David Lifton

IMHO: the Zapruder film was altered to create evidence that would be considered superior to the eyewitness accounts. Without a film which could function as a "gold standard" (of sorts), the eyewitnesses testimony would rule the day, and that would lead one to conclude (for example) that the car stopped--and that would immediately implicate the Secret Service. That could not be permitted; ergo, films had to be altered. If all those eye-witnesses are correct, then that was certainly a primary motive for the "editing"--and I'm putting the word in quotes, because I no longer believe mere "editing" explains what we have here. In any event, once one is faced with eliminating the car stop, then simple physics--i.e., Rate x time = distance--results in a most uncomfortable fact: that the car-stop (or even a serious slow down) can not be eliminated without introducing, as an artifact, an acceleration in the backward motion of JFK's body. There is really no way around that; unless one completely redraws all the imagery. And that's why I believe today--and have for many years--that the backward "snap" is an artifact of the editing/fabrication of the film. But let's move on to another matter--and why I deliberately inserted the word "fabrication." Consider the account of a credible witness, AP Reporter Jack Bell, who was in the back seat of the press car, just behind Mayor Cabell's car (which was behind the LBJ followup car "Varsity"). THE JACK BELL ACCOUNT Here is what Jack Bell wrote, as it appeared in the NY Times of Saturday morning, November 23, 1963: "Four cars ahead, in the President’s Continental limousine, a man in the front seat rose for a moment. He seemed to have a telephone in [his] hand as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on." Nowhere in the existing film is any footage showing this event; i.e., showing Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who was the senior agent in charge, standing up, or "rising" for a moment, with a telephone in his hand, "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead to go on." Not only is there no image of Kellerman rising, there is definitely no image of him "waving" to a police cruiser "to go on." Did AP reporter Jack Bell imagine this? Was he just confused? Or is this another fact that --somehow--has been consigned to the dustbin of history (Trotsky's phrase), because of the "editing" of the Zapruder film. So now we come face to face with the serious nature of the problem, and why I am putting the word "editing" in quotes. I have examined this film meticulously, frame by frame. There is not the slightest hint that the image of Roy Kellerman rises, or shows him "as he waved to a police cruiser ahead." Yet we do have plenty of images of Kellerman, after JFK has been hit in the head. So. . . what's going on here? What happened to that event? How was it transformed into a "non-event"? If what Jack Bell saw actually happened, then the extant "Zapruder film" has to be more than merely "edited." There has to be some serious fabrication, and graphics performed, in order that (a) an event that what was originally present to have disappeared, and then (b ) for the sequence of images we have of Kellerman to appear as they do: crouched over for some frames, perhaps on the radio, but certainly not "rising" up, or waving to the police cruiser up ahead, to move on. But back to basics: If this film had been altered (and/or fabricated) in a manner that was "satisfactory", it would not have been locked up by Life, for 12 years. Furthermore: the number "12 years" is also misleading. Had Robert Groden not made copies from the 35mm copies made by Moses Weitzman, and then broadcast the Z fim on national TV (on Geraldo, March, 1975), the Zapruder film might have remained under wraps many years beyond March 1975. Without that national broadcast, and the subsequent public outcry, I wonder whether there would ever have been an HSCA investigation (1976 - 1979). A powerful lobbying tool for those who were meeting with members of Congress was Groden's film, and Groden, personally, and others (e.g., Josiah Thompson) met with various representatives screening the film, and urging legislation for a new . In addition to the Zapruder film, of course, there was another force at work: were the findings of the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee of the Church Committee. That group issued its report in mid-June, 1976, reporting that, with regard to the agencies investigating the JFK assassination, there had been a coverup. NOT A PERFECT CRIME Ultimately, the answer to the question you pose is that this was not a "perfect crime"--far from it--but that the imperfections were sufficiently hidden, and submerged, that they only surfaced over time. Body alteration and film alteration are two of those major areas. My book --focused on autopsy falsification via body alteration--was published in January 1981; and as far as film alteration goes, that has really only gotten traction with the advent of the Internet and then YouTube. Without these technical advances, there would be no "community" to debate these matters, because there would be no way of "video file sharing." I faced this problem when writing BEST EVIDENCE and that's why the insights I had re Zapruder film alteration--insights going back to 1970/71 when I was able to examine the key Weitzman materials at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life-- were put in a 1100 word footnote in Chapter 24. As a practical matter, there was simply no way to demonstrate what was in "the film" in book format. Going back to the mid-sixties: I'm sure you remember the "good ole days" when simply attempting to prove there was a movement between frames 312 and 313 meant going to the National Archives, and bringing 35 mm slide projectors, and perhaps holding forth to three or four others who were also willing to travel by train to Washington, meet you there, and discuss what these images meant. That was the age of "Pony Express" when it came to discussing and debating the Zapruder film. At the end of such a session, maybe five people would be "enlightened" and maybe they would "pass the word" to others, by snail mail. Now, the debate has advanced to a whole different level. There is a global community debating these matters out there in cyberspace. I would hope that people are starting to understand that getting to the bottom of what happened in Dallas means identifying what evidence has been falsified, and how that was accomplished--i.e., in "real time." Because what we now have before us is a false history, and a fair amount of bogus evidence. That's what the "conspiracy to kill Kennedy" was all about--not just murdering the man, but then falsifying the facts about how he died. And this doesn't just apply to whether a rifle and three shells were placed by a phony sniper's nest, and whether the autopsy was deliberately falsified--but whether films of the event were (if necessary) altered as well. DSL 1/20/12; 3:45 AM Los Angeles, CA

Pat, I only have time to respond to two points. With regard to what Dr. Humes testified to, re the size of the head wound, you write: (a) Dr. Humes claimed, from the get-go, that the calvarium crumpled in his hands as he peeled back the scalp. (b ) The HUGE WOUND he measured is obviously the large wound he saw afterward. This wound, as admitted in the autopsy report, extended into the occipital region. This was a wound so large he could just pull out the brain. The large size of this wound, furthermore, was confirmed by Custer, O'Connor, and Jenkins.\\ I have serious problems with both of these statements of yours. Re (a): The intransitive verb crumple is defined as: "to become or make something full of irregular creases and wrinkles." Merriam Webster defines it as "to press, bend, or crush out of shape." Now compare what you wrote with what Humes testified to, before the Warren Commission: "“We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily . . . as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table.” (WC volume 2, p. 354) Your description is entirely incorrect, because it fails to note the fact that, by the time Humes received the body, a major portion of the skull cap was in numerous separate pieces. As Humes noted in his testimony (and Liebeler repeated this in his memorandum that went to the Earl Warren et al, Robert Kennedy, and the White House), the fractures "taxed satisfactory verbal description." I don't suppose you misrepresented this situation deliberately--not at all--but what your choice of language (which is seriously inadequate) suggests is that you do not have a proper conception of the condition of President Kennedy's skull at the time the body was first examined by Commander Humes. It wasn't "crumpled"--it was smashed into many separate pieces, and held together--as the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report described-- by a second "additional wrapping which was saturated with blood." (CD 7, p. 288 et seq) In short the top of President Kennedy's head was, in effect, held together by a tightly wrapped blood-soaked wrapping,and when that wrapping was removed, and the scalp moved about, "fragments of various sizes would fall to the table." What I have just quoted is entirely different from your description, which avoids numerous issues (i.e., just how did the body get this way?) by using the word "crumpled" instead of the words used by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill, and by Humes himself. Re (b ): Surely you do understand that just because a wound was "so large" does not in any way mean that, as a consequence "he could just pull out the brain." Surely you realize that there are a host of anatomic structures that have to be cut or somehow severed to remove the brain--e.g., the spinal cord (but other structures as well). Surely you do realize that the brain cannot be removed from the skull as if one were removing a volleyball from one's gym bag. (So, if the hole is "large" enough, why the brain just "falls out" (!). Not at all. The various structures that have to be cut are described and listed, numerically, in Chapter 18 of Best Evidence ("The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy") . The point being that just because the skull wound was large does NOT explain--I repeat, does NOT explain--why Humes or Finck would state that the brain was removed "without recourse to surgery." So your reconstruction of what you apparently believe happened (if that's how you think the brain was removed that night at the autopsy) is medically inaccurate, and in fact rather fanciful. Also (and this gets back to my own interpretation of the data), you have not accounted for the "crushed vomer" (per Boswell's diagram) or the manner in which the falx was "loose" from the coronal suture, on back, or the contre coup injury on the base of the brain, or the stellate fracture pattern--of all which, as I argue in Chapter 18, indicates that the skull was struck (post-mortem) by a blow from above; after the scalp was parted in a quadrilateral manner, which accounts for the four scalp tears, which Humes laid out in "a" "b" "c" "d" fashion, indicating that the scalp was "flapped" prior to the time he received the body. (And, just to avoid any misunderstanding: No, I do not think Humes did the pre-autopsy surgery. This gruesome "alteration" was not done in the autopsy room. I think Humes received the body exactly as he reported it. I do not believe he created that damage. I do believe, however, that he (and/or Boswell) were knowledgeable about, and very likely complicit in, the reconstruction that preceded the post-midnight autopsy photography, but that is another issue entirely). Re the cerebellum: One other matter: you write: "My conclusion the doctors were mistaken about the cerebellum was not arrived at easily, and without months of introspection, if that's what you're implying." Your conclusion may have been arrived at after "months of introspection" but it is still wrong, and is in complete contradiction to the historical record; i.e., the medical reports and sworn testimony of those who were there, and who were perfectly competent to identify the cerebellum, and who were perfectly competent to distinguish between cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (FYI: This is all laid out, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, in the subsection: "What was Visible Through the Skull?" starting on page 321 of the Macmillan hardcover, or the Carroll and Graf edition). You refuse to believe what the doctors say--so you have indulged yourself in an exercise of positing a hypothesis as to why they are all wrong; in effect, why all the primary data is wrong. So we should ignore what they report, based on what they observed with their own eyes, and instead substitute your revisionist interpretation, based on your theory about why they were wrong. To repeat: all you have done--or attempted to do (imho)--is erect an "error theory" to explain away the evidence. What you have done--or, should I say (once again) attempted to do-would never fly in a court of law, and would receive low marks in any legal course. Someone can't walk into the Hayden Planetarium and assert that the moon isn't where the telescope shows it to be, and give everyone a lecture on why the optics are faulty. To my mind, that's the kind of exercise in which you are engaged. Its the willful and unjustified substitution of your interpretations, backed by pretty graphics, for facts that are carved in stone, and based on anatomic terminology that goes back a thousand years, and which all medical students learn at the start of their medical education. DSL 1/20/12; 12:20 AM PST Los Angeles, California

