Dr. David Mantik's new book

[David Josephs]

For example, if he orders the rifle from Kleins--and I certainly believe he did--then he is purchasing, for about $20, the rifle that will (falsely) be alleged to be the murder weapon. The rifle that will end up --in this case--in the National Archives as the murder weapon.

Enough people have offered their view related to Oswald NOT ordering or ever having C2766 in his possession.

The paper I will be submitting to Jim next week will prove once and for all that the FBI and Secret Service, along with the US postal Inspection Services and their Records departments falsified each and every record related to the shipment of that rifle after it arrives at Harborside in Oct 1960.

They created what I'm calling a closed-loop corroboration. Evidence which proves itself (VC836=C2766) yet requires that no other evidence related to these processes be seen (not a single one of the other 99 rifles is accounted for anywhere, ever.)

DSL - do you know what happened to the inventory Waldman claims they removed and did not sell? Have you ever seen reference to any other one of those 99 rifles - I know if I had one with one of those 99 serial numbers and it was a 40" FC rifle - I could prove what the FBI claims Klein's did - substituted the FC for the TS

In the paper I will show:

That the FBi both takes and leaves the Microfilm at Klein's

That the 10 packing slips are provided to the FBI by both Waldman in March and Feldsott in Nov

That the PMO was found at least 3 times in 3 different places on the 23rd.

That the HSCA handwritting examination and conclusions of these items is poor speculation at best, a complete lie at worst

That the serial number on a rifle is by no means a "unique identifier" and can easily be changed or added to without knowing it was done

In my first "The Evidence IS the Conspiracy" article I show how the retreiving of the rifle as part of the plan is simply not possible or believeable given the conclusion at which the FBI arrived.

Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation).

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

In that one sentence you atrribute Oswald with direct involvement in the assassination, for how can he knowingly perform an assassination related activity without knowing the assassination is coming? And if all these activities are not performed knowingly we go back to your next point - who was handling/directing Oswald into performing assassination related, cover-up activities.

If Oswald had nothing to do with shooting JFK, ALL activities which he performs that get related to the conspiracy are part of the cover-up setup prior to the action.

Could we not list a batch of activities that Vallee performed in the weeks, months leading up to early November which would have been incorporated into THAT cover-up for the same conspiracy but were not directly assassiantion related until he is killed?

[Mark Knight]

Now, I haven't read ALL the available information about November 22, 1963. BUT...

Are we sure JFK's body was in the O'Neal casket that left Parkland?

Are we sure it wasn't swapped into a "shipping casket" prior to the arrival of the O'Neal casket at AF1?

I ask because I seriously doubt that any casket swap was done aboard AF1 en route to Washington. If JFK's body was NOT in the O'Neal casket when it was loaded onto AF1, obviously the casket would have been weighted in some way to simulate a body there.

If the "shipping casket" was not aboard AF1, was it aboard AF2...which did NOT have the Johnsons aboard for the return flight? [i bring this up because next to nothing has been mentioned about AF2's return to DC. Are there AF2 tapes from that flight, as there are the edited AF1 tapes?]

I'm seriously trying to make sense out of the conflicting testimony, so I'm asking these questions with all sincerity. I'm not claiming that one scenario or another is the truth, because I honestly don't have enough information before me to determine that.

[David Lifton]

If I understand DSL, then he is saying he thinks that the cover up was designed along with the conspiracy?

If so, then I agree with him.

Jim:

If (for some reason) someone does not wish to use the language of camouflage and strategic deception, then--I suppose--one could state that this could be described as "a plot with a built in coverup." I prefer the language of "strategic deception" because that best describes what actually unfolded in the months, weeks, and days leading up to November 22, 1963, and in the hours, days, weeks, and months following.

This is not a minor preference of vocabulary, or a matter of semantics.

Words have meaning. As E.B. White wrote many decades ago, words are the "tools of thought."

What happened in November 1963 has to be described accurately to be understood.

Years ago, I gave considerable thought to the issue of what words to employ, and all of that is reflected in the vocabulary I have chosen.

DSL

7/29/15 - 7:10 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Lifton]

Now, I haven't read ALL the available information about November 22, 1963. BUT...

Are we sure JFK's body was in the O'Neal casket that left Parkland?

Are we sure it wasn't swapped into a "shipping casket" prior to the arrival of the O'Neal casket at AF1?

I ask because I seriously doubt that any casket swap was done aboard AF1 en route to Washington. If JFK's body was NOT in the O'Neal casket when it was loaded onto AF1, obviously the casket would have been weighted in some way to simulate a body there.

If the "shipping casket" was not aboard AF1, was it aboard AF2...which did NOT have the Johnsons aboard for the return flight? [i bring this up because next to nothing has been mentioned about AF2's return to DC. Are there AF2 tapes from that flight, as there are the edited AF1 tapes?]

I'm seriously trying to make sense out of the conflicting testimony, so I'm asking these questions with all sincerity. I'm not claiming that one scenario or another is the truth, because I honestly don't have enough information before me to determine that.

Mark:

Short answers to your questions--no time for elaborate analysis.

1. "Are we sure JFK's body was in the O'Neal casket that left Parkland?"

RESPONSE: Without question. (Aubrey Rike and Oneal are dispositive on this issue).

2. "Are we sure it wasn't swapped into a "shipping casket" prior to the arrival of the O'Neal casket at AF1?"

RESPONSE: There was no stop in the short motorcade from Parkland Hospital to Love Field.

That was an uninterrupted journey.

The evidence for this statement: the accounts of Jacqueline Kennedy, the SS, Dr. Burkley, the media, the cycle cops etc.

3. "I ask because I seriously doubt that any casket swap was done aboard AF1 en route to Washington. . . "

RESPONSE: Agreed. There was no "casket swap...aboard AF1"

Secondly: Nothing was done "enroute to Washington" --i.e., while the aircraft was airborne.

4. "If JFK's body was NOT in the O'Neal casket when it was loaded onto AF1, [then. . etc etc. ]

RESPONSE: The President's body was most definitely in the Dallas casket when it was loaded onto Air Force One.

Just look at the Stoughton photos. You can see SS Agent Roy Kellerman, struggling with the weight, as he leads the effort to carry it up the ramp and on board the plane.

5. "If the "shipping casket" was not aboard AF1, was it aboard AF2...which did NOT have the Johnsons aboard for the return flight? [i bring this up because next to nothing has been mentioned about AF2's return to DC. Are there AF2 tapes from that flight, as there are the edited AF1 tapes?]

