So is David Lifton's Final Charade just going to be lost to history?

[Greg Doudna]

There has been a strange story that the Mary Ferrell Foundation gave Lifton $165,000 in interest-free loans in 2001-2006, never repaid, that were considered advances on his book that never appeared, and just now Paula Botan, who knew him in years immediately following that time frame, says she doubts any manuscript existed--and no evidence so far in the year 2024 has come forth of a draft manuscript's existence, even though it has always been assumed there must have been something in progress all these years. 

Does anyone know the background to how that decision was made and whether there was ever any attempt to require timely showing of evidence of progress on the book or, if not, request for repayment of the $165,000 "loans"? (Source: https://jfkresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/lifton-loans-redux/) 

Edited February 3 by Greg Doudna

[Larry Hancock]

Greg, that would have been early days when the MFF initially established and was operating under Ollie Curme; he would be the person to contact about the history of any such financial arrangements.  I think he posts here on occasion or  you might attempt to message him with your question.

 

[Paula Botan]

27 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

There has been a strange story that the Mary Ferrell Foundation gave Lifton $165,000 in interest-free loans in 2001-2006, never repaid, that were considered advances on his book that never appeared, and just now Paula Botan, who knew him in years immediately following that time frame, says she doubts any manuscript existed--and no evidence so far in the year 2024 has come forth of a draft manuscript's existence, even though it has always been assumed there must have been something in progress all these years. 

Does anyone know the background to how that decision was made and whether there was ever any attempt to require timely showing of evidence of progress on the book or, if not, request for repayment of the $165,000 "loans"? (Source: https://jfkresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/lifton-loans-redux/) 

Lifton told me at one point that Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks CEO, was giving him money. I never questioned it but it seemed strange as I never heard anything about Schultz's interest in the Kennedy assassination and also his politics seemed very opposed to Kennedy's esp. with regard to foreign policy. Schultz is pretty much a neoliberal.

[Aaron Sharpe]

5 hours ago, Paula Botan said:

As someone who assisted Lifton with his research for a couple of years in the early 2000s, I can say that I highly doubt a manuscript exists. At any rate, I never saw one. He was doing research that is true, but his ideas were becoming increasingly far-fetched for me. I think he painted himself into a very tight corner with his theories and could not get himself out. 

Hey wow, I had just skimmed over some of these replies as I’m sitting here watching the series of Lifton’s 14 videos on YouTube and I heard him mention your name. He appears to have gone fully manic in his latter years, but I believe he said something nice about you.

[James DiEugenio]

It was more than that, it was over 300 K according to my sources.

But Paula if you do not mind, what were some of the ideas that Lifton developed that led to your separation?

I did hear that he maintained that Jackie got out of the car en route to Parkland.?

DId he really think that?

Edited February 3 by James DiEugenio

[Paula Botan]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

It was more than that, it was over 300 K according to my sources.

But Paula if you do not mind, what were some of the ideas that Lifton developed that led to your separation?

I did hear that he maintained that Jackie got out of the car en route to Dealey Plaza?

DId he really think that?

I know he seemed to think that there was shooting in the car and that a secret service agent was killed as a result. That was kind of a breaking point for me. Did he really think that? I don't know. I'm not sure I would have liked either answer to that question.

[Aaron Sharpe]

16 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

How unfortunate, Aaron, that the first response you've gotten to your thoughtful piece on the inanity of, and the many holes in, the official story is an attempt by Von Pein to discourage further inquiry.  He has all of the answers.

Carry on. Do not be discouraged.  You're on (several) right tracks. 

Welcome to this place where some good information is discussed amid a lot of nonsense. 

Let me respond to one argument you mentioned you said about there not being enough time to alter the Zapruder film. It's a common misconception ...

Yes, I see that my post has summoned the Von Pein. That's okay. Haven't posted much here but I've been lurking for quite some time and am familiar with many of the personalities and viewpoints. 

I hadn't intended for this to be about the Z-film, but since we're on the topic … My own attitude in that regard right now is simply that I'm very open to the prospect that the film was altered or even wholly fabricated. Something has always bothered me about it, which I might best describe as the odd non-responsiveness of the spectators. Particularly those along the north side of Elm Street. It just seems bizarre that in a line of people who are specifically there to see the most famous person in the world, hardly a one would wave or even bother to move when the man himself rolls by within a few feet. I'd always chalked this up to being due to something about film that I just don't understand. But maybe not. 