Thanks, Jim, for helping me prove my point. These men saw ONE wound, a big one, and thought it was on the back part of the head, They did not recall a wound above the ear or on the front part of the head, where the Dealey Plaza witnesses saw the ONE wound they saw. It follows, then, that they either saw the same wound, and that some of them were mistaken, or that, by some INCREDIBLE coincidence, they saw different wounds, and the incredibly diligent Parkland staff failed to note the large wound above the ear observed by Newman, etc., while at the same time Newman failed to note the large blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head directly in front of him. So which is it? Who is more reliable on all this? William Newman or Robert ("The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" "there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front") McClelland? As far as Robertson, I'll have to re-read his article, but I could have sworn he'd said there was evidence for the entrance near the EOP described in the autopsy report, and that the large head wound represented an entrance from the front, and that this proved there'd been two gunshots to the head. Pat, You’re playing games with words, with terminology, and with facts. First of all, with regard to the “Dealey Plaza witnesses”: Newman obviously saw the explosion of a bullet impacing against the right side of JFK’s head. We can say that with a fair amoiunt of confidence because noe of the Dallas doctors saw an exit wound at the site of where Newman saw an explosion of some kind. If there was an exit wound on the right side of JFK’s head in Dallas, it would have been as plain as day. But what the Dallas docors saw was an exit wound low on the back of the head. Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that none of this appears on the Moorman photograph. If you look carefully at Kennedy’s right sholder, you can see the outline of a fragment of JFK’s head which is caught, in motion, as it oves towards the rear. Almost certainly, that’s the piece of skull, with hair on it, that was found in the rear seat of the car. Here are facts pertaining to Robert McClelland Regarding the diagram create in 1967 of the wound at the bottom of the back of the head: (a) That is exactly in accord with Dr. McClelland’s filmed account, when interviewed by Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase for KRON-TV in the fall of 1988. I was the medical consultant on that show. I flew to Dallas with Stanhope and Sylvia. (b ) Six months later, I returned with my own camera, and crew, and interviewed some of these same doctors again, once again using the same “McClelland diagram.” Dr. McClelland used that diagram to illustrate what he was saying on camera. I don’t see how anyone familiar with the facts of what McClelland said, and when he said it, can deny the obvious: He testified before the Warren Commission; he was interviewed on camera bin 1988, and then again in 1989. Dr. McClelland said there was an exit wound at the back of he head, in accordance with that diagram. And that he saw cerebellar tissue oozing out of that wound. Why is there this repeated effort to avoid the obvious? Re Floyd Riebe: I interviewed Riebe in November, 1979; Best Evidence does not report if Riebe said anything about the location of the head wound. Riebe told KRON-TV‘s team that there was a wound at the back of the head. Again, that was fall 1988; and he was so strong about it, on the phone with KRON-TV, that they hired a photographic team to go over to his place in Oklahoma, and film it for the program. Just look at the program. In the summer of 1989, when I showed him the autopsy photographs, he said, on camera, that the pictures did not depict what he saw. Then, some nine years later, when he was flown to Washington, he was afraid to repeat that under oath? How can anyone ignore what he said in 1988, and then again in 1989, and instead accept what he said in 1998? Because that, Pat , is what you’re asking us to do. This is absurd; and this kind o analysis does not deserve to be taken seriously. DSL What is truly absurd, IMO, is that you and others refuse to grasp and deal with the issues I've raised. The whole "cerebellum" argument rests on the credibility of Dr. Clark, who thought conspiracy theorists "damn fools." In order to prop up his credibility, and deny he could have made a mistake, you have to malign the integrity and/or veracity of nearly every witness to see the impact of the bullet or see the head wound afterward. The irony about this is, if you'd only followed the other trail--the one where the Dealey Plaza witnesses and Z-film are trusted, instead of Clark--you'd have come to a place where the likelihood of a conspiracy is both undeniable, and in keeping with the evidence. To refer back to an earlier analogy, you got yourselves so obsessed with the red car in the photo's really being green that you failed to realize that the car's being red was just as damaging to the single-assassin conclusion as it's being green. Actually far more damaging. FWIW, When you say "what the Dallas doctors saw was an exit wound low on the back of the head" you are pushing something that just isn't so. The doctors, for the most part, claimed they'd seen a wound at the top of the back of the head, and you and others have taken the reported sighting of cerebellum and the Harper fragment's purportedly being occipital bone to mean they really meant it was low on the back of the head. This is clearly demonstrated in the photos in Groden's book, where virtually none of the supposed "low on the back of the head" witnesses put their hands below the top of their ear. The irony regarding this point is that if you claimed the wound was high on the back of the head, where many witnesses claimed it to have been, you could still claim the top part of the cerebellum was damaged and in line with what the doctors saw. You could then claim the Harper fragment was parietal bone, and on the skull where Dr. Angel placed it. You'd then have metallic debris near Kennedy's temple, which would then prove a bullet impacted at that location. Oh, but wait. You'd then have a defect on the skull above and in front of the ear, and this would cut into the credibility of your star "back of the head witnesses," who saw no such wound. As far as McClelland, I'm pretty sure you don't really believe him, either. He insists the throat wound seen on the autopsy photos represents the appearance of the throat wound after the tracheotomy incision, and that people claiming the throat wound was altered are terribly mistaken. If I'm thinking of a different doctor, or if you now believe the throat wound wasn't altered, please let me know. As far as Riebe, I have no doubt he told you what he believed to be true at the time. And only a slight doubt he told the ARRB what he believed to be true. When you talk to someone about something that happened years before, they are incredibly open to suggestion. Perhaps someone had shown Riebe the McClelland drawing when Tink's book came out. Then years later, after being shown the drawing once again, he felt a twinge of familiarity, which convinced him this was how Kennedy's head wound actually appeared. Well, when shown the official photos by the ARRB, he may have felt that twinge again. As photo after photo showed equipment he remembered, walls he remembered, and arms he remembered, he may have realized "Well, heck, this looks like the real deal. I guess I was mistaken." I think he's still alive. Maybe you can call him up and ask him. Sorry, Pat, but its you who are advancing misleading arguments, and mis-interpreting the data. First, let's start with this one: QUOTING PAT SPEER: The whole "cerebellum" argument rests on the credibility of Dr. Clark, who thought conspiracy theorists "damn fools." UNQUOTE Pure nonsense. Dr. Clark's original reports and his testimony talk of cerebellar tissue. Also: where do you come up with this "damn fools" quote?? From some newspaper article decades later?? Here's the reality: When Dr. Clark heard I was in Dallas (this was very early January, 1983), and possessed the autopsy photographs, he telephoned me, at my hotel, and wanted to speak with me, in person, and see the photos. Pat Valentino--who witnessed the incoming call (which I have a tape of, by the way)--was astounded. We had both been expecting a call from someone else, and that's why the recorder was set up. But here was Dr. Kemp Clark himself, the man who pronounced Kennedy dead, the doctor famous for refusing to speak with any of the JFK critics, telephoning me, at my hotel, and asking me to come to his office. We both visited Dr. Clark the very next day. By that time (and to our considerable surprise) he had changed his mind. He then refused to permit me to open the envelope and view the photographs he had been so eager to see the day before. Instead, he made disparaging remarks about Arlen Specter ("the only one who got anything out of this whole deal", or something like that). Furthermore, in response to my assertions that the body had been altered, he made a reference to the fact that I'd have to speak to the Secret Service, about that. All of this is laid out in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence. Also FYI: I was the first JFK researcher--as far as I know--to actually speak with Dr. Kemp Clark, in November 1966. When I asked him if he had done any cutting on the body. He answered, very icily, "no." So it is you, Pat Speer--and not I (or any fellow JFK researchers) --who are promulgating false and incomplete information about Dr. Kemp Clark. Let me emphasize that at no time, when I spoke with him--either in November, 1966 or in January, 1983--did he ever indicate that anything which he had originally reported, was in error. Never did he indicate or suggest any such thing. So if that's the kind of information that is the foundation for your revisionist history, I'd suggest you set it aside. It has no validity. You might as well go back and inform us that, upon reinterpretion of the bible, there were really 12 commandments, not ten, and that two of them got lost before Moses came down the mountain; and oh, by the way, he confided that to this or that person and you can find reference to it in volume such and so in. . (fill in your favorite source) What you are promoting, essentially, is your own "error theory" of the historical record. Jim Fetzer (more accurately) calls this "special pleading" and I don't doubt he is correct. All I know is that it denies the reality that I experienced as a writer, researcher, and documentary film maker. I went through the process of studying the record, then interviewing the doctors (by phone, in 1966-67); then again in 1982, on audio; then again in 1989 and 1990, on camera; and here you come along, decades later, with your attempt at "revisionist history" based on, more or less, a psychological theory of who made an error, and when they (supposedly) admitted it; along with a fundamentally incorrect methodology of taking the Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw an impact against the side of JFK's head, and trying to confuse matters by referring to that as an exit wound, which was "somehow" missed, or overlooked, or misinterpreted at Parkland Hospital, some five minutes later. That is just absurd. And yes, I did peruse your book. Including that big picture you included of you kissing your girlfriend. Yes, it is a nice photo and perhaps you believe that personalizes your message, but it doesn't really add to the argument. Re your final comment, again, quoting you, Pat Speer: "In order to prop up his [Dr. Clark's--dsl] credibility, and deny he could have made a mistake, you have to malign the integrity and/or veracity of nearly every witness to see the impact of the bullet or see the head wound afterward." No, Pat, not at all. The record speaks for itself. It is you that has to pull and tug and what is written in plain English in order to come up with this theory of yours that President Kennedy was struck by three shots from behind, that the answer to all the evidentiary conflics is that the Dallas doctors were wrong, and that there was no falsification of any evidence in this case. But it is you, not the Dallas doctors, who are wrong. First day evidence is what counts. What also counts is paying attention to the data that indicates that, in this case, the body was altered between Dallas and Bethesda, which you blithely ignore. I haven't included any of that in this posting of mine, but how in the world can you go down this peculiar path of analysis on which you have embarked, and of which you are apparently so proud, while ignoring all the obvious evidence of (a) body interception prior to Bethesda (multiple coffin entry times, different coffin, different wrappings. . etc.). . and (b)the FBI report itself which says that, by the time the body was unwrapped at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Remember what Prof. Fetzer said about an appropriate and valid analysis means including "all" the evidence? He's right about that principle, of course, and here is another major area of evidence that your false and totally incorrect theory must also ignore, to have any semblance of credence. The interception evidence will not go away--it is an integral part of the record, and, ultimately, it proves your entire medical "re-interpretation" to be totally invalid. DSL 1/18/12 5:10 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Thanks, Jim, for helping me prove my point. These men saw ONE wound, a big one, and thought it was on the back part of the head, They did not recall a wound above the ear or on the front part of the head, where the Dealey Plaza witnesses saw the ONE wound they saw. It follows, then, that they either saw the same wound, and that some of them were mistaken, or that, by some INCREDIBLE coincidence, they saw different wounds, and the incredibly diligent Parkland staff failed to note the large wound above the ear observed by Newman, etc., while at the same time Newman failed to note the large blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head directly in front of him. So which is it? Who is more reliable on all this? William Newman or Robert ("The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple" "there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front") McClelland? As far as Robertson, I'll have to re-read his article, but I could have sworn he'd said there was evidence for the entrance near the EOP described in the autopsy report, and that the large head wound represented an entrance from the front, and that this proved there'd been two gunshots to the head. Pat, You’re playing games with words, with terminology, and with facts. First of all, with regard to the “Dealey Plaza witnesses”: Newman obviously saw the explosion of a bullet impacting against the right side of JFK’s head. We can say that with a fair amount of confidence because none of the Dallas doctors saw an exit wound at the site of where Newman saw an explosion of some kind. If there was an exit wound on the right side of JFK’s head in Dallas, it would have been as plain as day. But what the Dallas doctors saw was an exit wound low on the back of the head. Again, I repeat: low on the back of the head. That's what Dr. Peters told me, in detail, in our January 1967 interview, when he said that he could see the occipital lobes resting against the foramen magnum. Why do you ignore such data? What gives you the right to step in and claim that these physicians, who were there, were wrong? Dr. Jenkins, in a report that day, said the cerebellum "protruded" through the wound? Why do you ignore this data--or assume you can get away with this tactic of pronouncing it all in error. Why? Because Pat Speare says so? Furthermore, I take issue with the notion that none of this appears on the Moorman photograph. If you look carefully at Kennedy’s right shoulder, you can see the outline of a fragment of JFK’s head which is caught, in motion, as it moves towards the rear. Almost certainly, that’s the piece of skull, with hair on it, that was found in the rear seat of the car. Here are facts pertaining to Robert McClelland: Regarding the diagram create in 1967 of the wound at the bottom of the back of the head: (a) That is exactly in accord with Dr. McClelland’s filmed account, when interviewed by Stanhope Gould and Sylvia Chase for KRON-TV in the fall of 1988. I was the medical consultant on that show. I flew to Dallas with Stanhope and Sylvia. Critical excerpts from this interview were ten incorporated into the show. (b ) Six months later, I returned with my own camera, and crew, and interviewed some of these same doctors again, once again using the same “McClelland diagram.” Dr. McClelland used that diagram to illustrate what he was saying on camera. There was never any question as to where the wound was located. I don’t see how anyone familiar with the facts of what McClelland said, and when he said it, can deny the obvious: He testified before the Warren Commission; he was interviewed on camera bin 1988, and then again in 1989. Dr. McClelland said there was an exit wound at the back of the head, in accordance with that diagram. And that he saw cerebellar tissue oozing out of that wound. Why is there this repeated effort to avoid the obvious? Re Floyd Riebe: I interviewed Riebe in November, 1979; Best Evidence does not report if Riebe said anything about the location of the head wound. Riebe told KRON ‘s team that there was a wound at the back of the head. Again, that was fall 1988; and he was so strong about it, on the phone with KRON, that they hired a photographic team to go over to his place in Oklahoma, and film it for the program. Just look at the program. In the summer of 1989, when I showed him the autopsy photographs, he said, on camera, that the pictures did not depict what he saw. Then, some nine years later, when he was flown to Washington, he was afraid to repeat that under oath (to the considerable disappointment of Doug Horne et al, who had seen and closely studied his previous statements). But how can any reasonable person ignore what Riebe said in 1988 (on camera), and then again in 1989 (on camera), and instead accept what he said in 1998? Because that, Pat , is what you’re asking us to do. This is absurd; and this kind of analysis does not deserve to be taken seriously. Yet you engage in this kind of "argument." DSL

