David Lifton

Postscript: If such a film exists, then what is needed is not a video transfer, but a full frame contact print. That would be the best way to examine the intersprocket area--it seems to me. But. . first things first: did the Secret Service really shoot a test film, with Zapruder's camera, at full telephoto? And is such a film in the JFK Records Collection? DSL

Please see the thread "For the Alterationists" for later information on this subject. DSL

Josiah: I looked up Shaneyfelt's testimony about the May, 1964 reconstruction, hopeful that I would find confirmation on the existence of such a test film. According to Shaneyfelt, he indeed took pictures from the Zapruder pedestal, frame by frame, as he photographed the re-enactment. But he did not--I repeat, did NOT--use Zapruder's camera. (And, after all, why should he have? Think about it: the hypothesis being tested was whether Oswald had a clear line of sight from the window; NOT whether the Zapruder camera was the source of the Z frames that are in evidence). Quoting from Shaneyfelt's testimony, at page 148 of Volume 5 of the Warren Commission: "The picture in the upper right is a photograph that I made with a speed graphic camera from Zapruder's position of the car reestablished in that position." According to Duncan MacRae's post, he has been informed by Sixth Floor Museum Curator Gary Mack that such a film--taken in Zapruder's camera-- exists at NARA. I have no way of knowing whether or not that is true. In addition, there is the question of whether any such test film was actually exposed at full telephoto. If all this is indeed the case--i.e., if there was indeed motion picture footage from Zapruder's position, exposed with Zapruder's camera and exposed with the setting at full telephoto--then I would certainly like to know about it. Further, I would like to then examine the left margin and do a careful comparison between what those frames show and the frames from the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film. From my reading of Shaneyfelt's testimony, the Zapruder camera was not used during the May, 1964 re-enactment. Rather, an ordinary speed graphic camera was utilized. Now it is entirely possible, I suppose, that Gary Mack has better information--and if so, perhaps he could post it on this forum. If such footage exists, using Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera, and exposed at full telephoto, I'd certainly like to obtain a contact print, showing the entire left margin--so that it can be compared with the Zapruder frames in evidence. DSL 1/3/2010 4:20 AM PST

Josiah, With regard to the matter of full flush left (and, even more importantly, the fact that--as I have pointed out--there are numerous frames where the image goes "beyond" full flush left), I note your enthusiastic response to a suggestion made by Duncan Macrae: QUOTE: They (no, not the assassins, but Fetzer and myself) have proposed that even now test shots be made by filming Dealey Plaza with the Zapruder camera. As Duncan MacRae brilliantly pointed out yesterday, precisely such a film was made in the spring of 1964 and sits in NARA. Zapruder’s camera as well as other cameras were used in 1964 to take test shots during the reconstruction. UNQUOTE Yes, it is a wonderful suggestion, but I'm not so sure it will pan out. I looked up Shaneyfelt's testimony about the May, 1964 reconstruction, eagerly hopeful that I would find confirmation on the existence of such a test film, one that currently "sits in NARA" as you said. According to Shaneyfelt, he indeed took pictures from the Zapruder pedestal, frame by frame, as he photographed the re-enactment. Unfortunately, he did not--I repeat, did NOT--use Zapruder's camera. And, after all, why should he have? Think about it: the hypothesis being tested was whether Oswald had a clear line of sight from the window; and NOT whether the Zapruder camera was the source of the Z frames that are in evidence. Quoting now from Shaneyfelt's testimony, at page 148 of Volume 5 of the Warren Commission: "The picture in the upper right is a photograph that I made with a speed graphic camera from Zapruder's position of the car reestablished in that position." If there was indeed motion picture footage from Zapruder's position, exposed with Zapruder's camera--and to me, that is the important variable here, "with Zapruder's camera"--in any reconstruction at all, and at any time, I would certainly like to know about it. Further, I would like to then examine the left margin and do a careful comparison between what those frames show and the frames from the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film. Meanwhile, unless we learn otherwise, it would appear, based on Shaneyfelt's testimony, that an ordinary speed graphic camera was used at Zapruder's position, and certainly not Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera. It was a nice suggestion--and I wish it were true. So. . to Duncan, I say, "Close, but no cigar". And to Tink, it would appear that you have earned a small demerit for having counted some chickens before they hatched. Happy New Year. DSL

Tink, You write, QUOTE: The medical evidence in this case is an unbelievable mess. I don't claim to this day to understand it. UNQUOTE Well, let's try harder, shall we? "An unbelievable mess"--you say--in the sense that it is all so incomprehensible? Sorry, but I disagree. The medical evidence is certainly not "an unbelievable mess." In fact, the basics are quite easy to comprehend, and are laid out very clearly in Best Evidence. That is why the book became a best seller, was in print for seventeen years (via four publishers), and was a Book of the Month selection. Any high school student can understand it. What is difficult to understand is your apparent inability to understand what appears so evident: that there was alteration and interception of President Kennedy's body. Here are some of the basics from Best Evidence, and please do feel free to ask me just what is so difficult to understand. 1) The throat wound --dealt with at length in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. The Dallas throat wound was described as a small puncture, and through that puncture Dr. Perry made a horizontal trach incision. Dr. Perry told me the trach incision was "2-3 cm." Dr. Carrico confirmed that the very next day. Both confirmed that the edges of the trach incision were smooth. By the time of the body arrived at Bethesda, Dr. Humes reported that the horizontal trach wound was "7 - 8 cm" wide, and had "widely gaping irregular edges." Now what is so difficult to understand about that? Obviously, the wound was enlarged. In Dallas, it looked like an entry; at Bethesda, it had the appearance of (and was so designated, in the Bethesda autopsy) as an exit. These details are all laid out very clearly in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence: "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda." Further corroborating the fact that someone seriously messed with the throat wound comes from the observation of world famous forensic pathologist Milton Halpern. He said that he could not understand the confusion about the throat wound--even if there had been a trach incision--because one could simply press the edges together and visibly see the wound. But, at the Shaw trial, Dr. Finck testified on this subject, and noted that there was no trace of any wound there. "I examined this surgical wound. . and I did not see the small wound described by the Dallas surgeons along that surgical incision. I did not see it . . . .I don't know why it is not there." (See Best Evidence, Chapter 11, p. 278 in the hardcover edition, or the identically paginated Carrol and Graf edition). Why is this difficult to understand? Obviously, someone messed with the throat wound before the start of the official autopsy--and one does not have to be an M.D., Ph.D. or J.D. to comprehend it. 2) The head wound (dealt with at length, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence, titled "The Head Wound: Dallas vs Bethesda." Its pretty obvious, from the measurements, and by simply comparing Dallas versus Bethesda, that the head wound was enlarged by some 400%. In Dallas, according to the testimony of Carrico, its size was 5 by 7 cm (or 35 sq cm). At Bethesda, the measured size of the defect, according to the Boswell diagram, was 10 x 17 cm, or 170 sq. cm. Just read Doug Horne's Epiphanies chapter, and the experience he had when he and Jeremy Gunn questioned Boswell, and asked him to draw the full extent of the wound on a model skull. Obviously, the wound was much larger than what was reported at Dallas. (And please do remember how one of the Dallas doctors --Dr. Peters, I beleive--described it to me in Dallas: the size of a hen's egg. At Bethesda, it was 400 - 500% larger. Now what's so hard to understand about that? 3) What was said at the outset of the autopsy (dealt with at length in Chapter 12, "An Oral Utterance") Dr. Humes spoke aloud at the start of the official autopsy, and what he said was recorded by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill: according to the two agents, and based on what he said, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." As it turns out, the FBI agents reported back to headquarters--after they were specifically queried by Hoover, as to the basis for that statement--that those words in their report were there because they were spoken aloud by Dr. Humes. Again, what's so hard to understand about that? 4) The Liebeler Memorandum of November 8, 1966 --Dealt with at Length in Chapter 10 of Best Evidence, titled "The Liebeler Memorandum" This chapter reports my experiences with Liebeler, and his reaction to this evidence. Specifically, I report how he was constantly in touch with Guthman, RFK's assistant, about many of these matters; and then how he sent out a 12 (or 13) page memorandum about this entire situation, to Chief Justice Warren, every member of the Warren Commission, and the entire legal staff--plus RFK, and President Johnson. Apparently, Professor Liebeler wasn't as confused by the evidence as you seeme to be. His memo---now available at the National Archives in the JFK records collection-- quotes the passage in the Sibert and O'Neill report stating that there had been pre-autopsy surgery on JFK's body prior to autopsy. Then the memo states: "In this connection, it should be noted that no surgery was performed at Parkland Hospital in the area of the President's head." Is that so difficult to understand--that a former Warren Commission attorney found it astonishing that such evidence existed in the files, and had not been recognized or pursued? I was present when Liebeler called Specter about this discovery, on October 24, 1966. When Liebeler finished with the phone call, and I asked him what Specter had said, he then told me--and here I'm quoting from page 224 of Best Evidence: "Arlen hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." (B.E., Chapter 9, "October 24, 1966--A Confrontation With Liebeler") 5) Then there is the matter of the account of Paul O'Connor (and others), who reports that the President's body arrived in a body bag--inside a shipping casket--and that at the time he opened the body bag, the cranium was empty. Now what's so difficult to understand about that? The man had years of experience working at autopsies, and understood that normally the brain was removed by sawing open the skull. But in this case, the normal procedure didn't have to be followed, he said, because the cranium was empty. And, in a memorable quote, in a 1989 filmed interview we had (with Pat Valentino present), O'Connor expressed his own puzzlement at the idea that a tracheotomy had been done in Dallas. Said O'Connor: "You wouldn't do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain." In other words, O'Connor found the whole situation incomprehensible: a putative tracheotomy, and an empty cranium! 6) The Pre-Autopsy Autopsy -- Chapter 18 of Best Evidence This chapter sets forth the evidence that Commander Humes own testimony and autopsy report reports a pattern of damage that is remarkably similar to the standard procedure for removing the brain--only he claims to have found the body that way. When I called Humes on November 3, 1966, and confronted him with the statement in the Sibert and O'Neill report, he blurted out, "I'd like to know by whom it was done, and when, and where!" All of this is laid out in crystal clear prose. Now what, pray tell, is so difficult about these concepts? Do you seriously suggest we should defer to Dr. Wecht, in view of the above data? And what is so difficult about understanding the evidence of interception--one does not have to be a forensic pathologist to understand that. All one has to be is an intelligent high school student who can draw a time line. The evidence clearly shows that there are THREE --yes three--independently recorded entrances of a coffin at Bethesda Naval Hospital: 1) At 6:35 pm, according to the USMC security detail --this was the shipping casket, with the body bag containing the body 2) At 7:17 --when the FBI agents arrived with the Dallas casket (which, unbeknownst to them) was empty 3) At 8PM --when the tri-service casket team brought in the Dallas casket (for a second time, the casket body now having been returned to it, and this entry being arranged so there would be an official record that the body arrived in the casket in which it began its journey, and there was no intercept. Is this a mess? No, it is not. It is very easy to understand, and one does not have to scurry off and seek Dr. Cyril Wecht's opinion to comprehend the basic facts. In my opinion, that is nothing less than an excuse to avoid facing the evidence,and its implications. Let's turn for a moment to what your focus seems to be, i.e., your priorities. I know, Josiah, that you are very concerned about pursuing the matter of whether there was were one or two men lurking behind the fence on the grassy knoll. May I gently suggest that the issues raised by the above are far more significant than the number of shooters, possibly hidden behind the fence on the knoll? What's at stake in Best Evidence--and in Doug Horne's book, too--is a covert operation at the heart of a coup to operate the line of succession of the U.S. government, the purpose being to make the Vice President, the President, under circumstances that appear accidental. That, too, is spelled out at the very end of my book--See Chapter 32, "The Assassination as A Covert Operation"--and that, too, I believe is very easy for any intelligent reader to comprehend. You were an underwater frogman, Josiah Thompson. Now's the time to don your flippers, put on those goggles, take a deep breath, and stop swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool! Very truly yours. . DSL 1/2/10, 8:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

Just for the record: As a native New Yorker, and someone who knows the city well, and its media: I do not believe for a minute--not for a New York minute (as the saying goes)--that the Zapruder film was shown at the Bleeker Street Cinema in December of 1964. That would have been all over the media, and Time-Life's lawyers would have been all over that situation within a day. Perhaps you are confused. FYI: David Wolper produced two films in 1964: his Oscar Nominated 1964 film was titled "Four Days in November." That was in black and white, and does contain the Nix film. He also produced "1000 Days: A Tribute to John F. Kennedy." DSL Los Angeles, California 1/02/2010 5:15 PM The Bleeker Street Cinema, and it followed the David Wolper film "1000 Days" which was in black+white. They rolled without comment into the Zapruder. At the time I did not question who was responsible for the showing. I did not realize until later how unusual that was. There was indeed a small ad in one of the NYC papers, but, there was no press hype over it. I sat in the front row and my obsession with the limo began that evening, watching the limo move into view with the flags flapping in the wind, then watching JFK move from life to death on a large screen.