The "Mary Moorman in the street" issue is bothersome. Mary has consistently and explicitly said that she "stepped into the street" to take her photograph (except in interviews where she was coached not to say that, or when it was edited out). Sure, people's memories can play tricks on them, but one thing our modern era teaches us is that even video itself is not a source of ultimately reliable truth. If you will believe what you see on video, you can be made to believe anything. In the JFKa case, it would seem that the personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not. 

But here's something we do reliably know: The autopsy photographs, particularly the one of the back of the head, do not represent reality. For years I had considered them to be "forgeries," but more recently came across Doug Horne's thought that they are actually legitimate photographs taken of source material (ie, JFK's head) which was manipulated for the purpose of photography. (I suppose that could be considered "forgery" as well). But then there's also Mantik's stereoscopic study which shows something strange about the back of the head, so perhaps it is just a forgery in the traditional sense. These two men disagree on this point. 

Likewise, certain aspects of the x-rays have been manipulated and do not represent reality. Mantik's articles are usually pretty dense with jargon, but his unique studies of the x-rays are definitive. 

For me, the above medical evidence is absolutely definitive proof of state complicity in a coverup. This conclusion is amplified by the Dallas medical personnel, whose observations are essentially unanimous and have remained so for decades. To return to a previous point, personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not. A credible witness can have more value than a videographic record. And these Dallas witnesses are the definition of the word 'credible.' Put another way, it would be impossible to find any group of witnesses with more credibility. Doug Horne wanted to put them in a room with the autopsy photos and get them on the record under oath, but the leadership of the ARRB let us all down. 

If the state would falsify the photographic and radiographic record of the autopsy (and they did), why wouldn't they do the same to a film of the assassination itself? 

Yes, it's an extraordinary claim. So it will require extraordinary evidence. And it seems a bit crazy. But David Lifton's claims seemed crazy in 1981. History has borne him out.

[Gary Murr]

17 hours ago, Paula Botan said:

He was doing research that is true, but his ideas were becoming increasingly far-fetched for me. I think he painted himself into a very tight corner with his theories and could not get himself out. 

Hello Paula:

I thank you for your informative input into this thread; I for one am appreciative. As someone who first met David Lifton in the late 1960's we possessed a cordial relationship that spanned several decades, even as I drifted away from the events of November22, 1963, for many years in the 1980's. David and myself did exchange information sporadically over this time span. However, he became increasinly more "interested" in materials I had gathered regarding, specifically, the wounding of John Connally, a topic I researched extensively for over a decade beginning in the early and mid 1990's and beyond. Some of his requests bordered on the bizarre - as you noted, "increasingly far-fetched" - to the point that I eventually had to politely decline his requests for all of my Connally research. For me the "end" of our relationship occurred when he tried to convince me that Connally was shot, more than once, "from the front" though he did never did reveal to me where exactly this "front" location was situated. 

FWIW

Gary Murr 

[Paula Botan]

16 minutes ago, Gary Murr said:

Hello Paula:

I thank you for your informative input into this thread; I for one am appreciative. As someone who first met David Lifton in the late 1960's we possessed a cordial relationship that spanned several decades, even as I drifted away from the events of November22, 1963, for many years in the 1980's. David and myself did exchange information sporadically over this time span. However, he became increasinly more "interested" in materials I had gathered regarding, specifically, the wounding of John Connally, a topic I researched extensively for over a decade beginning in the early and mid 1990's and beyond. Some of his requests bordered on the bizarre - as you noted, "increasingly far-fetched" - to the point that I eventually had to politely decline his requests for all of my Connally research. For me the "end" of our relationship occurred when he tried to convince me that Connally was shot, more than once, "from the front" though he did never did reveal to me where exactly this "front" location was situated. 

FWIW

Gary Murr 

Hi Gary. Thanks for your comments. I guess I'm not alone.

[Tony Krome]

42 minutes ago, Gary Murr said:

For me the "end" of our relationship occurred when he tried to convince me that Connally was shot, more than once, "from the front"

Can you elaborate on that? Did he refer to Connally's position?

[Keven Hofeling]

3 hours ago, Aaron Sharpe said:

Yes, I see that my post has summoned the Von Pein. That's okay. Haven't posted much here but I've been lurking for quite some time and am familiar with many of the personalities and viewpoints. 

