14 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

Congratulations, Vince! As a long time participant in this subject matter - the events of November 22, 1963 - I can unequivocally state that your work on the Secret Service and their part in what transpired on that date is absolutely without peer!! Don't ever plan to retire!!

Thanks a lot, Gary!

30 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Yes! Thank you for all of your valuable contributions @Vince Palamara! I know for me personally, you have posted many of the TV specials that I watched when I was just getting my feet wet in this case! I really appreciate that! It's been a long, strange journey down this rabbit hole but if I could go back I wouldn't change a thing! People who don't study this case just don't understand how big this thing is. Just how many leads and threads there are. I first got interested in this thing as an 11 or 12 year old. I just turned 44, lol! My wife knows just how long I've been studying this thing and one day she asked me "Do you ever read or find out something you didn't know about the JFK assassination?" I answered "Just about every time I start researching I come across something I didn't already know or learn more details to things I had heard." People just don't know, lol!

Thanks a lot! What truly amazes me is the fact that my books sell every week (especially my latest from a year ago) and especially how not a day goes by when I do not receive a lot of comments on my You Tube channel. The level of enthusiasm is inspiring! I know the feeling you have well. That said, I am in semi-retirement mode LOL: 5 books in 8 years + many radio/Skype/podcasts + several major conference presentations (all on video/You Tube) + A COUP IN CAMELOT, TMWKK (replayed several times on---get this---NEWSMAX!) and the new JFK ASSASSINATION UK documentary...I feel like I have said and done it all.

But, again- whenever I think I am done, I get several (many) messages of enthusiastic interest.

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Speaking for myself I am reminded of my years ago pledge that seeing this video of John Judge speaking at this conference should be absolutely required viewing and reviewing by me from time to time.

I had forgotten about Judge and this video until finding it reposted here recently an hour ago.

The man ( Judge ) was incredibly well researched and informed and combined with his righteous and even angry and antagonistic but well spoken indignation speaking style was a formidable debate presence. Compelling to watch and to listen to imo.

Mort Sahl had some of that same passionate righteous indignation style of JFK truth seeking sharing ( albeit mixed with biting, ironic and occasional cynical humor ) and even sometimes called out his audience and the American people for their complacency in not wanting to know or care more about the JFK truth.

Judge's recounting of his mother's high Pentagon position and her job of making mathematical predictive models for future Viet Nam War related human losses and draft numbers for the military high command was disturbing secret truth revealing in their early existence and uncanny accuracy.

Judge really shook up his debate adversaries on that panel as I recall. They were out research gunned and resorted to kind of a personal anger offended tone and tact in trying to refute his presentation points which they just never really did and to make Judge look like more of an angry paranoid conspiracy nut character more than a than a very well informed and logical presenter.

I think Fletcher Prouty was super impressed by Judge. Judge reaffirmed much of Prouty's claims.

Yet, even Judge and Prouty made some ( a few ) mistakes in their presentations from what I recall of the entire video. Of course, these were jumped on desperately by their adversaries who knew they were losing the debate judging by the applause reactions of the majority of the audience.

A few reflection points in my mind.

I think everybody now knows George Bush senior was involved with the CIA even years before 1963. Why the denials, even today 60 years later?

I really liked Judge's analogy of the Mob being "shoe shine boys" to the real power groups in our highest levels of government. 

They were used ... when needed.

But does anyone really believe that the highest dons of the American mob in the 50's and 60's had the think tank brains of these other groups? 

Marcello, Giancana, Trafficanti, Luciano, Gambino, Lansky ... able to plan, carry out and coverup something as big as the JFK, MLK and RFK's murders? And get away with it? These guys barely made it past junior high school in the education department.

Vince, do you have the link to the entire debate we see Judge in here? Could you repost this for me and others to view it again? It's was a very inspiring debate event imo.

 

 

 

Prolific researcher Bill Adams from California has been MIA since 2000. I suspect Tony Marsh from MA has passed away.

