The book was number one on the wire service lists--for about a month--and then remained in print for some seventeen years, through a sequence of four different publishers. In a nutshell, the central thesis of Best Evidence--which starts with the recognition that the body of the deceased, in a gunshot case, offers a "diagram of the shooting," is that that "diagram" i. The publication in the edition of my book marked the first time they were published anywhere in the world. The general verdict was that these photographs did not show the wounds as the witnesses recalled them. Douglas Horne, a former Naval officer, held the title Chief Analyst for Military Records, and played a major role in pursuing all matters pertaining to the medical evidence and the Zapruder film and many other issues as well.
|Published (Last):||8 May 2010|
|PDF File Size:||12.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.86 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The book was number one on the wire service lists--for about a month--and then remained in print for some seventeen years, through a sequence of four different publishers.
In a nutshell, the central thesis of Best Evidence--which starts with the recognition that the body of the deceased, in a gunshot case, offers a "diagram of the shooting," is that that "diagram" i. The publication in the edition of my book marked the first time they were published anywhere in the world. The general verdict was that these photographs did not show the wounds as the witnesses recalled them. Douglas Horne, a former Naval officer, held the title Chief Analyst for Military Records, and played a major role in pursuing all matters pertaining to the medical evidence and the Zapruder film and many other issues as well.
My conclusion is that wounds were indeed altered and bullets were indeed removed prior to the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital. This procedure altered the autopsy conclusions and presented a false picture of how the shooting took place. In most essential details, David Lifton "got it right" in his bestseller.
The chief answer is: pursuing my own research on the JFK case, and, most important, writing a book on Oswald. Since I do not believe Oswald shot Kennedy, the question is not only "who did? Because that, I believe, is what happened in this case. That, to use the vernacular, is what "went down" on November 22, So one way of attempting to get to the bottom of all this is to find the answer s to the question: who was Oswald? To put this in perspective, I had just begun my junior year at Cornell in the School of Engineering Physics and was just beginning my second course in electromagnetic theory, at the time that Oswald was telling the KGB that he would like to live int he Soviet Union for the rest of his life, and--if permitted to do so--had certain radar secrets to ofer.
For the time being, I will keep future readers informed of my activities, via this blog; and address certain other issues as the need arises. There you will find some of the key witnesses who appeared in the book--witnesses I interviewed in , when there was far less use of "home video" and, of course, no Internet, no cell phones, no You Tube, etc..
My video contains the accounts of witnesses filmed "the old fashioned way" i. In my essay, you will find a detailed account of my experiences and research concerning this most critical matter. Ultimately at issue is whether the "extant film" --the one which became "the evidence" on which the FBI and the Warren Commission relied for the timing of "the shots"--was in fact the genuine camera original, or an edited version.
You will also learn the story of how in , in New York City, I obtained access to an original 35 mm copy of the "original" film a high quality copy made in by a private firm, then under contract with LIFE, the putative owner of the Zapruder film at that time ; how I then obtained access to an optical printer, and then made extraordinarily clear copies of that 35mm item, one of which I then donated to the Kennedy Collection at the National Archives, when I testified before the ARRB in September, Ultimately, these matters of "physical evidence" relate to the "Oswald story" because it is via the "official evidence" i.
I wish everyone well, and will try to update this blog as time permits. David S.
Out of his pages, [Lifton] unbelievably devotes no more than 6 or 7 full pages, if that, to [Lee Harvey] Oswald. Bugliosi David S. Kennedy" spells out a fantastically-absurd theory of casket-switching, body-snatching, and head-altering surgery that was supposedly performed on the badly-damaged cranium of assassinated President John F. Because anyone who has closely or even not-so-closely studied the physical evidence in the JFK murder case will be easily able to debunk Mr. It just simply could not possibly have happened, period. Did these plotters actually fire a 6. If not, how did that small entry wound get there at the official autopsy?
The main purpose in making this film was to document, on video, the basic accounts of the key witnesses that appear in Best Evidence, accounts I had received via telephone interviews. It was Marshall McLuhan who said: The medium is the message. Some background may be in order here. The manuscript for Best Evidence was submitted on April 1, Wounds had been altered; and bullets removed. At Bethesda, the body no longer reflected the true "medical facts.
He quit his aerospace job, devoting all his time to the Kennedy assassination. Lee Harvey Oswald. Lifton had acquired these photos after the initial publication of Best Evidence, from a former Secret Service employee who had made private copies with the permission of Agent Roy Kellerman. Lifton claims that the actual photographs are consistent with his thesis of body alteration. Summary[ edit ] Best Evidence is written in the first-person as a chronological narrative of his year search for the truth about the Kennedy assassination. It is not written just as a theory of what took place on November 22, , but also to highlight his personal quest to solve the puzzle through a meticulous and time-consuming search for new evidence that could finally resolve the many factual conflicts in the record. He details evidence—using both the Warren Commission documents and original research and interviews with those involved at both Dallas and Bethesda—of a stark and radical change between the descriptions of the wounds by the medical staff at Dallas and those at Bethesda.