DSL RESPONSE:

You are asking many of the questions I did when drafting the final chapters of Best Evidence in late 1979 and early 1980.

See chapter 31, where I laid out the possibilities, and discussed the alternatives.

I did not have definitive answers when the manuscript to Best Evidence was submitted to Macmillan on April 1, 1980.

I do now. That's all I'm going to say at this time.

6. "I'm seriously trying to make sense out of the conflicting testimony, so I'm asking these questions with all sincerity. I'm not claiming that one scenario or another is the truth, because I honestly don't have enough information before me to determine that."

RESPONSE: Yes, its very confusing. Like a seemingly impossible-to-solve Rubik's Cube.

Thanks for being honest, and admitting your confusion. I went through the same process for awhile.

I'm glad I went to Cornell and majored in math and physics for 5 years; and then spent additional time at UCLA taking post graduate courses.

I'm not saying it takes a math major to solve the Kennedy assassination.

But it sure helps to have a logical mind, and a willingness to probe beneath the appearance and get to reality.

Otherwise, you can end up with a great photo and media collection (like our friend David Von Pein) but never get beyond the surface appearance of things, and to the truth.

Hope this hurriedly written post helps.

DSL

7/29/15 - 7:25 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited July 30, 2015 by David Lifton

[Pat Speer]

FOOTNOTE:

If there were to be a trial at which the Harper fragment was offered into evidence, the only expert opinion that would count, based on what I know, would be that of Dr. Cairns (I assume for these purposes Cairns is alive and competent to testify at trial). He was the only pathologist on record as having directly observed the fragment, far as I know.

I go with Cairns.

Persons claiming expertise to opine on a matter who are uncertain of the facts are little better than informed laymen,

Cairns was an expert dealing first-hand with an object to which his expertise applied.

More important than all of what I write here is the fact the Harper fragment disappeared. That speaks volumes.

After all, the Warren Commission had solid documentation of Jack Ruby's mother's dental records.

As detailed in my 2013 presentation, the Harper fragment's disappearance was most probably related to its having both entrance and exit beveling, and its proving the fatal head shot was a tangential shot. Well, this, in turn, suggested there'd been two shots to the head, and two shooters.

As far as Cairns...it's grossly unfair to assume Cairns would ever have testified as to the fragment's being occipital bone. He speculated as to the location of the bone based upon a brief inspection, at a time when many of the news reports were claiming Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. There is no reason whatsoever to believe he would have stuck to his opinion after viewing photos showing no hole on the back of the head, or after speaking with a forensic anthropologist...THE experts when it comes identifying bone fragments.

I'm not sure I understand your argument, and wonder if you would clarify.

1. Is it not the case that three doctors--Dr. Harper, Dr. Cairns, and Dr. Noteboom--all concurred that the piece of bone was occipital bone?

2. Regarding your speculation as to what Doctor Cairns "would have" testified to, after --hypothetically--"viewing photos showing no hole in the back of the head", I find this argument seriously flawed.

Just about everyone who saw the President's body in Dallas on November 22 --and who wrote a report or was interviewed by the press or testified--said that the large wound they observed was (a) located at the back of the head and (b ) was an exit.

There is no indication whatsoever in the original Parkland Hospital medical reports that President Kennedy was shot from behind. (Surely, you are aware of that?)

The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind*, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1963.

*As originally posted,this read: "from the front". That was an error.

Aside from the record the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses created, both Pat Valentino and I showed a number of these doctors and nurses the autopsy photographs: myself, in December 1982, and both Pat and I in January 1983. All of this is laid out in detail in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). Almost uniformly, their reaction to being shown these photographs was to reject them as being valid. To shake their head from side to side and say, in effect, "No, that's not what I saw." Or: That's not what "we" saw

For whatever reason, you seem to be living in a reality which (a) rejects the first (and very official) record of the Dallas doctors and (b ) rejects their reaction when shown the autopsy photographs years later.

For whatever reason, and I suspect its related to your belief that the autopsy photographs are genuine--which seems to be the basis for all your theorizing--you then seem to feel free to speculate on "what would have happened" had doctors you never interviewed were called to testify at a hypothetical legal proceeding, and were shown evidence that just about every medical observer I ever interviewed claimed to be false.

Based on my own interviews, and my own study of the Parkland record, I think the outcome of such a hypothetical legal proceeding would have been entirely different than what you claim.

You are welcome to this journey in your (hypothetical) time machine, of course, but Pat Valentino and I personally sat down with many of these folks (again, in January 1983) and can report--based on a reality-based experience--that they rejected these photographs.

One other matter: in the later years of his life, Dr. Kemp Clark permitted himself to be interviewed, at some length, by a third party--apparently to set the record straight. He only wanted two questions answered, before he would agree to the interview: (1) Are you a lawyer? (2) Are you an author?

Satisfied that the answers to both were "no", he then agreed to the in-person meeting, and to be questioned.

Dr. Clark maintained that President Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the throat, and the other in the head, by a shot that caused the exit at the back of the head, exposing the cerebellum etc. (Reminder: Clark was there; he pronounced JFK dead).

You'll be reading more about this in Final Charade.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your views that the autopsy photos are authentic, and to build a reality based upon that, and to then proceed to posit various hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical journeys in a time machine, and to postulate the outcome of hypothetical legal proceedings that could have or might have occurred.

But Pat Valentino and I sat down with Dr. Clark--for at least an hour--in January 1983, and I/we have had the experiences enumerated above.

I'm sorry, but --based on the available evidence and the legitimate historical record (and not on postulated hypothetical proceedings that might have taken place in some alternate reality) --I reject the autopsy photographs as representing an authentic view of the back of President Kennedy's head at the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital.

Consequently, I agree with Dr. Clark that President Kennedy was shot in the head from the front, and I reject the various hypothetical outcomes you posit from journeys in your hypothetical time machine.

I think they are better suited to a description of a discussion that Capt Kirk, and Spock might have had during a coffee break on the Enterprise (if, between attacks by aliens, they were shooting the breeze about the Kennedy assassination) and not to a reality-based analysis of the legal record suitable for a university seminar on American history.

DSL

7/28/15 = 5:40 pm PDT

Tweaked 7/29/15; approx 2 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

I'm confused by what you've written about Clark, David. I've read the updated Best Evidence, with your account of talking to Clark, and don't recall your claiming he told you the shots came from the front. I seem to recall, in fact, that he changed his mind about seeing you, and that you ended up talking to his secretary, or some such thing.

