David Lifton

Karl Kinaski - thanks for posting this, from my 2003 essay "Pig on a Leash." The error made by Samoluk --and the level of incompetence it implied --was truly astonishing. The account you describe (i.e., the failure to wind the camera, etc.) is identical to what Doug Horne described to me, years ago. So. . kudos for your excellent reporting. Let me now add my own personal experience . Years later, I met Samoluk --as I shall describe in this post -- and he did not come off in any way as sinister. His was simply an absurd error. Also, he was not a "technical" kind of fellow. He was --per his bio on the Internet-- a former Asst. Atty. General of Massachusetts, and today occupies a high level executive position at John Hancock Insurance. But now back to Doug Horne, how we first met, and some other data re the ARRB. FYI: I first met Doug Horne when he was employed by the Navy and stationed at Pearl Harbor. A friend who ran a major Honolulu law firm arranged for me to give a lecture at (or sponsored by) alumni from his Hawaii prep school-- the Punahou School -- the same upscale Honolulu prep school that Obama (later) attended. At the end of my talk, and during the Q & A, a fellow came forward from the audience, with a copy of Best Evidence, and asked me to sign it. He said his name was Doug Horne, and was in the Navy, stationed at Pearl Harbor. He told me he had heard about the proposed creation of the ARRB, and was going to attempt to seek employment there. I thought that was great, and said so. "Let me know how it turns out", I said. Some months later, the phone rang (in my West L.A. apartment). It was Doug. "I'm in Washington," he said. "I got hired!" Really?! Yes, he was hired, but -- get this --none of his expenses (traveling from Honolulu to Washington) had been paid for by the USG. Not one dime. Doug had paid for it all out of his own pocket. Travel from Honolulu to D.C. That was how serious he was about landing a position on the ARRB (and how meager their resources were that Doug paid for his own move from Honolulu, Hawaii, to Washington, D.C.) Meanwhile, hearings were about to start and, as I recollect -- a key issue was going to be the integrity (read "authenticity") of the Zapruder film. "Doug, let's stay in touch!" I said. "Call me regularly! I'm going to put a recorder on my phone. Call me anytime anything of significance occurs. Let's record all the conversations. We'll have the makings of an oral history of the ARRB!" And so it was: The phone would ring, it would be Doug Horne, and it often began with Doug saying, in a doleful tone, "You won't believe what happened today." I'd turn on the recorder, and off we went. The Oral History (we tried to create) I remember one very hectic phone call when Marwell (who was a serious devotee of Gerald Posner) or Gunn (who was open to conspiracy, although it seemed to depend on what side of the bed he awoke, each morning) decided they were going to need serious technical assistance if they were going to "authenticate" the Zapruder film. Focusing on Kodak, Doug had ended up in contact with Rollie Zavada. He wanted a memo from me, listing the key issues to be explored--to show Gunn (as I recall). The purpose, to get the necessary funds authorized. I provided a brief list of the specifics ("car stop" witnesses, etc), Doug wrote the required memo, and then steered it through the bureaucratic complexities. The money was authorized, and that's how Rollie Zavada came to be hired. Several times a week, Doug would call with a detailed account of what was happening; and so I ended up with shoe-boxes full of audio cassettes documenting my own "back channel" during this crucial period. For those who may not remember: the "life" of the ARRB (as distinguished from the "JFK Records Act") extended from 1995 - 1998. I have notes and audio recordings pertaining to this period. There are two memories I'd like to relate here. The first concerns Samoluk. Thomas E. Samoluk (aka "Samoluk") He came out to SoCal (on ARRB business) and called me to have lunch. I suggested "Back-on-the- Beach- Cafe," a restaurant actually built out on the beach, in north Santa Monica. Some 75 feet away was the Santa Monica "bike path", a 10 mile concrete ribbon extending from Malibu (to the north), to Venice Beach (to the south). On that bright sunny day -- and that certainly fit the description of the day I met with Samoluk-- it was populated with attractive beauties, roller-blading to the north and south, on that concrete bike path. "Yes, I often come up here, with my laptop, and just sit and work," I told Samoluk, who was from Boston, where it was rainy much of the time. What I remember most is Samoluk, sitting there in this beachfront paradise, fixated by the scene of these beautiful women, whizzing by on rollerblades, as we discussed the ARRB, and the question of the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Groden and the two checks for (a total of) $5,000 Regarding my "second" memory: the ARRB was holding public hearings (circa 1995, approx), and I thought it would be a good idea to draft a plainly written "technical memo" explaining what "optical printing" was all about, so the reader would have a basic understanding of how "film forgery" would (i.e., might) work. ASIDE: I had educated myself on this subject by going to the film library at UCLA's Melnitz Hall (the UCLA "film school.") That's where I learned all about "optical printers," the basic tool necessary to alter motion picture film. END ASIDE So I drafted the memo, which dealt with the matter in a carefully written, elementary style, one purpose being to demystify "film alteration," and get past all the hocus-pocus of Robert Groden, with whom I had visited many times (at his home), and who maintained that the Zapruder film could not possibly be a forgery. (He would never loan me a good copy of his Nix film, even though I paid him $5,000, a sum raised via contributions from several JFK researchers). I used to carry photocopies of the $5000 (in the form of two $2500 cancelled checks) and joked that I did so to prove--should I appear opposite Groden on some TV program and he were to claim otherwise--that I actually paid Groden that money; but was careful not to even provide him xerox copies of the two checks, because he might try to cash them (joke!). But now back to the ARRB. . . My initiation to Optical Printers (and the matter of "splitting" a 16mm film, to get the 8mm format) My memo focused on something very elementary, but was not necessarily known if you didn't own a home movie camera: how an 8mm film was "one half" of what was actually a 16mm film etc. I sent copies to those conducting the investigation, my goal being to explain how optical printing worked. And that as long as the film was remained "unslit," it could be treated as a 16mm film, and then (by dealing with the right or left "half,") be put on a standard optical printer (e.g., an Oxberry printer) and edited; i.e., "optically edited." Anyway, I was in my apartment, with the TV on, when federal judge John Tunheim, who was chairing that day's public hearing, gave his opening remarks, and then said (approx.): "And I would like to thank David Lifton, for sending our staff his memo on the Zapruder film". "You could have knocked me over with a feather," (as the saying goes). To recap: I always felt good about the ARRB. I knew I could write to Tunheim, if I wished. And of course I was staying in regular touch with Doug Horne, who more than once said that I was like a "sixth" member of the Board. When the ARRB wrote its Report, I reviewed some of the galleys. Doug was generous in giving me credit; but Gunn, who was completely schizophrenic on the issue of whether there was a high level plot (and very concerned about appearances) took out his blue pencil and deleted roughly half the references to me. Quite a few remained, but there would have been many more, if Gunn hadn't taken out his blue pencil and deleted many of them. There is much else to relate, when time permits. I would like to obtain a copy of that video clip, if anyone can locate it. DSL , 6/18/22 - 11:10 PM, PDT