I hadn't intended for this to be about the Z-film, but since we're on the topic … My own attitude in that regard right now is simply that I'm very open to the prospect that the film was altered or even wholly fabricated. Something has always bothered me about it, which I might best describe as the odd non-responsiveness of the spectators. Particularly those along the north side of Elm Street. It just seems bizarre that in a line of people who are specifically there to see the most famous person in the world, hardly a one would wave or even bother to move when the man himself rolls by within a few feet. I'd always chalked this up to being due to something about film that I just don't understand. But maybe not. 

The "Mary Moorman in the street" issue is bothersome. Mary has consistently and explicitly said that she "stepped into the street" to take her photograph (except in interviews where she was coached not to say that, or when it was edited out). Sure, people's memories can play tricks on them, but one thing our modern era teaches us is that even video itself is not a source of ultimately reliable truth. If you will believe what you see on video, you can be made to believe anything. In the JFKa case, it would seem that the personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not. 

But here's something we do reliably know: The autopsy photographs, particularly the one of the back of the head, do not represent reality. For years I had considered them to be "forgeries," but more recently came across Doug Horne's thought that they are actually legitimate photographs taken of source material (ie, JFK's head) which was manipulated for the purpose of photography. (I suppose that could be considered "forgery" as well). But then there's also Mantik's stereoscopic study which shows something strange about the back of the head, so perhaps it is just a forgery in the traditional sense. These two men disagree on this point. 

Likewise, certain aspects of the x-rays have been manipulated and do not represent reality. Mantik's articles are usually pretty dense with jargon, but his unique studies of the x-rays are definitive. 

For me, the above medical evidence is absolutely definitive proof of state complicity in a coverup. This conclusion is amplified by the Dallas medical personnel, whose observations are essentially unanimous and have remained so for decades. To return to a previous point, personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not. A credible witness can have more value than a videographic record. And these Dallas witnesses are the definition of the word 'credible.' Put another way, it would be impossible to find any group of witnesses with more credibility. Doug Horne wanted to put them in a room with the autopsy photos and get them on the record under oath, but the leadership of the ARRB let us all down. 

If the state would falsify the photographic and radiographic record of the autopsy (and they did), why wouldn't they do the same to a film of the assassination itself? 

Yes, it's an extraordinary claim. So it will require extraordinary evidence. And it seems a bit crazy. But David Lifton's claims seemed crazy in 1981. History has borne him out.

Aaron Sharpe wrote:

Quote

"I hadn't intended for this to be about the Z-film, but since we're on the topic … My own attitude in that regard right now is simply that I'm very open to the prospect that the film was altered or even wholly fabricated. Something has always bothered me about it, which I might best describe as the odd non-responsiveness of the spectators. Particularly those along the north side of Elm Street. It just seems bizarre that in a line of people who are specifically there to see the most famous person in the world, hardly a one would wave or even bother to move when the man himself rolls by within a few feet. I'd always chalked this up to being due to something about film that I just don't understand. But maybe not."

The following is a short video associated with the analysis that physicist John Costella conducted regarding the authenticity of the extant Zapruder film. It explores a plausible explanation for the frozen crowd imagery that you describe, as well as many other anomalies that are present in the extant Zapruder film, consistent with the film technology available in 1963:

___________

'JFK - THE FAKE ZAPRUDER FILM VIDEO'
International School History Teacher |  Mar 1, 2022 | https://youtu.be/JVXTvtBfLfE?si=kUUZ6bUyXlzM8yXr
"Little known fact in the JFK cover-up - the Zapruder Hoax and how it aided the longstanding cover-up to this day. There is no question that the Zapruder film was a contrived document designed by the CIA/NSA to aid the cover-up."

___________

Aaron Sharpe wrote:

Quote

The "Mary Moorman in the street" issue is bothersome. Mary has consistently and explicitly said that she "stepped into the street" to take her photograph (except in interviews where she was coached not to say that, or when it was edited out). Sure, people's memories can play tricks on them, but one thing our modern era teaches us is that even video itself is not a source of ultimately reliable truth. If you will believe what you see on video, you can be made to believe anything. In the JFKa case, it would seem that the personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not.

The video above 0ffers plausible explanations for the Mary Moorman anomalies in the Zapruder film, such as Moorman standing in the street, and the imagery of the bodies of Mary Moorman and Jean Hill appearing to be larger than the occupants of the Presidential Limousine. An additional issue that the video does not address is the earliest testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses closest to the limo at the time of the headshot, who reported that the limo came to a complete stop. I further present the article which follows regarding the testimony of the four motorcycle policemen who were flanking the rear of the limousine, also reporting that it came to a complete stop.