You are absolutely correct. I quoted Josiah Thompson on the April 1993 WLUP talk show not so that it would provide him an opening to drag Cyril Wecht (of all people) into this discussion, but because on that program, Josiah Thompson, in his own words, he revealed what I believe to be (and what you have correctly cited as) a key flaw (if not THE key flaw) in his OWN analytical abilities: either his unwillingness (or inability) to consider a sophisticated plot that ran on a scenario. As for Cyril Wecht, anyone interested in pursuing that subject should read Chapter 20 of Best Evidence, "The X-Rays and Photographs: Circa 1971-72". This chapter --which has not lost its relevance, at all--relates my experiences with Wecht in August, 1972, when--at his invitation--I flew from Los Angeles to Pittsburgh and functioned as both his assistant and "medical briefer" on the issue of the X-Rays and photographs. By way of background: the 5-year "blackout" period on the X-rays and photographs had expired, and Dr. Lattimer, a lone nutter (if there ever was one) was the first to go in, and examine this evidence. Then Wecht was given permission. The chapter recounts in detail what happened. First of all, Wecht had not read any of the briefing materials, materials that I (and a group of learned people at UCLA) had spent weeks preparing, and putting inside large notebooks. He just hadn't had the time. Second, once we were underway on this memorable journey, it was clear that Wecht had a propensity to shout and scream at people, and there was one instrance in which he was almost run over by an Army car on Pennsylvania avenue. (Yes, seriously. Read the chapter). Third, once on the scene, it was apparent that Wecht could not read the X-rays. (Standing just outside the door to the room where he was conducting his examine, I had to tie a string with a knot at the 100 mm mark so he could locate, on the X-ray, what was supposed to be an entry wound). Fourth, I watched him give a briefing to a group of researchers (assembled in Washington) in which he seemed not to realize anything was wrong with the materials. Fifth, sitting in a taxicab, as Wecht rushed to the airport to get back to Pittsburgh, I was present as he was interviewed--very carefully, and in detail--by (then) New York Times reporter Fred Graham, and Wecht basically gave a clean bill of health to the materials; i.e., it was "two shots from behind". But all this was minor compared to what happened next. Knowing that the key issue was whether there was a wound at the back of the head (as seen at Parkland Hospital), I hooked up a tape recorder to a phone, and was able to get photographer John Stringer on the line. The date was August 25, 1972, and we spoke in some detail about his experience on the night of November 22, 1963. Stringer described that the wound he photographed clearly extended to the back of the head--i.e., the occipital area. (See Chapter 20, B.E., under the subhead, "A Conversation with John Stringer") Of course, the autopsy photographs showed no such thing--I knew that from the Dox drawings. So then I called Wecht (by then back in Pittsburgh) on the phone, and informed him of what had just transpired. The back of the head (in the occipital area) was damaged, yet it was undamaged in the pictures he had just seen. Wecht's response was to assert that perhaps Stringer didn't know what the word "occipital" meant ("occipital is not exaclty a lay term, David, you know what I mean?" etc.) So then, the next day, I called Stringer a second time. He re-emphasized what he told me, and made very clear that he knew exactly what "occiptial" meant. "My major field is medial photography" etc. he told me. These conversations are relevant today because the tapes were provided to a news reporter, Craig Colgan, who (years later) played them to Stringer, and he tried to wiggle off the hook. Then, the ARRB used them when Stringer was deposed. Despite all the bluster, Wecht was never willing to go beyond the single bullet theory, and the position he took publicly was very destructive. I closed my chapter with these words: "For all practical purposes, Wecht had closed off dissent about shots striking from the front or about inauthenticity. Nevertheless, he continued to prsent the public image of a dissenter. He was a sheep in wolf's clothing." More on these themes another time. DSL Jan 02, 2010; 4:25 PM PST Los Angeles, CA

There is a more profound difference between Josiah Thompson and myself (and probably many others) who have researched this case. And that is his apparent inability to believe (or unwillingness to believe) that evidence could be planted in advance to promote a completey false story of the assassination. This goes beyond the question of whether a rifle and three shells could be placed in the vicinity of a sniper's nest. This goes to the question of whether it could be planned, in advance, to falsify the autopsy. This became most apparent to me when I appeared with Thompson (and others) on a Chicago radio station WLUP on April 3, 1993, hosted by one Steve Dahl, in connection with what was called the "Midwest Symposium" on the assassination, organized by one Doug Carlson. Appearing on the program, in addition to Thompson and myself, were Gus Russo and Robert Tannenbaum. About a year ago, I was able to obtain a tape of the show, from JFK researcher Rick Anderson, who happened to have recorded it. On the show, a tape was played of a conversation Dahl had had with House Speaker Tip O'Neil, and a lively discussion then ensued. After I summarized my thesis--that the wounds had been altered between Dallas and Bethesda--the following dialogue ensued, and Josiah Thompson made the following remarks--remarks which not only illustrate the extent to which he will go to indulge in "innocent explanations" for serious contradictions in the evidence, but also his fundamental inability (or unwillingness) to consider the plausibility of a sophisticated plot which falsified the most critical evidence. I am uploading to this post a pdf of the transcript I personally made of the tape, but here is what is to me the most relevant part: Dahl Mr. Thompson, you disagree with this (DSL's description of Parkland/Bethesda contradictions)? Tink Yes. Its clear that there is a discrepancy between the descriptions of the wounds to Kennedy’s head as given in Parkland Hospital, and the description as given in the autopsy later that night. I think a lot of this can be ascribed to confusion; to doctors in Parkland working under great stress, not having either the time, the interest, or the energy to do a full examination of the body. (Thompson. . continuing. . . ) The real problem with, I think, David’s thesis is that altering evidence is (now speaks very slowly) an enormously dangerous thing to get into. It is especially dangerous to get into before you know (now laughs) exactly what you have to have. And I think, at this point in time, the point in time we’re talking about are the hours say, between 4 P.M. on that Friday, the 22nd, and midnight of the 22nd. At that time, you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show. To go about doing that, with any degree of success or intelligence. So I think the basic problem with the thesis is the time when its supposed to have (occurred). * * * Tink (continuing to address me) Your fallacy is simplicity. You say this is a very simple thing to do. And its simple when you put it in its generality. Its not simple at all when you [have t] decide what particular details to carry out. What particular alterations to make in the head. What particular alterations to make in photographs, etc. etc. Your making the same mistake that (now speaking slowly) many many criminals make when they think that they can alter the evidence and get away with it. DSL COMMENT: Of course, I thoroughly disagree with all of this--in fact, I find these objections preposterous--but I think this really does focus on why Thompson behaves as he does. For whatever reason, it is beyond Thompson's conception that a sophisticated plot of the kind that I believe took JFK's life could ever have existed, or functioned as I believe it did. I'm not talking here about multiple shooters, or where they were hidden. That's almost irrelevant. I'm talking about a sophisticated scenario in which evidence was falsified and information manipulated so as to create the false appearance, at the time of the shooting (and in the aftermath, as necessary) that the story of President Kennedy's assassination was simply that of "a man in a building who shot a man in a car." This is very similar to the production of a movie. A good friend of mine, who studied the JFK assassination very carefully, and who himself produces very important commercials that air nationwide, once opined aloud: "Do you think the assassination had a 'producer'?"--to which my answer (and his, too) was (and still is): most definitely. And understanding that is critical to understanding both how the trip to Dallas was arranged, and how events unfolded that day; and what happened in the aftermath. As I have said on many occasions, anyone who believes that "conspiracy" in this case simply means "multiple shooters" and is unwilling to go further than that, is swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool. Such folks do not understand (or are unwiling to conceive of the possibility) that this entire event was a grotesque manipulation. The key to unraveling this case is to focus on fraud in the evidence. That has been my position for many years--indeed, decads--and it has not change one bit. DSL 1/2/2010 12:30 PM PST Xcrpt_of_DSL_Thompson__WLUP__4_3_93.pdf

I never questioned Thompson's motives in writing Six Seconds. It is all to easy to return to a situation decades later and say, Why didn't you connect the dots this way or that? etc. Of course, that is separate and apart from the issue of why, decades later, Thompson STILL takes some of the positions he does. So I think its important to distinguish between the validity (or invalidity) of a position he might take today, in 2010, and the sincerity of his motives in 1966. Viewing things retrospectively, its all too easy to conjure up "mal intent". One other matter, and this has to do with the Z frames: as I understand it, the Z frames--as published (in Volume 18)--only go out to frame 334. The stunning picture of JFK's head--with the so-called "exit wound" on the forward right hand side is at 335, and then another such "clear frame" is 337. Those two frames played an important role in my own development, and I'm not sure they are in the original slide set. In other words, you'd have to have had tne film--in 35mm format--to readily "see" them. Once I saw those frames--on a 35mm film at the Beverly Hills office of Time Life in June 1970 (as described in "Pig on a Leash")--I was fairly well convinced that the so called "wounds" were artwork. Now addressing the situation of "what Thompson knew and when he knew it" --circa 1966--he would, of course, have frame 313, which shows a big red blob (but what does one make of that, in isolation?), and yes, he would have the McClelland drawing. But I don't think the "optical evidence" is necessarily the key thing here. The question is: how come Thompson had the McLelland diagram, on the one hand (showing an exit at the back of the head) and the autopsy report, with its exit towards the right hand side, and put them together and call that a "double head hit"--rather than realize they were different descriptions on the time line? I closed my Chapter 13 in Best Evidence (on the head wounds) by pointing out the error THompson made, by omitting the time factor, and not realizing that these two descriptions were different. And I quote that paragraph again, in Pig on a Leash, in a section titled 'Thompson's Blunder." Now, returning to 2010: do I think he was wrong? Yes. Do I think he set out to obfuscate? No. Truly, I believe he just didn't "get it." I would like Thompson to have been the kind of guy who--like Doug Horne--had a "paradigm shift" upon reading Best Evidence (Jan., 1981) and realizing the wound descriptions were different at Parkland and at Bethesda. Instead, he stubbornly sticks to a position that, in my opinion, is provably wrong. I don't think you can fake that kind of stubborness. I recall a story LBJ used to tell about someone who was hitting a mule over the head with a two by four. And the person swinging the 2 by 4 was questioned about his behavior, and the question was "Why?" And the response was; "I'm trying to get his attention." Well, that's how I feel about the futility of getting Tink to come around on these fundamental questions. (Apologies, Tink. . but it really has been frustrating). But I still appreciate his having supplied me with all those films (Bell, Hughes, etc., back around 1969), and the Life/Zapruder contracts, etc.--even though, today, I disagree with him on many points. DSL So, David, is it fair to assume from this that you do not question Thompson's motive in writing SSID, and consider it a sincere investigation, as opposed to an obfuscation?

