David Lifton

You're welcome Bernice - thank you Here is one more entry on Jerry Buchanan. This is from Ed Arthur's Glory No More © 1975, a great book if you can find it: [snipped, to save space] Zach, these are all GREAT posts, and you apparently have done your homework, knowing what your looking for, however, I'm not hanging my hat just on Jerry or what others are saying or not saying. I also have to beleive my mother when she says that my father met Lee Oswald in Miami in 1962. Most of the information of Lee being in Miami was in 1962 and if that name and number my father has in his phone book can be linked to the Lee Oswald we all know then that's all the proof I need. I'm still looking into it, and I'm not giving up. Hi Scott, I would like to hear more details about your mother's account of your father meeting Oswald in Miami in 1962. (Perhaps you have written about this or posted it elsewhere? Please do let me know). Meanwhile, I think everyone studying this matter should also be aware of another piece of critical evidence--an undated postcard received by Robert Oswald (from Dallas) that is postmarked January 10, 1963. This is WC Exhibit 324 (16 WCH 916), and reads (typed out line by line) as follows: Dear Robert, Sorry I took so long in saying “Thank you” for the nice Xmas present You sent June. I was out of town For a few days so I didn’t hear about It until after Xmas. Please send pic My regards when you write him, I Seem to have mislaid his address. Your Brother, Lee. P.S. Marina says “Hello” UNQUOTE If true, this text suggests that LHO made a brief "out of town" trip in the day or two or three just following Christmas, 1962. (Remember: he was at a X-mas party, brought there by DeMohrenshieldt). Marina was questioned about this postcard by the HSCA and denied he was gone for the length of time necessary to make a bus trip to Florida (I do not have the page reference immediately at hand). FWIW: I was never completely satisfied that we know the whole story on this particular matter, and I think the whole "bus trip" idea provides a possibly incorrect context. This post card is very important evidence. It was auctioned at ebay (by Robert Oswald) around 2005, and it may have been sold. The asking price was about $20,000. Robert Oswald's testimony about the postcard is at Volume 1, p. 390. He simply acknowledges it exists, and at that point it is mentioned as being Warren Commission Exhibit 324. If Oswald in fact left town for a day or two, I don't think he went by bus (which was the way the HSCA questioned him). I would assume he was flown somewhere, and then back. So this entire "out of town" trip could have been simply a matter of, say, two nights and three days--which is the likely model that I would use in analyzing it). As far as I know, the implications of the text of this postcard--a brief out of town trip by LHO immediately after 12/25/62--was never investigated by the FBI (but I could be wrong). Anyway, I would very much appreciate it if you could set forth the details of what your mother related about your father having met Oswald--the when and where of it, when he recollected it; was it something that he immediately realized on 11/22/63 when Oswald's name was first in the news, etc. Thank you. DSL 8/14/11; 12:25 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

John. . . just an FYI re Rod Serling. . . : From Maureen Dowd's column on July 5, 2011: No doubt some characters would have been saved and others destroyed by Twitter, Facebook and Google. “When you look at ‘Twilight Zone’ episodes, everything is ambivalent,” said Serling’s friend Doug Brode, who, along with Serling’s widow, Carol, wrote “Rod Serling and ‘The Twilight Zone:’ The 50th Anniversary Tribute,” published in 2009. “Rod had an open mind to the good, the bad and the in-between of technology. He was a guarded optimist until the Kennedy assassination. After that, his work reflected his sense of hopelessness.” DSL

Sorry Patrick, I don't see that. I would like to see that scene in slow motion. I cannot tell whether that bullet came from right or left, but to me it looked like the kidnapper was driven backwards by a bullet from somewhere in front. Recall the Gary Mack program, INSIDE THE TARGET CAR? IN that program you can clearly see that IN EVERY INSTANCE the "skull" was driven in the same direction as the bullet. In that program the skulls are always driven forward by a bullet from behind which proves to me that since JKF was driven backwards, he must have been shot from the front. One thing that is very obvious in this disucssion: a lot of perspectives are tied together. Pat and I disagree on the wounding to Kennedy's head, and my view of the wounding affects my view of the film. If my view of Kennedy's wounding is correct, the ejecta from the back of the head, which had to be considerable, was removed from the film to attempt to remove evidence of a shooter from the front. I am not claiming that this shooting came while the limo was stopped, but certainly when it was going slower that depicted in the extant film. I vigorously disagree with Pat that the principle witnesses to the head shot confirm the speed of the limo as shown in the extant film. David Lifton, after all interviewed a number of these in 1971 before the extant film was ever shown, and they all said it stopped. A number of motorcycle officers said it stopped. Toni Foster's assertions are late, true, but that is hardly her fault. Who took the time to interview her before Debra Conway in 2000? Now had Toni said one thing in 1963 or 4, and something totally different in 2000, that would be grounds to impeach her testimony. I have to throw a bone to Bill Miller, whose studies on the height of the motorcycle shield seem definitive to me. But that is a separate issue from the limo stop, and what might have gone on during that stop, or around the time of the stop. I would also agree, Raymond, that the poor slob who got himself shot showed every evidence of being struck from the front. Remind me not to kidnap anybody. Best, Daniel Daniel, I think it's inaccurate to insinuate the motorcycle officers claimed the limo stopped. Hargis mentioned it once or twice, but he later clarified that it almost stopped, and has never said anything indicating he assumed the Z-film was fake. As far as Lifton and the closest witnesses, who, besides Newman, did he interview? And if you're gonna rely on Newman--who has never suggested the Z-film was fake, by the way--well, then you oughta rely upon his two most consistent observations: 1. The sound at the time of the head shot came from behind him, at the back of the arcade, and not from his right--the direction of the picket fence. 2. The right top side of Kennedy's head--by his right ear--exploded, and NOT the back of his head. Newman, who I believe has been interviewed more than any other witness, is clear about this. He was but 15 feet or so away from Kennedy, staring right at the back of his head, when Kennedy's head exploded. And yet he saw nothing explode from the back of the head. Nothing. He saw one wound, by Kennedy's temple, (EXACTLY where it is depicted in the Z-film), and told people about this before Kennedy had even been pronounced dead. It's really really silly, IMO, to use him as a witness supporting that the back of the head exploded, and that the Z-film is fake. I interviewed William Newman (and his wife) in late November, 1971. My friend, the late Bill Corrigan, went to his home, and spent well over an hour there. The interview was recorded on a SONY reel to reel machine, the same model that Nixon used in Watergate. Both Newman and his wife said that the car stopped. There was nothing subtle about it. It stopped. Moreover, when I told him that the film at the National Archives showed not such stop, he responded that he didn't care what the film showed--the car stopped, and he was there. I think what is really silly is that the witnesses can be ignored because of some psychologist's theory. They were there and they said the car stopped. Newman did not offer any theory that the Zapruder film was faked--and I did not question him in that fashion. I questioned him about what he saw--and he said the car stopped. Period. FYI: I also interviewed Franzen, and Chism, and spent over an hour in Moorman's home. Her husband forbade me from using my tape recorder, but Bill and I made extensive notes afterwards. I have posted that account elsewhere. And yes, Moorman, too, was a car-stop witness. DSL 7/7/11; 2:30 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

I'm writing this post primarily to address statement number (2)--above--but first, let me address these comments about Moorman. First of all, I thoroughly disagree with the notion that the film clip I cited is not adequate to make a very firm judgement as to what Mary Moorman said. Its right there on camera. She says she stepped into the street, and even points to the street. Theorizing about what may have been left on the cutting room floor will not change these facts. Whether she actually took her picture when she was standing in the street is another matter. What concerns me the most is that she repeatedly said she was standing in the street, and the Z film does not show her there. Let's now turn to point (2). The statement there is simply incorrect--i.e., the notion that all the cycles are shown to "cruise down Elm Street right by the south curb." First of all, the Nix film --particularly the Enhanced Nix Film (on YouTube)--provides a plethora of evidence that at least three of the cyclists stopped. Jackson and Cheney are on the right hand side, and the Enhanced Nix shows them stopped. It happens quickly. And you have to watch carefully when Nix pans to the right. (You see Cheney turning his head to the right). Also , on the left hand side of JFK’s car, you see Hargis stopping (and that movement is quick, because Nix pans to the left) More specifically, re Hargis: Hargis completely stopped his cycle, AND put the kickstand down, AND then ran over to the light pole (as shown in frames from the Bell film). AND then he ran back to his cycle, remounted, and scooted off towards the Underpass. Interviews conducted by one researcher, years ago, with Malcolm Summers (who is shown falling in the Z film) indicate that Hargis cycle actually tipped over, and that he had to then place it rightside up, before leaving it, in the street, and running over to the light pole. Other films show Hargis' cycle upright, and simply standing there (upright) with the kickstand down, as Hargis is about to leave it (and/or has already left it) and run towards the light pole (see Darnell's film). None of this is shown on the Z film. Anyway, my point is that not ONLY are there cycle cops who SAY that they stopped, but that the films show that Hargis left his cycle, upright, and went over to the north curb, stood there, looked up at the monument area, and then returned to his cycle. So the statement that all the cycles simply "cruise[d] down Elm Street right by the south curb" is simply incorrect. DSL 7/1/11; 6:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Of all the arguments I've heard, I think the Bill Miller "height of the motorcycle" argument is the most important. Nonetheless, I'm still impressed by the fact that if one goes to the earliest recorded interviews, Moorman says she was in the street. These records are not easy to come by, but that's what she said. And I spent quite a bit of time transcribing the earliest interview (which follows below). I’m well aware that if the films have not been altered, then Mary Moorman was standing up on the grass. I’m also aware that a KRLD interview conducted some months later perhaps would not provide as accurate an account of what she saw as one conducted minutes later. (Certainly, what she said a month ago really has no standing in this kind of debate). With these factors in mind, read what is below—the transcript I made of the tape at NARA of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman being interviewed within 30 minutes or so of the shooting. Re Moorman’s location (as described by Moorman): Being located “on the grass” is not what Moorman said in the filmed interview posted at the NARA site. More important, that is not what Moorman said in the KRLD (radio) interview on Friday afternoon, November 22, as recorded on the KRLD audio tape available at the National Archives. There, too, she said she was standing in the street. Of course, its possible to argue that Moorman repeatedly made an error—the same error—in describing where she was standing. But I think this audio-taped record speaks for itself. Remember: both these witnesses not only give a description of where they were standing which is at variance with the Z film, but they also both say that the car stopped. I made a copy of this tape around 1970, and what follows is my transcript: FIRST, THE KEY EXCERPTS (and below that, the entire taped interview): MOORMAN: MM: (unclear)* stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. * * * Q: How many shots did you hear? You say “shots rang out.” MM: “Oh, oh, I don’t know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard (then, continuing) that I’m sure of (emphasis as in original). Now, I don’t know, there might have been more. * * * The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in the car. Jean Hill JH: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots (emphasis added), and it came to a momentary halt, and about that time, 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, * * * FULL TRANSCRIPT - - KRLD Tape 5B/6A – Excerpt of Hill/Moorman Interview Note: The interview begins with Jean Hill, who then brings Mary to the phone. Then it goes back to Hill. Q: Hello, Miss Hill. Did you say you were at the site of the assassination? JH: Yes, sir, we were; my friend took the picture as he was hit. Q: You saw ‘m took the picture, and you were there, too? JH My friend took the picture, as he was hit. Q: I see, you were both there at the scene? JH: That’s right. Q: Who was your friend? A: Mary Moorman. Q: Is he (sic—means “she”) there now? A: Yes, she is. Q: May I speak with her? JH: Yes; after she took the picture she fell on the ground. Q: Uh huh. JH: And she didn’t know he was shot. Q: Yes, uh. . . JH: Just a moment; (calling) “Mary!” MM: Hello, Q: Hello, Mrs. Moorman? MM: Yes. Q: You took the picture just after the shooting, or just before? MM: Evidently, just immediately, As the . . . cause he was, he was looking, you know, when (ever?) I got the camera focused and then I snapped it in my picture, he slumped over. Q: What type of picture was this? MM: A Polaroid picture. Q: About how close were you? MM: (background talk, as she discusses it, can’t make out). Q Fairly close. MM Ten or fifteen foot, I, no more (unint). . .because I fell behind my camera. DSL NOTE: Its not clear what she means by “I ell behind my camera.” Q: This was right at the underpass? A: Yes, just a few feet from the underpass (continues, but she is cut off) Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there? (DSL NOTE: A KEY QUESTION. Note her answer.) MM: (unclear)* # stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. DSL Note: Further analysis must be done to get out the word preceding “stepped”. Gary Mack has listened to the tape. He says it states: Q: Were you up on that grassy bank there? Moorman: Yes, that’s where we were and I stepped out in the street. We were right at the car. Q: Uh hh. MM. ((he has cut her off, and she is continuing). . . she (?) hollered. Q: Did you see any suspicious person, in conn. . . ? MM Yeah, of course, I have, I was just uh you know (unclear word) my camera, and when I took that the shots had rang out, and I wasn’t looking around. Q: How many shots did you hear? You say “shots rang out.” MM: “Oh, oh, I don’t know. I think three or four is what I, I uh, that I heard (then, continuing) that I’m sure of (emphasis as in original). Now, I don’t know, there might have been more. Q: What was your first thought? MM: That those are shots. I mean, he had been hit. (uh huh) and that they’re liable to hit me, ‘cause I’m right at the car, so I decided (unint) [that] the safest place to be ???) the place for me is to get on the ground. (laughs) Q: So uh, how did the President respond to this shot. I mean, did he just slump suddenly? MM: He grabbed his chest, and of course Mrs. Kennedy jumped up immediately, and fell over him; and she said: “My God, he’s been shot!” Q: Did you notice any other reactions, to persons around him? Around the President in the motorcade there, at the time of the shot? MM: Uh, they hesitated just for a moment, [referring, I think, to the car stop—dsl] cause I think they were like I was, you know—‘Was that a shot, or (a? just?) backfire, or just what? And then, course, he clutched himself and they immediately sped up, real fast, you know—like—to get out of there. And, uh, the police, there were several motorcycles around him; and, uh, they stopped, and uh—one or two must of went with him, and one ran up the hill, and a friend that was with me ran up the hill, across the street from where the shots came from. Q: . Did they… MM: (continuing) there was just confusion, then. Q: Did the reports, of the shot, in other words, the sound of the explosion, could they sound rather loud? MM: Yes, they did. Just like a firecracker going off (down at the cross?) Q: It seemed fairly close by? MM: Yes, uh huh. Q: And from what direction did they seem to be? MM: (Oh (Lord? North ?) Just back there (at—laughs) Q: Just right at you? MM; Yes, sir. Yeah MM: (continuing) (.a. . )a and we’re just lying so hard, you know? And uh, just went into the. . . . 1102 BEGIN Tape 6B MM (continuing. . . ) The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in the car. Q And in your picture, uh, you uh took this picture just before the shot? Or, right at the time (of the shot?) (( he is cut off by Moorman, who is then saying. . . )) MM: Evidently, at the minute* that is, that it hit him because, uh, he was, he was looking, at me, or I mean, he was looking, you know, at the people when (or “whenever”) my picture came out, (they just, just slumped over, so I must have got it. (words, unintelligible) * means “instant” Q: And this shows, in your picture, does it? This shows, in your picture, that something happened to him? MM: Yes, uh huh. You could ( ) he’s clutched, he’s bent over, and she’s, [. . . ] and she hadn’t even gotten up in my picture, and she did get up, stood up, in the car. Q You submitted your picture to the Times-Herald, did you? MM: Well, not exactly (laughs) Q: Uh huh. MM: They just have my picture. Q: Oh, I see. Well, thank you very much, Mrs. Moorman, and where do you live, please? MM: I’m at 2832 Ripplewood. * * * JEAN HILL - - continuing on KRLD Tape 6B: JH: I suppose we were the people closest to the President’s car, at the time. Q: Uh, that was abut 10 or fifteen feet, you’d say? JH: Not anymore than that at all. Q: Uh huh. You were both looking right at the presidential car, then? JH: We were looking right at the President; we were looking in his face. As Mary took the picture; I was looking at him. DSL note: That is not shown on the Z film. Hill is looking, seemingly nonchalantly, towards the rear of the car! Q: Uh huh. A: And he grabbed his hands crossed his ch—when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest, I have never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but, there was this odd look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie’s lap. ((DSL Note: almost certainly means: to the side, because Jackie was to JFK’s left side) Q: Yes. JH: And uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and everything, and she fell across him and says “My God, he’s been shot.” Q: You were both eyewitnesses to just about the same scene, but although she was taking a picture, you were not. Did you notice particularly any o’ the other people around? At the time (Hill cuts in) JH: There was no one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way; we wanted to be to be down [there] by ourselves. That’s the reason we had gotten almost to the Underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear. Q: Uh huh. Q: Any other reactions from the other people in the motorcade? That you recall? ((DSL note: again, a peculiar question, as if he’s seeking info re the SS non-reaction, or whether she is a witness to the follow-up guys having piled out of the car, etc.)) JH: The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots (emphasis added), and it came to a momentary halt, and about that time, 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn’t register with me. Mary was uh had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg, saying “Get, Get down, they’re shooting, get down, they’re shooting; and I didn’t even realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And uh uh just about that time, well, of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away, and some of them pulled over to the side and started running up the bank*. There’s a [or “this”] hill on the other side…(she is interrupted). . . DSL Note: only one officer, I think, ran up the knoll—and that was Haygood. So if she looked up (after having fallen down) and thinks multiple cycle cops ran up there, she is almost certainly seeing the same “police” that Zapruder saw (and who he says were “running behind me” etc. Q: Yes, maam. JH: And the shots came from there. The {or “but”—dsl} after they were momentarily stopped [emphasis added] –after the first two shots— {DSL NOTE: car stop} Q: (interrupting) Yes, ma’am (spoken very quickly) JH Then they sped away real quickly. Q: Well, thankyou very much Miss uh Mary Moorman, and uh where do you live please? JH I’m Jean Hill. Q: I mean Miss Hill; I’m sorry. (mumble) We just talked to Miss Moorman. JH Well, thank you Miss Hill, and also Miss Moorman, for speaking with us about this. A: Thank you.

