David Lifton

Thanks Lee... and yes - I agree, the point is NOT whether those offering evidence are being truthful... but whether what/who they saw was authentic or not... a doctor looking at a faked/altered xray will tell you what the Xray says... NOT whether the xray is authentic - we need Mantik for that... Let's go down this path for a second please Lee - I'd like your take.. How does Oswald REALLY get from Baker/Truly to the theater... and where does he actually stop? i.e. Roger Craig's (Ruth's) Station Wagon? - So he NEVER goes to his room or does he make the stop... hears the horn... and leaves VIA the police vehicle which takes him to the theater? I think if we construct a timeline removing all current knowledge from the equation... we need to get our patsy to the theater ahead of the guy that ducks in, the guy Brewer sees.... So first we need to see if he REALLY went to his room... In the same vein as Beldsoe... could Roberts here have been coached a bit? This is once again CLASSIC Ball questioning and leading of the witnesses.... Mrs. ROBERTS. He didn't come home on Thursday night that week. Mr. BALL. And Friday was the day the President was shot? Had you seen him at any time that Friday before the officers came up and knocked on your door? Mrs. ROBERTS. No. Mr. BALL. Hadn't he been home? Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, let's see--that was the day. Mr. BALL. That was on a Friday--- Mrs. ROBERTS. Wait a minute, let me think of it. Mr. BALL. That's on a Friday. Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry. Mr. BALL. And about what time was this? 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

Dan, your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake. But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in. http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45 The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings. On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it? The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son. Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239 Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks. Mr. Parker, The evidence you cite only further demolishes the argument you have made, and in fact serves to validate the fact that Oswald roomed at Bledsoe's residence for the week starting 10/7/63. Yes, the FBI--hearing about the calendar page--called in Porter Bledsoe, and made a copy of the page. That means there is an FBI exhibit number on that item, and it is surely in the FBI files. Then, in December, 1965, the son (Porter Bledsoe) took it to Charles Hamilton and there it was sold at auction. The story about this auction was published in the Dallas Times Herald; and the FBI--being dutiful news clippers--made a copy of that, too, and put it in their files. All of this is very interesting, but how does any of it invalidate the item as evidence that Oswald roomed there?? The only way it does if one buys into your "analysis" of what this means. Surely you don't believe that Porter Bledsoe gave fraudulent evidence to the FBI--and then sold his "original" at auction? I mean really. . . is that your theory?? All I know is what you wrote: "The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it at that." No, they didn't "allegedly" take a copy; they actually made a copy of it--that's a fact--and there's an FBI 302 report about that. (Surely you do know that). That means that the FBI then sent that item to its lab, which means that somewhere in the FBI files is almmost certainly an FBI Lab report on what the Lab said. I don't know what that report says, but its something that ought to be located, and/or filed for under the FOIA. But I soundly reject your argument, which is nothing but a series of unfounded assertions. Here's what you wrote: QUOTE: There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. UNQUOTE This argument is pure bunk. It is totally unfounded, and nothing more than your unfounded theorizing. You might recall what Carl Sagan used to say: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Indeed, the fact that the original of this item was sold at auction, and particularly, the fact that it was sold by Charles Hamilton (a respected auction house that will not just sell any old thing, based on specious claims as to what "it" is) constitutes further evidence that (a) the original of this item existed (b ) that it passed muster at the auction house and (c ) that it was sold to some buyer. So what we have is the following situation: (a) documentary evidence that existed that established that Oswald roomed at Bledsoe's rooming house (b ) A copy of the document was made by the FBI, in early December, as I recall, and went into the FBI files (and was probably sent to the Lab, for examination) (c ) A record of that transmittal, including what the lab said, is almost certainly in FBI files--and probably can be (and ought to be ) located. (d) THe original item was sold at auction, by Charles Hamilton, in December, 1965 (e) A record exists of the buyer, at Charles Hamilton--i.e., in principle, the buyer could be located, and the original still examined. (f) The FBI duly noted the sale of this item, in its files--which is a credit to their record keeping system. And what do you say to all of this? "I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why [they] did not keep it--much less examine it." Sorry, my friend, you are really barking up the wrong tree. I think the evidence indicates exactly the opposite. Based on Bledsoe's testimony, it is clear that Oswald roomed there. Now, with this news story, it is clear what became of the original calendar page. Should the FBI have kept the original calendar page? Yes, I think they ought to have. But. . so what? IMHO: You have built a hypothesis about the fraudulence of this item which is totally unjustified, and without foundation. If you are truly interested in pursuing this further, then contact the Hamilton people, and ask two questions: (1) What was the nature of the "due diligence" that they conducted, before selling this item? (2) Who was the buyer? (Alternatively, might you communicate with the buyer?) In addition, search for and locate the actual FBI copy of the item--because you can be sure its in an FBI file, and very likely was sent to the FBI Laboratory, for a routine examination. I strongly suggest that you reign in your attempt to assert the original was a forgery, simply because it was sold at auction. I don't see the logic of that--at all. I also reject your other statement: "Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing". In other words,you've got a "conspiracy theory" that even extends to Oswald's handwriting, on the document that establishes he was there--even though he signed it in Bledsoe's presence! What kind of "reasoning" is this? My advice (again): Go find the original, by contacting Hamilton; or locate the copy, in FBI files. And stop theorizing about what you "think it means" before you even examine the evidence. Oh yes. . and one other thing. . just how long have you known about this Dallas Times Herald news story, showing the dispostion of the original? (And didn't it occur to you, when you located it, that "Uh oh. . there goes my pet hypothesis?" And is that reason you're doing your level best to put this "spin" on a story that in fact clears up a loose end, and consigns the "Bledsoe wasn't his landlady" hypothesis to the dustbin? DSL 1/4/11; 6 AM PST Los Angeles, California

Hi Dan, Thanks for your positive responds. I hope my post clarified the issue; whether it persuades people to change their mind is another matter. I noticed that Greg Parker, in responding to your post, cited "page 4" of a particular thread. I looked at "page 4" of that thread. I don't see where anyone posted the links to those 3 FBI reports, as I did. (In fact, I don't see a link to any one of them). If/when Parker clarifies his post (and drops the insults) perhaps it deserves a response. DSL Drop the insults? You always demand a response, even when 90% of your post is one long insult. But you can use that as an excuse if you want. If it wasn't that, you'd have another excuse, or diversion, lined up anyway. For those interested, see post # 53 here http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45 by Duke. In reading some of the thread again, I am reminded that me and Duke also had a "war" against each other - perhaps nearly as "mean-spirited" as that alleged between Lee and Lifton. It got to the point where Duke left. I don't know if it was my persuasion, but he did come back. The success of that thread was greatly assisted because of his return. So what was the difference? In retrospect, I believe the difference between the two conflicts was a matter of mutual respect. Duke and I had that at the start, and it won out (eventually) over personality conflicts. David S Lifton on the other hand, entered the thread with zero respect for anyone harboring doubts about Bledsoe. And that lack of respect showed from the get-go. End of reminiscences regarding the Dukester. If you now go to post # 55, you'll see I mention the second FBI report and provide a link to the third. So David's continual harping that no one on that thread knew about those reports until he came along, and that therefore, they were given no consideration, is completely and utterly bogus. I'm not buying any of this. The posts you cite constitute scattered references to these FBI pages, where the focus seems to be the number of holes in Oswald's shirt. Presentation is everything; so is focus. My focus was then--and still is now--against the notion that Bledsoe wasn't even on the bus. To appreciate the power of the message transmitted by these three interviews, they must be presented as a triplet. That's exactly what I did. I presented them as a triplet, provided the links, and argued that it was not just improbable, but absurd to believe that Bledsoe lied three times in eight days to five different FBI agents. The difference between my approach, and that of the two post(s) you are citing is the difference between looking at the forest and getting lost by focusing on some bark on one of the trees. From the outset, I was focused on the big picture--was she there? (not. . "how many holes were there in the shirt? And did she mess up in describing that?" etc) The posts you cite concern the question of whether Oswald had a hole in the left or right elbow, on the shirt he was wearing, when Bledsoe saw him board the bus. There's no comparison. I stand by my statement that I was the first person to present these reports as a triplet, and say: Do you folks understand what this means? Yes, she was really there. Mary Bledsoe was on the McWatters bus, and said so, three times in eight days, to five different FBI agents, the first time being on November 23, 1963. And no, I don't think that the proponents of the "Bledsoe wasn't there" hypothesis, or the notion that "Bledsoe wasn't Oswald's landlady" hypothesis had any true understanding of the importance of the existence of THREE FBI interviews in eight days attesting to, supporting, and essentially validating, her story. DSL 1/4/12; 5:20 AM Los Angeles,CA

