Micah Mileto

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18c-reason-to-doubt

Secondly, a 6-11-80 article on Livingstone by Maureen Williams found in the Bangor Daily News suggests Livingstone was not a healthy camper. I know this seems a cheap shot, but stick with me here. This article was on Livingstone at a time virtually no one knew who he was, written in his local paper. The article, it follows, was his idea, or at least written with his full cooperation. And yet, look what it reveals: "The federal government has stipulated that certain sensitive material concerning the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 cannot be released to the public and media until the year 2039. One man who claims to be living in secrecy and fear for his life in eastern Maine, claims to have gotten some of that material through an underground source with connections in the Pentagon. Harrison Edward Livingstone, one of hundreds of private citizens who are involved in researching the assassination, carries his completed but rough manuscript of his book with him wherever he goes...He has kept on the move in recent years in several states, because he said he believes he's a 'hunted man.' In one of those states, he says, his car was fitted with an explosive device. In July 1979, a plane was to carry a team of reporters of the Baltimore Sun to Dallas, where they were to rendezvous with Livingstone. The plane was accidentally rammed by a jet fuel delivery truck on the airport apron. Livingstone says this was no accident. The incident caused the occupants to be confined in the plane for three hours, but what is stranger is that neither the newspaper or Livingstone could locate the investigative team for two days. In July and November 1979, the Baltimore Sun published two stories, containing purported new information and a lot of speculation, which Livingstone claims to have stimulated. 'But nobody read it...the wire services probably didn't pick it up, and one of the stories ran on a Sunday features page,' Livingstone said. Livingstone is convinced that some of the government's official autopsy photographs have been forged by an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency so they would be consistent with the so-called 'single-bullet, single-gunman' theory. Livingstone said that on July 30, 1979, he traveled to Dallas where he interviewed various physicians who attended the dying president at Parkland Hospital. In tape-recorded and transcribed interviews, Livingstone said, medical doctors Adolph Giesecke, Robert McClelland, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Fouad Bashour, Jacqueline Hunt, and Marion Jenkins, indicate that the official government photo shown them may have been fake, because it shows an entrance wound in the occipital-parietal section of the president's head. Livingstone says they all told him that when the president was wheeled into Parkland's emergency room for initial medical treatment, the wound they saw in the back of his head looked like an exit wound...Robert Groden of Hopelawn, N.J., a photographic consultant to the House Assassinations Committee, said 'My visual inspection of the autopsy photos and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs..."

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I wrote an Obituary of about 1500 words.

 

It will be up soon and anyone can post it around.

Throwback to a classic long David Lifton post: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17752-the-forward-head-movement-an-illusion/?do=findComment&comment=226765

You are absolutely correct, DVP, and that is why, if you argue with DiEugenio in this fashion, you will defeat him every time.

of course, your position is entirely false, however, because the debate really comes down to the condition of the body, at the time of autopsy.

Commander Humes is no doubt correct when he states that, at the time of autopsy, there was only one entrance wound (at the back of the head) and a much larger hole (which he designated the exit wound) forward of that. But that is definitely not the way the body looked in Dallas.

And, for the life of me--and putting aside (for the moment) the fact that DiEugenio ignores these basic facts--I fail to understand how you can do so.

Your entire argument (with regard to the head wound information you are quoting above) is based on the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy. Specifically, that what was observed at Bethesda (as reported by Humes) is an accurate reflection of the condition of the body (i.e., the head wounding) as it was at Parkland Hospital at Dallas.

Now surely you know better than to disengenously quote Humes in the manner you do.

Surely you do know--or ought to know--that the location and size of large hole in the President's head, at Dallas, was at the BACK of the head, in the occipital area. This is clear from the Dallas medical reports, and testimony--and from my own interviews with those doctors, decades ago.

Surely you do know that the wound, as described by (for example) Dr. Charles Carrico, was 7 by 5 cm, or 35 square centimeters; whereas the large hole described at Bethesda was, according to the diagram drawn by Dr. Boswell at the time of autopsy, a diagram whose authenticity is attested to by the fact that it even had the late President's blood on it, was listed as "10 x 17" or 170 sq. cm.

So that demonstrates a difference--between Dallas and Bethesda observations of the head wound--of more than 400%.