And, besides, everything we know about Clark suggests he was not a conspiracy theorist. 1. He was friends with single-assassin theorist extraordinaire Dr. Lattimer, and helped Dr. Lattimer with his experiments. 2. One of the few times he spoke on the record about the assassination was when he gave an interview to UPI for an article published on the 20th anniversary. Here is what he told them: "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." Now look at the timing. You tried to interview him in 83, and he turned around and broke his silence in 83, only to denounce those trying to get him to talk. Well, he was talking about you, right?

[Pat Speer]

P.S. While I'd like to think I no longer have to explain this to people, it sadly appears that I do. Dr. Cairns believed the Harper fragment derived from low on the occipital bone, near the spine. The Parkland witnesses, for the most part, said the wound was toward the top of the back of the head, on the right side. The two locations are mutually exclusive.

It follows, therefore, like night from day, that those claiming Cairns was correct are simultaneously claiming the Parkland witnesses were incorrect, and vice-versa.

I mean, really, we're beyond all this, aren't we?

[David Lifton]

FOOTNOTE:

If there were to be a trial at which the Harper fragment was offered into evidence, the only expert opinion that would count, based on what I know, would be that of Dr. Cairns (I assume for these purposes Cairns is alive and competent to testify at trial). He was the only pathologist on record as having directly observed the fragment, far as I know.

I go with Cairns.

Persons claiming expertise to opine on a matter who are uncertain of the facts are little better than informed laymen,

Cairns was an expert dealing first-hand with an object to which his expertise applied.

More important than all of what I write here is the fact the Harper fragment disappeared. That speaks volumes.

After all, the Warren Commission had solid documentation of Jack Ruby's mother's dental records.

As detailed in my 2013 presentation, the Harper fragment's disappearance was most probably related to its having both entrance and exit beveling, and its proving the fatal head shot was a tangential shot. Well, this, in turn, suggested there'd been two shots to the head, and two shooters.

As far as Cairns...it's grossly unfair to assume Cairns would ever have testified as to the fragment's being occipital bone. He speculated as to the location of the bone based upon a brief inspection, at a time when many of the news reports were claiming Kennedy was shot in the back of the head. There is no reason whatsoever to believe he would have stuck to his opinion after viewing photos showing no hole on the back of the head, or after speaking with a forensic anthropologist...THE experts when it comes identifying bone fragments.

I'm not sure I understand your argument, and wonder if you would clarify.

1. Is it not the case that three doctors--Dr. Harper, Dr. Cairns, and Dr. Noteboom--all concurred that the piece of bone was occipital bone?

2. Regarding your speculation as to what Doctor Cairns "would have" testified to, after --hypothetically--"viewing photos showing no hole in the back of the head", I find this argument seriously flawed.

Just about everyone who saw the President's body in Dallas on November 22 --and who wrote a report or was interviewed by the press or testified--said that the large wound they observed was (a) located at the back of the head and (b ) was an exit.

There is no indication whatsoever in the original Parkland Hospital medical reports that President Kennedy was shot from behind. (Surely, you are aware of that?)

The first time these doctors were --so to speak--"put on notice" (my quotes) that President Kennedy was --"officially"--shot from behind*, was on December 11, 1963, when visited by a Secret Service agent who showed them a copy of the Bethesda autopsy report which had the "official" findings, and which was not sent to the Warren Commission until December 20, 1963 or to the FBI until December 23, 1963.

*As originally posted,this read: "from the front". That was an error.

Aside from the record the Parkland Hospital doctors and nurses created, both Pat Valentino and I showed a number of these doctors and nurses the autopsy photographs: myself, in December 1982, and both Pat and I in January 1983. All of this is laid out in detail in the Epilogue to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (1988). Almost uniformly, their reaction to being shown these photographs was to reject them as being valid. To shake their head from side to side and say, in effect, "No, that's not what I saw." Or: That's not what "we" saw

For whatever reason, you seem to be living in a reality which (a) rejects the first (and very official) record of the Dallas doctors and (b ) rejects their reaction when shown the autopsy photographs years later.

For whatever reason, and I suspect its related to your belief that the autopsy photographs are genuine--which seems to be the basis for all your theorizing--you then seem to feel free to speculate on "what would have happened" had doctors you never interviewed were called to testify at a hypothetical legal proceeding, and were shown evidence that just about every medical observer I ever interviewed claimed to be false.

Based on my own interviews, and my own study of the Parkland record, I think the outcome of such a hypothetical legal proceeding would have been entirely different than what you claim.

You are welcome to this journey in your (hypothetical) time machine, of course, but Pat Valentino and I personally sat down with many of these folks (again, in January 1983) and can report--based on a reality-based experience--that they rejected these photographs.

One other matter: in the later years of his life, Dr. Kemp Clark permitted himself to be interviewed, at some length, by a third party--apparently to set the record straight. He only wanted two questions answered, before he would agree to the interview: (1) Are you a lawyer? (2) Are you an author?

Satisfied that the answers to both were "no", he then agreed to the in-person meeting, and to be questioned.

Dr. Clark maintained that President Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the throat, and the other in the head, by a shot that caused the exit at the back of the head, exposing the cerebellum etc. (Reminder: Clark was there; he pronounced JFK dead).

You'll be reading more about this in Final Charade.

Again, you are certainly entitled to your views that the autopsy photos are authentic, and to build a reality based upon that, and to then proceed to posit various hypothetical outcomes of hypothetical journeys in a time machine, and to postulate the outcome of hypothetical legal proceedings that could have or might have occurred.

But Pat Valentino and I sat down with Dr. Clark--for at least an hour--in January 1983, and I/we have had the experiences enumerated above.

I'm sorry, but --based on the available evidence and the legitimate historical record (and not on postulated hypothetical proceedings that might have taken place in some alternate reality) --I reject the autopsy photographs as representing an authentic view of the back of President Kennedy's head at the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital.

Consequently, I agree with Dr. Clark that President Kennedy was shot in the head from the front, and I reject the various hypothetical outcomes you posit from journeys in your hypothetical time machine.

I think they are better suited to a description of a discussion that Capt Kirk, and Spock might have had during a coffee break on the Enterprise (if, between attacks by aliens, they were shooting the breeze about the Kennedy assassination) and not to a reality-based analysis of the legal record suitable for a university seminar on American history.

DSL

7/28/15 = 5:40 pm PDT

Tweaked 7/29/15; approx 2 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

I'm confused by what you've written about Clark, David. I've read the updated Best Evidence, with your account of talking to Clark, and don't recall your claiming he told you the shots came from the front. I seem to recall, in fact, that he changed his mind about seeing you, and that you ended up talking to his secretary, or some such thing.