No, that's incorrect. The original film--plus one of the three Dallas duplicates--was in the hands of Time-Life starting with the sale that occurred on the morning of November 23, 1963, in accordance with a contract signed that morning, for $50,000. That contract was for print rights only. By Monday, November 25, a completely different contract was executed--an "all rights" deal (for $150,000) in which Time-Life took possession of the film, and owned all rights (i.e., motion picture rights). The payments would be (and were) made in $25,000 increments, on (or just after) the first of every year, out through January, 1968. The film was only available--as a motion picture film--inside the offices of Time-Life, at the FBI, at the Secret Service, and at the offices of the Warren Commission. UPI--as well as other news organizations--had some half dozen frames (in black and white)--on or around 11/28/63, and they were widely published in newspapers on that day and/or the next. As far as I know, UPI never had the Zapruder film as a motion picture film. Nor was there ever any projection of the Zapruder film at a New York City theater at any time in 1964. (FYI: Mark Lane was lecturing often to packed audiences at the Jan Hus theater in Manhattan at the time. Can you imagine if he could have told audiences to "go to such a such a theater, and watch the Zapruder film!" Sorry, not a chance.) One other matter: the contracts showing the original Zapruder film price (of $50,000), plus the multi-page contract in which the price tripled, by Monday, November 25, 1963, were sent to me by Josiah Thompson around 1970. He obtained them in the course of the "discovery process" when he and his publiisher (Bernard Geis, the publisher of Six Seconds in Dallas) were sued for copyright infringement when Six Seconds published sketches of critical Zapruder frames (because Time -Life would not grant permission to run the actual photographs). As readers of Pig on a Leash know, it was my possession of the Zapruder/Time-Life contract --with the revelation that the contract price had tripled from $50,000 to $150,000 (about $900k in today's money)--that so startled Mrs. Zapruder, when I spoke with her in November, 1971, and caused her to make the significant statements that she did. (See "Speak with Mrs. Zapruder" sub-section of "Pig on a Leash," in the Fetzer anthology about the Z film titled "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.") One other fyi: I had dozens of contacts with the ARRB (Horne, Gunn, and Marwell on occasion) because of their interest in BEST EVIDENCE and the fact that so many of the autopsy witnesses with whom I had prior contact (in the form of either interviews recorded on audio, or on film) were called to testify. A similar situation prevailed with respect to the Zapruder film. When they learned I had these contracts, plus the related affidavits filed by the personel at Kodak, attesting to the number of copies made from Z's original) they were most interested. On July 1, 1996, I sent in both contracts, along with a detailed memo analyzing the difference, and explaining the significance of of the tripling in price between November 23, 1963 and November 25, 1963. That memo is titled "Original vs. Final Agreement re Z film: 11/23/63 vs. 11/25/63," and I'm sure appears in the appropriate ARRB files. Lawyers love documents (of course) and I heard back that Marwell was "fascinated," Gunn was "delighted" etc. to have these materials. Subsequently, that submission--and others--led to my being called as a witness on 9/17/96, at the Los Angeles hearing, when I donated my special 35mm copy of the film, made directly from one of the Moe Weitzman "originals." The entire situation with regard to these two contracts--and the tripling in the price between Saturday and Monday-- is discussed in Doug Horne's chapter 14, "The Zapruder Film Mystery," starting on page 1199 under the heading "The Sale of the Film." Unfortunately, no mention is made of the role I played in supplying the ARRB with these critical documents, and informing them about both the sale of the film (and how optical printing works, etc) but it was a significant one. DSL It wasn't, at least not initially, even in the hands of Time-Life: UPI, Helms' pre-war outfit, had it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=Muchmore Paul DSL_Memo_Re_Zapruder_Contracts__7_1_96_.pdf

Will the poster please explain what movie theater showed the Zapruder film in 1964? According to the record (as we now know it), the Z film was locked up tight as a drum at the offices of Time Life. So I would be very interested in knowing the circumstances of its alleged projection at a New York City theater in 1964. Certainly, there was no media coverage of any such event. Thanks. DSL Of course SIX SECONDS needs no defense. While I reserve the future right to point out its shortcomings, no one can deny that the act of writing and publication (it is a superbly produced book) was a courageous act, much to be admired. I would basically agree with you Raymond. My initial reaction to SSID was very positive because it alluded to conspiracy and included sketches of a number of the Z-frames, which were more clear than the photocopies in the WC H&E. However, I did find it muddled and puzzling in many respects; it was difficult to determine whether the leads being presented were opening doors to new research or merely rabbit-trails. Taking a fresh look at SSID, which I am now doing, it is occurring to me that it might be valuable to ask whether or not this book was intended as some sort of limited hang-out for the CTs, appearing to give new information but concealing more than it revealed. Anyone can tell by looking at the Z-film, for example, that it was altered. It was spliced in at least two critical places. So then the question becomes not whether it was altered but how maliciously it was altered. I had a chance to see the Z-film once in a movie theatre in NYC in December 1964. It made an indelible impression. How different would my or any other researcher's perceptions have been if they had had access to it on a daily basis back then. Why, then, are so many now recognized anomalies glossed over in SSID?

I'm sorry, Lamson, but I don't buy your argument. I Googled "edge fog" and here's the definition that came up: QUOTE: (graphic arts) The light fog which appears along the edge of roll film, generally from exposure during loading or unloading. UNQUOTE And you're trying to sell me on the notion that Clint Hill appears beyond the left edge of the sprocket hole because of "edge fog". Really, you've got to be kidding. I think you're engaging in irrelevant techno-babble. As for your "normal sample variation," I don't buy that either. If I'm stopped by an officer for speeding, and he's using radar, I'd don't think I could escape a ticket by arguing that his radar set was off because of "normal sample variation"--and that the problem perhaps was with Motorola's manufacturing processes, and not that my car was going too fast. And that's basically how I feel about your line of reasoning. Just take a look at the Costella Combined Edit. The frames repeatedly go BEYOND "full flesh left" (I just happened to choose that sequence because Clint Hill was out there on the edge.) Do you think the entire length of the Zapruder film is polluted with "edge fog"? (And no one noticed this before, but you?) I don't think so. Rather, I think "edge fog" and "normal sample variation" is circumstantial evidence of someone invoking high falutin terminology of dubious relevance and little validity to address the serious problem of Z film forgery. Happy New Year. DSL 12/31/09 Los Angeles, CA 5:05 AM

Thanks for your support. In particular, I appreciate your succinct summation of the key reasons why I believe the Z film has been altered; now quoting: QUOTE I think the strongest argument for film alteration is the overwhelming eyewitness testimony, especially the unanimous observations of the medical personnel in Dallas. What you see on the Zapruder film strongly contradicts all those witnesses who described the limousine stopping (and even swerving to the left), as well as the doctors and nurses who all stated there was a massive blowout to the back of the head. None described seeing the damage to the right front, which is so prominent in the Zapruder film. UNQUOTE An unaltered film would have provided the truth about how the car stopped--even if briefly--during the shooting. It would have provided photographic evidence corroborating the Dallas doctors observations re the rear head wound blowout; and, finally, it would have established that there was no massive wound (or "blob") at the front of the head. While ultimately, the debate about whether the film was altered may come down a matter of optics, what you are citing are the key reasons why an "eraser" was applied to this film, and why certain facts were indeed changed. DSL

Thanks for your support, and the succinct manner in which you have summed up the key reasons for believing in Zapruder film alteration: "What you see on the Zapruder film strongly contradicts all those witnesses who described the limousine stopping (and even swerving to the left), as well as the doctors and nurses who all stated there was a massive blowout to the back of the head. None described seeing the damage to the right front, which is so prominent in the Zapruder film." Yes, isn't it amazing: damage seen at Parkland, is not on the film; and damage so prominent on the film is not observed (or reported) at Parkland Hospital four minutes later. Apparently, those who insist on believing in the authenticity of the Zapruder film invent "innocent explanations" for each of the above (which Rollie Zavada disparages by referring to it as "image content" evidence) and when one points to optical evidence that suggests the film was not made in Zapruder's camera, they engage in "innocent explanations" or techno babble in that area too. Again, thanks for your support. DSL

Tink, In answer to your question: this is all once-removed (and even twice removed) hearsay to me. If some researcher shot such footage, I'd like to examine the product--whether on a DVD Rom, or if there is a Web-based address where it can be viewed, frame by frame. Thanks. As to the intersprocket penetration, and whether the current state of the evidence (as we know it) can be used to render a final verdict one way or the other, I have stated my beliefs, based on what my eyes see. I do not believe these differences --which are clearly measurable and easily visible--can be explained away as "small differences" that can be explained away in the manner you suggest: "small differences in lens manufacture or mechanical functioning can account for the small differences between Zapruder camera image penetration and image penetration in like cameras." "small differences"? This is easily visible, and easily measurable. Stepping back from these details: this reminds me of Doug Horne's discovery of the situation that prevailed with regard to the Defense Department being requested by HSCA to please produce the camera used at the Bethesda autopsy. The camera was found, and when tested by the HSCA's photo panel, it was determined that that camera could not have taken the pictures in evidence. Rather than confront the fact that he had come upon powerful evidence of the inauthenticity of autopsy photographs (or at least some of them), Blakey's response to this was that DOD must have found "the wrong camera" (my quotes). I see a similar behavioral pattern here. A difference is spotted, and pointed out: the response is "normal variations" in camera manufacture, invented language ("edge fog") etc. Where precision is called for, fuzzy language is being supplied. In my opinion, we have a very serious problem here regarding the image extending further than it ought to. What I see here --in this evolving debate--is language being invoked to "explain it." I do not believe that these explanations are valid. But to carry this matter further, a test could (and perhaps should) be conducted. Can a Zapruder type camera, operating at full zoom, and in normal sunlight conditions, place image beyond the left edge? Based on the Zavada-supplied red truck frames that you posted, I believe the answer to be "no." It appears (to me) to be a mechanical impossibility. Yet such "beyond the left edge" imagery repeatedly shows up in the Zapruder frames. And one other point: I notice that in the Rollie test shots (and certainly at "full zoom," as I recall) there is a very visible light flare at the lower right hand edge of the sprocket hole. But on the Zapruder frames in evidence (and again I refer to the Costella combined edit), no such phenomenon appears. Again, I suspect this may be still another indicia of INauthenticity--i.e., that the Z film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's camera. DSL PS: Re your other question: I do not know the history of Bowers' accounts, or when he first mentioned seeing one (or two) men behind the knoll. If someone creates such a chronology, and if it demonstrates "evolution" in Bowers' story, I'd appreciate receiving a copy. Thanks. DSL

To Craig Lamson: You are introducing terminology I never heard of—"edge fog." Before entering this arena and proposing to discuss this matter, please define your terms, or at least stick to known vocabulary. What the heck is "edge fog"—other than your own linguistic invention to account for a serious optical discrepancy, one that demands explanation, and which your post does not in fact explain. Let me address your post in detail: You write: "David, how can you tell that the image area of the Rollie red truck frame does not extend to the extent that it does in Z?" DSL Response: I can tell (and anyone can tell) by just looking at it. Very clearly and very obviously, it does not extend beyond the very well defined left edge. By way of background: Josiah Thompson has done me –and every other person who is studying this matter closely (and certainly anyone who believes in Z film alteration) a very big favor. He has supplied the "rollie red truck" frames at a level of clarity I have never before seen. Certainly, I have never before seen what I am now calling the "Rollie Red Truck" sequence at this level of clarity—and so I must direct this question to Thompson: does this exhibit which you included in your original post on this matter (and which has precipitated this debate) come from Zavada himself? Did he go back to his original materials—the actual film he took in Dealey Plaza, and provide you with these pictures? Or is it the case that frames of this clarity are in the actual Zavada report? Whichever is the case, these frames, it seems to me (and unless one is going to invent one's own unique terminology, as Lamson has done here) prove important evidence that the left margin of the frame of a Zapruder-type camera does NOT permit image to appear beyond the left-most edge of the frame—in start contrast to what we see in the Zapruder film frames that supposedly come from a "camera original" film. As for you, Craig Lamson: Inventing your own terminology, calling the argument "silly," and invoking "normal sample variation" does not answer, much less address the fundamental question. To repeat: how can Clint Hill be seen—to the left of the "intersprocket area", when test films on a Zapruder type camera used by Zavada show a clearly defined left edge, one created by the camera mechanism itself, and beyond which no photo image can (or should) appear? DSL 1:55 PM; PST Los Angeles, CA.

Well, I see that my little "exhibit" actually uploaded. Good. Now, I will upload, separately, each of the component parts--so that each can be examined separately for ease of study. I invite your comments, Josiah Thompson, as to why the image of "Rollie's Red Truck" is so different, at the left margin, than the image of the Zapruder frames (and Z 244 is just one I happen to choose, since it shows Clint Hill out there on the left). DSL

Tink, For many years, I took an assortment of science courses in which the importance of "what happens at the boundary" was emphasized. Although I am not claiming the analogy to be exact, the "intersprocket area" of the Zapruder film is of critical importance because it may contain optical evidence that the Zapruder film in evidence is not a camera original. There is really no room--or at least, very little room (in my opinion)--for there to be any significant difference between what the frames of the Zapruder film show, and what a test film made through Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera show (or a similar "store bought" camera, same make and model, etc.) if we are to believe that the Zapruder film in evidence is really "camera original." I just took a look through Costella's "combined edit" and call your attention to frames 235-244. In frame after frame, there is not only "full penetration" of the intersprocket area, but the image even extends FURTHER than the left margin. (Just focus on the image of SS Agent Clint Hill, who is often either partially, or wholly, to the left of the left margin). That, in my opinion, is a mechanical impossibility if the Z film that contains these frames was actually shot in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera. Now, let's take a look at "Rollie's red truck"--the frames which you and Rollie Zavada seem to believe show "full penetration." Just compare them to the Zapruder frames shown in the Costella Combined Edit. Clearly, they are different. No part of the image in the "Rollie's red truck" frame extends past the left margin. I have made a JPEG of each of these frames, and have placed one above the other for easy viewing. I will try to "upload" that exhibit into this post. Hopefully it will work. What happens "at the boundary" really IS important in sciene, and that lesson can be applied in this case. These films SHOULD look the same. There are marked differences. If I am correct about this, then these frames which show "beyond full penetration" (and I don't care if it is 3% or 5%) is enough to prove that the Zapruder film in evidence was not made in Zapruder's Bell and Howell camera. Your comments?