Surely you do know that NO DALLAS DOCTOR OR NURSE described any damage to the "top" of President Kennedy's head, whereas almost the entire top of President Kennedy's head, on the right hand size, was missing at the start of the official autopsy. Moreover, when Boswell testified to the ARRB, he drew a diagram that made that very clear.

Now. . let's turn to the supposed entry wound, as observed at Bethesda.

With regard to the supposed entry wound observed at Bethesda--the supposed "little hole" (actually, part of a hole) that was below the huge hole observed there. . surely you do know that NO Dallas doctor or nurse reported any such wound.

Now of course you surely know these things, and of course you surely must recognize this grotesque difference between the Dallas and Bethesda observations, and yet you blithely go along, quoting the Bethesda observations, when surely you do realize they don't provide valid informaiton as to how this shooting occurred. They simply constitute a verbal picture of the President's head wounding, as it appeared at Bethesda, some six hours after the shooting. But that's all it is--an "after" picture, so to speak. But not a valid picture of the way the head wounds looked at Parkland.

Furthermore, surely you know that there is direct evidence, from the two FBI agents attending the autopsy, that there was surgical intervention of some sort between Dallas and Bethesda, which explains these divergent descriptions.

Surely you do know that FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, wrote in their report, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

Surely you do know that when both FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill testified before the ARRB in September, 1997, they both stood behind their report.

Surely you know that Sibert testified, just as he told me in November, 1966, "The report stands."

Surely you know that when Sibert appeared before the ARRB, he brought with him handwritten notes that talked of this huge hole in the President's head--WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN DALLAS, and noted that "brain had been removed from head cavity."

And, as he told me in our August, 1990 telephone conversation, "That's haunted me for years. . this surgery of the head. . you could look right in there."

Now Mr. DVP, you can play all the games you want with DiEugenio--who apparently doesn't have the insight to realize that the body is the best evidence in a murder case, and to structure any debate with the likes of you accordingly. But you can't play those games with me.

Obviously, because of the way you are utilizing Humes statements, in your "debate" with DiEugenio, its clear that you DO indeed have an appreciation of the body as "best evidence" (even if HE does not).

And so I would just suggest to you, not only in the name of telling the truth, but also to preserve your own credibility, that you stop ignoring the massive amount of evidence that clearly indicates that President Kennedy's wounds --and specifically, the configuration of his head wounds--were altered in the six hour period between his murder and the autopsy.

Also, in responding to this post, try not to engage in insults and name calling, as you do on at your blog site. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates the head wounds were altered--just as I have described above, and as is set forth, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates that the throat wound was also altered--just as I have described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence; with Dr. Perry's trach incision--which he told me, in October, 1966--was "2-3 cm", became a wide gash of "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges."

Surely you are aware of this data, right?

The fact of the matter is that there is clear, incontrovertible, and credible evidence that the President's body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, just as I have described in Best Evidence: it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag; it left in a ceremonial casket, and arrived in a shipping casket.

Mr. DiEugenio, who relies on certain of his "medical advisors" for his data and his ideas, apparently doesn't want to use this data in dealing with you. Apparently, he'd rather avoid all this by simply subscribing to some hypothesis that the Bethesda doctors simply lied. But you, who obviously recognize the primacy of the body as evidence (at least you appear to, from the way you rely on that CBS interview of Humes) have a responsibility, it seems to me, to tell the full and complete story of the body, and not just quote the part that suits your fancy.

Mr DVP: You cannot have it both ways.

If you are going to cite the body as "best evidence" and utilize the Bethesda description to refute DiEugenio's arguments, then you must recognize that the Bethesda description does NOT comport with the Dallas description; you must recognize that it does not describe the way the President's body looked in Dallas.

It is as simple as that.

Contrast those descriptions and its very clear what happened here: someone altered the President's wounds.

By citing Commander Humes' interview with Dan Rather as you did, you have already demonstrated that you have a keener appreciation of what is important concerning the medical evidence than does DiEugenio.

You understand that it all comes down to the President's body.

Now please demonstrate that you can apply that same appreciation of what is relevant to the most important evidence in the case--the President's body, and just HOW it looked immediately AFTER the shooting, when it was in Parkland Hospital, lying there before a group of doctors and nurses.

