Daniel Gallup

http://jfklancer.com/pdf/toni.pdf for the interview.

Or it might be peculiar to this version. Why? I don't know.

Back in the mid 80s Dr. Bernard Kenton, a good a friend of David Lifton's, gave me a copy of the Moorman photo of very high quality. I have long believed from the photo that there is brain/scalp matter at Kennedy's right shoulder, and part of the back of Kennedy's head has been blacked out, as is also evident in the extant Z-film.

There is also the interview of Toni Foster, the "running woman," by Debra in the summer 2000 edition of the KAC. Toni is adamant about the limo-stop. And I do mean adamant.

Don't forget Toni Foster, the running woman. Debra had an excellent interview with her in the KAC around 2000, the summer I think. She is an excellent witness to the limo stop,

Let's hope David Lifton finishes his Magnum Opus soon. If the finished work is as good as the effort he has put into it, it will be the crowning achievement of a life time. Godspeed, David!

Hi Daniel, Good to see you back hereabouts. On the subject of Yarborough's observations about the Secret Service detail's movements on Elm, it's worth noting that he has powerfully supported by the long-ignored testimony of the motorcycle escort. There is a quite outstanding & readily accessible collection of these testimonies in Larry Rivera & Jim Fetzers' The JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interviews: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/the-jfk-escort-officers-speak-the-fred-newcomb-interviews/ Paul Thanks Paul -- I've been away a long time working on a book on Differential Equations and frankly, detached from the JFK controversy just to keep on track with that project. My conviction is that the limo stop and what occurred during that time is central to understanding how Kennedy was murdered. As to whether or not shots were fired in the car, it seems the eye-witnesses at the scene seemed to think that something like a shot occurred. I am not competent to say, but await the research of others who have spent a great deal of time with this problem, and publish the results of their work.

One more reason to reject the authenticity of the Z-film. "People were jumping out of the car in front of me [the Secret Service followup car] and running to the president‘s car." (Ralph Yarborough) That's something that would be done to a stopped limo, and there is plenty of other evidence that the limo did indeed stop. What happened during that time was probably critical to knowing how the President was murdered, and that's why the limo stop no longer appears in the extant film .

amazing? compelling? How?

Pat, it my recollection that Jenkins said the brain stem was neatly severed in two places, which led him to believe the brain had been removed prior to autopsy. I can't recall where I read this any longer. If he said this, and the brain had been removed, them OConnor and Jenkins are talking about two different events. Jenkins has no specific recollection of a shipping casket either.

Pat, your are right, the official record indicates an entrance wound was noted early. But I would argue the official record isn't worth the paper it's printed. Both in Best Evidence and In the Eye of History, James Curtis Jenkins gives a very different picture of discussions of the head wounding. See page 611 BE, and 73, ITEOH. Jenkins was interviewed by LIfton in 1979, and is quite specific that no conclusions were drawn that night. Jenkins is one of those important pieces of the puzzle that does not fit with the official record. We must also question the origin of the late arriving fragments. Due to the condition of the body as stated by the personnel from Parkland, I would say the fragments were torn from Kennedy's head in the process of removing the brain before the official autopsy. (Jenkins also claims the brain was removed prior to autopsy). That may be why, when the shipping casket and body bag was opened, O'Connor said there were no brains in the cranial vault.

No, I have just taken the time to read all the Parkland statements about the wound. They were there, and made some rather astonishing comments. You, Andric, are guessing they were mistaken. The burden is on you to explain why all those who saw the wound consistently said it had the appearance of an entry wound. I'm waiting.

Dr. Perry told Dr. Clark that a bullet entered Kennedy's neck from the front, because Clark comments to the New York Times a few days after the assassination that the bullet entered Kennedy's neck," ranged downward, and did not exit." That's a lot of information to be gleaned from a bullet that, according to this new theory, supposedly struck Kennedy's skull , failed to deform in the least, and left a small spherical wound which all who saw it noted it had the characteristics of an entry wound. There are other things wrong with the reasoning given above. 1. We don't know if a small bullet struck Kennedy in the back of the head near the EOP. Evidence of this entrance wound did not appear until after or around midnight when bones were brought into the morgue and represented as having come from Dallas. Until then the doctors made no determination as to the location of the entrance wound. But the bones brought in around midnight represented a great loss of bone at the top of the skull. No such wounding was observed at Parkland. So the origin of this lower entrance wound is suspect. 2. We don't know when Kennedy was shot in the back around the level of T3. If the wound is authentic, and there is reason to doubt this, then its timing still remains a mystery. Certainly Robert Groden puts that shot well after the throat shot based on his analysis of the Z-film. 3. I have never thought Kennedy reaches for his throat after Connally was injured. That's a new one for me. But then, I do not place any confidence in the extant film, any more than I place confidence in the extant autopsy sitting in the National Archives. Not after Horne's Magnum Opus.

I don't think so. Perry was not alone in this assessment. Their comments indicated they were quite familiar with gunshot wounding. I doubt the relevance of the particular study you cite from page 55 of that "first study."