No text.

DSL Response: Re: "I interviewed Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was riding in the back seat with LBJ and Lady Bird; and [he] said it never happened." FWIW: I, too, spoke with Yarborough; and he told me the same thing. It never happened. And he (Yarborough) said that with great emphasis. LBJ was a pathological xxxx; he could --and did --reshape reality, like play-dough, according to his whim. And don't forget the postscript to this incident: A few days after Dallas, LBJ ordered up a ceremony and pinned a Treasury Department medal on Agent Youngblood, for his "heroics" (my quotes) in Dallas, saving his life, etc. (6/2/22 - 2 PM PDT)

Well stated! No matter what your suspicions and beliefs, you have to learn to "shut up!" So you start with pages of notes (and questions you wish to ask), but then you must "elicit" the information; by asking the question that (you hope) will "jog" the witness' memory. A comical counter-example --of how NOT to question a witness -- is offered by the late Harrison Livingstone, who practically browbeat the witness, in the spirit of "Now you did it, didn't ya?" See B.E., Chapter 16, for the transcript of my questioning of casket team member Hubert Clark. Casket team member James Felder (his superior) had already told me that there were two ambulances, one was called "the decoy", and that the navy was involved in a deception. When I spoke to Clark, I felt it was critically important that I not be the first to say "decoy." So I carefully probed, determined not to say "decoy" first. No luck. So I thought: "OK, I'll have to say it first, and see how he reacts." And just about that moment, he exclaimed (something like), "Wait a minute! Now I remember! There was a decoy!" It was one of the most exciting moments of my JFK research. (See Chapter 16 of B.E.) DSL (6/2/22 - 5:50 AM PDT)