@James DiEugenio

AN EXCERPT FROM MY SECOND BOOK ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE “JFK: FROM PARKLAND TO BETHESDA”:

21 H 193- 202: 12/11/63 report from Elizabeth L. Wright-Good---Director, Nursing Service to C.J. Price [Mrs. Wright-Good is the widow of O.P. Wright, Parkland Hospital security chief. Wallace Milam interviewed her on 6/23/93 and Mark Oakes did the same on video in Oct. 11, 1994---besides her belief, shared by her husband, that the shots had to have come from more than one direction, ***she showed Oakes on camera an unfired .38 special, WCC revolver bullet which she said was THE bullet that her husband had attempted in vain to give to “an FBI agent”! She showed the bullet to Henry Wade, which is backed up by Oakes videotaped interview with Wade in May 1992 [although, as Oakes and Good acknowledge, Wade got her name wrong] and, to a lesser extent, Wright’s mention of Wade at 21 H 196. Also, at 21 H 198: “Mr. Wright had somewhere down the line asked me if I could ascertain the path of the bullet-or bullets-determine the path, and FIND OUT WHERE THE INSTRUMENT OF INJURY ACTUALLY WAS” (emphasis added). If this weren’t enough, DPD Patrick Dean was married to the daughter of O.P. Wright by a previous marriage (thanks to Wallace Milam for this information).***

THIS VIDEO: A) Oakes videotaped interview with Wade in May 1992; Oakes videotaped interview with Mrs. Elizabeth Wright-Good, the widow of O.P. Wright; C) Wade on the single bullet theory in 1988

Governor Connally stated in his autobiography called “In History’s Shadow”: “But the most curious discovery of all took place when they rolled me off the stretcher, and onto the examining table. A metal object fell onto the floor, with a click no louder than a wedding band. The nurse picked it up and slipped it into her pocket. It was the BULLET FROM MY BODY, the one that passed through my back, chest, and wrist, and worked itself loose from my thigh”(emphasis added-p. 18;”The Investigator” Feb-May 1994).

Corroborating Connally’s memory, from the 11/21/93 Dallas Morning News interview with Henry Wade:” I also went out to see Connally, but he was in the operating room (note the time frame).Some nurse had a bullet in her hand, and said this was on the gurney that Connally was on...I told her to give it to the police, which she said she would. I assume that’s the pristine bullet”(“The Investigator” Feb-May 1994).

 [Both John and Nellie Connally did not believe that the same bullet which hit JFK hit the GovernorSee 4 H 136,147-149, and 20 H 355].

Finally, Gary Shaw (in the 11/22/93 “Dateline: Dallas” issue) came across this passage from the Warren Commission testimony of Parkland nurse Jeanette Standridge: Specter: “Did you notice any object in Governor Connally’s clothing?” Standridge: “Not unusual” Specter:” Did you notice a bullet, specifically?” Standridge: “No” Specter:” Did you hear the sound of anything fall?” Standridge: “I didn’t”

Is THIS “CE399”? What’s going on here?

See especially start of video + 10:22 mark + 12:15 mark

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I'm with Greg on this one. The bullet switch scenario is very shakey, IMO.

Tomlinson thought the bullet shown him by the FBI was the bullet he'd discovered; he just refused to ID it because he hadn't put his initials on it. 

 

From chapter 3b at Patspeer.com:

"A few days later, we see a 7-7-64 letter from the Dallas FBI office, written in response to a 5-20 letter from the Commission, asking them to establish the chain-of-evidence for a number of items. When discussing the chain-of-evidence for FBI C1/Warren Commission Exhibit CE 399, a near-pristine bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland hospital, an hour or more after the President and Governor were admitted, and purported to have caused Kennedy's back and throat wound, and all of Connally's wounds, it relates: "On June 12, 1964, Darrell C. Tomlinson...was shown Exhibit C1, a rifle slug, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum...Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same one he saw on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to Mr. O.P. Wright...On June 12, 1964, O.P. Wright...advised Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum that Exhibit C1, a rifle slug, shown to him at the time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963 which he gave to Richard Johnsen, Special Agent of the the Secret Service...He advised he could not positively identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found on November 22. 1963...On June 24, 1964, Richard E. Johnson...was shown Exhibit C1, a rifle bullet, by Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Johnsen advised he could not identify this bullet...On June 24, 1964, James C. Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service...was shown Exhibit C1, a rifle bullet, by Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd. Rowley advised he could not identify this bullet as the one he received from Special Agent Richard E. Johnsen and gave to Special Agent Todd on November 22, 1963. On June 24, 1964, Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd...identified C1, a rifle bullet, as being the one he received from James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service." We note that the Secret Service has refused to swear by the bullet, and that an agent of the FBI itself, fifth in a line of possession, is the first to assert the bullet is the one found in the hospital. As this bullet has been linked to Oswald's rifle and is necessary to demonstrate that Oswald fired the lethal shots, this is problematic.  Fortunately, the first men to see the bullet, Tomlinson and Wright, appear to agree with Agent Todd's identification.

