Paul Rigby
-
Posts
1,740 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Rigby
-
-
BREHM is alone in not pointing to the monument area, all the people around BREHM, HUDSON, SUMMERS, HILL, MOORMAN, ALTGENS, W NEWMAN, J NEWMAN, CHISM, MRS CHISM, FRANZEN, MRS FRANZEN, ZAPRUDER and GAYLE NEWMAN all claimed the monument area was where the shots came from. Why didn't LANE interview any of these witnesses?
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.
-
Geez, Robert. Mark Lane is the godfather of the CIA-did-it faction of the research community.
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.
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:
According to the CIA, among “the most promising sources of contact between Ruby and politically motivated interested in securing the assassination of President Kennedy” were a Dallas oil millionaire and an official of the John Birch Society. (26WCH471-473.)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.
4) “Interview: Mark Lane,” Playboy, February 1967, 41-42, 44-64, 66-68. On p. 62, the following:
His mother, Marguerite Oswald, has also repeatedly stated in public that her son was a CIA agent; but I’ve been unable to find any independent verification for that charge. After his return to the States, Oswald maintained his leftist public image, but there are some strange contradictions here, too...Whether he was a rightist passing for a leftist, or a leftist passing for a rightist, or an FBI or CIA agent passing for both, or possibly just plain confused, I honestly haven’t been able to figure out. I’m inclined to believe he was a sincere leftist.”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:
The shot was fired and it struck the president in the back of the neck, exited from his throat. It was fired from the Book Depository building, which was behind him, and the wound in the throat was an exit wound. Every doctor at the Parkland Memorial Hospital where the president was taken and everyone who examined him said it was an exit wound. So he was shot from the back. -
Rusbridger – Handmaiden to Power
by 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:
Thought you'd heard the last word on the JFK assassination? Well, you haven't. This week on NightVision, documentary film maker Gil Toff blows the lid off the most controversial event of modern American history. Toff's riveting 1960s interviews with eye witnesses in Dealey Plaza will shock you. Or maybe confirm what you've always suspected!
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
http://www.latalkradio.com/Players/Rene-100312.shtml
Trailer for Gill Toff's proposed documentary:
-
David Aaronovitch Posts Fake Book Reviews and Lies About Why
by 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:
-
Robert Scheer, “A Political Portrait of Robert Kennedy,” Ramparts, February 1967, 11-16
-
Paul,
You've been wondering here, and over on the Deep Politics Forum, why Rather would broadcast a second, new description of the Zapruder film so quickly after his first. Why so soon, and why even new at all?
Seems obvious to me that the reason is this. . .
Rather's earlier radio description referenced the movement of the limo during the shots: "The car never stopped, it never paused." But his later, first TV description only said, "The car never stopped." He left out "it never paused." As soon as that mistake was realized, he was immediately back on the air again with another, brand new description which now included the important, missing words, "the car never paused."
"The car never stopped, it never paused" was then found in Rather's third description later that night. This broadcast, however, rather than being a repeat of the second, was again brand new in order to delete any suggestion that Jackie may have been trying to escape over the trunk of the limo.
Once more, the time of the third TV description was 8:26 PM EST, not 6:30 PM EST. Your times for the first two TV descriptions are also inaccurate.
Ken
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:
The JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interviews by Larry Rivera and Jim Fetzerhttp://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/03/the-jfk-escort-officers-speak-the-fred-newcomb-interviews-3/
Among the most disputed issues in JFK research is whether or not the presidential limousine came to a halt after bullets began to be fired.
Remarkably enough, interviews of the four JFK motorcycle escort patrolmen conducted in 1971 by Fred Newcomb for his book, Murder from Within (2011), reveal significant details about the duration of the event and the multiple activities that occurred when it stopped on Elm Street. The officers were Billy Joe Martin on the outside/left (#7), Robert Weldon Hargis the inside/left (#6),
James M. Chaney on the inside/right (#9) and Douglas L. Jackson the outside/right (#10). In these excerpts, which are transcribed from the Newcomb interviews, all four of them claimed that it stopped or almost stopped after the “first” shot, which was actually the second or third, since JFK had already been hit in the back by a shot fired from the top of the County Records Building.