___________

--------------------------------------------------------------
From Vince Palamara's article, ‘Fifty–nine Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street’, Dealey Plaza Echo, vol.3 no.2 (July 1992), pp.1–7.

William Newman was adamant that the car stopped. Palamara cites several accounts of interviews with researchers: “the car momentarily stopped and the driver seemed to have a radio or phone up to his ear and he seemed to be waiting on some word. … Then the cars roared off. … I’ve maintained that they stopped. I still say they did. It was only a momentary stop, but … I believe Kennedy’s car came to a full stop after the final shot. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don’t read anything about the car stopping. And when I say ‘stopped’ I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded and accelerated on … and just for a moment they hesitated and stopped.”

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-street
--------------------------------------------------------------
From 'An Interview with Assassination Eye Witness Bill Newman', THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO, Volume 2, March 1992:

" and the car momentarily stopped"

And then I can remember that when we were on the ground - I'd like to bring this up if I may - looking back over my shoulder I can remember, I believe it was the passenger in the front seat - there were two men in the front seat - had a telephone or something to his ear and the car momentarily stopped. Now everywhere that you read about it, you don't read anything about the car stopping. And when I say "stopped" I mean very momentarily, like they hit the brakes and just a few seconds passed and then they floorboarded and accelerated on."

LAW: "But you don't really see that in the Zapruder film."

NEWMAN: "No, you don't. But anyway, that's the impression I'm left with."

LAW: "Several people said that the car stopped."

NEWMAN: "Yes, and then they shot on. You know, through the overpass, the railroad overpass, and that's the last we saw of them."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/Newman%20William%20&%20Gayle/Item%2001.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------
From the 11/25/1963 FBI report of interview of Charles F. Brehm:

"...BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only Seemed to move some 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain . After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight...."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1425.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------
From the 11/22/1963 FBI report of interview of Mary Moorman:

"...[Mary Moorman] recalls that the President's automobile was moving at the time she took the second picture, and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry..."

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1426.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------
From the 11/22/1963 Dallas County Sheriff's Department report of interview of Jean Hill:

"Mary Moorman started to take a picture. We were looking at the president and Jackie in the back seat... Just as the president looked up two shots rang out and I saw the president grab his chest and fell forward across Jackie's lap... There was an instant pause between two shots and the motorcade seemingly halted for an instant. Three or four more shots rang out and the motorcade sped away."

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340264/m1/1/

--------------------------------------------------------------

___________

ALL FOUR OF THE DALLAS POLICE MOTORCYCLISTS FLANKING THE REAR OF JFK'S LIMOUSINE REPORTED THAT THE LIMO CAME TO A COMPLETE OR NEAR STOP IN DEALEY PLAZA:

 "... The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed...."  
 
Donald E. Wilkes, Jr.
Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"...I will now point to some of the evidence that the limousine did indeed stop or slow down. I pass over similar reports made by civilian spectators and news media people, and limit myself to reports made by police officers in or near Dealey Plaza. 

Using binoculars, Harry D. Holmes, a federal postal inspector, watched the presidential limousine as it turned from Houston Street and then proceeded down Elm Street from his fifth floor office window in a building two blocks from Dealey Plaza. He testified to the Warren Commission that he heard what sounded like three firecrackers. He saw what he thought was dust coming out of JFK’s head. Then: “The car almost came to a stop.” 

Earle V. Brown was a Dallas policeman standing on the overpass of the Stemmons Freeway, about 100 yards from Elm Street. Here is an excerpt from his Warren Commission testimony: 

MR. BROWN: “[T]he first I noticed the car was when it stopped.” 

MR. BALL (Warren Commission counsel): “Where?” 

MR. BROWN: After it made the turn [from Houston Street to Elm Street] and when the shots were fired, it stopped.” 

MR. BALL: “Did it come to a complete stop?” 

MR. BROWN: “That I couldn’t swear to.” 

MR. BALL: “It appeared to be slowed down some?” 

MR. BROWN: “Yes; slowed down.” 

MR. BALL: “Did you hear the shots?” 

MR. BROWN: “Yes, sir.” 

