated by Lee H. Oswald, “a misfit,” who took out his resentment against society by killing the President of the United States. Then comes this paragraph: Answering questions at a meeting of the City Council of Cracow, the Attorney General said that Oswald was "a professed Communist" but had not been motivated by Communist ideologywhen he shot the President last Nov. 22." FWIW: I love the statement that the U.S. Attorney General, in his first public statement on his brother's murder, refers to Oswald as "a professed Communist." Hmmmm. The next paragraph explains how this remarkable exchange occurred, in the first place: It was in response to a hesitant question put by a Communist youth leader of Cracow, who attended the council's meeting, that the Attorney General spoke about Oswald and the assassinatin. Now, to begin with, isn't that something? --Not in the United States. --Not on a U.S. college campus. No, none of that. But in response to "a hesitant quesiton" asked by "a Communist youth leader" who happened to attend a meeting o the City Council of Cracow, Poland, and who asked the question millions around the world would have liked to ask: "Mr. Kennedy. . . who do you think killed your brother?!" The Times article goes on to provide further background: It was Mr.Kennedy's first public discussion of the accused assassin, aides said. . . . The Attorney General briefly sketched Oswald's life story, describing him as a man whohad embraced Communism, and had gone to the Soviet Uniion, but found no place for himself there. (DSL Comment: Pretty good, for someone who later said he had not read the Warren Report, and would not do so.) Continuing with the Times' text: "He was a professed Communist, but the Communists, because of his attitude, would have nothing to do with him," he [RFK] said. "What he did he did on his own, and by himself." Then came a breaker, which reads: Discredits Plot Theories And then the story continues: Mr. Kennedy said that the assassination was not a racist plot, such as some persons had speculated. "Ideology in my opinion did not motivate his act," the President's brother said. It was the single act of one person protesting against society." (Boldface added by DSL). . . . The Attorney General is known to be fully acquainted with the findings of the Warren Commission. It is presumed by persons close to him that the Commission's report will reflect the views expressed by Mr. Kennedy today. (Underlining added by DSL) One other post-sript: When the Warren Report was released, the Times ran this story, on 9/28/64: Robert Kennedy Says He Won't Read Report The first paragraph of that story reads: Robert F. Kennedy, brother of the assassinated President, said yesterday he had been briefed on the Warren Commission report and was "completely satisified."But he added that he had "not read the report, nor doI intend to." . . . As I said in Poland last summer, I am convinced [Lee Harvey] Oswald was solely responsible for what happened and that he did not have any outside help or assistance. He was a malcontent who could not get along here or in the Soviet Union." I have not read the report, nor did I intend to. . .But I have been briefed on it and I am completely satisfied that the commission investigated every lead and examined every piece of evidence. The commission's inquiry was thorough and conscientious. (NYT, 9/28/64, p. 11) FWIW: I do not believe that Talbot mentions this rather important event (RFK's Poland statement) in his book BROTHERS. If one is going to put forward a theory that Robert Kennedy did not believe the Warren Report (and was indicating that privately, and at an early date), then I believe one is obligated to report on his statement of support made in Cracow, Poland, on June 30, 1964, and which was a page one story in the New York Times on the following day, July 1, 1964. CORRECTION (9/6/12; 4:30 PM, PDT, Los Angeles, California): The above statement is incorrect, and the result of an oversight. As I just learned several hours ago (from reading a post by Pat Speer on this thread), Talbot--in his book BROTHERS--does in fact report on RFK's (6/29/64) statement in Cracow, Poland, which then became a page 1 story in the New York Times on June 30, 1964. But those closely studying this matter should note the following: According to the New York Times article (and the AP dispatch, as quoted by Speer), RFK said (of Oswald): "He was a professed Communist, but the Communists, because of his attitude, would have nothing to do with him," he [RFK] said. "What he did he did on his own, and by himself." Talbot, unfortunately, made an error in quoting the news dispatch. In BROTHERS, his text reads He was a confessed communist