I can't believe you brought up the McClelland drawing, Jim. Have you forgotten we've been through this before, and that I demonstrated that the drawing is NOT consistent with the statements of the witnesses? From patspeer.com, chapter 18c: . . . So there you have it. Only 7 of these 18 witnesses can honestly be claimed to have described a wound at the "low right rear" a la Mantik and Wecht, at the "bottom of the back of the head," a la Lifton, or in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing, a la Groden. 7 of 18, need it be said, is not the "almost unanimous" claimed by Mantik and Wecht, based on the research of Aguilar, nor the "every" purported by Groden. Perhaps nothing demonstrates your incompetence at research than your dismissal of McClelland and your treatment of the other witnesses. You are not even taking into account THE ROLE OF PERSPECTIVE. The Willises were to his right side, where Phil appears to have seen the blow-out of the skull flap. Ed Hoffman was looking downward and similarly for others. VIRTUALLY ALL OF THEM ARE LOCATING THE WOUND IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA AT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. But let's assume you are right: there is a mix of reports, because, after all, he had several wounds (when you factor in the blow-out of the skull flap). BY YOUR OWN CALCULATION, THERE WERE AT LEAST 7 WITNESSES WHO REPORTED THE BLOW-OUT AT THE CENTER-RIGHT OF THE BACK OF HIS HEAD, just as McClelland and Crenshaw described it in their diagrams. THEY ARE LOCATING IT AT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. NONE WERE LOCATING IT AT THE SIDE. Now why would McClelland and Crenshaw, who were both experience physicians, HAVE GOT THIS WRONG? It is easy to grasp why bystanders with no experience in dealing with victims of gunshot wounds, might be impresses with the skull-flap as it was blown open at precisely the same time that his brains were being blown out the back of his head to the left-rear. And, lest you forget, Officer Hargis, riding to the left/rear, was hit by the debris so hard he initially thought he had been shot! Unless you are implying that Josiah Thompson was incompetent when he composed SIX SECONDS (1967), why in the world would he make an observation of the kind that he does there on page 107 in relation to the McClelland diagram, which I believe he invited for publication in his book, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound"? WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE HE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN, "This is the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound"? Have you bothered to check that reference, because, beside the diagram itself, we have the following testimony from Dr. Robert N. McClelland, an extraordinary head-wound witness, whom Josiah Thompson quotes as follows on page 107: "As I too the position at the head of the table . . . I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out." So we not only have--by your own admission--seven witnesses who confirm this location but also a very specific, detailed description of the wound by Dr. McClelland, which even Tink acknowledges to be the clearest description we have of the Kennedy head wound! It is generally consistent with the locations specified by the witnesses and with David's X-ray studies. WHY WOULD YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THINK THEY SHOULD BE IN PRECISE AGREEMENT IN EVERY DETAIL? BECAUSE YOU DO NOT FIND AGREEMENT IN EVERY DETAIL, YOU WANT TO EXAGGERATE THE DIFFERENCES AND SUPPRESS THE GROSS AGREEMENT ABOUT ITS LOCATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. That is not a responsible attitude to adopt toward witnesses who were not medical professionals as the event unfolded in the plaza and it is completely absurd relative to medical professionals, which is where you commit your most grievous blunder, as I shall show. (continued) Jim, you're always harping on about how someone should read such and such, and then after one reading of this magical work, they would KNOW you are right. Well, it's incredibly clear you have never read my online book on all this, which pretty much destroys your every argument. You're even in there a few times. Let's start with your double-standard. You have it that witnesses' first statements are the best when they fit your agenda, but IGNORE them when they do not. You not only IGNORE that ALL the authenticated Dealey Plaza witnesses said the wound was on the side of the head, and failed to see a wound on the back of the head, you've now taken to pretending they said it was on the back of the head, and that my thoughts on all this are in opposition to their statements, rather than BASED on their statements. You also show your double-standard by including people like Clint Hill as a back of the head witness, when his recollection of the wound location is perhaps two inches from its filmed location, and about four inches from YOUR proposed location. If you look at my slide of the Groden witnesses, you'll see that numerous other witnesses also said the wound was in a location closer to its official location than YOUR proposed location. So, let's not kid ourselves. YOUR proposed location is NO closer to the location described by the Parkland witnesses than the location depicted in the autopsy photos. This is OBVIOUS when one looks at Groden's photos. We can go through them one by one, if you like. But let's just take two, for now. Your friend Crenshaw's recollection of the wound location is nearly worthless--not only did he only see the wound for a second or two at best, he failed to write down his recollection for decades, and only did so after the so-called "McClelland drawing" had made the rounds as a supposedly authentic depiction of what was seen at Parkland. Which brings me to McClelland. While you and many others like to tout him as THE authority on all this, you IGNORE his earliest statements, which indicate that his latter statements are not to be taken so seriously. Here's what he wrote on the day of the shooting. PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas And here is what he told your pal Livingston's old school chum Richard Dudman a few weeks later: "As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front." Think about it, Jim. You've been chasing phantoms. And pushing nonsense. There was NO blow-out wound on the back of the head below the ear. You are lifting the McClelland quote out of context, and --as is often the case--context is everything. Dr. McClelland was visited by Secret Service agents who showed him the Bethesda autopsy report, which contained two entries on the back of the body, not observed in Dallas, and a description of the head wound that was entirely different than what was observed in Dallas. After he saw that report is (as I recall) when he made the statement you are quoting. As to the rest, I believe you are promoting entirely incorrect information. More on this later. DSL