J.W. Foster was a Dallas policeman stationed on the railroad overpass at the corner of Elm, Main and Commerce Streets. In a statement to the FBI made on Mar. 26, 1964, he said: “Immediately after President Kennedy was struck with a second bullet, the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb …” 

D.V. Harkness was a Dallas policeman standing in Dealey Plaza south of Elm Street. Here is part of his Warren Commission testimony: 

MR. BELIN (Warren Commission counsel): “What did you do [when you heard the gunshots]?” 

MR. HARKNESS: “When I saw the first shot and the President’s car slow down to almost a stop—“ 

MR. BELIN: “When you saw the first shot. What do you mean by that?” 

MR. HARKNESS: “When I heard the first shot and saw the President’s car almost come to a stop and some of the agents piling off the car, I went back to the intersection to get my motorcycle.” 

The vagaries of eyewitness testimony are well known, and it might be argued that these police witnesses (as well as the other witnesses who also reported the limousine deceleration) were simply mistaken about what they observed. This seems extremely unlikely, however, because all four of the Dallas police motorcyclists flanking the rear of JFK’s limousine also reported the limousine stopped or slowed. 

Officer Bobby Hargis was the inside rider at the left rear of the limousine. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said: “[W]hen President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water. It wasn’t really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down… I felt blood hit me in the face, and the Presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped for about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” According to an undated, unpublished transcript of an interview he had with the Dallas Times-Herald, Hargis told the newspaper: “I felt blood hit me in the face, and the presidential car stopped immediately after that and stayed stopped about half a second, then took off at a high rate of speed.” (In a video of a 1995 interview, now on YouTube, you can watch Hargis tell the interviewer: “That guy [the Secret Service agent driving JFK’s limousine] slowed down… [He] slowed down almost to a stop.”) Hargis died in 2014. 

Officer B.J. Martin was the outside rider at the left rear of the limousine. He told the Warren Commission: “It [the motorcade] slowed down just before we made the turn on Elm Street [from Houston Street].” Officer Martin was later interviewed by researchers Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams and told them, as reported in their unpublished 1974 manuscript Murder from Within, that he observed the limousine stop for “just a moment.” 

Officer James M. Chaney was the inside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but two days after the assassination he was quoted in the Houston Chronicle as stating that the limousine stopped immediately after the first shot. Furthermore, Dallas police officer Marrion L. Baker, a Dallas police motorcyclist who was on Houston Street when the first shot was fired, testified to the Warren Commission that shortly after the assassination he had talked with officer Chaney and that Chaney told him that “from the time the shot rang out, the [limousine] stopped completely, pulled to the left, and stopped.” Officer Baker added: “Several officers said it stopped completely.” When then asked whether he had heard from other Dallas police officers that the limousine had stopped, he testified: “Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland [Hospital].” 

Officer Douglas Jackson was the outside rider at the right rear of the limousine. He did not testify before the Warren Commission, but he did tell researchers Newcomb and Adams that “the [limousine] just all but stopped… just a moment.”..." 

Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. is a Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Georgia School of Law, where he taught for 40 years. He has published nearly 50 articles in Flagpole magazine on the JFK assassination.  

 Wilkes, Donald E. Jr., "Grassy Knoll Shots? Limousine Slowdown?" (2017). Popular Media. 279. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_pm/279  

https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=fac_pm

___________

Aaron Sharpe wrote:

Quote

 

But here's something we do reliably know: The autopsy photographs, particularly the one of the back of the head, do not represent reality. For years I had considered them to be "forgeries," but more recently came across Doug Horne's thought that they are actually legitimate photographs taken of source material (ie, JFK's head) which was manipulated for the purpose of photography. (I suppose that could be considered "forgery" as well). But then there's also Mantik's stereoscopic study which shows something strange about the back of the head, so perhaps it is just a forgery in the traditional sense. These two men disagree on this point. 

Likewise, certain aspects of the x-rays have been manipulated and do not represent reality. Mantik's articles are usually pretty dense with jargon, but his unique studies of the x-rays are definitive. 

 

Doug Horne has revised his opinion on the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photos and now acknowledges Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing results, which suggest photographic forgery. See following joint interview of Dr. Mantik and Doug Horne for more details:

___________

DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]):

Others adhering to the hypothesis about the concealment of JFK's head wound in the back of the head autopsy photographs being accomplished by manipulation of the scalp have changed their minds and concluded instead that the photographs are fraudulent. Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, which found that there is a soft matte insertion over the occipital-parietal wound in these photos, is a strong indication that the back of the head autopsy photographs have been altered. Doug Horne is among those who have changed their minds as the result of Dr. Mantik's testing. 