By now well familiar with the FBI's inadequacies, however, we decide to do a little digging. We uncover a 6-20 Airtel from Dallas Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin to J. Edgar Hoover telling him that "neither Darrell C. Tomlinson, who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O.P. Wright, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from Tomlinson and gave to Special Agent Richard E. Johnsen, Secret Service at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet." As this memo specifies that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet, and as the letter sent to the Commission indicates they believed the bullets appeared to be the same, we find yet another reason to suspect the FBI's integrity, and to seriously question the Commission's reliance upon its services. 

The Switcheroo That Wasn't: a Brief Discussion In Which I End Up Defending The FBI (No, Really, I'm Not Kidding)

The apparent contradiction between the FBI's 6-20-64 Airtel and 7-7-64 letter was just the beginning of the mystery surrounding the bullet. In November 1966, Josiah Thompson showed O.P. Wright a photo of the bullet supposedly found on the stretcher (by then dubbed Commission Exhibit CE 399) and asked him if CE 399 was in fact the bullet he'd remembered seeing on the day of the assassination. Amazingly, Wright told him that the bullet he'd handed the Secret Service on that day had had a pointed tip, while CE 399 had had a rounded tip. Wright then showed Thompson a bullet with a pointed tip like the one he'd remembered seeing. Thompson then showed Darrell Tomlinson a photo of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, along with the bullet shown him by Wright. While Tomlinson was reportedly non-committal, and couldn't remember if the tip was rounded like CE 399, or pointed like the bullet shown him by Wright, Thompson, and a large swath of his readers, took from Wright's statements that the stretcher bullet had been switched. 

Thirty-five years passed. In 2002, Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar finally contacted the FBI's Bardwell Odum, to see if he remembered Tomlinson and Wright saying CE 399 looked like the bullet found on the stretcher, per the FBI's 7-7-64 letter to the Commission, or their not identifying the bullet, per the 6-20-64 FBI memorandum. Amazingly, Odum insisted he had no recollection of ever handling CE 399, let alone showing it to Tomlinson and Wright. Now, for some this was a smoking gun. If Odum had never shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, and the FBI letter said he had, and that they'd told him the bullet looked like the one they saw on 11-22-63, then someone was almost certainly lying. Deliberately. 

In December, 2011, however, I came across something that gave me great doubts about the smoke coming out of this gun. A transcript was posted on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup by author Jean Davison. This transcript, acquired by Ms. Davison from the National Archives, was of a 7-25-66 conversation between Darrell Tomlinson and researcher Ray Marcus. This transcript asserted that when asked if he'd ever been shown the stretcher bullet after giving it to Wright, Tomlinson had admitted "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in." When then asked by Marcus if "Shanklin" and Wright had asked him if this bullet looked the same as the one he'd recovered on November 22, 1963, Tomlinson responded "Yes, I believe they did." When then asked his response to their question, he replied "Yes, it appeared to be the same one." 

Let's note the date of this transcript. This was months prior to Tomlinson's being shown the pointed tip bullet by Thompson. And yet, at this early date, he'd thought the bullet he'd been shown by "Shanklin" (more probably Odum--Tomlinson was unsure about the name of the agent and there is little reason to believe Shanklin--the Special Agent-in Charge of the Dallas Office--would personally perform such a task) resembled the bullet he'd found on the stretcher. This suggests, then, that his subsequent inability to tell Thompson whether the bullet was rounded or pointed was brought about by his not wanting to disagree with Wright. 

In November 2012, moreover, I found additional support for this suspicion. It was a 4-22-77 article on the single-bullet theory by Earl Golz for The Dallas Morning News, which reported "Darrell C Tomlinson, the senior engineer at Parkland who found the slug, told The News he 'could never say for sure whose stretcher that was ... I assumed it was Connally's because of the way things happened at Parkland at that time.' Tomlinson acknowledged he was not asked to identify the bullet when he testified before the Warren Commission in 1964. He said some federal agents earlier 'came to the hospital with the bullet in a box and asked me if it was the one I found. I told them apparently it was, but I had not put a mark on it. If it wasn't the bullet, it was exactly like it.'" 