And, besides, everything we know about Clark suggests he was not a conspiracy theorist. 1. He was friends with single-assassin theorist extraordinaire Dr. Lattimer, and helped Dr. Lattimer with his experiments. 2. One of the few times he spoke on the record about the assassination was when he gave an interview to UPI for an article published on the 20th anniversary. Here is what he told them: "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." Now look at the timing. You tried to interview him in 83, and he turned around and broke his silence in 83, only to denounce those trying to get him to talk. Well, he was talking about you, right?

Pat:

Your confusion seems to have resulted from combining two entirely separate events--the meeting Pat Valentino and I had with Clark in January 1983, and an entirely different meeting that Dr. Clark had with someone else about ten years later (1990s).

The former meeting (the one Pat V. and I had) is accurately reported in the Afterword to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence (and republished in the 1993 Signet [mass paperback edition]. As I wrote, Dr. Clark--hearing that I was in town, and had copies of the autopsy photos--called me at the hotel where I was staying (the Fairmont). Here's what I wrote in that Afterword: "By at my hotel, I was astonished to receive a call from Dr. Kempt Clark, the neurosurgeon in attendance, whose reputation for animosity towards assassination researchers was well known. To my surprise, Clark was both cordial and cooperative in his willingness to see me the net day. Clark apparently had spoken to Jenkins [referring here to Dr. Marion Jenkins, who Pat and I had previously seen] and it seemed clear to me that he wanted to see the pictures."

Then came what happened when we visited Dr. Clark, which I reported on most briefly in this Afterword:

"Then I kept my appointment with Dr. Kemp Clark, the neurosurgeon who had pronounced Kennedy dead. The cordial Dr. Clark who had called me the previous day had vanished. His opening remark set the tone: "Well, I guess the only person who got anything out of this deal was Specter," (referring to Arlen Specter, father of the Single Bullet Theory, who went on to become a U.S. Senator). Clark refused to let me open the envelope containing the pictures. Apparently he had thought about it overnight and changed his mind. He was unmoved by any please about history, truth, etc. "If you think the body was altered after it left our charge," he said, "then I suggest you speak to the Secret Service about that." (Source: B.E., Carrol and Graf edition, Afterword, p. 705-706).

That's all I wrote about Dr. Clark in the Afterword to Best Evidence. At no time during this meeting was the issue of the direction of the shot (or shots) that struck Kennedy discussed). However, other matters of considerable importance were discussed, and I will be discussing that--and elaborating on this meeting--in Final Charade.

Some ten years later, Clark had a meeting with a third party, and I reported on that quite accurately. In that meeting, Clark said that Kennedy was shot twice from the front--once in the neck and the other time in the head.

Now let's return to what you wrote (about me) and correct the record. I accurately quoted (above) exactly what I wrote in the "Afterword" to the Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence. Now let's compare what I wrote--with what you said. You wrote, QUOTE:

David. I've read the updated Best Evidence, with your account of talking to Clark, and don't recall your claiming he told you the shots came from the front. I seem to recall, in fact, that he changed his mind about seeing you, and that you ended up talking to his secretary, or some such thing.

No, Pat. You've got it all wrong. He didn't "change his mind" about seeing me; and it wasn't the case that I "ended up talking to his secretary, or some such thing."

But, as I mentioned above, when I met with Clark, we did not talk about the issue "shots. . from the front." (But that's exactly what he did talk about when he spoke with the third party, ten years later).

Finally, as to what Dr. Clark said (or didn't say) to Dr. Lattimer, of that I have no idea. The difference between my post and your response is that I (and Pat Valentino) actually met with Clark, and you are relying on third hand gossip from a wire service account. Your inferences stemming from "everything we know" (meaning what "you" believe you know) about Dr. Clark are trumped by the experience that I and Pat actually had--starting with his call to me at the hotel, asking me to come and see him; and by the detailed and accurate account I have from speaking with the third party with whom Clark actually met--personally, and in his office at Parkland Hospital--some ten years later.

My advice: I suggest you take your clipping file--which records second hand hearsay--and put a warning label on it, and use it much more judiciously in the future. Anyway, thanks for the quote, because I'll probably be able to use it to show the marked inconsistency between the way Clark behaved with me (and Pat) --and also with the third party I have mentioned--and the way he presented himself when speaking to UPI on or about November 1983, which was the 20th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination.

DSL

7/30/15 - 4 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[Pat Speer]

Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, David, but... You label a quote in a UPI article as "hearsay" even though it was widely circulated and reflected what you, yourself, knew to be accurate--that Clark was not normally open to conspiracy theorists. And yet you apparently unquestioningly accept the word of a guy named David Naro, as I recall, who appeared out of nowhere to claim he'd conducted detailed interviews with the otherwise silent Clark, and that Clark had told him all the shots came from the front, etc. Well, who was David Naro? If he was a legit researcher, why did he disappear as fast as he arrived? Why did he never present any documentary evidence proving he'd interviewed Clark?

We have, in short, no reason to trust Naro. Although you might be the first, I don't know of any long-time researchers who will vouch for his honesty. A few years back, I created threads on Naro on several forums, asking if anyone knew anything about the guy besides the fact he came out of nowhere with this fantastic tale of meeting Clark and having Clark say all this stuff he never told anyone else, even though he'd had plenty of opportunities. I mean, Clark didn't even talk to the HSCA, when that would have been the time to come forward, correct? And you know what? No one had ever followed up on Naro. Have you?

I sure hope so, because, while I sometimes disagree with your conclusions, I find your research normally quite reliable. I'd hate for you to taint your book with your acceptance of Naro's claims when there's a heretofore unknown reason (insanity, dementia, a history of incredible claims) that we should dismiss them. I think of Joe O'Donnell, who Horne found "credible" in his book even though Horne's ARRB report on his interview of O'Donnell indicated pessimism. After the interview, it was discovered O'Donnell had been suffering from dementia at the time of the interview, and that this had revealed itself in many false stories about the Kennedy family, including that he'd taken the famous picture of John-John saluting his father's casket. Well, Horne turned around and used O'Donnell anyhow...because it helped him sell his theory. I'd hate for you to make this same mistake.