When the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses were first shown the bootleg autopsy photographs, they reacted in shock, and disavowed them. By the time of the 1988 NOVA PBS-TV program ["Who Shot President Kennedy?" https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c ], some of the Parkland doctors who had had some time to find ways to rationalize away the discrepancy between their eye-witness observation and the autopsy photographs, they did exactly that for PBS/Nova, opining that JFK's skull had been manipulated in such a way as to create the false appearance that the back of JFK's head was intact. Dr. David Mantik described it as follows:

"...Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf

Doug Horne had reached the same conclusion during his tenure with the ARRB. In his book "Inside the ARRB" as well as in his Press Statement of May 15, 2006, Doug Horne expressed doubt about claims that the back of the head autopsy photographs of JFK have been altered to conceal the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, speculating instead that JFK's scalp had been manipulated in the photos to conceal the back of the head wound. Ten years later after Dr. David Mantik had conducted stereoscopic analysis on the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, and thereby detected that there is a soft matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound in the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Doug Horne announced that he had changed his opinion, and now accepts the evidence that the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head are in fact altered.

Doug Horne announced his change of opinion during a joint appearance with Dr. David Mantik on Brent Holland's "Night Fright" podcast. The transcript of the relevant dialogue is below, and the video has been queued for you in advance via the following link: 
----------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]):

…BRENT HOLLAND: “…How did they cover up those photos David? How did they, you know, because there is a photo that I use all the time?... Dr. McClelland has made a hand sketch of the back of JFK’s head and he shows approximately where the hole in the back of JFK’s head is, which is the lower right quadrant folks, and there is an autopsy photo that is supposed to be the back of JFK’s head that shows it fully intact. Your speculation on that David?

DAVID MANTIK: Well I took along a stereo viewer to the archives to look at these images. The reason I did that is because if that particular area was faked in to cover up a hole, and it was faked in the same way on two partner images, then I would not see a 3-d effect, and that’s exactly what I saw. Robert Groden -- who is much more of a photographic expert than I am – and I have had discussions about that and he tells me exactly the same thing.

BRENT HOLLAND: Is that right? Robert Groden show’s in the archive as well folks. Okay, what’s your speculation Doug?

DOUGLAS HORNE: Well I now agree with Dr. Mantik. At the time I wrote my book – it was 2009 – I leaned toward the likelihood that the back of the head photos showed intact scalp because a lot of the scalp might have been dramatically re-arranged, ya know, carefully cut away from the cranium, and re-arranged, and just held in place for three minutes while they took pictures to try to prove there was no hole in the back of the head. But I respect what Dr. Mantik did with his stereoscopic viewer, and the problem is that the Review Board didn’t think to do that. And unfortunately, I think Jeremy Gunn and I were in the mode of trusting the HSCA. The HSCA wrote that its photographic consultant panel viewed the autopsy photographs stereoscopically and didn’t notice any problems.

DAVID MANTIK: I discussed this particular issue with Robert Groden who was there. He made it very clear to me that Robert Blakey had no idea what stereoscopic viewing was all about…

BRENT HOLLAND: Really?!

DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow!

DAVID MANTIK: …He was totally ignorant about it….

DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow!

DAVID MANTIK: …And Robert’s observations totally agreed with mine…

BRENT HOLLAND: So there you have corroboration.

DAVID MANTIK: …They just, they just made it up. They had to. What else could they do. If they said something else the game would be up. This was a critical juncture to them. They had, they had to make a choice.

DOUGLAS HORNE: The whole game of the HSCA was to blame Oswald for all of the wounds. And, uh, they had to admit there had been a frontal shot because the acoustic science forced them into saying that. But they still wanted to have their cake and to eat it too, and so they said Oswald still killed the president and wounded the governor, and that no one else did, and that the shot from the front missed. Robert Blakey is responsible for all that. Him and Michael Baden…”

 

___________

Dr. David Mantik wrote:
⁠
"...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA.
⁠
Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole.
⁠
Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared.
⁠
Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone?

Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10].
⁠
Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..."
⁠
'JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners'
Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD
https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf⁠
Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126.