The sound of a firecrackerThe reason many reported the second or third as “the first shot” is that it made the sound of a firecracker as it passed through the windshield en route to JFK’s throat, where, according to Bob Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain and expert on wound ballistics, it hit bone and fragmented, part going downward into his right lung, the other upward into his brain. In these transcripts, “Whitney” on behalf of Fred Newcomb is questioning Officers Hargis and Martin. When Hargis refers to “that first shot”, therefore, he is speaking of what happened after the sound of a firecracker, not the actual first shot. He has told Whitney that the limo stop lasted for “about 5 or 6 seconds”. Office Martin is troubled the Zapruder film does not show a limo stop:
What is also significant about Martin’s replies is that he is describing an agent–presumably, Clint Hill–who was trying to get up on the limo during the stop. Jackie is out on the trunk and, Martin believes, was reaching out to help him get up on the back of the vehicle, where she had gone after a chunk of JFK’s skull and brains and which she would hold in her hand all the way to Parkland.
Hargis runs between the limosThis one with James Chaney offers further proof that the limo stopped on Elm Street for quite some time. Chaney describes how Bobby Hargis, after dismounting from his cycle and leaving it on the left lane of Elm Street, ran in front of him–and in between the two limos–on his way up the grassy knoll and up to the pedestal, where Zapruder had been standing (WC6H 295):
For Bobby Hargis to have had enough time to park his motorcycle and then pass in between the two vehicles in front of Chaney means that both limos stopped for a substantial amount of time, perhaps at least as long as 5 or 6 seconds, as Hargis himself had observed above. The only problem with this is that none of the films that exist today show Bobby Hargis doing any of that.
Who climbed on the limo?The extant Zapruder and Nix films show a smooth rolling limousine cruising around 12-15 miles an hour, which slows down slightly when Clint Hill boards the vehicle via the back, by climbing over the trunk, who according to Bobby Hargis, did so in order to prevent Jackie Kennedy from climbing out of the back seat of the car. Was Clint Hill the only Secret Service Agent to climb into the limousine? Hargis was emphatic about a second agent boarding and entering the back seat:
Sargent Stavis Ellis, who was in very close contact with all of the patrolmen who were under his supervision, had this to say:
This information, if accurate, is devastating to the official version, because it confirms not only that the limo did stop on Elm Street, but that it stopped, as Hargis said, perhaps for as long as 5 to 6 seconds, giving not just one agent time to get in, but a second agent time to get in and cover the President and First Lady. This would have been in line with protocol established by the Secret Service, where each one was assigned a personal shield in case of an emergency such as this one.
The Chunk of SkullApparently a large chunk of JFK’s skull was blown to the left and onto the the inner grass beyond the south curb of Elm Street. Since the motorcade was at a standstill, an unidentified boy picked up the piece of skull and a Secret Service Agent snatched it from him and threw it into the back seat of the limo. As far fetched as it may seem, Sargent Stavis Ellis was quite sure this happened:
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 Mathishttp://mileswmathis.com/ramp.pdf
So I guess the question is, why would the CIA blow its own cover? Why would one CIA front—Ramparts—squeal on another CIA front—Encounter? We get the answer in Saunders' book, near the end. Tom Braden, the head of the IOD who ran the whole arts operation for the CIA after 1950, blew what was left of the cover in May 1967 in an article in the Saturday Evening Post called “I'm Glad the CIA is Immoral.” That's right: you didn't read that wrong. Not immortal. Immoral. Lacking morals. Synonyms: psychotic, evil, vice-laden, vicious, dishonest, shameless, decadent, postmodern. The CIA wrote an article with that title, the Saturday Evening Post printed it (the Saturday Evening Post, not Hustler), and no one blinked an eye. We aren't told whether Norman Rockwell did the illustrations for that piece. That was just a month after the Ramparts exposé. But the CIA had known about Ramparts intention to break this story since early 1966, a full year earlier [saunders, p. 381]. The CIA tells us it did everything it could to sink the story, but was unsuccessful. Right. The CIA was not able to prevent a small magazine from publishing material that went against national security, and then was not able to stop the New York Times and the Washington Post—which they also owned—from the “orgy of disclosures” that followed? They weren't able to stop their own man Braden from publishing in the Saturday Evening Post? That's about as believable as their story about not being able to invade Cuba.When asked, Braden said he “forgot” about his secrecy agreement. Right. Braden also apparently didn't care about scooping Ramparts. He had a lead of three months to work on his article, and could have easily scooped Ramparts by publishing in March instead of May. That is just one more indication that the CIA controlled Ramparts. It wasn't Ramparts the CIA was trying to scoop or spin, it was Conor Cruise O'Brien and the international contingency of the 1966 PEN conference. The Irishman O'Brien and others—especially the French—were tired of seeing International PEN (Poets, Essayists, and Novelists) infiltrated by the CIA. They are the ones who began leaking information in 1965. By 1967, the CIA could see that their cover was already blown, so the best they could do is take control of the leak. That way, they could at least spin it. That is what the “orgy of disclosures” in 1967 was about. Like the orgy of disclosures in Saunders' book in 1999, it was the effort to minimize and direct. Smaller fish could be thrown to the sharks, a few minor crimes could be admitted, but all the big stuff would remain buried. -
Paul,
You've been wondering here, and over on the Deep Politics Forum, why Rather would broadcast a second, new description of the Zapruder film so quickly after his first. Why so soon, and why even new at all?