Below find my answers, inserted in your remarks. DSL David, since you were kind enough to respond to my seven questions, I will respond to your seven answers with my replies in italics. . . . You are so far off base about your theory that all the shots came from in front that I reassert, IT IS SIMPLY ABSURD. And if Costella wants to join you in that fantasy, so be it. The evidence and logic are on my side, not yours. So if you want to save face on this forum and in this thread, then kindly explain away at least the following seven points: (1) the holes in his shirt and jacket; (2) the wound on his back and all that; (3) the injury sustained by James Tague; (4) the wound to John Connally's back; (5) the wound to the back of JFK's head; (6) the indentation in the chrome strip; (7) witnesses reports of shots from behind. . . . Jim [snipped--to save space. See previous post for text of the Chaney interview] Here, in reverse order, are my comments on the objections you have raised. This response is not intended to be definitive. I am in the midst of a "work in progress" and can't respond in greater detail at this juncture. But regardless of the particulars, it all comes down to the primacy of the body as evidence. (7) witnesses reports of shots from behind. DSL Response: So what? Just because a sniper’s nest was found at the SE corner sixth floor window does not mean that shots were actually fired from there. And this same principle extends to sounds heard, sniper's supposedly seen, etc. There are multiple explanations for why there are “witnesses reports of shots from behind”. If a strategic deception was utilized in connection with the assassination, citing such reports means little. The only way to know the number and direction of the shots that struck Kennedy is to know what wounds were actually on his body immediately after the shots were fired. JHF Reply: Give us a break, David. You are placing a lot of emphasis on the witnesses with regard to the shots and all that. THEY ARE ALSO WITNESSES REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE SHOTS AS THEY PERCEIVED THEM. Stuart Galanor, COVER-UP (1998), has a list of 216 witnesses on pages 171-176. You need to go through and count how many reported they had come from the Depository, how many from the knoll, and how many from elsewhere--because THEY WERE ALL CORRECT! Shots DID come from the Depository (though not from the alleged "assassin's lair"), where even the HSCA did not discriminate between that location and the DalTex. I discussed this explicitly with Donald Thomas when he spoke at Lancer and I was the co-chair. When you place so much emphasis on witnesses in other respects, how can you discount them here? DSL REPLY: I disagree. This crime was conducted in such a manner as to create appearance --both via sight and sound--that shots came from the SE corner sixth floor window; while one or more hidden sniper's actually murdered Kennedy. I think its a useless exercise "to go through and count how many reported they had come from the Depository" (as you suggest, immediately above) because the key is not in the numbers, but in properly distinguishing what is real from what is not real--i.e., in distinguishing fact from artifact. Just because someone is seen with a rifle does not mean he is a genuine assassin. And the same goes for sounds that are heard. I have no doubt that --at the time Kennedy was ambushed--the appearance was created that shots were fired from the TSBD. But a proper reading of the medical evidence reveals that was not so. (6) The indentation in the chrome strip. I realize this is a potentially significant issue, and I believe that there are two possible explanations for “the indentation in the chrome strip.” One is the Secret Service reports that indicate the damage was there, prior to Dallas, and was observed from work on the car, either in NYC (at the Empire Garage, as I recall) The other is that if there was windshield switching, then any damage to the chrome strip was incident to such activity. Chrome strip damage only becomes important if it can be reliably established (a) it wasn't there prior to Dallas and (b ) was observed prior to any possible windshield switching. JHF Reply: This was the presidential limousine. It was maintained to the highest standards. No blemish of that kind would have been allowed to remain without repair. The Secret Service, like the FBI, would be adept at creating false records to cover up any evidence that the car could provide, as was done by sending it back to Ford and having it completely rebuilt. Mike Pincher and Roy Schaeffer have observed that a flare of light appears to emanate from the windshield at that location in frames 330-332. I recommend that you read pages 228-229 of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and reconsider your opinion. A photograph of the damage to the chrome strip is published there on page 353. I am certain that photos of the limousine taken before the assassination will confirm that it was not already there. In fact, a much smaller photo of the damage to the chrome strip can be found in SIX SECONDS (1966), page 113, where he appears along with a photo of the substitute windshield. As an aside, I was struck by the incongruity of the cover of Tink's book, which describes its contents as "a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the President", and the final paragraph of the text on page 246, which states, "What does this collection of new evidence prove? It does not provethat the assassination was a conspiracy and that two men were together on the sixth floor of the Depository at the time the shots were fired." But of course a conspiracy only requires collusion between two or more individuals to bring about an illegal act, where his own theory of three shooters satisfies that. (5) The wound in the back of JFK’s head: I am genuinely surprised, professor, that you can recite chapter and verse of all the Parkland Hospital witnesses who saw an exit wound at the back of JFK’s head, as proof it was there, but seem to ignore that some dozen doctors were specifically asked, by Arlen Specter, whether they observed an entry wound on the back of the head (or a “small hole” beneath the large hole) and every single one of them answered “no”. (Well, Dr. Clark said something like "maybe it was hidden in blood and hair") Yet you persist in offering something supposedly on the body at Bethesda, which was not observed at Dallas, as evidence of its authenticity--i.e., that it "must have been there" --when it was not observed. Why do you do that? (And please don't respond by saying its on the Bethesda X-ray, when you yourself agree the X-rays have been faked.) Furthermore, and now turning to anatomic detai, in BEST EVIDENCE, I lay out the case that, based on the Bethesda evidence, there was no “bullet hole” at all, but rather a “portion” of the circumference of something interpreted to be a bullet wound. (See Chapter 22, B.E.) JHF reply: Well, David, I am genuinely surprised that you haven't given this much thought and that you appear to be unaware of David Mantik's confirmation of an entry wound at the back of the head in his extraordinary synthesis of the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), pages 219-297. This is confirmation of my conjecture that you only read your own stuff. This is the most brilliant study of the medical evidence ever composed by the mind of man--and you haven't even read it! I am stunned. It is the case that the evidence for this wound is extremely subtle and that the Parkland physicians were in no position to discern it; but that does not mean that the Bethesda physicians were wrong about the existence of a wound at the back of the head, which of course is the very wound that would be elevated by four (4) inches by the HSCA medical panel in one of the great sleights-of-hand in American forensic history. When I asked Cyril how they dealt with the discrepancies between the Parkland physicians and the Bethesda autopsy report, by the way, he told me that he would "have to consult his notes". Indeed! DSL RESPONSE: I am well aware of Mantik's work, and what you refer to as "his extraordinary synthesis". I have told him before--and will tell you here--that I believe it to be a preposterous proposition that one can argue that the X-rays show a "patch" at the back of the head, and then turn around and say that, well, 1 or 2 cm from the area of the patch, is this other area, which I will believe to be authentic. Once one argues that a piece of evidence is counterfeit, then that evidence is impeached. Period. For whatever reason, Dr. Mantik subscribes to the notion that he can "mix and match." Well, I don't. One other thing: if Dr. Mantik's x-ray falsification study is indeed "the most brilliant study of the medical evidence ever composed by the mind of man," then I suggest --and I have told him so personally--that the part about the X-rays being fake deserve to be (and indeed, must be) published in a peer-reviewed journal. The news that the JFK X-rays were falsified is the sort of thing that ought to have been published in the Scientific American, or some comparable journal. The notion that it only appears in Assassination Science is truly unfortunate. Its not that your anthology is not useful, and, in some ways, important. But that's not the way real science is done. I've told David Mantik that, and I look forward to the day when his "fake x-ray thesis"--with all the densitometer data--is published in a proper scientific journal. (4) the wound to John Connally's back I’ll have much more to say on this matter in the future. I cannot respond at this time. That’s why I was careful to state that I did not believe that Kennedy was struck from behind. Of course, if Connally was struck from the front, then he lied under oath. I assume you are aware that the first person to treat Connally—Nurse Doris Nelson—wrote in her report that Connally had “received” a buollet in the chest. (That's in her report, dated 11/22/63--see the Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes). And, in any event, she personally reconfirmed the validity of that report, in a tape recorded interview in December, 1982, about six months before she died (of cancer). On that occasion, she reconfirmed to me that Connally was shot in the chest from the front, and that she observed no entry wound on the back of his body. JHF Reply:Well, you know, "Big John" stated that he had turned to his right to see what was going on with JFK, but his view was obstructed, so he turned back to his left and that is when he felt that "doubling-up" in his chest from the bullet having hit him in the back. Since he was turned to the side, my inference is that he was shot from the side, in particular, from the west side of the Book Depository, where, if you ever watch "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today", you will learn that my best guess is that this shooter was Frank Sturgis. I cannot claim that with certainty, of course, but based upon my research, that is my best guess. Big John may have been hit as many as three times, as I see it, where the four entry wounds in JFK combined with the three shots that missed--the one that hit Tague, the one that hit the chrome strip, and the one that was found in the grass--mean that there had to have been eight, nine or ten shots fired that day from what appear to be six locations. I do find your appeal to a single witness rather fascinating, however, and I shall certainly await the results of your research. But I hope this new work is not supposed to prove an absurd theory. (3) the injury sustained by James Tague The curb chip—which, as I’m sure you would agree—was covertly patched up, does not prove that the shot was fired from behind. It depends exactly when that shot was fired, and where the limo was located. I will have more to say about this in the future. At this juncture, I would agree that this has to be explained—and I can’t present a full and complete explanation in this post. But rest assured I will have more to say on this matter. JHF Reply: Thanks for your candor. I think you will have at least as much difficulty proving the case for that shot having been fired from in front as you confront in the case of the other points I raise. (2) The wounds in his back and all that. What the heck does “an all that” supposed to mean? Surely you are aware that Commander Humes called Doctor Perry either at midnight on 11/22/63 or the next day, and asked Perry—according to Perry’s own testimony—whether “we had made any wounds in the back”. And surely you are aware that the FBI agents witnessed one of the doctors putting his finger in the wound, and it barely went in. Finally, the wound—as reported by Humes—did not have an abrasion collar, the sine qua non for a bullet entry wound. So no, I do not believe that is a legitimate bullet entry wound, but rather one placed there to be a matching “receptacle” for the bullet placed on a stretcher in Dallas. Moreover, does it not pique your curiosity, Professor, that this wound was not “discovered” until several hours into the autopsy (during the “latter stages” according to the Sibert and O’Neill report?) How many episodes of Law and Order must we watch to understand that there is something mighty peculiar about this wound, and the circumstances of its "discovery"? JHF Replies: If you haven't read David's chapter on the medical evidence in MURDER (2000), then I am quite sure you have never read my study of the back wound in "Reasoning about Assassinations", even though it was presented at Cambridge and published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Some of the faults I find in your reasoning include (i) that "Pepper" Jenkins would later observe that he had felt it with his fingers, just as Audrey Rike would later report he had felt the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head when he helped to lift the body into the casket; (ii) that his jacket and shirt were promptly removed in Trauma Room #1 AND LEFT THERE, which makes it anomalous how they could have made a hole in the shirt and jacket that corresponded to the wound in the body at Bethesda, when they did not have the jacket and shirt to correlate in creating your fabricated wound. I am sorry, David, but when you do so much brilliant work on other aspects of the medical evidence, I am appalled to see you commit blunders of this magnitude. If you had read my article, you would see I am referring to the evidence that substantiates the location of that wound: Boswell's drawing, Sibert's drawing, Burkley's death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and the mortician's summary of the wounds. My opinion is that if we don't know where JFK was hit in the back, then we don't know enough to figure this out, where your fantastic theory that all the shots came from the front and your attempts to defend it are rationally irresponsible. DSL RESPONSE: Dr. Jenkins ("Pepper Jenkins") who I met with and interviewed in detail, in January, 1981, is a "political" anesthesiologist and a Kennedy hater. His daughter told me, in 1985, that she and her father "drank champaign" on the anniversaries to JFK's death. But most important, and in response to your misleading post: Dr. Jenkins did not send in his information, supposedly attesting to the fact that he reached down and "felt" Kennedy's back wound, until shortly after Best Evidence was published. (Now I'll bet you didn't know that--but I was in touch with an important Time magazine editor, and he told me that story, and actually sent me copies of the correspondence. So you can forget about Jenkins--and there is no comparison between the very valid recollection of Aubrey Rike, which you quote (and which I filmed in October, 1980 ) and the absurd and very problematic "story" disseminated by Jenkins after B.E. was published. DSL RESPONSE (contd): Re Kennedy's clothing, that was in the hands of Secret Service agent Greer by Friday evening, 11/22/63 (were you not aware of that?) But more important, what ever gave you the idea that the holes in the shirt and jacket had to be made at the same time as the shallow hole in the body?? Moreover, I am at a loss to understand why you think a list of those who saw the whole--Burkley, et al) has any relevance to the point I was making: that wound was not on the body at Parkland. It was on the body by the time Humes observed it--during the "latter stages" of the autopsy (the FBI language). DSL FINAL STATEMENT: You use all kinds of pejorative adjectives to attack my position. What you cannot get around is the fact that the back wound was not seen at Parkland. (1) The holes in the jacket and the shirt. I believe these holes were man made, and created to (roughly) “match” the wound on the body. And that’s why the “dot” on the Boswell diagram made at autopsy roughly matches these clothing holes. The give-away that this is all contrived is the FBI report of the interview of Roy Kellerman by Sibert and O’Neill, from the night of the Bethesda autopsy. In that FBI report, Kellerman states that Kennedy reached around with his right hand to a point on the back of his body, when he was hit.He also then supposedly exclaimed: "My God, I am hit" and/or "Get me to a hospital!" This is all nonsense, of course--Kennedy made no such movement with his right arm, after the shots were fired (nor did he say any such thing)--but shows the extent to which a key Secret Service agent was willing to falsify his account of Kennedy’s last movements in life, in order to create false evidence corroborating this phony story of how JFK (someone whose life he was sworn to protect) actually died. JHF Replies: As I have previously observed, if you haven't read David's chapter on the medical evidence in MURDER (2000), then I am quite sure you have never read my study of the back wound in "Reasoning about Assassinations", even though it was presented at Cambridge and published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Some of the faults I find in your reasoning include (i) that "Pepper" Jenkins would later observe that he had felt it with his fingers, just as Audrey Rike would later report he had felt the massive blow-out to the back of JFK's head when he helped to lift the body into the casket; (ii) that his jacket and shirt were promptly removed in Trauma Room #1 AND LEFT THERE, which makes it anomalous how they could have made a hole in the shirt and jacket that corresponded to the wound in the body at Bethesda, when they did not have the jacket and shirt to correlate in creating your fabricated wound. I am sorry, David, but when you do so much brilliant work on other aspects of the medical evidence, I am appalled to see you commit blunders. So I ask: precisely when were they made and by whom? Surely not at Parkland. Yet that is the only occasion on which the jacket, the shirt and the body were in the same place at the same time. I am sorry, David, but this is not your best work. DSL RESPONSE: Re Pepper Jenkins. See my previous comment. He was a Kennedy hater, and a xxxx. Re the clothing: it was in SS possession by the evening. And why on earth do you think the clothing has to be on the body for the hole to be made. Was the clothing ever "put back on the body" to verify congruence? Of course not. So I don't see the validity of the point you are making, or attempting to make. I am rather amazed--and certainly amused--to see you write: "So I ask: Precisely when were they made and by whom?" --while at the same time, on this thread, you concede that the President's body was covertly removed from the coffin. Surely you do realize that certain SS agents were apparently involved in this squalid affair? Or do you think this happened by magic? One other thing: I never said—ever—that you supported the SBT. Nor do I believe any such thing. What I believe I did say, or meant to imply, anyway, was that you seem to ignore the suspicious circumstances that took place in the Bethesda autopsy room when, hours into the autopsy, the “back” wound was suddenly “found” and then, within a minute or so, Kellerman was involved in a telephone call that basically communicated to Humes: “You have a wound without a bullet? Well, see here now, the FBI has just informed me that they have a bullet without a wound”—and so, in that manner, bullet 399 was “matched up” with the shallow wound on Kennedy’s back (or shoulder). This is all discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of BEST EVIDENCE and, imho, constitutes further evidence that the Bethesda autopsy, in some respects, was akin to a stage-managed fraud. JHF Replies: Well, thanks for not foisting off on me some ridiculous rubbish like that. There is a question about where the bullet that hit JFK in the back went, but it was certainly not the bullet that was planted on the stretcher. I should add that, in my opinion, that shot, which was fired from (what I take to have been) a 30.06 using a plastic collar known as a "sabot", was intended to implant a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet in the body to tie an obscure World War II weapon to the assassination. They knew they were going to steal the body and place it under medical control, where they could remove any fragments that might have undermined their official "three shot, lone assassin" theory, where you know at least as well as anyone else that they had given even more thought to the cover-up than they had to killing JFK. As we both know, killing him was not the problem; rather, covering it up and making sure that no one would be held liable for his murder beyond the patsy was the challenge. And they met it! DSL RESPONSE: I do not understand why you continually invoke this notion of a "sabot"--which in your words was "intended to implant a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet in the body..." Surely you do realize that would not be necessary, if the plan was to covertly gain access to the body so that "they could remove any fragments that might have undermined their official "three shot, lone assassin". May I (gently) suggest that if it was planned in advance to gain access to the body, and mess with bullets and fragments, then that alone rendered the use any "sabot" not just unnecessary, but completely superfluous. DSL 1/14/12; 12:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

QUOTING JOSIAH THOMPSON'S POST: Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. UNQUOTE Addressing the statement that Chaney "recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him. . " Please note that Hargis did not "dump his cycle by the south curb"--at least, not according to the film evidence we now have. Rather, Hargis left his cycle standing upright in the center of the street; then he went over to the lamppost, stood there briefly (as shown in Bell film frames) staring up at the area behind the concrete wall and fence; then Hargis came back to his cycle which was still standing upright, in the center of the street (Hargis' return to his cycle is shown in Bond Slide #4, showing him about to remount); and then Hargis sped off, westwards, towards the underpass (as shown in the Bothun photo, published in the next day's newspaper). To emphasize this point: if Hargis in fact "dump[ed] his cycle by the south curb" (which is what Chaney reports) then that event has been excised from the bystander films (e.g., Bell)--and I have reason to believe that is so. (And such an event, if it happened, would be just as important as the car stop, imho). But let's set that matter aside and return to Hargis, and what he did next, based on the (surviving) photo evidence. . . : Having sped west and gone beyond the underpass, Hargis then returned to Dealey Plaza and, if memory serves, was the first of the three cycle cops to get on the radio (within three minutes of the assassination) and say that he "had a witness" who said the shots came from the TSBD. (Hargis 12:34 transmission can be found in the Sawyer Exhibits, the DPD "early" version of the DPD radio transmissions, and as I recall, I have heard this myself on Mary Ferrell's version of the DPD tape.) This transmission, and those of the other cycle cops, is discussed in Chapter 14 of B.E. My main point: either Chaney provided an incorrect account of what Hargis did (or, if he is correct, then civilian photos (e.g., the Bell film) have been edited, to delete what he described); and, notably, Hargis doesn't volunteer anything of the sort, either. As far as I know, the only cycle officer whose cycle may have tipped over, was that of Haygood, but I'm not sure that his cycle ever actually tipped over. My main point is that what Chaney describes (re Hargis) does not appear on the Bell film. Hargis' cycle (per the civilian films) never tips over, nor did he "dump" it anywhere. He simply dismounted, steadied it, and put the kickstand down. Of course, anyone looking at the Bell Film frames has to wonder what Hargis was doing next, standing adjacent to the light pole, and looking directly up at the area behind the concrete wall on the grassy knoll. DSL 1/14/11 1 PM Los Angeles, CA I agree. This is a terrific find! But not for the reasons you give. This thread began with the posting of an excerpt from the Chaney interview from the early 1970s. This interview showed that Chaney had not initially gunned his cycle and raced forward to inform Chief Curry what happened. On the contrary, Chaney recalled almost stopping his cycle and holding there for a bit as he recalled seeing Bobby Hargis dump his cycle by the south curb and run across the street in front of him into the knoll area. Your gloss on this was that since Chaney had seen the Zapruder film he was tailoring his report to the film and essentially making up seeing Hargis cross the street in front of him. Since his questioner was trying to get Chaney to say something to undermine the Zapruder's films authenticity, this seems like a stretch. But the Houston Chroniclen report from Chaney on November 22nd or 23rd makes it even more of a stretch. Let's say that Chaney did exactly as you've been saying he did. Chaney saw Kennedy hit in the head and raced ahead to tell Chief Curry what had happened. If Chaney did this, then how did he see "a policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." The article makes clear that Chaney "sped toward the lead car" after seeing the policeman with gun drawn. If Chaney had done what you have said he did, then his back would have been to all this. What Chaney said in his 1970s interview and what he says in this report is consistent with what all the films show and inconsistent with the scenario you constructed. But you are right. This is a terrific find! JT