I invite you step up to the plate and confront the Dallas/Bethesda discrepancies.

I know you can do it, Mr. DVP.

In doing so, you will have to look at the facts, and surmount the name calling and ignorance of your hero, Mr. Vince Bugliosi. Try setting aside all that, and just look at the facts

I know you can do it.

Just follow the best evidence.

Its the memorial day weekend. . give it your best shot.

Make my day.

DSL

5/28/11 4:35 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Harrison Livingstone wrote in a letter to Harold Weisberg, dated 9/20/1988: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/L Disk/Livingstone Harrison Edward/Item 032.pdf

I'm sorry that it is so difficult for you to write, and I know how it must torture you to be so incapacitated. My problem since birth is that I don't breath very well, and I have constant difficulty either breathing or from the damn drugs I use to control very severe asthma. I had some relatively normal years thanks to the new inhalators, but now I have developed a hypersensitivity to them and high blood pressure as a result. That means one more damn drug to take, and it doesn't always work. Plus, I have to have my beer, and that complicates things even more.

I just want to assure you of something. I don't think that I could ever be accused of taking someone else's research and calling it my own. I went to extraordinary lengths to give credit to others from the time when I began writing this book in 1979. In fact, it was just rejected once again by Random House on the basis that I relied on secondary sources. At times I did that only to give credit to the people who dug so much out. Unfortunately I may be faulted at times where I relied on a secondary source who used someone else's work, or I did not go to their sources often enough.

That was because I was up in the Maine woods with no heat, no sanitation, no water etc, writing in winter on a table so cold that my hand would freeze from the coldness of the tabletop in the shelter where I was hiding out. I had only a few materials with me.

My original research primarily dealt with my interviews of the doctors regarding the autopsy photos and whether or not they showed the wounds. I organized the Sun and the Globe on that, after I first talked to the doctors, and received their research as a result (which was a miracle.) the Sun sent me to Dallas and then stranded me there at Penn Jones' house. Penn and I drove to the airport to pick up Steve Parks and a Maryland State's Attorney, and they weren't on the plane. Becoming suspicious of the whole deal, Penn threw me out. Both of us talked to them in Baltimore earlier in the day and they said they were leaving for the airport.

I spent a frantic weekend calling everyone in Baltimore trying to find them. Later Parks explained that a fuel truck hit his plane on the runway and they were trapped in it for three hours. He said that it then suddenly took off and they got as far as Houston, but had missed their connecting flight to Dallas. He said he forgot to bring Penn's number with him to call us and tell us what happened. They stayed in Houston for the weekend, scared. He said that he felt that what happened to the plane was not an accident. But he did not tell me any of this for several months.

Meanwhile I went quite nuts. I had no money. We were all to have flown together to Dallas the week before and he had me come down to the City Room with my bag, and when I got there he said he wasn't going until the following week, but that I was to go on ahead, and handed me the cash to pay for the reservation he made. I got scared and hesitated. I waited two days or so then took a bus without telling anyone. I got there, and with some money Phil Berrigan had given me, was able to hang on a week and ultimately interview the doctors, after staying in a rat hole hotel.

This has been exactly how my life has gone since I was in the Peace Corps when JFK was still alive and I discovered my PC group was a military intelligence operation, and I quit, personally telling Ted K. about it, asking him to tell his brother.

Secretly, the Sun sent another reporter the week I talked to the doctors, and he corroborated what I found out, but I did not learn this for weeks. During that time I became terrified after I found my car tampered with when I returned and I had lost the shelter where I was staying. Previously there was an attempt to blow up my car. Finally Parks published what he knew in Nov 1979 in the article "The Bullets Also Affected Our Confidence" which was his way of saying that both he and the States Attorney (a young woman) were frightened. He had gone to college with a boy who became a middle level CIA functionaire, and the night I proposed the Dallas trip, he revealed the whole plan to this guy over the phone while I was taking a piss in his apartment. I overheard the talk. Parks was an "est" person, which I feel was a form of mind control, and I think his friend had control over him. I think Parks figured out, what happened when he wrote his article.

But the Sun guy (Jeff Price) then went with Groden to interview Perry and Perry strongly denounced the autopsy photos.