but even the communists would not have anything to do with him. I urge the interested reader to focus on the word "confessed", and consider the difference between that term, and the one in the New York Times dispatch (and also in the AP dispatch, as provided by Speer). There is a critical difference between RFK describing Oswald as a "professed Communist" and a "confessed Communist." In my dictionary, one of the primary definitions of “profess” is “to make a false claim about something.” So. . .: If Oswald was a “confessed Communist,” then there would be no doubt about his “political bona-fides.” But for Bobby Kennedy (on June 29, 1964) to publicly describe Oswald as a “professed Communist” carries with it the clear implication that Bobby was leaving the door open (indeed, wide open, imho) to the possibility (if not the fact) that Oswald was posing as a leftist, and was not a genuine leftist at all. What is significant about “professed” is not so much what it means—one can check the dictionary for that—but that Bobby Kennedy would describe Oswald using that term. Now back to David Talbot: In (apparently) misperceiving the quote—and writing “confessed” instead of “professed” (clearly an innocent error)—Talbot missed the opportunity to make a critical point: that this choice of language, on RFK's part, was not accidental, and in fact might well signify greater knowledge (again, on Bobby’s part, and by June 29, 1964) as to just who Oswald was, and whether his October, 1959 defection was phony. END OF CORRECTION Finally (and perhaps now placed in proper contenxt) we come to Mr. Zapruder, whose Warren Commission deposition was taken on July 22, 1964, in Dallas, by WC attorney Liebeler. JULY 22, 1964 – ZAPRUDER TESTIFYING IN DALLAS Here is an excerpt, which does mention the Single Bullet Theory, in passing: Zapruder: I didn’t from the first sound, from him leaning over—I couldn’t think it was a shot, but of course, the second—I think it was the second shot. I don’t know whether they proved anything—they claim he was hit—that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that—I don’t know how that is. Liebeler: Well, there are many different theories about that. Although everything so far has been discussed in chronological order, I would now like to "break chronology" and do "flashback" of sorts, because it is relevant to the issue of the origin of the Single Bullet Theory. THE MID-DECEMBER (1963) NEWS STORY – Dallas Morning News In my own very extensive newspaper research (done decades ago, and "the old fashioned way,"using microfilms ordered on Interlibrary Loan,and studied at the UCLA Research Library) I found a mid-December, 1963 –yes, 1963—news story of some significance. This story mentions, in passing (and in connection with attempting to explain the missed “Tague shot” (i.e., the curb hit) and just how to account for all this in the context of “3 shots" that Oswald supposedly fired--the statement is made raising the possibility that a single bullet passed through Kennedy, and hit Connally. (Yes, in mid-December, 1963, in the Dallas Morning News.) This struck me as a planted news story, and I think it is significant. MY OWN CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Single Bullet theory—as a hypothesis—ante-dated creation of the Warren Commission. I feel certain of that because of its mention in a December, 1963 news story. 2. There is at least one internal memo (that I recall, from a careful study of the office files of the Warren Commission) that shows that in mid-January, 1964, SS Inspector Thomas Kelly (from memory, here) advanced the theory to WC attorney Arlen Specter. (So, it appears to me, at least, that a Secret Service line of authority was used to advance the hypothesis to a lawyer on the Warren Commission, who then "bought into it."). But that is a whole other story. “Who thought of it first?” is really not the issue. The underlying fact is that neither Kennedy or Connally had any bullets in their body (i.e., bodies) and so the only “ammunition” available was the bullet found on the stretcher, and the two large fragments found in the limousine (at about 10 PM at night, in the White House garage). 3. The WC conducted a re-enactment to supposedly ascertain data that would support this hypothesis. That re-enactment—whose date I do not have at hand—led to one or two news stories as to what the Warren Commission was doing, what its conclusions were likely to be, etc. An important leader in this regard was KRLD (and KRLD-TV) in Dallas. And I suspect that Eddie Barker was tipped off that the Single Bullet Theory would be the Warren Commission's explanation for the shooting. 