I think the Dealey Plaza witnesses constitute good evidence that Kennedy was struck (from the front) in the side of his head. What you are omitting, of course, is a most important Dealey Plaza witness: Secret Service Clint Hill. He, too, is a Dealey Plaza witness--is he not? Based on what he observed, when he climbed aboard the limousine (in Dealey Plaza, right?), he stated --in his SS report, and then in his testimony--that the back of Kennedy's head was missing, and that it was lying in the rear seat of the car. Why go to the trouble of listing all these witnesses, who clearly saw something explode as a bullet slammed into the right hand side of JFK's head, and ignore the most important Dealey Plaza witness of all--Clint Hill, who reported that the rear of JFK's head was shot off? DSL 1/14/12 12:55 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

[snipped--to save space. See previous post for text of the Chaney interview] Here, in reverse order, are my comments on the objections you have raised. This response is not intended to be definitive. I am in the midst of a "work in progress" and can't respond in greater detail at this juncture. But regardless of the particulars, it all comes down to the primacy of the body as evidence. (7) witnesses reports of shots from behind. DSL Response: So what? Just because a sniper’s nest was found at the SE corner sixth floor window does not mean that shots were actually fired from there. And this same principle extends to sounds heard, sniper's supposedly seen, etc. There are multiple explanations for why there are “witnesses reports of shots from behind”. If a strategic deception was utilized in connection with the assassination, citing such reports means little. The only way to know the number and direction of the shots that struck Kennedy is to know what wounds were actually on his body immediately after the shots were fired. (6) The indentation in the chrom strip. I realize this is a potentially significant issue, and I believe that there are two possible explanations for “the indentation in the chrome strip.” One is the Secret Service reports that indicate the damage was there, prior to Dallas, and was observed from work on the car, either in NYC (at the Empire Garage, as I recall) The other is that if there was windshield switching, then any damage to the chrome strip was incident to such activity. Chrome strip damage only becomes important if it can be reliably established (a) it wasn't there prior to Dallas and (b ) was observed prior to any possible windshield switching. (5) The wound in the back of JFK’s head: I am genuinely surprised, professor, that you can recite chapter and verse of all the Parkland Hospital witnesses who saw an exit wound at the back of JFK’s head, as proof it was there, but seem to ignore that some dozen doctors were specifically asked, by Arlen Specter, whether they observed an entry wound on the back of the head (or a “small hole” beneath the large hole) and every single one of them answered “no”. (Well, Dr. Clark said something like "maybe it was hidden in blood and hair") Yet you persist in offering something supposedly on the body at Bethesda, which was not observed at Dallas, as evidence of its authenticity--i.e., that it "must have been there" --when it was not observed. Why do you do that? (And please don't respond by saying its on the Bethesda X-ray, when you yourself agree the X-rays have been faked, particularly in the area at the back of the head.) Furthermore, and now turning to anatomic detail, in BEST EVIDENCE, I lay out the case that, based on the Bethesda evidence, there was no “bullet hole” at all, but rather a “portion” of the circumference of something interpreted to be a bullet wound. (See Chapter 22, B.E., and the subsection titled "The Incomplete Bone Hole" starting on page 533 of the hardcover edition, or the Carrol and Graf edition. That particular issue occupies an entire sub-section.) (4 ) the wound to John Connally's back I’ll have much more to say on this matter in the future. I cannot respond at this time. That’s why I was careful to state that I did not believe that Kennedy was struck from behind. Of course, if Connally was struck from the front, then he lied under oath. I assume you are aware that the first person to treat Connally—Nurse Doris Nelson—wrote in her report that Connally had “received” a bullet in the chest. (That's in her report, dated 11/22/63--see the Price Exhibits in the 26 volumes). Furthermore: Doris Nelson personally reconfirmed the validity of that report to me, in an in-person tape recorded interview in December, 1982, about six months before she died (of cancer). On that occasion, she not only reconfirmed her report, but reconfirmed to me that Connally was shot in the chest from the front, and that she observed no entry wound on the back of his body. (Was I surprised that she would be so forthright? You bet I was!) In addition, I should remind you--and this you may not know--that the so-called entry wound in the back of Governor Connally (according to Dr. Robert Shaw) did not penetrate further than the latissimus dorsi muscle (the very outermost layer of muscle, just beneath the skin). In other words, Connally's rear entry wound was (like Kennedy's back wound) a shallow wound. Of course, with regard to the integrity of the Connally medical data, let me add still additional data. I shouldn't have to remind you--as I presume you're familiar with this information--but I'll restate it here for the benefit of those who may be reading this for the first time: (a) As spelled out in a formal letter from the FBI to the Warren Commission, signed by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Connally's clothes (this shirt and jacket) were dry cleaned and pressed before being submitted to the FBI Laboratory. This is not just a minor irregularity--it is bizarre and scandalous, and just as bad, when it comes to the forensic examination of clothing, as a 17 minute gap is on an audio tape. One doesn't send critical evidence like that to the dry cleaners, before it goes to the FBI Laboratory, unless one is incredibly stupid (and/or reckless) or is involved in obstruction of justice. (b ) The wound in the front of Connally's chest, as measured by Dr. Robert Shaw, was 5 cm. in diameter; but the corresponding "bullet exit hole" in the front of Connall's jacket, was reported by the FBI as "3/8" of an inch, and "circular." Lets restate this in centimeters: the supposed Connally exit wound, on his body, was 5 cm across, but the supposed exit wound in the clothing (specifically, his jacket) was less than a centimeter (specifically, 3/8" = .9525 centimeters) and "circular". So the Connally exit wound on the body was 500% larger than the corresponding defect in Connally's jacket. (c ) As for any exit hole on the front of the shirt, the FBI Lab reported no measurements at all, presumably because that defect in that garment had been destroyed--but that is my assumption (and perhaps someone has further data in this area. If so, do email me). The fact is: no questions were addressed to this, under oath, as far as I know. (d) Finally, I know or a fact that Governor Connally told someone privately that his testimony about the shooting was false, and he would never tell the truth about what actually happened, because it wouldn't be go for the country. So what we have then, professor Fetzer, is a Governor who testified one way, but the chief nurse who said the opposite--and the clothing was sent to the dry cleaners before the FBI Laboratory. So now I ask you, professor: how many episodes of Law and Order must we watch to realize that something is, shall we say, "fishy" about this situation? (3 ) the injury sustained by James Tague The curb chip—which, as I’m sure you would agree—was covertly patched up, does not prove that the shot was fired from behind. It depends exactly when that shot was fired, and where the limo was located. I will have more to say about this in the future. At this juncture, I would agree that this has to be explained—and I can’t present a full and complete explanation in this post. But rest assured I will have more to say on this matter. (2) The wounds in his back and all that. ". . .and all that. . . "? What is “and all that” supposed to mean? Surely you are aware that Commander Humes called Doctor Perry either at midnight on 11/22/63 or the next day, and asked Perry—according to Perry’s own testimony—whether (and I quote) “we had made any wounds in the back”. And surely you are aware that the FBI agents (at Bethesda) witnessed one of the doctor putting his finger in the wound, and it barely went in. Finally, the wound—-as reported by Humes—did not have an abrasion collar, the sine qua non for a bullet entry wound. So no, I do not believe that is a legitimate bullet entry wound, but rather one placed there to be a matching “receptacle” for the bullet placed on a stretcher in Dallas. Moreover, does it not pique your curiosity, Professor, that this wound was not “discovered” until several hours into the autopsy (during the “latter stages” according to the Sibert and O’Neill report?) Again I ask: how many episodes of Law and Order must we watch to understand that there is something mighty peculiar about this wound, and the circumstances of its "discovery"? (1) The holes in the jacket and the shirt. I believe these holes were man made, and created to (roughly) “match” the wound on the body. And that’s why the “dot” on the Boswell diagram made at autopsy roughly matches these clothing holes. The give-away that this is all contrived is the FBI report of the interview of Roy Kellerman by Sibert and O’Neill, either on the night of the Bethesda autopsy, or at the White House just a few days later. In that FBI report, Kellerman states that Kennedy reached around with his right hand to a point on the back of his body, when he was hit. JFK then supposedly exclaimed: "My God, I am hit" and/or "Get me to a hospital!" This is all nonsense, of course--Kennedy made no such movement with his right arm, after the shots were fired (nor did he say any such thing)--but shows the extent to which a key Secret Service agent was willing to present false information re Kennedy’s last movements in life, and what he supposedly said, in the last moments he was alive, in order to create a phony story of how JFK actually died. One other thing: I never said—ever—that you supported the SBT. Nor do I believe any such thing. What I believe I did say, or meant to imply, anyway, was that you seem to ignore the suspicious circumstances that took place in the Bethesda autopsy room which supposedly legitimatize the finding of this bullet. Specifically, I am referring to what occurred when, hours into the autopsy, the “back” wound was suddenly “found” and then, within a minute or so, Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman was involved in a telephone call to Secret Service Chief Rowley, a call that basically communicated this message to Humes: “You have a wound without a bullet? Well, see here now, the FBI Laboratory has just informed us that they have a bullet without a wound”—and so, in that manner, bullet 399 was “matched up” with the shallow wound on Kennedy’s back (or shoulder). This is all discussed in Chapters 4 and 5 of BEST EVIDENCE and, imho, constitutes further evidence that the Bethesda autopsy, in some respects, was akin to a stage-managed fraud. I know you do not accept the Single Bullet Theory. Neither do I. My question was (and is): do you accept the legitimacy of how this "wound" was discovered, and how--via one or more timely phone calls--it was then "matched" to the belated discovery of the wound in the back? If so, that surprises me. You have no trouble in placing snipers on rooftops all over Dealey Plaza; but here, at the Bethesda morgue, the most peculiar events unfold, and you don't bat an eyelash. DSL 1/14/12; 12:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

You're right, Jim. But one can say that about other issues in this thread as well. When I saw the critique Craig was making of Mr. Block's argument, it seemed to me that Craig was employing a double standard which deserved a hard look. As I've noted before -- in a field littered with dead horses I choose to beat the one that proves the case prima facie. I can explain my work to a little kid. You cannot do so with your work, can you? I agree with Cliff. Probably the simplest way (today) to destroy the official version is with the impossibility of the official version, due to the low clothing holes in the shirt and jacket (and I say that even though I believe the back wound to be false). I remember when I first read about all this in Liberation Magazine, in Salandria's original article(s) in the spring of 1965. Right then, I knew the whole official version was an impossibility--even though, or me, it was the backward snap of the head, as shown on the Zapruder frames reproduced in Volume 18, which seemed also just as important, and even more bizarre. The combination of these two led to my 30,000 word article --"The Case for Three Assassins"--that was written in July of 1966, and was a cover story in Ramparts Magazine in January, 1967. That was the first time I was able to get a physicist to go on record stating that the backward snap established a shot from the front--even though today, I realize that the rapidity of the "backward snap" is almost certainly an artifact resulting from the editing of the Z film at that point, attendant to the removal of the car stop. DSL

[snipped--to save space. See previous post for text of the Chaney interview] FIRST SHOT WAS A MISS, OFFICER SAYS http://24.152.179.96...1E14/Chaney.png