Hi Karl, Its not at all clear to me why anyone--much less yourself--would write that I "buys central parts of [the Warren Report]". For over 40 years, I have believed that Oswald was (a) innocent of JFK's assassination, (b ) was a patsy (as he said);and (c ) was framed. What perhaps differentiates me from some others is that I have a very complete understanding of "how"he was framed, and realize that it revolves around a falsified autopsy, which in turn was based on an altered body. Consequently, where I draw the line between "the deceiver and the deceived" is possibly different than where others do. I have a very clear understanding played by the role of deception in this case. Many do not. They actually subscribe to the notion that "the case against Oswald" is the result of a bunch of people who simply lied. But that's not what happened in the Kennedy case. The "case against Oswald" is the result of falsified evidence,which deceived the investigation(s). The rifle is real; the shells are real; the sniper's nest was "real." What was falsified was the autopsy, via corruption of the body itself; and the films. Those who mistakenly believe that the Warren Report is simply the result of a pack of lies told by the Warren Commission staff are wrong. If you go to the National Archives and read through the voluminous files of the WC staff, it will become immediately apparent that they proceeded down the garden path because they were led there via falsified evidence. Now let's return to Mary Bledsoe, for a moment; and let's compare her situation with that of Commander Humes, at the autopsy. One of the reasons I believe that on Friday night, November 22, 1963, Commander Humes (et al) could not find a path for a missile through the body of JFK is that that's exactly what he said--and he said it in front of two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, who wrote down his words, and filed a report--known as an FBI 302 report (or, in this case, as the Sibert and O'Neill report). Because of that FBI report stating what the agents witnessed, the "later" version of events--i.e.,the official autopsy report, stating that there was a legitimate "back to front" path through Kennedy's body, is rejected by many (including me). That's the power of an "early" FBI report. In the case of Mary Bledsoe, there are --by analogy--THREE such FBI reports: one on 11/23, another on 11/28, and a third on 12/4. Three times Mary Bledsoe was interviewed; three times she averred she was on the bus; five agents in all interivewed her; three reports were written. I believe her story because she told the same story "early" and the told it three times. In addition, she said the same thing in her Dallas Police affidavit--on 11/23/63. So that makes FOUR times. Two of those Four times precede the Henry Wade news conference (on 11/24) in which he garbled the facts, and made a mess of things. If you were in an ordinary auto accident and told the same story FOUR times, in such a brief period of time (as Bledsoe did), it really would not matter that, five months later, when you testified, and perhaps spoke haltingly (because of a stroke), your testimony was attacked and criticized. Your legitimate response could well be: "Look, I'm not doing very well today, but I already told this story FOUR times." That's exactly the way I feel about Mary Bledsoe. I really don't see what the problem is. I believe her,about being on the bus when Oswald boarded, for the same reason(s) that I believe FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, who witnessed the autopsy. They were present, and watched Humes conduct the exam. They wrote down what he said. THere was no path for a bullet from back to front through the body--that's what Humes said on Friday night, 11/22/63. Similarly, Mary Bledsoe gave her version of events FOUR times in eight days. Now if two FBI agents had been on the bus, and were present when Oswald boarded, she could have pointed to him, and told them, "See that fellow, I know him. He roomed at my residence for a week starting on October 7 1963." Of course, two FBI agents were NOT present on the McWatters bus, but I am making an analogy. I am trying to explain why I believe Mary Bledsoe. I believe Bledsoe because she essentially provided the same account FOUR times in eight days, and each time it was written down. I don't think there's anything mysterious or particularly complicated about this. I'm not concerned whether she was confused in April, 1964, when she was deposed. I'm focused on what she said in the immediate aftermath. Also please note: The fact that Oswald boarded the McWatters bus about 12:40 PM does not make him guilty of Kennedy's assassination--but it certainly does "rain on the parade" of those who fervently believe there are "two Oswalds" or some such thing, and that an imposter was involved in the events starting a few minutes after Kennedy's death. I don't subscribe to any of that, and that's why I have no problem, at all, with Oswald being on McWatters bus, and then being the passenger in Whaley's cab. I maintain that none of this is inconsistent with him being innocent of JFK's assassination. Now let's return to your final sentence, and I quote: "The only motive to read the WR today, is to find out how they lied." I disagree. The motive for reading the WR today is to understand how "they" were deceived. Because only if one understands how the deception worked, can one understand why the legal record in this case "looks" as it does, and, consequently, Warren Report reads as it does--and that is true whether the issue is Mary Bledsoe, or JFK's autopsy. DSL 1/4/12; 5 AM Los Angeles, CA.

Hi Dan, Thanks for your positive responds. I hope my post clarified the issue; whether it persuades people to change their mind is another matter. I noticed that Greg Parker, in responding to your post, cited "page 4" of a particular thread. I looked at "page 4" of that thread. I don't see where anyone posted the links to those 3 FBI reports, as I did. (In fact, I don't see a link to any one of them). If/when Parker clarifies his post (and drops the insults) perhaps it deserves a response. DSL

Hello Don, Thanks for the information. In January, 1983, shortly after I received copies of the autopsy photographs, Pat Valentino and I went to Dallas where we showed the pictures to as many of the Dallas doctors and nurses that could be located. The last doctor we saw, en route back to the airport, was Dr. Giesecke. None of the doctors had seen the photos before, and in the Epilogue to the 1988 (Carrol and Graf) edition of BEST EVIDENCE, I described their reaction. I just spoke with Pat, and he is checking his records, because--as he just reminded me--we made a tape of our impressions immediately afterwards. The two of us may prepare a small write-up, and if we do, I'll post it here. DSL 1/3/12 9:50 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

[snipped] Joe, (snipped, to save space) [snipped] 2.) I don't know why you give such a huge crap about the Mary Bledsoe story and feel the need to rush to its defense. Nor why you use it to bash anyone in the JFK case that annoys you but this nonsense has to stop. The Mary Bledsoe story is 100% FAKE! I am more confident of that than I am of knowing what my own name is. I will go over every bit of testimony, cross referencing all of it, I will go over every word, every version of every story told by every witness. I'll go over it street by street. I'll take you by the hand and walk the whole damn bus route with you if you want the next time your in Dallas for a JFK conference. You have got to get it into your head its made up xxxx. They boxed themselves into a corner making an amalgamation of two completely different women, neither of whom was Bledsoe, to give credibility to the story of Oswald's escape via public transport, and to give credibility of the story D.A. Henry Wade told Sunday night, after Oswald was dead, that Oswald laughed when he told a woman that the president was shot. When examined carefully the entire story of LHO ever being on McWalters bus falls apart. Everything destroys it. The witnesses destroy each other, simple geography destroys it. Only a total fool would believe it. They needed a woman who normally took that bus, who would know Oswald, and recite back a story told to her. They found Mary Bledsoe. They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her. There is no evidence that she really was Oswald's landlady. None. No mail for Oswald was redirected there. There's no receipt for the rent. No independent eyewitness ever saw him at Bledsoe's. There's nothing, except Bledsoe let slip the idea that he left some of his luggage behind. And the WC guys zero in on that. And even that goes nowhere. Even she wants to scream stop asking me about his damn luggage. The idea that Mary Bledsoe having had a stroke now makes he story more credible to you is a sick joke. Strokes do not improve memory or brain function. A stroke kills a part of the brain. As a medical expert in this case you should know that. I believe you posted the FBI reports you think rescue her story. I'll look at them again. But, I assure you they do not. It's not a theory David. It's very simple cross examination of the evidence. It's fact. Oswald was not on that bus. Nor was Bledsoe. Instead of examining the evidence in an intelligent, logical fashion you've got it stuck in your craw that Bledsoe is actively lying, that she came forward to lie, that she is part of a conspiracy. No. She is used by idiots to tell a story they want told, period. Bledsoe couldn't tell you what day it was without EDIT, even if you told her what day it was and gave her 20 chances to get it right. McWatters couldn't tell you what his name was without saying, "In other words..." These are poor, working class, blue collar, uneducated people. They are being used and they don't know it. Bledsoe isn't some kind of evil genius. She's a moron. But unlike McWatters they don't give up on her. She's the only way out for them for this impossible story. Joe Backes Joe, I couldn't disagree more. And here's where I believe your theory breaks down. Just consider what you have written: QUOTE: They needed a woman who normally took that bus, who would know Oswald, and recite back a story told to her. They found Mary Bledsoe. They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her. There is no evidence that she really was Oswald's landlady. None. No mail for Oswald was redirected there. There's no receipt for the rent. No independent eyewitness ever saw him at Bledsoe's. There's nothing, except Bledsoe let slip the idea that he left some of his luggage behind. UNQUOTE Now read the 3 FBI reports I have cited. Again, here are the links: First FBI interview, 11/23/63, by FBI Agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, 340-341) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=329103&imageOnly=true 2nd FBI interview; 11/28/63; by FBI Agent Bardwell Odum; (CD 5, 342-344) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=347 3rd interview: 12/4/63; by FBI agents Brown and Butler (CD 7, pp 302 – 303) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=330120 CD 7 About the shirt (but she goes through it again, that she saw him enter the bus); 12/4/63 Now consider --that is, reconsider--what you have written: "They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her." Now the question I pose comes down to this: "Who are 'they'?" Your analysis implies that all this skullduggery takes place prior to Bledsoe's Warren Commission testimony--but the 3 FBI reports prove otherwise; those three FBI reports make clear that Bledsoe told her story to FBI agent on 11/23/63--and then again in two more FBI interviews. INSERT ADDED ON 1/3/12: Also please note: Mary Bledsoe provided her account to the FBI on Saturday, November 23, a full day before the Sunday (11/24) press conference held by District Attorney Wade, in which he made a hash of so many facts. So this notion that Bledsoe was dragged out to present a false account which would lend credibility to what Wade had said on Sunday evening is provably false--again: her initial FBI interview (by agents Harrison and Wier, CD 5, pp 340-341, the first of the 3 links I posted--was a full day prior to Wade's news conference) . END OF INSERT So this notion--a seriously oversimplified notion, imho--that Mary Bledsoe told a false story, as a result of some "prepping" prior to April 2, 1964, when she was deposed in Dallas by WC attorneys Jenner and Belin, is belied by the fact that she told the same story on November 23, 1963, to FBI agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, pp 340-341) and then again to FBI Agent Bardwell Odum (on 11/28/63) and then again to FBI agents Brown and Butler on 12/4/63. So the entire notion that her account is a Warren Commission fabrication, is provably false. It is recorded in a sequence of three separate FBI reports starting on November 23, 1963. As you well know, there was no "Warren Commission" back then. The Commission wasn't created until 11/29/63, and the lawyers didn't report for work until early January, 1964--but Mary Bledsoe's account was already a matter of record in three FBI reports, starting the day after the assassination. Consequently, the entire notion that her account was a concoction of the Warren Commission is provably false. (INSERT: . . as is the notion that she was somehow "trotted out" to corroborate what Wade said on Sunday, is false, since she provided her account a full day before, on Saturday, 11/23) So now, if you wish to argue that Mary Bledsoe's story is false, you must argue that between the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and the very next day (Saturday, November 23) Mary Bledsoe was induced to fabricate this entire story of (a ) having known Oswald as her boarder, and (b ) of having seen him (indeed, immediately recognized him) when he boarded McWatters' bus at Elm and Murphy--and then somehow induced to tell this completely false story to two FBI agents on Saturday, November 23--and not only that, but then to repeat it again on November 28, 1963, and then still again on December 4, 1963. And then, to appear before two Warren Commission attorneys on April 2, 1964, and go through it all again. So if Bledsoe is "in on it" --i.e., in on this "conspiracy to lie and fabricate"--she commits multiple felonies on November 23, 1963, does it again on November 28, 1963, and still again on December 4, 1963, and then finally --again commits perjury on April 2, 1964! Not only do I think that is highly implausible and unlikely--I think its perfectly absurd. As to what I call the "auxiliary hypothesis"--that Bledsoe wasn't Oswald's landlady (for a week, commencing 10/7/63)--the reason for some folks positing that is obvious: those who advance this preposterous hypothesis need to find a way of "proving" (in their minds) that Bledsoe could not possibly have legitimately "identified" Oswald on the McWatters bus, and so by saying Bledsoe was not his landlady, they remove the basis for that instant recognition. They not only compound her felonies (by saying she is lying about that, too) but then have the flimsy basis for believing that she could not have identified Oswald, as she did, because he never boarded with her (i.e., rented in her home) at 621 N. Marsalis in the first place! I don't believe any of this, and as far as I'm concerned, the obvious motive for those making these claims is that they do not want Oswald on McWatters bus because (instead) they passionately believe that he left Dealey Plaza in a station wagon, as reported by Roger Craig (and others). So that, imho, is really what's going on here. Of course, once they march down that path, they get tied up in all kinds of other complications: if Oswald was not on McWatters bus, then he was not the person in Whaley's cab; and if he was not the person in Whaley's cab, why then he was not the person who was dropped off by Whaley and ran into the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley, at around 1 p.m., and--finally--if he was not that person, then someone else ran into the rooming house (not Oswald) and so that leaves open the possibility (in the minds of those advancing all this) that Oswald couldn't have been at the scene of the Tippit murder, and perhaps was simply at the Texas Theater, watching the movie, when the police closed in on the theater and pounced on Oswald as Tippit's killer. Or some variation of this sequence. The details are unimportant. The ultimate goal is to completely overturn the "official timetable" by removing Oswald from McWatters' bus. I believe this entire line of analysis to be false--and the problem starts with this false notion that Mary Bledsoe, who had certainly been Oswald's landlady, for a week, starting on 10/7/63, and who certainly was a passenger on McWatters bus, did not immediately recognize Oswald when he boarded the bus, at approximately 12:40 P.M. One other thing: I believe your "social" commentary on Mary Bledsoe is also incorrect. You write: "These are poor, working class, blue collar, uneducated people. They are being used and they don't know it. Bledsoe isn't some kind of evil genius. She's a moron." Sorry, but she's a doctor's daughter, and I just don't see why you characterize her as you do. DSL 1/3/12; 5:15 AM PST Los Angeles, California PS: 1/3/12; 5:40 PM PST: See important "INSERT" above, re Wade's news conference, and its chronological relationship to first FBI interview, which preceded it by a full day. So much, then, for the theory that Bledsoe was being "used" to "cover" for Wade, and some of his bizarre and inaccurate statements. DSL