4. A still photograph was created from KRLD-TV's coverage of the re-enactment, and then someone—presumably at KRLD—drew a white dotted line through the picture demonstrating the Single Bullet trajectory. This photograph was copyrighted, and provided to the New York Times, for its story stating that the Warren Commission reject all conspiracy theories. (As far as I know, this was the first time an actual graphic of the "single bullet trajectory" was published). 5. The New York Times ran a major story on June 1, 1964, announcing that the Warren Commission Report would reject all conspiracy theories and state that the JFK assassination was the work of one man. This story carried the KRLD-TV picture, showing the Single Bullet Trajectory. 6. Included in that story was the copyrighted picture, from KRLD, taken during the re-enactment, and showing a white dotted line going through Kennedy’s neck, and then on to Connally. This picture illustrated the single bullet theory, and the caption spelled it out, as a “possible” bullet trajectory. 7. Jacqueline Kennedy’s deposition was taken on June 5, 1964. During her testimony, she did indeed mention the “single bullet trajectory,” but it’s a weak endorsement, and it is (apparently) referenced to the New York Times article with the picture showing the trajectory going through two men. Again, her language: And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. Far more important is what occurred next. 8. On June 29, 1964, in Cracow, Poland, Robert Kennedy endorsed the Warren Commission’s (forthcoming) conclusions, referring to Oswald as a “professed” communist and stating that the murder of his brother was the work of Oswald, and Oswald alone, and that ideology had nothing to do with it. RFK’s statements were a page one story in the New York Times (of June 30, 1964). [Deleted. . prior incorrect statement re Talbot]. 9. On July 22, 1964, Abraham Zapruder’s deposition was taken by WC attorney Wesley Liebeler in Dallas. Zapruder states: “they claim he was hit—that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that—I don’t know how that is.” This statement, imho, is totally inconsequential, since the assassination, just a month or so before, was “re-enacted” right outside his window,on Elm Street, and inasmuch as the single bullet theory (by that time) had received an important “preview” (of sorts) in the New York Times story of June 1, 1964, complete with a copyrighted picture from KRLD-TV. (which also suggests to me that the same story was given a lot of play in the Dallas Times Herald, affiliated with KRLD-TV, and probably publicized in the Dallas Morning News, as well). In the above list, the 4 most important items, imho, are: (a) The mid-December, 1963 story in the Dallas Morning News, which mentions (in passing) the one bullet/two victim trajectory (b ) The WC memo (mid-January, 1964, as I recall) that proves that Specter did not originate the hypothesis, but rather that it was “advanced” to him (as I recall) by someone in the Secret Service (and I think it was Inspector Kelly). (c ) Jackie Kennedy’s gratuitous mention of it, while giving a sworn deposition and seated in the same room as her brother, the Attorney General (d ) Bobby Kennedy’s lengthy and explicit statement in Cracow, Poland, supporting the “lone- assassin” view (not yet officially published); and referring to Oswald as a “professed Communist.” AFTERMATH Of course, all of this provides the “public face” for what happened back in 1963/64, and is the historical backdrop for the truly most important underlying drama (other than the actual shooting, itself): the falsification of the Kennedy autopsy protocol starting on the evening of November 22, 1963, extending over the weekend, and resulting in a false autopsy report that became the foundation for the “Oswald-did-it” story published in the Warren Report. That false autopsy was made possible because of the covert interception and alteration of the President’s body, a critical “second crime” which took place after his murder, and which laid the foundation for the falsification of the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination. And that, of course, is the subject of BEST EVIDENCE, which was first published in 1980. If you buy into that autopsy, then –as a practical matter—you are buying into the "official architecture" of the crime, and into Oswald’s guilt. If you dispute that autopsy (as a deliberate fraud), then you are dealing with what is truly important and significant: a plot to alter the basic facts of Kennedy’s murder, which was in operation within hours of his death. DSL 9/5/12, 3:25 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