Seems obvious to me that the reason is this. . .
Rather's earlier radio description referenced the movement of the limo during the shots: "The car never stopped, it never paused." But his later, first TV description only said, "The car never stopped." He left out "it never paused." As soon as that mistake was realized, he was immediately back on the air again with another, brand new description which now included the important, missing words, "the car never paused."
"The car never stopped, it never paused" was then found in Rather's third description later that night. This broadcast, however, rather than being a repeat of the second, was again brand new in order to delete any suggestion that Jackie may have been trying to escape over the trunk of the limo.
Once more, the time of the third TV description was 8:26 PM EST, not 6:30 PM EST. Your times for the first two TV descriptions are also inaccurate.
Ken
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
-
Third version:
Published on Mar 28, 2014On 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/1181Ken 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.”Post #249, 17 November 2012, within the thread: Was Muchmore's film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?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:John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20:
“…The known facts about the bullets, and the position of the assassin, suggested that he started shooting as the President’s car was coming toward him, swung his rifle in an arc of almost 180 degrees and fired at least twice more.A rifle like the one that killed President Kennedy might be able to fire three shots in two seconds, a gun expert indicated after tests.A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events.The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck.”In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm:Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1:
“Chicago, Nov. 27 – With the aid of movies taken by an amateur, it is possible to reconstruct to some extent the horrifying moments in the assassination of President Kennedy.As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right, smiling and waving.At that instant, about 12:30 p.m., the sniper, peering through a four-power telescope sight, fired his cheap rifle.”The 6.5 mm bullet – about .25 caliber – pierced the President’s neck just below the Adam’s apple. It took a downward course.”And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm:Paul Mandel, “End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds,” Life, 6 December 1963:
“The doctor said one bullet passed from back to front on the right side of the President’s head. But the other, the doctor reported, entered the President’s throat from the front and then lodged in his body.Since by this time the limousine was 50 yards past Oswald and the President’s back was turned almost directly to the sniper, it has been hard to understand how the bullet could enter the front of his throat. Hence the recurring guess that there was a second sniper somewhere else. But the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it,”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:Joseph A. Loftus, “Kennedy Slaying Is Reconstructed,” NYT, 6 December 1963, p.18:Dallas, Dec. 5 – Thirteen days after the assassination of President Kennedy, Federal investigators were still reconstructing the crime on film today…An open car with a man and a woman in the back seat simulated again and again today the ride of the President and Mrs. Kennedy on Nov. 22. A motion picture camera in the sixth-floor window…recorded these trips…Each simulation differed slightly, either in the speed of the car or the gestures of the occupants or in some other detail. On one trip both occupants of the back seat waved. On another the man turned to the right and, moments later, slumped in his seat; then the car’s speed picked up…One question was how the President could have received a bullet in the front of the throat from a rifle in the Texas School Book Depository Building after his car had passed the building and was turning a gentle curve away from it. One explanation from a competent source was that the President had turned to his right to wave and was struck at that moment. -
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, 2014On 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, 2014On 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, 2014On 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/1181Ken 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.”