Thanks Gregg. I tried to keep it short. I could go on and on for days explaining everything, every scrap of info of the Bledsoe story. I could probably do it in 3 or 4 hours to walk people through it. Lifton hasn't bothered to do the work of cross examining everything with the Bledsoe story like he did with the medical evidence vis-a-vie Parkland vs. Bethesda. If he did he'd see its total bunk. But what's really galling is not only did he cheat and take a shortcut that it's insane to believe Bledsoe is lying and that she's a conspirator, which is deliberate, dishonest misdirection, but he bullies people with his total inability to work the evidence in the Bledsoe story. It's totally unacceptable. He's been doing it on this forum for some time and it's got to stop. Joe Joe, I did not "cheat and take a shortcut" etc. etc. The fact that Mary Bledsoe was (supposedly) a deliberate xxxx is exactly what I believed the chief proponent of this theory (in his many posts on the London Forum) has said, time after time. Now its very likely that you and he have different views on this situation--that I don't know. But rest assured that I went through all this months ago, that I reviewed it carefully, that I even found one or more newspaper accounts of interviews with bus driver McWatters (and sent one of them to the chief proponent of this "Bledsoe lied" hypothesis); and, finally that my views are all laid out, in detail, one one or more threads, and that I do not believe that Mary Bledsoe lied (or was used). I believe Mary Bledsoe was on the bus, that her original statement is truthful, and that her re-statement of the same facts, in three subsequent FBI interviews, with five different agents over the next 8 days, is also truthful. Yes, I am the person who dug up, and posted, the links to the three Mary Bledsoe FBI interviews. Here, from a memo I wrote for my own files last July, is a list of the three FBI interviews, along with the dates, the identities of the agents, and the links: Three FBI interviews of Mary Bledsoe - - From CD 5 and CD 7 (“first day evidence”) CD 5 –original interviews –two of them First FBI interview, 11/23/63, by FBI Agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, 340-341) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=329103&imageOnly=true 2nd FBI interview; 11/28/63; by FBI Agent Bardwell Odum; (CD 5, 342-344) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=347 3rd interview: 12/4/63; by FBI agents Brown and Butler (CD 7, pp 302 – 303) http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=330120 CD 7 About the shirt (but she goes through it again, that she saw him enter the bus); 12/4/63 It is my understanding that the chief proponent of this hypothesis did not know of these 3 FBI interviews at the time he advanced the hypothesis (and I have to wonder whether you, too, were aware of them). Absent these three FBI interviews, and focusing instead on the halting (and somewhat quirky) way Bledsoe testified (partially due to a stroke) I think has contributed to false and incorrect interpretation of her credibility, and her testimony. As for Bledsoe supposedly not being Oswald's landlady (for a week, starting on 10/7/63), I totally reject that notion. Had the FBI done a more complete and meticulous investigation in this area, I don't think there would be any wiggle room whatsoever to argue that she was telling anything but the truth. For example, a simple check of phone records, I believe, would have established that one or more calls were made from Ruth Paine's residence to Bledsoe's residence. (Certainly, she heard Oswald speaking a foreign language, and he even showed her pictures of his wife and child). Anyway, and FWIW, I complete reject the notion that Bledsoe lied, and I completely reject the notion that I did not go over this area carefully. To the contrary: I closely reviewed the original article you wrote, studied carefully the maps of the area, did not agree with the hypothesis "way back when" (i.e., when it was first published in the Third Decade)--and then went through the whole process of review again last spring. What surprised me at the time was that the person advancing the hypothesis here on the London Forum apparently did not know about these 3 FBI interviews of Mary Bledsoe--but there they are, and they further attest to her credibility. Also, when I began a careful review of FBI files, I found press reports from November or December 1963 of interviews with McWatters--from the Philadelphia newspapers, as I recall. These press interviews made clear that, although he was originally confused, he subsequently agreed that Oswald was the person who boarded his bus. Anyway, as I'm sure you would agree, McWatters is not the key witness, if or no other reason than that he was (at least initially) confused. The key fact is that Oswald himself said he took a bus, that a bus transfer was recovered and was identified as being the one issued by McWatters; and, finally, that Bledsoe identified Oswald--firmly, and immediately. I completely reject the hypothesis that she was a tool, or a fool, and manipulated by third parties in the Dallas law enforcement community. To counter all this, the chief proponent of this hypothesis postulates that Mary Bledsoe lied when she said that Oswald was her tenant, for the week commencing 10/7/63. I don't agree with any of that, either, and consider it an "auxiliary hypothesis" of sorts, not supported by the evidence. These are my views. I think Mary Bledsoe was on the McWatters bus when Oswald boarded, recognized him instantly (just as she told the FBI), and then watched him leave when he departed the bus a few minutes later. Those are my views, and I have considered--and re-considered--this matter most carefully. DSL 1/02/12; 11:15 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Tom, David does not want "bygones to be bygones". He proved that by yet again lying about my website and what I believe.** He knows it is not true. He knows most people here know it's not true - yet he continues to state it. He is being deliberately antagonistic with malice aforethought. **DSL Interjection: See my commentary addressing this specific assertion below. But all I can do is keep repeating - I have no malice towards him. I EXPECT him to behave like this. He can't help it. My target is the moderation team who allow him to continue to behave like this and then censor me for calling a spade a spade instead of their own chosen euphemism for one. While ever he is allowed to behave in this manner, I will continue to take matters into my own hands and deal with him - and them in the manner I feel is warranted. I don't care about being kicked off as a result. The forum will get along in it's usual manner, with or without my presence because it's bigger than me. It remains to be seen whether it is also bigger than Lifton's ego.and a moderation team that accommodates it - and the lies that help keep it so inflated. If you seriously think this is an attempt at meeting anyone half way then I'm sorry to say, he's playing you like a fiddle. DSL RESPONSE: Mr. Parker: Below is a copy of the text at your website from a recent viewing. Its not that easy to read, much less understand, but it seems obvious to me that you are in support of the notion that Oswald had a twin. Candidly, I don't want to spend any more time attempting to translate this gibberish, but below find a copy of what you wrote. If you wish to clarify or elaborate, then go right ahead. * * * EXCERPT FROM THE GREG PARKER WEBSITE IN WHICH HE COMMENTS ON THE MATTER OF HARVEY AND LEE, AND RICHARD GILBRIDE'S MODIFICATION(S) TO ARMSTRONG'S THEORY . . .WHICH HE (PARKER) SEEMS TO APPLAUD (ORIGINALLY POSTED IN FEB 2011) * * * Post by greg parker on Mon 07 Feb 2011, 8:25 pm Richard [Gilbride], you know I break out in a nasty rash whenever "Harvey and Lee" is introduced into the subject. Having them as twins makes a hellava lot more sense though,then one being a Good 'Ol Southern Boy and the other being a New York born son of Hungarian commies; one being a 6 footer at 12 and the other being a midget; one being a jock and the being a nerd etc etc etfreakin'cetra. It's not so much a CIA plot as a Vaudeville act... Abbott & Costello, Crosby & Hope, Laurel & Hardy, Harvey & Lee... You know Dr Henry Kloepfer used to ride around New Orleans on a motorbike visiting twins to study...? I don't rule out a doppleganger -- but I don't think there was one on McWatter's bus, either. ((DSL Interjection: Then just who was on McWatters' bus, as witnessed by Mary Bledsoe (who had been his landlady for a week, just a month before, starting on 10/7/63)--or was that part of a Mary Bledsoe hallucination? Or (alternatively) all that part of a nefarious scheme in which Bledsoe deliberately lied, so that (in the official story) Oswald would appear to have transportation to the next point on the "official" timeline, i.e., his ride with taxi driver William Whaley? --which is also denied by the "Bledsoe lied" proponents, who apparently believe that Oswald (a) wasn't the passenger in Whaley's cab, and (b ) wasn't the person who ran into the Beckley Street rooming house, at approximately 1 pm). No matter how you "slice and dice it," these folks all believe in some variant of the "double Oswald" theory. END OF DSL INTERJECTION)) I think Sean Murphy may have nailed the shooter in the Hughes film. I'll be blowed if he doesn't match the wanted description given out, along with witness descriptions - Geez, he also looks Eastern European --- may be even Hungarian... but do I think he was part of some longstanding CIA operation involving himself and Oswald, or that he ever called himself Harvey and had a "mother" who pretended to be Marguerite? Not a chance in hell... Your twins theory holds more water than Armstrong's potpourri of every Oswald sighting ever made, regardless of how silly or impossible, and meshed into the Frankenstein's Monster of all theories... We're even in the same ballpark... Korea... fear and loathing... brainwashing...exaggerated gaps... CIA counter-measures... Oswald being sucked into the vortex at 13 through family members **... Nuclear Test Ban Negotiations... rocketry and missiles... overflights... Ike's foreign policy... Pax Americana... radar... backdoor diplomacy... **DSL Interjection: Am I to understand that you entertain the notion that Lee Oswald was involved in some kind of counter-intelligence operation at age 13? . . when, if he was Jewish, he would just have had his Bar Mitzvah?. . .Oh pleez. . . END OF DSL INTERJECTION It's the Greatest Story Never Told. greg parker Admin[instrator] DSL COMMENT: As I say, if you can translate all this and clarify your thought(s), perhaps that would be useful. All of this reminds me of a button I once saw someone wearing at a party: "Does your train of thought have a caboose?" DSL 1/02/12; 7:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