I interviewed Palmer McBride, on camera, on October 2, 1994--apparently before John Armstrong was able to "work his magic"on the witness. Here is an excerpt of the transcript of that filmed interview, the part that dealt with the matter of Sputnik: DSL: Ok, let’s jump to the year of Sputnik. Ok? PM: Ok, October 4th 1957. I come home from work from Pfisterer, and Bill Wolfe calls me up and says "The Russians have launched an air satellite." I said "What!?" He said, "Yeah, 184 lbs." (PM. . continuing. . . ): I said "That’s incredible, Vanguard’s only 19." And we got into Sputnik and everything. We joined the Holy Cross Moon Watching Team at Holy Cross High School down in…I forget the name of the town….it was south of New Orleans, down in the industrial canal. And everybody wanted to see the Russian satellite. And we’d go down there and the teacher, name of Wendall Adams, I still have his signature on my certificate. We’d go out in the morning about 2 or 3 in the morning, and wait for the satellites to come over. And we did see the rocket carrier for Sputnik One and Sputnik Two itself. We’d see those go over in the early morning hours. I’d go from there, get on the bus and go directly to work. DSL: Let me ask you something. Was Oswald at Pfisterer when Sputnik went up? PM: Oh no, no, he’d left in 1956. DSL: So he was not there? PM: No. The whole thing with Sputnik was October 1957. DSL: Right. Did you have an argument with Oswald about Sputnik the day it went up at Pfisterer? PM: No. He left in the summer of 1956, he wasn’t there in 1957. END OF EXCERPT Its my opinion that John Armstrong "sold" a number of witnesses on the "historical importance" of his hypothesis, and that, as a consequence, they modified their accounts to be part of something that they believed was "important." Unfortanately, that's how he went about some of his "research" for HARVEY AND LEE and why we have the "filmed record" of these witnesses that are on the Internet today. DSL 9/5/12; 2:10 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

Joe, Recently, I needed to get something from Newsweek--circa 1975--and found it impossible "on-line." However, and fyi, the UCLA Library has the hardbound volumes of Newsweek, so if you determine the date, I can easily get it the next time I'm on campus. (And I go there often to swim laps, and to do certain other research at the main library, pertinent to LHO). Let me know. DSL P.S. The date ought to be between June 1991 and December 1991, when JFK was released.

The "I'm a Patsy"" manuscript is in volume 12 of the HSCA. So you can just go to History Matters website for that. DSL

How about the possibility of including (between "5" and "6", the Dallas Morning News (or was it Times-Herald) report quoting Ochus Campbell stating that Oswald was observed (briefly) in the (or "a") storage room. That quote belongs here, if you're going to lay out the possibility that perhaps Oswald was deliberately "held" inside the building, until the station wagon appeared, out in front. Just a thought. DSL

I understand where you're "coming from" (as the saying goes), but I believe you to be entirely incorrect. The basic problem with your entire analysis, Mr. Rago, is that critical photographic evidence in this case has been forged (which is what the Kennedy assassination plot (and/or coverup) is all about, in the first place). Of course, you don't see it that way--you apparently believe you have "found" a cornucopia of data leading to some profound "truth." Of course, those of us who have followed this case "from the beginning" don't have that perspective, at all, and one reason perhaps is that we didn't have that photographic evidence: (1) We did not have the autopsy photographs; (2) We did not have the Z film, or frames from the Z film. Our starting point was the medical evidence--and by that I am referring to the records of the Parkland doctors and nurses, and the autopsy protocol; both of which were published in the Warren Commission Report (1964) and were an integral part of the original "official version" of the event and "the case against Oswald." That's what we had--and that's all we had (and here I'm referring to the period 1963 - 1968). THE CLARK PANEL REPORT, the Z-Film, and the X-rays and Photographs Then came the Clark Panel Report, created in March, 1968, and released around January 17, 1969, just 3 days before LBJ left the Oval Office. At that point, and for the first time, we had an official report on what the X-rays supposedly showed. But it was all in text; no diagrams. Then, you have to cycle forward to 1971, for Dr. Lattimer's drawings (in his article in Resident and Staff Physician) to get an idea of what the X-rays actually showed (pictorially); and then cycle forward still further