In a CBS film currently posted at the NARA website, Mary Moorman is interviewed and says that she had stepped into the street to take her famous polaroid. The link: http://www.archive.org/details/gov.archives.arc.50248 The time: at 30 minutes. The bottom line: In this 1964 filmed interview, an account broadcast on the evening that the Warren Report was published, Mary Moorman says she “stepped out into the street” to take her Polaroid photo, and that she stood there, focusing her camera for “quite a few seconds, since I wanted to be sure that they were looking at me.” “. . .stepp[ing] out into the street. . “ and “focusing” the camera for “quite a few seconds” is seriously inconsistent with the known parameters of the Zapruder film. This 1964 filmed interview—currently being shown at the NARA website—is completely consistent with the detailed report I made immediately after spending an hour or more speaking with Moorman on November 29, 1971 in Dallas. FURTHER DISCUSSION: The question of whether the President’s limo stopped during the shooting has been debated. If the car stopped, then the Zapruder film (among others) has been altered. A related question is whether Moorman stepped out into the street to take her picture. If she did, the notion that the film alteration simply amounted to “editing out” a car stop can be discarded. Because if Mary Moorman stepped out into the street, a far more elaborate alteration took place. The technology existed to do this type of editing/fabrication. The question is: was it used? THE CAR STOP: For many years, I have believed that the car stopped momentarily, during the shooting, because in November, 1971, I interviewed witnesses who said that it did. In November, 1971, I went to Dallas (along with a friend, Bill Corrigan) specifically to interview witnesses who were standing close to the car, and to see what they would say about a car stop. I interviewed Mary Moorman—and several other witnesses—who said the President’s car stopped during the shooting. These witnesses were Bill and Gayle Newman, John Chism, Jack Franzen and Mary Moorman. With one exception, these interviews were taped. Moorman’s husband, at the time, was forceful in his insistence that I not record the interview. But I made notes at the time, and immediately afterwards, wrote an interview report for the file. Here’s what Moorman told me that night, re the speed of the President’s limo—all phrased in the context of how she wanted to get the best picture possible of the President. QUOTING FROM MY INTERVIEW REPORT: It was moving “very very slowly.” So slowly that she could frame the President in her viewfinder. “It was almost as if he was posing.” I believe she said that the car stopped momentarily. But she emphasized the fact that she (or Jean [Hill]) yelled out, “Hey look here” or some such thing. That’s when JFK looked over, and she (Moorman) was able to frame him in view finder as if he were posing. That’s how slow it was moving. Bill Corrigan: She thought it might stop and he was going to pose; that was the impression Moorman [had] It stopped momentarily (to let the agent [Clint Hill] on); and this stop [i.e. that stop] was after the head shot. UNQUOTE TONIGHT'S DISCOVERY (6/29/11): Tonight, I was looking for something at the National Archives website, and noticed that they have posted there the CBS network broadcast from the night the Warren Report was released in September, 1964. Walter Cronkite (and Dan Rather) narrate; and many of the interviews (all apparently, circa 1964) are done by Eddie Barker. It soon became evident that Mary Moorman was going to appear on this program, and so I set up a recorder to accurately record what she said. Moorman doesn’t address the issue of whether the car stopped, but what she DOES say addresses something that is equally important: whether she was standing on the grass, when she took the picture, or whether she stepped out into the street. If Mary Moorman stepped out into the street to take the picture, then any Zapruder film alteration was much more elaborate, than many have supposed. WHAT MOORMAN SAYS IN THIS FILMED INTERVIEW: “I stepped out into the street.” Here’s what Mary Moorman says, on camera, at 30 minutes into the CBS film, now being shown at the U.S. National Archives website: 30:05 “I stepped out into the street; So, I took the camera and aimed it [and] focused it. And stood there and looked through it [for] quite a few seconds, since I wanted to be sure that they were looking at me. And uh, I followed it, for, oh, so many seconds, and then I did take the picture. (30:27) I’m not making this post to start a debate as to whether the car stopped. Personally, I am sure that it did, because I interviewed the witnesses in November, 1971, who were right there. They did not know what the Zapruder film showed, because this was many years before the film became available. I’m making this post to point out something that is, in a way, a far more serious question: whether Moorman was –or was not—standing in the street. In this interview, filmed by Eddie Barker in 1964—some 47 years ago—Moorman plainly states exactly that: that she was standing in the street: “I stepped out into the street” she said. Obviously, this is a more reliable record than what she said a month ago. Furthermore, Mary’s description of what happened next (i.e., AFTER she “stepped out into the street”) makes plain that, from her position in the street, she took quite a few seconds to aim the camera, and focus it. And this, by itself, indicates how slow the limo was going, and how many more seconds the assassination took, than is officially acknowledged. Again, in Moorman's words: “And stood there and looked through it [for] quite a few seconds, since I wanted to be sure that they (JFK and Jackie—dsl) were looking at me. And continuing: “And uh, I followed it, for, oh, so many seconds, and then I did take the picture.” When Moorman gave this interview, she had no idea that what she was saying would undercut the authenticity of the Zapruder film, because the Z film not only shows no car stop, it does not show Moorman standing in the street, but rather up on the grass. However, in terms of how she methodically went about taking JFK's picture, this is completely consistent with what Mary Moorman told me when I spent well over an hour with her in her home in November, 1971. AGAIN, QUOTING FROM MY NOTES: It was moving “very very slowly.” So slowly that she could frame the President in her viewfinder. “It was almost as if he was posing. . . “ She emphasized the fact that she (or Jean [Hill]) yelled out, “Hey look here” or some such thing. That’s when JFK looked over, and she (Moorman) was able to frame him in view finder as if he were posing. That’s how slow it was moving. UNQUOTE A car moving at 15 mph is akin to a runner doing a 4 minute mile. Even if one reduces the speed down to 10 mph, its still a very fast clip, and does not fit the description of the event that Moorman is describing. I find it ironic that the National Archives is showing a film, at its website, that carries an account of a key witness (Moorman) which, if true, by itself establishes that the Zapruder film is a fake. I do hope that NARA permits this CBS film to remain posted, so that other students of the Kennedy case can see this interview, listen to what Moorman says, take another look at the Zapruder film (which clearly shows Moorman standing on the grass) and judge for themselves. I have attached to this post a single "frame grab" from this 1964 interview. DSL 6/29/11 4:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Bingo! Nice to see Mr. Parker making sense for a change. Greg, I tend to agree, I suppose it should be considered logic to have the audacity to hope someone "in the know" ie Nechiporenko would actually have the desire to tell the truth about Oswald. I wanted to post this, if for no other reason, than to show something a lot of persons probably havent had an opportunity to see, unless one has Passport to Assassination, credibility of is another story but there are certain parts [especially his comments re the husky 35 year old man captured on camera in MC, the one that they showed Margeruite, that she said was Ruby], that haven't received much exposure, I may seem like a fool, but I find his tome more compelling than Mailer's, although it obviously has credibility issues. Although that is damning with faint praise. If the post was of interest to you, I am glad. PS Do you remember, the guy in New Orleans who said he saw Oswald walking backwards down the street, also said he found weapons in the....I guess Magazine Street address, after the Oswald's vacated it? It's on a thread here somewhere..... Kind of, more of the same........I suppose Cheers Robert, I can't find the info, but I think it was Titovets who made his own radios and showed Oswald how. I don't have "Passport to Assassination", but with a couple of exceptions, even the worst books have some things in them that are worthwhile. Sorry; I don't recall the guy who claimed to see Oswald walking backwards or anything about anyone finding weapons in the abandoned apartment. The information you've posted here is of great interest to me. Don't want to discuss it just yet, but the noose, from my viewpoint, is ever tightening around certain individuals. It was Golovachev who knew about radios. (Titovets has nothing to do with radios. He was the friend studying to be a neuroscientist.) DSL

Tom, I'm not so interested in your conclusions as to how you arrived at them. If one is convinced of fraud in the evidence, as am I, it would seem most of your points vanish rather quickly like smoke. So once again, as always, it is the integrity of the evidence that is at stake. By the way, did you mean: "The Warren Commission is not the factual truth?" Best Regards, Daniel I agree. I looked at Purvis' credentials. He obviously has splendid training as a warrior, and I'm sure there are many more like him in our special forces. But this case is not about "guns and ammo." It is about "fraud in the evidence." I know that, and knew it when I wrote Best Evidence back in 1981. Doug Horne knows that. And I'm sure you do, too. You can not come to the truth about a murder when the autopsy has been falsified, i.e., when the "diagram of the shooting" has been changed. Understanding that fundamental fact is the true starting point in any genuine inquiry into the Kennedy assassination. DSL 6/21/11 5:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