[...]

Who tried to blow up Livingstone's freakin' car???

I also tried to quickly search through the archive.org versions of High Treason and High Treason 2, and can't find any mention of this incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvomaR-9Rnw

"The 60's were a wild time, rioters were burning down cities..."

First. xxxxing. Sentence.

Your level of knowledge on a particular subject can be accurately measured by how upset you are at the Wikipeida article on it. And if somebody says they like Wikipedia in general, then they probably don't have a lot of knowledge on any subject.

22 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

I am starting to think you are correct. A lot of people on Facebook are acting like it is the Holy Grail. Perhaps it will end up the Holy Fail (ouch). Seriously, though- if it comes out, fine- I will take a look. If it doesn't, so be it at this point.

Oswald needs the best legal defense, and such a defense would include the exploration of every possible theory.

10 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

47:00 mark: tomato-based vegetable soup covering for blood on Air Force One.

To be fair to LBJ, maybe they wouldn't want to eat meat after what happened, and it was a Friday.

Copy-pasting my two last comments from the other thread:

Dr. Ronald Jones, Paul Peters, and Marion Jenkins as being personally involved in the cover-up? Strange. Too bad Lifton couldn't be around to see whether Jones would have a deathbed confession.       

David floated the idea that a Parkland staffer could have been brought into a part of a body alteration plot by giving them an excuse along the lines of "we have to pretend he's alive to wait for a priest" or "we have to wait for nuns", or I've wondered if somebody could have claimed a sort of "Presidential do-not-resuscitate order", which one could say needed to be covered up to hide the "suicidal" implications, or to hide the President's health problems. But that could only be used to explain a fraction of this supposed plot.

Edit: David also said that he thought Perry was lying about doing a tracheostomy.

7 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

I have to be honest- while I have tremendous respect for David Lifton and Best Evidence, a fair amount of these ideas and notions on the above video (series) are-I will be kind-not believable. Perhaps David lost the plot a little by being obsessed with the case and not having a personal life (the same can be said for Harry Livingstone). When one doesn't have a family and just lives and breathes this case 24/7 for decades, I believe you start to see conspiracies in your soup and things become less grounded. The notion that some of the Parkland doctors were involved is just...well, I won't say.

Again- tremendous loss that David passed away; Best Evidence is legendary; I am hoping his second book sees the light of day...but these later-day ideas he was espousing are bizarre. There- I said it.

David floated the idea that a Parkland staffer could have been brought into a part of a body alteration plot by giving them an excuse along the lines of "we have to pretend he's alive to wait for a priest" or "we have to wait for nuns", or I've wondered if somebody could have claimed a sort of "Presidential do-not-resuscitate order", which one could say needed to be covered up to hide the "suicidal" implications, or to hide the President's health problems. But that could only be used to explain a fraction of this supposed plot.

Dr. Ronald Jones, Paul Peters, and Marion Jenkins as being personally involved in the cover-up? Strange. Too bad Lifton couldn't be around to see whether Jones would have a deathbed confession.

4 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

**UPDATE*** Good news, bad news about FINAL CHARADE (a small excerpt from a public post by researcher Matt Douthit):

"This case literally lived with him 24/7. Over a span of 56 years, he interviewed on audio and video more JFK eyewitnesses and researchers than any other researcher I have ever known. If he ever had a lead, boom, he would be on the next bus. And if he didn’t have the funds to do it, he would always find a way no matter what. The most important thing he taught me as a mentor was to always avoid Confirmation Bias, and to always be open-minded. I first got to know him when I was 19 and got to know him even more in person when he lived here in Dallas for a year. We would sit in diners, I in awe, mesmerized listening to him tell me literally everything he knew and all his theories. Yep, I heard it all. I was blown away when he read to me out loud from his spiral notebook the Introduction to “Final Charade”. He has since made all this public per the interviews he’s given in the past few years. As for the manuscript itself, I’m sad to tell you all that his laptop had crashed and he “lost everything.” BUT, like I said, the gist of it all has been made known through those interviews he gave"

What? That makes no sense. He didn't bother to email his file saves to himself? Has this laptop been given to a recovery person?