At the risk of making myself even more unpopular, until independent experts review the data and confirm (or refute) Mantik's theory of X-ray alteration it will remain just that; a theory. FWIW I don't really get the alteration argument. I mean, presumably the purpose of altering the X-rays would be to make them conform to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy and Warren reports. [snip, to focus on the issue at hand] No, Martin, that is incorrect, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. The purpose of altering the medical evidence was not to make it "conform to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy report" (your language) but rather to fabricate a false (but "politically correct") story of how the crime occurred. That is precisely why the primary data--what lawyers call the "best evidence"--had to be altered. I am referring of course to the President's body, which contained (a) certain wounds and (b ) bullets or bullet fragments. It is that primary data that had to be altered to create a false story of how the crime occurred. Secondarily, the issue then became how to create corroborating evidence (in the form of X-rays and photographs) without that material giving away (i.e., revealing) the fact that the body had been altered. Not to understand this is to have an incorrect conception of what happened, and why. Had the President's body been altered under "ideal" conditions--i.e., if it was a "perfect medical forgery"--then there would have been no need to worry about the photographs and X-rays. In fact, that's not what occurred; consequently, the photographs and X-rays in fact posed a threat, and that's why that material had to be modified (and "edited") as necessary. But this fundamental misunderstanding--revealed in the language that the medical evidence had to be altered to make it "confirm to the official version of the wound(s) described in the autopsy report" harks back to a similar thought conveyed in a debate I had in 1993 on the radio in Chicago with another WC critic (and published author). He said that altering the wounds on the body, or removing bullets, was "an enormously dangerous thing to get into. It is especially dangerous to get into before you know exactly what you have to have." And then he added: "At that time [meaning, at that "early" hour] you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show." (The speaker was Josiah Thompson, and the date was 4/3/93, when we were both on the Steve Dahl show, on WLUP in Chicago). Again, this kind of reasoning is flawed, because it does not accurately reflect the timeline of events, and jumbles cause and effect. A plot that follows a dual track--i.e., treats the President as (a) a person to be killed and then (b ) after death, as a "target" to be altered, is a plot which wields enormous leverage; because the (false) "solution to the crime" can then be (and was, in this case) constructed a short while after the murder, as an integral part of the overall plan. That's what "best evidence"--both the concept in law, and the title of my work--is all about. In other words, what we are dealing with, in Dealey Plaza, is a "designer shooting," with the pre-selected patsy already "in place." What remains to be done is murder the president, and then alter the evidence to change the story of how he died. Just about everything else is "built into" the set-up. Only if one understands that the President's body --not the Bethesda autopsy report--is the primary evidence (the "best evidence") in this murder case, is it then possible to understand the enormous leverage wielded by those who intend to capitalize on just that legal fact, and not only murder the president, but, in addition, then alter the body so as to construct a false story as to how he died. To repeat: the President's body was not altered to make the wounds "conform" to the autopsy report; rather, the body was altered to create a false autopsy report. Viewed that way, the Bethesda autopsy protocol was (to those who were witting) a stage-managed fraud. There is a major difference between those two points of view--the one you stated,and the one that is advanced in BEST EVIDENCE and which I have recapped here. The two concepts are entirely different. One reflects a before-the-fact strategy of strategic deception; the other, a rather superficial and clumsy "after-the-fact" cover-up. For whatever reason--and frankly, after all these years, I do not understand it--many people have no problem believing that an autopsy report can be falsified by military doctors who collude and who are just "following orders" both at the time of the examination, and then when they sit down to write their report; but those same folks have a lot of problem with the idea that a murder plot could be (and in this case was) carried out with a dual track view (or stereo view) of the body: as a person to be killed, and then (also) as a target to be altered. But that's what the evidence indicates happened in the JFK case, and that's why, when the alteration was sloppily done, so much "corroborating evidence" also had to be altered. Not to have done so --i.e., not to have been thorough in creating the corroboration--would have placed the entire plan in jeopardy. Not to have done so would not only have led to a politically non-viable "solution" to the Kennedy assassination, but individuals could have (and would have) possibly been identified and indicted for obstruction of justice. So once this path was chosen, there was no turning back. Because the "body alteration"--hurriedly and sloppily performed--had left such a mess in its wake. DSL 1/13/12; 4:40 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

The high-watermark of the case for conspiracy...in 1966! http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html Researchers have been bouncing the rubble ever since. Over the years, I have come around to the view that Arlen Specter was "talked to," in connection with his role in the WC investigation, and that explains his behavior--at the time, and ever since. Unfortunately, I can't prove it. But Gaeton Fonzi certainly picked up on the fact that Specter couldn't possibly believe the conclusions he played such a major role in constructing. I knew someone who knew Specter quite well, and that person almost "spilled the beans" but then held back. More significantly, remember what Specter said when Liebeler called him up on 10/24/66, having just learned (from me) that the Sibert -O'Neill report said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." He had some sort of serious discussion --with Specter--behind closed doors and when he emerged from the private office, and I asked him what Specter said, he wouldn't tell me. But what he did say was: "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." (See B.E., Chapter 9, "10/24/66: A Confrontation with Liebeler"). When I say Specter was "talked to," what I mean is that I think he had some kind of conversation with "higher authority" and the message was similar to what was delivered to Earl Warren by LBJ--i.e., the "World War 3" cover story. Personally, I do not believe the other WC attorneys had to be "talked to," although I don't rule out one or two "selected" conversations. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that the primary people who were "talked to" (beaides Specter) were Earl Warren, Rankin, Rankin, and possibly Norman Redlich. Another person on my "short list" would be Howard Willens (husband of Diane Siemer, the DOD lawyer who tried to prevent the lifting of the order permitting the autopsy witnesses to talk). This is all highly speculative, of course. I am fairly confident that most of the rest of the WC attorneys operated pretty much as ordinary attorneys, and did not need to be "talked to." Again, this is just my opinion as a consequence of having studied the office files of the staff, and learning more about them as individuals. Of one thing I am certain: Joe Ball and David Belin were definitely "true believers" (when it came to the lone nut hypothesis); and I don't believe anyone attempted to "talk to" Burt Griffin or Leon Hubert (of the Ruby team). Nor did anyone "talk to" Alfred Goldberg, the Pentagon (and Rand Corp) historian, who famously wrote: "Conspiracies are like the elves. You have to believe in them to know that they are there." DSL 1/13/12; 4 AM Los Angeles, CA

I just took a careful look at this particular interview, which I don't remember seeing before. In any event, just giving it a "close reading" (a term James Angleton might have used) makes me realize the terrible opportunity lost to history, because the WC attorneys either were told to "lay off," or simply did not realize the importance of aggressively pursuing the early accounts of the motorcycle patrolmen who flanked the car in this affair. Let me state, at the outset, my bias. Almost certainly, you cannot have a "motorcade assassination" (and that's what this was) without the motorcycle escort being complicit--at the very least, they had to be paid off, and instructed to "hang back," "do nothing," "go slow" etc. Take a close look at this particular interview, apparently conducted on 11/23, and there are many avenues which would have been ripe for further questioning. Immediately below is the interview, with my interjections. Below that, for those who are interested, is an unblemished typed version. OK. . here's the one with my interjections: FIRST SHOT WAS A MISS, OFFICER SAYS Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely. DSL COMMENT: How the heck does Chaney know that the "first shot missed entirely." What is the source of that idea? The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. DSL COMMENT: Chaney was not "in front" - - - why did he say he was?? The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building DSL Comment: How does Chaney know that?? . . . about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car. DSL Comment: . . And how does Chaney know that, on 11/23, when this interview supposedly took place? . . . From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting. “When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. DSL INTERJECTION: This is nonsense. And similar to Roy Kellerman's false statement that JFK reached behind his shoulder with his right hand--an action not shown on the Z film, and which obviously did not take place. Chaney's report about JFK "looking back over his left shoulder" raises a similar issue. These bozo's did't realize there would be enough of a filmed record to establish that JFK did no such thing. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him. “It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato. DSL COMMENT: Highly original. . but no one reports any such thing. Blood went all over the car. “There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’” DSL Comment: As a matter of fact, that's not quite the statement reported by others. But more important, AP Reporter Jack Bell says that Kellerman actually stuood up in the car, and motioned the lead car to move ahead --again, something not visible on the Z film, and something not reported by Chaney. Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. DSL COMMENT: Well, this is interesting. So Chaney is, basically, a "car-stop witness." A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building DSL Comment: Its not clear which officer this would be. Almost certainly, not Officer Baker, who would have been well behind Chaney. So who is this "other" officer who, says Chaney, "ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building." Is this a made-up fiction, or exaggeration? Or are we dealing with another event that has been erased from the film? In any event, it should have been the basis for serious questioning. “I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. DSL comment: Well, at least he says he did that--which (as I recall) is confirmed by Chief Curry, and Sorrels, the issue being exactly when it occurred. “I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said. “A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said. DSL Interjection: Was this at Parkland? If so, not according to Clint Hill, who said it was in the rear seat. So. . is this another Chaney exaggeration? Or false statement? Or was there in fact a piece of skull bone actually lying on the floor of the car? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know. Chaney died long ago, and , more important, the WC attorney didn't realize the importance of calling him as a witness, and questioning him closely, with a record of his prior statements (such as this one) sitting in front of them. Too bad. HERE IS THE WHOLE INTERVIEW, RETYPED, and without my interjections: FIRST SHOT WAS A MISS, OFFICER SAYS Dallas-A motorcycle policeman just six feet from President Kennedy when he was hit said the assassin’s first shot missed entirely. The second of the three shots felled Kennedy, said patrolman James M. Chaney. He was six feet to the right and front of the President’s car, moving about 15 miles an hour while rounding a curve. The shot, said Chaney, came from the sixth floor of a warehouse building about 50 feet or less behind the President’s car. From the sixth floor to the president, the bullet traveled about 110 feet, Chaney estimated. Chaney was an infantryman in Europe in World War II with experience with sharpshooting. “When the first shot was fired, I thought it was a backfire,” Chaney said. Everyone looked around. The President was looking back over his left shoulder. A second or two after the first shot, the second shot him. “It was like you hit someone in the face with a tomato. Blood went all over the car. “There was screaming and yelling. A secret service man yelled, “Let’s get out of here.’” Chaney said the motorcade stopped momentarily after the shots rang out. A policeman ran between two cars with his pistol drawn, heading toward the building “I sped to the lead car carrying Chief (Jesse) Curry and Forrest Sorrels, chief of the secret service division of the Treasury Department in the Dallas area. “I told them the President had been hit and it appeared bad,” Chaney said. “A piece of his skull bone was lying on the floor board of the car,” Chaney said. * * * http://24.152.179.96...1E14/Chaney.png

But you're more than a conservative -- you're a rabid Kennedy-hater. With an agenda. Nice to see you contradict your earlier denial. Something about fantasy and reality, was it? Now we'll see Craig Lamson's true talent -- blowing smoke while back-pedaling. To add to the discussion, I'm posting two thumbnails here, both cropped to (a) focus on the back of the head and (b ) be small enough to permit posting here. These are crops of Z-321 and Z-323. To me, it seems clear that the back of the head has been darkened. I'm leery of the word "patch" because that implies a quasi rectangular area with very sharp borders--i.e., either one is "inside" the "patch" or "outside" of it. l'm not sure exactly how this was done--just that the back of the head appears to have been darkened, in the general area where the Dallas medical team saw an exit wound. Also, please note: Jackie has facial features in these two frames. Only in frame 317 does it appear that she has none at all. Perhaps Mr. Lamson can address this matter of why Jackie appears to have lost all facial features in frame 317. Craig, I know you're an expert in all matters optical, anatomical, and political, so perhaps you can venture a guess, or a hypothesis. For example: 1) The Dealey Plaza "bird" hypothesis At the same time as a large bird flew overhead (or some other celestial phenomenon occurred) casting a dark shadow on the back of Kennedy's head (in beautiful sunlit Dealey Plaza, at "high noon"). Moreover, Jackie was so shocked at what she was witnessing that the blood simply drained from her face, and so all facial detail disappeared--but for just one film frame. But then, within just a few eighteenths of a second, everything changed, and --voila--Jackie "regain composure" and facial features returned! Moreover, this occurred during the same general period where dozens of witnesses thought the car slowed --and at least one dozen said it stopped completely. (2) The Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis Dealey Plaza was like the Bermuda Triangle...and so all sorts of weird and essentially inexplicable phenomena occurred at the time JFK was shot. A dark cloud was cast on the back of JFK's head, while at the same time dozens of people thought the car stopped, and at the same time, Jackie, staring in shocked disbelief, simply lost her facial features for a brief eighteenth of a second. Moreover, the Z film mysteriously doesn't show the same head wounds that the Dallas medical team reported five minutes later, but, inexplicably, shows wounds closer to what the Bethesda observers saw 6 hours later. Of course, this couldn't be part of a plot to alter the body (and imagery of the body)--perish the thought. Rather, the Bermuda Triangle Hypothesis "explains everything." Again, these are only suggestions. Far be it for me to interfere with the free reign of anyone's expertise. So I do invite you to exercise yours, and explain the absence of facial features on Jackie in the Z frame numbered Z-317, whereas her features "returned" by frames 321 and 323 (as well as the other matters mentioned above, if you're so inclined.) DSL 1/12/12; 9:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA PLEASE NOTE: In the thumbnails below. . Z -323 is on the left; Z-321 is on the right.