until March, 1975, to see the Zapruder film, in color, on the Geraldo Show. Finally, one has to cycle still further forward to Oct/Nov., 1988, the 25th anniversary of the assassination, to see the autopsy photographs, which I first published in the 1988 in the Carrol and Graf edition of BEST EVIDENCE. Google and YouTube Finally, one has to go forward another 8-10 years (approx)--say, 1998-- to get to the Internet, additional years to get to Google, and finally November 2005 to get to You Tube. At that point, it became possible to conveniently put the Z film "on the Internet" and have a debate, albeit in cyberspace, as to what it showed. So by the end of this process, which unfolds over decades, its possible to "return to the evidence" and view "evidence" that certainly wasn't available in 1963-1968. Specifically, it was possible to view (a) the autopsy photographs (at least, the one's I published in 1988) and (b ) the Z film, and whole assortment of Z film frames (e.g., from the Costella site). THE DELAYED "RELEASE" OF THE MOST CRITICAL EVIDENCE Of course, the reason the Zapruder film was locked up for well over a decade, is that the head-snap appeared to show Kennedy was struck from the front (do you understand what would have happened, in the days and months following Dallas, much less at the time of the Vietnam War, if that film was shown publicly?); and at least one reason the autopsy photographs were locked up-- besides "Kennedy family sensitivity" (and all that) --is that they contradict the Bethesda autopsy conclusions (!). And of course there is still another: they contradict what was seen at Parkland Hospital because the President's body was altered, some time in the six hour period "after Dallas" and prior to the 8 P.M. start of the official autopsy at Bethesda. DECADES LATER- - A TIME FOR THE NEWBIES TO SHARE THEIR WISDOM. . .. Now, decades later, someone like you comes along, sticks their hand into this barrel of contradictory (and falsified) evidence, retrieves the autopsy photographs and the Z film frames, places a red circle around the right temporal area (in the autopsy photograph), focuses on frame Z-335 or Z-337 (with the big red blob), and says: "See, what-did-I-yell ya?. . this is the way it really happened. See?! There was a bullet exit wound in the right temple!!" And: "Doncha see? All the doctors who saw the body at Parkland Hospital were wrong! They didn't know what had happened!" And: "Gee whiz. . what's wrong with all you people? Don't you know that eyewitness testimony is unreliable?!" etc etc etc. In short, you have retrieved from "the historical record" (a retrieval largely made possible by the publication of the autopsy photographs in 1988, and the Internet technology, enumerated above, which followed), precisely those items of evidence which have been falsified (and whose release was delayed for so many years, probably because they contradicted what was seen at the time)! Furthermore, you have then ignored and/or side-stepped the issue of falsified evidence--which is what this is really all about. And, finally, you have "assembled" the "pieces" of this historical puzzle in a fashion which strikes you as perfectly reasonable and straightforward, and you then proceed to lecture us all that what happened is all so very clear: that it doesn't take a genius; all it takes is someone with your astute thinking and perception, to understand that none of the doctors that day at Dallas understood what was happening (because the Bethesda photographs show different wounds); that they all got it wrong; that we should ignore the contractions between Dallas and Bethesda (which is, in fact, a critical part of the evidence that the body was altered); that we should ignore the evidence of covert interception of the body, another critical part of the evidence that the body was altered; that we should ignore the dozens of witnesses who saw the car stop, or almost come to a complete halt (an essential part of the case that the Zapruder film has been falsified). . . . No no, you say. . .all of that should be ignored. Here, you say, just look at my two red circles, one on the autopsy photograph, and another on Zapruder frame 335. . see. . isn't it obvious what happened?" This is like a teller in a bank who accepts a bogus check for $ 10,000 and cashes it, because he is focused on the text message ("see, look! It says "$10,000!") while ignoring the numerous indications that the document itself has been falsified. But that's the way you apparently view all this contradictory data. And you then suggest that we should follow you down this path of ignoring all the data that the most critical evidence has been falsified, and simply join