Was there no recording of the zoom Q&A that David advertised on Twitter and gofundme in September of this year?

I would work scanning every page from that storage room for 9 bucks an hour. Who was Lifton originally hiring for this task? He told me he didn't need help, but he didn't elaborate what plan he had.

11 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Are you sure? I thought he said it was because the plane turned the body rolled over and the body got stuck that way because of rigor mortis. 

I thought it was kinda cute how he was learning zoomer terms like LARPer.. what a legend! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRLNtcEX_to

13 minutes in. I guess that's probably what Lifton really means - not the arm waving on the outside of the airplane. I think I had the wrong mental image.

https://www.youtube.com/@davidliftononjfk2724/videos

Are ya'll hearing some of the stuff Lifton said in 2013? On top of a mountain of other things, he says that the reason why Richard Lipsey saw JFK's corpse with one arm raised is because the body snatchers closed the airplane luggage door on Kennedy's arm and left it waving on the outside of the plane throughout the whole flight.

3 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

There are several historic exceptions. Hitler, all US Communist Party leaders, etc.

But the tiniest difference in political policy can kill (or change the lives of) at least thousands of people...

9 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

To the poster who has Lifton going to hell with Angleton and Dulles: Cursing the dead or dying is not only offensive and in bad taste, it is an affront to decent minded people everywhere and tells us quite a bit about your character.

Regardless of what you thought about Dave, if you can't say something decent about him in his passing, don't say anything. Those of us who had interaction with him and were friends of his will appreciate it. Thank you.

Celebrating the death of ANY human is bad character?

If Lifton never married, then is anybody asking local news to acknowledge his death?

It was only a few days ago that I emailed Lifton about finding a newspaper article by Herbert Black, which is apparently the earliest known public acknowledgement of a wound in Kennedy's back, older than Bill Burrus's article. Lifton had posted earlier saying that Bill Burrus's article was the first.

2 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

At least, ONE person tried something! 

In 2020, Lifton put up a gofundme for getting Final Charade published. Sounds like it's complete - or at least maybe it would be better to call that the "2020 version" because DSL always added stuff to Best Evidence right before he published it.

7 hours ago, Denis Morissette said:

RIP. Where is his collection going to go? Better be quick before it all goes to garbage!

I asked him if he needed any help finding people who were willing to digitize his 40 filing cabinets, and he said no.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I never met David Lifton, and he seemed troubled in later years. 

But his work on the strange happenings at Bethesda, and his invaluable filming and recording of witnesses (not easy in those days) have put on the record what credible people said they saw that day. 

Hat's off. 

 

He was "troubled"? He never offered any theories recently that weren't as outlandish as stuff he'd been saying in the 60's. The "assassins being gassed in the train car like the holocaust gas chambers" thing was relatively light compared to his older idea of a "Sniper bunker hidden on grassy knoll".

1 minute ago, Micah Mileto said:

 

edited

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It's in McClellland's own report. 

 

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.

Asst. Prof. of Surgery

Southwestern Med.

School of Univ of Tex.

Dallas, Texas

 

Yes, but there were early newspaper reports of a wound in the left temple, and those did not necessarily have to come from McClelland/Perry.

The earliest known public reference to a wound in Kennedy’s back may have been the 11/27/1963 article in the Boston Globe, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black. The article described it’s source of information as “an unofficial but authoritative source”… “This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets. It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken”. It read “...the sniper, firing from above and behind the President, first hit the President on the right side of the back part of his neck. This bullet passed through the windpipe and came out at the throat, just below his Adam's apple, making the large wound which doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital noted. This wound might not have been fatal, considering the quick medical attention which the President received”. The throat wound is oddly referred to as “large” instead of small. The wounding of the head was described with a reference to a wound in the left temple - “When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound”... “This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this” (Link).