Josiah Thompson has misstated several critical facts, and made a number of critical errors. Perhaps he is just confused. Here is an attempt to untangle these matters. To begin with: Jim Fetzer had nothing to do with the full flush left argument. That is something that Doug Horne and I worked on together, starting in the Spring of 1999, six months after the ARRB shut down, when we were being interviewed by a German television network about the Zapruder film. At that time, we were both examining the Zavada report, and that's when we had our discussions about "full flush left." In 2003, we revisted the issue when I was writing Pig on a Leash, and I included our analysis of the matter when I submitted my essay to Fetzer, for inclusion in Hoax. Regarding "full flush left": The issue at hand (at least, the way I originally perceived it) is whether it was physically possible for Zapruder's camera to put an image all the way over to the left—"full flush left" was a phrase I coined. That's the way the frames consistently appear on the supposed camera original" Zapruder film. Were it to be the case that the Zapruder camera could not ever do that, then the mere fact that the Zapruder frames in evidence consistently go "full flush left" would be proof that the film we call "the Zapruder film" is a forgery. On the other hand, if it should turn out that the Zapruder camera can indeed put such an image very far to the left, but, as the motor is turning, and the film is going over the transport mechanism, it does so only intermittently—e.g., perhaps once in every 10 frames (and I am only speculating here, to provide an example), then that would show that while it is not a physical impossibility, such a phenomenon occurs (on a genuine camera original) only intermittently whereas on the Zapruder film, it occurs consistently, i.e., in every single frame. In that case, "full flush left" would still be an important indicator of inauthenticity, but it would be a statistical argument. Then there is still another matter: on the so-called original, there are frames (and I am not prepared here to cite frame numbers from memory) where the image actually extends BEYOND the left margin (i.e., beyond "full flush left") and (once again) that may well be physically impossible. The camera should be tested. Can it do that—produce images that extend beyond the left frame margin? If it can, then so be it. But if it is demonstrably the case that it cannot, then that (again) would constitute proof of forgery—i.e., that the so-called "camera original" Zapruder film is not a film that was made in Zapruder's camera, and at the time of the assassination. Of course, as a close student of this matter, I am very interested which is the case—is this a case of “physical impossibility” (which is what I originally believed, i.e., "the lens cannot do that, therefore, the film is a forgery") or is it the case that "the lens and motor mechanism only does it some of the time" (whereas Z film displays that all of the time). Thompson seems to think that because one of Zavada's test shots shows a red truck extending to the left, the matter is settled. It is not. There is still the matter of how it is possible for the image to extend "beyond full flush left" (which it does, in some of the frames); and also the matter of why, on Zavada's test shots, the lower right hand corner of the sprocket hole consistently shows a white area, whereas on the so called Z film, this does not happen. Finally, in response to Thompson's other comments—there is the implication of which is that I set out to defraud the reader—that is ridiculous. I never deliberately published anything in "degraded" form. I took the photos that were available in the Zavada report, as I received it, and as reproduced on a modern photo copy machine. Should it turn out that, when reproduced in color, the frames in Zavada’s test shot showing a red truck extends out to the left, then so be it. The frames in the other test sequences certainly do NOT appear to go out that far to the left. So, for me, and because of the "red truck" sequence, the issue is whether "full flush left" is an argument that proves inauthenticity because it demonstrates that the camera cannot ever do that (i.e., cannot do that at all), or whether it is a statistical argument, i.e., a powerful indicia of inauthenticity but not absolute proof which would be the case if it represented a physical impossibility. An important indication that “full flush left” may indeed provide a viable indicator of inauthenticity occurs in the frames that Thompson himself published in this post. The color sequence published in Thompson’s own post show a clearly visible jump, in intersprocket penetration, between what is visible in the last non-assassination sequence (the two ladies and a man, by the monument)—frames which no doubt come from the camera original, and which have not been altered—and the assassination sequence (i.e., starting with the first frame showing the motorcycle rounding the corner) which show full flush left penetration. One has to wonder: why is it that, when we come upon the assassination sequence, the characteristics of the lens change and the frames exhibit consistent “full flush left” behavior? (and even beyond full flush left, as noted above). Rollie Zavada would probably argue that Zapruder changed the lens setting to “full telephoto,” but that is just my speculation. The fact is: the original Zapruder camera has to be properly tested to explore this phenomenon. One does not buy cameras at garage sales, photograph one’s wife in the street, and call that “science.” One addresses the issue directly, and under laboratory conditions. One has to wonder: doesn’t Thompson notice these things? Or is he so biased in his beliefs about authenticity, that he fails to see such data when it is clearly laid out, before him, and in full color, right before his eyes, and in frames he is utilizing? Finally (and now changing the subject) there is one other matter—and this deals with another, and clearly false allegation that Thompson makes about me. In his very last paragraph, the one numbered “(2)” (and preceded by the words, “I want to make two things clear”), Thompson’s second point is that, in Murder in Dealey Plaza, that I “circled a clean and undamaged part of the limousine and labeled it “the apparent through and through hole in the windshield.” Sorry, Professor Thompson, but I did nothing of the kind. I did not contribute any writing at all to “Murder in Dealey Plaza,” so I don’t know what you are talking about, and only have to wonder: “What are you smoking, Josiah, that you would write a sentence like that?” DSL David S. Lifton 12/29/09; 7:05 PM PST