This thread concerns Kennedy's "Berlin policy," and the recently published book by Frederick Kempe, "Berlin 1961: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Most Dangerous Place on Earth." The Kempe book revives a very important issue, one that author Richard Reeves analyzed in depth 18 years ago in his book, "President Kennedy: Profile of Power." I thought I'd start this thread, to put the matter in context. In my opinion, understanding what happened in Berlin in the "summer of '61" (and in what is called "the Berlin Crisis") is critical to understanding what followed in the Kennedy administration in the area of JFK's foreign policy towards Cuba and--consequently--Berlin figures as another marker on the road to Dallas. I have not read Kempe's book (just yet) but those interested in this subject should be aware that the basic situation JFK was facing in Berlin is narrated (and analyzed, in considerable detail), in author Richard Reeves' 1993 book "President Kennedy: Profile of Power." What is known as the Berlin crisis began on 6/4/61, when JFK met Khrushchev in Vienna (at what is sometimes referred to as the "Vienna Summit"), and Khrushchev delivered an ugly, fist-banging ultimatum: that he was going to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany, that access to Berlin (located over 100 miles inside East Germany) would then be controlled by East Germany (and the Communist regime of Walter Ulbricht) and the west be damned. Kennedy was faced with this ugly ultimatum and the problem of what to do about it. For a brief while, what actually happened in Vienna, and the full extent of Khrushchev's ultimatum was not made public. What happened next: The hawks in JFK's administration clustered around former Secretary of State Dean Acheson who, on 6/28/61, wrote a critical memo that defined the parameters of the situation. Acheson decided that Berlin was the place to face down the Soviets,once and for all. Acheson's memo instructed Kennedy to "prepare for war. . .nuclear war." Siding with Acheson were the JCS AND Vice President Johnson--yes "and Vice President Johnson". Moreover, the JCS sought authority to use tactical nukes to defend West Berlin (can you believe that? Well, its true). Kennedy sought to find a way to avoid war, and to maneuver around this dangerous situation, and convince Khrushchev that he meant business. His brain trust consisted of Sorenson, Schlesinger, Mansfield---and a young MIT whiz named Thomas Schelling, an expert in game theory. (You can buy his books on game theory on Amazon). As events unfolded, Kennedy learned (to his distress) that Khrushchev did not care what Kennedy said--only what he did. So: Kennedy basically had to bluff Khrushchev--publicly--but the stakes were huge and the risks were terrible. A strategy had to be devised that projected the credible appearance that Kennedy would in fact go to war over Berlin, without actually going to war. For Kennedy, it was touchy, scarey, and just plain awful. He had to tread a very fine line. JFK went on TV on July 25, 1961, calling for increased money, calling up reserves, increasing draft calls, etc. There were also very serious (and secret) back channel communications, involving Bobby Kennedy and the Russian spy Bolshakov. The bottom line: Kennedy made the decision that what counted (i.e., what he ultimately wanted) was Western access to West Berlin--that he could not be responsible for what East German did in its zone (i.e., the Soviet Zone). In other words, JFK made the decision that the U.S. would not go to war to protect the "freedom" of East Berlin--just the freedom of West Berlin. That's where he drew the line. Most important: JFK was able to "walk in the other guy's shoes." He understood that East Germany was hemorrhaging at the rate of 2,000 per day. So he understood that the East German government was going to have to do something about that. Kennedy was (apparently) hoping that the East German government would simply seal off their own border, and solve their political problem that way. And in fact, Senator Fulbright, in a national TV appearance on "Issues and Answers," signaled that that would in fact be acceptable to the U.S. The public response to JFK's 7/25/61 speech was very positive. Hugely positive, in fact. Behind the scenes, much of JFK's strategy was dictated by his conferring with Thomas Schelling. (All this is spelled out in Reeves). During this very dangerous period, after the July 25, 1961 nationwide TV address (but before the Wall went up [8/14/61] which marked "the end" of the Berlin Crisis ), Bobby Kennedy thought the chances of a major nuclear war were one in five. Yes, one in five. It was that serious. The "resolution" of the crisis was the erection of the Berlin Wall on 8/14/61. As explained by Reeves, that avoided a nuclear war in Europe. No question about it. Its all spelled out in Richard Reeves; and you've got to read BOTH the text, AND the footnotes. The Berlin Crisis --starting on 6/4/61 and ending on 8/14/61--is every bit as hair raising as the Cuban Missile Crisis the following year. But Kennedy played it down, after it was over. No proclamations were made. Just two key news stories--one in the NY Times and the other in the Washington Post--explaining the "real-politik" of the situation, and that the Wall marked the end of what had been a dangerous situation. From a memo in my files that I wrote three years ago. . .: QUOTE: I've read through Reeves' chapters (and all the footnotes) very carefully, and now have a much greater understanding of what happened between June 4 and August 14 (1961) It seems clear to me that "the Berlin Crisis" is almost as dramatic as the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the details are not known because many of the most fundamental documents (including the official record of the JFK-Khr meeting of June 4, 1961) were not available until the 1990s, and both Schlesinger AND Sorenson hid the true nature of the frightening way Khrushchev behaved on June 4, in delivering his ultimatum. (So did Hugh Sidey, who also--apparently--had access to the official notes of the meeting.) Again, Reeves' book was not written until 1993, and the other key sources on which he relies. . .. UNQUOTE Here's another passage: QUOTE: Anyway, nuclear war was avoided because of some very sophisticated maneuvering by JFK (and Sorenson, and Schlesinger, and probably RFK, too) that was on a par with-and completely equivalent to--the strategic maneuvering and tactical thinking that JFK again employed during the much more well known Cuban missile crisis, which commenced fourteen months later, and lasted for the famous period known as "13 days." UNQUOTE And another: QUOTE: "However, in the lead-up to the climax--which extended through must of June, and into July (and which ended with a major nationwide TV address by JFK on the address of 7/25)--former Secretary State Dean Acheson (who was called in as an adviser) weighed in with a critical memo (6/28/61)--a very hawkish document recommending that JFK prepare for nuclear war over Berlin. The JCS wanted to use nukes, too. In the key meetings, LBJ sided with Acheson and the JCS. In this [memo], I cannot possibly adequately summarize the complex situation, but the story of how JFK maneuvered through this diplomatic and military minefield is all laid out in Reeves' 1993 book--IF you not only read the text, but also the footnotes. What I learned from this is that its not possible to understand how JFK/RFK approached Cuba (with Mongoose, starting in October/Nov 1961) if one does not understand what happened in the 10-week period between June 4 and August 14, and which must have been a thoroughly terrifying experience (and a prelude, of course, to what happened in October 1962, when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba). UNQUOTE Here's some more background. During the crisis (and apparently as part of the strategy), JFK authorized Joseph Alsop to air his personal views in a Saturday Review article. The headline of the Alsop Saturday Review article: "The Most Important Decision in U.S. History—And How the President is Facing It" Now, focus this language (QUOTING ALSOP, reporting Kennedy's thinking): * * * The decision, as Alsop phrased it, was “Whether the United States should risk something close to national suicide in order to avoid national surrender.” UNQUOTE Kennedy knew he had to avoid appeasement, or even the appearance of it. "What he said to insiders: If he wants to rub my nose in it. . its over." "It's over" meant just that--that if, after all JFK did, Khrushchev insisted on "taking" Berlin (via the use of its proxy, the East German government) there would indeed be war. From my notes on JFK's 7/25/63 Berlin Speech: JFK addresses the nation—and played his hand, to show how serious he was, designed to make Khrushchev "pay attention": --tripled draft calls --Personal sacrifice neccessary --fallout shelters --More $ for military (put in details) I don't know how this data is treated in Kempe's book (my copy is on order from Amazon). What I'm laying out here is how author Richard Reeves dealt with this remarkable situation in his really excellent 1993 book--and remember, that was 18 years ago. There's little question in my mind that the prospect of nuclear war was very serious--as I said above, Bobby Kennedy estimated the chances at 1 in 5. There's also no question that JFK's key adversary, politically, was former Secretary State Dean Acheson (supported by the JCS AND Vice President Johnson). Acheson, in the aftermath, viewed Kennedy as an "uninformed" young man, who was "out of his depth," etc. When Kennedy navigated the dangerous Cuban Missile Crisis, 14 months later, he (Acheson) called the positive outcome "pure dumb luck." (If you want to understand the nature of "political forces" that were allied against Kennedy, it wasn't just people like Lyman Lemnitzer and Curtis Lemay. One cannot ignore Acheson.) So much for what you will find in Reeves book. . now, here are some of my own views. DSL PERSONAL VIEWS ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BERLIN CRISIS AND SUBSEQUENT CUBA POLICY FIRST: Kennedy's failure to "knock down the wall" (and other such crazy ideas) was viewed, by the top political/military leadership, as on a par with his failure to send in the Marines in connection with the Bay of Pigs. So to those people, by August, 1961, Kennedy was an out and out appeaser, and it looked this way: --March 1961: Kennedy failed to go into Laos with troops, as advocated by Sec State Dean Rusk --April 1961 Kennedy failed at the Bay of Pigs --August 1961 Kennedy failed to knock down the Berlin Wall To me, this kind of "analysis" is sheer lunacy, but. . and here's where I am heading. . SECOND: when it came to Cuba, and the fall of 1961. . I don't believe that John Kennedy was going to risk another brush with thermonuclear war because of what he viewed as a revolutionary out-of-control Marxist in the Caribbean, whose associate, Che Guevara, was fomenting revolution in South America. Consequently--and this is just my opinion--understanding what happened in Berlin (circa 6/4/61 - 8/14/61) is essential to understanding the "moral calculus" or "ethical calculus" that motivated Kennedy in deciding --if necessary--to treat Castro (personally) as a military target and overthrow his regime, rather than risk a rerun of the frightening experience he (and brother Robert) had just had in Berlin. (And can you blame them?) So that, imho, explains his calling in Tad Szulc, and asking: "What would you say if I gave the order to assassinate Castro?" etc. He simply had no intention of losing his presidency by being "tolerant" of a Marxist regime 90 miles off the coast of Florida. What's amazing to me, once you read Reeves, is how Sorenson played it down, in his book, and even in Counselor, his recently published memoir published just a year or so prior to his death. I think that he simply didn't want to let the world know that Kennedy had played nuclear poker. Again, that's my opinion. Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading Kempe's book, but I don't think I will agree with his conclusions, at all. There's little question in my mind that, as historian Robert Dallek correctly has said (and Dallek probably has pored over all the same documents that Reeves had, and to which Kempe had access) that this was THE single most dangerous crisis (other than the Cuban Missile Crisis). I really do not believe that how JFK viewed the "world stage" and the rapidly evolving events, and the problem posed by his own recalcitrant military can be properly understood without appreciating the super-charged Berlin crisis (6/4-8/14/61), and how it ended without a war (on 8/14/61) BECAUSE OF "the wall." As JFK said on 8/14/61: "Better a wall, than a war" (from memory). I agree. We're here today, and the map of Europe looks the way it does, because of how that crisis was handled. ON A PERSONAL NOTE Kempe talks of his visit to East Berlin, and his traverse through Checkpoint Charlie. I had the same experience, but at a much earlier time. As I write this post, I have in front of me my passport from 1961, when I was briefly living in Paris, and in general, was touring Europe in a VW "bug" that I purchased when I first arrived. The Wall was big news--all over the world--and I and a companion, a Fulbright Scholar, set out from Paris and went to Berlin. We entered East Germany on August 30, 1961 (at Helmstedt) and were in Berlin in a few hours. As U.S. citizens, we had the right to go into the "eastern zone," and that's what we did. I have some vivid memories of that day--just two weeks after the Wall went up. Checkpoint Charlie--the crossing point on the Frederichstrasse, looked exactly as it did in the movie "The Spy That Came in from the Cold." Parked nearby were the U.S. tanks, that had been involved in the famous standoff. As we passed through Checkpoint Charlie, off to one side were men with microphones, taking down everyone's license number. We spent several hours in East Berlin (which was akin to a poor section of Brooklyn) with some buildings emblazoned with large posters of Soviet astronaut Yuri Gargarin, and then returned to the glass and steel beauty of West Berlin. It was a memorable experience. Of course, at the time I had no idea of the behind the scenes policy debates that were going on. Or how close the world had come to the outbreak of a nuclear war in Europe. DSL 6/21/11 5:45 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Vince, You're doing a fine job. And you are correct--it doesn't matter which agent it was who "waved away" the agent clearly intending to board the JFK limousine as it left Love Field. The body language in that event speaks for itself; and I remember being quite amazed when I was first shown it back in 1985. Moreover, in view of the numerous people and media institutions who believed it was Rybka (and not Lawton), and the massive amount of research you have done, and the unique data base you have created, no apology is required. When what happened at Love Field, is joined with the non-reaction of the White House Detail in Dealey Plaza, and the plentiful evidence of a car stop (or a serious "car slowdown," for those who cannot accept the idea that the Z film was altered) in Dealey Plaza, this body of evidence speaks for itself. Let me remind anyone reading this thread what Gen. Godfrey McHugh, JFK's Air Force aide, told me when we spoke (at length) in November, 1967. I had called him mainly to inquire about events at Bethesda, but then the conversation veered over to the arrival at Love Field. McHugh said that after Air Force One arrived, and when the motorcade was forming, he was specifically requested NOT to ride in the front seat of the JFK limo, as was often his practice. I pressed him as hard as I could as to exactly who made the request, and he would not name the person--but from other remarks he made, I infer that it was Kenneth O'Donnell, who (himself) was passing on a Secret Service request. For the record: I don't think O'Donnell acted in bad faith; I DO think he may have been used to pass on an instruction from some Secret Service person, who didn't want to be directly "exposed" by personally making such a request. My point: The direct request to McHugh, not to ride in the limo, when joined with the filmed behavior of shift leader Roberts, "waving away" another agent who was trying to hop aboard, and whose presence was clearly not desired, speaks for itself. One final point: I want to congratulate you on another "first": I think your observation that Rybka's report (25 H 787) is undated--I stress UNdated--and that it was not written on Treasury Department stationary, AND that it did not bear the counter-signature of SAIC Gerlad Behn--all of this may turn out to be significant as more information becomes available. (Perhaps you can do a review of ALL the reports and let us know just how many SS reports are NOT on official stationary, and/or do NOT bear Behn's counter-signature. Very interesting, and thanks for that rather sharp-eyed observation. Back then (circa 1963-1964) there was no guarantee that this whole affair would not "blow" and that such matters (and as to the chain of responsibility, who was in charge, who was "covering up," etc.) might --at that time--have had some legal significance. Again, many thanks for all your hard work. DSL 6/2/11 4:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Funny, isn't it, Mr. Lifton, that the HSCA and the WC and the Rockefeller Commission and the Clark Panel "ignored" the very same evidence that has led you down the "body alteration" path? Now, who should I go with -- the FOUR above-mentioned official Government panels who were assigned the task of looking at the JFK murder case (or various peripheral aspects of it at least)? Or should I go with David S. Lifton, a person who thinks that all the shots came from the FRONT of JFK in Dealey Plaza, and who also thinks the President's body was altered with lightning-like swiftness and efficiency, even though the stealing of JFK's body was literally impossible to do, given the timeframe and the witnesses surrounding the alleged "interception" of the body? Call me goofy -- but that's not really a very tough choice, DSL. First of all, Mr. DVP, this is really a silly "argument from authority," and I would think you would know better. Second, with regard to all the investigations that occurred after the assassination--the WC, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the HSCA--not one of them really had any clear idea that one possibility to explain the contradictory data in this case was that the President's body had been covertly intercepted and that the wounds had been altered prior to autopsy. So citing these various inquiries simply provides you with a convenient way to side-step the key issues. But, having said that, here are my brief comments on each of those investigations: Re the Warren Commission: I have not only (of course) studied the Warren Report, but I have also studied, and in considerable detail, the office files (or "working papers") of the entire staff of the Warren Commission. Each and every folder, each and every memo. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind--based on that documentary evidence--that the lawyers on the Warren Commission hadn't the faintest idea that their own files contained evidence that (a) the President's body was covertly intercepted and (b ) that the wounds had been altered. Those lawyers convened in early January, 1964. The investigative outline(s) used to structure their inquire all reflect the presumption of Oswald's sole guilt. One in particular that I recall was dated January 6, 1964, by David Belin. It outlines the very same case reflected in the Warren Report. By late March, 1964, Redlich, Eisenberg, Belin et al had created the outline for the Warren Report that was actually sent to the printer in September, 1964. All of it was centered around the presumed validity of the so-called "sniper's nest" found at the Sixth Floor of the TSBD. Anyone attempting to say that the WCR was a deliberate coverup and that all the attorneys colluded have to deal with the contrary documentary evidence resident in these office files. Although I am more than willing to entertain "individual departures" from this major thesis, the major thesis--documented in these files--remains there, and it is striking: a presumption of Oswald's guilt, from the outset, and a series of preliminary reports, and outlines, that reflect the final version of the Warren Report laid out, for all to see, and dated March 30, 1964, plus or minus a few days. From my own experience with the late Wesley Liebeler (who was the closest thing to a "Devil's advocate", but whose area was primarily Oswald's biography), he was shocked, astounded, and amazed when, on October 24, 1966, I not only showed him the statement about pre-autopsy "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report, but spelled out what I thought it meant. There is no question in my mind that he had never thought of any such possibility before, and neither (as far as I can tell) had anyone else on the Commission or its staff. On that day--as described in my Chapter 9, of B.E.--Liebeler called Arlen Specter. He wouldn't let me hear what Specter said, but when Liebeler emerged from the private office, and I asked "What did he say?", he responded (as I reported in B.E.): "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." Anyway, so much for the WC and its staff. Regarding the Clark Panel, convened in Feb-March, 1968, to examine the autopsy photographs and X-rays. I have no reason to believe that the Clark Panel conducted the kind of investigation that would have been necessary to pursue the matter of pre-autopsy alteration of the body. First of all, and fyi, I happened to have personally encountered Ramsay Clark, then either AG or Deputy AG, in early 1969, at a UCLA function, and when I raised the issue, he claimed he had never heard of it before, and said something to the effect of "And if I had, I would never have told Robert Kennedy about it." (or something like that). Second: the kind of investigation necessary would be to do what I described in Best Evidence: to (a) compare the Dallas and Bethesda descriptions of the wounds; and (b ) call the FBI agents in for careful follow-up question and (c ) trace the chain of possession on the body (as I did in B.E.) etc. None of that was done. The Clark Panel simply looked at the X-rays and photographs, and reported what they saw. I see no reason to believe they ever investigated the hypothesis in any manner. Nonetheless, you will note the following anomaly reflected in their report, and this concerns the report of Sibert and O'Neill that, during the autopsy, the doctor stuck his finger in the shallow back wound. As the Clark Panel notes: the wound was "too small to permit the insertion of a finger." Now right there you have another indicia that something is terribly wrong. Dr.Humes,according to sworn testimony, stuck his finger in the wound; the photographs show a wound "too small" to permit that. Right there is evidence that either (a) the doctors hallucinated, or (b ) the photos in evidence do not show that wound. (And in fact, I believe it lies beneath the ruler). With regard to the Rockefeller Panel, I see no reason that they did any kind of investigation that addressed the integrity of the evidence. Jumping to the HSCA investigation--they defininitely had the opportunity to pursue the issue. With regard to the matter of "chain of pssession," the records show that HSCA staffer Mark Flanagan called up Greer, and Kellerman (in December, 1978) and basically said: "You guys didn't alter the body, did you?" THe result of each call was a 1 page report saying nothing happened to the body. That is like asking the fox to fill out an affidavit that "nothing happened" at the hen house. As to the wounds being altered, the HSCA report simly acknowledges that the Dallas doctors all saw an occipital wound (of exit) but that such was not on the body, at Bethesda, and so they all must have been wroing. The first legal body to really pursue the matter--albeit years later-was the ARRB Because of the presence of Doug Horne on the staff,and the presence of Jeremy Gunn, some half dozen witnesses were called. As I have posted elsewhere on this forum, Horne's reaction to the ARRB was to come out in strong support of my work. Again, here is Horne's statement, and I QUOTE: David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.) Numerous persons the ARRB deposed or interviewed (FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, mortician Tom Robinson, and others) have essentially disowned the autopsy photographs showing the back of JFK's head intact. O'Neill said the photos of the back of the head looked "doctored" (by which he meant that he thought the wound had been repaired - put back together - not that the photo looked altered), and Sibert said the back of the head looked "reconstructed." Tom Robinson of Gawler's funeral home said there was a large hole in the back of the head where it looks intact in the photos. Pathologist J. Thornton Boswell said that there was a lot of bone missing in the right rear of the head behind where the scalp looks intact -but did not explain how the scalp could be intact if the bone in the right rear of the skull was missing! (See the ARRB deposition transcripts of Frank O'Neill, James Sibert, and J. Thornton Boswell, as well as the unsworn interview report of the ARRB interview with Tom Robinson.) UNQUOTE So: When the matter was pursued, one of the key persons in charge has come out publicly and said my thesis was in fact correct. DSL 6/1/11; 1:50 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

DVP: In response to my book, the argument you propose is really not an argument at all. It is simply a refusal to deal with the evidence. Further, labeling something as “impossible” does not change the very obvious evidence that it happened. You demean Paul O’Connor, who told the House Select Committee investigators that the cranium was empty—a fact that he repeated to the Florida newspapers shortly after he was interviewed by the HSCA, and then repeated to me on the telephone, in August, 1979, and then again on camera, in October, 1980. FYI: Paul O’Connor wasn’t the only one who said the cranium was empty. Both FBI agents have made similar statements. FBI Agent Francis O’Neill told one of his key financial supporters, Wayne Cooke, who read my book, and had a number of serious conversations with him about it: “Wayne, there was no brain.” Quote unquote. FBI Agent Sibert stated, in handwritten notes brought to his ARRB deposition, in Spetmber, 1997: “Brain had been removed from head cavity.” Remember these two FBI agents, Mr. DVP? They wrote, in their report—and based on what the doctor said when he first examined the body, that it was “apparent “ that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.” When you yave witnesses who know that the President’s body arrived in a body bag, and in a different coffin (than the one in which it left Dallas), when you have witnesses who clearly state that the head wounds were different (i.e., that the Bethesda wound was some 400% larger than the Dallas “large” wound); and, finally, when you have TWO FBI agents,PLUS a Bethesda medical technician stating that the cranium was empty, or that the brain had already been removed—it no longer is a question of whether this or that was “possible”—the evidence clearly indicates that it occurred. What kind of an argument is it that you merely poke fun at the witness, and ignore the facts, and your riposte is simply “you can’t really believe that, can you?” –when in fact the evidence indicates it is true. With regard to Dennis David, we have a similar situation. Dennis David was at the back of the hospital and is an eyewitness to the delivery of the Presient’s body in a shipping casket, a good 20 minutes before the naval ambulance with Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and the Dallas coffin arrivd at the front. Now you can poke fun at him all you want, but documents unearthed by the ARRB—and specifically, the “Boyajian Report” (the report of Army NCOIC Roger Boyajian, in charge of the morgue security detail) records that the body arrived at 6:35 PM, EST, which corroborates Dennis David’s account. Furthermore, you conveniently forget Donald Rebentish, who immediately came forward after my book was published, and corroborated Dennis David’s account. Recently, I found the original tape of my interiew with Rebentish, made the day the wire service story ran (in mid January, 1981), and BEFORE he had read my book, and he provides very strong corroboration for everything Dennis David reported. He, too, was a witness to the arrival of the black hearse at the back, with the shpping casket, and then went up to the lobby of the hospital, where he saw Jaqueline Kennedy, waiting to board the elevator which would take her upstairs, an event that occurred just after she left the naval ambulance parked outside, and which contained the Dallas coffin. So it is very clear from the documents, and the eyewitness accounts, that that Dallas coffin was empty. Now you know, Mr. DVP, if you had a law license (which you don’t) you can’t just go into court, and after the prosecution has presented its case, and your turn comes, step before the jury and go: “Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! I just don’t believe this!” . . . . and then sit down. That’s not evidence, that’ not an argument, and that’s not logic. In fact, it is of no cognitive significance. The fact is—you (and your pal, Bugliosi) just “don’t believe” where the evidence leads, in this case, and that is your right. To not believe. Or, to state the matter differently, to place your faith in a pile of planted evidence, found at the sniper’s nest, and which does not properly “connect up” with the murder, on the street below, because the body was altered (!). In other words, you have every right to close your eyes and look the other way. Now I know you wouldn’t do that when crossing a busy street, but certainly you can do that on the Internet. But don’t confuse that with a logical argument, or presenting credible data that undercuts witnesses and documents which, in this case, clearly establish that the most important evidence in this case, the President’s body , was covertly intercepted, and altered, prior to autopsy. DSL 5/31/11; 3:15 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA.