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:
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:
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.*
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
Stephen Ward was the fashionable osteopath who, as punishment for introducing the minister for war, Jack Profumo, to his young nemesis Christine Keeler, was framed by the police on "vice" charges and hounded to death in 1963. Ward was an avid attention seeker, an incorrigibly indiscreet chatterbox with a mischievous streak, who would revel in the attention that he is receiving 50 years after his Old Bailey trial. Andrew Lloyd Webber is bringing out a musical honouring him. Written by no less than Christopher Hampton and Don Black, and directed by Richard Eyre, the play is an apotheosis for a scapegoat who was denounced in court as "a thoroughly filthy fellow" and was ostracised by his friends.
Geoffrey Robertson, the human rights barrister, has written a coruscating account of the miscarriage of justice centred on Ward. He shows how the Conservative home secretary Henry Brooke summoned the head of MI5 and the police commissioner of Scotland Yard to the Home Office and instructed them to "get Ward", as Robertson says, "for any offence that he could possibly have committed". Ward's crimes, so far as the devoutly Christian home secretary was concerned, were fornication, Godlessness and blabbing information to Labour politicians about Profumo. Ward's telephone was bugged, his patients were placed under surveillance and 140 witnesses were interviewed so that the police could frame Ward as a pimp.
Only recently, after the deaths of the last policemen involved, has it been possible to give the full story of police threats to witnesses, their concoction of evidence and barefaced lies. Little has changed in the Metropolitan police's handling of some high profile cases, it may be thought, and it is timely to be reminded of police misconduct in cases with political ramifications.
The prosecution of Ward was launched for political expediency. Laws and legal procedures were manipulated to produce an unjust verdict. After a string of witnesses had traipsed into the witness box to lie about Ward, he was convicted on two counts of living on the earnings of prostitutes, namely Keeler and Mandy Rice-Davies. This is a continuing injustice to these two women who, as the law stood in 1963, and by any reasonable judgment now, were never prostitutes. They were perfectly capable of making their own choices about men, and far from indiscriminate in their boyfriends. It is hateful misogyny to call them "tarts" or "whores", as people did, and journalists still do.
Ward's prosecutor and judge could not imagine women enjoying sex, or understand why women might "perform sexual acts", in the prim phrase of 1963, unless they were grateful wives or paid sex-workers. In comparable class discrimination, the prosecution did not seek testimony from the government minister, the film star, the aristocrats and tycoons who had been boyfriends of Keeler and Rice-Davies. They did dredge up and humiliate a witness who resembled Harry Enfield's character Mr Cholmondley-Warner and was deemed too suburban to need crown protection.
There is rollicking humour as well as cold rage in Robertson's account of the injustice. He shows that the judge in the case made repeated improper interventions in the trial, and misdirected the jury on both the evidence and the law – most grievously in the definition of prostitution. The judge's summing up was so cruelly biased that it drove Ward to take a fatal overdose.
Robertson's chief villain is the then lord chief justice, Lord Parker of Waddington. He initiated the policy, which continues to this day, of refusing to allow transcripts of the trial to be made available. It is, Robertson says, "the only public trial in British history which is subject to this enforced secrecy, and there can only be one reason, namely to stop researchers from appreciating its unfairness". The splendidly redoubtable Rice-Davies used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the transcript of her own testimony. It arrived with all the names that she mentioned in open court – even Keeler's – redacted in thick black ink by some time-wasting jobsworth. Such is the obsessive commitment to suppressing the truth about Ward's trial.
Parker's other machinations against Ward are crucial to Robertson's book. In devious manoeuvres – which Robertson summarises with glorious lucidity – Parker acted to prevent the Ward jury from knowing that Keeler had perjured herself in another criminal trial and that her testimony against Ward was worthless. Parker wanted to protect the policeman in charge of the case from the revelation that they had coerced her into perjury in both cases. More than that, on grounds of supposed public morality, he wanted to oblige the government by ensuring Ward's conviction. Parker's ruthless deceptions at this time almost beggar belief.
The cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, and reforms instituted by recent lord chief justices, mean that the judiciary could not behave now as it did 50 years ago. Police misconduct, by contrast, is as untrammelled as ever. And the political influences and newspaper brouhaha that can contaminate trial by jury have not been eliminated.
This polemic comes with endorsements from two former directors of public prosecutions. "A must-read for all those concerned to understand how miscarriages of justice can arise," says Keir Starmer. "A wonderfully clear discussion of a very grim period in British criminal justice – a thriller with a dark ending," adds Starmer's predecessor Ken Macdonald. It is to be hoped that the Criminal Case Review Commission refers Ward's conviction to the court of appeal.
