David Lifton

Not clear what you are getting at. Please clarify. What do you mean by Groden "playing charades."? Be specific. DSL

How Groden deceived Blakey (as told to me, by Groden): 1. The HSCA had the photos (with permission, from the Kennedy family attorney; per arrangement with Gen. Counsel Blakey) 2. Groden told Blakey he needed to make certain enlargements --specifically, of the left temporal wound, and that area in general; and Blakey, who didn't fully understand Groden's psychology, agreed. 3. What Groden told Blakey was basically a cover story. In other words, he deliberately deceived Blakey in order to have a seemingly legitimate reason to perform his personal photography. 4. Groden then arranged to bring an extra roll of film, for this specific task. 5. Groden used this "extra" roll to make unauthorized copies of the autopsy photos. BUT. . . 6. Groden --as he told me --had this Hemingway-isk moment, in connection with the creation of this unauthorized photography. The result: True, he made the unauthorized exposures, but --for some reason-- lost his nerve, and did not (or could not) copy the stare of death photo. Bottom line: he "froze," could not (and so did not) create a stare if death photo. At least, that was my understanding. DSL, 9/29/21

He claimed never to have the Stare of Death picture, but both Lifton and myself recorded at different times having seen this unique photograph. DSL COMMENT: When I first met Gordon (1972-1974, see previous writings for a more precise date), he did not have the "stare of death" photo (and bemoaned that fact). But I did. That photo was among the images that I had obtained from the late Mark Crouch (circa 12/84). Groden's copies of the photos, as I recall, were obtained from his time employed as a "photographer" hired by the HSCA. in other words, he violated the rules of his hiring by surreptitiously copying the photos --but his "set of the photos" did not include the stare of death. His hiring (at HSCA) occurred because General Counsel Blakey was impressed with Groden's ability to make a variety of motion picture film exhibits for use during the televised HSCA hearings. At some point, Groden and I met at his home --either in New Jersey, or Pennsylvania. (He had moved during this period). When I laid out the photos I had --on a floor, as I recall --Groden was green with envy. They had never been published, and the "stare of death" photo was clearly the most shocking -- and valuable. Blakey made clear that if anyone had (somehow) possessed them, and published them, he (Blakey) was going to see to it that they were prosecuted. I realized the photos were critically important, but --under no circumstances did I wish to be associated with having "sold" the autopsy photographs to anyone. Not to the media, nor to any individual. Under no circumstances was I going to do that. if they were going to be published, i thought, it should be in connection with some legitimately published article --perhaps in a forensic journal. All of this was uncharted territory. CARROLL & GRAF (publisher) -Trade paperback edition; October 1988 (25th anniversary edition of B.E.) When Carroll & Graf approached me about publishing Best Evidence in Trade Paperback format, I believed this offered just such a venue. I told the top executives (Kent Carrol and Herman Graf) that I had these photos. I showed them the photos, and it was agreed they would create an additional photo insert, and publish the photos in that insert of the "trade paperback" edition. That's how it came to pass that the autopsy photos were published --when B.E. was published (in the Carroll & Graf edition) around October 1988 (just prior to the 25th anniversary of JFK's death). Groden and/or Livingstone immediately rushed to copy and publish one or more of the pictures in the latest edition of their book "High Treason." I don't remember the details, but it seemed clear that they were going to publish the photos by simply photographing the images from the photo insert as published in Best Evidence. Meanwhile, Gordon was communicating with me that I "owed" him copies, "after all i've done for you." INSERT, 10/25/21_ 8 PM PDT: You have to know Groden personally --as I did, for many years --to understand how laughable this comment is. END INSERT. I finally decided that I did not want to be in the position of having a "commercial motive"; and of "withholding" this important evidence. And so, as I recall, I prepared a good set of prints (made by a first rate commercial photo lab at UCLA) and sent them to Groden. (INSERT: 10/25/21: In other words, I gave them to Groden, gratis. END INSERT) Within a short while, Groden did something I would never have done. Within days --or perhaps a month--Groden sold copies of the Kennedy autopsy photos to one of the tabloids for $50,000. (I vividly remember media star Nancy Grace blasting him for this very obvious "for profit" transaction). Anyway, that's about where the "tale of the autopsy photos" ends. ANTHONY SUMMERS One other matter: When Anthony Summers approached me for copies of the photos, I agreed to provide them, but made clear that I did not want to sell the photos to him. However, I made clear that making high quality photos (again, at UCLA) would not be free, and Tony paid the nominal costs (about $30, as I recall). He then used one or more of them in the re-issue of his book CONSPIRACY. P.S.: One other matter: When I went to Dallas, and --along with Pat Valentino--visited the Dallas doctors and conducted filmed interviews, we showed the autopsy photos to each of the doctors; and filmed their reaction. The near universal reaction: shaking their head from side-to-side and commenting that "No, that's not the way JFK looked when we saw the body." DSL, 9/29/21; 10/25/21