As I've stated publicly, ghostwriting is an honorable profession. Publishers often contract with writers to do the writing for an author who either cannot write, or doesn’t have the time or inclination to write, or for whatever reason. Often, the reason is simply that the author is a busy person, has something he wants to convey, but doesn't have the time it would take to sit down a craft a book. So a writer is hired to do that job. Sometimes the identity of the ghost remains anonymous; in other cases, the book's title reads "by Joe Smith, with Tom Jones." Bugliosi's involvement in the JFK case goes way back to 1985, and the television program The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, which was originally contracted for by London Weekly Television (and a producer named Mark Redhead). In that program, Bugliosi was prosecuting attorney, and Gerry Spence was defense attorney. Numerous witnesses were flown in from the U.S., and the trial was conducted—before a judge and jury—in accordance with standard legal procedures. After the program was originally aired in London, many hours were later broadcast on Showtime. From that experience, Bugliosi, who thought he knew everything there was to know about the JFK case, set out to write a book. After all, he had met many of the witnesses, he "knew the case" (or so he thought); and he would set the record straight. Unfortunately, life is not that simple—as Bugliosi soon learned. And despite the time and effort he put in on the JFK case, he has been humbled by the experience. As he himself has admitted, the JFK case "is a bottomless pit." He refers to it a "this terribly long journey" and persons who know him personally have told me he has been humbled by the experience. Bugliosi states as much in his own acknowledgements, "With every project that we take on in our lives, we intuitively know. . that if we work long and hard enough, we will reach the bottom of the pile. But I found. . that there is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case. . it is endless. . " (Reclaiming History, p. 1513). In short, Bugliosi has not found closure. One problem is that Bugliosi's goal—of refuting every single conspiracy theory (or at least all the principle ones)—was unrealistic and led to an unmanageable research project. Another is that the particular theory to which Bugliosi subscribes—that Oswald was guilty, and acted alone—is simply false. That fact will only be further validated with the passage of time. In short, Vincent Bugliosi—like many honorable reactionaries before him—is on the wrong side of history. Further, he will not prevail by writing that depends on personal insults (comparing the JFK researchers to bacteria, and the documents they won under FOIA or as a result of the ARRB, as their "oxygen") or by his outsized ego. But let's return to the issue ghostwriting, because here the issue is not just how the book was written (or "assembled," as the case may be) but the credibility of Mr. Bugliosi, himself. Just how knowledgeable is he about the JFK case himself—or is he just a blowhard who has strong beliefs, and likes to argue and debate, but used the services of an assortment of experts when it came to the details of the actual writing? There are various “shades of gray” when it comes to writing about the Kennedy assassination, and how a book about such a complex such as the JFK case is assembled. Let’s explore the situation as it applies to Bugliosi. * * * The Kennedy assassination is quite involved, Bugliosi is a busy man and this particular project, which began in 1985, extended forward some 22 years to 2007, before publication. Indeed, Bugliosi's project went through two major periods in its literary evolution—one, when the proposed book was titled Final Verdict, and which came to an ending of sorts around October, 1999; the second, when it was retitled (and expanded) and called Reclaiming History. Moreover, over the course of some 15 years, there were at least two ghost-writers who played key roles in the creation of the book as finally published, in 2007, under the title Reclaiming History. These two individuals—each who worked as paid "subcontractors" of a sort—are Fred Haines, of Los Angeles, and Dale Myers, the JFK researcher from Livonia, Michigan. Each was a paid ghost-writer, and each had a contract with Bugliosi's New York publisher, W. W. Norton. These two individuals worked on (i.e., contributed to) the manuscript during distinctly different time periods. In each case, the arrangement called for a shared credit; i.e., the arrangement called for the book—when published—to be "by" Vincent Bugliosi but "with" the other named author. In the case of Haines, the book's title was FINAL VERDICT, and was to be "by" Bugliosi but "with Fred Haines." In the case of Dale Myers, the book was titled (as it is presently published) as RECLAIMING HISTORY and the author's credit was to read "by" Bugliosi, but "with Dale Myers." The fact that two separate ghost writers were hired over a period of 15 years—writers with signed contracts who were each remunerated to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars—should put an end to the nonsense that Bugliosi did not utilize ghostwriters. But apparently, there are those who want to believe "no matter what," so I suggest they channel such energies, and such a "will to believe", into theological areas; or perhaps ask Bugliosi to make public the paid contracts that he (and/or his publisher) had with each of these two writers. As to Bugliosi and the matter of ghostwriting, here is the basic outline of the facts. * * * Let's start with Haines, whose arrangement goes back to the 1990s. Writer Fred Haines—an amiable man and talented intellect—received regular monthly payments from W. W. Norton. (Those who save their old Compuserve posts will find Fred Haines on those boards). Haines' compensation was at the rate of approximately $50,000 per annum. He worked on Bugliosi's project for years—indeed, for the better part of a decade, while Bugliosi immersed himself in other matters (e.g., the O. J. case). Haines' primary task was to write "the biography" of Oswald—similar to the work that Attorneys Jenner and Liebeler did for the Warren Commission (See Appendix 13 of the Warren Report), only a greatly expanded version of that. As published, Haines contribution comes to 260 pages. ( See page 513 to 788, listed as two chapters in Bugliosi's table of contents). As just noted, the arrangement with Haines --and it went on for many years--was that the author's credit on the book would read "by Bugliosi," but "with Fred Haines." This was similar to the titling of HELTER SKELTER, which was "by Bugliosi," but "with Kurt Gentry". But those who knew Kurt Gentry knew that he wrote HELTER SKELTER . In setting out to write about the JFK case, Bugliosi was continuing that same pattern of behavior that began back in the days of the Manson case—i.e., "I know all this, but I'm a busy man, too busy to write, so let's hire someone to do the job." So a writer (Fred Haines) was hired, he had a separate contract with the publisher, and was paid monthly by the publisher. Going now to the matter of JFK researcher Dale Myers, and how he came to be involved, we must first move towards the end of what might be called the "Fred Haines" period, and a significant turning point in the evolution of Bugliosi's work. * * * In mid-October 1999—this is now 14 years after the original TV special—Bugliosi turned in a "manuscript" of (what was then called FINAL VERDICT) to W. W. Norton. Unfortunately, there was a serious problem with Bugliosi's 1999 manuscript being published in the form in which it was presented at the time. Bugliosi's manuscript was 3,000 pages long; furthermore, Bugliosi was referring to that submission as "Part 1". Bugliosi told Norton (this is mid-October, 1999) that this 3000 page manuscript was something that he had worked on it for some ten years (i.e., 1989 – 1999). He said that this manuscript was now "finished" and could be published on its own. He noted that it could be divided into two books. That decision was up to the publisher. He said that as far as he was concerned, what he had just submitted was just "the first part of it", but that, if Norton wanted to go forward with a Part 2 "which involved critiquing in some detail all the different conspiracy theories") why then a new arrangement would have to be negotiated. Bugliosi's position, in short, was that he had now (circa, 1999) fulfilled his contract. He had arrived at a plateau of sorts; and what had been his experience starting with London Weekly Television, back in 1985, and the role he had played in that TV special, had now morphed into this manuscript, circa 1999. As we now know, the publisher did NOT publish Bugliosi's 1999 3,000 page submission, then titled "Final Verdict", with the credit then reading by Buglioi and "with Fred Haines." So the work now continued. As the summer of 2001 approached, both Bugliosi and Fred Haines both had contracts with Norton, and Haines was receiving payments at least through that time. But not too long afterwards, Haines had to leave the project because of medical problems. So a "parting of the ways" was arranged, and now Bugliosi was on his own, and he cast about for further editorial assistance. Bugliosi needed assistance because (1) his work was not really complete, in accordance with his grand design of criticizing all the conspiracy theories; and (2) everything was now complicated by the work of the ARRB between 1995 and 1998, and the attendant release of a huge amount of archival material. Some of this "new material" was released starting around 1994, but then much more followed, in the way of depositions, additional documents, and internal memos, after the ARRB shut down on 9/30/98. So now, before proceeding with what happened next in connection with Bugliosi's project, let's take a small side trip on how the ARRB's work impacted on the JFK case in general, and, in particular, Bugliosi's writing project (and the subsequent entry of "Ghostwriter #2"). SIDETRIP: 1998: About the ARRB and the document releases One cannot overestimate the importance of the (1992) JFK Records Act, or the work of the ARRB (1995-1998) on the history of this case. Nor can one overstate the effect the release of millions of pages –in late 1998. In addition, there was the advent of the Internet –with the first browsers, etc., circa 1995—and the matter of hundreds of thousands of pages coming "on line" (e.g., at Mary Ferrell dot org, or in various university collections, and even at the National Archives). In other words, not only did the JFK Records Act change everything, so did the advent of the "information superhighway." Indeed, Bugliosi was not immune from the effect of this torrent of information. But, unfortunately, he was particularly ill-equipped to handle this torrent of data, because he is (or at least was) not computer literate, and worked with pencil and paper and dictating machine. Moreover, he did not use the Internet. So Bugliosi was like a man on a bicycle, while cars were whizzing by on the freeway. He was constantly having to write the National Archives for information, didn't know how to use a search engine, and I can only wonder when he first learned what a pdf file was. But now, back to the ARRB and the problem(s) it presented. Included in that material was significant new data about the medical evidence, and a major amount of work done by the ARRB's Doug Horne, who was Chief Analyst for Military Records" on the staff of the ARRB; and played a major role in handling numerous matters pertaining to the medical evidence and the Zapruder film. To put it mildly, Bugliosi, who adopts the manner of someone who knows everything about the JFK case, now had to face the fact that the record was loaded with material, in the medical area—in the form of depositions and staff memos—that was supportive of Best Evidence. And lest there be any question about Doug Horne's conclusions about Best Evidence, here is what he has publicly posted: QUOTE FROM DOUG HORNE (as posted on Education Forum): 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.) Horne and I used to wonder about this: what was Bugliosi going to do with all this "new evidence"? The answer, it turns out, is simple: included would be his personal attack on Doug Horne, who he calls "insane" about four times; and a completely ridiculous and superficial chapter on my own work. But let's not go there--at least, not in this post. The fact is that, when cornered, Bugliosi behaves like a name-calling street bully, but let's return to the primary issue at hand, the matter of the ghostwriting—i.e., the issue of the employment of paid writers by his publisher, who rendered major assistance to Bugliosi over the course of some 10 years (at least). BUGLIOSI AND GHOSTWRITING (contd.) As previously stated, first paid ghostwriter was Fred Haines. Haines' arrangement with Bugliosi—which went back many years to the 1990s (at least)— involved an arrangement in which he would write the "Oswald biography" of FINAL VERDICT (which was then the title) –the book to be published with the author's credit reading "by" Vincent Bugliosi, but "with Fred Haines." With the 1998 ARRB releases, and the advent of the Internet, Bugliosi needed assistance to complete his project. This brings us to the second phase. ENTER Ghostwriter #2 –DALE MYERS Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) hired another writer--this time, one with expertise in the area of the shots, the medical evidence, and the acoustics. Dale Myers—the JFK researcher who appeared with Bugliosi on a Discovery Channel documentary—was solicited, and agreed. Once again, as was the case with Haines, a formal contract was drawn up. Furthermore, it was agreed that the credit for the book would now read "by Vincent Bugliosi," but "with Dale Myers." Unfortunately for Bugliosi (and perhaps because both of these fellows have outsized egos), the collaboration between Dale Myers and Bugliosi didn't work out. Consequently, and similar to a marriage that doesn't work, a "literary divorce" now had to be arranged (i.e., another contract had to be drawn up—this one spelling out the terms of their "separation.) One of the provisions of this second contract was that Myers agreed that he would never divulge the existence of the original arrangement, or its dissolution. In other words, Myers is bound by contract not to talk about the writing he did for Bugliosi, what he contributed, how much he was paid for his contribution, or the circumstances of their "divorce." Consequently, Dale Myers has TWO contracts with publisher W. W. Norton: --the first, when his writing deal was originally formalized, and the book was to be published with the authorial credit reading by Vincent Bugliosi "with Dale Myers"; -- the second, when their collaboration didn't work as planned and their separation had to be formalized. So now, addressing the issue of ghostwriting and counting up the signed contracts for ghostwriting, here's where we stand: there's one (and probably two) with Fred Haines (one for the original arrangement, and one for the separation); similarly, there were two contracts with Dale Myers—one for the original arrangement, the second for the "literary divorce." These contracts span a total of about 15 years, and account for a significant amount of the writing that appears in the published work—irrespective of how hard Bugliosi worked on the project, or how much of the work represents his own writing—i.e., his own "original writing." OK, then, so much for Bugliosi and his utilization of paid ghost-writers. Now lets turn to the actual contributions of each paid ghost-writer. THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE TWO GHOSTS—An Attempt at Quantification Fred Haines wrote the entire section on Oswald—i.e., the "Lee Oswald biography," such as it appears in Bugliosi's book. That section –from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. In a way, it’s a "mini-book" enclosed within the larger work. Dale Myers wrote the original drafts of material on Dealey Plaza, the acoustics, etc. As to the size of the written contributions of these two individuals, we can consult Bugliosi's own acknowledgements, so lets now do just that, plug in some numbers and "do the math": From Bugliosi's own acknowledgements section (Reclaiming History, pp. 1514-1515), is the acknowledgement Bugliosi gives Dale Myers: Dale helped me in the writing of several sections of Book One, most notably on acoustic, "Four Days in November" (particularly in the Oswald interrogations), and all matters dealing with still photography). This statement is particularly significant, because Bugliosi, in the acknowledgements, compares the size of the Myers contribution to that of Fred Haines (his other acknowledged ghostwriter, and the one who wrote the Oswald biography, which is 260 pages in length, as published). Importantly, Bugliosi makes clear that Myers' contribution was larger. Specifically, Bugliosi compares his (Haines') contribution to Myers, as follows: the other person who played a writing role, though a smaller one, was Fred Haines (Bugliosi, p. 1515). ". . . a smaller one. . . "?? To get some sense of what is going on here, quantitatively speaking: we know that the Oswald biography--"Lee Harvey Oswald", which extends from page 513 to 788—is about 260 pages. Since Haines 260 pages is referred to by Bugliosi (again, who compares it to Myers, in size) as being "the smaller one," it seems reasonable to assume that Myers' contribution was considerably larger than 260 pages. But note: even if the two contributions were of equal size, that would mean (based on Bugliosi's own admissions, in his acknowledgements) a total of 520 pp (260 plus 260) was written by these two paid ghosts. In other words, at least 520 pages of this book—i.e., at least one-third of a book whose main text (including the "Epilogue") runs to page number 1510—was written by two paid ghosts, each of whom had signed contracts with Bugliosi's publisher, W. W. Norton. As to what changes were made by Bugliosi in the material submitted, I can only state that Dale Myers, upon first receiving a copy of the book and examining it, told a third party (with regards to the material he provided): "Well, that's just about exactly as I wrote it!" But now, for a second look as to the actual amount of ghostwriting involved, let's return (again) to the number's, and "do the math"—this time, with a closer look at the area of Dale Myer's contribution. (Dale Myers, remember, is the fellow forbidden to talk about any of this, under the terms of the second contract he has with Norton, i.e., the one that is akin to a "literary divorce.") Bulgiosi's opening chapter—"Four Days in November"—is just under 320 pages (it extends from page 3 to page 319). The section on acoustics, in the end notes, runs about 25 pages. Adding these together, that brings us to a sum of about 350 pages (for Dale Myers), but that is only the beginning—because, as Bugliosi himself said, Myers contribution extended beyond "Four Days in November" to "all matters dealing with still photography." So, (and just estimating here), if we were to add another 50 pages (at least) for all that material (i.e., "all matters dealing with still photography"—Bugliosi's own words), we are up to a Dale Myers contribution of about 400 pages. Adding that to Haines' 260, that would bring us to a total of 660 pages of a book whose main text ends at page 1510. So by this analysis, (which admittedly involves some reasonable estimates) we come to numbers suggesting that "one-third" is conservative, and that in fact almost half of Bugliosi's book (at least) was written, for the most part, by these two paid ghostwriters. But even that doesn't put an end to the subject of ghostwriting, because there are any number of other areas of the book where Bugliosi may well have received major outside assistance. Remember: Bugliosi didn't use the Internet, or even a computer, which is another factor that suggests he received plenty of outside assistance, at a time when a flood of information was being released, and Bugliosi was writing with pencil and paper, and didn't even know how to use the net. So, in view of all this, I believe that the basic thrust of what I previously wrote about this issue of Bugliosi and his use of ghostwriters (see my Internet essay, "Ghostwriters in the Sky", posted on the Education Forum) is quite correct. I believe that at least half the book—if not more—is ghostwritten. BUGLIOSI AND THE MATTER OF "inserts" Bugliosi himself gives the game away when he writes, in his acknowledgements (see p. 1514), that his book is "a book of inserts."): Though resulting from much dictation, the book you have read is, much more than dictation, a book of inserts. By that I mean the first drafts of sections I wrote (e.g., Zapruder film, wounds to the president, CIA, Oliver Stone, etc.) which I then dictated, were not overly long. But they all increased far beyond their original size in the many subsequent drafts with the addition of yellow-page inserts I know of no other writer who talks of "his" work in that way; and the language the author himself uses certainly suggests a major collaborative effort, with a number of third parties. In fact, Dale Myers has told confidants that the "original" Bugliosi sections—as he received them—were "a complete mess" and "terrible" and in need of thorough rewriting and revision. Again, I repeat: ghostwriting is an honorable profession. There is nothing wrong with it, per se. In writing Helter Skelter, Vincent Bugliosi availed himself of the services of author Kurt Gentry, and the title page on the book reads by Bugliosi "with Kurt Gentry." Those of us who knew Kurt Gentry know that he wrote Helter Skelter. It was an honorable and overt ghosting job--overt in the sense that Kurt's name was on the cover of the book. But no one else's name is on the cover of RECLAIMING HISTORY, and that is part of the problem. This is especially important if one-third to one half of the manuscript was originally written by third parties, regardless of whether or not Bugliosi thoroughly endorses their ideas, or made minor editorial revisions (which, in Bugliosi's case, often appear in the form of nasty insults and ad hominem personal attacks). Which brings us back to the primary issue at hand—the matter of ghostwriting. Ghosting is done all the time, and it is not necessarily publicized. Publishers are not running a CIA type operation. They can request--even demand--that the writing contribution be kept secret; alternatively it may be acknowledged right on the cover of the book, as in "by Joe Smith, with Eric Jones." The problem with RECLAIMING HISTORY is that Bugliosi (and/or his publisher) has tried to minimize the extent of the writing assistance he received and present this as entirely his own work. Unlike the case of HELTER SKELTER, where Kurt Gentry's name appears on the cover of the book, in this instance, Bugliosi has followed a different path. Consequently, most of Bugliosi's defenders are unaware of the true situation. They see a 1600 page book with a wide variety of data, a lot of it quite technical, and think that Bugliosi (who wasn’t even experienced enough to use the Internet, much less a computer Word processing program, when it came to the writing) wrote it all himself. The fact is that, in several critical areas, these two paid ghostwriters did the heavy lifting; and, in at least those areas, Bugliosi functioned more or less as "managing editor.” In no way do I mean to state or imply that Bugliosi did not work very hard on this project—indeed, for years on end--only that he didn’t do it all by himself. That's why Doug Horne refers to this work as "Bugliosi by Committee." It is why I have referred to this book as a "glorified anthology" (with everything switched to the first person) and something that should perhaps have been titled Helter Smelter.