FWIW, I, too, believe Clark was skeptical regarding the official story. The fact he testified about tangential wounds before the WC, and said he'd suspected, based on his inspection, that the large wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, is quite significant, IMO. I find it also interesting that he never weighed in on the cowlick/EOP controversy, and suspect this was because he remembered inspecting the cowlick area, and firmly believed there was no entrance wound there. But I'm skeptical of Naro's story, and believe you should be as well.

P.S. I realize now that it was Harry Livingstone who claimed he'd been given a message by one of Clark's staff. So i apologize for that. I know you don't want anyone confusing your research with Livingstone's.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Pat Speer

[David Josephs]

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

In that one sentence you atrribute Oswald with direct involvement in the assassination, for how can he knowingly perform an assassination related activity without knowing the assassination is coming? And if all these activities are not performed knowingly we go back to your next point - who was handling/directing Oswald into performing assassination related, cover-up activities.

If Oswald had nothing to do with shooting JFK, ALL activities which he performs that get related to the conspiracy are part of the cover-up setup prior to the action.

Could we not list a batch of activities that Vallee performed in the weeks, months leading up to early November which would have been incorporated into THAT cover-up for the same conspiracy but were not directly assassiantion related until he is killed?

David - It's obvious you have the time to address questions - just not this one?

You make this sweeping statement about the evidence

"Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation)."

yet do not provide any examples... so again.

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

Thanks

DJ

[David Lifton]

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

In that one sentence you atrribute Oswald with direct involvement in the assassination, for how can he knowingly perform an assassination related activity without knowing the assassination is coming? And if all these activities are not performed knowingly we go back to your next point - who was handling/directing Oswald into performing assassination related, cover-up activities.

If Oswald had nothing to do with shooting JFK, ALL activities which he performs that get related to the conspiracy are part of the cover-up setup prior to the action.

Could we not list a batch of activities that Vallee performed in the weeks, months leading up to early November which would have been incorporated into THAT cover-up for the same conspiracy but were not directly assassiantion related until he is killed?

David - It's obvious you have the time to address questions - just not this one?

You make this sweeping statement about the evidence

"Any activity (or "overt act") of Oswald that is directly related to the plot to kill Kennedy that ante-dates 11/22/63 is not part of the cover-up, but part of the plot itself (or, more accurately, part of the camouflage designed to mislead future investigation)."

yet do not provide any examples... so again.

DSL - could you give us an example of an Oswald activity related to the JFK assassination that is part of the plot itself yet not part of the cover-up?

Thanks

DJ

David (Josephs):

Was not my intention to avoid answering. . . and FYI: I thought I already had: The March 1963 order for the rifle (from Kleins).

Of course, I assume you do realize ---based on my analysis as set forth in Best Evidence--that i do not believe that rifle to have been the murder weapon.

See Chapter 14 of Best Evidence where all this is spelled out in considerable detail, with diagrams explaining the basic concept(s); but. .

For a video explanation as to my views on this situation, I refer you to my November 2013 speech in Bismarck, North Dakota.

(Just Google David Lifton Bismarck). I just noticed that my talk has now had almost 13,800 views.

Here's the Internet link:

I think that my position --re the validity of the so-called "sniper's nest" --is stated rather clearly there.

DSL

7/30/15 - 4:15 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited July 30, 2015 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, David, but... You label a quote in a UPI article as "hearsay" even though it was widely circulated and reflected what you, yourself, knew to be accurate--that Clark was not normally open to conspiracy theorists. And yet you apparently unquestioningly accept the word of a guy named David Naro, as I recall, who appeared out of nowhere to claim he'd conducted detailed interviews with the otherwise silent Clark, and that Clark had told him all the shots came from the front, etc. Well, who was David Naro? If he was a legit researcher, why did he disappear as fast as he arrived? Why did he never present any documentary evidence proving he'd interviewed Clark?

We have, in short, no reason to trust Naro. Although you might be the first, I don't know of any long-time researchers who will vouch for his honesty. A few years back, I created threads on Naro on several forums, asking if anyone knew anything about the guy besides the fact he came out of nowhere with this fantastic tale of meeting Clark and having Clark say all this stuff he never told anyone else, even though he'd had plenty of opportunities. I mean, Clark didn't even talk to the HSCA, when that would have been the time to come forward, correct? And you know what? No one had ever followed up on Naro. Have you?

I sure hope so, because, while I sometimes disagree with your conclusions, I find your research normally quite reliable. I'd hate for you to taint your book with your acceptance of Naro's claims when there's a heretofore unknown reason (insanity, dementia, a history of incredible claims) that we should dismiss them. I think of Joe O'Donnell, who Horne found "credible" in his book even though Horne's ARRB report on his interview of O'Donnell indicated pessimism. After the interview, it was discovered O'Donnell had been suffering from dementia at the time of the interview, and that this had revealed itself in many false stories about the Kennedy family, including that he'd taken the famous picture of John-John saluting his father's casket. Well, Horne turned around and used O'Donnell anyhow...because it helped him sell his theory. I'd hate for you to make this same mistake.

FWIW, I, too, believe Clark was skeptical regarding the official story. The fact he testified about tangential wounds before the WC, and said he'd suspected, based on his inspection, that the large wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, is quite significant, IMO. I find it also interesting that he never weighed in on the cowlick/EOP controversy, and suspect this was because he remembered inspecting the cowlick area, and firmly believed there was no entrance wound there. But I'm skeptical of Naro's story, and believe you should be as well.

P.S. I realize now that it was Harry Livingstone who claimed he'd been given a message by one of Clark's staff. So i apologize for that. I know you don't want anyone confusing your research with Livingstone's.

Pat:

Starting with the month Best Evidence was published, I have received communications from many people who read my book and had information they wished to communicate. So you shouldn’t make assumptions what has arrived in my ‘inbox’ (so to speak).

In the case of Dr. Kemp Clark, the neurosurgeon who pronounced Kennedy dead, I first spoke with him in November 1966 (See Best Evidence, Chapter 12, for example). Pat Valentino and I met with Dr. Clark at his office in Parkland Hospital in January 1983; Doug Horne and/or Jeremy Gunn had communication with him during the life of the ARRB (1995 – 1998).

It was also brought to my attention—some time ago—that David Naro had a multi-hour in-person meeting with Clark, and that he was not alone at the time. In fact, there were two other people who attended that meeting.

Clark died in 2007.

Now here you are—in July 2015—and clearly you have never spoken with or communicated with Clark. You learn of someone who has—and who was not alone when he did—and you start attacking the source.

What’s your justification for doing so?

You start innocently enough (“I don’t mean to be a stick-in-the-mud” you write); but in fact that is exactly the way you in fact behave.