So Jim just totally ignores the autopsy report, which verifies (for all time) that JFK had just ONE entry wound in his head--in the REAR. I wonder how photo/film analysis can get around this irrevocable fact?: "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Page 6 of John F. Kennedy's Official Autopsy Report http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/head-wounds.html -------------- And then there are Dr. Humes' comments on CBS in 1967 (which Mr. DiEugenio is forced to either ignore or pretend Humes is a rotten xxxx): DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?" DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir." RATHER -- "And that was where?" DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly." RATHER -- "And the exit wound?" DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull." RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?" DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is." RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?" DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir." http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html BTW, ITEK Corp., in 1975, physically MEASURED the forward movement of JFK's head that occurs between frames 312 and 313. It's a MEASURABLE movement forward. Or is ITEK full of rotten liars (or incompetent boobs) too? You are absolutely correct, DVP, and that is why, if you argue with DiEugenio in this fashion, you will defeat him every time. of course, your position is entirely false, however, because the debate really comes down to the condition of the body, at the time of autopsy. Commander Humes is no doubt correct when he states that, at the time of autopsy, there was only one entrance wound (at the back of the head) and a much larger hole (which he designated the exit wound) forward of that. But that is definitely not the way the body looked in Dallas. And, for the life of me--and putting aside (for the moment) the fact that DiEugenio ignores these basic facts--I fail to understand how you can do so. Your entire argument (with regard to the head wound information you are quoting above) is based on the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy. Specifically, that what was observed at Bethesda (as reported by Humes) is an accurate reflection of the condition of the body (i.e., the head wounding) as it was at Parkland Hospital at Dallas. Now surely you know better than to disengenously quote Humes in the manner you do. Surely you do know--or ought to know--that the location and size of large hole in the President's head, at Dallas, was at the BACK of the head, in the occipital area. This is clear from the Dallas medical reports, and testimony--and from my own interviews with those doctors, decades ago. Surely you do know that the wound, as described by (for example) Dr. Charles Carrico, was 7 by 5 cm, or 35 square centimeters; whereas the large hole described at Bethesda was, according to the diagram drawn by Dr. Boswell at the time of autopsy, a diagram whose authenticity is attested to by the fact that it even had the late President's blood on it, was listed as "10 x 17" or 170 sq. cm. So that demonstrates a difference--between Dallas and Bethesda observations of the head wound--of more than 400%. Surely you do know that NO DALLAS DOCTOR OR NURSE described any damage to the "top" of President Kennedy's head, whereas almost the entire top of President Kennedy's head, on the right hand size, was missing at the start of the official autopsy. Moreover, when Boswell testified to the ARRB, he drew a diagram that made that very clear. Now. . let's turn to the supposed entry wound, as observed at Bethesda. With regard to the supposed entry wound observed at Bethesda--the supposed "little hole" (actually, part of a hole) that was below the huge hole observed there. . surely you do know that NO Dallas doctor or nurse reported any such wound. Now of course you surely know these things, and of course you surely must recognize this grotesque difference between the Dallas and Bethesda observations, and yet you blithely go along, quoting the Bethesda observations, when surely you do realize they don't provide valid informaiton as to how this shooting occurred. They simply constitute a verbal picture of the President's head wounding, as it appeared at Bethesda, some six hours after the shooting. But that's all it is--an "after" picture, so to speak. But not a valid picture of the way the head wounds looked at Parkland. Furthermore, surely you know that there is direct evidence, from the two FBI agents attending the autopsy, that there was surgical intervention of some sort between Dallas and Bethesda, which explains these divergent descriptions. Surely you do know that FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, wrote in their report, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Surely you do know that when both FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill testified before the ARRB in September, 1997, they both stood behind their report. Surely you know that Sibert testified, just as he told me in November, 1966, "The report stands." Surely you know that when Sibert appeared before the ARRB, he brought with him handwritten notes that talked of this huge hole in the President's head--WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN DALLAS, and noted that "brain had been removed from head cavity." And, as he told me in our August, 1990 telephone conversation, "That's haunted me for years. . this surgery of the head. . you could look right in there." Now Mr. DVP, you can play all the games you want with DiEugenio--who apparently doesn't have the insight to realize that the body is the best evidence in a murder case, and to structure any debate with the likes of you accordingly. But you can't play those games with me. Obviously, because of the way you are utilizing Humes statements, in your "debate" with DiEugenio, its clear that you DO indeed have an appreciation of the body as "best evidence" (even if HE does not). And so I would just suggest to you, not only in the name of telling the truth, but also to preserve your own credibility, that you stop ignoring the massive amount of evidence that clearly indicates that President Kennedy's wounds --and specifically, the configuration of his head wounds--were altered in the six hour period between his murder and the autopsy. Also, in responding to this post, try not to engage in insults and name calling, as you do on at your blog site. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates the head wounds were altered--just as I have described above, and as is set forth, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates that the throat wound was also altered--just as I have described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence; with Dr. Perry's trach incision--which he told me, in October, 1966--was "2-3 cm", became a wide gash of "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges." Surely you are aware of this data, right? The fact of the matter is that there is clear, incontrovertible, and credible evidence that the President's body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, just as I have described in Best Evidence: it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag; it left in a ceremonial casket, and arrived in a shipping casket. Mr. DiEugenio, who relies on certain of his "medical advisors" for his data and his ideas, apparently doesn't want to use this data in dealing with you. Apparently, he'd rather avoid all this by simply subscribing to some hypothesis that the Bethesda doctors simply lied. But you, who obviously recognize the primacy of the body as evidence (at least you appear to, from the way you rely on that CBS interview of Humes) have a responsibility, it seems to me, to tell the full and complete story of the body, and not just quote the part that suits your fancy. Mr DVP: You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to cite the body as "best evidence" and utilize the Bethesda description to refute DiEugenio's arguments, then you must recognize that the Bethesda description does NOT comport with the Dallas description; you must recognize that it does not describe the way the President's body looked in Dallas. It is as simple as that. Contrast those descriptions and its very clear what happened here: someone altered the President's wounds. By citing Commander Humes' interview with Dan Rather as you did, you have already demonstrated that you have a keener appreciation of what is important concerning the medical evidence than does DiEugenio. You understand that it all comes down to the President's body. Now please demonstrate that you can apply that same appreciation of what is relevant to the most important evidence in the case--the President's body, and just HOW it looked immediately AFTER the shooting, when it was in Parkland Hospital, lying there before a group of doctors and nurses. I invite you step up to the plate and confront the Dallas/Bethesda discrepancies. I know you can do it, Mr. DVP. In doing so, you will have to look at the facts, and surmount the name calling and ignorance of your hero, Mr. Vince Bugliosi. Try setting aside all that, and just look at the facts I know you can do it. Just follow the best evidence. Its the memorial day weekend. . give it your best shot. Make my day. DSL 5/28/11 4:35 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Professor Fetzer. . . There's something you don't seem to understand, because you keep repeating the same tiresome worn-out argument to the effect that "how could I know this?" and "how could I know that?" --as if you are blessed with special knowledge no one else has. I was privileged to get a very good education. At Cornell, I was in the Engineering Physics program--a five year enterprise--and then at UCLA, I had three more years of physics and electrical engineering. Specifically, as it relates to issues that are "9/11 connected": At Cornell, one of the courses I took was Structures--which actually dealt with buildings (yes!); and also a course in Aerodynamics, taught by the famous professor Sears, and using the same text as was then used at Cal-Tech, "Liepman and Roshko." Moreover, I was in Air Force ROTC, so I actually went up in planes once in a while. Although I am not an architect, nor a building designer, nor a pilot, I am perfectly comfortable reading technical literature, and I have enough of an education to follow a technical argument, and enough common sense to know what is sensible, and what flies in the face of evidence, and/or is hare-brained and absurd. Contrary to your numerous assertions, I have read much written by the 9/11 Truthers, and I don't accept their arguments. For starters, I think many of these people began by watching some news film on TV of a building being demolished--so they saw what a vertical collapse looks like--and then saw footage of the World Trade Center buildings falling; and then they jumped to the (false) conclusion that "Oh, that looks just like a controlled demolition!". That was then joined with some political anger at Bush-Cheney, and soon they were off and running with the screwy notion that 9/11 was an "inside job." Of course, you, Professor, are in a different universe: No planes hitting the building, TV imagery which is all faked; no trips to the moon, a missile (and not a plane) hitting the Pentagon, airline wreckage that was from a crash in Columbia, years ago, and then deposited on the Pentagon lawn by a low-flying C-130. . does it ever occur to you, Professor Fetzer, that there are better things to do in your retirement, than to push such nonsense? Let me assure you that I have a perfectly adequate education to read "both sides" of these arguments, and make an informed judgement as to what is sane, and what appears to me to be totally fantastic and irrational. And that's why I sounded the warning I did, on the Kennedy assassination thread. I don't want to be associated in any way, shape, or form, with anyone who promotes this nonsense. I'm not going to tell you that I think you've lost your marbles, because I don't believe that at all. I think you're just starved for attention. Unfortunateliy, I believe you have completely destroyed your credibility by marching down this path. I have class mates who are connected with the Hubble telescope project, the U.S. space program, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Someone recently informed me that one of them lurks over at these forums and they think what you are promoting is some kind of a joke. I don't want to be seen in that light, Professor. But its a free country, and you are welcome to keep on pursuing these rather unusual beliefs of which you are so enamoured, and to which you subscribe, with such a sense of certainty. DSL 5/27/28; 2 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Just the part I've quoted. Why do YOU think that is? FYI: I am the "David" Prof. Fetzer was addressing, in a prior post. Thank you for posting these informed rebuttals to the nonsense that Fetzer is promulgating. As you will find out, he is compulsively disputatious and no amount of data will change his mind. Ever. He will always have a rebuttal, and it never ends. If you have studied mathematics, you will understand when I say that his arguments and endless rebuttals are the equivalent of a non-convergent Taylor series. At least he is now "quarantined" to this "restricted area" in cyberspace, and I do love the title of the thread. (Perhaps only one additional word should be added: "endlessly".) I shall resist commenting further for fear of violating forum rules. Good luck with your career in the Air Force. David S. Lifton Author, BEST EVIDENCE

Thanks for your interest in the Liebeler Memo of November 8, 1966. A basic search at the NARA website shows that the Liebeler memo has the following Record Number: 182-10001-10014 Below my typed signature is a copy of the text of the NARA "RIF" sheet. Over the years, I have checked--to see what the various recipients wrote on their copy, etc. I know that, besides being at the Justice Department (and I think I received an official copy from them decades ago) there are copies at the Ford Library, in the Richard Russell papers, and the Dulles papers at Princeton. Let me assure you--it was all over the place, and (at the time) it caused quite a flap. The Liebeler Memo of 11/8/66 pointed directly at FBI-generated evidence of inauthenticity (i.e., re pre-autopsy alteration of the wounds), and it called for a limited reopening of the investigation, in the medical area. Since I was involved in the sessions that led to his drafting it, I know how seriously Liebeler took the matter. As I have mentioned, he was also in touch (by phone) with Ed Guthman, RFK's former top aide (and then, as I recall, the National Affairs Editor of the LA Times). I was in touch with Liebeler quite often, and described the entire episode in Chapter 10 of BEST EVIDENCE, titled, "The Liebeler Memorandum." (And of course, this aspect of the story begins with Chapter 9 of BEST EVIDENCE, titled, "October 24, 1966: A Confrontation with Liebeler." These chapters--and the related documents--should put to rest, once and for all, the nonsense promulgated by those who claim that I didn't make the discoveries about wound alteration when I did, that I was not the originator of the body alteration theory; or that I made it all up ten years later, to get a book contract. This is the sort of garbage that has been promulgated by Roger Feinman, the disbarred attorney on whom Jim DiEugenio leans so heavily for his medical "advice." Incidentally, Susan Liebeler, the wife of the late Wesley Liebeler, recently remarked to someone I know that "we always knew that David had found something very important." Of course, if you read Chapter 9 of Best Evidence--based in part on notes that Liebeler himself wrote on 10/24/66 (notes made as we spoke, and when I first unveiled all this to him, and to Susan)--that should be very obvious. I don't know that the phrase "mind blowing" was in use in 1966, but there's no question but that for Liebeler, for Susan, and for me--that entire day was a mind-blowing experience. On another point: Someone asked me why the Liebeler Memo wasn't published in Best Evidence (and a related question was why the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report wasn't published). Remember: that FBI report stated that when the body arrived, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull". Well then, why wasn't that, also, published in B.E. The answer is that I felt that quoting the appropriate passages was quite adequate. As every author finds out, publisher's are very cost conscious, and the book already typeset out to 699 pages, and I didn't want to push the envelope and start advocating a size increase, to include one document or another. (After all: What about Transcript 1327 C? That was also a historically important document, and B.E. was the first book to publish the critical excerpts of Perry stating that the throat wound was an entrance wound). Anyway, all the quotes from these documents--1327C, the S and O Report, and the Liebeler memo-- are accurate. And the circumstances leading to the writing, and distribution of the Liebeler memo are described in considerable detail. I do not know whether the Liebeler memo is available at the Mary Ferrell site. Rex Bradford often reminds me that, although they have a lot, they don't have "everything." Yes, I can look for my copy, make a scan, sent it along, etc. (Or maybe someone else will find their copy first). And the letter Liebeler wrote transmitting the memo (dated 11/16/66), plus the various replies he got back (including the 12/1/66 letter from Rankin, making clear that the matter would NOT be investigated, etc.) are also interesting. Very likely, that's why the document length is described as 24 pages. In any event, I have all that material too. DSL 5/27/11; 6:50 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA DSL FROM THE NARA DATA BASE: AGENCY INFORMATION AGENCY: DOJ CIVIL RECORD NUMBER: 182 - 10001 - 10014 RECORDS SERIES: Director, Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division DOCUMENT INFORMATION ORIGINATOR: Citizen FROM: Wesley J. Liebeler Title: Re: Autopsy Photographs and X-Rays of President Kennedy Date: 11/08/2966 Pages: 24 Document Type: Paper, Textual Document Subjects: Autopsy, Photographs and X-Rays Classification: Open in full Current Status: Open Date of Last Review: 08/02/1993