No. Galloway's superior (Adm. Kenney) was the head of "BuMed" --the Navy's Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. That unit (aka "BuMed") was in charge of all Navy medical facilities, whether Navy Hospitals on land or on ships at sea. (I once traced the naval lines of authority, laid out in the official organization charts available at UCLA's Research Library, in the USG/Government Organization Manual). That individual --the chief of BuMed -- was Admiral Edward Kenney. So. . .who was "below" Adm. Kenney? As I recall: Galloway was CO of NNMC/Bethesda. . . "National Naval Medical Center/Bethesda)". There was one other significant individual on the naval chain of command --the CO of Bethesda Naval Hospital: Capt. John Stover. He reported to "Captain Canada." To recap: to the best of my recollection: the naval line of authority went from Adm. Kenney, to Adm. Galloway; to Captain Canada, to Capt. Stover. Adm. Burkley, the White House Physician, "outranked" everyone, because he reported directly to POTUS, as I recall. DSL (6/2/22 -5:20 AM PDT)

no text. My error. DSL

Greg: I'm not denying LHO said this ("I want an office job, downtown," but can you provide a source (and/or citation)? Regardless of what you post here, could you please respond to me directly, at dlifton@gmai.com Thanks. DSL

For those who are interested in the so-called "jet effect": 1. A short while ago, while perusing Amazon, I came across a book published in 1987 by Basic Books. The author was Luis Alvarez; the book's title, "ALVAREZ: Adventures of a Physicist". It was Luis Alvarez's autobiography, and the titles of the opening chapters gives one a sense of the very high opinion Alvarez has of himself: "Prologue: The Hiroshima Mission ONE: "Beginnings" TWO: "Becoming a Physicist" THREE: Coming into my own" There is nothing modest about Luis Alvarez. By his own description, he is a renaissance man, someone who is an "expert on everything" (my quotes). Earthquakes, evolution, the dinosaurs, the deployment of atomic bombs against Japan; and -- finally -- the JFK assassination. I ordered this book on a hunch --I knew Alvarez was a defender of the Warren Commission's conclusions; further, that he put the "stamp of authority" on his interpretation of the JFK "head-snap," the "back and to the left" motion as depicted on the Zapruder film; and which was one of the reasons I first got involved in the JFK case. So I wondered what might {be} in this book. In a future post, I will lay out the details --more on Alvarez's views, his glorification of Paul Hoch (and his melon experiments), etc. And, finally, the "jet effect." Stay tuned. DSL (5/28/22- 2 AM PDT)

Joe: I agree. One of the things one learns --when one conducts an interview --is when to "shut up." You don't interrupt the witness. Ever. You wait until the witness answers.the question he (or she) was asked. And then you ask your next question. This may seem like common sense, but many would be historians don't "get it." The purpose of an interview is not to win an argument, or change a witness's mind, but to elicit a full and complete record of the recollections that are resident in the subject's head. (5/28/22 - 12:15 AM PDT)

No text. My error. DSL

First, please address the following matter: your use of the name "Calvin" to identify the Navy official who was driving the Navy ambulance at Bethesda. I'm referring here to the naval ambulance which left Andrews Air Force Base (at around 6:10 PM EST), and arrived at the front entrance of Bethesda Naval Hospital, about 6:58 PM. And specifically, I'm referring to the details of what happened after Jacqueline Kennedy and RFK exited that ambulance. Jackie, escorted by RFK, entered Bethesda via the front entrance. (FYI: A photo of Jackie and RFK entering the front entrance of Bethesda was published --as I recall -- in the NY Times on Saturday, 11/23/63.) For about 12 -15 minutes, the ambulance just stood there, with no one at the wheel; but with some naval officials near the driver's side door. Then came the events which --per newspaper reports --began at about 7:12 PM. What Happened Next (starting at 7:12 PM EST) As described in Best Evidence (Chapter 16, titled "Chain of Possession," see last few pages), I determined (from documents and two key news accounts published on Nov.23, 1963, in the two 'local" Washington, D.C. newspapers -- the Washington Post and the Washington Star ) that the individual driving the Navy ambulance (and who was then apparently involved in "evasive" maneuvers to evade the MDW official casket team) was Rear Admiral Calvin Galloway, the Commanding Officer at the National Naval Medical Center (the site of the JFK autopsy). In writing that chapter, I relied (primarily) on the accounts of two casket team members, James Felder and Hubert Clark; I also interviewed Rear Admiral Galloway (6/4/78). ASIDE: Its improper (and detracts from your credibility) to refer to the driver, Rear Admiral Calvin Galloway, as "Calvin," as if you knew him personally, which was obviously not the case. (And I do hope you'll correct that error; and if you do that, I will delete this paragraph.) Anyway, it was Admiral Galloway who was driving the ambulance that then sped away, and -- according to my interviews with members of the MDW casket team-- was involved in "evasive" maneuvers to "shake" (or "lose") the MDW casket team. (As one told me [again, see B.E., Ch. 16] "We lost it." FWIW: I interviewed Galloway (via phone, a conversation which I taped) in June 1978. (See B.E., List of Interviews, at the end of the book). An important source of my account of what happened at Bethesda --after RFK and Jacqueline Kennedy exited the ambulance --came from my careful research in microfilm records of the Washington Star, and actual "hardcopy" records of the Washington Post, which happened to be stored the UCLA Research Library. (DSL, 5/25/2022_ 5:30 PM PDT)