So there it is. Tomlinson told Marcus in 1966 that he thought the bullet he'd found looked like CE 399, was less certain on this point when talking to Thompson later that year, and then returned to telling reporters the bullets looked the same by the time he talked to Golz in 1977. Either he'd misled Marcus and Golz, or was momentarily confused by the bullet Wright provided Thompson. Wright was a former policeman. Perhaps Tomlinson had momentarily deferred to his expertise. In any event, Tomlinson's recollection of the bullet over the years did not support Wright's recollection, and supported instead that he'd been shown CE 399 by the FBI in 1964, had told them it appeared to be the same bullet as the one he'd found on the stretcher, and had nevertheless refused to identify it. This scenario was consistent, moreover, with the FBI's 6-20-64 memo and 7-7-64 letter to the Warren Commission. It seems hard to believe this was a coincidence. As a result, Tomlinson's recollections cast considerable doubt on Wright's ID of a pointed bullet, and the scenario subsequently pushed by Thompson and Aguilar--that the FBI had lied in its 6-20 memo and 7-7 letter about the bullet--appears to be inaccurate."

34 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It appears the word "expert" has lost much of its meaning. 

Agreed! Gordon [Novel David] Ferrie came out of nowhere in 2016 with many outrageous claims that do not check out. I remember searching for any pre-2016 info on him and came up with nothing.

"Interesting" DVD. I haven't seen it, but it just came up in a search I did:

Amazon.com: The Rare Interviews of the Last Living Experts on the JFK Assassination : Movies & TV

9 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

You're quite welcome @Denny Zartman! I have dipped my toes into the pool of blood story, so to speak, lol, and have also looked into the dead secret service guy angle before also. But I hadn't really heard the story (as far as I could remember anyway) about the guy running out toward the Presidential limo and shouting something, possibly a warning, until I read about it in The Lonestar Speaks. So, imagine my delight in searching older posts and find that article that hit on all these points at least a little! Great job @Vince Palamara!

Thanks!

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

The book used to be about Oswald, but it appears that challenges and alterations to Lifton's body alteration theory have led him to double down. So now the book is gonna be Best Evidence 2, and not a revealing look at Oswald. 

I, for one, am disappointed. I think we need a book on Oswald based on research and interviews with Marina more than we do a book on the medical evidence, rehashing much of what we already know. If that sounds cynical I'm sorry. I'm a grumpy old man these days.  

I can definitely see that point of view, as well.

3 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

I've often wondered exactly what the hold up was. I know you want the research to be as accurate as possible and that takes time to verify all of these new revelations. I know, at least originally, that this book was supposed to be Oswald-centric. And it's just pure speculation on my part, but being a believer in the John Armstrong Harvey and Lee theory at least in some part and from what I understand Lifton does not believe this theory, I have often thought that one of the possible reasons for the lengthy delay was Lifton trying to weed through the complexities of Oswald's life and reconcile him being in two different places at the same time from the time he returned from Russia up until the assassination (and actually seemingly in two places at the same time while in Russia with reports of him in America during that time period). Part of this of course is just people and organizations using the Oswald name but you also have many people swearing they saw Oswald based on his appearance as well. So, obviously at least part of the time someone who looked an awful lot like the historical Lee Harvey Oswald was in different places using his name. I don't wanna open up a whole other can of worms with this and turn this thread into a Harvey and Lee debate, but with the constant delays in this project it is just something I have considered that may have been a possible roadblock at several junctures in his research. Once again, it is pure speculation on my part, but I'm curious what some of you might think about this idea. Any thoughts?

That is very good speculation; well written, too. My boy, I think you need to write a book yourself.

11 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

doug is fine. i was in touch with him earlier this week on some topics.

 

Great to know-thanks!

47 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

As far as the book goes, I'm very interested to finally get to read about some of the new details he has spoken about on radio shows in the past. I know he puts in the research but some of what I've heard I really wanna see in print and find out just what all corroborating witnesses and evidence there are to some of his new revelations. I remember something about some witnesses coming forward about seeing another limo stop, this time somewhere between the underpass and Parkland and something about Jackie trying to crawl out of the limo again. I'm anxious to see if any further corroboration is there to that event aside from the group of teens who were together and testified to it. Something that dramatic never coming to light or being discussed by anyone in the intervening years is almost hard to believe. But many things in this case are! Another fascinating thing I remember hearing him say is that, if I remember correctly, there was a certain doctor at Parkland who actively worked to ensure that Oswald died. I don't remember if he named the doctor publicly, but I believe he said it would be in the book. He said something along the lines of the work they did on Oswald was almost successful, and that Oswald was stabilizing and looking like he was gonna pull through. And then all of sudden this doctor rolled him over on his side or something to that effect, and he just bottomed out and took a turn for the worse. Forgive me if I'm not stating any of this correctly, for it has been several years since that particular interview that I listened to. May have been 2016 or so. I'm pretty sure it's still on YouTube but I can't recall when I last listened to it.