___________

Aaron Sharpe wrote:

Quote

For me, the above medical evidence is absolutely definitive proof of state complicity in a coverup. This conclusion is amplified by the Dallas medical personnel, whose observations are essentially unanimous and have remained so for decades. To return to a previous point, personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not. A credible witness can have more value than a videographic record. And these Dallas witnesses are the definition of the word 'credible.' Put another way, it would be impossible to find any group of witnesses with more credibility. Doug Horne wanted to put them in a room with the autopsy photos and get them on the record under oath, but the leadership of the ARRB let us all down. 

Exactly, and particularly the twenty-two Parkland Hospital witnesses, as Dr. Gary Aguilar demonstrated, as follows:

___________

------------------------------------------------
This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar:
--------------------------------------------------
DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES:

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

___________

Aaron Sharpe wrote:

Quote

 

If the state would falsify the photographic and radiographic record of the autopsy (and they did), why wouldn't they do the same to a film of the assassination itself? 

Yes, it's an extraordinary claim. So it will require extraordinary evidence. And it seems a bit crazy. But David Lifton's claims seemed crazy in 1981. History has borne him out.

 

I believe we are extremely fortunate that Doug Horne was present at the ARRB and during his tenure there managed to uncover crucial evidence regarding the medical issues and suspected tampering of the Zapruder film. Horne's discoveries concerning NPIC and Hawkeyeworks, in addition to the details he made public after Dino Brugioni came to his attention in 2009, offer a fundamental understanding of the covert process through which the Zapruder film was intercepted and modified by the government. This information was never intended to be disclosed, and we are truly lucky that it came to the surface. Despite making efforts to obtain further details, Horne's requests were rejected by the CIA on the basis that the subject matter pertained to a CIA operation, as Horne elaborates below.

___________

"...“Hawkeyeworks” Explained:

After the Homer McMahon interview was released in 1998, JFK researchers loyal to the concept of an authentic Zapruder film that is “ground truth” in the Kennedy assassination downplayed the importance of the “Hawkeyeworks” story, either doubting its existence because there was no documentary proof, or alternately saying that the “Hawkeyeworks” lab was solely dedicated to U-2 and Corona satellite photography. But these critics were wrong on both counts.

First, Dino Brugioni, during his 2009 and 2011 interviews with Peter Janney and me, not only confirmed the existence of the state-of-the-art Kodak lab in Rochester used by the CIA for various classified purposes, but confirmed that he visited the place more than once, including once prior to the JFK assassination. (He also confirmed its existence in his recent book, Eyes in the Sky, on page 364.) Second, Dino Brugioni made clear to me, when I interviewed him in July of 2011, that the “Hawkeye Plant” (as he called it) was an enormous state-of-the-art private sector laboratory founded and run by Kodak, which performed far more tasks than “just” Corona satellite and U-2 “special order” film services. He said that the Hawkeye Plant was involved in developing new film products and in manufacturing and testing special film products of all kinds, including new motion picture films, and that it definitely had the capability to process motion pictures. He did not see such equipment himself, but was told by Ed Green, a high-ranking Kodak manager at “Hawkeyeworks” with whom he had a relationship of trust, that the “Hawkeye Plant” could, and did, definitely process motion pictures. When repeatedly questioned about this capability by Peter Janney throughout the 2009 interviews, Brugioni said with great reverence, on several occasions, “They could do anything.”[21]

The CIA refused to provide me with any information about “Hawkeyeworks” when the Agency finally responded to my September 12, 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on February 7, 2011. But that was hardly surprising, since over one year earlier, on January 27, 2010, the CIA wrote to me, cautioning: “The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. Section 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from the search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA.” What this meant, in rather blunt language, was that if the CIA was running an “op,” such as the alteration of the Zapruder film immediately after JFK’s assassination, then they didn’t have to search for those records or tell me about it, in any way. So the failure by the CIA to answer any of my many questions about “Hawkeyeworks” means literally—nothing.

The plain facts are these:

(1) the 8 mm (already slit!) camera-original Zapruder film was delivered to NPIC late on Saturday evening, 11/23/63, and the two Secret Service officials who brought it to NPIC for the making of briefing boards left with the film at about 3 AM Sunday morning; and (2) a 16 mm, unslit version of the Zapruder film was returned to NPIC the next night, after dark, on Sunday evening, 11/24/63; and its courier (“Bill Smith”) said it had been processed at “Hawkeyeworks,” and that he had brought it directly to NPIC in Washington, D.C. from Rochester (using the unmistakable code word “Hawkeyeworks”) himself.

