Shanet Clark

Very clear answer, Al. So you see a FMJ with 2400 speed hitting Kennedy and leaving the Parkland exit wound? Any chance of a simultaneous or near simultaneous second headshot? This has been suggested to explain the physics of the ZFilm and is corollary to trangulation.

My point is that NIX should take precedence over MOORMAN, a motion picture should take precedence over a throw-away Polaroid, and clear multiple images of a distinct marksman should not be so eagerly explained away........

I am glad to see that you are back. Ladies and Gentlemen, Ms. Terry Mauro... ... so Terry, now tell us what you REALLY think ... -best wishes Shanet

Great question, Terry! What is the signature of a mercury load's exit ? A grapefruit sized avulsion? No Specific Pattern? The mercury load theme was used in both the film EXECUTIVE ACTION and THE DAY OF THE JACKAL, so there is quite a bit of speculation on this angle... also, isn't this the kind of thing Mitch Werbell could have provided in 1963? Or would it point to a joint agency lab?

The keepers of the Z film have been caught eliminating frames, thus speeding things up. Both the Nix and the Muchmore film start at pretty much the same time, possibly after a complete halt. The background (plain green) of the Zapruder (and the lack of a rear head wound) point to some forgery in the Z-film. One thing no one air-brushed away -- the white flash of brain and bone in Nix, Jacquie follows this back onto the hood, providing some film photographic evidence of a forward headshot, confirmed by Parkland medical eyewitnesses. (although the white object might be jacquie's gloved right hand?) (I am beginning to agree with Jack on this -- the Z film is very problematic) John Liggett did to the body what film experts did to the films. Removed the obvious and overwhelming evidence of a forward shot. The headsnaps on GREER, KELLERMAN and MRS. CONNALLY are pretty compelling evidence of a speed up in the Z film... headsnaps and forward braking "bows"...

James That is Al Carrier's position, that accellerating forward and out of the zone is TRAINING; but that possibly hesitating and halting in light of forward fire is simple INSTINCT. I take a darker view of the services that day, but I also take the point you all are making...

According to common narratives, Operation PAPERCLIP worked this way: US Army Intelligence, engineers and science advisors would decide that an individual, site or patent file belonged in Operation DUSTBIN or ASHCAN. Then that individual, when reviewed by the US ALLIED forces for de-Nazification and classification, carried his file--with a prominent steel paperclip on the file. Without saying a word, and without explicit written instructions, the ALLIED security forces interviewing the old Nazi would expedite the process and expunge the security risk findings, all because of the Paperclip. Whisked in and out, despite any political war crime suspicions, you see.... The recent record releases have resulted in an OAH booklet on the PROGRAM, when I get the order information for this book I will post it. This material is found (in often explicit language) in the US ARMY historical series and appendixes. BLOODSTONE itself may be a slightly later program, the actual operational plans for using the old Nazis under their covers in the 1950's. It is interesting that Gordon Liddy titled his 1972 burglary, extortion and kidnapping plans GEMSTONE, TOPAZ and DIAMOND HEAD... LIDDY may have subconsciously been referencing these older contemporaries of his. I don't have a lot of PAPERCLIP ASHCAN DUSTBIN material at hand, but Lucien Clay, John McCone and possibly McCloy were involved in this effort, with Frank Wisner and Allen Dulles... of course, they were under cover still in '63, and others suspects from 11/63 will probably turn up if you look into OPERATION PAPERCLIP/BLOODSTONE... The name BLOODSTONE is possibly some kind of reference to the phrase: "One cannot squeeze blood from a stone..." (i.e. that one can get valuable information from the old Nazis in bombed-out Berlin)

I am not even asserting that the Classic Gunman figure was a real sniper who fired. I think he may have been posted in position there for some reason, he is quite exposed and remains in place a few seconds too long, when Nix returns to train the camera on him after the Limousine accelerated away.... But I believe it is a real person, at the break in the wall, in a marksman's stance. Inexplicable, like so much other compelling and strange Dallas material...

The case is full of "good guys" who just "couldn't have known" The intensity of pressure brought to bear must have been both illicit: "we will kill you" and licit: "These are orders-don't ask questions" Both must have been widely in place for these things to have occurred.

This all points to a domestic action by the agencies of Treasury, Intelliegence and the military. If the President was struck down by US executive orders on the pretext of incpacity and loss of security clearance...for "national security" then this is exactly what we would have, inexplicably bad protection. Negligence to the point of complicity. Main points: Knoll, Railyard, Overpass and TBSD windows...grossly unsecured. Presidential Limousine Running Boards...standard...not available in Dallas. Unusual slow detour into triangulated "arcade" of Dealey Plaza. Motorcycles dropped back. No Presidential SS men near Kennedy. Johnson and Jacqueline recieving better attention from SS than JFK. Halting, near stoppage during 18 second barrage of gunfire. 5 to 10 mile an hour pace at beginning of barrage, slow to walking speed or nearly halted, brake lights on (downhill-gravity and transmission would have pushed them faster at 20-30 mph coasting) Lack of security for blood, tissue, ballistic fragments and window glass indicating ballistic activity.... This is just a thumbnail from memory....the Twenty Fifth Amendment would technically serve to exonerate Johnson and Treasury Secretary CD DILLON if this scheme were ever to be made public... Coordinated government agency effort are very clear here, sad to say....

I would like to read it Al. This is a hot topic and a wide range of opinion is held on this. It is a sensitive subject to this day, and today the Secret Service is bureaucratically under the Secretary for Homeland Security, but in 1963 the Treasury was over the Secret Service. Certainly the episode of Nigel Turner's The Men Who Killed Kennedy is condemning of the Secret Service, for the loss of the evidentiary windshield, for one thing. The one with the front to rear bullet hole in it. The ambush saw incredibly poor presidential protection. The line up and advance work were sloppy to the point of complicit, let alone negligent. Emory Roberts and Mr. Greer can really be best explained as working under duress or conflicting orders...

DAWN Not only is ITEK not my choice for deciding what I can and cannot see... I thought it was interesting that the HOUSE committee sent the NIX film to LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY...

John, this is the first I have heard of that program name BLOODSTONE. Documents I have seen over the years name the program to review German scientists and patented technology in the occupied zones immediately after the war. OPERATION PAPERCLIP, OPERATION DUSTBIN and OPERATION ASHCAN were the sweep up operations. German intelligence, chemical, engineers, petroleum and natural gas scientists, aeronautics and other trained Nazi era Germans were EXPEDITED out of Germany, sent to the United States and Canada and often enrolled in CORPORATE and INSTITUTIONAL cover jobs, for instance GULF OIL, TEXACO And DUPONT are known to have given cover to these former Germans whether on US soil or overseas. Of course this ties into the military rocketry programs, German IG FARBEN chemical conglomerate's post war emergence.... BO GRITZ stated a high number (20,000) for the number of old Nazis the CIA joint agency program brought into the PROGRAM. US ARMY historical works held the number to be near 750. I would be curious to find out the final number of old Nazis on the CIA payroll. It may be closer to Bo Gritz number than the old Pentagon claim...

Good photo post. This shows the faint outline semi-obscured of BLACK DOG MAN. The "black dog" is sitting up and begging in profile facing left... Zapruder and his assistant are seen on the right. The break in the wall, the disjuncture which orients CLASSIC GUNMAN in NIX is hidden in this photo, the break in the retaining wall falls behind the STEMMONS sign, so while this photo shows the Black Dog and the Zapruder duo, the Classic Gunman is obscured by the sign....

{{{Shanet - you appear to be really lacking in knowledge of the Kennedy assassination. Let's first address your ridiculous and unfounded airbrush claim .... The fact is that Moorman had her photograph in her possession in the first 30 minutes following the assassination. It was at that time that she was approached by the news media for a statement and they also filmed her photograph. I might also tell you that Mary Moorman's photo is covered with emulsion grain and that anyone trying to airbrush such an instant photo would be brushing over the emulsion grains as well...BILL MILLER}}} OBVIOUSLY NOT BILL I don't take the work done previously as Gospel Scripture. The LA FREE PRESS article on Jean Hill and Mary Moormans experience gives us plenty of room to speculate abput that shabby, grainy, rip-top Polaroid. Of course I know Polaroids are seeled with plastic film and can't be airbrushed directly... I said it looked like a POLAROID of a PROJECTED IMAGE, a POLAROID of a photo shown on a screen, a process known as multiplex conversion... What detail does the news video taken of the MOORMAN PHOTO in Nov. 1963 show of the Badgeman or the Pergola? These women were isolated and intimidated and the provenance was destroyed. But I am fascinated with the thread, how Bill super-imposed and then Eugene digitally enhanced that, and Alan Healy's remark about beginners being unable to see BADGEMAN.... Beginners can see NIX film's Classic Gunman clearly, and that seems to be the big problem. First, we need to stop explaining away evidence. Secondly, we need to stop creating new false evidence. Third we need to take a fresh look at all the outward (not occult) aspects of the available film record....although I agree with Dr. Manik, it is all suspect or corrupted.

Apparently this film has some real flaws. It only earned three out of ten stars among the first 23 to review it online. Cast and an online short review: Cast overview, first billed only: Martin Landau .... Sen. Richard Russell Sam Waterston .... J. Lee Rankin Alan Charof .... Chief Justice Earl Warren Martin Sheen .... Dep. Atty. Gen. Nicholas Katzenbach Edward Asner .... Capt. J.W. 'Will' Fritz Joe Don Baker .... Rep. Hale Boggs Corbin Bernsen .... Rep. Gerald R. Ford Lloyd Bochner .... John J. McCloy Stephen Collins .... Joseph A. Ball Paul Morgan Fredrix .... Commission Counsel Leon Hubert Henry Gibson .... Police Chief Jesse Curry Don Moss .... Sen. John Sherman Cooper D.C. Douglas .... Staff lawyer Glenn Morshower .... Cmdr. James J. Humes Jim Beaver .... Howard L. Brennan Runtime: USA:102 min (Los Angeles Film Festival) Country: USA Language: English Color: Black and White COMMISSION, THE User Comments: A screening with the actual commission present gone wrong!, 8 November 2003 Author: amsterdam from LA The big premiere at AFI fest. Martin Landau present, Corbin Bernsen present and a handful of other trustees, but the screening went all wrong! I had looked forward to this 'special movie' about the commission that was put together to investigate the actual facts around the assassination of JFK. However, after the director addressed us all, also announcing that he added a sepia tone color to the print, oh and by the way, he hasn't seen this print yet, so please comment afterwards! Well, the sepia tone was distracting, the editing was wrong, the sound mix was very poor and except for the opening 3 minutes, the rest was all titles and talking heads. Don't get me wrong, because Landau, Corbin, Martin Sheen and the rest of the commission are all very charismatic and a joy to see talking, to a certain extent. The pacing though was student film like, the information presented ambiguous and thus a great topic executed so inadequately that it became unbearable. But here comes the best part. Reel 2 kicked in and suddenly everything is out of sync! No seriously, it was not the projector messing up, 'cause we're watching an answer print, or at least a hazeltine. No, it's just pure stupidity that as a director you allow your film to premiere at such a big event, with a packed house filled with celebrities, but you can't seem to make/take time to check your print first before screening. A travesty! That, and the fact that there was a lack of visual and oral storytelling, it all looked more like a projection of a vanity fair article, at best. I beg your pardon, but this was not film-making {the premiere didn't go so good...but what a great cast!}

It took a little while but I found a review and interview about this movie: it is taken from a Sam Waterson site: Sam and The Commission An interview with filmmaker Mark Sobel Filmmaker Mark Sobel started directing television films in 1991. His credits include The Equalizer, Quantum Leap, and I'll Fly Away which starred Sam Waterston. His ultimate quest is to make feature theatrical films. The Commission is a film based on the actual transcripts of the Warren Commission. To quote Mr. Sobel, it is "... study in power and hypocrisy; of emperors wearing no clothes; of the blind character of human nature allowing a person to see only what serves their personal interest, when they would instantly call-on-the-carpet anyone else doing exactly the same thing; of asking questions again and again until only the desired answer is heard; of deliberate cover-up by some and of foolishness by others; of outright misrepresentation and unconscionable manipulation; and of the broad question of whether there exists the possibility of Justice ever prevailing within a Political system." Thanks go to the fans who thought up these questions: Bluerose, Chris, Feste, Kathy, Keri, OM, Rerun, Sherry, and yours truly. Sam the Actor 1. What was it like working with Sam Waterston? I'd call Sam an "Actor's actor." It is hard to describe exactly what I mean by that, except to say that there are thousands upon thousands of people out there who perform, and many are gifted. But working with Sam Waterston is like a scientist having the chance to collaborate with a Newton, or an Einstein or a Fiennman. He cannot make a wrong or false choice. Now as a filmmaker I might ask him to try a different interpretation (I've done two projects with Sam, and he has never once balked at a direction), but no matter what his first instinct was, it was still a 100% believable performance. That quality is what separates a "good" actor from (I hate to be trite) an "Actor's actor." Other actors I've had the pleasure to work with who fit into that kind of category includes James Earl Jones, Martin Landau, Martin Sheen --- whatever they try just works right out of the box, even if we then experiment with other approaches. 2. What words would you use to describe Sam the actor and Sam the man? As an actor, Sam can transform into "any man." Behind the scenes I have found Sam to be humble, funny, relaxed, politically concerned and a very warm person. 3. What about "I'll Fly Away?" What was it like working with Sam on that show? "I'll Fly Away" is one of the finest experiences I've ever had. What was fascinating to me was that Sam approached the whole series like a very long movie. So if all the storylines were developed for , say, 10 episodes, he would not just consider his character's actions during the single hour episode being shot, but for all 10 hours. So that if something was happening in hour 6 that seemed to be a contradiction to what he had done in hour 2, and what he will be doing in hour 10, it was important to Sam to find a way to make sense of it so that he was consistent in all 10 hours. I've never seen another actor do such deep character work in a TV series (but of course Sam came out of feature films). Interestingly, Sam would never ask the writers to change their words on his account --- but just to help him make internal sense of it. Again, an "actor's actor." 4. And what chance is there it will either be re-broadcast or released on DVD? PBS re-broadcast the series after it finished its 2-year run on NBC. If it were to be shown again, PBS would seem to be the likely place. Also, while I believe that Warners owns the show, the more likely distributor on DVD would be PBS. Start a write-in to both the PBS network, as well as PBS video. 5. If you could pick a project to do with Sam-budget and time not being limited-what would it be? Not to dodge the question, but -- absolutely anything. I have my own pet projects, but usually "pet projects" don't get made by studios. That's why I had to put the financing of THE COMMISSION myself. Otherwise the story on film it would have likely been lost to history. Sam and The Commission 6. How did you choose the actors for the roles? Did you want someone who was unavailable, and had to turn it down? I literally imagined the finest world-class actor appropriate for each role, regardless of how many millions of dollars (that the budget didn't have) it should have cost. Some, like Sam, I had worked with before. Others I had not. Virtually every major actor that I approached who read the script jumped at the opportunity to get this film made, and it was shot through a special "Art House" agreement of the Screen Actors Guild that did not even guarantee them that they would ever see a dime out of it. This was a labor of love for all involved in the truest sense. Every actor on the screen was there because of their personal conviction in the project --- money had nothing to do with it. In Hollywood, that is virtually unheard of! 7.Did you have to work around shooting schedules, say, for "The West Wing," or "Law and Order?" YES. That's partly why the film took so long to shoot (5 years in pieces). I had the world's finest actors who had agreed to do the film, and it then became a matter of scheduling around all their studio commitments. The Commission 8. Will we ever get the whole story on the Kennedy assassination? Does your movie provide answers or just more questions that we may never get the answers to? The problem is that the crime was never "genuinely" investigated. The transcripts suggest that far from taking actions out of "concern for the country," most Commissioners (with the possible exception of Warren and Boggs) were driven by a concern for their own images and careers. There was practically nothing in the testimony of witnesses called that could have ever suggested "who" assassinated President Kennedy - what should have been obvious to anyone who wanted to see it was that the Dallas Police and FBI were not looking to find anything or anyone more than the one man that they had in custody, (no law enforcement agency could be accused of failing to protect the President in the case of a lone nut). Now --- let's assume for the sake of argument that Oswald had indeed done it alone. The fact that the authorities were only really focused on Oswald (and to some degree Ruby) would, by definition, be called "framing after-the-fact." And if you frame a guilty man, there is then no way for history to determine guilt or innocence. We know from the record that FBI interviews quoted witnesses identifying Oswald, when they never had. We know that any evidence that wasn't 100% consistent with Oswald's guilt was destroyed. We know that evidence was tampered with. There is, in fact, very, very little documented evidence that we can trust today. In the case of the murder of the most powerful man in the world, it is foolish to feel that the crime has been solved because of a rifle and some fingerprints --- which is really the entire "credible" evidence. Perhaps Oswald did do it alone, but if there was an organized plan, then arranging for someone's rifle and prints to be found in the building Oswald worked in would logically be the very least that a planner would do to try to protect themselves from being hunted down by virtually every law enforcement officer in the world! In a case of such magnitude, then, this "evidence" cannot possibly tell us with any certainty at all whether Oswald was alone, complicit (knowingly or unknowingly) or even innocent, and the volume of evidence that we now know was not followed up, posing many, many disturbing questions, makes it impossible, I believe, to feel that we currently can say that we know anything definitive about what happened. For anyone presume to know what really happened on November 22, 1963, in light of the paucity that we posses in evidence today is, I believe, the ultimate in arrogance and bias indicative of an agenda at work. Even IF the crime truly involved a lone assassin, I believe that the "official" story is highly inadequate --- and that a criminal obstruction of justice clearly took place among law enforcement. And this is stated independent of whether the assassin was one person or several. We simply do not have the knowledge to even credibly speculate because of this total failure of the American system of Justice, mired also in Politics at every level from the Local Police and through every department up to and including the President of the United States. (Does this tell you what I think of the quality of journalism in TV Network specials that claim to "prove" what really happened? Be especially aware of all the various computer "simulations." They are just cartoons designed to show what the artist intended --- since a simulation must start with accurate data on the position of the wounds on the President's head, and the US Government officially changed the wound positions in 1979 to reflect something that no witness ever testified to seeing; further, virtually all who have seen the autopsy photo on which the wound-shuffle was based have strongly insisted that it does not reflect what they saw that night. The folks doing the computer "simulation" fail to mention that it is necessary to use the second, contentious placement of the wounds in order to get their animation to come out right. The only animation that I know of that actually brought to light something unexpected, was a German study that included the Secret Service follow-up car as part of the re-creation, and raised a question as to how clean any shot from the 6th floor SE window would have been through the sea of heads of the SS Agents who were standing on the running boards. It suggested that a highly skilled sniper might have had a clean shot --- though more like threading a needle --- but raised questions about whether anything less that perfection could have avoided hitting a Secret Service Agent. Given the universal agreement that a wild shot missed the car completely, this becomes especially troubling. It proves nothing; just adds another disturbing issue to the list of things never properly investigated.) And rather than expose the Dallas Police and FBI, and call for a new Investigation, the Commission just perpetuated the situation with its own efforts to create a misleading report that took witness testimony out of context to arrive at conclusions that, we now know, had been outlined by the lawyers long before a single witness was heard. And we have also had 40 years of disinformation. I think at last count about 30 people had been identified as a shooter behind the picket fence. So even if the true story has been revealed within a sea of disinformation, no one would know what to believe anyway. 9. As a 10 year old Pennsylvanian, and echoing the opinions of the nuns and my parents, I am proud that our junior Senator [Arlen Spector] was helping to capture the President's murderer with a unique and creative theory. As an independent, creative thinking adult, I think he was on drugs when he proposed it. What did the Commission REALLY think of his plan when closeted in private, and is this addressed in the film? The film shows from the testimony how the single bullet theory was advanced. Because none of the real doctors or ballistic experts would buy it, (even though the report claims that they did by taking tiny quotes out of context), it was ultimately only the Army Veterinarian who was willing to fall on his sword for Mr. Specter and who agreed with every word placed in his mouth. It is a sad statement for history, and for the memory of President Kennedy, that the Commission had to resort to a Military Animal Doctor to overrule the others in order to sell America on the facts from "the experts." It's a little like how Sir Thomas Moore was taken down, for those who have studied history. The Commissioners themselves were pretty much out to lunch on the fine details of anything --- facts, theories or whatever. The rules stated that only 1 Commissioner had to be at a hearing for it to constitute a quorum, and if 3 or 4 of the 7 Commissioners showed up it was a big turnout. So most Commissioners saw less than about half the witnesses, and many saw far fewer than that. (Of course, they all received copies of transcripts of the 95 Washington witnesses). Further, 80% of the witnessed (about 400) testified in Dallas in front of a only a Commission lawyer, with NO Commissioner present. During one scene included in the film, the Commissioners try to get straight which doctor said what, and whether he though a single bullet "did" cause all the wounds, or "might" have caused all the wounds even though the doctor "didn't think it did." This led to a vague recollection that one doctor said that they'd need to see the autopsy photos to tell better. (As a Commission, these photos were never seen) And fumbling almost senile dialog is all based on transcripts; I haven't invented anything for dramatic effect.. Overall, they come off as a bunch of elderly politicians not qualified to be there, nor having the time even if they had been qualified. Frequently much of what they said was foolish. In order to keep the film from coming off like a satire, I actually eliminated much of this "humorous" material in order to keep the characters credible (and so as not to be accused of deliberately trying to make them look stupid). There is about an hour that was left on the cutting room floor. Many who saw the original cut urged me not to pull anything, but at over 2 1/2 hours it was simply too intense for an average person. There is so much information packed in it, that some people simply get overwhelmed. I tried to find a final running time that would allow an audience of viewers who were "into" the material (if someone is not "into" the material, thay will hate this film no matter what; it is not "entertainment") to come out feeling a little bit strainned and overwhelmed ... but not to the point of getting a stress-attack. I felt that to have cut the film any shorter than its 105 minutes would have started to dumb it down. 10. Mr. Sobel, I'm certain you've visited the 6th Floor Museum and peered out the window adjacent to Oswald's perch. Did it not give you a sense of the possibility that Oswald may well have fired all shots? Oswald must surely have felt, as I and my fellow visitors did, that he was almost on top of the motorcade as it drove down Houston and turned on Elm. The experience of seeing Dealey Plaza from that angle makes it difficult for me to completely reject the single-shooter theory. What say you? Thank you. What seems to be absent from the general "public knowledge base" was the fact that FBI and Military recreations using the actual Oswald rifle found (a) the scope was defective, and could not be correctly aligned; and ( the bolt on the rifle would stick when worked to reload, causing the rifle to swing wildly off the target after each shot; and © that it was necessary for a shooter using this weapon to pull their eye away from the scope when working the bolt in order to avoid being smashed in the face with the bolt (I obtained an exact duplicate down to the same model scope --- even running it in slow motion it was painful). This now makes that 4x scope, (cited as bringing the president up so close in view that no one could possibly miss), much more problematic --- as anyone who has ever tried to, say, follow the action at a sporting event through binoculars can attest to. Once you lose all sight of your subject, to re-locate it through the scope is a frustrating and time consuming chore, (and likely made more confusing by the heads of all the Secret Service Agents who were standing on the running boards of the follow-up car). And of course a shooter trying to locate the target all over again is not in a position to improve the aim by merely making a slight adjustment after seeing the result. And as far as a misaligned scope goes: the Warren Report states in one place that a shooter could have compensated for the alignment error (this is if the shooter was a good marksman), and in another place says that the error in scope alignment would have helped the shooter (this is if he was a bad marksman, and didn't take a proper "lead"). So the report makes the shooter both a good marksman as well as a bad marksman --- and justifies anything required to pin the shooting on one man by misquoting tiny phrases of testimony, usually obtained by the lawyer leading the witness since the lawyer knew which words he needed to get on record. Specter was brilliant at it. You could conclude one thing from the way he cited quotes in the report, and then read the actual testimony (if you could obtain access to it --- only 2700 copies were printed for sale to the public in a 26 volume set {Earl Warren referred to a couple thousand copies as just "a drop in the bucket" in a country of then 180 million}; even worse, it took 8 years to sell just 2700 copies, that's how much the public cared to check it out for themselves!), and try to fingure out how such conclusions could ever have been reached in the report when nothing remotely like that kind of intent was conveyed at any time by a witness --- and in fact usually just the oposite was said! It's like reading a really bad movie review, and then seeing in the newspaper ad how just a few snipits are used with (...) connecting them to give the totally opposite impression of what the film credit intended. Now again, I'm not saying that this proves whether one man did or did not do the shooting --- simply that there are grave problems with the official version, the authorities knew it, the American public was fed pablum, and for 40 years has ultimately been willing to accept it. Today, however, it is not nearly so much a question of who shot JFK, but rather: does Justice work? And have Americans been so complacent for 40 years in their belief of their freedom, that they don't wish to risk learning ugly truths. I began work on THE COMMISSION not to deal at all with who shot JFK --- but out of a sense of being insulted on behalf of all of America that this is what went on behind closed doors in the name of Justice while Americans wept. While the testimony cannot tell us what DID happen, it can tells us much about what probably did NOT happen. The information above is also a part of the film. Not to conclude "who" fired, but to raise serious questions about the integrity of the "investigation," and the insult perpetrated on the American public via the final Report. 11. Do you find it telling that George W. Bush compared to the Warren Commission his recently convened Commission to investigate "Bad Intelligence" leading to the war on Iraq? I thought it made releasing THE COMMISSION now more timely than ever. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." In the case of the Warren Commission, it would be "Those who have never been fully informed of the past" (This, by the way, is not a direct criticism of Bush and Iraq: I just found it humorous that in believing that he was citing "integrity," Bush inadvertantly likened his own Commission to something that history will certainly conclude was a criminal Obstruction of Justice. :-) 12. If "The Commision" gets picked up for distribution as a result of showings at movie festivals, will you have any idea as to when it will be put out on DVD? I hope that all of America will have the chance to see THE COMMISSION in theaters, but because the film is not a conventional "commercial" film, it poses problems for distributors. While I think the film would prove to be commercial (ie-that at $9 per ticket enough Americans would be fascinated by it and anxious to see it --- it would only take an national audience of 10 or 20 million out of over 300 million to make it a top grossing independent film), this is the kind of film that scares Distributors to death. There are no imminent plans for a video release prior to a meaningful "commercial" run outside of Film Festivals. The film is vastly more powerful in a theatrical setting. I am planning to protect this film --- I believe that it could prove to be one of the most politically significant American Independent film ever made; I don't want it to become lost to history, and only a meaningful theatrical release will achieve my goal. 13. I've been real curious about where this film went. And why it went away, given the cast. Do you think political pressures are/will directly or indirectly keep distributors away? I have been very, very careful about over-exposing THE COMMISSION during its Film Festival life. In the film festival world, overexposure reduces interest (sadly - since indie films need all the exposure that they can get). After being screened as a "work-in-progress" last November at the AFI Fest in LA (the screeing sold out in 1 day, 3 weeks before the festival started!), it will next be screened in DALLAS, TEXAS on Aprl 25 in the USA Festival. I figure that this is the best venue to draw attention from the press. I believe that this film should be covered not only as a film event, but also as a news event --- for it makes public for America the inner details of the "Crime of the century" for the first time in 40 years. I feel that there are massive pressures to keep anything to do with the JFK Assassination out of the press, and therefore out of the public's knowledge. Not necessarily to protect those who might have been involved in an assassination 40 years ago, but because Governments regard uproar over this event and the propect of more investigating as destabilizing --- whenever the subject flares up very 10 years or so, just look at the public outcry. Public outcry is not considered a good thing in politics. And there is still dirty laundry in America's past 40 years that Uncle Sam would not want to be revealed now, nor would they want the revelations of the 60s, 70s and 80s to become re-publicized. The average voter doesn't remember what the Church Committee disclosed in 1975. Many weren't born or are too young to remember). It would not be convenient to remind the public today. And all that stuff, and new information, would come out if a massive investigation were held today. For example: Something that went totally unannounced in the press is that in 1995 the US Secret Service DESTROYED its Dallas 1963 advance reports on "PRESIDENTIAL PROTECTION." In 1995!!! It was illegal as of the "1992JFK Act" for any agency of Government to destroy JFK files, as all documents were under review for early declassification. In 1998 the "Assassination Records Review Board" issued a report to Congress, and fully advised them of the destruction of 1963 Dallas-related documents by the Secret Service--- and with a tone of criticism rarely seen in a Government report (generally, government reports only slap hands at best --- otherwise the report's authors had better hide from someone else's next report!) Not a word of this very significant destruction was picked up by the National Press. Given that the whole 1992 JFK Act came about after public furor over the movie "JFK," and that creation of the "Review Board" was to re-instill the "public faith in Government," it would seem to have been a doubly significant destruction. No investigation. No press. I think this film will get most of its press attention in Europe, and either receive extraordinarily bad press in the US through 'ringers', or very little attention to start with. 14. If you can't find feature film distribution will you consider trying to sell your film to TV? No. One way or another I will find a meaningful way to get it out there --- evenr if it takes time. Frankly, just playing in a single art house in New York for 6 months (or more) might generate as much attention as anything. There are non-traditional avenues, and I'll find them -- the film delivers the goods. 15. What can fans do to help see that this film gets the attention it deserves? Write every independent Distributor in America --- from Miramax on down to the little guys in New York. Remind them that finding an audience of just 10-20 million people in America fascinated by the JFK assassination and willing to pay $9 to get as close as possible to at last knowing what our Government really knew and wanted to keep secret for 75 years would be easy in any event, and that the film has major star-power on top of that. Remind them that this is going to be a very political year with the upcoming election, and although THE COMMISSION is neither for or against any political party, it is a critique on Government that is more relevant today than ever. Remind them that it might catch the coat-tails of the new Michael Moore film (as political films come into vogue this fall) --- and that Moore's last movie grossed $40 million. (Also, go to the web site below and download a copy of the color poster art, print it in color, and include it with your letter). Don't phone or e-mail, it will annoy them. Receiving 10,000 letters a day will get attention. Address your letter to the President of the company. Ask your local press to cover the ongoing story of THE COMMISSION trying to battle its way into release so that the public can learn the truth --- so that Movies in America are more than just entertainment to dumb down the population. Use the Internet to spread the word. And if the film gets an opening in even 1 commercial house later this year, get people to line up around the block to keep it on the marquee for as long as possible. (I won't make a dime off such a 1-house release, by the way. Without a large national release, I won't even get my costs back. Which is ok as long as the film makes its mark). Everything about THE COMMISSION is diametrically opposed to what Hollywood today considers "marketable." In fact, it is in a way a rejection of the fast, slick look of films today. This subject matter could never have been given justice if made that way --- yet to Distribution executives, fast and slick in their minds equals sales. Even a 1-house New York release could show distributors that there is a huge audience for this very "unconventional" film, even though it is B&W, slowly paced, and has no action. Indeed it's style is akin to a move made 40 years ago. But then watch --- if this film were ever properly released and captivated America,( ie-made a distributor more money than any small indie in history), suddenly the Major Studios would start making a movie or 2 in Black and White with intense and methodically slow pacing to see if this had become the hot new thing. I thought these were great questions, and really enjoyed answering them. Stay tuned to www.TheCommissionOnline.com to track the film's progress. End Interview with Mark Sobel

Wrone wrote reviews of the books by GERALD POSNER and SEYMOUR HERSH (he found lots of problems in both CASE CLOSED and DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT) and gets this material published in standard history journals, quite a feat, believe me......... Here is his basic theory: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...ssue/wrone.html

You can read the House Committees methods of dealing with pesky images: "THE NIX FILM The final photographic source relating to the grassy knoll is the Nix motion picture film. Several frames coinciding with ,the fatal head shot frames of the Zapruder film were selected for scanning and input into the computer. The scanning was performed at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; the scanned data was then sent to the Aerospace Corp. for enhancement by computer. The, mode enhancement was an edge and detail sharpening process that has the effect of making the photograph appear more in focus. (107) Fig. IV-11 (JFK exhibit F-161) shows both original and enhanced images of the Nix film, centered around the region of the retaining wall. The, enhanced Nix film shows an object that can be construed as having a shape similar to that of a person. It is also possible to interpret this object as being of the same general shape as the person identified at the wall in the Willis NO. 5 photograph. Nevertheless, the person in the, Willis photograph displayed distinct flesh tones in the computer display of the image. No such pattern of flesh tones is visible the enhanced (or original) Nix frames. The Panel could not conclude that the object near the retaining wall in the Nix film was the same as the person visible in the Willis No. 5 photograph. This image was not identified by the Panel as a human being. It was more likely the result of a pattern of light and shadows cast on an object in the background behind the retaining wall by the nearby trees. The area of the retaining wall image in the Nix frames was also examined for the presence of a flash of light or a puff of smoke from a discharging rifle, which some bystanders claimed to have seen. No evidence of either was found. The Panel also examined another controversial aspect of the Nix film. As Nix panned his camera from right to left following the motion of the Presidential limousine, the background of the grassy knoll came into view. In it, beyond the retaining wall and running along the crest of the knoll, is a region of deep shadow that is broken by patches of light. For a number of frames there appears to be a brightly lit object whose shape some have interpreted to be that of a man sighting a rifle toward the Presidential limousine. The right "arm" of this object is rigidly extended outward from the "body," with the left "arm" tucked in more tightly, as if supporting a rifle stock. There is, between and above these arms, a shape that looks like a "head." That object has been interpreted to be a rifleman in the classic military posture for firing a rifle. (108) Magnification of the classic gunman object showed it to be indistinct and blurry. It was decided to process these images by computer techniques that would bring the image more "into focus" by making its features sharper. Computer enhancement work was carried out at both the Aerospace Corp. and the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. (109) It was recognized that the limitation on improving the images would be the noise in the frames. Since several frames showed the region in question, it was decided to apply a "frame-averaging" technique. This process involves registering the frames and then adding them together to reduce noise, then enhancing the resulting product. This technique can greatly improve the quality of an enhancement. (110) Aerospace applied an enhancement process to the individual frames identical to the one applied to the Nix film for the person-at-the-retaining-wall image (see fig. IV-12, JFK exhibit F163); (111) Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory applied a more sophisticated technique known as MAP restoration. (112) Figure IV-13 (JFK exhibit F-162) shows the original and enhanced version of one Nix frame as produced at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory; the original is shown at the top, the enhanced version at the bottom. A total of eight frames were registered, added and enhanced to produce the lower image. Eight frames, considered to have the least, blur or noise, were selected. FIGURE IV-13.-Classic gunman image (Nix film) Top: Unenhanced. Bottom: Enhanced. After examining the enhanced image, the Panel concludes that the so-called classic gunman object was not a gunman. First, there is no evidence of human flesh tones in the "head" and "hands"; whereas the people in the Nix film have distinct flesh tones, the object here is almost uniformly white. Second, the white tones are identical in appearance with the white tones of the light regions of the shadow patterns cast on the wall of the structure behind the retaining wall by sunlight filtering through the nearby trees. Third, in the enhanced image, the shadow pattern above and to the right of the object is seen to be connected to the object itself. The Panel concludes that the most probable explanation is that the image is a chance pattern of sunlight on the structure behind the retaining wall. The Panel's conclusion was strengthened by an observation at the Aerospace Corp. that in one frame the "right arm" of the object disappears, only to reappear in the next frame. Such behavior would be virtually impossible for a person, but is conceivable for tree branches casting a shadow pattern on a wall. The Panel also examined the classic gunmman object for evidence of a flash of light or puff of smoke. To enhance any phenomena as transient as these, the frames were differenced, that is registered frames were subtracted from each other sequentially in time. This technique makes transient phenomena highly visible. (113) No evidence of any flash or smoke was found. The Panel also reviewed a previous report by the Itek Corp. (114) Itek measured the relative displacement of the classic gunman in successive frames of the Nix film as the camera panned from right to left. The extent to which an object shifts in successive frames can be used to caculate the distance from camera to object by applying the basic principles of photogrammetry. The calculated the distance from the camera to the object in this way and found that the calculations placed the object very near shelter 3 of Pergola 2 in Dealey Plaza. (ILS) Further study by Itek of the ground elevation in relation to the retaining wall showed that a line of fire toward Dealey Plaza would require that a rifle near this structure be 9 feet above ground. Itek concluded that the classic gunman object was a pattern of light and shadow on shelter 3. The Panel agrees with these conclusions.

This is all self evident and requires only common sense. If you were in a jury box and these two simultaneous images were in evidence, what conclusion would you have? Left: NIX film of the Classinc gunman in his marksman stance, tracking the Limousine. Right: Simultaneous Moorman Polaroid with whited out ganzfeld where the Classic Gunman is seen in NIX.

How can we ignore the CLASSIC GUNMAN? KILROY stands at the wall, his arms akimbo in a sharpshooter's stance and he TRACKS THE LIMO WITH THE BARREL OF HIS GUN. This is shown very clearly in the NIX home movie film, he stands to Abraham Zapruder's near left, wearing a white shirt. He may have just been posing, but he tracks the vehicle with the barrel in NIX. Because NIX was standing a full EIGHT TO TEN FEET ABOVE Mary MOORMAN on the hill, while Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were down in the "well" near the limousine he captured things on film that MOORMAN didn't have an angle on... and I never trust a small Polaroid whose provenance the day of the assassination has been interrupted...and the great thimbprint on it, phoney, the Moorman photo, I think MOORMAN may be a Polaroid of an airbushed and projected image, where a ganzfeld covers over the CLASSIC GUNMAN seen so clearly in the NIX film. {{Bill Miller will repeat the HSAC 1978 findings that it is a shadow on the wall, but that shadow looks a lot more like a markman than the RORSCHAK phenomenon called BADGEMAN>>>>>>>>>}} CLASSIC GUNMAN IS A SOLID FIGURE : BADGEMAN IS A FANCIFUL FIGURE

I found this book while web-surfing. The University of Kansas published it, and the credentials of the author are those of a legitimate historian. Has anyone read it? John Simkins, could you invite him into the FORUM? [Viewing the Zapruder, I believe the exit wound is blacked out. JFK appears to have black hair on the back of his head after the 313 Z frame. I think this is just special effects, and that NIX shows a white (brain and skull) blowout to the rear, causing Jackie K. to chase the skull fragment straight back onto the hood of the Limousine. The classic gunman tracks the Limousine, but I believe the fatal headshot came from Kennedy's left, on the "flat" near the intersection of the triple overpass and the south knoll parking lot. This is where W. Tosh Plumlee heard shots from, and Al Carrier believes the shots came from this area as well. ] BOOK POST: The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination By David R. Wrone November 2003 400 pages, 40 photographs, 22 in full color, 6-1/8 x 9-1/4 Cloth ISBN 0-7006-1291-2, $29.95 (t) It is the most famous home movie of all time, the most closely analyzed 26 seconds of film ever shot, the most disturbing visual record of what many have called “the crime of the century.” In 486 frames—a mere six feet of celluloid—Abraham Zapruder’s iconic film captures from beginning to end the murder of President John F. Kennedy in broad daylight. The film has become nearly synonymous with the assassination itself and has generated decades of debate among conspiracy theorists and defenders of the Warren Commission’s official report. Until now, however, no scholar has produced a comprehensive book-length study of the film and its relation to the tragic events of November 22, 1963. David Wrone, one of our nation’s foremost authorities on the assassination, re-examines Zapruder’s film with a fresh eye and a deep knowledge of the forensic evidence. He traces the film’s forty-year history from its creation on the “grassy knoll” by Dallas dressmaker Zapruder through its initial sale to Life magazine, analysis by the Warren Commission and countless assassination researchers, licensing by the Zapruder family, legal battles over bootleg copies, and sale to the federal government for sixteen million dollars. Wrone’s major contribution, however, is to demonstrate how the film itself necessarily refutes the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman and single-bullet theories. The film, he notes, provides a scientifically precise timeline of events, as well as crucial clues regarding the timing, number, origins, and impact of the shots fired that day. Analyzing it frame-by-frame in relation to other evidence—including two key photos by Phil Willis and Ike Altgens—he builds a convincing case against the official findings. Without fanfare, he concludes that more than three gunshots were fired from more than one direction and that most likely none were fired by alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. If true, then JFK’s death was the result of a conspiracy, for the Commission’s nonconspiracy conclusion requires a maximum of three shots and one gunman. Wrone, however, does not speculate as to who actually shot JFK or why—or even if Oswald was involved. In fact, he is just as critical of the legion of conspiracy theorists as he is of the Warren Commission (which, he reveals, crushed dissent within its own ranks). Doggedly pursuing the evidence wherever it leads, Wrone has produced a meticulous, clear-eyed, and provocative new reading of this remarkable cinematic Rosetta Stone. “An important, valuable, and compelling addition to the literature on the assassination that argues convincingly that the film is both authentic and contains evidence of a conspiracy.”--Michael L. Kurtz, author of Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian’s Perspective “The vivid images captured by the Zapruder film are eminently recognizable, perhaps more so than any other film footage ever captured, so much so that anyone who reflects on JFK’s assassination quite likely does so from Abraham Zapruder’s vantage point.”--Walter E. Dellinger III, Maggs Professor of Law at Duke University and former Solicitor General of the United States “Wrone’s knowledge of the assassination’s evidentiary base is unparalleled.”--James H. Lesar, founder and president of the Assassination Archives and Research Center DAVID R. WRONE is professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point. Home | About the Press | Recent Awards | Contact Us | Order New Books: | By Author | By Subject | By Title | By Series Books in Print: | By Author | By Subject | By Title | By Series ©2000 University Press of Kansas 2501 West 15th St., Lawrence, KS 66049 Phone (785) 864-4155; Fax (785) 864-4586

The possibility of return fire and the possibility of a Dallas policemen dying in the action was a planned part of the sequence. I cannot point to any single document or testimony, Dixie, but I have come to believe this is true from the general circumstances. This is a fairly speculative, theoretical approach for me, but I do believe it is true...and would explain quite a bit. Basically Oswald was supposed to kill the arresting officer, one, and two, a uniformed gunman is seen in the photo near the blood stain. It has been suggested that a wounding by return fire, or friendly fire, occured and was covered up .... any Dallas cop who was in danger of bolting the CAROUSEL program was probably at risk that day, etc. The South American Police ringer murder plan is a fairly firm concept, historically ...sorry I cannot be of not more help. >>>>>>> PS Eugene's post today on Tippitt on the DID THE BIG FISH KNOW presents a theory related to my line of thought...best wishes

I agree with both of you, and John probably is guilty of suggestion. This shadowy Roosevelt is an important character in the history of covert ops in the Cold War, but I have never heard him linked to Dallas. Like Audie Murphy, Kim Roosevelt was probably kept out of the loop, and (speculating) he may have had say, an ambush triangulation or a rifle switch and engraving plan which was used "off the shelf" ...i.e. some element of the KNOWN coup d'etat plans toward Mossagegh and Arbenz may have figured in the joint paramilitary domestic executive action committed on 11/22/63...but there is no evidence of any of this (yet) T.Gratz- Whether or not there are elections and a new regime in IRAQ, the U.S. land, sea and air capabilities in the unstable and petroleum rich Persian Gulf theater have been immeasurably improved by the United States initiated war. I predict the new Iraq regime will be under US military hegemony for some time. And yes the US-IRAQ WAR is linked to the situation in Iran under the Shah, where the US lost so much strategic ground, circa 1979.

A review of: The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It by Richard Hofstadter (New York: Random, 1989 [1948]); and The Liberal Tradition in America by Louis Hartz (London: Harcourt Brace, 1991 [1952]). The social sciences generally present models of social engagement. Theoretical models develop explanations for transactions, inter-actions, power and the inequities observed in real life. Like the models presented by the physical sciences, our social science models need to be compelling, concise, consistent and durable over time. American political history, if it is to be rigorously analyzed with critical thinking, needs a theoretical model to explain its general trends, and there have been many models presented. These models have often been overwhelmed by a false sense of consensus. English social philosopher John Locke (d. 1704) presented the most durable political model for the United States’ system of government and social interaction. His theory of a Social Contract existing between individuals under a moral system of Natural Law overturned the hierarchical and traditional view of political reality. Both the “divine right of Kings” and the concepts of class “estates” were rejected by John Locke. The developments in political theory since the 18th century have often given favored status to Locke. The inconsistencies between Locke’s approach and more recent theoretical approaches (concerning class status and structural conflict) were often ignored in reference to the United States (or seriously misunderstood) until the work of Louis Hartz. Hartz took a close look at the problem of U.S. “liberalism,” the capitalist Lockean norm. Richard Hofstadter also engaged the American love affair with liberal, Lockean norms, and he showed that a malleable opportunism often drove political leaders to act. Hofstadter’s stress on contingent reaction and ad hoc compromise supports Hartz’s more sweeping assault on the nature of the traditional understanding of American politics. Hofstadter is a durable classic on the American “pantheon” and a critical look at the United States’ political leadership. Hartz’s study is a more durable, challenging and compelling secondary source for post-graduate students of American political theory. Jonathon Weiner’s “Radical Historians and the Crisis in American History, 1959-1980” (Journal of American History, Sept. 1989, p. 399) helps to explain the limitations and achievements in this period of political science. While Hofstadter takes a personal and human view of events, Weiner and Hartz show the larger forces at work. They critically engage the assumptions of bourgeois norms in America, and take the power of the liberal model and the historical failure of class solidarity in the U.S. as their themes. After reading Hartz, Hofstadter looks almost quaint. His chapter “Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism” sheds light on the period, but Hartz goes farther with a more compelling approach, and shed light on even Hofstadter’s failings. Hofstadter is critical and debunks the “great man” approach to American history. (The “great man” theory as it is generally presented is a perversion of the theory originally submitted by Thomas Carlyle, who stressed “great ideas” as the dynamo behind all “great men.” Compelling concepts were the driving force behind the emergence of popular leaders, and an ad hominem approach risks ignoring the cultural matrix behind a Wellington, a Washington or a Lincoln—and the ideation which legitimized them.) Hofstadter is probably guilty of the blind (or blinkered) reliance on 18th century liberal theory that Hartz exposed. See Hofstadter on Lincoln: “popular government is something deeper and more valuable than a mere system of political organization: it is a system of social life that gives the common man a chance (p.160).” This is the Alger myth, a myth exploded by sociology since Comte and by the current understanding of class forces today. The reproduction of elite advantage is a more proper term for our form of government’s ‘system of social life.’ Louis Hartz sees the reality of 19th and early 20th century history stripped of the baggage of the Lockean myth, the myth of the self-made man rising up in a merit oriented world. Hartz engages more universal theories of class division, inequality and marginalization and he exposes the persistent failures of the liberal bourgeois model of government to “level” society, protect the disadvantaged, or relate to the outside world. Hartz’ central contribution and consistent theme is the narrow and isolated nature of political theory in the United States. His approach is a comparative political analysis where the United States (for the first time?) is directly related to European models of civil conflict. The United States never experienced a true feudal or aristocratic age, and this is central to his comparison. The dynamics of class struggle, the identification between and among classes in Europe is contrasted to the persistent reluctance of Americans to wield power in true opposition to upper middle class “Whig” agenda. American political tradition is seen as a triumph of one class, the upper middle class bourgeois. This ascendance has blinded the USA to very real and compelling political facts, and limited the ability of the nation to respond to crisis, engage with the outside world in an equitable manner or co-exist with different systems. Compare the quote above (Hofstadter on Lincoln) to Hartz’s analysis of Lincoln’s Republican Party of 1865: “He democratizes an elite liberalism in the process of abolishing a ‘feudal reaction.’” The lack of estates, the absence of Kings, lords, and loyal yeomen drove American political thinking into a cycle of elite co-options. Hartz’s theory explains the Republican Party’s control of US political forces from 1860 to the present. With no class estates to look back on, and no real sense of betrayal by the upper class, the American worker was lulled into acquiescence, drawn by the ‘rags to riches’ myth of Horatio Alger into a combination with the hostile forces of big business. No true labor party, socialist program or class challenge contributed to the American political tradition. Louis Hartz thus explains the impotence of Progressive and Marxist ideas in the American political experience. While all this is probably a great comfort to our comfortable ‘burghers’ and a commonplace among entrepreneurs, Hartz sees a threat lurking. When he looks at the pervasive, all encompassing nature of Liberal Lockean thought in the States, he sees a great hole in the fabric of our political thought: Now a sense of community based on a sense of uniformity is a deceptive thing. It looks individualistic, and in part it actually is. It cannot tolerate internal relationships of disparity … it is profoundly anti-individualistic, because the common standard [liberalism] is its very essence, and deviations from that standard inspire it with an irrational fright … Here we have the “tyranny of the majority” that Tocqueville later described in American life; here too we have the deeper paradox out of which it was destined to appear…at the bottom of the American Experience of freedom … there has always lain the inarticulate premise of conformity, which critics from the time of Cooper … have sensed and furiously attacked. ‘Even what is best in America is compulsory’ Santayana once wrote … the ironic flaw in American liberalism lies in the fact that we have never had a real conservative tradition (Hartz, pp. 56-57, italics added). This is certainly a compelling, subtle and somewhat counter-intuitive (for an American) argument. Yet it explains—rather than bemoans—the failure of progressive thought to ever flower into a powerful and compelling U.S. social democratic movement. Both Hartz and Hofstadter have weaknesses, and many are shared between them. The absolute absence of women is now apparent in both books. The unwillingness of either author to grapple with the political experience and potential of blacks, Native Americans and immigrants becomes more glaring as time passes. Hofstadter took a refreshingly human look at political leadership, and debunked a great amount of hagiography; the apologia of the U.S. pantheon was deflated and brought to ground. His blind spot was the same one that Hartz exposed, and his axiomatic acceptance of liberal Lockean norms becomes troubling when exposed to the contrasting ideas of his contemporary, Hartz. Hartz engages the structural and theoretical backdrop of political reality in a comparative world. Hofstadter gives agency to his individuals, but finds them circumscribed and steered by events. Neither author stresses the power of popular reaction and counter-moves which some would say is the systemic dynamic of the American debate. Hartz presents a more concise and compelling political theory than Hofstadter, one that engages social classes and structural antecedents. Americans, with no aristocrats to resent and no estate (class) to defend, found themselves atomized and drawn into an individualist creed unknown to the European post-feudal reality. Hartz’s weaknesses are generally ones of style. He violates the first rule of scholarly writing on almost every page—the rule stating that the first and last name of every historical character must be stated in the first usage. His short-hand is reductive. His references to Burke, Lewis, Cooper, Holmes and Tucker are ambiguous and self-congratulatory. The political theories of say, Macaulay, cannot be accurately summed up in a one-word reference. His subtlety often borders on the obtuse, and his genius is freighted with idiosyncrasy. Whereas Hofstadter has written a great book, Hartz has constructed a powerful theory.