Michael, I appreciate your effort to place my quote in original context. In the interest of removing distractions and keeping this thread on theme, I have edited the relevant section of my original post. It now reads: " Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". Although JFK's head does move forward a couple inches between Z 312 and 313, there is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows the dominant visible motion of JFK being knocked back and to his left." In the same report on his observations of the film he saw the day after the assassination, Dan Rather also stated the film showed the Presidential Limo turning from Houston onto Elm Street. This does not appear on the extant Zapruder film. These anomalies are strong indications that Rather saw either a different film or an un-edited version of the current film. Richard Hocking is correct. When viewed in motion, JFK's head appears to be thrown violently left and to the rear. Speaking for myself, it wasn't until I had the meeting at Cal Tech with physicist Richard Feynmann (in the Spring of 1966) that--just as I described in Chapter 2 of Best Evidence--I learned that there was a very small forwrd motion between frame 312 and 313. But Dan Rather wouldn't have seen that when (just two days after the assassination) the film was projected at normal speed. So I conclude that he either saw a different film (which I doubt) or deliberately lied, or made a major error and misreported what he saw. At different times, over the years, I have entertained each of these different possibilities. But one thing seems certain: Dan Rather was not accurately describing the film, when viewed in motion, that we have today. In this same vein, it is hard to believe that the 14 staff attorneys for the Warren Commission could have repeated viewings of the film, and not one of them (as far as we know) ever raised a question about the violent backward motion. You would think one of them would have written a memo to the file, or to J Lee Rankin requesting an explanation, and that the backward motion would have raised serious questions about the integrity of the autopsy conclusions they were provided. DSL 5/4/11; 2:20 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

I'll have to add Rachel Maddow to my Tom Hanks list. That's a list of people whom I can't stand to see or hear and whose media presence I will avoid at all costs to avoid getting sick to my stomach. I am very sorry to hear this. I knew that Chris Mathews suffers from a completely closed mind on the JFK case, but I am really surprised to hear that Rachel Maddow said this. Perhaps this can be changed. DSL

When JFK fired Allen Dulles, he replaced him with a civilian, John McCone. BOth JFK & RFK trusted McCone to be their watchdog at CIA, because they did not trust the Dulles loyalists who still held key positions. I believe it is an undisputed fact that John McCone knew nothing about the Castro assassination plots that were ongoing during his tenure, so the logical inference is that those who relied on McCone to be their watchdog were kept equally in the dark. But of course you are free to ignore logic and believe any nonsense that you CHOOSE to believe. I, too, used to believe that neither RFK (nor JFK) could (or would) have anything to do with plots to kill Castro. But I came to change my view, starting around 2001. I came to believe not only that they did, but also why. I can cite you chapter and verse that Bobby Kennedy were involved in some of the plots. Yes, the AG of the USA, and that's what's so upsetting (and tragic) about it. An important book to read is Joseph Califano's "INSIDE", published around 2004--and specifically, his chapter "Getting Fidel." Extremely revealing. Califano was an eyewitness to what was going on. Another important item: "The Old Man and the CIA: A Kennedy Plot to Kill Castro?" by David Corn and Gus Russo published in the March 26, 2001 Nation Magazine. A critical part of this article arose out of the discovery of the March, 1962 "Lansdale memo" which came to me as part of a large FOIA order, and which I copied for Professor Larry Haapanen. He discovered the memo, spotted its significance, and we decided we could not just "sit on it," even though we knew how it would be interpreted. The bottom line (imho): The Kennedy brothers believed that Castro was a reckless out-of-control Marxist who had already brought the world to the precipice of nuclear war, and didn't ever want to go near that situation again. That's my personal opinion. They had a two-track policy--diplomatic (if possible) but overthrow if not. They had no intention of going into the 1964 election with Castro still in power. Again, imho. (But you can find plenty of support for this in Evan Thomas' bio of RFK.) DSL 4/8/11; 6:40 PDT Los Angeles, CA

FWIW, I loved David Talbot's article in Salon. I think he's right on the money. Below my typed signature is the text. DSL FRIDAY, APR 1, 2011 10:01 ET The coverup continues: The Kennedys in Hollywood The "Kennedys" miniseries is the latest proof tinseltown just can't handle the truth. I should know BY DAVID TALBOT Although it lasted a mere 1,000 days, the Kennedy presidency has been entombed under 1,000 layers of junk history. Now -- with the 50th anniversary of JFK's brief reign upon us, and the half-century mark coming up on his 1963 assassination -- we will soon be neck deep in Kennedy sludge. A flurry of Kennedy projects are in various stages of production in Hollywood, which has long been dazzled by the family's glamour. But none of them promises to go beneath the surface and capture the deeper essence of their tragic story. When it comes to the Kennedys, Hollywood still can't handle the truth. The first Camelot drama out of the chute is "The Kennedys," the controversial miniseries that was canceled by the History Channel under pressure from Carolyn Kennedy and historians, who argued that the channel should at least make some effort to root the story in, well, history. This was a quaint argument, since the History Channel abandoned history long ago in favor of ice-road truckers, gator wrestlers and other reality sideshows. But the network owners were sufficiently embarrassed by the ruckus to dump the series. "The Kennedys" then took a long, downward trip through television's alimentary canal, ending up in some dark cavity called the Reelz Channel. The six-episode series begins plopping out on Sunday. "The Kennedys" is a hatchet job pure and simple. The saga is produced by Joel Surnow, which is sort of like Mel Gibson making "The Anne Frank Story." Surnow is the right-wing, Dick Cheney fluff boy who brought us "24," the show that told America not to adjust its dials, that the Constitution was now obsolete. The Camelot noir miniseries, which wallows in mobsters, mistresses and self-medication, is basically the Kennedys as Sopranos, minus the good writing and direction. The early reviews have not been kind, even in the normally charitable Hollywood trade press. "The whole thing," Variety gagged, "plays like a bad telenovela filtered through a 'History for Dummies' text." All right, I admit, I'm a little bitter. I had a dog in this fight, a rival Hollywood project. I'm the author of a 2007 bestseller about the Kennedy brothers that tells the story of Robert Kennedy's secret quest to solve JFK's murder. My book, "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years," focuses on the brothers' heroic struggle with the national security state to ease America away from the nuclear brink and end the Cold War. I show that Bobby Kennedy became the country's first conspiracy theorist after his brother's assassination, immediately suspecting that the same CIA and Pentagon officials with whom they had bitterly dueled were behind JFK's murder. Bobby realized that he couldn't bring President Kennedy's killers to justice unless he fought his way back to the White House. RFK's presidential campaign in 1968 was not only a fight for the soul of America -- a country poisoned by war and racial strife -- it was a breathtakingly bold, and ultimately fatal, confrontation with his brother's assassins. This, to me, is the most dramatic story to tell about the Kennedys. They tried to save America, and they were killed by the Saurons who have kept our country in a permanent state of fear and war for the past half-century -- virtually my entire life. It's a grand epic, as old as ancient Rome, as beautiful and horrible as Shakespeare. The executives at Lionsgate, one of the bigger independent studios in Hollywood, saw it the same way and they optioned my book for a TV miniseries in 2008. They treated "Brothers" as a hot property, the ultimate political thriller. Joining forces with a high-profile producer -- Sid Ganis, then president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences -- and an A-list TV writer, the studio began aggressively pitching "Brothers" to TV networks. Jon Hamm -- the star of Lionsgate's hit series "Mad Men" -- was chatted up as the perfect JFK. No wardrobe changes necessary. The traveling "Brothers" road show roamed all over the entertainment capital. Because of the industry names attached to the project, we got high-level meetings at HBO, Showtime, ABC and Starz, among other stations of the Hollywood cross. At one point, Todd Haynes was interested in directing, before peeling away to do "Mildred Pierce." There was buzz, there was excitement, there was love in the room. And then nothing. Chris Albrecht -- the programming wizard who had made HBO not just television ("The Sopranos," "Six Feet Under," etc.) and then resurfaced at Starz -- talked about making "Brothers" the centerpiece of his first season at his new network home. Albrecht was all Roy Cohn, hooded-eye intensity, and xxxx-'em-let's-do-this swagger. And then, he had a sudden change of heart. The fearless TV mogul didn't want to compete with the Joel Surnow miniseries, or at least that was the explanation. In Hollywood there are always murky back stories. Yes, I know -- "It's Chinatown, Jake" -- get over it. There are a million sad stories in Naked Hollywood. But something seemed rigged here, as one network after the next turned down "Brothers" -- something political under the surface. Oliver Stone, whom I met somewhere along the way, told me in a matter-of-fact tone, "'Brothers' will never get made in this town." Stone knew something about the subject. His "JFK," released back in 1991, was the last movie to offer a deep and brave interpretation of the Kennedy tragedy. For his efforts, Stone was so savagely pilloried, he still hasn't fully recovered his reputation or -- it seems to me -- his political self-confidence. Apparently, Stone knew what he was talking about. Now, three years after Lionsgate bought the rights to "Brothers," my book is an orphan in Hollywood, owned by nobody but me. Meanwhile, a slew of other Kennedy projects have rushed forward. A low point in my Hollywood tragicomedy came when the screenwriter of the widely reviled Surnow miniseries, a man named Stephen Kronish, tried to defend himself against the rising chorus of criticism by citing "Brothers" as one of his sources. This is the very definition of adding insult to injury. Now, in addition to Surnow's "The Kennedys," Matt Damon is preparing to play Bobby in yet another bland biopic; Leonardo DiCaprio is working on a Kennedy conspiracy movie based on Lamar Waldron's books -- heavy tomes that propose such a convoluted explanation for the JFK assassination that they make "Inception" look linear in comparison; and, worst of all, Tom Hanks' Playtone company is preparing an assassination miniseries for HBO based on celebrity prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi's massive phone book, "Reclaiming History," which took a whopping 1,648 pages to argue that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by himself, and was still unconvincing. For the past 50 years, every Kennedy drama except Oliver Stone's has fallen into the same predictable categories. They are either safe -- i.e., weepy valentines to the suffering, stoic family -- or sleazy (see Surnow above). When filmmakers do screw up their courage to dig a little deeper, they invariably end up blaming the Mafia for killing Jack and changing American history. Yes, the mob played a role in Dallas. But the crime lords never participated in anything this epic without their overlords -- the CIA, their longtime partners in crime. Here's my advice to the viewing public as the Kennedy mudslide begins. Run, and don't look back. There is nothing you need in these movies and TV "events" to understand the true Kennedy story. This is all you need to know. The Kennedys died for a reason. They died because they told America that our enemies were human, like us, and loved their children too. They died because they vowed to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and because they told the generals who wanted to launch a nuclear war over Cuba that they were mad. While Barack Obama outsources his presidency to Wall Street, the Pentagon and the CIA, John Kennedy tried to tell his fellow citizens that we must no longer dominate the world. This is what you need to know. The Kennedys died for America's sins.

So in the Paine garage for all that time, occasionally being moved around by a Korean War veteran, was a rifle-shaped blanket – yet neither Ruth nor Michael knew what it was? Is that really your position? That Michael knew Oswald owned a rifle, yet honestly believed the rifle-shaped blanket contained tent pegs? Or is it your position that he knew full well Oswald was keeping a rifle in the garage of the house his kids lived in, and he was fine with that, despite his testimony that he would NOT have allowed a gun to be kept there had he known about it? Greg Parker, As I previously mentioned, I met with Michael Paine, in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. and interviewed him in depth, and at length, pertaining to all the questions you are now raising, and with a tape recorder going, sitting right there on the table, as we talked. In fact, I have met with more than one member of the Paine family. I also have met with Michael Paine's elderly mother, Ruth Paine, pursuing the question of her relationship with Bancroft (Dulles' lover) and also Arthur Young, Michael Paine's step father. Having had personal contact with these people--going back now to the period 1993 - 1995--it is my opinion that Ruth Paine did not know that a rifle was stored in her garage. However, I find it likely that Michael Paine did. My personal opinion is that it caused some strains in the relationship between Michael and Ruth--that Michael knew about the weapon (but considered it inconsequential), whereas Ruth did not. As for Michael Paine: I think he was very seriously concerned, if not badly frightened, over the weekend (and particularly in the first 24 hours), that he would be dragged into the assassination controversy as some kind of "accomplice." That's purely my personal opinion, based on a number of things he said to me during our meeting, and other information I have about the Paines. I think the real question--and one I put to him repeatedly--is this: if you saw this photograph of Oswald with a rifle (in early April, 1963), were you not uncomfortable about having this man in your home? After all, here is an "armed man" with a weapon, and you have young children, etc. The answer I got--and we discussed this point extensively--was along these lines: that Paine thought of Oswald as a more or less "symbolic" revolutionary, and clearly not as someone who posed a danger to his family. However, it was because of this somewhat detailed discussion that we had that I (personally) concluded that surely, when he moved around the things in the garage, he must have "connected the dots" and known that that was "Lee Oswald's rifle," not that he thought it posed any danger. As for the rest of your questions, and as to having any further discussion with you: I am not interested in having any dialogue with a so-called researcher who's agenda seems to be not just to disagree with me on this or that hypothesis, but to personally attempt to denigrate and demonize me. And I think it rude and improper that, when I send you a private email (the first contact I ever had with you, as I knew nothing about who you were) you then immediately took it upon yourself to post it on the boards, with all of your (mostly) irrelevant and often inaccurate commentary. That shows an absence of ethics, and a complete lack of consideration for others. DSL 3/22/11; 4:45 PM, PDT Los Angeles, CA