I've visited the Sixth Floor Museum just once, many years ago, and have not examined their MPI materials. What I do have are my vivid memories of what the original 35 mm LIFE materials (made under contract by Moses Weitzman) looked like in June, 1970 (when they were sent out to Beverly Hills,and I examined them at the Beverly Hills office Time-Life). In addition, there is my personal examination of one of the Weitzman internegatives in the summer of 1990, at a photo lab in New York City, and 35 mm film copies I made at that time. This is described in my essay "Pig on a Leash," and that's what this post is all about. So let me begin. The item to which I had access for several days--and which I examined most carefully--was one of the best of the half dozen extant "Weitzman internegatives." Let's define our terms. The Weitzman 35mm Internegatives were made by Moses Weitzman (circa 1967) directly from--I repeat, directly from--the original 8mm Zapruder film. So each of those negatives is one generation removed from the original 8mm Zapruder film. What I then created were 35 mm copies made on an Oxberry Optical Printer, made directly from an original Weitzman internegative. Then I had those 35 mm frames scanned at 4k/frame. Let me provide some additional detail (all of this is described in "Pig on a Leash" in the Fetzer anthology). In the summer of 1990, CBS producer Robert Richter (who had made the 1988 JFK documentary for NOVA, aired on the 25th anniversary) was still in possession of one of the Weitzman internegatives--the one which he had used as the source of the crystal clear Zapruder imagery which appeared on that program. (All the remainder of the Weitzman internegatives were --and stil are--possessed by Robert Groden, who has hoarded them all these years; and who has denied under oath, before the ARRB, that he possessed this material. That is false). But let's return to the summer of 1990: As described in PIG ON A LEASH, Richter made that particular 35 mm item (known in the trade as an "optical element") available to me. Working with funds provided by three interested parties--I flew to New York and rented the facilities a film lab in New York City. There, using an Oxberry Optical printer (which I learned how to operate myself) I then carefully examined this 35 mm film element. That examination further persuaded me that the Zapruder film was altered. I realize, in making this statement, that it represents my subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it seemed obvious to me that a black patch appeared in frame after frame of the Zapruder film, at the back of the head. To examine this in detail, I not only made 1:1 copies, but a whole series of enlargements, directly from that optical element. In other words, not only did I create 1:1 35 mm optical copies, but, in addition, 35 mm optical copies at a significantly higher level of magnification than the ordinary "1:1". Only some of my 1:1 material has been scanned--and at 4k/image. The process is expensive. As I say, all of this confirmed my own opinion--and yes, this is subjective--that the back of the head was "blacked out" on the Zapruder film. Since its not that easy (for me, anyway) to upload to this site --due to the size limitations--I am attaching a cropped version of frame Z-317, made from one of my 1:1 copies, scanned at 4k/frame. I would call what I have "2nd generation"--because it is a copy of what Weitzman had, and what he possessed would be "1st generation"--i.e., a 35 mm internegative made directly from the original 8mm Zapruder film, then in possession of LIFE. I believe that this item is considerably clearer than the one Wilkinson has, and is lighter (and hence a tad bit clearer) than the one used by John Costella, at his website. Click on this link and compare: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z317.jpg Please do notice that Jackie's entire face has no image. This was first pointed out by Jack White years ago, and he has advanced the hypothesis that lots of frame-by-frame artwork was done, and that, for whatever reason, the details of Jackie's face had not been completed; hence, this peculiar image of a face, but no details. I don't know what the explanation is, but it sure does look odd to me. To recap: I believe the Zapruder film has been edited for any number of reasons; and the blacked out "back of the head"in frame after frame is just one of them. I would also like a satisfactory explanation for why Jackie Kennedy has no facial detail in Zapruder frame 317--and that's the way it actually appears on the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film. DSL 1/12/12; 6:15 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

I'm of the opinion that any editing out of the limo stop was incidental -- what was edited out/altered was the back shot which just happened to correspond with the limo stop post Z255. Jim, the re-enactment photos with the white patch in the correct location are photos taken during the May 24, 1964 re-enactment. This re-enactment was performed by the FBI and Secret Service, under the direction of Arlen Specter. The FBI and Secret Service did not come to a three hit conclusion based upon this re-enactment. They had come to that conclusion back in December. There is no evidence they actually came to the conclusion there was three shots, three hits, moreover. When one looks at the timeline, in fact, it seems likely they simply deferred to Governor Connally's recollections, and pretended the films supported his recollections. The WC counsel, however, after studying the films, realized this wouldn't fly, as Connally was hit far too close to Kennedy's first being hit to support the three shots/three hits scenario. Thus, the May re-enactment. Thus, the single-bullet theory. The correct placement of the patch during the re-enactment is of course a smoking gun. Specter admitted studying the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment. The FBI's Robert Frazier, moreover, admitted using the autopsy measurements in the placement of the patch. The Secret Service's Thomas Kelley, however, claimed they'd used the Rydberg drawings--which place the wound on the back of the neck. And the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt did his part by saying that their single-bullet re-enactment established that a bullet fired when the Commission proposed would have “passed through a point on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound.” Specter then entered into evidence a photo taken from the front, that did not show the entrance wound location on Kennedy's back. NO photos of the white patch designating this location were entered into evidence, or published by the Commission, even in the 26 volumes. That this was a deliberate deception is proved, moreover, by Specter's acknowledgement in his book that the man showing him the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment was none other than Thomas Kelley, whose testimony he took but days later, and who, under Specter's questioning, made the false claim the back wound location came from the Rydberg drawings. As far as the head wound... While you insist those claiming the limo stopped must be correct, and that the Zapruder film must therefore be a fake, this is inconsistent with your claim there was a large blow-out on the back of Kennedy's head. You see, NONE of the Dealey Plaza witnesses you rely upon to establish your limo stop described such a wound. Do you really believe that William Newman, Gayle Newman, Abraham Zapruder, Marilyn Sitzman, Emmett Hudson, Charles Brehm, Bobby Hargis, James Chaney, Douglas Jackson, Sam Kinney, Emory Roberts, Kenneth O'Donnell, Dave Powers, and George Hickey were WRONG when they described an explosion from the top right side of the head, and failed to mention an explosion from the low back of the head behind the ear, where you propose the large head wound was located? Regarding the string of witnesses you are citing, here is my opinion as to their credibility: William Newman, Gayle Newman, Emmett Hudson, Charles Brehm - - important witnesses, whose initial statements are significant and must be taken seriously. Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman. . . a "special case" because Zapruder, I believe, was approached by the "government" within a day, and "talked to." However, I think his original WFAA statement in the Jay Watson interview was a truthful account of what he saw, from his perspective. As for Sitzman, I don't think she was interviewed until 1966, by Josiah Thompson. (If I'm wrong, please do correct me on this). All four motorcycle cops--questionable, because of their likely prior involvement in this affair. The Secret Service agents you cite: questionable, for the same reason: that's correct, prior involvement of Emory Roberts and Kellerman (and others) in the plot (and/or the coverup) Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers: questionable, because of influence of "the [Kennedy] family," their accounts cannot be trusted. After all is said and done. . what remains, essentially, is the Parkland medical record. That's far more important than anything seen in Dealey Plaza, because the Parkland witnesses had a close-up view, and it lasted for minutes, in the setting of an Emergency Room, whereas the Dealey Plaza witnesses had just seconds. DSL

DUPE - -deleted.

Pat, there is a 10 roll microfilm collection of all articles published (as I recall) in Texas newspapers for the 4 day period following the assassination. I spent weeks poring over this material some 20 years ago, creating notebooks for each newspaper--i.e., the two major newspapers in each of the 5 cities scheduled for the Texas visit. As I recall, this collection includes both Houston newspapers, the Post and the Chronicle. The microfilms, at that point, were located at the UCLA Research Library (I think). Email me for further data. DSL

Jim, Please note the following sequence: (1) I first saw the "blacked out rear of the head" --circa, 1965, 1966--as they appeared in the black and white photographs of LIFE published in the 11/29/63 issue; and then in the color photographs when published in the LIFE Memorial Edition (approx 12/7/63). Of course, since these images were published in a magazine, there was always the possibility that the "blacked out area" was the result of Life's art work, and done for reasons of taste. (2) The matter escalated (somewhat) when, in the school year 1966-67, and when attending Prof. Liebeler's UCLA Law School Seminar on the Warren COmmission, Liebeler arranged for the Life "4 x 5 transparencies" to be made available to the class, for study, at the Beverly Hills Office of Time-Life. It was then obvious that the "blacked out area" was on the transparencies. Of course, this did not preclude the possibility that (as noted in point (1) above--that this blacking out was done on the instructions of Life's senior management --and this was a distinct possibility that by then I knew, from Paul Hoch's work, that Life's color plates had been changed, at the last minute, and a caption changed, to either confuse or mislead concerning the frames depicting the head snap. (See my essay, Pig on a Leash). (3) The matter escalated subsantially further when, in June, 1970, and with the help of famed film maker Haskell Wexler--and with Wexler's company, DOVE FILMS, posing as the possibly interested buyer--I was able to arrange for Life's Director of Photography, Richard Pollard, to send all the key items to the Beverly Hills Office of Time Life. These included: (a) The 4 x5 transparencies (which I had already seen in 1966-67 (b ) The 35 mm print made from a 35 mm internegative, made by Weitzman (c ) A 16mm reduction color positive, made from the 35mm internegative (mentioned in (b ). To my considerable surprise--and that of Jack Clemente, an optics expert from China Lake Naval Air Station (who was a good friend of mine)--the blacked out area appeared on the 35 mm materials. This --once and for all--removed any possibility of the "innocent explanation" that Life's management had ordered specific film frames "cleaned up" for public consumption. It then became apparent that the "blacked out area" was an integral part of the (supposed) "camera original" and the question became how did this happen? It was around this time--specifically, in 1969--that I first became aware of the car-stop witnesses, and in November, 1971, I went to Dallas and interviewed them, with a reel to reel tape recorder. These interviews confirmed my belief that the limo briefly stopped, and I do not accept the notion that these witnesses were wrong, mistaken, or suffered from some memory impairment. Finally, in 1990, I was able to obtain temporary access to one of the Weitzman originals--i.e., the 35mm progenitor of the very materials Life had shipped. It was eminently clear to me, just from viewing that item on an Oxberry optical printer, that the back of the head had been blacked out, as has been described by others. All of this is described in my essay PIG ON A LEASH. THere's much more that could be said about this, but that's enough for this post. In 1998, at JFK Lancer, I gave a talk on this subject. At the time, I had a color reversal internegative ("CRI") made, and transferred to video, so that what appears to be a "blacked out area" then appears as a "whited out area" in the reversed image. I projected that several times, to show how obvious it is. I do not buy into the notion that this is normal, or "just a shadow," or anything of the kind. Further, I fully accept the proposition that, if the Z film was altered, then yes, other films had to be altered too. I'm not saying we know the answers to all this --just yet--but the notion that the witnesses who saw the car stop were all mistaken, and that the blacked out area has an "innocent explanation" is, to me, very far fetched, and completely implausible. As I have said many times, the plot to kill President Kennedy incorporated plans to alter the body to create the false appearance that the shots came from Oswald's rifle, located in the Texas School Book Depository. The same plot also included plans to alter civilian imagery--if the need arose. The philosophy apparently was similar to what happens on the set of a movie: if something "goes wrong," why we'll "fix it in post" (meaning, in "post production.") Well, plenty went wrong--and the result is a clear trail of evidence that both JFK's body (i.e.,his wounds) were altered, as well as the alteration of some of the civilian imagery. I have no doubt this is what happened; what remains to be answered are some of the details of exactly how films were collected, and altered, so rapidly. The Zapruder film was the "flagship" of the collection; and its reasonable to focus on that; but, if the limo halted briefly, then other films had to be altered as well. The last vestige of the "lone assassin disguise" will drop away when unimpeachable evidence is adduced that the key films were altered. At that point, the extensive nature of this plot will be obvious, as will be the shallowness and silliness of those who persist in viewing conspiracy as being proven by the evidence of a "second shooter." As I have said for many years--and this is a statement with which ARRB senior staffer Doug Horne agrees--the key to this case is "fraud in the evidence." That's what this case is all about, and its the presence of falsified evidence that stands in the way of the truth about Dallas being known. DSL; 1/09/12; 11:35 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