[snipped] Joe, Two things: (1) I neglected to give you credit for your original article on the Mary Bledsoe situation, published (as I recall) in the Third Decade. (Email me with the correct info, and I'll modify my post). (2) FWIW: I believe that most of those who wrote about Bledsoe, years ago--e.g., Sylvia Meagher, et al--were unaware that Bledsoe had been interviewed three times by the FBI in the eight days following the assassination. So this hypothesis of Mary Bledsoe supposedly lying to the authorities wasn't a matter of a falsified Dallas Police report. To the contrary: she then would have to lie 3 more times to FBI agents in the eight days following the assassination. These FBI interviews are in CD 5 (toward the back) and I believe the first time that (for example) Sylvia Meagher ever saw them was around 1969, when I provided them as part of my (approximately 2000 page) Available But Not Published (ABNP) collection which both she and Mary Ferrell subscribed around that time. I think that when those three FBI interviews of Bledsoe are factored into the equation, the balance tips in favor of Bledsoe's credibility, regardless of whether she talked haltingly when under oath (because of her stroke) or because some entertain problems with regards to the bus transfer. Personally, I think it highly unlikely--to the point of being absurd--to believe that this elderly lady was involved in a conspiracy that involved multiple lies told to multiple interviewers, including lying 3 times in interviews with FBI agents in the eight days following the Kennedy assassination--all (supposedly) in the service of some hypothetical scheme to place Oswald on a bus in which he was not actually riding. I know that there are those who are wedded to that hypothesis (just as there are those who cannot give up on the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are sinister); but I don't think this situation--what I shall call here "the Mary Bledsoe" hypothesis--is particularly credible. Now that's my opinion, and of course I realize there are those who will disagree. DSL 1/2/12; 7 pm PST Los Angeles, California