Two more photographs:

This coming fall, PBS will air a documentary titled "Oswald's Ghost," made by filmmaker Robert Stone. Yesterday, quite by accident, I learned that "Oswald's Ghost" was being previewed at the "Museum of Television and Radio" in Beverly Hills (formally called, the Paley Center). So, on less than two hours notice, I stopped everything I was doing and made plans to attend. Present would be the director, Robert Stone, who was unknown to me, and former Senator Gary Hart, of the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee of the Church Committee. Moderating would be Josh Manckewiez, son of Frank Mankiewicz, and now an NBC-TV "Dateline" reporter (those who follow these matters may remember that he did a program featuring an interview with Oswald's brother). The auditorium had only 150 seats, I was informed, and so I should be there early. My first impression, on entering the very modern aluminum and glass building, and then buying my tickets (I attended with a friend), was how much time had passed, because I saw Senator Hart emerge from a door, and he had completely white hair. Then, we took our seats, about 5th row center, and waited a good 40 minutes for the show to begin. I noticed that those in attendance were mostly in their 40s and 50s (and 60s). This was no "Generation X" audience—not at all. In a brochure, the program was described as follows: OSWALD's Ghost—Special Advance Screening with Discussion Acclaimed director Robert Stone. . . offers an unprecedented deconstruction of the myths and controversy surrounding the most debated murder mystery of all time—the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Stone uses a wealth of archival material—and interviews with Gary Hart, Tom Hayden, Mark Lane, and others—to chronicle America's forty-year obsession with the defining event of a generation. . . This film is scheduled for broadcast on American Experience during the 2007 – 2008 season. In person: Robert Stone, Director, Producer, Writer; Gary Hart, Former U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate. * * * The program started with Josh M. explaining that he was only 8 years old when JFK was assassinated, and that it was the first time he saw his father cry. He also said that, as a young journalist, he had covered the HSCA "acoustics" hearings, in 1978, which would make him, at the time, about age 23. Then Robert Stone took the microphone, and gave a very brief introduction to his film. Stone, at first, was very hard to read. He is very lean, has a big bald head, and looks somewhat like a younger version of James Carville. He said that it was not his purpose—at all—to present any conspiracy theory, but to explore the effect that conspiracy theories have had on the culture. At the end of his brief introduction, he mused that someone had said his film really didn't have a "point of view," and he remarked that he was surprised anyone would say that, "because I do have a point of view". He made the remark with some emphasis, but a bit enigmatically. Naturally, I was curious as to just what his "point of view" might be; and as the lights dimmed, I looked forward to seeing this film, about which I knew nothing, with an open mind. After all, I have been working on this case for some four decades, am the author of Best Evidence, which was published in January, 1981, and was in print—for 17 years—through a series of four publishers—and have been working for years on Oswald. Before reading further, be warned: the following narrative is highly subjective, and reflects my own views of the Kennedy case, my own personal reaction to this film, and my own experiences—during the Q and A which followed. At that time, I interacted with the film maker from the audience, and then spoke with him later, in the lobby. It is also my own account of what happened, in general, in the audience—for unknown to me (at least at the outset) was a most pertinent fact: that (as established by a subsequent show of hands) at least 85% of the audience didn't believe the Warren report, and believed there was a conspiracy. Furthermore, this film maker very definitely DID have a point of view—and the film's purpose (which seemed pretty obvious, after awhile) was simply this: to ridicule those who believe in a conspiracy, selectively pick and choose among the conspiracy data the worst and most easily refuted arguments, and then to proceed from there to argue that America's problem with the Kennedy assassination arises not from any issue of evidence, but rather is one of psychology—i.e., we are all hung up because of psychological problems of dealing with "Oswald's ghost", not because of any genuine problem(s) with the evidence. This was not at all obvious at the beginning, but became apparent as the film unfolded. The key people interviewed for this film, and they appeared repeatedly as the 90 minutes unfolded, were Josiah Thompson, Edward Epstein, Norman Mailer, Priscilla McMillan, Dan Rather, Mark Lane, Hugh Aynesworth, author Robert Dallek, Tom Hayden, and Todd Gitlin. The Screening – 6/12/07 The film opened (as I recall) with a ground up shot of the Oswald window, and immediately I said to myself: "No point of view"? Then, within seconds, appeared the face of Josiah Thompson, who—in my opinion—provided the filmmaker's spokesperson for conspiracy (although Mark Lane also served that function, and quite credibly, I might add). In any event, Thompson began "the narrative thread"—if I may call it that—by recounting, from his personal experience, what it was like—decades back—to hear that JFK was assassinated in right-wing Dallas, and then to find that the accused was a supposed Marxist, a juxtaposition that simply made no sense, or at least appeared not to, back when it was first announced. Good archival footage soon appeared showing Oswald, proclaiming his innocence (including the "I'm just a patsy" quote)—and it was some of the best available. "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir,"; "I'm just a patsy". I recently had to work with this same footage—it was well done. Also well done was the presentation of Henry Wade and Curry, making their statements that Oswald was the assassin. They seemed then—and still seem to me to be now—buffoons from another era. At some point, the Zapruder film was shown—and it was clear (and became even more apparent, as the film unfolded) –that the film, while showing the head-snap, was not showcased to really make the point, as strongly as it could be made. And there were one or two occasions in which, remarkably, the head-snap was actually edited out—just as it is done at the Sixth Floor Museum. (A few years back, Gary Mack explained to me that this was appropriate, and was done to make it more acceptable for "family viewing". Well, I happened not to agree with that, but, in any event, I am all grown up now, and I don't appreciate such editing on a program prepared for national broadcast on PBS). In fact, the head-snap was most effectively illustrated by Josiah Thompson, shown mimicking JFK's motion backwards, during his own interview. But there was no detailed discussion of the issue—no physicists to argue this point of view or that, no one to argue the meaning of the enormous red blob—supposedly indicative of a bullet exiting—that suddenly appears in the film, and then disappears, or what that might mean, etc. No detailed discussion of the serious issues presented by the Zapruder film (such as the fact that some 60 witnesses believed the car stopped, faltered, or almost stopped, etc., whereas the Zapruder film shows no such thing). As was made clear later in the Q and A, the producer had no interest in "the forensics"—repeatedly saying that arguing about that was like arguing "theology." Rather, he was here to demonstrate why we all have this hang-up, why we won't let Oswald's ghost rest. In connection with the head-snap, some genuinely new footage appeared (at least, I had never seen it before)—that of Dan Rather, narrating the Z film on 11/25/63. As many know, Rather managed to get exclusive access (I believe I know how) and proceeded to give a completely false report, to the nation, over the CBS radio network (on 11/25) that the Presidents head "moved forward. . violently forward. . no doubt there" (from memory). Stone edited this, somehow (I would have to review this on a DVD to see how he managed to do it) to minimize Rather's awful reporting, and possibly even omit "no doubt there." The way Stone put it together made it almost appear excusable, understandable. It is neither. No footage was presented, and much is available, of witnesses who thought the shots came from the front—i.e., no footage of witness Sam Holland, or the other people on the overpass. It was as if none of it even existed. Again, this was in line with the filmmaker's apparent philosophy—in effect, "I'm not here to discuss the forensics, but the public's psychological problem." Perhaps the best performance—I thought—was turned in by Mark Lane, because of its very understandable human interest quality: a mother defending her son, and asking a lawyer for assistance. He described how he first became involved in the case, how Lee's mother contacted him; and there was footage showing him with Marguerite Oswald and of Marguerite Oswald's statements about her son being falsely accused—and that she believed him to have been a U.S. agent, who was framed for this crime. Of all the statements Marguerite made, the filmmaker deliberately chose the worst—her statement, made on camera, that Lee Oswald had done a "service" for America. I have no idea what she meant by that—because she clearly thought her son was innocent. Possibly she was referring to Lee's trip to Russian, and his 27 month stay there, because its clear—from her testimony, and her private papers—that she believed he was on an intelligence assignment. Participating in the attack on Marguerite's character was Hugh Aynesworth. My point here is not that she didn't say what she is shown saying, but that there is much to choose from, when it comes to Marguerite Oswald, and Stone's purpose seemed to be not to inform, but to ridicule. A similar point can be made in connection with Ruby. Knowledgeable people know there is a film clip of Ruby, when he was quite healthy and appearing of sound mind, saying there was more to the case than appeared on the surface, that there was a conspiracy, that it went to the top of the government etc.—but that no one would ever know. Instead of airing that clip, Stone chose instead to air Ruby's "deathbed denial," when he was all drugged up and within hours of his death. I'm sorry: I appreciate the problem posed by this "deathbed denial," secretly recorded by Larry Schiller, but doesn't the film maker have the obligation to inform the audience about the other one, too? Of course, this all comes down to bias, and the choices one makes in "connecting the dots"---particularly when it comes to a case as complex as the JFK assassination. All of this became quite obvious when it came to Garrison, who is quite easy to ridicule, because of his reliance on Perry Russo, who's account I do not find particularly credible. A considerable number of minutes were spent on exposition of "the code"—i.e., PO Box 19106, etc. At this point, the film maker has a grand old time with the evidence at hand—he had a tape of the doctor who hypnotized Russo, in the act of actually hypnotizing him, and while that was playing, he showed a time piece on a chain, swinging back and forth like a metronome, intercut with a large hypodermic needle, slowing being emptied of its liquid contents. In other words, Garrison was attacked as someone who used hoked up evidence to charge Clay Shaw. Intercut into this presentation was author Ed Epstein, who's account was used to narrate the episode of "the code," and some very amusing news footage of Senator Long, attempting to explain "the code," on a TV program. As I recall, this section ended with even Mark Lane laughing at Garrison's use of "the code." Finally, as I recall, this portion of the film ends with Josiah Thompson explaining that he was so discouraged by all this that he left the JFK case for many years. (I remember this quite well, because I was in touch with Thompson off and on during some of this period). All very well—but if the film maker has the time for all this, how about a minute explaining the evidence that the JFK autopsy notes, along with a first draft of the autopsy, were burned? But. . not a chance. The "net" of all this, I thought, was to spend valuable time in this film attempting to use one of the weakest and most easy to ridicule ideas, to then ridicule, by association, all work and analysis that indicates a conspiracy in this case, and so not deal with more serious issues. Throughout, explanations that reeked with pop psychology and pop sociology were provided by the filmmaker, to "explain" the controversy. Interviews used to "explain" the controversy (or to "explain Oswald") came from Norman Mailer, Epstein, and Priscilla McMillan. A lot of the political commentary—particularly comments by Gitlin and Hayden—were very interesting, and quite valid. But, in my opinion, the film makers bias was so heavy handed that it showed right through, and spoiled what might have been an interesting and thoughtful presentation. After all, it doesn't take that much intelligence, after a while, to see a hatchet job. One knows the difference between something that is newsworthy, and something that belongs on the Op-Ed page. At issue throughout the film, at least implicitly, is whether there is "reasonable doubt" about the official findings. The filmmaker's position, in effect, is that there is not. At some point, the film shows all the books that were written on the case, slowly wafting off, against a black background, towards a cinematic vanishing point, akin to a black hole. It was at this point, that it became obvious (to me, at least) that something was terribly peculiar about this film. For as I watched pictures of Inquest (1966), Rush to Judgment (1966), Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), Ray Marcus's self-published The Bastard Bullet (1967, all about 399), Weisberg's WHITEWASH (and perhaps WHITEWASH II, both from 1965-66) slowly fly away towards a black background, I kept thinking—"Well, here, any second, is going to be a photo of Best Evidence, which was published in January, 1981. After all, Best Evidence certainly contributed to "the culture." It was a book of the Month Club selection, was number 1 on both the UPI and AP best seller lists for weeks, and was on the NY Times list for some three months, rising to the # 4 position. Whether one agrees with my work or not, Best Evidence was an important book. Stanhope Gould, the TV investigative reporter who did much of the Watergate coverage for Cronkite, at CBS (circa 1974) and who later did a documentary based on Best Evidence for KRON-TV, in San Francisco, told the press that my book provided "courtroom quality evidence' that JFK's body had been intercepted and altered. And Doug Horne, of the ARRB, who designed the depositions for the autopsy doctors, is a strong supporter of my work. There are national network reporters who speak with me privately, and who have told me of the importance of my work, and how it affected their own thinking on this case. So naturally, I expected Best Evidence to at least be mentioned. BUT. . no such luck. . .Best Evidence wasn't shown at all. Instead, as the books traversed through space towards the black background, I glimpsed a picture of Were we Controlled?, by the pseudonymous author Lincoln Lawrence, a truly lightweight piece of fantasy, and other assorted items. At this point, it seemed to me, the agenda was pretty obvious—and this was commented upon during the subsequent Q and A. This film maker was playing with a stacked deck. He was not going to deal with serious issues of evidence—whether it was the medical evidence, or who Oswald really was; or his trip to the USSR, or his trip to Mexico, etc.; rather, he was going to provide his own highly subjective view of "Oswald's guilt," and then couple that with the "psychology" and "sociology" of the controversy. He was apparently intent on being some combination of Dr. Phil and Freud, with offices on the Grassy Knoll, assuaging our fears, and explaining our "problem." After Garrison, and some narration and clip selection designed to indicate that he was paranoid, came some minutes spent on Oliver Stone, and on his own philosophy of film making. Stone is shown, on one of his sets, next to the Plexiglas mock up of JFK's body that was used in the autopsy scene in his movie. Quotes were chosen carefully so as to make him the basis for ridicule—that he was akin to a Jackson Pollack of film, just throwing a bunch of stuff together, which really didn’t mean all that much, and hoping that the composite would be effective. Also shown was Robert Groden, complimenting Stone on his film making prowess (note, Groden, not a credentialed film maker of the stature of the late Ebert, who loved the movie JFK) and then another shot of Groden, selling his JFK materials on the grassy knoll. A number of times, shots of activity in Dealey Plaza were shown, to make the case that the activity in this case was not to be taken seriously, but was the work of a bunch of kooks, who then sell their defective "theories" on the grassy knoll. No mention is made of the fact that, whatever one may think of Stone, and of JFK, his film led to the historic JFK Records Act, and the creation of the ARRB, and the subsequent release of tens of thousands of pages—perhaps millions of pages—of documents. And just as an example: no mention is made –in this film—of one of the genuine factors that produced the situation the film maker was addressing: the burning of the original autopsy notes, and an earlier draft of the report; the "order not to talk" given to the autopsy doctors and autopsy technicians; the original attempt to lock up the records for 75 years, the subsequent battle for declassification, which has gone on for years; and finally the ARRB, which, finally, led to the release of so many records starting around 1994. Rather, implies this filmmaker, the emergent controversy has all resulted from the country's psychological inability to deal with "Oswald's ghost." Finally, on the subject of Oswald, Priscilla McMillan was utilized to present her view—as set forth in "Marina and Lee"—that Oswald murdered the President alone and unaided, was perfectly capable of doing so, and had motive, means, and opportunity. But the main person who carried the narrative, in this area, was Norman Mailer, who—as we know from his 1995 book "Oswald's Tale"—now believes (because he certainly didn't back in 1966, when he wrote scathing article on the Warren Report) that Oswald did it, and did it alone. So Mailer, intercut with McMillan, and along with Epstein, with a dab here and there of Robert Dallek, carried the narrative in that area. The filmed interviews with Tom Hayden and Gitlin were good—very good, I thought—and contained excellent content explaining how these assassinations (I stress the plural, because by this point in "Oswald's Ghost," we are talking about JFK, MLK, and RFK) led to a sense of powerlessness, and to the unrest at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in 1968. Finally, I must say that Mark Lane came off very well. AFTERMATH When the lights went on, after about 90 minutes, Senator Hart, Robert Stone, and Josh Mankiewicz all went up to the podium, and took their seats (seated left to right in that order). Before the Q and A began, Gary Hart spoke—and at some length. I have always admired Gary Hart for the role he played during the Church Committee investigation. But I must say I was surprised to hear him (too) catering to the lone assassin hypothesis, only raising the point that there might be "others behind Oswald." He spoke at length, prior to the Q and A, and it was all about Judith Exner, the Church Committee's discovery of the JFK phone calls to Exner, and then the appearances of Rosselli and his subsequent murder; and the attempt to call Giancana, and his murder. All this could be explained quite briefly, and cogently. But Hart carried on at quite some length. It seems obvious to me that he believes the Mafia was involved in the JFK assassination, a belief seemingly grounded in the suspicious murders of Roselli and Giancana, and the fact that JFK and Gianca were sharing the same girl friend (Exner). Not once did he mention the more serious aspects of the Schweiker-Hart work, which concerns Castro, and RFK, and the Califano and Valenti reports of LBJ personally promoting the idea that Castro was responsible—and that surprised me. Then, a Q and A began. At first, I wondered whether it would be proper to participate in the Q and A. I say this because, as an author of a best selling book on the subject which was obviously (and very deliberately) ignored in this project, and someone who worked closely with the ARRB during its existence (many of the autopsy witnesses called were directly from Best Evidence, and in one case, I actually filmed the witness first, and then communicated with the ARRB, and then they took an affidavit) it was obvious that the film maker made a very obvious decision to ignore my work, and to instead address the issue of conspiracy in what I call the "1967 framework." Let me explain. Generally speaking, prior to Best Evidence, there was no way to explain how it was possible for the Dallas doctors to report the President was struck from the front, yet the Bethesda doctors to find not a trace of frontal entry. Prior to the publication of Best Evidence, it was not possible to reasonably explain how, if bullets were fired into the President's body from the front, they were not recovered at autopsy. My discovery, in October 1966, of evidence that the body had been altered marked a conceptual breakthrough—that the focus should be not on the autopsy report, per se, but on the body itself. The discovery that two FBI agents who attended the autopsy reported that the body arrived with an "additional wrapping" around the head which was "saturated with blood" and further, that upon the removal of that second wrapping, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull," was important. A former Warren Commission attorney, Wesley Liebeler, thought it was sufficiently important enough to make it a major topic in a November 1966 memorandum that went to all the Warren Commissioners, the White House, and Robert Kennedy. Further, by the time my research was complete, years later, I had developed a complete case—from the existing records—that (1) the body had been intercepted, (2) the wounds had been altered, and (3) this situation was in fact recognized at the outset of the autopsy. One can choose to deal with all this, or not deal with it. This film maker chose to ignore it. Instead, he chose to showcase Josiah Thompson's "1967 view" of the case—i.e., (and now paraphrasing), "I think there was a shooter over here, and another over there, and another one from the Records Building."