I might have added, a good reference to the earliest reports of Kennedy's wounding would be Best Evidence itself. And that includes the interviews like that of Dr. Peters referenced above in David Lifton's post. Another example: DAvid was the first to get Perry to give a size of the trach incision: 2-3 cm. Shameful attempts to avoid the implications of this sizing have been made, but the truth is the truth, and it is to David's great credit that he took the initiative to get to Perry before he himself understood the implications of his recollections. Which leads me to a final thought: It has been claimed by James DiEugenio (The Assassinations) and Vince Palamara (2005 review of Best Evidence on Amazon) that Lifton has been debunked (to use Palamara's term). Oh really? By whom and when? For Palamara it was Harrison Livingston, of all people. Even DiEugenio jumps on the Livingston bandwagon in his review of Kaleidoscope exactly where corroborating evidence of the early entrance of Kennedy's body at Bethesda comes in the form of the Boyajian report. Can't trust that report, says Livingston, with Dieugenio cheering, as if his nemesis, David Lifton, has finally been banished from the realm. The arguments Livingston makes, with DiEugnio's applause, are on par with later attempts to deny Perry really made a "2-3 cm" trach incision. When the historical record jars one's viewpoint, best to jettison the historical record-- at least that seems to be standard operating procedure in these cases.

Andric, you may be referring to a different quote from Jackie than I have. From her WC testimony: "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." This testimony accords well with Clint Hill. May I ask the source of your quote? Thanks in advance , Daniel "11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95, and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles" This is consistent with what William Manchester wrote in his book based on his (many) interviews with Jackie: "The Death of a President, 1967": ""He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn't there anymore." Link Jackie, who died in 1994, had 27 years to correct Manchester, in case you argue that Manchester misrepresented the content of her interviews. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that she told White the same thing, unless you will argue that White and Manchester engaged in a sinister plan to pretend she thought the wound was at top of her head. Another thing: you argued that Jackie was clueless about holding down the top of his head, because one cannot hold down that which isn't there; but then you go on to argue that it was the back of JFK's head she tried to hold on to. But wait a minute. How could she hold down the back of his head if it is not there? Thanks for the citation Andric. Much appreciated. But I believe you misrepresent what I said. Jackie was "clueless...???!!??", and I believe Jackie's WC testimony is clear and doesn't need my help in understanding.about the condition of the back of the head. Yes, I do believe Manchester is wrong, however. No one at Parkland made any such assertion.

Tim and all, Please vote for your favorite book on the Assassination of JFK at my website's home page: Best JFK Assassination Book Poll Scroll down a little and you'll find it on the right side bar. Greg, what is the purpose of my voting for one from your list of 10 books if my favorite is not on your list of 10? My vote gets relegated to "others" and therefore the input is irrelevant. I don't like putting square pegs into round holes.

Jackie is quite clear in her WC testimony that she held the head down because the wound was in the back of the head. For you to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. No one I know doubts that Kennedy was hit in the right temple, as per Newman et al. I 'm not sure why you bring him up, or Kilduff for that matter.. Of course Kennedy's head exploded, leading to any number of observations. But the body at Dallas looked only one way and the testimony there is rather consistent of an avulsive wound in the right rear occipital/parietal region. It seems, based on the quotes you provide, that we agree on this as well. So what's the beef? Testimony to cerebellum indicates that wound extended down into the occiput. You make a strong case that the wound was in the right rear, and so I have to agree with you But,and this is shameful: your using Baxter and Jenkins and their evolutionary description of the wounding. Of course over time there is pressure for them to change their minds. Conclusion: It's hard to find in all your verbiage any serious objection to the right-rear occipital-parietal avulsive wound. There is testimony of an entrance wound in the left temple; this is well known and has no bearing whatsoever on the condition of the back of the head. What you offer, and I think this very important, is Admiral Burkley's claim that the wounds at Parkland were no different from the way they appeared at Bethesda. Presumably, if Burkley is to be believed, the top of the head was missing at Parkland, then, and Perry's trach incision was 7-8 cm. Remember HUmes said the area of wounding was devoid of bone and scalp. And Pat you are telling me this was observed at Parkland? I can find no attestation of this in the Parkland testimony of 11/22/63. Nor have you presented any such either. The missing bone and scalp was at the back of the head, the right - rear, not "chiefly parietal." Burkley comes off rather badly, I would say, with his claim, and why he made it is another matter, and itself a subject of further study.

Andric, you may be referring to a different quote from Jackie than I have. From her WC testimony: "I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." This testimony accords well with Clint Hill. May I ask the source of your quote? Thanks in advance , Daniel

Scott, I've stayed out of discussions on the medical evidence for a long time now, having gone back and forth with Pat Speer on all these matters long ago. I basically agree with David Josephs and simply ask: if the chain of possession of Kennedy's body is lost, its worth as evidence in the case is non-existent. Therefore, I believe that the only reliable account of the condition of Kennedy's head would be the earliest recollections of those who saw the body in Dallas, and that includes Clilnt Hill, Jackie, and the Dallas doctors and nurses who made contemporaneous notes. A very good reference book would be First on the Scene by Brad Parker, who has collected a number of early affidavits from Parkland on the condition of Kennedy's head. In a similar point of view, I would argue the earliest recorded recollections of personnel at Bethesda (when they were finally allowed to talk) would be the most accurate, before anyone understood the implications of what they saw. Same with the Dealey Plaza witnesses: their testimony gains weight when they are given early, or if it is clear that what they are saying is given before they have knowledge of the "official" story line.