In other threads on this forum, two forum members have stated that they were going to start a thread “about Lifton’s theories.” The next sentence reads: “I won't be participating in the discussion - just starting it off. I'm going to begin with the two guys in the front seats of the Kennedy limousine. Lifton theorized that it wasn't really Kellerman and Greer - they were actually imposters.” This threat to “start a new thread” occurred after one of them was admonished for using terminology (about me) that was against forum rules. The post continues “Should get things started eh? I'm struggling as to what to choose after that but may go for the false trees that were placed in the Plaza...” The entire tone of this post is that—somehow—I’m going to be taught a lesson—-that I have something to hide; and that, by God, these two are going to teach me a lesson, to “fix my wagon” (as the saying goes). The poster involved is the one who has originated the theory that Oswald’s landlady—Mary Bledsoe—who, according to the Warren Report (and, I might add, according to all credible evidence) was on the bus with Oswald when he boarded McWatter’s bus, at around 12:40 PM, going west on Elm Street. Bledsoe filled out an affidavit that Oswald was on the bus she was riding (a bus ride established by the fact that Oswald himself said he took a bus, plus the fact that a bus transfer was found on his person). She was also interviewed extensively by the FBI, in the days immediately following Kennedy's murder, and related her story to these agents. In all, there were three separate FBI reports written on this matter, by a total of eight agents. Furthermore this poster asserts that not only wasn’t Bledsoe on the bus where he boarded, Ms. Bledsoe really wasn’t Oswald's landlady (!), for the week starting October 7, 1963, before the two had a spat and Oswald moved to 1026 North Beckley. The notion that Oswald wasn't on the bus goes against the best evidence. The notion that Bledsoe wasn't even Oswald's landlady is, imho, fanciful in the extreme. It is simply an auxiliary hypothesis to support the notion that Bledsoe is a xxxx--which I believe to be totally false. I have pointed out that (as noted above) Mary Bledsoe was interviewed by about eight FBI agents three different times, in the week to ten days following the assassination, in which she made clear she was on the bus. Furthermore, there is the sheer implausibility that this lady, who had a stroke, was part of a conspiracy to place Oswald on that bus. No matter. . this was his pet theory (along with the fact that it wasn't Oswald who was in Whaley's cab, and that it probably wasn't Oswald who ran into the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley)and of course he is entitled to it. The other poster runs a website which promotes the hypothesis that Oswald had a secret twin brother, and understanding that—and tracing the details—are the key to uncovering the truth about Dallas. (He refuses to take seriously anything about a falsified autopsy, but instead seems to focus on this matter of Oswald's twin). As I say, these two posters have publicly stated that they are going to start a thread “about Lifton’s theories.” The word they have omitted is “early”—that is, they are going back to between 42 and 45 years ago, and the period 1965- 1969, in the period following the time when I first became involved in the Kennedy case. Remember: as I write this, the year is 2012- - these folks are going back to the year 1967, that’s “44 plus” years ago, hunting around for my beliefs some 15 years before Best Evidence was published. At that time, just past the 3rd anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination, and with the Kennedy case often in the news, and the publication of The Case For Three Assassins (my original piece that was a cover story in the January, 1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine), I was interviewed by Esquire Magazine for an article they were preparing called “25 Assassination theories.” The writer was John Berendt, then an Associate Editor of Esquire (and later the editor of New York Magazine) who won a Pulitzer Prize a few decades later for his much acclaimed “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil,” which was published in 1994, and spent a record breaking 216 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list. (The book was subsequently made into a movie, by Clint Eastwood). John assembled a list of 25 theories about the Kennedy assassination, which was published in December, 1966. About six months later, he wrote a sequel titled “25 more theories.” Views of mine appeared in both articles—which also included various hypotheses by Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Vincent Salandria, etc. One of those theories was my own hypothesis which addressed the question of why, despite all the evidence of shots from the front, the eyewitness evidence was so skimpy—indeed, there is practically no evidence of anyone seeing any shooters. John reviewed with me my thoughts on the matter, and wrote it up in the form of a 350 word item, called “Theory #25. . the false knoll hypothesis.” I posited that Dealey Plaza had been booby-trapped, and that professional camouflage had been employed to hide shooters connected with the Kennedy assassination, and that’s where why there were no (or hardly any) eyewitness accounts--just some mysterious puffs of smoke, plus sounds that seem to come from the general area, but nothing specific. Although the ideas were solely my own, the two of us spent several hours on the phone, developing the exact wording for this proposition. Below my typed signature is the full account of what was published. Do I still believe today, in 2012, that what I speculated about in 1967 is completely accurate? Not entirely. Nearly a half century later, no, I don’t believe there was a “false knoll” (i.e., in the literal sense of that term); but I certainly have not ruled out the possibility that some professional camouflage was utilized to conceal assassins, because, although 40 plus years have passed, the same problem exists today, as existed then: the medical evidence indicates shots from the front, but there is hardly any eyewitness testimony of shots from the front, although puffs of smoke were seen coming from certain trees in Dealey Plaza, and one lady exclaimed rather hysterically (to a police officer) “They are shooting the President from the bushes!” However, I no longer focus on this particular matter because, after I discovered the evidence of body alteration—which became the basis for Best Evidence, published in January, 1981—my focus has been not on “who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body” (i.e., who "the shooters" were and exactly where “they” were hiding, etc.) but rather—and as I stated in Best Evidence, “who took them out.” In other words, I realized, after I made the discovery of post-mortem surgery (i.e., wound alteration), that the diagram of the shooting (legally speaking) had been changed. And so my focus, from that point forward, was threefold, and were the questions that would be addressed to any situation in which evidence was altered: (a) At Bethesda, exactly who was aware, when the President's body arrived, that it had been altered? (b ) Where (and by whom) had such alteration (or "mutilation") been performed? (c ) To what extent could it be established, through documents and normal journalistic interviews, that there was a full and complete break in the chain of possession of President Kennedy's body--thus invalidating it as legal evidence. These three issues are what my book, BEST EVIDENCE, published in 1981, addressed. Re (a) Chapter 12 of Best Evidence addresses the fact that two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, heard Dr. Bumes, the chief autopsy surgeon, state that when Kennedy's body arrived, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull. WC Attorney Wesley Liebeler, to whom I revealed this on 10/24/66, thought the matter sufficiently important that he wrote a 13 page memorandum focused on the issue of body alteration, to Chief Justice Warren (and his fellow Commissioners); the entire WC staff; Robert Kennedy, and President Johnson. (See Chapter 10 of Best Evidence) Re (b ): Chapter 13 addressed the issue that the head wound(s) had been altered; Chapter 11, that the throat wound had been altered; and, perhaps most serious of all, Chapter 18 (the Pre-Autopsy Autopsy) developed the evidence that prior to autopsy, there had been a crude "autopsy", which involved "smashing and bashing" of the President's head, in order to remove brain tissue, and bullets--and that accounts for the manner in which the Bethesda autopsy report is written. Re (c ): My chapters 16, and then 25-28, establish --via interviews with the casket team, and others at Bethesda, that President Kennedy's body left Dallas in one casket (a ceremonial casket) but arrived at Bethesda in another (a shipping casket); that it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, but arrived in a body bag; that it left Dallas with a brain, but arrived at Bethesda, according to at least one witness, with an empty cranium. Furthermore, I showed that documentary evidence established that there was more than one casket entry at Bethesda, and this has been widely discussed and elaborated on elsewhere on the Internet (see the series by Jacob Hornberger). In short, there is in fact no legally viable "chain of possession" on President Kennedy's body, and understanding that is an essential key to understanding the Kennedy murder case. The autopsy protocol at Bethesda Naval Hospital records how the President's body looked at Bethesda, some six hours after his murder. It does not reflect how the shooting actually occurred. Now the above represents a very brief recap of what is in Best Evidence; and anyone wishing to see a visual presentation of this material can view a copy of the 37 minute video documentary that I produced, "BEST EVIDENCE: The Research Video", based on critical filmed interviews I conducted in October, 1980. However, anyone who wishes to approach the JFK case from the standpoint of "Dealey Plaza" (rather than Bethesda, the site of the JFK autopsy) and is interested in what I advanced in 1966 can of course go to Esquire Magazine of May, 1967, and read it for themselves. It is posted on the Ken Rahn website at the University of Rhode Island, and the link—and the text—are below. Prepare to enter a time machine, and “revisit the debate,” as it was in 1966 and 1967--when various researchers (including myself) were blowing up photographs of the grassy knoll, searching for "other" assassin. As second area which was also the focus of my suspicions (back in 1965-1969) was the behavior of certain agents of the White Detail of the Secret Service (persons who have long since passed away). I did not understand how there could be a motorcade assassination (and particular one which involved any degree of pre-planning) unless the driver of the car was involved; and agreed, in advance, to drive slowly, and certainly would not “step on the gas” and speed away until it was evident that President Kennedy was fatally wounded. I also wondered about his immediate supervisor,the agent in the front right seat, Kellerman. The Warren Commission staff also wondered about these same matters, and there are memos, written by either Warren Commission attorneys Eisenberg or Redlich, questioning the non-reaction of these two agents, as shown on the Zapruder film. In 1965, I telephoned Roy Kellerman and spoke with him for some 15 minutes. In 1967 I spoke with Greer for almost an hour. Then I flew to Washington, and spent several hours with Greer, in his home. When I left, the last thing he said to me, was: “Chief Rowley (then the Secret Service chief) would sure like to know what you’re doing.” I also have interviewed about 10 other SS agents, over the years. At some time in the future, I intend to publish my own thoughts about this situation. But back to the late 1960s: As a consequence of these interviews, I found it hard to believe that these (supposedly) loyal men were involved, and so I briefly entertained the notion that perhaps they was serious perjury before the Warren Commission—sanctioned by the highest levels of the U.S. Government—and that perhaps either or both of these two were not in the limousine (even though they testified they were). I discussed this once with Sylvia Meagher, and mentioned it briefly in a letter I wrote Meagher in 1969-that’s 42 years ago. And that’s really all there is to it. Here’s my question to these two posters, who have, in effect, threatened to reveal this matter, which they clearly view as some sort of terrible secret. My question: what on earth do these preliminary hypotheses –voiced in 1967 (in Esquire Magazine) and 1969 (in private correspondence with Sylvia Meagher), have to do with the current state of debate about the Kennedy assassination, in the year 2012? Do they have anything to do with the central issue in this case--which is the falsification of President Kennedy's autopsy, which is "the" central issue, and the major focus of my book, BEST EVIDENCE, published in 1981 --and then republished by three publishers since? Legally and historically, that is the key to the Kennedy assassination. Moreover, that is why I worked closely with Doug Horne and the ARRB to make sure that the matter was pursued by relevant witnesses under oath--and that is why, with Jeremy Gunn's approval, permission was granted to call about 10 "Bethesda witnesses' and closely question them under oath. In some of those cases, my original audio tapes, and filmed interviews were then used as the basis for further questioning. So that is where my focus has been, and where I believe the focus ought to be. But these two posters seem to have a different approach, going back to 1965-1967, and looking for what they seem to think are "hidden" secrets. I’d like to know how either of these posters would react if someone went back 45 years and look at their letters. But I speak in jest. Unfortunately, that’s not possible. You see, neither of them were yet born. But now, worldly wise (and hot shot investigators that they believe themselves to be), they have now “come of age” and, by God, are determined to “expose” my past. One of these posters has a website pushing his pet theory that Oswald had a twin brother; and that that is the key to the Kennedy assassination; the other, that Mary Bledsoe not only wasn’t on the bus, but wasn’t Oswald’s landlady. I don’t see that either of these hypotheses have any traction—or will ever gain any traction—with those that take evidence seriously. Below my typed signature is the Esquire Article about my camouflage theory. 1/02/12 3:15 PM PST: Spelling errors noted by other posters have been corrected. Thank you. 1/02/12, 5:40 PM: Additional editorial revisions to this post. DSL http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theories/Second_Primer/Second_primer.html 18. FALSE KNOLL THEORY Proponent: David Lifton, a U.C.L.A. engineering graduate student and coauthor of the three-assassins article in Ramparts which introduced Riddle’s analysis. (See No. 11.) Thesis: On the day of the assassination, three types of camouflage were employed by conspirators positioned beneath, on, and above the grassy knoll. Lifton reached this hypothesis after minute study of photographs of the area during and after the assassination. It answers the question why, despite the fact that eyewitness reports and the Head Movement Theory indicate shots came from the grassy knoll, nothing at all was found there immediately afterward. Underground camouflage: Lifton suggests that prior to the assassination, the grassy knoll was excavated from beneath and a system of tunnels and bunkers was built into it. Peepholes covered by grass-mesh camouflage were placed on the sloping surface of the knoll. Subterranean nooks would explain the statement of witness Garland Slack: “I have heard this same sort of sound when a shot had come from within a cave…” Lifton goes further to suggest that the puff of smoke seen by some people on the grassy knoll may have been the exhaust from a gas engine incorporated within the camouflage mechanization. Surface camouflage: Lifton finds alterations (“bulges”) in the wall and the hedgerow on the grassy knoll, netting in the bushes and faint images of heads. Borrowing support from deputy Constable Weitzman who ran toward the wall and who said, “I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steam pipes. I burned them,” Lifton points out that there are no steam pipes atop the wall. This might, he says, be an indication that things may have been altered for that day. Weitzman also says a witness told him that he saw somebody throw something through a bush. Elevated camouflage: Because a comparison of certain photographs taken during the assassination with others taken afterward indicates that some tree structures had been altered on the knoll, and because he sees images up in the trees in assassination photos, Lifton believes there was some camouflage in the trees. Eyewitnesses S. M. Holland, Austin Miller and Frank Reilly all state that shots seemed to have come out of the trees. Drawbacks: As even Lifton admits, the photo enlargements are of extremely grainy quality (they could not be reproduced properly here) and interpretations of them are questionable at best.

Mr Lifton, why are you ignoring this request? I have asked politely and given what I think is a very good reason for wanting to know. The thought that you demolished any credence given to McBride with unimpeachable evidence regarding the timing of Fort Worth riots, and no one paid a lick of notice, is a major issue confronting those trying to narrow the field of possibilities in this case in order to gain some sort of consensus. The stories were in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did) to go to the FWST in the vicinity of those dates, and I'm sure you'll find them. (FYI: I never published anything about them. Once I spoke to McBride, and filmed him, I had no doubt that his original statement, as to the date, was simply an error. Of course, there's lots of people who just can't give up on the Amrstrong interpretation of all this, just like there are people who can't let go of the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are innocent. Since you found similar stories through your own Internet search, I've been assuming you realize McBride simply had the date wrong. DSL

And this is from the guy who believes that conspirators would find it simpler and more desriable to steal the President's body and create false wounds, use multiple caskets, alter home movies and everything else that goes along with his stupid theory than to just put a gunman behind the limo? Gimmee a break. Your posts prove that you are clueless when it comes to understanding how a real world conspiracy functions, or how the alteration of evidence permits the manipulation of an investigation. DSL

Your statement as to what "John found" is false. As is all too often the case, you are promoting a bunch of nonsense, and urban legend. 1. The FBI interviews of those at the astronomy club--not Armstrong's absurd reliance on 30 year old recollections--support the fact that Oswald was brought to one (or more) astronomy club meetings in 1956 (and certainly not 1957 or 1958, when he was already in the Marines, and in Japan. 2. As Greg Parker has noted, Fort Worth news stories, published in 1956, support the fact that when Oswald wrote a letter to Pfisterer (mentioning civil disorders in Fort Worth), the year being referred to was 1956, and not one or two years later. (FYI: Pre -internet, I found those same stories the "old fashioned" way, via microfilm at the Ft Worth library). Its interesting that, in the world of the Internet, they are now a mouse-click away. 3. The IRS records establish that Oswald worked at Pfisterer in 1956, not 1957 or 1958. (And the only way around this documentary evidence is to subscribe to Armstrong's theory that Oswald's 1956 tax returns have been falsified). There is no reason to believe that to be so. 4. When I interviewed Palmer McBride both by telephone (September, 1994) and then on camera one month later, he readily admitted that he was probably mistaken as to the year, if the military records showed Oswald was in Japan. 5. I never had the hostile communication with Linda Faircloth, that Armstrong (and/or Faircloth) attributed to me. Either or both of them just made it up. Furthermore: McBride did not come up with the notion that his original statement (on 11/23) could not have been in error (as to the year, and that it just had to be 1957 or 1958, as he mistakenly stated), until he was lobbied by Armstrong--whose "investigation" in this area, more or less resembled a "witness recruitment program." Only by ignoring the best evidence, and relying on 30 year old recollection (rather than what the FBI reports clearly state, and what the tax returns, which were resident in the US National Archives since 1964, clearly show) can one support Armstrong's "two Oswald" hypothesis, in this area. FWIW: Bugliosi's writeup on the matter of Palmer McBride (and which is to be found in the CD with his end notes (at page 570)--is quite lengthy, detailed, and accurate. So is Doug Horne's investigation, while on the ARRB, about the tax returns constituting a definitive refutation of the foundation of Armstrong's "two-Oswald" theory, and make no mistake about it: Armstrong's starting point was the original McBride affidavit, which was simply mistaken. As I stated above, its time to stop promoting nonsense and urban legend. You're a history teacher, right? Start behaving like one. DSL 12/27/11 11:55 AM PST

Regarding Oswald's dyslexia (and again, dyslexia is a reading disability. . .): You should look look up the story of Emma Livingston, Oswald's teacher in the fourth grade at Arlington Heights Elementary School. She was not called as a WC witness, but was interviewed by the FBI, and the details are also laid out in stories in the NY TImes, Life Magazine, and the Dallas newspapers. Ms Livingston describes at length the personalized help she extended to Oswald in the fourth grade (school year 1949-1950); and how his reading and spelling improved considerably. At the Christmas party that year, Oswald gave her, as a gift, a puppy from his dog's litter. As a consequence of this personalized help in reading and spelling--and the relationship, fwiw, extended beyond 1949-50 and into the following year or two--Oswald's IQ (when tested) jumped from 103 (when tested in 1950) to 118 (when tested in NYC, at Youth House, in April, 1953). This "IQ jump"--I believe--is related to his increased ability in reading comprehension, and I have had detailed discussions about this with qualified persons. I think WC atty Liebeler started to become enlightened about a lot of this towards the tail end of the WC investigation (between June and September, 1964), because his wife (whom I knew personally, because I visited with them) was a teacher at a school for the gifted (Montessori). Then, at the end, Liebeler was in communication with Dr. Rome, of the Mayo Clinic and, as I'm sure you know, he compiled a multi page memorandum (dated 9/8/64) setting forth his belief (based on spelling evidence) that Oswald suffered from dyslexia (WCE 3134). One of the unusual things about this Liebeler/Rome communication is that Liebeler went completely outside of channels to do this. (Normally, everything had to be channeled through General Counsel Rankin. Here, you will note, that Dr. Rome writes back to Liebeler directly. This was quite unusual. WC attorneys were NOT supposed to communicate with the "outside world" in that fashion). Anyway. . .None of this has anything to do with Asperger's (or autism). It has everything to do with dyslexia, "word-blindness" etc. That was Dr. Rome's diagnosis, and I think he was spot on. I strongly recommend that you Google "Emma Livingston" and read up on her experiences with Oswald. DSL No response, David? How strange! You brought it up!

I couldn't agree more. This guy had a great mind and never compromised his principles or pulled his punches. The world could use a few more like him. I met Christopher Hitchens and spoke with him for about 10 minutes at the UCLA Festival of Books sometime around 2002 (plus or minus). He was one of the featured authors, and afterwards, time was set aside for those who attended to "meet the author." We talked about the Kennedy assassination, and I remember him stating that he had had (years before) a whole shelf full of books on the JFK case, but I also have the faint recollection of him wondering about CASE CLOSED, which made me realize the damage that Posner's book had done, in the sense that it had turned someone like Hitchens away from the issue. The sense I got was that he would always remain interested, but that his "Kennedy bookshelf" was a thing of the past, and he had finally gotten away from the subject. A more recent example is Norman Mailer. Just consider the highly laudatory review Mailer wrote of Mark Lane's book, RUSH TO JUDGMENT,which was published in the summer of 1966; and then his reversal, circa 1983, when he endorsed Jean Davison (and "Oswald's Game"); and, finally, his 1995 "Oswald's Tale," where he actually is citing Priscilla McMillan and using excerpts from her book in a rather clumsy "cut and paste" fashion to argue that Oswald was the lone assassin. I am sure Hitchens was very skeptical of the official version but, with the passage of time, and so many other issues to deal with, he had simply put it "behind him." But I will always remember him talking to me about his "Kennedy bookshelf." DSL

REPLY BY DSL: FWIW (and for the record): I have never really focused on the "dark complected man". Yes, he could be sinister; but maybe not. My point is that there are any number of people in Dealey Plaza who were never identified and who could also be quite important. For example, what about the person (in the background of some of the later frames of the Z film, towards the end) who is holding up the sign which reads (I was told by the late Dick Sprague): JFK you SOB. . Is that a "fact"? In any event, whatever that sign reads, how in the world could the FBI have conducted its investigation and there be no paper trail as to (a) who is is and/or (b ) of any attempt to identify him? Another point: based on the testimony of Witt, we now have two people who are "next to" someone who makes remarks, and who have never been identified: (a) Witt. . who testifies that the man next to him said "I believe someone shot them folks" (or some such thing) (b ) Emmet Hudson, who testified that one of the men standing on the stairs next to him said; "Sit down mister, sit down. Someone is shooting the President" (from memory). Finally, this point (re the pumping of the umbrella): if the Z film has been altered, what is now called the "pumping" of the umbrella may be exaggerated (or at least not an accurate representation) for the same reason that (if the Z film was altered) the backward "head snap" may be an artifact of film alteration. Just a thought. DSL [RCD's stuff snipped. . the usual. . ]

[snipped] The point I've been trying to make is that the shallowness of the HSCA's investigation was readily apparent to ALL the researchers of the period, and that NONE of them (not just Lifton and Thompson) thought Witt mysterious enough to lift a finger and make a few calls. This suggests to me that the research community--taken as a whole--accepted his story, and that it is primarily those who weren't there at the time who continue to believe that "something strange was afoot at the Circle K..." As far as I know, reporter Earl Golz and Penn Jones both accepted the identification of Witt as the man with the umbrella;and, implicitly at least, accepted Witt's story for why he was there. Does anyone have contrary information? Did either Penn Jones or Earl Golz ever write anything to the contrary? One other thing: the brief moment when Witt opened the umbrella (and it malfunctioned, and then Stokes made his joking remark(s) ) was really only a small part of the interrogation. If one reads through the entire transcript, there was a lot of reasonably thorough questioning of Witt, and the whole business of Prime Minister Chamberlain, the history there, etc. One of the HSCA members--Fithian, as I recall--said he wanted to write a memorandum on the subject of Chamberlain, and that it should be inserted into the record (there is no such memo, I note, which is unfortunate). As I said recently, I wish the HSCA staff had collected affidavits from Witt's family, friends, etc., to flesh out his story. I think the real problem is that a number of people who came to this rather late in the game became enamored of a sinister hypothesis, and simply refuse to accept Witt and his account. So they come on this forum, years later, and berate Blakey and the HSCA on this matter; or complain that, 35 years later, I can't produce the person who had the same dentist as Witt. Oh pleez. . . The real problem with Blakey (and other HSCA staff members) is that I was in repeated--and intense--contact with him and his staff urging them to deal with the issue of autopsy falsification, and he did not do his job properly. He was enamored of his Mafia hypothesis; and, furthermore, he believed the Single Bullet Theory. He refused to believe that the autopsy evidence could have been falsified. I spoke with Blakey for at least an hour, in October 1978, about the problem of the chain of possession on Kennedy's body. I also spoke to other staff members about these issues, including Andrew Purdy. When the documents became available decades later, I find--to my amazement--that the HSCA's concept of an "investigation" in this area is that a staffer called up Greer, on the telephone, to find out whether anyone could have messed with the body, that Greer replied in the negative, and that the staff then summarized that call in a one page handwritten document. End of investigation--HSCA style. That was the problem. Not whether Stokes made a bad joke about someone with an umbrella. DSL

Pat, as you know, if people wish to be taken seriously, there are rules for gathering and interpreting evidence. The first such rule of evidence is “provide some.” Lifton’s sole contribution to this thread has been to say that he allegedly heard third-hand an unverifiable story that Witt allegedly told his dentist. From this, he asserts that it’s case closed. Except that were this any other researcher, he’d be laughed out of the marketplace of ideas for so cheeky a paucity of evidence for his contention. Unattributable gossip isn’t evidence, let alone proof. You say that I “suspect he JUST MADE IT UP. And that is totally unjustified, IMO.” I suspect no such thing. But I don’t believe anything anyone insists I should just because they insist I should. Call me old-fashioned, but I draw conclusions from evidence, not merely reiteration or vehemence. [snipped. . . largely irrelevant. . . ] You can believe--or not believe--what I was told, over 30 years ago, by the woman who had the same dentist as Witt. That's your choice. And no, I did not make up the story. I heard it directly from her. As I have made clear, I wish the HSCA had interviewed and obtained supporting affidavits, from those who knew Witt, whether it was his wife, fellow workers, etc. They did not do so, and they should have. However, what I think this episode demonstrates, more than anything else, is not that Witt was "put up to it," etc etc, but rather, that many people have difficulty giving up a cherished hypothesis. There are--apparently--a number of people "out there" who really do believe that Witt (and his umbrella) somehow were involved in a plot to murder President Kennedy; that he, and his umbrella, were involved in "signaling" that Kennedy "wasn't dead yet" and "calling" for more gunshots to be fired. First of all, that idea is really silly. Anyone who knows anything about how a sniper works (in tandem with a spotter) would realize this is absurd; yet, in the world of "urban legend," it apparently still has some force. Second: focusing on this false idea draws attention away from the real problem: just how was such a function handled? Just who was in fact performing that function? Because of one thing we can all be certain: this was a very professionally handled shooting,and it was over within just a very few seconds. So someone was performing that function--and in fact, when it was over, Jacqueline Kennedy actually heard a third party shout: "He's dead! He's dead!" And then the car sped off. Enough said. Now, about you, Mr. Dunne, and your unremitting hostility towards me, and my work, which can be found in your posts, all over this forum (and elsewhere as well): When are you going to post a picture of yourself—one that is visible, and not deliberately darkened—as part of your profile? Perhaps the time has come, for those on this forum, to know a little about you—and since I have had to tangle with you in other venues going back a decade or more, here goes: 1) You are a music producer who lives in London, Ontario 2) You used to post on alt.conspiracy (aka, “the nuthouse”) under the fictional name “BishopM”—a reflection on your focus on David Atlee Phillips (and the alias you suspect he used); 3) As you admitted to an associate of mine—back in the days when I was curious as to who you were, and whom you apparently did not realize was a good friend --BishopM was you alias, your “Alex Hidell. Further, as you explained, you employed that alias in order to adopt a very different, and particularly hostile and aggressively obnoxious persona, on the Internet. 4) You could not then—and perhaps still can not—enter the United States, because of certain, er, legal problems. 5) You were a close associate of John Armstrong, and in fact played a role in editing his manuscript (subsequently published as Harvey and Lee). Hopefully, enough time has passed—since the days you posted as “BishopM”—that you have mellowed; and perhaps your legal problems have diminished. Perhaps you can even enter the United States today. Finally, perhaps the time has come where you can post a visible picture of yourself, instead of hiding in the shadows. I don't agree with much of what you have to say, and am turned off by your extreme and very toxic hostility, but perhaps you can at least post a photo of yourself that is visible. C'mon Mr. RCD--please let us see who you really are. DSL 12/14/11; 6:45 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

IN THIS GREAT SEASON it is so nice to hear the voice of REASON. J. Ray, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that Lifton didn't interview Witt. We're all well aware that's when it comes to interviewing witnesses, he channels Sean Hannity interviewing George Bush. Damn good thing he didn't interview him, I say! Keep him away from all witnesses. What I object to - and I thought I'd made it clear enough - is the USE of his 3rd or 4th generation hearsay as confirming that Witt was indeed, TUM. It should not have been used unless key details could be confirmed (i.e. names and dates and exactly what was said). If those details were available, I would not be critical of those who used it. Pretty simple to understand, no? Lifton is off the hook on this. In fact, David can pretty much do what he wants from here on without raising my ire. He has become too much of a self-parody to waste any more anger on. It is Josiah Thompson who needs to man up and explain himself. Mr. Parker: Why don't you own up to what's on your website, so that readers of this forum can understand just what "point of view" you represent: 1) That some half dozen people in the TSBD were accomplices to JFK's murder, because they somehow escorted a group of shooters out of the building (and kept this a secret)--at least, that's what the writer whose work you publish at your website claims 2) That Oswald has a twin brother and that understanding who is the "twin" and who is Oswald is (in your view) apparently the key to the case 3) That Oswald was not dyslexic (as is established by ample evidence) but rather, has Asperger's syndrome. Of course, the former is a reading disorder; the latter, related to autism. I have no idea why you think any of these ideas are particularly plausible, or backed by reasonable evidence; but hey, its a free country, and you're welcome. . and now to add Steve Witt (and/or his "op") to your list. Of course, I have not laid out your own credentials --or lack thereof--as set forth in your own biography. DSL

Mr. Farley, I do beg your indulgence, but this is my attempt to explain the problem of ascertaining the name of Mr. Witt’s dentist. Since you were about 5 years old when Steve Witt testified, I’ll bet that today, in your late thirties, you would have no problem remembering the name of your own dentist (or ascertaining that dentist's identity, from a member of your family). But the problem (in the comparable situation with Steve Witt, and the woman I knew around 1978, who had the same dentist as Witt, and from whom I heard Witt's story, "from the dentist's chair," so to speak) is that, if you were in my situation, you'd not be looking for your own dentist or that of a friend's dentist, but the person who was the dentist of a friend of that friend. Ah yes, I'm so sorry, but life is replete with these irritating complexities. Now just consider. . . suppose you knew a young maiden, back when you were five years old (let’s call her Adelaide), and Adelaide had a friend named Peggy Sue. . and so now in 2011, you want the name of Peggy Sue’s dentist from some 33 years ago. So, you telephone Adelaide, and so begins that your process of inquiry. Let’s imagine how that might go, shall we? Adelaide comes to the phone, and we proceed from there. * * * Adelaide speaking. . .: “Lee Farley! How good to hear from you. . My gosh. . we haven’t been in touch since 1978, remember, when we were five years old, and played I the same sandbox. Why, how are you Lee. . I just remember those days like yesterday. . So tell me, Lee, why are you calling? And then you say, “Well, Adelaide, I’m calling because I’d like the phone number of our mutual friend Peggy Sue. . . remember Peggy Sue?. . Who played with us in the sandbox? And even sometimes went on that sliding pond? Remember Peggy Sue?" And Adelaide replies. . “Why Lee, that’s wonderful. . Of course I remember Peggy-Sue, and I just happen to know where Peggy is living. . in fact, she married a lawyer, and today they have twins, and they live in New Zealand. . in Christchurch. . . and I just happen to have her telephone number. . And you say, “Oh Adelaide. . I’m so happy that you remember Peggy Sue, from our days in the sandbox. . I’ll call you back later so we can catch up . . meanwhile please do give me her phone number, for I’ve got to call Peggy Sue now. And she says, “Well sure, Lee, but, if you don’t mind my asking. . why do you have to call Peggy Sue? You sound so concerned!” “Well, I need to know the name of Peggy Sue’s dentist. . “ “Her dentist?“ “Yes, her dentist. . “ “Peggy Sue’s dentist?” “Yes, Peggy Sue’s dentist. "From back then?" "Yes." “Now why do you need her dentist’s name, Lee? I mean, its 2011. . “ “Adelaide, I just can’t talk about it just now. But I promise to call you back when I have time. . “ “Oh sure, Lee. I understand. Well, you do know, Peggy Sue and I had the same dentist. . . . Our mother’s were good friends, and so they took us both to the same dentist.” “Oh really!? Well, then that is different. Well then, may please then ask you that queston? Can I get the name of the dentist from you, please? “You mean the name of my dentist? “Yes. Your dentist. “Here in Liverpool?” “Yes.” “Back in 1978, when I was 5 years old?” “Yes.” “Lee, what is this all about? That was 33 years ago. . I don’t remember his name. . He was just was a dentist. . and I remember he walked around with an umbrella all the time. . you know, it rained a lot here in Liverpool.” * * * And so now you finally get off the phone. . and then you call your old friend, Peggy Sue, now in New Zealand. . Checking the time zones, of course, to make sure you don’t wake her up, because you are such a considerate fellow. . . “Hello, Peggy? Its Lee Farley, and I’m calling you from Liverpool. . "Lee!. . Lee Farley!! . .who used to scream and yell in the sandbox. . and throw sand in everyone’s face. . . So nice to hear from you! “You remember me? “Sure, I remember you. How could anyone forget? Remember. . you said that when you grew up, you wanted to be Sherlock Holmes. How could anyone forget that? Well then, how are you Lee?" “Oh, I’m just fine. . “Why are you calling? What I can do for you?" “Well, actually, I’m calling to find the name of your dentist. . “My dentist. . here in Christchurch? “No . . your dentist back in Liverpool, back around 1978. “But Lee, I was five years old then. . . “ Yes, I know. But that’s what I need. I need his name. “Really, Lee. You want the name of my dentist, in Liverpool, from 33 years ago? “Yes, that’s what I want. If you remember his name. “I really don’t remember, Lee. . I just don’t remember his name. Is this some type of criminal investigation? Will I be accused of something, if I can’t produce the name? “ Try, Peggy Sue. . please. .. can’t you remember anything about him? “Well, I do remember he walked around with, uh, . . “With an umbrella? “Yes, that’s right. With an umbrella. . How’d you know that? “It’s a long story. . Well, Peggy Sue. .thanks a lot. We’ll talk some more, some day soon. OK? END OF CONVERSATION * * * Well, Mr. Farley. . I think you get the idea. No, I'm so sorry, but I cannot at this time locate the “friend of a friend” –from some 33 years ago—and find out the name of that person’s dentist (but rest assured that she did exist, and she did have the same dentist as Steve Witt. Because that’s what she personally told me.) And no, I did not keep records of those conversations, and so today, in 2011, I do not know who was the dentist of a friend of a friend some 33 years ago. In lieu of that, please do go on and believe whatever it is you wish. I realize that perhaps this will open the floodgates of suspicion, but there's nothing that can be done about that. In fact, based on you past postings on this Forum, its clear that there's any number of people you proudly assert are (or were) liars, so if that's your appraisal of Witt, then so be it. In fact, on your next trip to Dallas (I think you said you married a Texan) I do think you should pursue this matter, if you wish, and avail yourself of the opportunity of calling up Mr. Steve Witt himself, or his wife, or friends of his family, and conducting your own investigation and attempt to resolve this matter. You should assure him that you’re not trying to harass him, or anything of the sort; that you just don’t believe his sworn, nationally televised testimony from 1978 , and that you think he’s a xxxx, at least on some crucial points. If he asks why, you can perhaps tell him you're really not singling him out; and that he shouldn’t take offense, that you are a Kennedy assassination researcher, and that you think that a number of people connected with the Warren commission investigation were liars and that you feel so strongly on the subject that you do in fact go around saying that publicly, on the Internet. Anyway, after you make these inquiries, perhaps you can return, and share with us your, er, findings. Undoubtedly, they will be of the highest relevance; and I’m sure there are those who await such inquiries of yours with baited breath. Inquiring minds want to know. At the risk of sounding like the late Edward R. Murrow, "Good night, and good luck." DSL 12/12/11 3 AM Los Angeles, California