—to describe the "conspiracy," along with "I don't believe the single bullet theory". Now that is one way to deal with "conspiracy"; OR, one can address the fundamental issue: fraud in the evidence, at the level of alteration of the body (which, of course, is the answer to why there are no bullets from "other guns" in this case, and why the Bethesda autopsy exam disclosed no evidence of frontal entry). Fraud in the evidence is what one deals with when one addresses such issues as bullets being removed from the body prior to autopsy; or wounds being altered prior to autopsy. It is the territory of Best Evidence. It is also the issue one addresses when one deals with the autopsy photo data indicating that alteration of the body was hidden because the autopsy photographs in this case are not the originals—or that the camera produced, years later, as the one that took the photographs (as the ARRB's Doug Horne discovered) could not have been the one that took the pictures in evidence. But all these point come under the umbrella of "forensics"—which the film maker was adamantly claiming was not his subject area—and so I wanted to stay within the ground rules of the evening. But then, the Q and A started, and it was shortly thereafter that I changed my mind. There were one or two questions that clearly indicated that the audience was not all that happy with this filmmaker, or his project. But there he was, up on the stage, almost sneering, and drinking a glass of wine ("only in West L.A.") Because of the opening question or two, questions that indicated skepticism, someone (perhaps it was Stone, but I'm not sure) now asked for a show of hands. How many have read the Warren Report, he asked? How many believe the conclusions? Etc. It quickly became obvious that perhaps 85% of those in the room did not believe the Warren Report—either before, or after his film; and the great majority believed Dallas was the result of a conspiracy. The whole attitude of this film maker—and some of it was verbal, but partly it was body language (he tended to grin, and sneer inappropriately)—was that of an arrogant shrink who tells the patient that "the problem" is in his head, when there really is evidence of a serious physiological problem to be addressed. But, instead of dealing with that, the shrink says, "OK. . but why does that bother you?" Stone made clear that he didn't want to address "the forensics", which he repeatedly referred to as "theology". No, he insisted; that wasn't his purpose. Not at all. His purpose, he said—almost explicitly—was to address our pre-occupation with this controversy, which he apparently saw as "Oswald's ghost." Finally, I stood up, and spoke from notes I made as I watched all this unfold. I was recognized, and handed a microphone, and spoke along these lines. I identified myself as the author of Best Evidence, and said that all editing involves "making choices". So he, as a filmmaker, had to make choices. All very well. But if he was dealing with "the culture," I asked, I did not understand how he could leave out any mention whatsoever of the existence of a book that had been a NY Times best seller, was number one on so many lists, and was in print for 17 years through four publishers, and which addressed the validity of the evidence itself. I also didn't understand how he could fail to address the issue raised by facts sufficiently important that a former WC attorney had, upon being shown evidence of wound alteration, sent out a warning alarm of sorts in the form of a memo (November, 1966) to the Justice Department, other WC attorneys, etc. spelling out the problem. Furthermore, that following this memo, the Office of White House counsel actually suggested a limited reopening of the investigation (just as Liebeler's memo called for) but President Johnson, who said that would not be good for the country, rejected that. Stone's response was not exactly all that satisfactory. He made some superficial remark that "you're just jealous because you weren't in the film" or some such thing; and he even made some allusion to how much money I made, and then he completely misstated my work. "This man is saying that in the 12 hours following the murder, someone sewed up the President's head. . " etc. etc. I was really surprised at the extent of his misstatements. At this point, it became obvious—both from his sneering attitude, and his attempt to have it both ways—that (to me, anyway) that this fellow's entire approach was completely superficial, and that he was a mental lightweight, and even irresponsible, at that. In other words, faced with a time-line concerning the JFK controversy that extended from November 1963 to the present (that's 43 years later), and included a number of major events in the investigatory and book publishing areas, he chose to "cut it off" at around 1968, with a "postscript" of sorts to 1976-79 (the HSCA investigation), and then to ridicule the JFK researchers by presenting Josiah Thompson (and his view of Dealey Plaza) and Priscilla McMillan (with her view of Oswald) and using that as the state of the debate. Who was he kidding? Does Stone really maintain that it is a matter of "theology" that the Dallas observations of the head wound are entirely different from the Bethesda observations? (If so, what temple does he attend?) Does Stone really maintain that it is a matter of theology that the trach incision made in Dallas ("2-3 cm" according to what Dr. Perry told me, in October, 1966, which was corroborated by Dr. Carrico) grew to "7 – 8 cm" by the time the body reached Bethesda, according to the Warren Commission testimony of the autopsy doctor, Commander Humes? Does he really believe that it is a matter of theology that the Dallas exit wound, at the back of the head, described as being "35 sq centimeter" grew to a size 400 % larger, 170 sq. centimeter, as shown on the diagram drawn at autopsy? And documented even further, in 1996, when Doctor Boswell appeared before the ARRB and, under oath, drew the contour of the wound on a medical school skull? Does he really believe that the report of two FBI agents who reported that there was "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull" can be ignored? Does he really believe that he can dismiss a work which presented—both based on telephone interview, and via video—the fact that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda? Or that documents document an interception, because they show distinctly different times for the arrival of two coffins at Bethesda—6:35 pm for the shipping casket (when the body first arrived); 7:17 when the empty Dallas coffin arrived; and 8pm when the Dallas coffin (now with the body back inside) was returned to the morgue, this time under the official escort of the tri-service casket team? Well, the apparent answer is that he really doesn't have time for such complexities; and so he doesn't know, and/or could care less. Consequently, holding his glass of wine, in one hand, he completely mangled my work, misinforming the audience about what my book stated. When I pointed out that I had also produced a video that had national distribution (some 50,000 copies) and had witnesses to support my major thesis, he said, "Yes, I saw that film, you had only one witness. . "—another false statement. So where was he getting this information from—the Honorable Josiah Thompson? The Best Evidence Research Video—which sold around 50,000 copies—was given an A rating in several national magazines., and has some six witnesses to the events being described. What Stone was saying was pure drivel. He not only had no intention of dealing with the forensics—he didn't even know the forensics. Here's how I ended my own "question" (everyone who stood up had a combination of "speech + question"). I said: "Sir, if you do not deal with the issue of fraud in the evidence; if you do not deal with the work of the ARRB, and Doug Horne, who interviewed the doctors, and believes the body was altered. . .and finally, if you then base an "Oswald narrative" on this falsified evidence, then, with regard to Oswald, you aren't engaged in doing history; you're engaged in character assassination." Then I sat down. I noticed that Senator Hart cast his eyes downward, as I made these remarks; and then, it seemed, the floodgates opened, to a much more aggressive questioning. As other questioners fired away at the film director, it really started to get a bit heated, and I noticed that Gary Hart took out a large pair of pinkish-red Ray Ban sun glasses, and donned them. The questioning proceeded from there—Hart, on the left, wearing these pink-red Ray Bans and looking like he was out of the Sopranos, Stone, in the center, holding his glass of wine and looking like a sneering James Carville; and Josh Mankiewicz on the right, trying to keep the peace. It was, to way the least, a most interesting affair. * * * AFTERMATH - - Part II When the Q and A was over, quite a few people came over to shake my hand, "You said what had to be said," etc. Also, during this period, it became clear that two assassination researchers were there—Pat Speare and Clint Bradford. So we all shook hands and spoke briefly. A number of people came over and wanted to talk. It was obvious that a substantial percentage of this audience were not friendly---or at the very least, highly critical—to the filmmaker and his product. AFTERMATH: --Part III (the lobby) Note: See attached photo of me talking with Stone (Stone, on left; me, on right) Picture taken by Clint Bradford Tall person with white hair (with "purple eyes") is Pat Speare When I exited the auditorium to the lobby, there was Stone, surrounded by people, firing questions at him, as to his presentation. So I wandered over to that group, and listened. Mel Stuart, surely now in his late 70s, who had produced Four Days in November (the "Oswald did it alone" documentary, circa, 1964) was there, explaining to anyone who would listen that Jack Ruby was just a nut, and one of the audience was talking to Stone, on some point of evidence. When I got near him, he threw out his hands and said, "I give up! You already won!"—returning to his point of view that the JFK researchers had succeeded in altering he public's state of mind, and his film was simply addressing that issue, and not the evidence. I came away from the evening—my "night at the museum"—with these thoughts: I'm pleased that the American public will see the footage of Oswald saying he was innocent. That is important; and decades ago, that kind of video was not available, as it is today. (Kudos to Gary Mack, at the Sixth Floor Museum, for organizing this material, and making it available). I'm pleased that the public will see the Zapruder film (once again) projected. I'm pleased that the public will see Dan Rather's false and inaccurate narration, even if that has been edited to tone down the egregious nature of what he did. I'm glad that the public will see Mark Lane at his best---I think he presented himself quite well. I'm sorry that the filmmaker never pointed out the critical connection between the film JFK and the JFK Records Act. (Did I miss that? If so, my apologies. But I don't remember that.) I'm sorry that the film maker never pointed out the importance of the evidence indicating the autopsy was falsified, and the connection between that concept, and the invalidity of evidence indicating Oswald's alleged guilt. I'm glad the film contains Oswald's statement "I'm just a patsy," but its most unfortunate, and shows Stone's bias, that he didn't see fit to include what Oswald told his brother Robert, on November 23, 1963, when Robert visited him in jail. When Robert challenged Lee, asking what the devil was going on, Lee responded, "Do not believe the so-called 'evidence.'" That goes way beyond "I'm just a patsy." That shows a man perfectly aware that he is being framed. I'm sorry that the film maker, who essentially demonized Oswald, didn't present anyone who could present a view of Oswald that would rebut what Mailer and Priscilla McMillan (both of whom accept Oswald's guilt) were saying—so what we have here, in 2007, is a recycled view of Oswald, from 30 years ago (in the case of McMillan) and 14 years ago (in the case of Mailer). I happen to respect Priscilla, with whom I've exchanged emails over the years, and who has been very kind to me—but that doesn't absolve the filmmaker from the responsibility of presenting the "other" point of view. There is excellent footage from 1990—because I filmed it—of Marina Oswald talking about how much Lee "adored" Kennedy, but none of that is in this film. Again, this was the filmmaker's choice. At one point, one of the "experts" said that Lee admired Adolph Hitler—what kind of nonsense is that? (Does that come from Lee's merely having read Mien Kampf? So what?) I'm sorry that no one dealt with the issue of Sylvia Odio, or of Oswald's behavior on his trip to Mexico. None of these matters were explored, at all. Does the filmmaker think that Oswald's trip to Mexico City, just seven weeks prior to Dallas, and his behavior at the Soviet Embassy and Cuban Consulate, were the result of neurosis? (He probably does!) Finally, I am sorry that –in terms of the Dealey Plaza shooting itself—the film shows Josiah Thompson, who proposes a false hypothesis, carrying on with all his supposed "angst" about "the conspiracy". Here is an author who, in his 1967 book, Six Seconds in Dallas, made one of the biggest blunders in this case. Thompson failed to note the major difference in dimension between the head wound at Dallas and the wound(s) at Bethesda. And so he analyzed the situation as follows (quoting now from his book, Six Seconds): "From the Parkland doctors we get the picture of a bullet that struck the right front of the President’s head. . . . ranged backward causing massive damage to the right brain hemisphere, sprung open the occipital and parietal bones, and exploded out over the rear of the limousine. From the Bethesda surgeons we get the picture of a bullet entering the rear of the President’s head and driving forward. . . Putting the two pictures together we discern outlines of the double impact." Of course, one should not be "putting the two pictures together," because, as I wrote in Best Evidence (1981), to do so represented a serious analytic error: "Putting the two pictures together” was incorrect. Both pertained to the same body, but to different times. Six hours separated those two observations." (See Best Evidence, Chapter 13). Indeed, that is the heart of the matter, because what happened in those six hours holds the key to the Kennedy case. In fact, what these two "pictures" actually represent are the "before" and "after" view of the head—the head as it appeared in Dallas, at the Parkland Hospital Emergency Room (12:40 – 1:20 PM, CST), versus the head as it appeared at Bethesda, at the time of autopsy (8 P.M., EST). To make the point more directly: if photographs existed at both locations of what these two groups of doctors described, in their reports and testimony, then any schoolboy would immediately see the anatomic difference(s), and, furthermore, appreciate the significance of those differences. No one would attempt to "put the pictures together"; rather, seeing the divergent photos of a body that was obviously not in the same condition at these two different points in time, a person would ask: "Hey, what's going on here? Who altered these wounds? Who altered the body?" But Josiah Thompson didn't see it that way (and, clinging to his 1967 theory, apparently, still doesn't). Consequently, he persists in this false view and so still, in 2007, is engaged in promoting a fallacious analysis based upon "putting the two pictures together." The late Wesley Liebeler is the UCLA Law professor who served on the Warren Commission, and to whom (in October, 1966) I brought my discovery of the first evidence that the body had been altered (See Best Evidence, Chapter 9, describing what happened on October 24, 1966, when I first showed him the FBI report that said there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull). In the years following, and after Thompson's book was published (1967), Liebeler thought it quite ironic, even comical, that a philosophy professor would make such a significant error. Paul Hoch, in assessing Best Evidence years later, has told me on more than one occasion that my work was the first to take into account "the parameter of time." Thompson's entire view of the case, circa 1967, is grounded in this false analysis, yet he has never had the courage to admit his error—not after Best Evidence was published in 1981, and not to this day. He continues to promote the notion that nothing is amiss, and that his analysis represents some sort of "state of the art." This he always presents along with his terrible angst, stemming from his days as a philosophy professor, before be came a private detective, at being unable to resolve the mysteries of the Kennedy assassination (which is why I have dubbed him the Prince of Uncertainty). I think Thompson's failure to address this issue is outrageous, and just plain ridiculous. The issue is important, in 2007, because of the way filmmaker Stone uses Thompson, in his movie, as a key spokesperson for conspiracy. The basis for Thompson's entire analysis is false. But by recycling this 1967 view, and making Josiah Thompson the spokesperson for "conspiracy," filmmaker Stone's Ghost of Oswald has chosen someone with a weak (and in fact false) hypothesis, a way of viewing the case that was perfectly appropriate in 1967, but is no longer valid. Consequently, Oswald's Ghost indeed has a ghostly quality—the quality of going back to the period of 1967 (intellectually, the "Jurassic Park" version of the medical evidence) and evoking the state of the controversy as it was some 40 years ago, when the issue of conspiracy turned on the matter of the "number of shooters," and not on the validity of the evidence (i.e., the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy). Yet the issue of authenticity, and fraud in the evidence, is exactly where the emphasis ought to be placed. And that issue—the serious problems with the medical evidence, not some psychological hang-up—is the root cause of the problem in the JFK case. As I have often said: if the autopsy in this case is valid, along with the ballistic evidence (bullet 399, plus the two large fragments found in the JFK limousine that evening), then Oswald shot the President. In that case, the shots came from the sniper's nest, and JFK's death was the result of his body being struck by Oswald's bullets, fired from his mail-order rifle. But if the body was altered, then that is a false appearance; and in that case, one must go one step further, and address the Kennedy assassination at a more fundamental level—i.e., as to whether key evidence was falsified to mislead the investigative apparatus of the U.S. Government as to what happened in Dallas earlier that day. One must understand that creating that false appearance was integral to the plot to murder JFK. There's a simple choice here—either one faces this issue, or one does not. There's no "in-between." Indeed, the covert interception and alteration of JFK's body –and not the Tippit murder—is the Rosetta Stone to the Kennedy assassination. My final comment: enjoy the film for the good archival footage, but keep in mind that it provides an excellent example of how a biased film maker has "connected the dots" in a most contrived way to pursue his own agenda; further, how he employs weak arguments he can shoot down, and avoids critical issues, to create a film about "the controversy." The ghost of Oswald will not rest, not because American's have a psychological problem, but because there are real problems with the medical evidence in this case, and it all comes down to the body—specifically, to the integrity of the body at the time it was received for autopsy, on the night of the President's murder. In short, the key issue is whether the body, at autopsy, provided an accurate diagram of the shooting of President Kennedy, or whether its false condition constituted a medical forgery contrived by those who took the President's life. That's what this case is all about, that’s why Oswald's ghost will not rest, and filmmaker Robert Stone never deals with that issue.