“Double 8” home movies which have already been slit at the processing facility do not miraculously “reassemble” themselves from two 25-foot strips 8 mm in width, and connected with a splice in the middle, into 16 mm wide unslit double 8 films. A new Zapruder film was clearly created at “Hawkeyeworks” in Rochester, in an optical printer. Bill Smith told the truth when he said the film he carried had been developed there at “Hawkeyeworks;” he lied when he said that it was the camera-original film taken by the photographer in Dallas.

If “Hawkeyeworks” truly had the physical capability “to do anything,” as Ed Green informed Dino Brugioni, then all that would have been required that weekend would have been to bring in some experienced personnel—an animator or two, and a visual effects director—experienced in the “black arts” of Hollywood. Those personnel, if not already on-site, employed at “Hawkeyeworks,” could have been brought into Rochester on Saturday, November 23rd, the same day the JFK autopsy photographs were being developed in Washington, D.C. at Naval Photographic Center, Anacostia. The JFK autopsy photos developed on Saturday (per Robert Knudsen’s 1978 HSCA deposition transcript) would have provided the guide for the image alteration necessary on the Zapruder film the next day, on Sunday. The JFK autopsy photos document the massive head wound created by clandestine, post mortem surgery on JFK’s head wounds at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and would have provided a rough guide for the massive head wound in the top and right side of the skull that had to be painted onto selected Zapruder film frames the next day, on Sunday. No such parietal-temporal-frontal wound was seen at Parkland Hospital in Dallas by any of the treatment staff the day Kennedy was shot and treated there, but it had to be added to selected Zapruder film frames, to match the illicit post mortem cranial surgery at Bethesda that was being misrepresented in the autopsy photos as “damage from the assassin’s bullet.”[22] In addition to painting on a false wound, of course, the forgers at “Hawkeyeworks” would have had to obscure—black out—the real exit wound, in the right rear of JFK’s head, that was seen in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital. (More on this below.)..."

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

___________

The following is the premier article on the alteration of the Zapruder film by Doug Horne, former Chief Analyst for the Assassination Records Review Board, and author of the five volume "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board." It is well worth the read!

---------------------------------------------------------

'THE TWO NPIC ZAPRUDER FILM EVENTS: SIGNPOSTS POINTING TO THE FILMS ALTERATION'

by Douglas P. Horne

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

 

Edited February 3 by Keven Hofeling

[James DiEugenio]

Gary:

Lifton thought Connally was shot from the front twice?

Is that what you are saying?

[Robert Morrow]

Just now, James DiEugenio said:

Gary:

Lifton thought Connally was shot from the front twice?

Is that what you are saying?

David Lifton, as he personally told me, thought that ALL shots to JFK came from the front. I believe his "JFK body alteration" theory included creating wounds on JFK that made it appear that he got shot from behind. Author Sean Fetter, also believes that all shots to JFK came from the front as he has told me.

My personal beliefs are that - OBVIOUSLY - JFK was shot from both the front and behind and that John Connally was shot from behind by a separate bullet that did not transit JFK.

 

 

[Gary Murr]

9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Gary:

Lifton thought Connally was shot from the front twice?

Is that what you are saying?

Hi Jim:

I will go back into my records and see if I can find the specific email exchange David and myself had on this subject matter, but off the top of my head this was definitely inferred, if in fact not so stated.

 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Gary Murr said:

For me the "end" of our relationship occurred when he [David Lifton] tried to convince me that Connally was shot, more than once, "from the front" though he never did reveal to me where exactly this "front" location was situated. 

According to David Lifton's hilariously absurd theory centering on the activity of the Secret Service agents in the immediate aftermath of the assassination (which is discussed by Lifton in the 2013 video embedded below), SS agent John Ready "threw himself" into the Presidential limousine after the shooting, and (according to Lifton) it is Ready's foot we see sticking out of the back seat of the car in the David Miller photograph.

Also....

Quoting Lifton in 2013: "He [John Connally] got shot as a result of this fight in the car [with Secret Service agent John Ready]."

So now we know how David Lifton managed to keep John Connally from sustaining any wounds from the rear during the period when the assassination of JFK was taking place on Elm Street. He (Lifton) merely invented this fantasy story about Secret Service agent John Ready leaping into the limousine and shooting Connally. And then John Connally, in all of his many post-1963 interviews, decided to never once mention this "fight" that he had with Ready.
 

 

 

Edited February 3 by David Von Pein