If Sirhan was firing blanks-- and I stress "if" --that's all one needs to know. Whatever the remaining details, Sirhan's firings blanks (again, if that is so) would constitute major evidence of a serious (and well designed) plot in the RFK case. DSL (9/25/21 -2:45 AM PDT)

Thanks. Dan. (Will communicate further via email). DSL

CORRECTION: MeN ro write, "Not yet, sorry."

Having computer problems. Meant to write: "Not yet; sorry."

Not yet. Sorry. DSL

I agree. To repeat what Steve Roe said: "I am confident Sirhan will remain, where he should be, in prison for the rest of his life." Furthermore, should he be granted a release, my bet is that within a short time, Sirhan will be found in some mideast country, mouthing off that he was now ready to tell "the full truth" or "the real truth"; and will be searching for a book contract, advertised to be exactly such a truth. FWIW: Robert Blair Kaiser (who passed in 2015) was a good friend of mine, and I know how difficult it was dealing with Sirhan, and attempting to get anything resembling "the truth" from him. Pardon my cynicism; but if Sirhan is released and embarks on the equivalent of a "book tour," those government officials who permitted such a farce, will look like fools. DSL David S. Lifton 9/17/21 - 6 AM PDT

I agree. To repeat what Steve Roe said: "I am confident Sirhan will remain, where he should be, in prison for the rest of his life." Furthermore, should he be granted a release, my bet is that within a short time, Sirhan will be found in some mideast country, mouthing off that he was now ready to tell "the full truth" or "the real truth"; and will be searching for a book contract, advertised to be exactly such a truth. FWIW: Robert Blair Kaiser (who passed in 2015) was a good friend of mine, and I know how difficult it was dealing with Sirhan, and attempting to get anything resembling "the truth" from him. Pardon my cynicism; but if Sirhan is released and embarks on the equivalent of a "book tour," those government officials who permitted such a farce, will look like fools. DSL 9/17/21 - 6 AM PDT

I agree. To repeat what Steve Roe said: "I am confident Sirhan will remain, where he should be, in prison for the rest of his life." Furthermore, should he be granted a release, my bet is that within a short time, Sirhan will be found in some mideast country, mouthing off that he was now ready to tell "the full truth" or "the real truth"; and will be searching for a book contract, advertised to be exactly such a truth. FWIW: Robert Blair Kaiser (who passed in 2015) was a good friend of mine, and I know how difficult it was dealing with Sirhan, and attempting to get anything resembling "the truth" from him. Pardon my cynicism; but if Sirhan is released and embarks on the equivalent of a "book tour," those government officials who permitted such a farce, will look like fools. DSL 9/17/21 - 6 AM PDT