For those who have a prior interest in the framing and show trial of Stephen Ward this is a tremendous and thrilling book. I could not sleep for excitement after reading it at one sitting. Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK is written with punchiness, gusto, incisive forensic analysis, and deadly gallows humour befitting its subject. Anyone who wants a thumping, indignant read as an antidote to Yuletide complacence should be given this polemic in their Christmas stocking
.
• Richard Davenport-Hines's An English Affair: Sex, Class and Power in the Age of Profumo is published by HarperPress
-
While it was nice to see the cover of Dick’s noirish mystery – And When She Was Bad She Was Murdered (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1950), one of three he dashed off in the period to pay the bills – much the most apposite of his books in this context is his classic 1967 assault on the CIA and liberal illusion, Requiem In Utopia (NY: Trident Press). It’s one of the outstanding spy novels of the decade and I commend it to all.
Walter Pforzheimer, the Agency’s Historical Curator, in a memo lamenting the publication of Richard Starnes’ Requiem in Utopia, July 1967:
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:
Max helped himself to his feet on the cane. "Mr. Ambassador, if I remember the file on you, you are new to this business.""Yes." The Ambassador was beyond the point of caring at the blush that crept up his face. "Yes, I'm new it."
"Then tell me, sir, what assurance do you have that your CIA people don't already have Nils Lund?"
The Ambassador looked bewildered.
"Why, they - the station chief - gave me his word. He proposed it - please keep that secret, Mr. Speed - he proposed, uh, taking Nils Lund to some place for safekeeping until we could convince him not to issue his manifesto. But I forbade it. I told them positively not. You know there has been this sort of trouble before, between the CIA and the chief of mission. And President Kennedy issued a directive. The CIA station chief is bound by the orders of the Ambassador, the chief of mission."
"And what assurance do you have that the CIA obeyed your order with respect to Nils Lund?"
"Why - why, Mr. Speed, they gave me their word. The station chief gave me his word."
Max moved toward the door, his feet mired in exhaustion. "It isn't enough, Mr. Ambassador. It just isn't enough."
Richard T. Starnes. Requiem In Utopia (NY: Trident Press, 1967), p.119
-
I have thought for some time that Pierce Allman is the man on the Left of the Entrance porch in Willis 8 and Skaggs 12.
I think the 1963 picture of Pierce goes a long way to confirming that ID.
Look at the number 6 figure in this Crop of Willis 8:
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
-
The question isn't how many feet he ran, I acknowledge it is over 50 feet, but the question should be - how long did it take for Allman to get to the front door of the TSBD, where it is pretty much established that he ran into Oswald and asked him where he could get a phone.
Now what time was that? The Warren Report says it is 12:33 pm when Oswald exited the front door of the TSBD, even though there were many people around and people photographing and filming the front door and there isn't a photo or film of him exiting.
[...]
[emphasis added by T. Graves]
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
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:
-
The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, October 2, 1963, p.3
'SPOOKS' MAKE LIFE MISERABLE FOR AMBASSADOR LODGE
'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam
SAIGON, Oct.2 - The story of the Central Intelligence Agency's role in South Viet Nam is a dismal chronicle of bureaucratic arrogance, obstinate disregard of orders, and unrestrained thirst for power.
Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, according to a high United States source here.
In one of these instances the CIA frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought with him from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.
This led to a dramatic confrontation between Mr. Lodge and John Richardson, chief of the huge CIA apparatus here. Mr. Lodge failed to move Mr. Richardson, and the dispute was bucked back to Washington. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and CIA Chief John A. McCone were unable to resolve the conflict, and the matter is now reported to be awaiting settlement by President Kennedy.
It is one of the developments expected to be covered in Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's report to Mr. Kennedy.
Others Critical, Too
Other American agencies here are incredibly bitter about the CIA.
"If the United States ever experiences a 'Seven Days in May' it will come from the CIA, and not from the Pentagon," one U.S. official commented caustically.
("Seven Days in May" is a fictional account of an attempted military coup to take over the U.S. Government.)
CIA "spooks" (a universal term for secret agents here) have penetrated every branch of the American community in Saigon, until non-spook Americans here almost seem to be suffering a CIA psychosis.