[snipped to save space] DSL 3/20/11; 5 AM PDT [snipped to save space] And I do not believe he had possession of any weapons. I do not understand how it can be claimed that Oswald did not have possession "of any weapons", when (and now just addressing the issue of a rifle): (a) the reality of his possession of "a" rifle is attested to by Marina (from her earliest Secret Service interview, CD 344, and then through various FBI interviews). ( Lee asked her to photograph him holding a rifle (again, this is part of Marina's reality, and is documented in numerous FBI interviews. She discussed this with me repeatedly starting in the Spring of 1981, and she repeated the same thing to Jesse Ventura in her recent conversations with him). (c ) He autographed at least one print of a photo of him holding a rifle "to my daughter June" and pasted that print into a family photo album (This is either in Marina's testimony, or that of Marguerite). (d ) Marina stuck one or more of those prints into her shoe when she visited Lee in jail on 11/23/63 (See Marguerite's testimony and/or Marina's testimony, about this incident). (e) Marguerite testified that she told Marina to burn the picture (or "those" pictures--I don't recall which it was) (f) Both DeMohrenschieldts are witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of a rifle, when they visited in April, 1963. They both testify about the incident, with Marina saying something like, "We don't have enough money to feed the baby, but my husband has gone out and ordered a rifle" or something like that. (See Jeanne DeMohrenschieldt's testimony) (g) Lee autographed a print of that photo "to my friend George", which was dated 4/5/63, and that was found by DeM several years later, in storage, when he returned from Haiti (The HSCA investigated and documented this incident.) (h) an 8 by 10 of the picture of him holding a rifle was shown, to Michael Paine, by Lee himself, when he (Paine) came by to pick up Oswald and take him to dinner at Ruth Paine's house in early April, 1963. (I met and interviewed Michael Paine in 1995, in Boxboro Mass., and we went through this entire incident). (i) Marina testified that Lee sat out on the porch, in New Orleans, working the bolt on a rifle (note, I said "a" rifle) To recap: Witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of "a" rifle include Michael Paine, both Jeanne and George DeMohrenshieldt, and Marina Oswald. Let me repeat: I first met Marina in January, 1981, when Best Evidence was published, and we had dozens of phone conversations starting later that Spring. There was never any question but that Lee owned a rifle. And this is from his own wife, who also made clear that she did not think he was "the assassin." In making these statements, I am not saying that Oswald was an assassin. Nor am I saying that there might not be something wrong with the paper trail leading to the particular rifle. (That is a separate issue.) I'm simply stating that he possessed a rifle. I do not see how that can be denied. It is a fundamental fact of Lee Oswald's "reality." If you're pursuing this case (i.e., and a theory of frame-up) based on the idea that Lee Oswald possessed no rifle at all, I think that is a fundamentally incorrect approach. There is no question, imho, that Lee Oswald possessed "a" rifle. The real issue is how he was made to appear to have been "the assassin." In other words, this leads right back to the legitimacy and integrity of the Bethesda autopsy. History will not absolve Lee Oswald of being "the assassin" because of irregularities in the Klein's money order (although I do not deny the relevance of that, should it prove to be true). History will absolve Lee Oswald of being the assassin because President Kennedy's body was altered, prior to autopsy. And so the entire architecture of the shooting--insofar as the "official" version is concerned--is not just false, but a fabrication based on an altered body. That is the proper historical focus for any theory of an "Oswald frame-up." DSL 3/20/11; 12:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Your points (a) though (i) have a layer of what some would describe as "surface truth” attached to them and to people without a deep understanding of the case these points you make may well swing their thinking in the direction that you wish to swing it. However, if you want to give readers more to chew on, you may want to peel away some layers of the onion you are holding and include the following so they can make more of an informed decision regarding ownership of the firearms. In Marina Oswald’s first day affidavit she mentions absolutely NOTHING about Lee owning a rifle in the United States. I will say that again, there is NOTHING in her first day affidavit that suggests that her husband owned any firearm whilst he was in the United States. What she does say in this affidavit is that Lee used to have a rifle in Russia that he used for hunting. She then goes on to say that she knew there was a rifle in Ruth Paine’s garage. She doesn’t say it was Lee’s. She simply says that she knew there was one there and it was wrapped in a blanket. She doesn't even claim ownership of the blanket for that matter. We are led to believe that the “above board” Ruth Paine, who knew when lights were getting left on in her garage, DID NOT KNOW that this rifle was there? Both of the Paine’s were adamant that they knew nothing of a rifle prior to the events of November 22nd, yet in your own points that you make (point h) you state that Michael Paine saw a picture of Oswald holding the rifle in April of 1963. Now what is interesting about this is that when Michael Paine went to unload the Oswald’s belongings into the garage of 2515 West Fifth Street after Marina came back from New Orleans he actually handled the weapon, he handled it that much that he said the following in his Warren Commission testimony: [snipped] Going back to Marina for a moment how on earth can we be sure as to what she said during the immediate aftermath of the assassination? As far as I’m aware is it alleged that she didn’t speak English. That being the case what we have in the immediate hours after the shooting is an interpretation of events as given by a certain Ruth Paine: DSL reply: This is a reply to certain specifics of your post (re Marina, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, etc.) and then goes on to discuss certain wider issues. Re Marina Oswald's first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc etc etc--all of it can be ignored because she was simply seeking, in those earliest statements, to protect her husband. Despite their marital problems, she in fact loved him. Those reports constitute important evidence showing the extent to which Marina was willing to shade the truth in the interest of protecting her dead husband--but not much more. It is for this same reason that she never said a thing about the Walker shooting, until the handwritten note by Oswald was found. (And if you're going to tell me, at this late date, that you think she made all that stuff up, then we part ways on a most fundamental issue.) As to your statement that what Marina said is really what "Ruth Paine said Marina said" (i.e., that what Marina said is either "not what she said" or was the result of deliberately improper translation by Ruth Paine) etc etc.--that is also incorrect. Perhaps Ruth "translated" in an early interview, but it didn't go much beyond that. If you want to hear with your own ears Marina's very earliest statement(s)--you could order and listen to her (speaking in Russian) on the tapes that are the basis for CD 344, the very first interview of Marina by the Secret Service); or just read the transcript. I published this material in 1968, in a private edition of a book I called "Document Addendum to the Warren Report." (Or just order CD 344 from the Archives, or perhaps it is available on a website). The translator on those tapes was not Ruth Paine, but a Russian speaking Secret Service agent (Gopadze). The same is true of all of Marina's FBI interviews. The Russian speaking agent there was Boguslav. So if you are entertaining some "its Ruth Paine who said she said that" hypothesis as to why Marina did not say what she is reported to have said, you are barking up the wrong tree. I knew Marina very well. We had dozens of conversations starting in the Spring of 1981, after the publication of BEST EVIDENCE. The notion that Lee didn't possess a rifle is simply ludicrous, and if the basis for your view of this case--a situation in which Lee Oswald was framed for a murder he did not commit--is that he did not (even) possess a rifle, then you are pursuing a hypothesis that is completely disconnected from the facts and (I might add) from reality. Perhaps a novel writer or a TV writer might play around with such a hypothesis--in which the wife really "knows the truth" but her reality is being altered because of a malevolent translator--but none of that fits the facts or the evidence in this case. As to Michael Paine, that is a separate (but related) issue. I have always believed that his "camping equipment" testimony is very squirrely, and have often thought Michael surely must have known that Lee had a rifle stored in the garage. But so what? Even if that is so, what would it show? Just that Michael Paine is one more example of someone who distanced himself from Lee and his rifle. More important, there's no question, imho, and based on personal conversations with him in 1995, but that Michael Paine saw 8 x 10 photo of Lee with the rifle and the communist newspapers when he came by to bring him to dinner, in early April. I had serious conversations with him about this. He was credible. If you want to understand Michael Paine, you must start with his very first interview with the NY Times (published, as I recall, on 11/24/63) and must also familiarize yourself with the evidence that he very likely bought a car for Oswald. If you're not dealing with that data, then you're not dealing with the reality of Michael Paine. WIDER ISSUES: Turning to another issue (which is not the subject of this thread), I should like to address it anyway. I thoroughly disagree with your hypothesis that Oswald wasn't on McWatters bus, or in Whaley's cab. Frankly, I believe your entire analysis to be false, and a complete misreading of the record. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the global picture as to what was going on with Oswald after the shots were fired at Dealey Plaza. Anyone who subscribes to your hypothesis will then necessarily have the whole chronology of what happened after 12:30 PM CST entirely wrong, while smugly thinking they have found some important "truth." (Remember what Ray Carroll said after one of your posts--that you seemed to miss "the Prince of Denmark"--I thought that was an astute observation). As to the tone of the rest of your remarks, and specifically, as to the basic thesis of body alteration (i.e., wound alteration, and bullet removal) prior to autopsy, my work speaks for itself. Most people who attack it display an abysmal ignorance of the known facts in the record if they do not realize that, with regard to the body's arrival at the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School, at Bethesda. . .: (a) that the wounds were altered (both in the area of the neck and head) (b ) that the body did not arrive (at Bethesda) in the same coffin as it left Dallas (c ) that the body did not arrive wrapped the same way as it left Dallas; i.e., sheets vs body bag (d ) that the body arrived at the morgue a good 20 minutes before the coffin at Bethesda (As to proposition "d," my list of witnesses for that has now grown to about 15, any number of whom I have interviewed personally. If you wish to argue with the accounts of these witnesses, and the plethora of government generated documents that demonstrate that, with regard to the body's entry to the morgue, there were "3 entries of 2 caskets", then be my guest. (See B.E., Chapters 25-28; or, for a good summary; OR, read Jacob Hornberger's article "The Casket Conspiracy" on the net; or see Doug Horne's book). And so on and so forth. The body is the most important evidence in any murder case; and in this one, any frame-up of Oswald had to start with the body. The body could not be altered without it first being intercepted. The plethora of evidence indicating the body was covertly intercepted is clear evidence that something serious happened with the body--i.e., the wounds on the body. If you find that distasteful, or for some reason can't deal with it, then I shall resort to the old saying that President Harry Truman used to use: "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen." Anyone who does not understand that (and if the shoe fits, then do wear it) ends up going down an important false trail: i.e., thinking of the "frame-up of Oswald" as something that occurred "after the fact," rather than something that was integral to this crime, as something designed, and (in certain important respects) executed, before the fact. Many of the issues pertaining to Oswald deal with matters that ante-date November 22, 1963--and that not only includes his ordering a rifle, but also moving from one city to another, his behavior in New Orleans, his going to Mexico City, the full truth about how he got the job in the building on October 16, 1963, his behavior in the weeks prior to the shooting, even his carrying a package to work on the morning of the assassination. Its all part of one "global" picture. If one has the wrong "global understanding"--and in particular, if one does not understand the centrality of the autopsy to the architecture of this crime, and particularly, to the frame-up that occurred here--one cannot begin to grasp what happened. It would be like looking up in the sky at night, seeing only the moon, and falsely concluding that that is the extent of "the universe." An astronomer who preached that view would be told by his learned cohorts to get a better telescope. Unfortunately, by not fully appreciating the centrality of the body as evidence, some JFK researchers--well intentioned, no doubt, but misguided, nevertheless--think in those terms. Your posts offer a good example. You apply a 100X magnifying glass to the evidence of the bus and the taxicab (and then misinterpret and mis-analyze that data, imho) but do not have the interest (or perhaps insight) to apply the same scrutiny and analysis where it belongs: i.e., when it comes to the medical evidence, and specifically, to the body of President Kennedy. Also, the entire tone of your post has the personal overtones of an envious writer. Lacking from your post is any appreciation, much less understanding, of the important confirmation of my work that occurred as the result of the ARRB. Doug Horne--the Chief Analyst of Military Affairs on the ARRB--worked with the medical evidence for three full years. He is one of the few people in the world who actually was present at the depositions of the three autopsy doctors, not to mention the person responsible for the deposition of other medical witnesses. These witnesses would not have been deposed were it not for Jeremy Gunn's serious interest in my work (and Horne's too). Here is Doug Horne's statement on the matter which he posted years ago: QUOTE David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.) UNQUOTE To comprehend what happened on November 22, 1963, one must start with the understanding that this crime was planned well in advance. It did not turn on someone forging a money order after the fact (even if that document turns out to be a forgery--and I'm not at all sure that is so, but will be very interested should that turn out to be the case). But all that is really beside the point. The fundamental architecture of this murder--an architecture that implicated Oswald, by implicating the so-called "sniper's nest that was supposedly the source of the shots--was determined by the wounds on the body at the time of autopsy. In other words (and to coin a phrase), the body was the sun in the solar system of the evidence. If you do not understand that, then study a good book on homicide investigation. At issue here is not some arcane frivolous concept, but something central to the entire Kennedy case. When I first showed the evidence that the body was altered to former WC counsel Wesley Liebeler in October, 1966 (see Chapter 9 of Best Evidence), he "got it" immediately. The result was a 13 page memorandum (which I helped research, and which Liebeler drafted) that went to the Chief Justice of the U.S., all the other commission attorneys, the staff, President Johnson, the Justice Department, and Robert Kennedy. Three of the Warren Commissioners then flew down to the ranch, to speak with Johnson. (See Chapter 10 of Best Evidence, "The Liebeler Memorandum"). And I have certain unpublished information that Robert Kennedy took it seriously. Very seriously indeed. But. . apparently you--now in the year 2011--still don't "get it," and so are lecturing us with your view on what is important, and what does (or perhaps should) constitute the "reality" of others on this forum. Well, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps, if you seek enlightenment, and for starters, you should read the 1997 ARRB testimony of FBI Agent James Sibert, who talked about the huge size of the hole in Kennedy's head when the body arrived at Bethesda, and wrote, in his own hand, and in notes he brought to the ARRB deposition: "Brain had been removed from head cavity." Perhaps you should also peruse his sworn testimony about what he told me (about his own FBI report). And of course perhaps you should return to, and study carefully, what Sibert and O'Neill wrote in their original FBI report derived from notes both made in the Bethesda morgue on the night of November 22, 1963 (CD 7, 280 and pp following). Sibert and O'Neill reported that when the body arrived, the autopsy doctor said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Repeated Sibert, under oath, on 9/11/97, and in a deposition in which he names me more than once, "The report stands." Frankly, the whole tone of your post is that of someone who focuses on minutiae, and fails to see (much less understands) the global picture. DSL 3/21/11; 8:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA Your reply simply reinforces the perception that you are lost in your own little world. You start off by making, what can only be described as, a series of “school-boy” errors. Your claim that “Marina’s first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc, etc, etc…are to be ignored because she was simply protecting her husband” make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here’s why; when Gus Rose and friends arrived at 2515 West Fifth Street, Marina and Ruth both knew that the President had been shot. We are led to believe that Ruth “had been expecting” the police as soon as they “heard what had happened.” Marina DID NOT protect her husband because according to the translation that was provided by Paine she took the Detectives immediately to the garage and told them he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket. Is this, in your “reality” protecting her husband? Remember, we are also led to believe that Ruth Paine didn’t know the rifle was there so wouldn’t it have made more sense, if Marina did know there was a rifle in the garage, wrapped in a blanket, if she had simply gone into the garage and checked if the rifle was there and upon noticing that it wasn’t take the blanket and put it somewhere else in the house? The Detectives didn’t arrive at the Paine’s until after 4pm so she had about 3 hours to see whether the rifle was still in the garage. Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn’t to me. If Ruth and Marina both knew that the President had been shot from the TSBD, and Marina believed that Lee had a propensity to shoot at things and people, wouldn’t her first instinct take her to the garage? If there was nothing “wrong” with Ruth Paine’s translation whilst visiting the garage and Gus Rose picking up the blanket, then why, after NOT protecting her husband, did she then go down the station and begin the process of “protecting” him? Isn't that akin to closing the barn door after the horse has bolted? She had already left him in it up to his neck, and you want me to believe that after an “accurate” translation from Ruth Paine at the West Fifth Street house she then gives as affidavit later that day that DOES NOT STATE that he owned “a” or “the” rifle? Please, reconcile this for me. What does your reality do with this information? And for your information, Dave, I do know who did all of Marina’s translating throughout the period she was entertained by the FBI and the Secret Service. I also know who did her translating for her Warren Commission testimony. You are missing my point. 1) Ruth Paine did the translating when the DPD and Irving Deputies arrived 2) We DO NOT KNOW whether the translations were accurate 3) If the translations were accurate then Marina DID NOT protect her husband because she immediately took them to what she thought was the rifle 4) Her first affidavit at the station DOES NOT match what we are told occurred at the house As a side note you may also wish to reflect upon the fact that Peter Paul Gregory was invited to translate for Marina during her testimony that she gave in Dallas. Gregory became a Warren Commission interpreter who was not only involved in the case but had actually given testimony to the Commission in March of 1964. I am not, as your deceptive “reality” suggests, “Barking up the wrong tree.” I know which tree I’m barking up and I know why I am barking. It is you that is trying to put me "on a leash” because you mistakenly and deceptively believe I am some sort of pig. I’m not interested in the rest of Marina’s testimony or her statements. They have no credibility whatsoever. I also see that you ignored whether you buy-in to her claims that Oswald wanted to go and shoot Richard Nixon and she locked him inside a bathroom that locked from the inside. Is there a reason you ignored this? Adding to this you have the problems with the Imperial Reflex camera and how it managed to work its way into the record, the fact that she didn’t know how to operate it, the fact that she didn’t remember how many pictures she took or when she took them, and the fact that you are introducing items of evidence into the debate that don’t actually exist. It is you that has the heap of problems in overcoming if you want to try to paint a picture of Marina’s honesty and/or credibility. You are now implicitly claiming that Oswald shot at General Walker because Marina said he did. And what is your evidence for this? The ”If I am captured note…” that Ruth Paine was responsible for getting into the hands of the Secret Service. This would also be the note that mentions nothing about General Walker. It would also be the note that didn’t have Oswald’s latent prints on it if I remember correctly. Would this be your evidence? Are you not interested in the ballistics of the Walker case or the witness testimony? Are you not interested in asking how Oswald managed to get to Turtle Creek with his rifle on a bus? Are you not interested in where or how he buried it? Or how he then got it back home on the bus? Are you not interested in Walker’s testimony? You are simply protecting and defending the lies of Michael and Ruth Paine in what you write. You are simply protecting Marina Oswald’s lack of credibility and lies. We shouldn’t be surprised, David. You have a track record of defending the indefensible. When you admire and “feel sorry” for demonstrable liars it sends out a message that is loud and clear to anyone that wants to tune into it. Greg has pointed out to you Michael Paine’s testimony regarding the photo that he saw when he allegedly visited Oswald at Neely Street. He lied. He lied to you, or the Warren Commission or both. If he lied, he is a xxxx. Is this point lost on you? He committed perjury. He should be fined and/or imprisoned for that alone. But you say he is “credible.” Do you not see why some people would think this was insane? Instead of trying to enter the mindset of people that you are trying to convince and see what you are saying from an alternative point of view you instead continue to hammer home a message of “but you’re not seeing this from my point of view.” “You are not dealing with the data that has brought me to my incredibly strange conclusions.” Forgive me, Dave but I’m not on here trying to sell a product. You are. And you’re not much of a salesman. As far as the bus is concerned, and your weird and warped reality taking you into a parallel universe, I am neither “smug” in believing I have “found an important truth” nor am I interested in whether you agree with it. I’m not trying to sell it. The bus thread started out with three people (that soon became four) disagreeing with certain elements of the official record. Those differences varied from one piece of evidence to the next. Over the next three weeks the four people that were closely involved with the creation of that thread had their belief systems merge. We all began to believe the same thing. There were others that then came on board and also began to understand the evidence in this aspect of the case for the first time. Am I interested in everyone believing what I believe? No. The thread is simply a representation of what can happen when people come together to share ideas, give feedback, challenge each other in the right way and ultimately come to a conclusion that makes perfect sense given the evidence that has been presented. You wouldn’t understand that though, Dave. Your history and the opinions of the critics, many of whom I’m not even worthy of shining the shoes of, demonstrated that you don’t like to share. The perception that exists concerning you and your pathology is of somebody who is secretive, greedy, egotistical, and something of a leech regarding information. But the simple fact of the matter is that I do not care whether you want Oswald on the bus or not. I can only assume that it forms an integral part of the “reality” you have created in the Oswald book that you have been promising for a good couple of decades. To show you how warped your reality truly is I would like to point out that when you say the following in your reply, “Most people who attack [body alteration] display a dismal ignorance of the known facts…if you wish to argue with the accounts of these witnesses, and the plethora of government generated documents that demonstrate that, with regard to the body’s entry into the morgue, there were “3 entries of 2 caskets”, then be my guest” you demonstrate a lack of reading comprehension concerning what I originally wrote. I did not once enter into my own beliefs concerning your “theory”, I very simply stated that if A+B+C+D+E+F+G are all proved, then let’s say your theory is point K, it is surplus to requirements. I don’t need it. You do. And the reason you need it is because it represents your life’s work. I can understand how frustrating it must be to have a newer generation of people coming to the case and not needing your theory to prove Oswald’s innocence. But in the words of Bruce Hornsby and the Range, “That’s just the way it is.” So, now that we’ve got that little understanding out the way, I shall turn the tables and say, if you would like to bump the “Oswald and Bus 1213” thread and give us all the insight that we are all currently absent then I’d be real interested to see why you think the bus hypothesis is incorrect. At this moment in time you have provided absolutely nothing that tears any holes in anything that has been proposed. It is simply “false” because you say it is? Or is it false because you agree with Ray in that to believe he wasn’t on the bus would be to believe that certain individuals within a corrupt DPD lied about certain things? Resurrect the thread. Let’s see what you’ve got. You accused me before the bus thread had even commenced that digging into things such as McWatters, Bledsoe and the ticket transfer gave the likes of David Von Pein ammunition to fire at “us.” Well, first off, I don’t consider myself to be “with you.” And secondly, DVP has had nothing to say about the bus thread. Not many Lone-Assassin theorists have had much to say about it. You know why? It snookers them. It paints them into a corner. They can’t admit he wasn’t on the bus because it means that Fritz and Co. lied their asses off and that they fabricated evidence. They would love to have him off the bus because they could get him to 1026 North Beckley quicker but they can’t do it. Because if they admit there is a case for him not being on the bus or the taxi then they have to get him back over to Oak Cliff and the bus and taxi nullification brings Roger Craig (and others) back into play and they can’t have that. They are quiet on this matter. What they are not quiet about is your theory/theories [or what should correctly be termed Fred Newcombe and Perry Adams theory]. They use this as a bat to beat what they describe as “conspiracy theorists” each and every day on a variety of different forums. DVP has gone after you on this matter several times over the last couple of weeks. So again, your reality is warped. The accusations that you levelled at me should have been levelled at yourself. Body alteration and the faked up Z-Film are not the way into breaking through to the consciousness of the general public in 2013. You will find that they will instead be used to poke fun at and belittle the critical community as a whole. And let’s leave Doug Horne out of this, shall we? This is about you. You, whether you like it or not, are a polarizing figure within JFK research and have been since mid-1960. It got to a stage where nobody trusted you and that’s well documented. And from what you have written in just a couple of posts on this one thread, not much has changed. And I don't trust you. And for a salesman selling a product, Dave, trust is everything. You are Warren Commission apologist. You have always been a Warren Commission apologist. You will always be a Warren Commission apologist. P.S. On the bus thread, if you do get a chance to prove it wrong, start with Henry Wade's press conference from the 24th (after Oswald has been shot) and listen to his list of evidence. Listen out for the name Mary Bledsoe. Listen out for a mention of landlady. This would be two days after she allegedly came forward. Let me know what you find. If you are not dealing with that data then you are not dealing with the reality of Mary Bledsoe. Mr. Fairlie: You have written: "Your reply simply reinforces the perception that you are lost in your own little world." And: "You start off by making, what can only be described as, a series of “school-boy” errors. Your claim that “Marina’s first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc, etc, etc…are to be ignored because she was simply protecting her husband” make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Here’s why; when Gus Rose and friends arrived at 2515 West Fifth Street, Marina and Ruth both knew that the President had been shot. We are led to believe that Ruth “had been expecting” the police as soon as they “heard what had happened.” Marina DID NOT protect her husband because according to the translation that was provided by Paine she took the Detectives immediately to the garage and told them he had a rifle wrapped in a blanket. Is this, in your “reality” protecting her husband?" DSL RESPONSE: Marina took them to the garage because she knew her husband had a rifle, and that was where she believed it was stored. What she did NOT know is that it was not there. What, pray tell, is so complicated about that? YOU WRITE: "Remember, we are also led to believe that Ruth Paine didn’t know the rifle was there so wouldn’t it have made more sense, if Marina did know there was a rifle in the garage, wrapped in a blanket, if she had simply gone into the garage and checked if the rifle was there and upon noticing that it wasn’t take the blanket and put it somewhere else in the house?" DSL RESPONSE: Marina did indeed go to the garage, checked the blanket, saw the rifle was there (or believed that to be so), and felt relief. She did NOT know that the blanket was empty until the detective lifted it up, and it folded, in his hands. YOU WRITE: "The Detectives didn’t arrive at the Paine’s until after 4pm so she had about 3 hours to see whether the rifle was still in the garage. Does this make sense to you? It sure doesn’t to me." DSL Response: Then why don’t you buy a time machine, go back to the moment, and tell Marina what she should have done? (Do you call this kind of comment valid historical research? Yet you repeatedly engage in this sort of “analysis”). YOU WRITE: "If Ruth and Marina both knew that the President had been shot from the TSBD, and Marina believed that Lee had a propensity to shoot at things and people, wouldn’t her first instinct take her to the garage?" DSL response; Again, go to the time machine. You are just speculating, in the subjunctive, about what you think “ought to have happened.” YOU WRITE: "If there was nothing “wrong” with Ruth Paine’s translation whilst visiting the garage and Gus Rose picking up the blanket, then why, after NOT protecting her husband, did she then go down the station and begin the process of “protecting” him?" DSL: You’ve got this all bollixed up. You’ve obviously got a model of Marina’s behavior that derives from your expectations, but does NOT fit the reality of this case. The reality is very simple: (a) Marina knew that Lee had a rifle (and if you don’t understand that, then you are truly off in some little island of your own) (b ) she knew it was stored in the garage, or believed that to be so. (c ) She was haunted by the Walker incident (the previous April 10) and indeed worried that Lee might be involved in the events at Dealey Plaza (d) Shortly after hearing about the assassination, she went out to the garage and checked the blanket. The rifle (she mistakenly believed) was there, and she felt relieved (e) When the police arrived, and the question was asked, Does you husband have a rifle, she answered “yes” to the question (almost simultaneously with Ruth answering “no”) which, as you perhaps know, surprised Paine. (f) Everyone went to the garage. (g) The blanket was pointed out to the police (h) The detective lifted up the blanket, and it drooped. It obviously did NOT contain any weapon (i) At that moment, Marina was convinced that Lee was involved in something awful. On the way to the police station, Marina—now worried (and concerned that her husband was again involved in an incident with the gun, and which involved a “political” figure)—turned to Ruth Paine and asked the following question (sotto voice, and in Russian, and referring to the Presidential motorcade): “Was Walker in the car with him?” Let me repeat that, so that—even in your state of foaming over at the mouth, with hostility towards me—this fact will perhaps enter your cerebrum: en route to the Dallas Police station, Marina asked Ruth Paine, sotto voice, “Was Walker in the car with him?” In other words, Marina—plagued by the trauma as to what happened the previous April 10, and having little understanding of “the American way” nor of the details of the motorcade—wondered whether General Walker was in the limousine with President Kennedy. That’s how traumatized she was by the events of the previous April Your ministrations to the contrary, this is the sequence that unfolded, as established by the record. WIDER ISSUES: Now, as to what appears (at least implicitly) to be this “theory” of yours (or at least, what emerges from your confused and angry and hostile commentary): Jim Garrison used to say that as the motorcade wended its way through Dallas, and towards Dealey Plaza, certain people were looking at their watches. I believe that is true. If I am to take your writing seriously, I suppose we are to presume the existence of a “housewives plot” and that as the motorcade wended its way towards Kennedy’s death, “the plot” consisted (at least, in part) of Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald ready to pounce on Lee, and make him appear guilty. Is that your idea of “the conspiracy”? (Do you understand how silly that appears to be? Or are you so lost in your own world, filled with enmity towards Marina, towards Ruth Paine, and towards me, that you can’t see the forest for the trees?) I’m afraid to inform you but I believe its you who are off in your own little world, conjuring up a completely non-workable plot, based on a flawed analysis of who was lying to who, and for what reason. (And, as I have also emphasized before, ignoring the centrality of the false autopsy, which is really where the emphasis ought to be. But, apparently, that doesn't suit your fancy--so you're off speculating about, and constructing, a "housewives plot." I'm sorry to have to be the one to inform you, but that will lead nowhere.) If you would focus on Ruth Paine’s testimony about what Marina asked her, sotto voice, and in Russian, as they proceeded from the Irving home, to the Dallas Police station, you will begin to understand the psychological reality of what is going on here. To repeat: Ruth Paine testified that Marina asked: “Was Walker in the car with him?” Perhaps you can ponder the implications of that. (Or are you going to crawl back into your time machine, and treat us to a lecture on that?) Unless you are going to respond with your wholesale nonsense that nothing that Ruth Paine says can be believed, and nothing that Marina says can be believed and nothing that I say should be believed (which then permits you to behave like a child in a kindergarten art class, and paint any old picture you wish), this testimony has certain important implications: (1) Whether or not LHO actually shot at Walker, events were apparently managed on the night of April 10, 1963, to create the appearance that he did; and Marina was clearly traumatized by those events when November 22, 1963 rolled around. So whether you like it or not, Marina believed her husband shot at Walker. That’s just a fact of her reality. So: whether you believe it or not (and you were not there), let me assure you that she believed it. (Now if you don’t like that, then go write a TV script that says otherwise—but clearly, historical analysis is NOT your cup of tea.) (2) Consequently, when the assassination occurred, at the location where Lee worked, Marina “checked the blanket” to make sure it still had the gun. She mistakenly thought that it did. (Again, go check the record. That’s what she says she did, and why.) (3) When the police arrived, she brought them to the garage, thinking the rifle was there. (4) When the detective picked up the blanket and it drooped, she was crestfallen, and all her worst fears returned. (5) En route to the police station, she quietly asked Ruth, in Russian, “Was Walker in the car with him?” Instead of spending your time and effort in largely illogical and irrational attacks on me, perhaps you should ponder the facts of the situation, because it is only by understanding those facts, that you will perhaps gain some insight as to where the truth lies. P.S. And oh yes, don't forget about the false autopsy, based on Kennedy's altered wounds, all of which is really the key to this case, and should be the focus of any valid historical analysis, and not your fanciful "housewives conspiracy." But I don't want to overtax anyone's mental processes. DSL; 3/22/11; 11:40 AM PDT Los Angeles, California

