Paul Rigby

You make very sound points, Robert, with which I agree. Lane, for example, got a bundle of stuff off, well, let him tell you: So let me see if I have this sequence, in all its innocence, aright: On November 26, Lane commences work on his first literary defence of Oswald. In mid-December, said defence is published by that legendary right-wing organ, The National Guardian. Yet in January 1964, author of said defence travels to Dallas to be greeted by a journalist, professionally active in the cover-up from the outset, and – get this - a recent applicant for employment with the CIA, who just happens to hand him (Lane) a stack of photostats exonerating Oswald, and calling into doubt a number of key official claims. Odd, no?

A very good question, when we consider how content not merely Lane, but so many other of the first generation researchers were to ignore so many of the closest witnesses, not least the motorcycle outriders immediately behind and to the side of the presidential limousine. This "oversight" reinforced the omissions of the Warren Report's compilers, and was only corrected thanks to the work, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, of Fred Newcomb and those interviewers working with and for him. One point of fact on Brehm, though, his first quoted testimony to reach print pointed somewhere very different than the grassy knoll: Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): The shot(s) came from “in front of or beside” the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, first post-assassination edition, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.

He wasn't and isn't. Lane's work between 1963 and the end of 1966 was studiously non-committal on the question of CIA involvement. Four examples: 1) Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination,” The British who killed Kennedy? Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp): Anything here on the CIA-did-it? Not a sausage. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1251-Suspicion-in-Plenty-An-anthology-of-scepticism-published-in-Britain-1963-1973&p=6831#post6831 2) Mark Lane, “Who is Jack Ruby?” The Minority of One, April 1965, (Vol VII, No. 4), 8-11. Here, on p.9 (and again later in the same piece), we find Lane approvingly quoting the Agency: 3) Mark Lane interviewed: “Who Killed Kennedy?” Fact, Nov-Dec 1966 (vol 3, issue 6), 7-8. From the Harold Weisberg archive: Anything here on the CIA-did-it? No, again. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Thornley%20Kerry/Item%2036.pdf 4) “Interview: Mark Lane,” Playboy, February 1967, 41-42, 44-64, 66-68. On p. 62, the following: Lane's position only shifted following his involvement with Garrison and the Shaw trial. In so far as Lane lit after any of the intelligence-cum-law-enforcement bureaucracies in the period in question, it was the FBI. He was even more of a late-comer when it comes to the question of Secret Service centrality to the plot. William Loeb, the right-wing editor of the Manchester Union-Leader, for example, beat Lane to the punch by a mere 40+ years, printing an editorial, on 26 November 1963, entitled "Investigate The Secret Service."

Contains a rank piece of disinformation:

Rusbridger – Handmaiden to Powerby Craig Murray on August 11, 2014 12:27 pm in Uncategorized Rusbridger’s Guardian has become an unrepentant unionist, zionist, and neo-con New Labour propaganda vehicle. Particularly deceitful is their attitude to the security services and the “war on terror”, where Rusbridger stands revealed as a handmaiden to power. He was, a very senior Guardian source told me, particularly upset when I described him as “Tony Blair’s catamite”. Let me say it again. Let me give you a specific case to illustrate my point. On 2 August the Guardian published a piece by Jamie Doward and Ian Cobain which, on the face of it, exposed the British Foreign Office for lobbying against the publication of the US Senate report on extraordinary rendition, lest details of British complicity become public. On the face of it, a worthy piece of journalism exposing deeply shady government behaviour. Except that I had published precisely the same story a full 15 weeks earlier, on April 14 2014, having been urgently contacted by a whistleblower. What is more, immediately I heard from the whistleblower I made several urgent phone calls to Ian Cobain. He neither took nor returned my calls. I therefore left detailed messages, referring to the story which I had now published on my website. In fact, the Guardian only published this story after William Hague had written to Reprieve to confirm that this lobbying had happened. In other words the Guardian published only after disclosure had been authorised by Government. Furthermore, in publishing the government authorised story, the Guardian omitted the absolutely key point – that the purpose of the UK lobbying was to affect court cases under way and in prospect in the UK. Both in civil cases of compensation for victims, and in potential criminal cases for complicity in torture against Blair, Straw et al, British judges have (disgracefully) accepted the argument that evidence of the torture cannot be used because the American do not want it revealed, and may curtail future intelligence sharing. Obviously, if the Americans publish the material themselves, this defence falls. As this defence is the major factor keeping Blair, Straw and numerous still senior civil servants out of the dock, this sparked the crucial British lobbying to suppress the Feinstein report – which has indeed succeeded in causing a huge amount of redaction by the White House. My mole was absolutely adamant this was what was happening, and it is what I published. Yet Cobain in publishing the government authorised version does not refer to the impact on trials at all – despite the fact that this was 100% the subject of the letter from Reprieve to which Hague was replying, and that the letter from Reprieve mentioned me and my blog by name. Instead of giving the true story, the government authorised version published by Cobain misdirects the entire subject towards Diego Garcia. The truth is that Diego Garcia is pretty incidental in the whole rendition story. On UK soil there was actually a great deal more done at Wick airport (yes, I do mean Wick, not Prestwick). That is something the government is still keeping tight closed, so don’t expect a mention from Cobain. I was fooled by Cobain for a long time. What I now realise is that his role is to codify and render safe information which had already leaked. He packages it and sends it off in a useless direction – away from Blair and Straw in this instance. He rigorously excludes material which is too hot for the establishment to handle. The great trick is, that the Guardian persuades its loyal readers that it is keeping tabs on the security services when in fact it is sweeping up after them. Which is a precise description of why the Guardian fell out with Assange and WikiLeaks. I suppose I should expect no better of the newspaper which happily sent the extremely noble Sara Tisdall to prison, but we should have learnt a lot from Rusbridger’s agreement with the security services to smash the Snowden hard drives. The Guardian argues that other copies of the drives existed. That is scarcely the point. Would you participate in a book-burning because other copies of books exist? The Guardian never stands up to the security services or the establishment. It just wants you to believe that it does. Source: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/rusbridger-handmaiden-to-power/#comments

Rather's very different versions of the Z-film are discussed in the interview listed below:

David Aaronovitch Posts Fake Book Reviews and Lies About Whyby craig on April 23, 2014 10:25 am in Uncategorized David Aaronovitch entered into a conspiracy with others to post fake 5 star reviews of his last shoddy book on Amazon. He now lies about why. He has attempted to defuse the row by coming clean and making light, courtesy of his Murdoch employer. But his explanation is a plain lie. Aaronovitch claims that : “almost before my book was published, the first 1-star reviews started to appear, from people who had never read it. After a week, even I wouldn’t have bought it.” In fact, the very first eight reviews on Amazon were all five star - which by his own argument must be “from people who had never read it”. That is very probably true, as the first two five star reviews were posted on the very day the book was released, 7 May 2009. In fact the average rating of the first reviews is very much higher than the average rating he gets from the general public overall, extremely suspiciously so. (One remote possibility is he was getting Amazon to delete critical reviews, but that also would negate his justification for procuring the fake positive reviews). He claims “After a week even I wouldn’t have bought it”. In fact, after a week it was averaging a literally unbelievable five stars. It was a full month before the first one star review arrived. Then it was from an amazon real name verified customer who Aaronovitch plainly does not think should be entitled to their opinion. His excuse for this attempt to defraud the public by planting false reviews of his product is, quite simply, a lie. Aaronovitch is a xxxx. Which makes you worry a little about his journalistic standards otherwise, does it not? It is an interesting glimpse into the dark mind of one of the leading propagandists for the Iraq War. It seems that Aaronovitch with others entered a conspiracy to boost book sales through fraudulent reviews. Which as his book in question argues that pro-establishment conspiracies never have existed, is rather ironic. I do not regard this as a minor dereliction. I believe it opens serious questions about a journalist’s integrity. In the days when the Times was a respectable newspaper, it would have led to Aaronovitch’s dismissal. I should say I have never asked anybody to post a positive review of one of my books on Amazon. I am happy to say thatMurder in Samarkand has a much higher star review rating than Voodoo Histories, and unlike Aaronovitch I did not have to cheat to get it. Only one of my 49 reviews by “Biodiplomacy” is actually from a friend but I did not ask him to do it, and I am sure in any circumstances he would give his honest opinion. He often disagrees with me in comments here! I am conscious that one probable consequence of this posting is that neo-con trolls will now bomb Murder in Samarkand with bad reviews. I very much welcome reviews, good, bad, or indifferent, from anybody who has honestly read the book and is giving their genuine opinion. This is an extract from the article in the Times where Aaronovitch admits to his fraud, and lies about the cause. I can’t link to it because it was behind a paywall. To Mr Murdoch’s copyright lawyers, I am quoting a brief extract for the purpose of legitimate analysis and debate. If you have any sense, you would realize I am also doing you a favour by exposing your star columnist as a cheat and a fraud: Something like half of all book sales are now made through Amazon, and when you find a book on Amazon it is accompanied by reviews from “readers” who give it a 1 (lowest) to 5 star rating. So, almost before my book was published, the first 1-star reviews started to appear, from people who had never read it. After a week, even I wouldn’t have bought it. There is only one thing you can do in this situation. You ask every friend and family member to go onsite PDQ and 5-star your baby. You get your frauds to balance off their frauds. Ce n’est pas magnifique, mais (grâce à Amazon) c’est la guerre. Actually, David, ce n’est pas la guerre. La guerre is what you supported so enthusiastically in Iraq, and involves the blasting to pieces of young children, the rape of countless women, the end of hundreds of thousands of lives and the wrecking of millions more. It involves the destruction of the infrastructure of countries and the loss of decades of economic development, and a ruinous expense to our own economy. It involves the bombing of densely packed urban areas in Gaza, for which you are an enthusiast, and from which the terror and suffering is something you will never understand. For you just sit here in the highly paid heart of the warmongering Murdoch establishment, and indulge in lies and cheats to further your income and your grubby little career. Craig Murray: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/04/david-aaronovitch-posts-fake-book-reviews-and-lies-about-why/

Robert Scheer, “A Political Portrait of Robert Kennedy,” Ramparts, February 1967, 11-16 http://www.unz.org/Pub/Ramparts-1967feb-00011

Why were the plotters and their media mouthpieces so concerned to answer a question - did the limousine stop on Elm? - that was not being posed by the world-public? The answer lies in the testimony of the motorcyle outriders, a group largely - and revealingly - ignored by the Warren Commission. What follows is a necessarily truncated version - there are too many images within the piece to post in its entirely here - focusing on the testimony elicited by an interviewer acting for Fred Newcomb: Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination. He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done. Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer and McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Ramparts was also a CIA Front By Miles Mathis http://mileswmathis.com/ramp.pdf

Very plausible explanations for both, Ken, particularly the change in version 3 (wherein Rather removed any suggestion that the First Lady was fleeing from the car in fear). As to the question of the precise timings, feel free to correct: the object, after all, is accuracy. Better still, photograph or scan the source(s) for your timings, and post so that everyone can see it/them. Paul

The third known television description offered by Rather contains, at least in the version above, three Altgens photographs, numbered, by conventional reckoning, 4, 6, & 7. It would be useful to have confirmed that the three did indeed appear in the course of the original broadcast. If so, we are confronted by a puzzle: the sequence in which they were deployed. In order of taking, they should have appeared as I have listed above, as Rather's description was essentially chronological. But they do not. Altgens 6 was shown first, at 16/17 seconds; Altgens 4 at 53/54 seconds; and Altgens 7 at 2 minutes 43 seconds. Both Altgens 4 & 7 match the narrative and illustrate it: the former shows Kennedy and his wife as Rather describes the location of the President and his wife (C4/5); while the latter visually reinforces Rather's description of "the lone Secret Service man who was riding on the bumper of the car, the back bumper on Mrs. Kennedy's side" (C21). So far, so unobjectionable. But now consider the deployment of Altgens 6. The narrative which precedes and occurs during Altgens 6 runs as follows: "The films show President Kennedy's open, black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the assassin was waiting" (C2). And the photograph, Altgens 6? Kennedy reacting on Elm, well past the left turn from Houston, to the impact of the first bullet in his throat. Why was Altgens 6, then, inserted earlier than it should have been? The answer almost certainly lies not in the absence of stills of the turn from Houston onto Elm - after all, plenty of other elements of Rather's narrative went unsupported by photographs - but in the determination of the plotters to sell us, however crassly, an explanation of how Kennedy managed to be shot from the front, from behind. The use of Altgens 6 within the third of Rather's known televised descriptions, assuming it was, would thus seem to be a precursor of the print campaign to achieve that important obfuscation, and a harbinger of the suppression of the first version of the Zapruder film. Or as I put it some years ago: Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film? The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action. Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston: In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm: And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm: The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit. Just how imperative it was for the plotters and their heirs on the Warren Commission to withdraw the first version of the Z fake – thus making comparison impossible for the general public and posterity - is made abundantly clear in the following piece:

Someone called Hans Trayne has obligingly (?) posted to his Youtube channel the three versions, stripped of extraneous preamble and correctly timed*, complete with the texts I posted above: First version: Published on Mar 28, 2014 On 25 Nov 1963, CBS news broadcast 3 different reports from Dan Rather in Dallas describing what he had seen when he viewed the Zapruder film. This 1st report was broadcast at 4:07 PM EST. Each report differs in details of scenes Mr. Rather saw that do not match the officially released Zapruder film authorized by the Zapruder heirs in 1998 on 'Image Of An Assassination'. Global visuals analysts now believe Mr. Rather was describing a film that was subsequently falsified by government operatives at a secret film lab before the public 1st viewed it on TV in1975. Second version: Published on Mar 28, 2014 On 25 Nov 1963, CBS news broadcast 3 different reports from Dan Rather in Dallas describing what he had seen when he viewed the Zapruder film. This 2nd report was broadcast at 4:21 PM EST. Each report differs in details of scenes Mr. Rather saw that do not match the officially released Zapruder film authorized by the Zapruder heirs in 1998 on 'Image Of An Assassination'. Global visuals analysts now believe Mr. Rather was describing a film that was subsequently falsified by government operatives at a secret film lab before the public 1st viewed it on TV in 1975. Third version: Published on Mar 28, 2014 On 25 Nov 1963, CBS news broadcast 3 different reports from Dan Rather in Dallas describing what he had seen when he viewed the Zapruder film. This 3rd report was broadcast at 6:30 PM EST*. The description of Jackie Kennedy trying to exit the limo has been dropped in this report. Scenes described differ from what is seen when the film was officially released by Zapruder's heirs in 1998 on 'Image Of An Assassination'. Global visuals analysts now believe Mr. Rather was describing a film that was subsequently falsified by government operatives at a secret film lab before the public 1st viewed it on TV in1975. Trayne’s “channel” is to be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/trayne59 * For reasons unspecified, Trayne follows Gary Mack in timing the third description to 6:30pm, EST, rather than Ken Rheberg, who offered 8:26PM, EST. Gary Mack, “The $8,000,000 Man,” The Continuing Enquiry, 22 August 1980, (Vol 5, No 1), 3: 6:30 PM, EST: http://digitalcollec...o-jones/id/1181 Ken Rheberg: “Dan Rather described the Zapruder film THREE separate times on CBS-TV Monday 11/25/63. The final report was televised at approximately 8:26PM, EST.” Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...12216&p=262821 Post #249, 17 November 2012, within the thread: Was Muchmore's film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?

Dan Rather's known televised descriptions of the first version of the Zapruder film A) First description of the Zapruder film: From 7 mins 12 secs until 13 mins 11 secs within the following segment of CBS’ coverage of the funeral, 25 November 1963, between 1600hrs and 1631hrs EST: http://youtu.be/BGl0ddD7kF4 1. We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination and the shooting of Texas Governor John Connally. 2. Here is what the motion picture shows. 3. The automobile, the black Lincoln convertible, with the top down - carrying, in the front seat, two secret service agents; in the middle, or jump seat, the Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy – made a turn off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street. 4. This was a left turn and was made right in front of the building from which the assassin’s bullet was fired. 5. After making the turn, and going about 35 yards from the corner of the building – six stories up in which the assassin had a window open – and keep in mind here that President Kennedy and Governor Connally are seated on, both on the same side of the car, on the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally are on the side of the car away from the assassin. 6. About 35 yards from the base of the building, President Kennedy, in the film, put his hand up to the right side of his face, the side facing the assassin. 7. He seemingly wanted to brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow. 8. Mrs. Kennedy at this moment was looking away, or looking straight ahead. 9. She was not looking at her husband. 10. At that moment, when the President had his right hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurched just a bit forward. 11. It was obvious that the shot had hit him. 12. Mrs. Kennedy was not looking at him, nor did she appear to know at that instant that her husband had been hit. 13. Governor Connally, in the seat immediately in front of the President, apparently either heard the shot or sensed that something was wrong because, Governor Connally, with his coat open, his button was undone, turned in this manner (turns back to his right with right arm extended), his hand outstretched, back toward the President; and the Governor had a look on his face that would indicate he perhaps was saying “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or “Can I help?” or something. 14. But as Governor Connally was turned this way, his white shirt front exposed well to the view of the assassin, the Governor was obviously hit by a bullet, and he fell over to the side. 15. Governor Connally’s wife, immediately, seemingly instantaneously, placed herself over her husband in a protective position, it appeared; and as Governor Connally fell back, President Kennedy was still leaned over. 16. At that moment another bullet obviously hit the head of the President. 17. The President’s head went forward, violently, in this manner (gestures). 18. Mrs. Kennedy, at that instant, seemed to be looking right-square at her husband. 19. She stood up. 20. The President slumped over to the side and, I believe, brushed against Mrs. Kennedy’s dress. 21. Mrs. Kennedy immediately turned and flung herself on the trunk of the automobile, face-down on the trunk, almost on all-fours. 22. The First Lady appeared to be either frantically trying to get the secret service man who was riding on the bumper of the car - the single secret service man riding on that bumper - to come into the car or to tell him what had happened; or perhaps, from the picture, it appeared she might have been trying to get out of the car some way. 23. The car never stopped. 24. The secret service man in the front seat had a telephone in his hand. 25. The car…its acceleration increased rapidly and it disappeared under an underpass. 26. Three shots - the first one hitting President Kennedy, the second one hitting Governor Connally, the third one hitting the President – consume, possibly, five seconds. 27. Not much more than that, if any. 28. That is the scene shown in about twenty seconds of film that the FBI has in its possession. 29. The film was taken by an amateur photographer who was in a very advantageous position, and who had his camera trained on the President’s car from the time it made the turn in front of the assassin until it disappeared on its way to the hospital. 30. This is Dan Rather in Dallas. Second description of the Zapruder film: From 21 mins 51 secs until 27 mins 07 secs within the following segment of CBS’ coverage of the funeral, 25 November 1963, between 1600hrs and 1631hrs EST: http://youtu.be/BGl0ddD7kF4 1. We have just returned from seeing a complete motion picture of the moments immediately preceding, and the moments of, President Kennedy’s assassination. 2. The motion picture shows the limousine carrying, in the front seat, two secret service men; in the middle, or jump seat, Governor and Mrs. Connally; and, in the rear seat, President and Mrs. Kennedy; a single secret service man standing on the back bumper; the top of the black Lincoln convertible down. 3. The car made a turn, a left turn, off of Houston Street, on to Elm Street, on the fringe of Dallas’ down-town area; that turn made directly below the sixth floor window from which the assassin’s bullets came. 4. After the left turn was completed, the automobile, with only one car in front of it - a secret service car immediately in front – the President’s car proceeded about 35 yards from the base of the building in which the assassin was. 5. President Kennedy and Governor Connally were seated on the same side of the open car, the side facing the building: Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Connally on the side of the car opposite the assassin. 6. President Kennedy is clearly shown to put his right hand up to the side of his face as if to either brush back his hair, or perhaps rub his eyebrow. 7. Mrs. Kennedy at that instant is looking away, and is not looking at the President. 8. At almost that instant, when the President has his hand up to this side of his face (gestures), he lurches forward something in this manner (gestures): The first shot had hit him. 9. Mrs. Kennedy appeared not to notice. 10. Governor Connally, in the seat right in front of the President – by the way, the Governor had his suit coat open, his suit was not buttoned – perhaps either heard the shot or somehow he knew something was wrong because the picture shows just after that first shot hit the President, the Governor turned in something this manner, with his right arm stretched back toward the President, as if to say “What’s wrong?” or “What happened?” or say something. 11. It exposed the entire white front shirt of the Governor to the full view of the assassin’s window; and as the Governor was in this position, and President Kennedy behind him was slumped slightly over, a shot clearly hit the front of Governor Connally; and the Governor fell back over towards his wife. 12. Mrs. Connally immediately put herself over her husband in a protective position, and as she did so, in the back seat, this time with Mrs. Kennedy’s eyes apparently right on her husband, the second shot – the third shot in all – the second shot hit the President’s head. 13. His head went forward, in a violent motion, pushing it down like this (leans forward, lowering his head as he does so). 14. Mrs. Kennedy was on her feet immediately. 15. The President fell over in this direction (leans to his left). 16. It appeared his head probably brushed or hit against Mrs. Kennedy’s legs. 17. The First Lady almost immediately tried to crawl on – did crawl on - to the trunk of the car, face-down, her whole body almost was on that trunk, in something of an all-fours position. 18. She appeared to be either trying to desperately get the attention of the secret service man on the back bumper, or perhaps she was stretching out toward him to grab him to try get him in. 19. Perhaps even trying to get herself out of the car. 20. The car was moving all the time, the car never stopped. 21. The secret service man on the back bumper leaned way over and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy’s shoulders – she appeared to be in some danger of falling or rolling off that trunk lid. 22. He pushed her back into the back seat of the car. 23. In the front seat, a secret service man with a phone in his hand. 24. The car speeded up and sped away. It never stopped, the car never paused. 25. That’s what the film of the assassination showed. 26. The film was taken by an amateur photographer who had placed himself in an advantageous position: eight millimeter color film. 27. This is Dan Rather in Dallas. C)Third description of the Zapruder film Broadcast at 2026hrs, EST, duration approximately 3 mins 26 secs.* http://youtu.be/kiSoxFHyjGY Transcript of third description on line: http://www.etcfilmunit.com/Cronkite.html I-Accuse.com 1. The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer, who had a particularly good vantage point, just past the building from which the fatal shot was fired. 2. The films show President Kennedy's open, black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street on the fringe of downtown Dallas, a left turn made just below the window in which the assassin was waiting. 3. About 35 yards past the very base of the building, just below the window, President Kennedy could be seen to, to put his right hand up to the side of his head to, either brush back his hair or perhaps rub his eyebrow. 4. President Kennedy was sitting on the same side of the car as the building from which the shot came. 5. Mrs. Kennedy was by his side. 6. In the jump seat in front of him, Mrs. Connally, and Governor Connally, Governor Connally on the same side of the car as the president. 7. And in the front seat, two Secret Service men. 8. Just as the president put that right hand up to the side of his head, he, you could see him, lurch forward. 9. The first shot had hit him. 10. Mrs. Kennedy was looking in another direction, and apparently didn't see, or sense that first shot, or didn't hear it. 11. But Governor Connally, in the seat in front, appeared to have heard it, or at least sensed that something was wrong. 12. The Governor's coat was open. 13. He, he reached back in this fashion, exposing his white shirt front to the assassin’s window, reached back as if to, to offer aid or ask the president something. 14. At that moment, a shot clearly hit the governor, in the front, and he fell back in his seat. 15. Mrs. Connally immediately threw herself over him in a protective position. 16. In the next instant, with this time Mrs. Kennedy apparently looking on, a second shot, the third total shot, hit the president's head. 17. He, his head can be seen to move violently forward. 18. And, Mrs. Kennedy stood up immediately; the president leaned over her way. 19. It appeared that he might have brushed her legs. 20. Mrs. Kennedy then, literall,y went on the top of the trunk, of the Lincoln car, put practically her whole body on the trunk. 21. It, it appeared she might have been on all fours, there, reaching out for the Secret Service man, the lone Secret Service man who was riding on the bumper of the car, the back bumper on Mrs. Kennedy's side. 22. The Secret Service man leaned forward and put his hands on Mrs. Kennedy's shoulder to push her back into the car. 23. She was in some danger, it appeared, of rolling off or falling off. 24. And when we described this before, there was some question about what we meant by Mrs. Kennedy being on the trunk of the car. 25. Only she knows, but it appeared that she was trying desperately to, to get the Secret Service man's attention or perhaps to help pull him into the car. 26. The car never stopped, it never paused. 27. In the front seat, a Secret Service man was, was on the telephone. 28. The car picked up speed, and disappeared beneath an underpass. 29. This is Dan Rather in Dallas. *Ken Rheberg: “Dan Rather described the Zapruder film THREE separate times on CBS-TV Monday 11/25/63. The final report was televised at approximately 8:26PM EST.” Source: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216&p=262821 Post #249, 17 November 2012, within the thread: Was Muchmore's film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?

In summary, then, a very large establishment conspiracy - based in large measure upon coercion, perjury, and the blatant abuse of law - and one which continues to be covered up. Not exactly a bad contemporaneous example to deploy when faced with a left-gatekeeper insisting large establishment conspiracies don't and can't happen.

Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK by Geoffrey Robertson – review This coruscating account of the miscarriage of justice at the heart of the Profumo affair is written with gusto and gallows humour By Richard Davenport-Hines The Guardian, Wednesday 4 December 2013 09.30 GMT http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/dec/04/stephen-ward-innocent-geoffrey-robertson-review . • Richard Davenport-Hines's An English Affair: Sex, Class and Power in the Age of Profumo is published by HarperPress

Walter Pforzheimer, the Agency’s Historical Curator, in a memo lamenting the publication of Richard Starnes’ Requiem in Utopia, July 1967: http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/5829/CIA-RDP80B01676R001600030024-8.pdf Or here for many additional reviews of books of interest to Langley in the same year: http://www.foia.cia.gov/search-results?search_api_views_fulltext=&field_collection=&page=23619 Why the CIA so loathed Requiem in Utopia: Richard T. Starnes. Requiem In Utopia (NY: Trident Press, 1967), p.119

Thanks for that, Richard, and, yes, it does appear to be Allman. But why is he still on the steps leading to the TSBD? Shouldn't he have been on the phone within the building by this time? Paul

Bill, That's an excellent question and that's why I'm trying to find out if Pierce Allman was captured on film running down the street of the Grassy Knoll towards the Newman family as he claimed he did, or, after speaking with Bill Newman (and hearing from him that JFK had been struck in the head), running up the Grassy Knoll with reporter Bob Jackson and thence (probably via the Elm St. Extension) to the TSBD to ask Oswald where the phone was, all of which he claimed to do. I mean, if Allman did all of this, shouldn't he have been caught in a photograph or film? Unfortunately, nobody seems to know. As you probably know, If Allman did everything he claimed he did, he may have gotten to the TSBD too late to have asked Oswald where the phone was, because Oswald (if Sean Murphy's theory is correct) may have already spoken briefly with Baker and Truly somewhere near the front entrance and / or gone upstairs to the second floor lunchroom to get a Coke. Or something like that. Of course another way to look at it is that if Allman did interact with Oswald after doing all of that running around, then Oswald was there at or near the front door a lot later than a lot of us would want to admit, because it would tend to conform with the idea that Allman spoke with Oswald while Oswald was escaping from the TSBD. So there's a lot at stake here. But, unfortunately, nobody seems to know whether or not Allman was captured on film in the Grassy Knoll area right after the assassination. If Allman (or to a lesser extent Ford and Jackson) wasn't captured on film during this critical period of time when so many photographs were being taken of the general area of the Grassy Knoll and Elm Street, then that would suggest to me that maybe Allman didn't do everything he claimed to do, and therefore might have arrived at the TSBD much sooner than we have been led to believe, and may have interacted with Oswald early enough to preclude the possibility that it was during the "great escape" by LHO. But as I said, nobody seems to know if Pierce Allman (or sidekicks Terry Ford and / or Bob Jackson) were captured on film in the Grassy Knoll area right after the assassination. Perhaps Robin Unger or Gary Mack or someone else will accept this not so veiled challenge to find and post photographic proof that Allman did what he claimed to have done. And you know what would be a really cool bonus (or not)? A photo or film showing Allman and / or Ford standing near Howard Brennan, like Allman said they were, a short time before the shots rang out! --Tommy bump http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2511848/How-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-helped-reporter-telephone-chance-encounter-just-seconds-shot-JFK.html Photograph of youthful Allman: anyone recognise him in any of the pre- and/or post-assassination photographs and/or film footage? Credit to Richard Hocking & Mark Johansson: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&p=282299

From Weisberg's Hood archive, an interview with RFK, published this date in 1966: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Manchester%20William%20Part%202/Item%2001.pdf

John F. Kennedy's Vision of Peace On the 50th anniversary of JFK's death, his nephew recalls the fallen president's attempts to halt the war machine By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. November 20, 2013 12:30 PM ET

The BBC-Guardian nexus in defence of the Warren Report The Guardian of Lies: The fake "progressive" case for continuity of foreign policy from Kennedy to Bush II

Bill, I think he was out of breath from running a bit more than 50 feet. From his 1998 full text, unedited interview with Joe Bill Patoski: Pierce Allman: "As the car sped off, that's when the Secret Service man from the back had vaulted over and pushed Jackie back in the seat, she was trying to come up, and that's when the body assumed that grotesque position we saw on the way to Parkland. Then I ran across the street, spoke to the Newmans and said, 'Stop!' And why we were running that direction, I couldn't tell you. It was just sort of a flow. I stopped and said, 'Are you ok?' He said, 'Yeah, but they got the president. They blew the side of his head in.' I remember thinking, 'I've got to get to a telephone.' But we continued up the little hill there -- I won't say 'knoll' -- the little hill..." Bill: "That's all right." Pierce Allman: "And Bob Jackson from the Times-Herald was running behind me. And why we went up there, I don't know, except there was just sort of a movement up there. And then I turned around, ran back down the hill, ran up the sidewalk, went into the depository building, asked the guy where the phone was, went inside, got on the phone, called the station, and had trouble getting through." --Tommy Questions for everyone: Earlier in this full text, unedited 1998 interview with Joe Bill Patoski, Allman said that he and his sidekick Terry Ford were standing near Howard Brennan during the assassination. Are there any photographs or films showing Allman or Ford near Brennan at the time? In the full text, unedited interview with Patoski, Allman says something which I find to be very confusing. In relaying what he'd told the Secret Service when they tried to get him to ID Oswald as the guy he'd asked about the telephone, Allman says: "I said, 'Guys, this is going to be power of suggestion. All I can remember is White Male, and about this height, and the whole thing, not the dark hair, the gestures, and whatever.'" [emphasis added] Question: Is the "not" a typo? And if not, what does he mean by "not the dark hair?" (Compare this to what he is quoted as saying in the highly-edited version for the Texas Monthly magazine: "I said, ‘Guys, this is going to be power of suggestion. All I can remember is white male with dark hair, and slender, and his gesture toward the phone.’") In the youtube video, Allman tells another radio man,"Frank," that one witness saw a man with a gun at a second floor window, and another witness saw a man with a gun at a fourth floor window. Allman said that both he and the police had spoken with both witnesses. Does anyone know the identity of these two witnesses? In a November 1963 live phone interview in the youtube video, Allman said that the limousine was in the middle of the street, had just passed him, and only about ten feet from him when the shooting started. Thoughts, anyone? All excellent questions, deserving of a better response than I can currently give you, Tommy. My strong suspicion is that Allman moved - or was directed to move - from the corner of Houston & Elm onto Elm, and from reporter of the observations of others to direct observer, the better to pre-empt unwelcome truths such as the limo stop. But that must remain mere suspicion for the moment. Paul

Bill, I find this impossible to buy. Is it likely or probable that a professional journalist would forget, or merely be too modest to mention, that he had just observed the impact of bullets on a president? Worse still for this argument, we have a directly comparable example in that of James Altgens, who, like Allman, makes haste to report his observations to his office, and yet still manages to recall that he saw the bullets impacting. Then let's turn to Allman's alleged concern for accuracy. Given his journey to the knoll, on what basis did Allman preclude either that location, or any other, in deference to the claims of an upper window of the TSBD? What was his basis for doing so? What made him so sure? He had, after all, reached this remarkable conclusion while walking back from the knoll to the TSBD. What investigation was possible in the course of this journey? Was this insistence compatible with responsible journalism? Paul

Hour’s-worth of edited highlights of WFAA radio’s coverage of the assassination’s aftermath. The selection opens with Allman’s interview numbered 2) above: http://www.musicbiatch.com/download/8J7H1gdg8Ug/jfks-assassination-11-22-63-wfaa-radio-dallas.mp3