An American field officer with a distinguished combat career speaks angrily about "that man at headquarters in Saigon wearing a colonel's uniform." He means the man is a CIA agent, and he can't understand what he is doing at U.S. military headquarters here, unless it is spying on other Americans.
Another American officer, talking about the CIA, acidly commented: "You'd think they'd have learned something from Cuba but apparently they didn't."
Few Know CIA Strength
Few people other than Mr. Richardson and his close aides know the actual CIA strength here, but a widely used figure is 600. Many are clandestine agents known only to a few of their fellow spooks.
Even Mr. Richardson is a man about whom it is difficult to learn much in Saigon. He is said to be a former OSS officer, and to have served with distinction in the CIA in the Philippines.
A surprising number of the spooks are known to be involved in their ghostly trade and some make no secret of it.
"There are a number of spooks in the U.S. Information Service, in the U.S. Operations mission, in every aspect of American official and commercial life here, " one official - presumably a non-spook - said.
"They represent a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone," he added.
Coupled with the ubiquitous secret police of Ngo Dinh Nhu, a surfeit of spooks has given Saigon an oppressive police state atmosphere.
The Nhu-Richardson relationship is a subject of lively speculation. The CIA continues to pay the special forces which conducted brutal raids on Buddhist temples last Aug. 21, altho in fairness it should be pointed out that the CIA is paying these goons for the war against communist guerillas, not Buddhist bonzes (priests).
Hand Over Millions
Nevertheless, on the first of every month, the CIA dutifully hands over a quarter million American dollars to pay these special forces.
Whatever else it buys, it doesn't buy any solid information on what the special forces are up to. The Aug. 21 raids caught top U.S. officials here and in Washington flat-footed.
Nhu ordered the special forces to crush the Buddhist priests, but the CIA wasn't let in on the secret. (Some CIA button men now say they warned their superiors what was coming up, but in any event the warning of harsh repression was never passed to top officials here or in Washington.)
Consequently, Washington reacted unsurely to the crisis. Top officials here and at home were outraged at the news the CIA was paying the temple raiders, but the CIA continued the payments.
It may not be a direct subsidy for a religious war against the country's Buddhist majority, but it comes close to that.
And for every State Department aide here who will tell you, "Dammit, the CIA is supposed to gather information, not make policy, but policy-making is what they're doing here," there are military officers who scream over the way the spooks dabble in military operations.
A Typical Example
For example, highly trained trail watchers are an important part of the effort to end Viet Cong infiltration from across the Laos and Cambodia borders. But if the trailer watchers spot incoming Viet Congs, they report it to the CIA in Saigon, and in the fullness of time, the spooks may tell the military.
One very high American official here, a man who has spent much of his life in the service of democracy, likened the CIA's growth to a malignancy, and added he was not sure even the White House could control it any longer.
Unquestionably Mr. McNamara and Gen. Maxwell Taylor both got an earful from people who are beginning to fear the CIA is becoming a Third Force co-equal with President Diem's regime and the U.S. Government - and answerable to neither.
There is naturally the highest interest here as to whether Mr. McNamara will persuade Mr. Kennedy something ought to be done about it.
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 Joint Chiefs, already in open revolt against JFK for failing to unleash the dogs of war in Cuba and Laos, were unanimous in urging a massive influx of ground troops and were incensed with talk of withdrawal. The mood in Langley was even uglier. Journalist Richard Starnes, filing from Vietnam, gave a stark assessment in The Washington Daily News of the CIA's unrestrained thirst for power in Vietnam. Starnes quoted high-level U.S. officials horrified by the CIA's role in escalating the conflict. They described an insubordinate, out-of-control agency, which one top official called a "malignancy." He doubted that "even the White House could control it any longer." Another warned, "If the United States ever experiences a [coup], it will come from the CIA and not from the Pentagon." Added another, "[Members of the CIA] represent tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone."
-
-
[...]
In his first report, you can hear Allman is out of breath and hyper from having run about 50 feet and just witnessed the shooting...
[...]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
-
Thanks for those links Paul,
In his first report, you can hear Allman is out of breath and hyper from having run about 50 feet and just witnessed the shooting, though I think his confusion is understandable, and as a journalist, he knows he must be as accurate as possible about what he knows.
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
Second description of the Zapruder film:
Mark Lane: Did the Secret Service help kill JFK?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by 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?