[snipped to save space] DSL 3/20/11; 5 AM PDT [snipped to save space] And I do not believe he had possession of any weapons. I do not understand how it can be claimed that Oswald did not have possession "of any weapons", when (and now just addressing the issue of a rifle): (a) the reality of his possession of "a" rifle is attested to by Marina (from her earliest Secret Service interview, CD 344, and then through various FBI interviews). ( Lee asked her to photograph him holding a rifle (again, this is part of Marina's reality, and is documented in numerous FBI interviews. She discussed this with me repeatedly starting in the Spring of 1981, and she repeated the same thing to Jesse Ventura in her recent conversations with him). (c ) He autographed at least one print of a photo of him holding a rifle "to my daughter June" and pasted that print into a family photo album (This is either in Marina's testimony, or that of Marguerite). (d ) Marina stuck one or more of those prints into her shoe when she visited Lee in jail on 11/23/63 (See Marguerite's testimony and/or Marina's testimony, about this incident). (e) Marguerite testified that she told Marina to burn the picture (or "those" pictures--I don't recall which it was) (f) Both DeMohrenschieldts are witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of a rifle, when they visited in April, 1963. They both testify about the incident, with Marina saying something like, "We don't have enough money to feed the baby, but my husband has gone out and ordered a rifle" or something like that. (See Jeanne DeMohrenschieldt's testimony) (g) Lee autographed a print of that photo "to my friend George", which was dated 4/5/63, and that was found by DeM several years later, in storage, when he returned from Haiti (The HSCA investigated and documented this incident.) (h) an 8 by 10 of the picture of him holding a rifle was shown, to Michael Paine, by Lee himself, when he (Paine) came by to pick up Oswald and take him to dinner at Ruth Paine's house in early April, 1963. (I met and interviewed Michael Paine in 1995, in Boxboro Mass., and we went through this entire incident). (i) Marina testified that Lee sat out on the porch, in New Orleans, working the bolt on a rifle (note, I said "a" rifle) To recap: Witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of "a" rifle include Michael Paine, both Jeanne and George DeMohrenshieldt, and Marina Oswald. Let me repeat: I first met Marina in January, 1981, when Best Evidence was published, and we had dozens of phone conversations starting later that Spring. There was never any question but that Lee owned a rifle. And this is from his own wife, who also made clear that she did not think he was "the assassin." In making these statements, I am not saying that Oswald was an assassin. Nor am I saying that there might not be something wrong with the paper trail leading to the particular rifle. (That is a separate issue.) I'm simply stating that he possessed a rifle. I do not see how that can be denied. It is a fundamental fact of Lee Oswald's "reality." If you're pursuing this case (i.e., and a theory of frame-up) based on the idea that Lee Oswald possessed no rifle at all, I think that is a fundamentally incorrect approach. There is no question, imho, that Lee Oswald possessed "a" rifle. The real issue is how he was made to appear to have been "the assassin." In other words, this leads right back to the legitimacy and integrity of the Bethesda autopsy. History will not absolve Lee Oswald of being "the assassin" because of irregularities in the Klein's money order (although I do not deny the relevance of that, should it prove to be true). History will absolve Lee Oswald of being the assassin because President Kennedy's body was altered, prior to autopsy. And so the entire architecture of the shooting--insofar as the "official" version is concerned--is not just false, but a fabrication based on an altered body. That is the proper historical focus for any theory of an "Oswald frame-up." DSL 3/20/11; 12:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA Your points (a) though (i) have a layer of what some would describe as "surface truth” attached to them and to people without a deep understanding of the case these points you make may well swing their thinking in the direction that you wish to swing it. However, if you want to give readers more to chew on, you may want to peel away some layers of the onion you are holding and include the following so they can make more of an informed decision regarding ownership of the firearms. In Marina Oswald’s first day affidavit she mentions absolutely NOTHING about Lee owning a rifle in the United States. I will say that again, there is NOTHING in her first day affidavit that suggests that her husband owned any firearm whilst he was in the United States. What she does say in this affidavit is that Lee used to have a rifle in Russia that he used for hunting. She then goes on to say that she knew there was a rifle in Ruth Paine’s garage. She doesn’t say it was Lee’s. She simply says that she knew there was one there and it was wrapped in a blanket. She doesn't even claim ownership of the blanket for that matter. We are led to believe that the “above board” Ruth Paine, who knew when lights were getting left on in her garage, DID NOT KNOW that this rifle was there? Both of the Paine’s were adamant that they knew nothing of a rifle prior to the events of November 22nd, yet in your own points that you make (point h) you state that Michael Paine saw a picture of Oswald holding the rifle in April of 1963. Now what is interesting about this is that when Michael Paine went to unload the Oswald’s belongings into the garage of 2515 West Fifth Street after Marina came back from New Orleans he actually handled the weapon, he handled it that much that he said the following in his Warren Commission testimony: [snipped] Going back to Marina for a moment how on earth can we be sure as to what she said during the immediate aftermath of the assassination? As far as I’m aware is it alleged that she didn’t speak English. That being the case what we have in the immediate hours after the shooting is an interpretation of events as given by a certain Ruth Paine: DSL reply: This is a reply to certain specifics of your post (re Marina, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, etc.) and then goes on to discuss certain wider issues. Re Marina Oswald's first statements about Oswald not owning a rifle, or denying pictures of him with a rifle, or about going to Mexico City, etc etc etc--all of it can be ignored because she was simply seeking, in those earliest statements, to protect her husband. Despite their marital problems, she in fact loved him. Those reports constitute important evidence showing the extent to which Marina was willing to shade the truth in the interest of protecting her dead husband--but not much more. It is for this same reason that she never said a thing about the Walker shooting, until the handwritten note by Oswald was found. (And if you're going to tell me, at this late date, that you think she made all that stuff up, then we part ways on a most fundamental issue.) As to your statement that what Marina said is really what "Ruth Paine said Marina said" (i.e., that what Marina said is either "not what she said" or was the result of deliberately improper translation by Ruth Paine) etc etc.--that is also incorrect. Perhaps Ruth "translated" in an early interview, but it didn't go much beyond that. If you want to hear with your own ears Marina's very earliest statement(s)--you could order and listen to her (speaking in Russian) on the tapes that are the basis for CD 344, the very first interview of Marina by the Secret Service); or just read the transcript. I published this material in 1968, in a private edition of a book I called "Document Addendum to the Warren Report." (Or just order CD 344 from the Archives, or perhaps it is available on a website). The translator on those tapes was not Ruth Paine, but a Russian speaking Secret Service agent (Gopadze). The same is true of all of Marina's FBI interviews. The Russian speaking agent there was Boguslav. So if you are entertaining some "its Ruth Paine who said she said that" hypothesis as to why Marina did not say what she is reported to have said, you are barking up the wrong tree. I knew Marina very well. We had dozens of conversations starting in the Spring of 1981, after the publication of BEST EVIDENCE. The notion that Lee didn't possess a rifle is simply ludicrous, and if the basis for your view of this case--a situation in which Lee Oswald was framed for a murder he did not commit--is that he did not (even) possess a rifle, then you are pursuing a hypothesis that is completely disconnected from the facts and (I might add) from reality. Perhaps a novel writer or a TV writer might play around with such a hypothesis--in which the wife really "knows the truth" but her reality is being altered because of a malevolent translator--but none of that fits the facts or the evidence in this case. As to Michael Paine, that is a separate (but related) issue. I have always believed that his "camping equipment" testimony is very squirrely, and have often thought Michael surely must have known that Lee had a rifle stored in the garage. But so what? Even if that is so, what would it show? Just that Michael Paine is one more example of someone who distanced himself from Lee and his rifle. More important, there's no question, imho, and based on personal conversations with him in 1995, but that Michael Paine saw 8 x 10 photo of Lee with the rifle and the communist newspapers when he came by to bring him to dinner, in early April. I had serious conversations with him about this. He was credible. If you want to understand Michael Paine, you must start with his very first interview with the NY Times (published, as I recall, on 11/24/63) and must also familiarize yourself with the evidence that he very likely bought a car for Oswald. If you're not dealing with that data, then you're not dealing with the reality of Michael Paine. WIDER ISSUES: Turning to another issue (which is not the subject of this thread), I should like to address it anyway. I thoroughly disagree with your hypothesis that Oswald wasn't on McWatters bus, or in Whaley's cab. Frankly, I believe your entire analysis to be false, and a complete misreading of the record. It also shows a complete lack of understanding of the global picture as to what was going on with Oswald after the shots were fired at Dealey Plaza. Anyone who subscribes to your hypothesis will then necessarily have the whole chronology of what happened after 12:30 PM CST entirely wrong, while smugly thinking they have found some important "truth." (Remember what Ray Carroll said after one of your posts--that you seemed to miss "the Prince of Denmark"--I thought that was an astute observation). As to the tone of the rest of your remarks, and specifically, as to the basic thesis of body alteration (i.e., wound alteration, and bullet removal) prior to autopsy, my work speaks for itself. Most people who attack it display an abysmal ignorance of the known facts in the record if they do not realize that, with regard to the body's arrival at the morgue of the U.S. Navy Medical School, at Bethesda. . .: (a) that the wounds were altered (both in the area of the neck and head) (b ) that the body did not arrive (at Bethesda) in the same coffin as it left Dallas (c ) that the body did not arrive wrapped the same way as it left Dallas; i.e., sheets vs body bag (d ) that the body arrived at the morgue a good 20 minutes before the coffin at Bethesda (As to proposition "d," my list of witnesses for that has now grown to about 15, any number of whom I have interviewed personally. If you wish to argue with the accounts of these witnesses, and the plethora of government generated documents that demonstrate that, with regard to the body's entry to the morgue, there were "3 entries of 2 caskets", then be my guest. (See B.E., Chapters 25-28; or, for a good summary; OR, read Jacob Hornberger's article "The Casket Conspiracy" on the net; or see Doug Horne's book). And so on and so forth. The body is the most important evidence in any murder case; and in this one, any frame-up of Oswald had to start with the body. The body could not be altered without it first being intercepted. The plethora of evidence indicating the body was covertly intercepted is clear evidence that something serious happened with the body--i.e., the wounds on the body. If you find that distasteful, or for some reason can't deal with it, then I shall resort to the old saying that President Harry Truman used to use: "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen." Anyone who does not understand that (and if the shoe fits, then do wear it) ends up going down an important false trail: i.e., thinking of the "frame-up of Oswald" as something that occurred "after the fact," rather than something that was integral to this crime, as something designed, and (in certain important respects) executed, before the fact. Many of the issues pertaining to Oswald deal with matters that ante-date November 22, 1963--and that not only includes his ordering a rifle, but also moving from one city to another, his behavior in New Orleans, his going to Mexico City, the full truth about how he got the job in the building on October 16, 1963, his behavior in the weeks prior to the shooting, even his carrying a package to work on the morning of the assassination. Its all part of one "global" picture. If one has the wrong "global understanding"--and in particular, if one does not understand the centrality of the autopsy to the architecture of this crime, and particularly, to the frame-up that occurred here--one cannot begin to grasp what happened. It would be like looking up in the sky at night, seeing only the moon, and falsely concluding that that is the extent of "the universe." An astronomer who preached that view would be told by his learned cohorts to get a better telescope. Unfortunately, by not fully appreciating the centrality of the body as evidence, some JFK researchers--well intentioned, no doubt, but misguided, nevertheless--think in those terms. Your posts offer a good example. You apply a 100X magnifying glass to the evidence of the bus and the taxicab (and then misinterpret and mis-analyze that data, imho) but do not have the interest (or perhaps insight) to apply the same scrutiny and analysis where it belongs: i.e., when it comes to the medical evidence, and specifically, to the body of President Kennedy. Also, the entire tone of your post has the personal overtones of an envious writer. Lacking from your post is any appreciation, much less understanding, of the important confirmation of my work that occurred as the result of the ARRB. Doug Horne--the Chief Analyst of Military Affairs on the ARRB--worked with the medical evidence for three full years. He is one of the few people in the world who actually was present at the depositions of the three autopsy doctors, not to mention the person responsible for the deposition of other medical witnesses. These witnesses would not have been deposed were it not for Jeremy Gunn's serious interest in my work (and Horne's too). Here is Doug Horne's statement on the matter which he posted years ago: QUOTE David Lifton's thesis in his 1981 book "Best Evidence" has been validated by the work of the ARRB staff. Our unsworn interviews and depositions of Dallas (Parkland Hospital) medical personnel and Bethesda autopsy participants confirm that the President's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital in a markedly different condition than it was in when seen at Parkland for life-saving treatment. My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his 1981 bestseller. (He has modified his views since his book was published on the "when" and "where," and I concur with his changes, which he will publish at a later date.) UNQUOTE To comprehend what happened on November 22, 1963, one must start with the understanding that this crime was planned well in advance. It did not turn on someone forging a money order after the fact (even if that document turns out to be a forgery--and I'm not at all sure that is so, but will be very interested should that turn out to be the case). But all that is really beside the point. The fundamental architecture of this murder--an architecture that implicated Oswald, by implicating the so-called "sniper's nest that was supposedly the source of the shots--was determined by the wounds on the body at the time of autopsy. In other words (and to coin a phrase), the body was the sun in the solar system of the evidence. If you do not understand that, then study a good book on homicide investigation. At issue here is not some arcane frivolous concept, but something central to the entire Kennedy case. When I first showed the evidence that the body was altered to former WC counsel Wesley Liebeler in October, 1966 (see Chapter 9 of Best Evidence), he "got it" immediately. The result was a 13 page memorandum (which I helped research, and which Liebeler drafted) that went to the Chief Justice of the U.S., all the other commission attorneys, the staff, President Johnson, the Justice Department, and Robert Kennedy. Three of the Warren Commissioners then flew down to the ranch, to speak with Johnson. (See Chapter 10 of Best Evidence, "The Liebeler Memorandum"). And I have certain unpublished information that Robert Kennedy took it seriously. Very seriously indeed. But. . apparently you--now in the year 2011--still don't "get it," and so are lecturing us with your view on what is important, and what does (or perhaps should) constitute the "reality" of others on this forum. Well, so be it. You are entitled to your opinion. Perhaps, if you seek enlightenment, and for starters, you should read the 1997 ARRB testimony of FBI Agent James Sibert, who talked about the huge size of the hole in Kennedy's head when the body arrived at Bethesda, and wrote, in his own hand, and in notes he brought to the ARRB deposition: "Brain had been removed from head cavity." Perhaps you should also peruse his sworn testimony about what he told me (about his own FBI report). And of course perhaps you should return to, and study carefully, what Sibert and O'Neill wrote in their original FBI report derived from notes both made in the Bethesda morgue on the night of November 22, 1963 (CD 7, 280 and pp following). Sibert and O'Neill reported that when the body arrived, the autopsy doctor said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Repeated Sibert, under oath, on 9/11/97, and in a deposition in which he names me more than once, "The report stands." Frankly, the whole tone of your post is that of someone who focuses on minutiae, and fails to see (much less understands) the global picture. DSL 3/21/11; 8:10 PM PDT Los Angeles, CA