you in this silly and illogical interpretation of the event, that arises from your willingness to march down this path of falsified evidence. And so you write: "Photographic evidence has shown over and over again the fallibility of eye witness testimony. Not just in this case but in 1000's of cases across the world and country to this very day. All we are seeing is the fallibility of eye witness testimony." No, Mike Rago. That's all youare "seeing." What I'm"seeing" is the credulity of someone who is being gulled by false data, and who refuses to look at the problem properly. Many of the rest of us--who have followed this case for many years--see that pattern, which is an entirely different pattern. We see a pattern in which the most critical evidence has been falsified, with the most important falsified evidence being "dribbled out," over time, but eagerly lapped up by someone like yourself as "the final say" on this event. What would you say if, 40 years after the event, someone said that O.J. Simpson was of course innocent, because he was in Honolulu at the time--and that evidence is there for this novel proposition. Why what about the newly revealed "photographic evidence" of plane tickets "proving" that he was in Hawaii, that night, and not in Los Angeles? That's about how I respond to much of your so-called "analysis" and your statements instructing us that we should Google this or that term so that we may all understand the unreliability of "eyewitness testimony," which you, in your wisdom, now rely upon, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that this very "eyewitness testimony" constitutes some of the most important evidence that the truly critical evidence in this case--and I'm referring here to the autopsy photographs of Kennedy's body, at Bethesda, and critical Zapruder frame imagery--has in fact been falsified. Which, of course, is exactly the reason it was kept under wraps for so many years. I don't think any of us like being fooled in any transaction in which we are involved; and I, for one, don't like encountering evidence, again and again, which indicates that Kennedy's murder was a high level political plot, and that critical evidence was falsified to hide and conceal the true circumstances of his death. DSL 8/21/12; 1:45 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

1964? Is that date correct? Garrison's investigation didn't begin until '66. It seems odd to think he would be discussing his theories with RFK as early as '64. FYI (and on this very point): Some years ago, I contacted the State University of N.Y. archives, and retrieved the actual handwritten notes made by the author of the book, at the time the conversation took place. I do believe the conversation is real--i.e., that Garrison spoke to RFK (briefly) and that this is what indeed happened--but the author made an error as to the date. Unfortunately, I did not have a scanner at the time, so this document resides in one of hundreds of manila file folders that are currently "on file" but not fully indexed and so not retrievable. Of course, it can also be retrieved from SUNY. Also keep in mind: its a fact that 1st generation JFK researcher made strenuous attempts to get JG to call RFK. Awhile back, I asked Ray if he recalled the details, and specifically whether he had been successful. He simply did not recall what came of those efforts. DSL 8/21/12; 12:15 PM PDT Los Angeles, California

Daniel, thanks for your support, and writing about this as succinctly as you have. I would like to add one other thing. Let's turn to Pat Speer's statement, QUOTE ON: Try and sell that one to the public. "Yeah, there was this giant conspiracy, but they didn't know what they were doing. They kidnapped and altered the body, but changed it in a way that still showed conspiracy. So then they lied about it." END QUOTE It is simple a fact of history that the Dallas doctors and nurses -to the extent that they wrote medical reports and/or expressed an opinion to the press, and/or testified to the Warren Commission--said that President Kennedy was shot from the front. Either because they observed an entrance wound at the front of the throat, or an exit at the back of the head (or both). It is also a simple fact of history that by the time the body reached Bethesda--and here I now refer to the autopsy report and testimony--there was no evidence, on the body, of a an entry from the front. So if eliminating evidence of "cross -fire" (i.e., frontal entry, assuming Oswald was firing from the rear, as the news media was reporting); OR, alternatively, fabricating evidence of rear entry. . . if either of these were the goals, then the plotters sure did succeed, did they