What made O’Connor important is what he told the House Select Committee, and is recorded in the HSCA Outside Contact Report of Purdy and Flanagan, in 1977, and it comes down to 3 basic facts concerning the JFK autopsy: 1. JFK’s body arrived in a shipping casket 2. Inside, it was in a body bag 3. The cranium was empty. O’Connor is a direct witness to these events, which is surely what was being suppressed by the “order not to talk,” which he (and the others) were placed under verbally, and then in writing, on November 26, 1963, the day after JFK’s funeral. Moreover, it was the recision of the “order not to talk” which made it possible for him (and the other) Bethesda witnesses to be interviewed by the HSCA. Those interviews were conducted in 1977/78, and the appropriate reports written. But then Blakey didn’t like what they said and it was all locked up — and not scheduled for release until 2029. Two things changed that schedule for the much delayed release of this information: (1) I learned of, located, and interviewed the witnesses in 1979; and incorporated their accounts into Best Evidence, which was submitted in manuscript form by April, 1980, and was in the book stores by January, 1981.. (2) The JFK Records Act—passed as a result of Oliver Stone’s 12/91 release of JFK—led to the original HSCA documents being released in 1993/94. Of course, the public didn’t have to wait until 1993/94; they could (and did) read Best Evidence, published in January, 1981. The substance of what O’Connor (and the others) had to say made its first public appearance in Best Evidence, which was number one on many best seller lists by April of 1981. Further, I arranged to film his account, in October, 1980, at his home in Gainesville, Florida,, and that was broadcast nationally on several shows in the Spring of 1981 (e.g. Tom Snyder) plus in many cities across the U.S. where I went on my book tour, always carrying with me a 3/4” video of O’Connor and the other key Bethesda witnesses. Neither the way O’Connor’s account became public nor any of the 3 key points that O’Connor made that made his account historically significant is mentioned in the obituary. The obit about Paul O’Connor should be focused on what was important about him as a witness, and the information he had which pointed to fraud in the autopsy; and how those facts became known—not on who fraternized with whom, and in what year. When then HSCA report was released in July, 1979, and I saw the statement about the body bag, I located O’Connor (and the others), interviewed him (and the others, all in the fall of 1979) and published their accounts. (This is described in Chapter 26 of B.E.) O’Connor’s statements that the body arrived in a body bag, inside a shipping casket; and that the cranium was empty—all that is nowhere to be found in the obituary but is spelled out in the HSCA (Purdy/Flanagan) Outside Contact Report, and it would have remained locked up until 2029, were it not for the JFK Records Act, which made it available in 1993/94. It only became available in 1981—a full 13 years earlier---because of Best Evidence. In short, I played the major role in locating and interviewing (at length, and on camera) Paul O'Connor--and seeing to it that he was exposed, repeatedly, to a national television audience. None of that is mentioned in the obit. Instead, the obit limits my involvement to this single sentence: "Mr. O'Connor was interviewed by David Lifton for Best Evidence”—as if events that happened in 1979-1981 can be ignored. They cannot and should not. Starting in the Spring of 1981, Paul O’Connor’s face was all over the tv, in national broadcasts (e.g. Tom Snyder show) and in major news shows in individual cities across the country, where I was sent on tour, always carrying 3/4” video tapes of his account. Another burst of publilcity occurred on the 20th anniversary (1983), another on the 25th (1988) and still more on the 30th (1993). As Paul himself said to me back then, “Thanks for putting me on the map, buddy.” Of course, I realize that the obit ought to be focused on Paul O’Connor, not me; but we are inextricably linked because my book and video were the means by which Paul O’Connor’s critical information became available to the world. The obit, as currently written, misses all that entirely. Instead of being written about the events of 1977-1981, when all this occurred, its as if its focused on the year 2000, or who O’Connor was fraternizing with in the late 1990s, or what he said to William Law 22 years after I first interviewed him and filmed him. Why in the world is there this misplaced emphasis? The role of B.E. is not just diminished, it is ignored. Further, what O’Connor had to say that was important is also ignored. The result: that O'Connor's account, and its 3 key features (the way the body arrived--shipping casket, body bag, etc.--and the empty cranium)--is omitted. That’s like writing an obit of Thomas Edison and omitting the fact that he discovered the electric light bulb. For your reference, I’m attaching a chronology of my involvement with O’Connor. Perhaps what you generate in the future can be a more accurate reflection of this record.