All very well. That was my error. In other words: I'm willing to believe that word "Mar" --when read in reverse--looks like the word "paid." But if that is so, then are we not back to "square one"? Should there not be some markings on the back of this money order that establish that it went through the banking system and check clearance process? At the very least, I would like to see what a 1963 money order that received normal processing looks like. Its too bad that this issue wasn't identified and pursued by the ARRB, because I am sure they would have made a good faith effort to obtain the necessary U.S. Postal money order "exemplars" to clarify this situation. DSL 3/20/11 12:55 PM, PDT Los Angeles, CA P.S. (on 3/21/11): This also shows the importance of going back to the actual reports of the original investigators who made a computer search which located the money order. Because if this item didn't go through the banking system, how could it have ended up in "the warehouse system" and be located by a computer search, on 11/23/63? In other words, there's an actual report (either SS or FBI) detailing how a search was made, a search which located this particular "paid" money order. That report--either a Secret Service report or an FBI report--is (I believe) actually in the 26 volumes. So the hypothesis that this postal money order is a forgery is not that simple, and cannot simply end with the notion that a document was forged. The putative forgery would then have to be inserted into the stacks of canceled money orders (whereever they are stored) in such a manner that it could (and would) be located by the standard search (which, according to the Secret Service or FBI report, is what happened on 11/23/63. I'm not saying this is not possible--just that it adds another complication to the "forgery" hypothesis.

Because of the multiple threads on this one topic, I have been unable to locate the post I made several days ago; and so I do not know where the post (of mine) that DiEugenio is commenting on is located. Anyway, and moving on past that point of confusion. . . : Having read many posts on this particular thread, I am still unclear on what processing stamps are supposed to be on a U.S. Postal money order in March, 1963. Consequently, before drawing any conclusions on this subject, I'd like to see one or more money orders from the year 1963 to see just what stamps exist on the back of them. They don't have to be money orders for a rifle--they can be for pots and pans, for for a water sprinkler system. Isn't there some way to find actual samples and to see what stamps they bear? The CPA I showed the money order to noted that it was stamped, on the back, "Paid" and the stamp appeared to be that of the Dallas Post Office. DiEugenio comments on that, and cites page 448 of Armstrong. Not having Armstrong's book immediately at hand, I do not know what is "odd" about the stamp, that is cited on page 448. He also notes that its "weird" for a stamp to "bleed through" like that. All very well, but that's not good enough. There's the stamp, and it says "paid". (So. . .am I misreading the evidence? Please explain.) Finally, I pointed out--in the post I am unable to locate--that there are detailed FBI reports (and possibly a Secret Service report) filed by the agents who conducted the "money order investigation" and reporting on how Waldman was contacted in the wee hours of 11/23/63, and how the agents began examining the various reels of microfilm, finally locating the Hidell order (not the US Postal Money order, but the microfilmed record of the rifle order) on a particular reel of microfilm. Viewing this from a slightly different perspective (and speaking as one who is sympathetic to the notion that Oswald was set up): I don't understand why it would be so complicated to get Oswald to order a gun. I've always thought the significant issue was that he ordered a gun that was 36" in length, but the "found rifle" was 40". Obviously, he possessed a rifle. Marina said that to the FBI from very early on--she certainly repeated it to me in our detailed 1990 filmed interview; and she said the same thing to Jesse Ventura (off camera) in the recent show. An interesting point, noted decades ago by Peter Dale Scott, is that in the initial interview, she indicated that the rifle that LHO had was not one with a scope--in fact, that she didn't know rifles had "telescopes" until she was confronted with the rifle shown her by the DPD on 11/22/63. (See the original Secret Service interview, CD 344, as I recall). I don't suppose that anyone reading this thread doubts that Oswald had "a" rifle--I gather that the issue is whether the mail order documentation for this particular rifle is legitimate. Now nothing I have mentioned doesn't preclude the possibility that there is something wrong with the paper trail, but I'd like to see some "money order" exemplars from 1963. Which brings me to another thought: if the microfilm exists, and it is (or was) in the FBI's possession, might it not be possible to retrieve that roll of microfilm (from the FBI, or from the JFK Records Collection) examine it, and see what processing stamps other money orders (on that microfilm) bear? Or did the FBI simply copy one frame of the microfilm (that doesn't seem reasonable; but perhaps that is what happened. I just do not know.) DSL 3/20/11; 5 AM PDT Try looking on the previous page. It does not say "paid". And I do not believe he had possession of any weapons. I do not understand how it can be claimed that Oswald did not have possession "of any weapons", when (and now just addressing the issue of a rifle): (a) the reality of his possession of "a" rifle is attested to by Marina (from her earliest Secret Service interview, CD 344, and then through various FBI interviews). (b ) Lee asked her to photograph him holding a rifle (again, this is part of Marina's reality, and is documented in numerous FBI interviews. She discussed this with me repeatedly starting in the Spring of 1981, and she repeated the same thing to Jesse Ventura in her recent conversations with him). (c ) He autographed at least one print of a photo of him holding a rifle "to my daughter June" and pasted that print into a family photo album (This is either in Marina's testimony, or that of Marguerite). (d ) Marina stuck one or more of those prints into her shoe when she visited Lee in jail on 11/23/63 (See Marguerite's testimony and/or Marina's testimony, about this incident). (e) Marguerite testified that she told Marina to burn the picture (or "those" pictures--I don't recall which it was) (f) Both DeMohrenschieldts are witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of a rifle, when they visited in April, 1963. They both testify about the incident, with Marina saying something like, "We don't have enough money to feed the baby, but my husband has gone out and ordered a rifle" or something like that. (See Jeanne DeMohrenschieldt's testimony) (g) Lee autographed a print of that photo "to my friend George", which was dated 4/5/63, and that was found by DeM several years later, in storage, when he returned from Haiti (The HSCA investigated and documented this incident.) (h) an 8 by 10 of the picture of him holding a rifle was shown, to Michael Paine, by Lee himself, when he (Paine) came by to pick up Oswald and take him to dinner at Ruth Paine's house in early April, 1963. (I met and interviewed Michael Paine in 1995, in Boxboro Mass., and we went through this entire incident). (i) Marina testified that Lee sat out on the porch, in New Orleans, working the bolt on a rifle (note, I said "a" rifle) To recap: Witnesses to Lee Oswald's possession of "a" rifle include Michael Paine, both Jeanne and George DeMohrenshieldt, and Marina Oswald. Let me repeat: I first met Marina in January, 1981, when Best Evidence was published, and we had dozens of phone conversations starting later that Spring. There was never any question but that Lee owned a rifle. And this is from his own wife, who also made clear that she did not think he was "the assassin." In making these statements, I am not saying that Oswald was an assassin. Nor am I saying that there might not be something wrong with the paper trail leading to the particular rifle. (That is a separate issue.) I'm simply stating that he possessed a rifle. I do not see how that can be denied. It is a fundamental fact of Lee Oswald's "reality." If you're pursuing this case (i.e., and a theory of frame-up) based on the idea that Lee Oswald possessed no rifle at all, I think that is a fundamentally incorrect approach. There is no question, imho, that Lee Oswald possessed "a" rifle. The real issue is how he was made to appear to have been "the assassin." In other words, this leads right back to the legitimacy and integrity of the Bethesda autopsy. History will not absolve Lee Oswald of being "the assassin" because of irregularities in the Klein's money order (although I do not deny the relevance of that, should it prove to be true). History will absolve Lee Oswald of being the assassin because President Kennedy's body was altered, prior to autopsy. And so the entire architecture of the shooting--insofar as the "official" version is concerned--is not just false, but a fabrication based on an altered body. That is the proper historical focus for any theory of an "Oswald frame-up." DSL 3/20/11; 12:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA