Jump to content
The Education Forum
Mike Rago

How did Zapruder know of Single Bullet Theory at time of testimony?

Recommended Posts

Chris, here are some of Altgens' statements made prior to his testimony. There was an FBI interview in early June, 1964, a month and a half before he testified.

Thanks Pat,

I suspected there wouldn't be an official affidavit from Altgens on or around 11/22/63, such as was the case with many of the other witnesses.

I'll follow up on this in a little while.

chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lifton said:

Anyway, here’s my question to you. You write: “I am skeptical of this speech in Poland.”

". .. skeptical. . . "? In what sense?

Could you please elaborate?

Do you mean that you are “skeptical” that the event occurred—at all? Or that you are skeptical (as I am) that it was all that “spontaneous”?

David,

First, I am astounded that I'd never heard of this RFK statement before, especially since it appeared in The New York Times. Guess I don't know as much as I thought. What I mean by skeptical is that the statement is so different than anything else uttered on the subject by RFK. The Kennedy family, nearly 50 years after the event, remains extremely reluctant to even mention the assassination. RFK never spoke in detail about it on any other occasion, to my knowledge.

I am more paranoid than most people, so perhaps this is just another manifestation of that. Still, I am struck by the unnatural tone of RFK's quotes here. They just don't reflect how he approached the subject publicly at any other point during the five years between the Kennedy assassinations. He appeared to want to avoid any mention of it at all times, and thus I am dumbfounded that he would analyze Oswald like that. As I said, I don't believe he ever mentioned his name otherwise.

I'd be interested in knowing if there was some kind of recording of his remarks.

FYI: In March, 1967, Earl Warren made remarks (when he was in Lima, Peru) defending the Warren Report. It was, as I recall, the first time he had spoken out on the subject. Somehow, I determined that the US Information Agency had a recording of his remarks, and obtained the tapes. There were one (or 2 or 3) reel to reel splendid recordings, of a detailed press conference, and what happened when the entire affair became dominated by intense questioning of Warren, by various reporters, all firing questions at him (in Spanish) and then the Spanish-to-English translation, and then Warren's answers.

So. . . at some point many years ago, I tried a "repeat" of all this, and I believe I contacted USIA. Do you have any audio coverage of Robert Kennedy, in Cracow, Poland? I asked. Anyway, the answer was "no," they did not have any recording. (Or at least, that's what I was told at the time. It never hurts to inquire again, and perhaps someone reading this post will do so.) The reason USIA did have such great audio coverage (in the case of Warren) was that Warren's appearance --i.e., his press conference--was actually held inside the American Embassy in Lima, Peru.

Also, FYI, I have the actual download of the NYT story of the Warren appearance (which was in the NYT of 3/4/67). If you provide an email address, I can send it.

As for the rest of your post: I agree. Most JFK researchers apparently "don't know" about RFK's appearance in Cracow, Poland, or what he said on that occasion; or about this front page NY Times story, or its importance, even though it was a page one story in the NY Times of July 1, 1964.

Furthermore, I believe I am the first person to point out--at least publicly, anyway--that RFK refered to LHO as a "professed Communist," and to focus on the implications of that wording.

DSL

9/7/12; 12:35 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statements about Liebeler are of great interest, David. When I created my timeline for the WC, it was clear to me that almost all the nearby witnesses were brought in to testify AFTER Specter had written his chapter on the shooting, and the commissioners had signed off on his chapter. It seemed clear to me that someone--perhaps Liebeler himself--then realized that their not even interviewing men like Altgens, Zapruder and Willis was an embarrassment, and a gaping hole in their investigation. They then went back and interviewed these people--purely as window-dressing.

If you know of any documents that prove this to be the case, or statements by Liebeler supporting as much, I would be appreciate your sharing them with me.

As I think I indicated in an email sent a short while ago--just minutes after midnight,and just prior to a 3.5 earthquake, which really jolted where I live, and whose epicenter, I now learn, was only one mile away--I am going completely on recollection, and do not have any documents which "prove" what happened. What I remember is a conversation, or perhaps more than one (or perhaps remarks Liebeler made in the weekly seminar, which I was attending) in which he was dealing with the issue of why the WC didn't call all the Dealey Plaza witnesses. To me, that was an outrage, and I know I brought it up, more than once.

Of course, one of the things that came up, in those conversations, was that the WC "relied upon the autopsy" to determine where the shots came from, and not bystander recollection. To which --I now also remember--I darkly joked that well, the autopsy only recorded "hits," not "misses"--and didn't the WC care about those who may have fired, and missed? Wasn't that pertinent??

And so, round and round it went.

Now, about the witnesses that Liebeler did interview. I'm sorry its so vague, but the distinct impression I got was that some of this was (or may have been) on his own initiative. However, I do remember, from my archives research, a memo with a list of who he was going to see in Dallas. And I recall seeing Mary Moorman's name on that list--and then, somewhere along line, learning that either because of illness or an injury, Moorman was not in fact deposed. (But she was supposed to have been. That is clear.)

Very likely, Gary Mack knows more about the details of what happened there--i.e., what illness she had, or what injury she had--than I do (at this late date).

DSL

9/7/12; 2:20 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the statement by RFK is as important as is being made out.

Robert Kennedy was a politician, in a country which was part of the Soviet Union(communist). He had been involved , with his brother, in the Cuban Missile Crisis. His response was meant for the consumption of the Polish people and other people in the Soviet Union. He was very clear that he did not think the Soviet Union or "Communists" were behind the murder of his brother.

He was stating the official policy of the United States government on the murder of his brother, which is all that he could really do.

At the time of his trip to Poland, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States government.

Following his brother John's assassination on November 22, 1963, Kennedy continued to serve as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson for nine months. In September 1964, Kennedy resigned to seek the U.S. Senate seat from New York, which he won in November. Within a few years, he publicly split with Johnson over the Vietnam War.

http://jfk.hood.edu/... F/RFK 0004.pdf

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the statement by RFK is as important as is being made out.

Robert Kennedy was a politician, in a country which was part of the Soviet Union(communist). He had been involved , with his brother, in the Cuban Missile Crisis. His response was meant for the consumption of the Polish people and other people in the Soviet Union. He was very clear that he did not think the Soviet Union or "Communists" were behind the murder of his brother.

http://jfk.hood.edu/... F/RFK 0004.pdf

I think that is an absurd position.

Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States, and the brother of the murdered (and martyred) President. The whole world wanted to know what he "really thought" about who killed his brother.

This was his first public statement, and the "target audience" was the entire world.

Either by pre-arrangement (or simply because of its obvious news value), his rather detailed statement was placed on page one of the next day's New York Times.

For anyone to believe that his statement was anything but very deliberate, and/or that his audience was merely intended for "the consumption of the Polish people and other people in the Soviet Union" is, imho, just absurd; and shows a rather limited understanding of the "realpolitik" that was unfolding at the time.

June 29, 1964 marks the time when Bobby Kennedy "officially" came on board, and publicly sanctioned the official position that would be set forth in the Warren Report (which was then being drafted, or rather "crafted") and which was then publicly released on 9/27/64.

DSL

9/7/12; 2:45 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His statement was the nothing more than the policy of the United States government at that time. It is not absurd, which means unreasonable. It is very reasonable.

Read his statement. His statement is completely inline with the offical policy of the united states government regarding the murder of his brother.

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I find this report very interesting. Someone had enough sense to realize that the second shot was the head shot and that the last shot missed. Who was this person? Who shot him down?

Is this what you really believe. That the second shot was the head shot? If you believe that then you believe in the governments version of the SBT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His statement was the nothing more than the policy of the United States government at that time. It is not absurd, which means unreasonable. It is very reasonable.

Read his statement. His statement is completely inline with the offical policy of the united states government regarding the murder of his brother.

The United States Government did not have a “policy” vis a vis the murder of President Kennedy.

Around November 30, 1963, the FBI publicly announced that Oswald was the assassin. And that's properly characterized as a "conclusion" of the FBI.

The Warren Commission was then appointed and its report was not yet completed, and not submitted to LBJ until 9/24/64.

At no time was there any “policy of the United States Government” on the murder of JFK. And your choice of words is an indication of (a) inaccurate thinking and (b ) an apparent willingness to kow tow to authority, even before the “official pronouncement” of the President’s Commission was made (9/28/64, publicly)—and then improperly call that “policy” and then, in addition, attribute that to the Attorney General, who you apparently believe was making a statement “completely inline (sic) with the official policy" (and, for the benefit of the Polish people!).

I think you had better recheck your definitions, and be more careful in your wording.

Sorry, but:

(a) No “official policy” on June 29, 1964.

(b ) Or ever.

(c ) Bobby Kennedy was not making a statement so as to be in compliance with any official policy--or, to quote your language, to be “completely inline with the official policy of the United States Government.”

DSL

9/7/12

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am calling it the way I see it.

All you have to do is read RFK's statement. It is exactly what the Warren Commission concluded, which was/(until the HSCA) the official policy of the United States government regarding the murder of JFK.

http://jfk.hood.edu/... F/RFK 0004.pdf

I am beginning to get a glimpse of the dual nature I see in your theories.

At no time was there any “policy of the United States Government” on the murder of JFK. And your choice of words is an indication of (a) inaccurate thinking and (b ) an apparent willingness to kow tow to authority, even before the “official pronouncement” of the President’s Commission was made (9/28/64, publicly)—and then improperly call that “policy” and then, in addition, attribute that to the Attorney General, who you apparently believe was making a statement “completely inline (sic) with the official policy" (and, for the benefit of the Polish people!).

You obviously have good research abilities(with respect to the written record, not the photographic record), but , for me, your conclusions are too bizarre and do not follow from that research. I am thinking that your conclusions are a reflection of a distrust of authority and not from a reasonable interpretation of the data.

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee Harvey Oswald was the Lone Gunman. That is how it started. Jack Ruby was the Lone Nut. That is how it started.

The Lone Gunman was killed by the Lone Nut. The key word is "Lone".

Bill Kelly is not unlike Lee. Bill knows that I am going to challenge him on certain things that he does not want to be challenged on. So Bill resorts to attacking the messenger and not the message.

I will say this about Mr. Lifton. He does not avoid the issues. He does not attack the messenger he attacks the message, quite brilliantly in some instances. Some of the others should take a lesson from him.

Ok we have established that it is your belief that LHO was "the lone gunman" and Ruby the "lone nut". So we know why you are here. And it is not to learn or educate, but distract.

Goodbye. Whatever your real name is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the introduction to The Oswald Affair (1966), Leo Sauvage wrote:

And then, on June 29, 1964, while visiting Poland, Kennedy suddenly proclaimed in Krakow that "there is no doubt" about the Dallas crime, that his brother had been slain by "a misfit named Oswald," and that the assassination was the "single act of one person protesting against society."

After this it was difficult to understand why Manchester should go on searching until 1967 or 1969 for the "historical accuracy" known already to Robert Kennedy by June 29, 1964. It was even harder to understand why the Attorney General had given him the assignment in the first place if he did not intend to wait for his findings before drawing conclusions. Where, by the way, did Kennedy obtain his conclusions? At the end of his New York Times story on Kennedy's astonishing remarks in Poland, Arthur J Olsen noted: "The Attorney General is known to be fully acquainted with the findings of the Warren Commission. It is presumed by persons close to him that the commission's report will reflect the views expressed by Mr. Kennedy today." But not to mention the breach of confidence, if the Warren Commission was indeed the source, the Commission's investigation was far from completed in June 1964. The Krakow declaration thus put one finishing touch on the edifice of unsubstantiated assertions that turned the crime of Dallas into the scandal of Washington. (Pages 14-15)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert Kennedy resigned as Attorney General in September 1964 to campaign for Senator from New York. He was obviously preparing for his bid to run for president.

Kennedy told confidants that he himself would reopen the investigation into the assassination if he won the presidency, believing it would take the full powers of the office to do so.

http://www.ctka.net/talbot_bug.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. I find this report very interesting. Someone had enough sense to realize that the second shot was the head shot and that the last shot missed. Who was this person? Who shot him down?

Is this what you really believe. That the second shot was the head shot? If you believe that then you believe in the governments version of the SBT.

Not sure what you're talking about. The WC said they didn't know which shot missed, but most every LN since the 80's has claimed the first shot missed, not the third.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the introduction to The Oswald Affair (1966), Leo Sauvage wrote:

And then, on June 29, 1964, while visiting Poland, Kennedy suddenly proclaimed in Krakow that "there is no doubt" about the Dallas crime, that his brother had been slain by "a misfit named Oswald," and that the assassination was the "single act of one person protesting against society."

After this it was difficult to understand why Manchester should go on searching until 1967 or 1969 for the "historical accuracy" known already to Robert Kennedy by June 29, 1964. It was even harder to understand why the Attorney General had given him the assignment in the first place if he did not intend to wait for his findings before drawing conclusions. Where, by the way, did Kennedy obtain his conclusions? At the end of his New York Times story on Kennedy's astonishing remarks in Poland, Arthur J Olsen noted: "The Attorney General is known to be fully acquainted with the findings of the Warren Commission. It is presumed by persons close to him that the commission's report will reflect the views expressed by Mr. Kennedy today." But not to mention the breach of confidence, if the Warren Commission was indeed the source, the Commission's investigation was far from completed in June 1964. The Krakow declaration thus put one finishing touch on the edifice of unsubstantiated assertions that turned the crime of Dallas into the scandal of Washington. (Pages 14-15)

Sauvage had no idea what he was talking about. Manchester's book was finished by early '66. The only thing he added after that was a denunciation of Edward Epstein's book Inquest. Richard Goodwin was one of the men RFK used as a reader on the book. He did this even though he knew Goodwin was a big fan of Epstein's book. Goodwin was such a big fan, in fact, that he (almost certainly he, but I don't think Epstein has ever identified his source) provided Epstein with an early draft of Manchester's book, in which Manchester insinuated that he--Manchester--had viewed the autopsy photos, with RFK's blessing. Epstein then wrote an article about this in Commentary Magazine, and showed Manchester up for the strange bird he was.

Sauvage was also wrong about the WC's investigation, of course. It was over by June, and the rest was window-dressing.

RFK's statements were political. He knew what the WC was gonna say, and, by being asked about it in a communist country, he had no choice but to say he agreed. My only question is whether he was set up to do this via CIA shenanigans, or whether it was just the way it played out.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×