Did you ever sat down with Clark? (No).

Did you ever have a conversation with Clark on the phone? (No.)

Did you ever speak with David Naro? (Not as far as I can tell).

Are you aware that three people attended the meeting he had with Clark? (Not as far as I can tell).

Did you ever speak with any of those three people? (Not as far as I can tell).

But, nonetheless—and having done “none of the above”—you proceed to vent (apparently –as far as I can tell—because what you are hearing that Clark said goes against your own hypotheses).

Let’s review your concerns about my approach to this situation:

• “You unquestionably accept the word of a guy named David Naro” you write, without (1) really having any direct knowledge of my source; or (2) having absolutely no knowledge as to whether I “unquestionably” accepted anything he—or anyone else—may have told me.

DSL RESPONSE: Really? How do you know all this?

• You proceed to describe Naro as “a guy . . who appeared out of nowhere to claim he’d conducted detailed interviews with the otherwise silent Clark”

DSL RESPONSE: Please, Pat. . save us from these histrionics. The bottom line is—or at least appears to be—that you never had any communication with Clark yourself, or with any person who did: in this case, with any of the three people who did.

• Then you say: “Well, who was David Naro? If he was a legit researcher, why did he disappear as fast as he arrived? Why did he never present any documentary evidence proving he'd interviewed Clark?”

DSL RESPOSNE: Please Pat. Subside. How do you know that this or that person “disappear[ed] as fast as he arrived?” Have you ever spoken to him? (No.) Do you have any direct knowledge of any records that were kept? (No.) Really: What is the basis for any of these negative statements that you are making?

• Then comes your attempt at a coup de grace:“And, you know what? No one had ever followed up on Naro. Have you?”

DSL RESPONSE:

Short answer: Yes.

Remember the advice given lawyers trying a case. Don’t ask a question, if you don’t already know the answer. Well, in this case, you have goofed, big time. Of course I have appropriately “vetted” the entire situation.

Hence, my response: So glad you asked , Pat. Because the answer is: Yes, I certainly did. Years ago. And I have good records of my follow-up activity.

Then comes the advice that you proffer. You say that you would “hate for you to taint your book with your acceptance of . . . claims when there's a heretofore unknown reason (insanity, dementia, a history of incredible claims) that we should dismiss them.”

Please Pat: Take a look at what you have just written. Who said anything about “insanity” or “dementia” or “a history of incredible claims”? The answer is not hard to find: You did. You are raising these negative possibilities, without a shred of evidence.

Then, instead of evidence, you bring up the case of Joe O’Donnell, and the fact that Doug Horne found him “credible” , and you add: “even though Horne's ARRB report on his interview of O'Donnell indicated pessimism.” Then you add: “After the interview, it was discovered O'Donnell had been suffering from dementia at the time of the interview, and that this had revealed itself in many false stories about the Kennedy family, including that he'd taken the famous picture of John-John saluting his father's casket. Well, Horne turned around and used O'Donnell anyhow...”

First of all, I know nothing about O’Donnell. But what—pray tell—does O’Donnell have to do with any of this? Aren’t we talking about someone else? (This is worse than Apples and oranges; this is Apples and Hot Dogs).

Then, attempting to clarify, you write: “I'd hate for you to make this same mistake.”

Well, thank you for being so concerned. Yes. Pat: I try to avoid witnesses who have dementia.

Your final advice: “But I'm skeptical of Naro's story, and believe you should be as well.”

Yes; I’m skeptical of all incoming data; and try to be very careful; and, turning your advice around, “you should be as well.”

Instead of worrying about David Naro, and whether he had dementia, let’s turn to a much more basic matter: the question of whether you exercise good judgment in evaluating the data about the head wounds.

ON THE MATTER OF FAKED AUTOPSY EVIDENCE (AND WHAT --AND WHOM--TO TRUST)

Last night, I was reading the late Aubrey Rike’s account, as published in book “At the Door of Memory,” published in 2008. Here is Aubrey Rike, describing his experience of lifting up President Kennedy’s body off the gurney and transferring him to the Oneal casket. Quote: “The first time we began to pick up the President, I put my right hand underneath his head; I could feel the back of the skull had been blown out—it was literally blasted away. I felt the serrated edge of the hole in the skull on my hand. It was not painful, but I could feel the jagged edges of the bones through the sheet on the palm of my hand.”

Aubrey first told me this when I filmed him at his home in October 1980. I didn’t include that in the Best Evidence Research Video because the emphasis was on the wrappings on the body (sheets, not a body bag) and on the coffin (ceremonial casket; not a body bag, etc). But that’s what he told me—on camera—and I have it on film.

So. . .here’s my advice: instead of attacking the credibility of a source you have never interviewed, I suggest that when you appear this coming November as a featured speaker at the JFK Lancer event, and address people who have traveled to Dallas and spent over a thousand dollars to hear some truth about the facts of the assassination, and want to know “who killed President Kennedy,” I suggest that—in the interest of full disclosure, and before you hold forth on your theory that there was no wound at the back of the head, and that the autopsy photographs and x-rays supporting that view are authentic, that perhaps you should read aloud the statement of the late Aubrey Rike, who felt that awful wound with his own hand, as he attempted to lift Kennedy’s body from the hospital gurney and place him in the Oneal casket.

Unfortunately, Pat, when it comes to evaluating evidence. I think our views differ sharply on what’s credible (and what’s not).

DSL

7/31/15 – 1:20 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited August 1, 2015 by David Lifton

[James DiEugenio]

I thought this was supposed to be about Mantik's new work on the head wounds?

Which I think is important and interesting.

Here is his take on the Harper Fragment at ctka:

http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper1.html

Dave told me this is useful when you buy the e book, since he refers back to it as part of his overall thesis. Remember this essay is just on the Harper fragment; his book is on the head wounds en toto.

Our web master, Al Rossi, deserves a lot of credit for inserting all the illustrations and photos.

I think anyone trying to learn something about the (very complex) medical evidence will find this series edifying.

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

Not to be a stick-in-the-mud, David, but... You label a quote in a UPI article as "hearsay" even though it was widely circulated and reflected what you, yourself, knew to be accurate--that Clark was not normally open to conspiracy theorists. And yet you apparently unquestioningly accept the word of a guy named David Naro, as I recall, who appeared out of nowhere to claim he'd conducted detailed interviews with the otherwise silent Clark, and that Clark had told him all the shots came from the front, etc. Well, who was David Naro? If he was a legit researcher, why did he disappear as fast as he arrived? Why did he never present any documentary evidence proving he'd interviewed Clark?