In Further Agreement - Reply from David S. Lifton I'm sorry to learn that Lisa Pease's work on RFK is so shallow and undocumented (because I always approached this case [the RFK case] with a fair degree skepticism (about the official version). BUT. . . Has Lisa ever visited the Ambassador Hotel? And conducted a serious on-site investigation? (I spent hours there some decades ago, investigating all kinds of "What if's.) Lisa writes in the subjunctive, as if "what if" and "could have been" are a substitute for evidence. The "blank(s)" hypothesis --which she advocates -- is something I considered decades ago, but for that concept to be viable (or feasible), one has to have a credible "adjunct" hypothesis as to the actual location of the real shooter(s); i.e., RFK's true assassin(s). In this regard, Ms. Pease offers nothing that is credible. For example, she asserts -- as a possibility -- that the "actual shooters" were individuals who "could have" done "this and that" (second set, my quotes), but none of what she asserts is plausible or credible. She asserts (as plausible) multiple shooters on site (!!) who -- somehow -- remained "sight unseen" and whose weapons were "well hidden," perhaps in "rolled-up posters," or under a newspaper or a busboy's towel." In view of the existing record, not only is this "not credible"; it is absurd. I could (and would) respect any analysis that includes a serious effort to establish the falsification of evidence, or the execution of a strategic deception. But instead, and most unfortunately, Lisa Pease offers nothing of the kind. Instead, what we've got here --and this is my own personal judgement -- is a highly opinionated loud-mouth who seems to think that "asserting" this or that is a substitute for presenting a serious analysis based upon credible evidence. DSL (9/17/21 - {Fri.} 3 AM PDT)

Paul: Correct your spelling. Its "w e i r d." DSL And yes: the Z film has been falsified. See my essay: "Pig on a Leash."

It seems to me that any discussion of the Harper fragment must begin with the fact that Harper's uncle, Dr. Jack Harper was a pathologist. He had the actual fragment. He held it in his hand. He photographed it. It was also X-rayed. This is all documented in the record, The fragment was then turned over to the FBI, and ended up being turned over to White House doctor George Burkley. Back in the early 1970's, I wrote a detailed memo on the Harper fragment. If the Harper fragment was occipital, that is powerful evidence that JfK's lateral X-Ray is a fraud. JFK had one occipital bone. It could not be on the lawn in Dealey Plaza, and also on the X-Yay that was supposedly exposed that night at Bethesda. That's a simple proposition. If Sherlock Holmes was alive, that's how he would have explained it to Watson. Also: I interviewed the Bethesda autopsy photographer. I interviewed him, in 1971/72, at his home. JFK had a large hole at the back of his head -- a defect observed by numerous observers at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. Journalist Craig Colvin (spelling, not sure) wrote a major story about this that was published in the Miami press. Unfortunately, now -- in 2021 --physicians with the proper credentials can go to the National Archives, examine this false evidence, and then --ignoring the evidence that the chain of possession has obviously been falsified -- write articles based on falsified evidence. The issue raised by this falsified evidence is not whether was a "second shooter." The issue is who falsified the evidence. DSL Author, Best Evidence (1981)

Back in 1965, when I first bought my set of the Warren Commission's 26 Volumes, I encountered witnesses (notably, Sam Holland, standing on the Triple Underpass) who reported --at the time of the shooting -- smoke or steam coming from under the trees behind the fence on the grassy knoll. I'm not a gun expert, but back when I was temporarily employed by Ramparts and writing "The Case for Three Assassins" (summer of 1966; published in issue dated December 1966), my co-author David Welsh and I included a small section devoted to witnesses who saw smoke (and I even found an account of a witness in one of the press busses, that that just turned from Main onto Houston Street, and who reported seeing "puffs of smoke" from the area behind the fence on the knoll). Since it has repeatedly emphasized --in discussion and debates --that "guns don't smoke" (at least modern guns do not), I'd be interested in what various members of this forum think of this phenomenon. What was the cause of the smoke? I'd like to collect as many responses as possible; and you may be very brief, if you wish. (There is no "prize for the winner." I'm just interested in gathering data). Thanks. DSL Current Location: Las Vegas, Nevada Email: dlifton@earthlink.net dlifton@gmail.com

Steve Bannon’s podcast constitutes written evidence of intent to foment a riot; further, to illegally grab politial power through the use of force. His words go beyond the right to assemble, air grievences, etc., all of which are constitituionally protected activities. But consider carefully what Bannon wrote next: “Its gonna be moving; its gonna be quick.” This does not sound like a peaceful assembly; but rather, an attempt to grab political power. As my high school teacher used to say, "Words are the tools of thought.” So what was Steve Bannon thinking? And what was it that was “gonna be quick”? Bannon’s words sound like he was not describing a peaceful assembly, but rather employing words one would use to describe someone planning a putch.