not? Now. . when one gets to the finer details. . i.e., whether the bullet that supposedly entered the rear of the shoulder transited the body , on a downward slanting trajetory, that is a much more subtler proposition; and that's exactly where errors do appear to have been made. I discuss this in BEST EVIDENCE, under the general heading, the "low/high" conflict. Clearly, as more information became available (i.e., the Zapruder film, and the fact that Kennedy's throat wound not be a fragment of the head shot, because he was reacting to it as early as Z-189, whereas JFK was (supposedly) shot in the head at Z-313, then it became imperative that the putative "rear entry" be higher than it was apparently (and originally made, if one goes by the clothing holes). I find this perfectly plausible. Regardless of how much planning went into this assassiantion, who would ever have thought there would be such a compound screw-up as (a) having the first shot (to the throat) be non-fatal, requiring a second shot at least 5 seconds later; (b ) that Connally would be shot by accident; and (c ) that all this would be recorded on film, through a telescopic lens? So no, I don't find it at all implausible that those who altered the body to make sure there was no evidence of "cross fire" , would then have to make certain "adjustments" (strictly after the fact) to come up with the one-bullet/two victim scenario, which required a downward slanting neck trajectory; and which, in turn, required a rear entry "high enough" on the back (or shoulder) of the President to support such a bizarre proposition. That's why, as Doug Horne has shown, there were at least two "prior versions" of the autopsy report, before the final "conclusions" were agreed upon. All of this left a serious (and almost comically obvious) paper trail, so no, I don't find this difficult to "sell" to the public--but once again, whether it is easy to "sell" or not, is not a criterion as to what actually happened. It is pretty obvious that the body was in fact covertly intercepted, and altered, prior to the delivery to the morgue; and that then, there was a certain amount of pulling and hauling connected with the actual writing of the autopsy report, which left such things as: (a) the order not to talk (b ) the burned notes, and first draft (c ) The earlier version (or two) of prior autopsy conclusions. And you [speaking now to Pat Speer] consider this hard to "sell" to the American public? Well, whether its difficult or not, I really don't care. I'm in the truth business, not in the marketing business. DSL

Re your statement (quote on): This has been discussed ad nauseum. It's nonsense. Many of the so-called "limo-stopped" witnesses were really limo-slowed or motorcade stopped witnesses, which is to say NOT "limo-stopped" witnesses. QUOTE OFF Nonsense. Perhaps the most important car-stop witness (or should I say witnesses) were the Newmans--Bill and Gayle Newman. In my November, 1971 visit to Dallas, I spent an hour or so with the Newmans, at their home, a Sony reel-to-reel TC-800 Tape recorder sitting right there on the table. In describing he assassination, Bill Newman said the car stopped--not having the faintest idea of the significance of that statement. I then told him that the Zapruder film at the National Archives showed no such stop. He replied that he didn't care what any film showed--he was right there, and the car stopped. His wife agreed. Once again, here you come along, four decades later, and inform us that this is nonsense. You assure us that the car did not stop, even though two witnesses who were there said the car stopped, momentarily, right in front of them. You have a most peculiar way of approaching evidence, Pat; you don't seem to care what the witnesses who were there said; you think that what you have decided "must have happened"--whether by deduction or inference--is superior to what witnesses who were actually there observed. Sorry, but I cannot go along with your conclusion, or with this line of "reasoning." DSL