We have, in short, no reason to trust Naro. Although you might be the first, I don't know of any long-time researchers who will vouch for his honesty. A few years back, I created threads on Naro on several forums, asking if anyone knew anything about the guy besides the fact he came out of nowhere with this fantastic tale of meeting Clark and having Clark say all this stuff he never told anyone else, even though he'd had plenty of opportunities. I mean, Clark didn't even talk to the HSCA, when that would have been the time to come forward, correct? And you know what? No one had ever followed up on Naro. Have you?

I sure hope so, because, while I sometimes disagree with your conclusions, I find your research normally quite reliable. I'd hate for you to taint your book with your acceptance of Naro's claims when there's a heretofore unknown reason (insanity, dementia, a history of incredible claims) that we should dismiss them. I think of Joe O'Donnell, who Horne found "credible" in his book even though Horne's ARRB report on his interview of O'Donnell indicated pessimism. After the interview, it was discovered O'Donnell had been suffering from dementia at the time of the interview, and that this had revealed itself in many false stories about the Kennedy family, including that he'd taken the famous picture of John-John saluting his father's casket. Well, Horne turned around and used O'Donnell anyhow...because it helped him sell his theory. I'd hate for you to make this same mistake.

FWIW, I, too, believe Clark was skeptical regarding the official story. The fact he testified about tangential wounds before the WC, and said he'd suspected, based on his inspection, that the large wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, is quite significant, IMO. I find it also interesting that he never weighed in on the cowlick/EOP controversy, and suspect this was because he remembered inspecting the cowlick area, and firmly believed there was no entrance wound there. But I'm skeptical of Naro's story, and believe you should be as well.

P.S. I realize now that it was Harry Livingstone who claimed he'd been given a message by one of Clark's staff. So i apologize for that. I know you don't want anyone confusing your research with Livingstone's.

Pat:

Starting with the month Best Evidence was published, I have received communications from many people who read my book and had information they wished to communicate. So you shouldn’t make assumptions what has arrived in my ‘inbox’ (so to speak).

In the case of Dr. Kemp Clark, the neurosurgeon who pronounced Kennedy dead, I first spoke with him in November 1966 (See Best Evidence, Chapter 12, for example). Pat Valentino and I met with Dr. Clark at his office in Parkland Hospital in January 1983; Doug Horne and/or Jeremy Gunn had communication with him during the life of the ARRB (1995 – 1998).

It was also brought to my attention—some time ago—that David Naro had a multi-hour in-person meeting with Clark, and that he was not alone at the time. In fact, there were two other people who attended that meeting.

Clark died in 2007.

Now here you are—in July 2015—and clearly you have never spoken with or communicated with Clark. You learn of someone who has—and who was not alone when he did—and you start attacking the source.

What’s your justification for doing so?

You start innocently enough (“I don’t mean to be a stick-in-the-mud” you write); but in fact that is exactly the way you in fact behave.

Did you ever sat down with Clark? (No).

Did you ever have a conversation with Clark on the phone? (No.)

Did you ever speak with David Naro? (Not as far as I can see).

Are you aware that three people attended the meeting he had with Clark? (Not as far as I can see).

Did you ever speak with any of those three people? (Not as far as I can see).

But, nonetheless—and having done “none of the above”—you proceed to vent (apparently –as far as I can tell—because what you are hearing that Clark said goes against your own hypotheses).

Let’s review your concerns about my approach to this situation:

• “You unquestionably accept the word of a guy named David Naro” you write, without (1) really having any direct knowledge of my source; or (2) having absolutely no knowledge as to whether I “unquestionably” accepted anything he—or anyone else—may have told me.

DSL RESPONSE: Really? How do you know all this?

• You proceed to describe Naro as “a guy . . who appeared out of nowhere to claim he’d conducted detailed interviews with the otherwise silent Clark”

DSL RESPONSE: Please, Pat. . save us from these histrionics. The bottom line is—or at least appears to be—that you never had any communication with Clark yourself, or with any person who did: in this case, with any of the three people who did.

• Then you say: “Well, who was David Naro? If he was a legit researcher, why did he disappear as fast as he arrived? Why did he never present any documentary evidence proving he'd interviewed Clark?”

DSL RESPOSNE: Please Pat. Subside. How do you know that this or that person “disappear[ed] as fast as he arrived?” Have you ever spoken to him? (No.) Do you have any direct knowledge of any records that were kept? (No.) Really: What is the basis for any of these negative statements that you are making?

• Then comes your attempt at a coup de grace:“And, you know what? No one had ever followed up on Naro. Have you?”

DSL RESPONSE:

Remember the advice given lawyers trying a case. Don’t ask a question, if you don’t already know the answer. Well, in this case, you have goofed, big time. Of course I have appropriately “vetted” the entire situation.

Hence, my response: So glad you asked , Pat. Because the answer is: Yes, I certainly did. Years ago. And I have good records of my follow-up activity.

Then comes the advice that you proffer. You say that you would “hate for you to taint your book with your acceptance of . . . claims when there's a heretofore unknown reason (insanity, dementia, a history of incredible claims) that we should dismiss them.”

Please Pat: Take a look at what you have just written. Who said anything about “insanity” or “dementia” or “a history of incredible claims”? The answer is not hard to find: You did. You are raising these negative possibilities, without a shred of evidence.

Then, instead of evidence, you bring up the case of Joe O’Donnell, and the fact that Doug Horne found him “credible” , and you add: “even though Horne's ARRB report on his interview of O'Donnell indicated pessimism.” Then you add: “After the interview, it was discovered O'Donnell had been suffering from dementia at the time of the interview, and that this had revealed itself in many false stories about the Kennedy family, including that he'd taken the famous picture of John-John saluting his father's casket. Well, Horne turned around and used O'Donnell anyhow...”

First of all, I know nothing about O’Donnell. But what—pray tell—does O’Donnell have to do with any of this? Aren’t we talking about someone else? (This is worse than Apples and oranges; this is Apples and Hot Dogs).

Then, attempting to clarify, you write: “I'd hate for you to make this same mistake.”

Well, thank you for being so concerned. Yes. Pat: I try to avoid witnesses who have dementia.

Your final advice: “But I'm skeptical of Naro's story, and believe you should be as well.”

Yes; I’m skeptical of all incoming data; and try to be very careful; and, turning your advice around, “you should be as well.”