If David Lifton tells us the name of Witt's dentist--and it can be verified--I might even consider telling him what I think about the moon landings! But you've already told us what you think of the moon landings. You're not sure. You haven't studied it enough yet, etc. Someone said you are a motorcycle officer. Suppose you stop someone for speeding, and the ticket is contested, and you find yourself in court, and your opponent raises this issue, and the judge asks you. . . Well, officer. . do you think we went to the moon, or not? Don't you think it will cause some raised eyebrows if you tell the court that you aren't sure? That you haven't "studied the matter enough" etc.? As for the dentist's identity, these conversations happened 35 years ago--just before (or at the time of) the HSCA hearings. The source was a friend (from Dallas) who had the same dentist--i.e., Witt's dentist. I haven't seen her in over thirty years. Do you think I should have kept some sort of "forensic diary" at the time? So I would be able to produce the name of the dentist three decades hence, as "corroboration" for someone like yourself; when the man himself (i.e., Witt) was visited at his home by a congressional investigator (Moriarty), and then appeared as a sworn witness in a nationally televised congressional investigation. (Are you kidding??) I think I've made my own position pretty clear on Witt. (And I've also told you that both Earl Golz and Penn Jones (who actually confronted Witt, I'm told, where he worked) seemed satisfied that it was him. Steve Witt and his umbrella represents a conspiracy hypothesis that's hard (for some) to give up. They're enamored of it. Like an old romance, it will never go away. I never had that problem, because the things I have believed in, over the years, concern the falsification of the autopsy, and matters pertaining to the true identity of Oswald. I truly think the issue here is what's relevant, and what is not. I think Mr. Farley ought to go back to his hypothesizing that Mary Bledsoe wasn't on the bus, when Oswald boarded--which seems to be the focus of his concept of "conspiracy"--and you, Mr. Burnham, ought to take the time to decide whether or not we went to the moon. DSL

Regarding the questions you posed: (a) I agree that a professional sniper operation would likely employ a spotter paired with each shooter (and using binoculars). Moreover, the focus of the spotter would be on the target—(and/or on some person in authority making decision, and controlling the number of shots necessary, etc.) and certainly not on some fellow with an umbrella. (b ) I do not believe there was any “warning shot” designed to go through the windshield. I do believe that there was likely an audio diversion, to create the appearance of shots from behind, but I agree with your point: a deliberate shot through the windshield would alert everyone that there was an attack from the front. (c ) I believe that the original plan called for Oswald—with politically suggestive ties to Castro (to be exploited to embarrass the left)—to be set up as the “lone assassin.” And then to be dead very shortly afterwards, so he would never be able to reveal the secret(s) of who he was, how he was manipulated, etc. I do not believe that this crime was ever planned to “look like” a multiple shooter conspiracy; rather, it was always planned to look like a “single-shooter” event. Consequently, I do not believe that body-alteration was “merely a contingency plan.” To the contrary, medical alteration and autopsy falsification was a major covert operation that lay at the heart of a strategy of deception that worked in tandem with the actual assassination. (And I disagree with anyone who thinks that the autopsy falsification was part of an ad hoc after-the-fact cover-up). Also please note: the reason that Oswald “looks like” a “lone assassin” (i.e., appears that way in the Warren Report, but not if one goes several layers deeper, into the documents etc) is largely the result of the de-politicization of the Kennedy assassination by the Warren Commission (and in the media coverage, too). As you well know, the dynamics of the Warren Commission investigation functioned as to minimize (and marginalize) Oswald’s connections to the Soviet Union, to Castro, the significance of the trip to Mexico City, etc. As spelled out in Best Evidence, I do not believe that Oswald was a shooter in the JFK assassination, and the only reason he appears to be that is because of falsification of the key evidence—a falsification which was integral to the design of the crime. In other words, I believe this was a plot with a “built in cover-up”—that is, a false solution was planned (and manufactured) as part of the crime. As to contingency plans: Of course, none of us have a copy of the conspirators “playbook,” and I suppose it could be argued that if plans went so completely awry that the Secret Service actually lost control of the body (and the subsequent autopsy), and it was impossible to deny the existence of other shooters (either because of the recovery of bullets from “other guns” or because of matters of geometry, i.e., incontrovertible evidence of shots from the front), then sure, there might have been a “plan B” in which it was alleged that this was a “multiple shooter” conspiracy. However, I don’t think that was ever planned as a reasonable “contingency” because it would have created a political uproar, and created all kinds of nearly insoluble problems for Johnson to address, and still “ascend” to the presidency in a legitimate manner, i.e., without a huge cloud of suspicion hanging over his head. Leaving the Kennedy assassination as an "unsolved crime" --because there were "other shooters" who somehow "escaped"-- was not (IMHO) a viable "solution" (politically speaking). DSL 12/11/11 ; 4:55 AM Los Angeles, CA

I see. . . you are not concerned with the alteration, but you ARE concerned with "the time line for Lifton's origination of his belief". . . Hmmm. . . .. You teach American history, and you boastfully say, re the Zapruder film alteration situation, that "Its an issue I stay away from --on purpose." ". . . on purpose. . ."? That sounds like Seymour Hersh, who brags that there's two issues he has vowed not to deal with: The Kennedy assassination and UFO's. Now I'll bet you might agree with me that Hersh, for whatever reason, is "in denial." But how does your behavior differ all that much from that of Hersh? You cannot deal with the President's murder, without dealing with the autopsy; and you cannot deal with the wider implications of the event, itself, without dealing with the Zapruder film, and the evidence that there has been serious alteration. In the case of the autopsy (if you ignore the evidence of wound alteration), then you are willfully ignoring the clear changes in the size and character of wounds in the six hour period after the murder, i.e., between Dallas and Bethesda, not to mention the report of the two FBI agents present at the Bethesda autopsy, who explicitly stated that it was "apparent" there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Of course, that's just for starters; because there's much more than that which you then have to ignore "on purpose." There's also the matter of Robert Kennedy--of "what he knew, and when he knew it." For example, you are then also willfully ignoring the fact that in 1966--specifically, within weeks of my discovery of this situation, and showing it to former WC attorney (and then UCLA professor) Wesley Liebeler--he then drafted a 13 page memorandum, that went to the Chief Justice of the United States, all members of the Commission, and Robert Kennedy, informing the recipients that evidence had been discovered indicating that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy, the autopsy on which their entire "case against Oswald" was based. If you're going to call yourself a "Kennedy assassination researcher" and run a website which associates your name with the word "truth," and sign your newsletters "the Chairman," as if you're the Frank Sinatra of the world of evidence, you ought to be paying attention to such facts--and not decide to ignore key areas of evidence "on purpose." In the case of the film, you are willfully ignoring a plethora of data indicating the Zapruder film was altered. Putting aside all the technical data, there ought to be some curiosity on your part as to why the price associated with the Zapruder film zoomed from $25K or $40K on Saturday, 11/23/63, to $150K on Monday, 11/25-or is such a 300 to 400% price increase something that you also ignore "on purpose"? (And if your answer, perhaps, is that the price was increased so as to include "film rights", then my response to that is another question: if so, then how come no effort was made to exploit those "movie rights," and to recoup that investment? Since when do private corporations spend nearly a million dollars (in today's money) to buy something that is primary evidence, and then behave so as to hide it from the American people? Is that something you've also decided to ignore "on purpose"? Of course, that's just the tip of an iceberg, just the beginning of what has to be ignored "on purpose" with regards to the Zapruder film. There's also the dozens of witnesses saw the President's markedly slow down--if not come to a complete halt--during the shooting. Don't these things bother you? At all? Or is that also something to be ignored "on purpose"? How about the fact that while the film sent to Chicago on 11/23 was presumably 8mm (and presumably the 8mm camera original), the Chicago people report that it was viewed on a movieola machine, which normally requires 16 or 35 mm.? Or: what about the unslit 16mm Kodachrome film (again, supposedly the original) that arrived in Rochester on the night of 11/23--at the highly secret "Hawkeyeworks" plant--(when the original 16mm was supposedly slit in Dallas?, and thus was supposedly in 8mm format?) Since when does a teacher--specifically, an American history teacher--brag about the fact that he ignores critical evidence "on purpose"? Suppose one of the students in your class, who has read about these matters on the Internet, proposes to write a paper on such issues? Do you instruct him or her that that area is proscribed? That you, as the teacher, have decided it is to be ignored "on purpose"? Let's put the shoe on your other foot. . that of your role as Garrison guru and promoter. . : Do you ignore certain evidence in the Garrison area, "on purpose"?? How about the evidence that Edgar Eugene Bradley was not involved in any way, shape, or for, with any aspect of the assassination of President Kennedy---yet was charged by D.A. Garrison with being part of a plot to murder the President? Do you ignore that (too) "on purpose"? Or what about the fact that Kerry Thornley, who I knew quite well (and who had nothing whatsoever to do with this affair--and didn't even know Oswald was in town, during the brief period their stays overlapped in New Orleans in the summer of 1963). . .do you also ignore that "on purpose"? What else do you ignore "on purpose"? In a recent appearance on Black Ops radio, Pat Valentino--who has been a good friend for 30 years, and accompanied me on many of the key filmed interviews--played audio recordings of numerous key witnesses that provide crucial support to my work, and clearly establish that the President's body was intercepted (and altered) prior to autopsy. That the body arrived at Bethesda, as the documentary record clearly shows, some 20 minutes before the coffin, accompanied by Jacqueline Kennedy. Ergo, the ceremonial coffin (i.e., the "Dallas coffin") offloaded from Air Force One must have been empty. You never responded. Not a word. Apparently, you are ignoring all that evidence, too. . is that, also, "on purpose"?? I have a suggestion. Perhaps you should use the EXCEL program, and make a spreadsheet. Column 1: Things I believe. . "no matter what" (i.e., regardless of the contrary evidence) Column 2: Thinks I ignore. . ("because, well, I just don't know.") Column 3: things I ignore "on purpose." I'd sure like to know how anyone can approach a crime in which the only official to bring a prosecution was so sloppy that he charged innocent people with murder, and glorify that prosecutor--and then, at the same time, willfully ignore key areas of the case: the autopsy, where the alteration of the body is ignored; and the film of the event, where you proudly assert that you ignore that area "on purpose." DSL 12/8/11; 7:20 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Don: I sent you a private message. Hope you go it. Your "email me" is not working. DSL