You are correct in all you state!

2 minutes ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Great post Vince! Well said! I was thinking the same thing as far as what would happen to the book should he pass away!

Thanks! Yes- I tried to write that in a genteel way. As one can see from the 2020 video, David looks amazing; kind of like Terry Bradshaw has aged well because he is bald  The 2002 video is interesting because David refers to his forthcoming book...still waiting 20 years later. 

On 2/22/2022 at 9:57 PM, Jamey Flanagan said:

Just curious as to whether anyone has any information on the status of this long awaited followup to Best Evidence? I know that Mr. Lifton has been a contributor to this forum in the past so maybe he can come forward and shed some light on this topic. Last I heard I think he was looking for funding online. It feels like this project has been in the works for about 30 years. I know that Best Evidence took some time to be completed though so hopefully it will be well worth the wait. I just haven't really heard anything in quite some time so I was just wondering if this was still an active project or if there was any sort of timeline as for the possible release of it if so. Was just going to bump another thread mentioning this book but all I found were so long I feared this would just get buried. Thanks in advance for any info you could give me!

 

And, as a big admirer of Mr. Lifton, I want to address the elephant in the room: Father Time. Although David looks amazing for his age, he IS in his eighties. Here is wishing him many more years. That said, Father Time is not a guaranteed "parent" to any of us. Has he made provisions in the event of his passing that his book and materials will see the light of day? I say this because this highly anticipated follow up to his classic book BEST EVIDENCE has been in the making for over 40 years now. It would be a tragedy if it never sees the light of day. 

I know David was in contact with me a lot via e-mail a few years back and a fellow researcher says he is actively working on it still. If the lore of a big publisher is over ---if that ship has sailed---I hope David seeks out Trine Day: they would gladly publish it and he would still do very well. Maybe not big time publisher McMillan well, but, with the advent of the net/ Amazon and kindle, it is a much more even playing field these days. Gone are the times that, if you weren't on national television, your book faced the possibility of dying on the shelves. Social media and the net (and kindle) have been an extreme advantage to all.

26 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, that's Mark. RIP. There used to be a video of him on YouTube in which he ran through the Fox set one by one in which he made a lot more sense than most people when they talk about the photos. 

Mark got the photos from Fox. It is my recollection Fox was a WWII-buff, and Crouch traded him some rare WWII material to Fox in exchange for the photos. It is also my understanding that Lifton did not buy the photos from Crouch, but that Crouch made Lifton copies--photos of the original photos. He later made other sets and sold them to other researchers. I am fairly certain the original Fox set was ultimately sold to Walt Brown, who, in the long tradition of JFK researchers, decided to tuck them away in his personal treasure chest. He published some of them in one of his books, but in low resolution and with captions on the photos. To my understanding, he has never had these superior images digitized, and I'm pretty sure he's never even been pressured to do so by the likes of Wecht or Aguilar. It makes no sense to me. As a result most researchers have been forced to work with scans from Lifton's and Groden's books, some of which have been cropped. it took me several years to realize there was a drainage hole in F8, and that that was the key to orienting that photo, and that's because the drainage hole was cropped off most of the published photos. And then of course there's the other F8, which Crouch had long recognized as the other half of a matched pair with F8, but which I'd stupidly thought was the same photo, only developed differently. Until I created a Gif of these two photos and put it on my website, most didn't even realize we had the other F8, even though it had been in the Croft set sold to dozens of researchers. 

Secrecy, hoarding, hoping to get rich... It's pretty standard JFK "researcher" behavior. Which is why those who dedicated themselves to sharing information--Mary Ferrell, Harold Weisberg--remain heroes. 

You can see the video on my channel: search for "Crouch" or

RARE: JFK Autopsy Photographs with Mark Crouch and Harry Livingstone 1991

20 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Mark Crouch is the reason why we have the Fox photos, right?

Correct.

I knew Mark--not real well, but we spoke a few times. He was a former associate of David Lifton who then sided with Harry Livingstone. Mark was very much into the autopsy photos.

Judging by the media push behind Blaine and Hill (biggest book company in the world, big time websites/blogs) + Bugliosi and Posner, we cannot compete. I have sold thousands of copies of my books. Hill and Blaine have sold HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS and have been on mainstream television a heck of a lot more than I. They have much bigger audiences/ weapons at their disposal.

Sadly, I think "they" won. Not only is social media and the net manipulated to censor out alternative views like this, I am seeing more and more Parnell-like comments from regular folks on articles I never saw before up to 2013 or so.