This post would be more credible if the underlying source were specified. Is it a journalist's public reporting, or speculation? The word "apparently" is not good enough. Was this published anywhere and did any Secret Service official have a response? Additional info is needed to evaluate the credibility of this assertion. DSL

Stu: 1. You should correct the typo in your post, which reads "abt" 2. Please make it read "about" 3. I mistakenly thought you were referring to attorney John Abt (which I realize you weren't). DSL P.S. If you can dig up my late friend's (Robert Chapman) email comments, please send them to me --marked "PRIVATE." Do not post them; just send them to me. Thanks. DSL (Please send to "dlifton@earthlink.net". Thanks.) PPS: Stu: LHO was an agent. Ergo, he had a handler. There was no need to "monitor, anticipate and *influence* LHO's behavior." LHO simply thought he had an assignment, which was both legitimate and covert. Please explain--or spell out (privately, via email) what you seem to believe to be the problem, Thanks. DSL

John: No problem. Thanks. DSL

Dear John Butler: Please correct the spelling of my last name: it is "L I F T O N," (not L I P T O N). Thanks. DSL P.S.: I'll delete this post once my requested correction is made. (Thanks again.)

Quite a bit. DSL

What follows is based on my original research, has not been previously published, and will be discussed in detail in Final Charade. ** ** ** ** ** * On Monday 11/25/63, Secret Service agents came to Governor Connally’s hospital room at Parkland Hospital and brought with them a 16 mm film projector, and a copy of the (altered) Zapruder film. The film shown Connally no longer had a “car stop”; in short, it was a copy of the same (altered) film that was purchased byLIFE magazine, and later was placed at the National Archives. Now back to 11/22/63, and the days following. The film was projected repeatedly for Connally and his wife. In other words, on this visit (Mon. 11/25) the Connallys were shown a copy of “the Zapruder film” as it then existed (i.e., without any car-stop, which (consequently, reflected a false reality); and it was in this manner that Governor Connally (and his wife) were exposed to an “altered reality” of what they both had experienced on Friday 11/22/63. Now, “flash forward to” —or CUT TO (to use screenwriter’s lingo) —to Wednesday, November 27th, 1963. On that day, a network news reporter —with a cameraman — was admitted to Connally’s hospital room; and it was on that day —to repeat, on Wed. 11/27/63, two days after he had been repeatedly shown this altered film —that Connally’s “official account” was filmed for posterity by NBC’s Martin Agronsky. That filmed interview was broadcast on Wed. evening (11/27/63) and was front page news the next day (Thurs., 11/28/63). Most importantly, a word-for-word transcript of what Gov. Connally said was published in the New York Times on the morning of Thursday, November 28th, 1963. Here’s the front page headline in Thursday morning’s NY Times (11/28/63): Connally’s Account Recalls First Lady’s ‘Jack! Jack!’ The lead (again, on Thursday morning, 11/28) reads, QUOTE ON: DALLAS,Nov. 27 — Gov. John B. Connally Jr. gave the nation tonight the story of the three quick rifle shots that spelled assassination for President Kennedy and nearly killed the Governor. Shot One struck the President. Shot Two coursed through the Texas Governor’s body. Shot three struck the President. The Governor said the President “slumped,” and said nothing. Mrs. Kennedy’s cry, as the Governor remembered, was: “Oh, my God!” They’ve killed my husband! Jack! Jack!” From his hospital bed, over television, Governor Connally gave the first public account by a member of the President’s immediate party of the tragic events last Friday. END QUOTE The above sequence explains how Gov. Connally (and his wife) were deceived and manipulated — i.e., had their recollections “messed with” (or “manipulated”): How? By being shown an altered film (of the reality the had experienced) on Nov. 25th, 1963, just two days before the formal and ”official” network (filmed) interview by Agronsky. In other words, the Connallys were deceived by being placed in the position (in effect) of having having to choose between the event (as they remembered it) and the event as it was now portrayed on a film which (presumably) they assumed to be authentic. (My assumption -- for decades-- has been that the Connally's were probably deeply puzzled by this conflict. I have no reason to believe that the Connallys had any knowledge of [and certainly no expertise in] film editing.) This situation —and a more detailed analysis of this deception — will be discussed in Final Charade. But note: this is why Governor Connally’s Warren Commission testimony (generally speaking) “matches” the Zapruder film, but does not reflect the true reality as it actually occurred on November 22, 1963. I'll have more to say about this situation in Final Charade. DSL (7/19/21_ 8:30 PM PDT)