The 11/27/1963 article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Movies Reconstruct Tragedy by Arthur J. Snider, attempted to summarize the available information on the shooting. It described the published frames from the Zapruder film, and the body movements of Kennedy and Connolly shown. Despite this, Kennedy’s throat wound was still given a description that sounds like a bullet entry - “The 6.5 mm bullet-about .25 caliber - pierced the President's neck just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course. "If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound”. In describing the wounding of the head, it says “A second blast from the high-powered rifle ripped into the right rear of his head at about a 4 o'clock position”. There is also another strange reference to the “left temple” information - “Identification of two points of entry, the throat and the skull, was made by Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, and Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland Hospital”… “One bullet was said to have emerged from the left temple”. Dr. Shires was not reportedly there to see Kennedy’s body. The article points out that frames from the Zapruder film show Kennedy’s reactions before the head shot, adding that “They serve to deny a rumor that the President may have sustained the throat wound from a shot fired at ground level”. The possibility was also raised of bullets lodged in Kennedy’s body, and that “they would have been removed at an autopsy in the Bethesda Naval Hospital…”. Connally’s wounds were still described as coming from the rear - “...Gov. John Connally had turned to see what happened. A third shot rang out. It struck the governor in the back. The bullet was deflected to his right wrist and lodged in his left thigh…” (Link [link 2] [link 3] [link 4] [link 5]).

David Lifton made various comments on educationforum.ipbhost.com between 2012-2022, about a time in March 1978 when he made contact with journalist Bill Burrus, author of the 12/12/1963 article from the Dallas Times Herald KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK, one of the first stories that leaked the existence of the back wound. Lifton said that he spoke to Burrus over the phone and also once in person at a bar in Manhattan, New York. According to Lifton, the meeting at the bar was multiple hours, and it was recorded on tape. As Burrus reportedly explained, an authoritative source called him on the phone and spoke with him multiple times on the night of 12/11/1963, identified themselves, and informed him about the back wound, and the autopsy’s official conclusion of a bullet entering the back and exiting the throat. Lifton said that Burrus refused to directly give him name the source, but revealed to him that the Herald article’s dateline “Bethesda, Maryland” was a false cover to hide the true source of the information (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 258041; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 282455; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, topic 22325; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 310219; Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 343430). Lifton’s 1980 book Best Evidence did include a reference to a March 1978 interview with Burrus, as well as a note which read “In 1978 I learned that Burrus’ information indeed came from the navy autopsy report, but was not given to him by a Bethesda pathologist” (Best Evidence by David Lifton, 1980, Part II: A New Hypothesis, Chapter 7: Breakthrough, Distinguishing the FBI and Navy Versions). Lifton also wrote on the Education Forum that Burrus may have tried dropping hints about the caller’s identity. In 2012, Lifton said of the alleged caller’s identity, responding to another comment claiming that Burrus’s source must have been Dr. Robert McClelland, “Pat, Where do you get the idea that Dr. McClelland was Burrus' source? I interviewed Burrus at length--in person, in New York City--in 1977 or 1978. It was all tape recorded and I spent an hour or more with him, and then spent hours transcribing it Let me assure you that Dr. McClelland was NOT Burrus' source. (Where are you getting that idea from??) Furthermore, the person who was Burrus' source --and I am doing this from memory, today, in 2012--was providing Burrus with authoritative information about the Bethesda autopsy conclusion. The source was either Dr. Clark or, more likely, Dr. Tom Shires. One or the other, and I have a sheaf full of notes about this, and about the identity of a third party who (I learned, from Burrus) knew who the source was, and who I was attempting to contact. (But there were 100 other things going on at the time, and I never did.)” (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 258041), and in 2022 Lifton commented “...As I later determined, the caller was Dr, Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, and the Dallas physician who pronounced Kennedy dead. Burrus's story is important because it permitted me to identify the Dallas doctor who was involved in behind the scene machinations to plant a story about the Bethesda autopsy results-- attempting to plant a story strongly stated Kennedy was shot from behind, and implying the source was some Navy official in Washington, when the source was himself”... “Burrus was the science writer for the Dallas Times-Herald, and when the caller identified himself, Burrus was speechless. Dr. Clark was calling to tell him "the truth" about the Dallas autopsy results-- and specifically, the trajectory of the shots that struck JFK. There could be no hotter news story at the time, but there was an important condition -- Burrus must not ever reveal the source. Burrus was being provided information that some "higher authority" clearly wanted published as a news story as soon as possible. Each detail was important; the language had to be precise; with Burrus calling back his source more than once on that evening to verify this or that point; and to make sure that he "got it right."...” (Educationforum.ipbhost.com, comment 310219).