OOPS. DELETE. DSL

To: Greg: I think you were trying to reach me. You can email me at dlifton@gmail.com DSL

Question to Jim DiEugenio: If the evidence (against the Paines, or either one) was as substantial as you imply (via innuendo, if nothing else), then why didn't Oliver Stone "deal with the Paines"? You write (see above): "I wrote the Oliver Stone films." All very well. But if the "evidence against the Paines" (my quotes) was as credible as you imply, Why didn't you write about them? Were you (perhaps) under instructions --from Stone --not to do so? (Or perhaps advised by legal counsel not to do so?) Was Oliver Stone not exactly a "profile in courage" when it came to the Paines? Or was he --someone of substantial assets-- possibly afraid of a lawsuit he was likely to lose? (Especially since there was zero evidence that either Michael Paine or Ruth Paine were involved in JFK's murder). Inquiring minds want to know! (DSL, 5/24/22 - 6:40 PM PDT)

In 1971, I spent hours with both Newmans in November 1971. Plus two other Dealey Plaza witnesses (at least). There's no question, but that the JFK limo stopped (momentarily). Bojczuk will never be persuaded on that point; and his false view is destined for the dustbin of history. I say that with great confidence because, as author Josephine Tey wrote, "Truth is the daughter of time." DSL

No text.

DSL Response: Thanks for that great photo. Regarding your question: I don't know (or remember). Please note:: the "work" simply consisted of smashing the skull. in order to get out as much brain tissue as possible. Also note: nothing went as planned, because Gov. JC was unexpectedly shot.(5/17/22)

The President's body returned to Washington on Air Force One, but not inside the Dallas coffin (which was empty). The body was in the forward luggage area. (See B.E., Chs. 28 and 31 for details -- timelines, etc.)

Short answer: "No." Here's the key (as stated in B.E.): "An empty casket at the Bethesda front entrance, means (or implies) an empty casket upon take-off from Dallas." So in answer to your question: only one source of transportation; but. . .; but there was "slight of hand" (at Dallas' Love Field) after the Dallas coffin arrived (from Parkland Hospital; at 2:05 PM CST) and prior to take-off from Love Field (at 2:48 PM PST). That's when LBJ delayed the take-off, saying he must be sworn in first. LBJ then called everyone to the more forward area of the plane. (See Best Evidence, Ch. 28, and Ch. 31, for details, with timelines, photos, and much other data).

Yes, I would like to do that. I have moved several times since Nov. 1966, so it will take some searching; and then digitizing. But that must be done, and I would like to do that. DSL

i.e., change "hole thing" to "whole thing". DSL

Chris: Agreed. But. . . please correct spelling error: "...if the whole thing..." etc. DSL

Thanks! (I would never have known about this, were it not for the London Education Forum).

Responding to your question ("Which witnesses? Did you digitize the tapes?"...I made 5 0r 10 hours of "best excerpts", mostly from KRLD audio; also, WRR). DSL

In 1971 (as I recall) I spent two weeks (or more) at NARA. On one visit, I stayed at the home of Bernard ("Bud") Fensterwald, who worked with Jim Lesar in filing many important FOIA requests. On another. I was accommodated by a friend in Maryland. On a third, I stayed at the Harrington Hotel. Today, decades later, I still remember the moment I made a most bizarre discovery while seated in he main room at NARA: I was perusing the "Office Files" of the Warren Commission's office staff and came across an internal memo in which the following "bragging" statement was made by one of the WC attorneys: "I have fudged the footnote" (to conceal some situation. I forget the details.) I let out a highly vocal sound, expressing the equivalent of "WTF!" Heads turned, and I lowered my voice. DSL