Pat, I really do think you're hanging on for dear life through Mr. Toad's wild ride through wonderland. My time is severely limited, but here are just a few quick points: Re your statement: Stringer always insisted that he took the autopsy photos of Kennedy, and that the wounds in the photos were as he remembered them. Surely you do know that I spoke with Stringer twice--in August, 1972--and tape recorded those calls. Surely you do know that he insisted that the wound he photographed was at the back of the head, in the occipital area. Surely you do know that when I brought this to Dr. Wecht's attention, he did not have the cojonas to deal with it, and quesitoned whether Stringer really knew his anatomy terminology. Surely you do know that that's when I called Stringer back a second time, went over if again, and he re-verified everything he told me--emphasizing that of course he knew anatomic terminology; that this was his field. And if you don't know these things, see Chapter 20 of BEST EVIDENCE, where it is all spelled out, word for word. And surely you do know that these tapes were then played, for Stringer, by an enterprising Florida news reporter, Craig Colgan, and that Stringer then tried to play dumb. . . . And surely you do know that I then provided these tapes to the ARRB, and they were the basis for Stringer being questioned, under oath, about these 1972 conversations? So, yes, technically you are correct: Stringer never attacked the photographs directly; but what he said to me in August, 1972, is clearly inconsistent with the autopsy photographs showing an intact back of the head. You really ought to know better than to try to sell this false bill of goods to anyone reading these posts, on the Internet. The photographs Stringer took--as described to me in these August, 1972 conversations--do not show the "intact back of the head" as is shown on the official autopsy photographs now at the National Archives. Surely you do know that. . .or ought to know that. * * * * NEXT POINT. . which I shall label the "Pat Speer test for authenticity." As described by you, Pat Speer. Now quoting: Well, hello? This is what I've been saying all along. The autopsy photos and x-rays are clear-cut evidence that there was more than one shooter...which is why I assume they are authentic. END OF QUOTE This, imho, is a rather bizarre criterion for authenticity. The fact that evidence which may have been altered still shows (or "nevertheless shows"--choose your own terminology) is certainly NOT proof of authenticity, and should certainly not be the basis for any assumption of validity much less authenticity. All that means--if the evidence was altered--is that the alteration was imperfect, or carried out hurriedly, or did not take into acount all the data. An excellent case in point concerns the possibility of Zapruder film alteration. Some dozen witnesses said the car stopped (I interviewed 4 of them, in 1971) and dozens more said it slowed sharply, to the point that it "almost" stopped, etc. If (in reality, i.e., in actuality) that actually happened, and if the film was altered in an attempt to conceal that fact, then a very serious problem arose, because the result of frame deletion (i.e., "speeding up the action") resulted in a very serious artifact: the appearance, on the resultant (altered) film, that the head "snapped" backwards. Now I can tell you, from personal experience, that the backward headsnap was something that was the foundation for my initial belief that there must have been someone firing at Kennedy from the front (this was before I realized the powerful evidence, offered by the Dallas doctors, of an exit wound at the rear of the head) . And I an also tell you, from years of lecturing on the case, that one of the most powerful pieces of evidence of conspiracy that an be shown to a lecture audience, is that backward headsnap. Now today (and going back to about 1970, when I first had the insight) I realize that the backward snap is an artifact of an altered film. But it would never occur to me--and would be, imho, totally false and fallacious--to assert that because the film shows such a dramatic headsnap (i.e. beause it shows "evidence of conspiracy") that the film was not (i.e., "could not have been") altered. That is absurd. If the alteration was done under great time pressure--and if plotters faced a Hobson's choice, i.e., if the choice was either exonerating the Secret Service by making the assassination appear to have been a six-second "we-were-caught-by-surprise" affair; OR. . having no head-snap, but (in that case) having a 10-15 second assassiantion, and a clearly non-reacting Secret Service, the choice would have been clear: alter the film; and just "lock it up" (which is what happened in this case), so hardly anyone would see the head-snap But then, someone comes along, and argues (as you do). . and you see how folks react to the headsnap, and you might argue: "Oh, that film shows evidene of conspiray; ergo, it could not have been altered!" The bottom line: this was not a perfect crime, and apparently, those who were involved not just in the crime, but in the coverup, got tangled in their own web of lies, and imperfectly and sloppily altered data. I'm sorry to see you citing their clearly imperfect cover-up, as "evidence of authenticity." DSL 8/19/12; 8:15 PDT Los Angeles, California