Today’s NY Times (7/12/21) published a lenghty obit re death of Prof. Athan Theorharis, a Marquette University historian who “chronicled F.B.I. Abuses.” The article is quite lengthy (a full half page) and may be of interest to anyone who has followed controversies of the FBI, and the Freedom of Information Act; and the March 1971 burglary of the FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania— which, in retrospect, turns out to be rather significant, historically. Here are points I found noteworthy: ITEM: Theoharis was interviewed for “The Burglary: The Discovery of J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret F.B.I. (by Betty Medseger); and also the documentary film “1971” (directed by Johanna Hamilton).Presumably, these items are —or will be— available via Amazon. ITEM: Both the book and film dealt with the burglary (3/8/71) of the Media, PA., FBI office, which (according to the NYT) “showed among other things, active unlawful surveillance of black, student and peace groups, and led to the relevation of Hoover’s secret Cointelpro program. . .which spied on civil rights leaders, political organizations,” etc. ITEM: The Times article quotes Theoharis describing Hoover as “an insubordinate bureaucrat in charge of lawless organizaton. . . He was also a genius who could set up a system of illegal activities and a way to keep all documentation ecret for many years.” ITEM: Theoharis has donated “[his] voluminous trove of F.B.I. papers to Marquette.” ITEM: Regarding the “Do Not File” files; The Times notes Prof. Theoharis’ skill at using the FOIA: “Prof. Theoharis. ..deployed the FOIA, which had been strengthened by Congress in 1974, to plumb Hoover and his top aides’ sensitive “Official and confidential” files, along with those designated “Do Not File,” which were kept from the F.B.I.’s central records, presumably safe from being disclosed.” ITEM: The Times article implies that the designation “Do Not File” was effectively used by Theoharis (in filing FOIA requests) and that “he got a lot of information that way.” ITEM: Regarding “the portrait of Hoover as a ‘homosexual cross-dresser’ (as reported by Anthony Summers (in his 1993 book, “Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover,”) the Times obituary takes issue with that. Here’s what the Times obit says: “He (Theoharis) refuted Mr. Summers in 1995 citing a Theoharis book (DSL Note; one that I was unaware of): “J. Edgar Hoover, Sex and Crime: An Historical Antidote.” Specifically addressing Summers, the Times obit then quotes Theoharis as noting that “Hoover’s leadership of the F.B.I. was "a story of a resourceful bureaucrat who successfully circumvented the limitations of the American constitutional system of checks and balances” — and not, as Mr.Summers had it, a ‘morality play’ about a closeted gay man whose secret was used by organized crime bosses to leave them alone.” Personal Note: I will not be surprised if Anthony Summers writes a “Letter to the Editor’" about all of this (which should be interesting). Hopefully, this post to the London Education Forum will be of interest to students of the FOIA, and the F.B.I. Personal Note: I have reviewed this for typos; and other errors. Please feel free to post any comments (and correct any errors). Here is the link to the original FBI story, which has some nice photos of Prof. Theoharis, at his desk: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/10/us/politics/athan-theoharis-dead.html

Paul: I thought you might enjoy reading this New Yorker article (from about 5 years ago) about Yuja Wang. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/05/yuja-wang-and-the-art-of-performance?utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Recommends_070321&utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d7b83f92a40469e727f6&cndid=29293378&hasha=ddac3c366b853843dae281b312795abb&hashb=ef64b28c32b5bee7615fc6487a3be74474cd77b2&hashc=5673f3c50a63a3c57e04dbdc968700886edf0e99f1291fc8e1af7bf802deca98&esrc=no_source_code&utm_term=TNY_Recommends DSL 7/4/21 - 10:30 AM PDT

Sorry if I confused matters, by writing what I had to say inside Mathias Baumann's space. Will try to be more careful in future posts. DSL