[snip] Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes. Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"? Mrs. ROBERTS. No. Mr. BALL. Did you say anything about the President being shot? Mrs. ROBERTS. No. I don't think there's any mystery as to who ran into the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley around 1 p.m. Earlene Roberts' account--that it was Oswald, who ran in, and then ran out, zippering up a jacket he had donned--is in the accounts published in both Dallas newspapers, the New York Times, carried in all the media, and then documented in FBI reports based on interviews that took place promptly. Why does it matter that, months later, when under oath, there's a minor glitch when, asked a question designed to permit her to tell her story, there's a brief moment of confusion. I don't believe the passage you've isolated, from the transcript, in any way undercuts the account she provided multiple times, starting on the afternoon of 11/22/63. DSL David Josephs: I only am addressing one point in your post--which seems to me to imply an equivalence between the Earlene Roberts identification of Oswald and the Butch Burroughs observation(s). I don't believe there is any basis for comparing the validity of these two identifications. One is of Oswald by Earline Roberts-whom obviously knew Oswald quite well, since he boarded there—and the other is a statement made by Butch Burroughs, at the Texas Theater, who saw Oswald (or rather, claims to have seen Oswald) once in his life, and says he sold him some popcorn. There’s no comparison when it comes to the quality and reliability of these two observations. Out of the Earlene Roberts identification comes what any court of law would call a "fact"--i.e., that Oswald ran into the rooming house, that Roberts saw him, made the remark she did, and that Oswald then ran out, zipping up a jacket. I don’t see that there is any reasonable basis for doubting this. Out of the Butch Burroughs statement comes something that is simply inaccurate, is wrong, and leads to a spurious and incorrect reconstruction. And that false reconstruction, of course, fuels "two Oswald" hypothesis that (apparently) appeals to so many. In evaluating testimony--and juries do this every day of the week--there has to be some degree of common sense exercised as to what is the "confidence level" of the observation. I would rate Earlene Roberts observation up around 95%, because there's no question she knew who Oswald was; there can be practically no doubt about her knowledge of her own boarder was when he ran into the rooming house, and then back out; whereas I would put the Butch Burroughs statement (that he sold Oswald popcorn) down around 15%. There’s just no comparison between the quality of these two pieces of “data”. As for William Whaley's statement: he went through this again and again, with reporters, and with the FBI. I don't think there's any question but that it was Oswald. To recap the situation (as I see it): The "strong" witnesses—those who previously knew Oswald and could make a positive identification--are Bledsoe (on the McWatters bus) and Earlene Roberts at the rooming house. Only be rejecting the accounts of these two witnesses --both of whom knew Oswald quite well, and who could (and did) make immediate (and positive) identifications--is it possible to overturn the official version (i.e., the official time line) from the time Oswald boarded the McWatters bus, through the cab ride back to the rooming house, and attempt to substitute--in its stead--a flimsy and implausible hypothesis involving a "second Oswald" who ran into the rooming house, while an "innocent" and supposedly unwitting Oswald somehow went from Dealey Plaza to the Texas Theater, where he was watching an Audie Murphy movie, only to be pounced on by the DPD after a patrolman was murdered nearby. I don't find any of that reasonable or valid. I think it is a totally false and fanciful reconstruction, and is not supported by credible evidence. DSL 1/6/11 8 PM PST Los Angeles, CA POSTSCRIPT, 1/8/11: When I wrote the above post, I was under the mistaken impression that Burroughs had (perhaps) testified that he sold popcorn to LHO, and was explaining why I would not give that much credence. But reviewing the situation, its now clear that Burroughs was deposed by a Warren Commission lawyer back in 1964, and that his testimony makes no mention at all of selling popcorn to Oswald. In fact, the popcorn story--from what I can see--does not come up until some 30 years later, when it appears in a CTKA article by John Armstrong. Burroughs was deposed on April 8, 1964. The transcript is in Volume 7 of the WC's 26 volumes. Here is a snippet: QUOTE: Mr. Ball. Did you see that man come in the theatre? Mr. Burroughs. No, sir; I didn't. Mr. Ball. Do you have any idea what you were doing when he came in? Mr. Burroughs. Well, I was----I had a lot of stock candy to count and put in the candy case for the coming night, and if he had came around in front of the concession out there, I would have seen him, even though I was bent down, I would have seen him, but otherwise I think he sneaked up the stairs real fast. UNQUOTE So Burroughs, for some reason, was under the impression that Oswald was upstairs. Anyway, there's no mention at all of any sale of popcorn. So I see no reason whatsoever to give that story, which is first told decades later, any credence whatsoever. DSL; 1/8/12; 5:20 AM PST

Yes, Jim. You are correct. And the DPD officer was either Jezz or Poe, who told her something to the effect that "Lady, you can take it to the bank. I was there. It was Oswald's wallet" etc. However, in my post, I was just relying on what Barrett (who was there, as Capt. Westbrook held the wallet in his hand) told me what Westbrook said (as he thumbed through the wallet). Barrett related this to me first on the phone, and then in a detailed followup filmed interviewed. He said that when he arrived at the Tippit murder scene, Captain Westbrook, who he knew, motioned him to come over. He said Westbrook had in his hand a wallet. He didn't show Barrett the contents of the wallet. He saidmply aid "Do you know 'Oswald'? Do you know 'Hidell'?" Barrett said it was clear he was getting the names from the wallet. He said that Westbrook was looking at the wallet as he was asking him these questions. He said that he didn't know where he got the wallet rom, or how he got it, etc. . .he was simply standing there with the wallet in his hand. Barrett told me he had arrived at the Tippit murder scene when the body "had just been taken away." Of course, this is completely at variance with the position taken by Dale Myers, author of With Malice, who accepts Oswald as Tippit's murderer, and--with regard to the wallet incident--tried to claim Agent Barrett was just confused (i.e., that he was confusing something said later in the day with what he witnessed at the site of the Tippit murder). Barrett found this ludicrous--a point he made very clear in my filmed interview. Of course, if Barrett is correct, then Dale Myers' entire thesis goes down the drain. It also would mean that the reports made by a clique of DPD officers claiming that they "found" Oswald's wallet in his pocket (on the ride back to the police station) are false, and represent perjury and obstruction of justice. Of course, the last thing the top level DPD wanted was for Oswald--arrested alive--to be validated as a witness to the Tippit murder, rather than the murderer himself. The key to understanding Oswald's psychology--and much of what he said after his arrest--is understanding that Oswald was a witness to the Tippit murder, which was probably an event originally intended to end with his death. Barrett also described to me, on camera, what happened at the theater. And how Oswald was exclaiming, at some point, "I am not resisting arrest!" DSL 1/5/12; 6:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

I don't have time just now to critique each and every claim you make in this post, but let's start with this one: QUOTE: Posted Yesterday, 06:42 PM David... Mr. L.... you, nor anyone else has can say who ran into that house - other than from Roberts' words... none. No corroboration... no one sees Oswald between this room and the theater... NOONE David - in a residential neighborhood in the 60's with mom's kids and elderly at home... Nothing. So please... the corroboration of the evidence... the authentication of evidence - which includes FBI reports... is paramount. UNQUOTE MY RESPONSE: ". . . no one sees Oswald. . ."? ". . . no one. . . "?? I think you're completely wrong. You're conveniently omitting all the Tippit witnesses. Or have we simply forgotten about that event? How can you make such a claim when there all those witnesses who identified Oswald, in lineup (and within a day, if not hours, to reporters) as the man seen fleeing from the scene of the Tippit murder? Do you think this is all contrived? All fabricated? I'm no fan of David Belin (nor do I believe that Oswald shot Tippit) but the evidence cited in the Warren Report about the man who ran away cannot be dismissed with a wave of the hand (which seems to be your position). Perhaps you ought to review this situation, one witness at a time, before blithely making such assertions. As I've often said, in discussing this matter with other researchers, it helps to visualize the situation by visualizing it like a movie, and then running it "in reverse". Analyzed that way, it seems pretty evident that Oswald was the person (or at least "a" person) running from the scene, shedding a jacket, and eventually ducking into the theater. For starters: Johnny Calvin Brewer--do you doubt his identification of Oswald, who he saw in the vestibule of the shoe store where he worked? (A positive identification made immediately, when Oswald was arrested a short while later, inside the theater). Then, go back to the parking lot. . and Then from there go back to the scene on the street (at 10th and Patton); The shooting occurs on 10th, Oswald is seen by witnesses on 10th: Scoggins, Benavides, Markham, the Davis sisters, etc. Finally, there is the matter of Oswald's wallet. FBI agent Bob Barrett (who related all this to Hosty, and talked about it repeatedly in a college class as early as 1983) states that Oswald's wallet was found at the scene, and I personally interviewed Barrett, in detail, about this. I first interviewed him by phone, and then on camera, at his home in Alabama-- in July, 1998. I gave a talk about it, at Lancer, 1998, and showed key parts of the film). FBI Agent Barrett was right there when Capt Westbrook, wallet in hand, read out the contents, saying, "Have you ever heard of (or "Do you know") a Lee Oswald? An Alex Hidell? etc." He related all this to Hosty, who published it in his book "Assignment Oswald," published in 1996. So, as far as Barrett was concerned, and based on what he personally witnessed and heard Captain Westbrook saying, as he held the wallet in his hand, that was Lee Oswald's wallet. In making the above statements, I am not claiming Oswald shot Tippit. I am stating that Oswald was there, that he ran away, and then ducked into the Texas Theater. These attempts to make it appear that Oswald wasn't there at all, that he didn't run from the scene, that he didn't duck into the theater without paying for a ticket (because, I think, he had handed his wallet, through the window, to Tippit, who was then shot). . I think these attempts are fruitless, and lead nowhere. If my analysis is correct, Oswald posed a very serious threat to the official story, not only because of any light he could shed on what happened at the TBSD, but because (in addition) he was a critical "Tippit witness" as well. These attempts to make it appear that he wasn't even there, and that he was was some kind of a schmuck who stupidly "followed orders" and was beguiled into going to the movies (where he could be conveniently "found" after a patrolman was murdered in the area) -- I find this completely implausible and far too hard to believe, although its become apparent, over time, that it is precisely this notion (or some variant) that is what the "two Oswald" theorists apparently subscribe to. DSL 1/5/11 6 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

This exhibit concerns Marina Oswald being shown 448 photographs on March 19, 1964, and asked to identify them (if she can). On a nearby page of this very long exhibit (which runs 462 pages in all), appears the following item: B22-1 which carries this description (presumably provided by Marina): "A photograph of Karl Marx similar to one in possession of Lee Harvey Oswald." I never heard of LHO possessing a picture of Karl Marx before--either in a wallet, a "family photo album", or in a size that might be affixed to a wall (as LHO did with the photo of Castro). If anyone knows of any testimony, book excerpt, FBI report, or news account to that effect, please let me know. Thank you. DSL 1/4/12 (7:30 PM PST) Los Angeles, CA

I don't think Marina's inability to "identify this photograph" or her inability to "identify positively the handwriting which is written on this page" means very much until we can see just what it was she was looking at. (Nor would I assume that Marina was sufficiently expert on what LHO's signature looked like, to make a legally meaningful "identification".) Also, according to the FBI transmittal memo at the beginning of this document, this was one of 448 items shown to her on March 19. 1964, and who knows what her reaction was to a situation in which she was asked to view (and identify, or comment upon) 448 items in a single day. IMHO: The positive development here is that now we know what the FBI Exhibit number is on the Bledsoe Calendar page: its "D-91." So: with that information, it should be possible for NARA to track down this exhibit, and make a copy. (I can make such a request. that part is easy. But be prepared for NARA to take quite a while to locate the item. And then it would probably cost between $35 and $50 for a print). I do hope someone contacts Charles Hamilton in New York to see if the buyer of the original can be located. If so, perhaps the buyer can be contacted to see what price he (or she) might want for the item. Possibly, the Sixth Floor Museum might be interested in purchasing it. Certainly, it seems like a relevant piece of evidence). Just speculating: if the price was $250 in 1965, that would be about $1500 in today's money; and any buyer would probably want considerably more than that, to make the transaction worth his (or her) while. So I would assume that for the original to be coaxed out of the original buyer's hands, several thousand dollars might be needed. As to why the news item says that Oswald's signature was written "laboriously," I don't suppose we'll know until at least a copy can be located. Perhaps Oswald was standing up, when he wrote it, or standing in a doorway, with a suitcase in one hand. . writing on a clipboard. Who knows. . its all speculation until at least a copy of the item can be viewed). DSL