Instead of worrying about David Naro, and whether he had dementia, let’s turn to a much more basic matter: the question of whether you exercise good judgment in evaluating the data about the head wounds.

ON THE MATTER OF FAKED AUTOPSY EVIDENCE (AND WHAT --AND WHOM--TO TRUST)

Last night, I was reading the late Aubrey Rike’s account, as published in book “At the Door of Memory,” published in 2008. Here is Aubrey Rike, describing his experience of lifting up President Kennedy’s body off the gurney and transferring him to the Oneal casket. Quote: “The first time we began to pick up the President, I put my right hand underneath his head; I could feel the back of the skull had been blown out—it was literally blasted away. I felt the serrated edge of the hole in the skull on my hand. It was not painful, but I could feel the jagged edges of the bones through the sheet on the palm of my hand.”

Aubrey first told me this when I filmed him at his home in October 1980. I didn’t include that in the Best Evidence Research Video because the emphasis was on the wrappings on the body (sheets, not a body bag) and on the coffin (ceremonial casket; not a body bag, etc). But that’s what he told me—on camera—and I have it on film.

So. . .here’s my advice: instead of attacking the credibility of a source you have never interviewed, I suggest that when you appear this coming November as a featured speaker at the JFK Lancer event, and address people who have traveled to Dallas and spent over a thousand dollars to hear some truth about the facts of the assassination, and want to know “who killed President Kennedy,” I suggest that—in the interest of full disclosure, and before you hold forth on your theory that there was no wound at the back of the head, and that the autopsy photographs and x-rays supporting that view are authentic, that perhaps you should read aloud the statement of the late Aubrey Rike, who felt that awful wound with his own hand, as he attempted to lift Kennedy’s body from the hospital gurney and place him in the Oneal casket.

Unfortunately, Pat, when it comes to evaluating evidence. I think our views differ sharply on what’s credible (and what’s not).

DSL

7/31/15 – 1:20 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

A couple of points in response.

1) You edited my comments to make it look like I was being far more judgmental than I was. My main point was that you should not accept Naro at his word. Apparently, you have not. We still have to figure out the credibility of these other "witnesses", however.

2) I met and spoke with Aubrey Rike at the 2004 Lancer Conference. While he did indeed describe the feel of the wound through a sheet, he also stressed that he did not see where this wound was on the head. He had an impression it was on the back of the head, but couldn't say precisely where. Those citing him as a "back of the head"

witness most always leave this out. Geez. I wonder why.

3) I found this in one of your posts from FEB 2014. "

"One other matter: In January 1994, a young man named David Naro (of Memphis) telephoned Dr. Kemp Clark, told him he was a serious student of history, and asked Clark if he could come to Dallas and meet with him. Clark responded as follows: First, Clark asked him if he was a lawyer--Naro said no. Then he asked him if he was a writer. Again, the answer was no. All very well, responded Dr. Clark, you can come to my office and we'll visit.

Shortly thereafter, Naro--who had a serious physical disability--was driven to Dallas by two friends and the three of them visited with Clark for about an hour. Naro's meeting with Clark took place on January 28, 1994. He subsequently wrote a short paper about it, which was presented at a COPA gathering, and I spoke with him about it, in detail, in 2013."

Well, this is interesting in that previous accounts of Naro's interview with Clark made no mention of the two witnesses. I'll have to find a copy of Naro's paper. It seems I read it a decade or so ago, but can't seem to find it right now. In any event, I find it also interesting that you chose not to follow-up on Naro's 1994 claims until 2013. Clearly, you were, at least at one time, as skeptical as I about Naro's claims.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Maybe I should try this:

"When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?" [2]

-John Maynard Keynes-

"I work for a Government I despise, for ends I think criminal." [3]

-John Maynard Keynes-

Abstract:

On Saturday, November 23, 1963, Billy Harper found a skull fragment on the infield grass at Dealey Plaza. Three Dallas pathologists agreed that it was occipital bone. After photographs were taken in Dallas, the FBI took possession of the bone, and then gave it to Admiral George Burkley, MD, the president's personal physician. Before Burkley lost the bone (forever), the FBI X-rayed it, but then these X-ray images also disappeared for many decades.

In this monograph I examine the photographs and X-rays of the Harper fragment (hereafter "HF") and I list (in Section 6) fifteen independent and self-consistent signs for its origin from JFK's upper occiput. In addition (in Appendix K) I present a multiple headshot scenario that encompasses all of the significant evidence related to JFK's head wounds.

HF has great importance for one reason: if it derives from the occiput, a frontal shot is strongly implied; and that means conspiracy. The Forensic Pathology Panel (FFP) of the (1977-1979) House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) and their consultant, J. Lawrence Angel, disagreed with one another on the precise origin (in the skull) of this fragment, but they agreed that it was not occipital. Two subsequent researchers, Joseph N. Riley, an expert in neuroanatomy, and Randy Robertson, a diagnostic radiologist, also disagreed with an occipital origin. This paper reviews and critiques their arguments. Riley, in particular, claimed that occipital bone does not show a pattern of vascular grooving; he also claimed that it never shows foramina (small dimples in the surface). For him, such criteria closed the case; HF could not be occipital.

In an earlier essay,[4] I had critiqued Riley's opinion and concluded that multiple lines of evidence (many not discussed by Riley) actually favored an occipital origin. In particular, standard anatomy textbooks flatly disagree with Riley's two key points. Many textbooks (discussed here) –– from 1906 to 2006 –– display vascular grooves in occipital bone. As for occipital foramina, a human skull in my possession clearly shows them; many textbooks also display occipital foramina. This refutation of Riley's two chief points opens the door (quite widely) to an occipital origin for HF.

The above is the beginning of his four part essay.

Edited July 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Jim. It appears that Mantik is sticking to his guns. Cairns said the Harper fragment appeared to be low occipital. Mantik places it several inches higher, in the middle of the back of the skull. Mantik's location for the bone is thus at odds with both Cairns, and the Parkland witnesses. Now, he may be right, but citing Cairns and the Parkland witnesses as evidence for his conclusions, or even suggesting they are supportive, is incredibly misleading, IMO.

As stated, very few people supporting Mantik's conclusions even know what they are. Jim Douglass and Jim Fetzer, for example, both made much of Mantik's white patch on the x-rays, and claimed it suggested there'd been a gaping hole on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment had exploded, that was then covered by a white patch on the x-rays. As acknowledged by Mantik in our joint discussion of the fragment at Duquesne, however, he actually believes the fragment derived from a location on the very back of the head, inches away from the white patch on the side of the head.