I noticed on CTKA that James DiEugenio humbly put his book Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Ed., as one of the ten best books ever written on the Kennedy Assassination. It may indeed be a very good book, but the revelations unearthed In Best Evidence, especially Paul O'Connor, are so significant, and DiEugenio's conspicuous ignoring of this contribution and others contained in Best Evidence so blatant, that it is no wonder the case remains such an unsolved mess. What Lifton did was to interview individuals before they understood the significance of what they had to say. This of course includes the medical evidence but also the Z-film interviews conducted in 1971, before the film ever became public. Debra Conway did the same thing with Toni Foster, whose testimony to the limo stop was so certain and matter-of-fact, because she had no idea it contradicted the official version. Anyway, that is why David Lifton's work is so historically important. One has only one chance to interview someone before they understand the significance of what they have to say, and are tempted to change or have their testimony twisted, or are simply ignored because their view doesn't "fit." Given the governmental malfeasance in this case-- all the fraudulent evidence--those first responses are all the more important.

Betzner's contemporaneous affidavit on the activities around the Kennedy limo so contradict the extant films it is as if Betzner and the films belong in two different universes. Like Toni Foster and others, his remark on the limo stop is so matter-of-fact that they make Fiester's psycho-babble explanation look patently ridiculous. It would seem the films were altered to hide both the limo stop and whatever was happening in and around the limo during that time. Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Hugh William Betzner, Jr., Address 5922 Velasco, Dallas, Age 22 , Phone No. TA 7-9761 Deposes and says: I was standing on Houston Street near the intersection of Elm Street. I took a picture of President Kennedy's car as it passed along Houston Street. I have an old camera. I looked down real quick and rolled the film to take the next picture. I then ran down to the corner of Elm andHouston [sic] Streets, this being the southwest corner. I was standing back from the corner and had to take the pictures through some of the crowd. I ran on down Elm a little more and President Kennedy's car was starting to go down the hill to the triple underpass. I was running trying to keep the President's car in my view and was winding my film as I ran. I was looking down at my camera to see the number of the film as I ran. I took another picture as the President's car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I thought that this noise was either a firecracker or a car had backfired. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds. I looked down the street and I could see the President's car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped. Then I saw a flash of pink like someone standing up and then sitting back down in the car. Then I ran around so I could look over the back of a monument and I either saw the following then or when I was sitting back down on the corner of Elm Street. I cannot remember exactly where I was when I saw the following: I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the president's car.My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. I also saw a man in either the President's car or the car behind his and someone down in one of those cars pull out what looked like a rifle. I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in the President's car or somewhere immediately around his car. Then the President's car sped on under the underpass. Police and a lot of spectators started running up the hill on the opposite side of the street from me to a fence of wood. I assumed that was where the shot was fired from at that time. I kept watching the crowd. Then I came around the monument over to Main Street. I walked down toward where the President's car had stopped. I saw a Police Officer and some men in plain clothes. I don't know who they were. These Police Officers and the men in plain clothes were digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet. I walked back around the monument over to Elm Street where they were digging in the dirt. I went on across the street and up the embankment to where the fence is located. By this time almost all of the people had left. There were quite a few people down on the street and crowded around a motorcycle. I was looking around the fence as the rumor had spread that that was where the shot had come from. I started figuring where I was when I had taken the third picture and it seemed to me that the fence row would have been in the picture. I saw a group of men who looked like they might be officers and one of them turned out to be Deputy Sheriff Boone. I told him about the picture I had taken. Deputy Sheriff Boone contacted superiors and was told to bring me over to the Sheriff's Office. Deputy Sheriff Boone took my camera and asked me to wait. I waited in the Sheriff's Office and some time later, an hour or two, he brought my camera back and told me that as soon as they got through with the film and they were dry that they would give me the film. A little later he came in and gave me the negatives and told me that they were interested in a couple of pictures and implied that the negatives was all I was going to get back. To the best of my knowledge, this is all I know about this incident. /s/ Hugh William Betzner, Jr. For Toni Foster's interview, we have Debra Conway to thank KAC 2000. It is a must read.

You're welcome. You raise a good point: the alteration of the Nix film. That's an area that should be studied further. Regards, Daniel

Calli, the limo stop is specifically mentioned, not the "motorcade stop" by a number of police officer and bystanders who were in a position to see. Robin Unger, the Nix film itself is not beyond suspicion, and your parading it out as if it settles the matter is an utter waste of time. The issue is and always will be "fraud in the evidence."

The way the bones were reported to have been sprung open toward the back would indicate a great deal of brain, blood and bone exited the rear. That is the forward splatter from a shot from the front. In the extant Z-film there is no such splatter -- an impossible situation given the magnitude of the loss of brain in the back of the head.