Paul Rigby

As I suspected, you simply plucked the notion from the air because it was a) convenient; and seemed vaguely plausible. Terrific. The first version of the Z-film did, Bill, that's the one Rather described in such detail; the Dulles Report acknowledged; WNEW-TV showed in the early hours of November 26; and so and so forth. We don't need to posit - without proof - Rather's viewing of any other film. Absolutely true: I commend your perspicacity. But that's not the point. The original fake was withdrawn not because it showed shots at that point in the motorcade's progress, but precisely because it didn't; and the CIA wanted, if only for a brief period and in print, to pretend there had been shots at that time. How else was the Agency to sustain the fiction of shots from the rear by a lone rifleman when the Parkland doctors had emphatically insisted upon shots from the front? The broader point is this: The cover-up was a process and not an event, a process in which the Agency modified and adapted its plans to developments. Certainly, I'm all ears, as my barber never tires of telling me... You think right. Unless and until we know the full extent of the CIA's work in this area, the testimony of even the best intentioned expert in the world isn't going to tell us very much - save, perhaps, that the CIA is very clever, and most of us knew that anyway. Paul

Quite so, Bill. So how about furnishing us all with the source of that curious claim to the effect that Dan Rather saw the Hughes film before going on air with CBS and describing the Z-fake? To my absolute astonishment - I believe that is the phrase I was groping for - I can find nothing whatever to support such a claim. You didn't just pluck it out of the ether, did you? I would be most disappointed to discover this was indeed the case. But not surprised. And a merry New Year to all anti-alterationists, too! Remember, there's always time to change landmarks - after all, the CIA did.

I agree with everything you've said, Daniel - and content myself with adding this, an extract from the text of Mark Lane's speech to the UK's "Who Killed Kennedy?" Committee, delivered at University College, London, in December 1964: Warmest best wishes to you and yours for the New Year, Paul

For the benefit of those new to the debate, an explanation: Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? The 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, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. 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

A magnificent edifice of wild speculation, convenient conflation and non-sequitur, for which there is not a shred of supporting evidence. Typical of the anti-alterationists. How do we put up with you lot?

A curiously common feature of early descriptions, both print and verbal: It could indicate, of course, an awareness of the existence of at least two versions of the Z-fake, but I see no evidence of that in Rather's case. Post-publication of the Dulles Report and the accompanying 26 volumes is a different matter. Quite the reverse is true. Historically, the claim that Rather lied has been the preserve of authenticists. As I've argued previously, this was a curiously simple-minded argument given that Rather had every expectation on November 25 that the same version of the Z-fake he had just seen would indeed be broadcast. I believe Rather's detailed descriptions of the version he saw on that day were accurate: It's just that the version he saw was no more authentic than the edited and reworked version which made it's way into the National Archives in 1964. Two versions, both fakes.

As a service to Mr MacRae, his extraordinary hair, and anti-alterationists everywhere, a reminder of something else Dan Rather had to say to Walter Cronkite on CBS News, 25 November 1963: Attentive students of the subject will know that Mr R was not the only one to see this version of the Z-fake. So, too, did the compilers of the Dulles Report, as Mark Lane noted (without comment) in Rush To Judgment: Glad to have been of assistance, Dunc. Keep up the good work.

A member, unquestionably, particularly according to my opponents - but "a founder"? Good Lord, no. I am delighted to show-case the latest link, yet another very good piece that touches, inter alia, on the subject of the conformist dissident: The absurdity of any one truly dissident entrusting anything to The Guardian, that staunch defender of the Dulles and Zelikow Reports & serial betrayer of whistle-blowers, is...amusing. The more interesting truth is that Assangleton is a fairly standard left-gatekeeper; and the entire nonsense, on both sides, CIA-scripted. Think of it as a kind of parapolitical soap-opera, albeit one with real-life potential patsy, and you won't go far wrong. You're confusing the DPF with some kind of weird cult movement - ASIO, or some similar repository of totalitarian group-think, Greg. But a nice example of the old peer-pressure thingamy. Does it still work Down Under, I wonder?

The first public - mainstream media - critique of the Angletonian "Monster Plot" of which I'm aware:

Presumably Wolper and team simply asked their goods friends from OSS/CIA what the report was going to say: Wolper had, after all, served as Executive Producer of 32 episodes of spook propaganda in the previous decade: http://www.davidlwolper.com/shows/details.cfm?showID=508

Not seen this one before: Enjoyed it, and thanks for posting.

Marina Hyde's compulsive need to drag in both JFK, and conspiratorial interpretations of his death, into the most unrelated contexts, has never been more obvious. She should seek help: It's plain she can no longer control the compulsion. Is there, I wonder, an elite clinic which specializes in the requisite cure(s)? Yes, another day, another conspiracy - and yet another Guardian columnist in the grip of the same compulsive need to denigrate conspiratorial analyses of JFK's murder: This bit is interesting: Grassy knoll gunman, anyone? Aditya?

Marina Hyde's compulsive need to drag in both JFK, and conspiratorial interpretations of his death, into the most unrelated contexts, has never been more obvious. She should seek help: It's plain she can no longer control the compulsion. Is there, I wonder, an elite clinic which specializes in the requisite cure(s)?

To see how obsessive the Guardian's columnists are in denigrating conspiratorial interpretations of JFK's murder, consider the following example. The ostensible subject was Crocodile Dundee's tax dispute with the Aussie government. From this unpromising starting-point, Marina Hyde nevertheless contrived to reach the target: Many anti-conspiratorialists evidence the same pattern of obsessive interest in the case. No wonder CTers find these people, not to mention their weird theories, strange and disturbing.

Conspiracy theories are corroding our society Not all conspiracies are false, but their recent proliferation is a problem that affects us all By James Bartlett http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/03/conspiracy-theories-corroding-society James Bartlett - a man destined to work for the BBC.

The Politics of Genocide Review of Book by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson by Rick Rozoff The Guardian: The CIA's favourite "liberal" British daily:

Inconceivable! We need a Hamson-Lamson to help us interpret. Anything. Something.

He can't be from Yorkshire, surely? Well, he unquestionably gets straight t'point. And spells like a Tyke: http://www.yorkshire-dialect.org/authors/sandra_mills.htm#a_consultation_fer_nowt Extraordinary. Case closed. After three: "On Lamson Moor Baht 'at..."

Can't say I admire or respect his conclusions, Bernie, but I would have to acknowledge the quality of information and presentation of it by Richard Trask. Mack's knowledge is formidable, but deployed with a contempt for truth that is itself contemptible.

Oh dear. Your research is as brilliant as ever: http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11808&highlight=Trumbull#post11808 Date: September 2009. Later in the same thread:

Of course not - it's your job not to. Your job is to defend that which Mack can no longer credibly do. But few are fooled. Remind me - when did the second-version of the Z-fake surface publicly? It wasn't the same year as The Birds appeared, was it? You see, that's what I mean about you, and it's most agreeable: No ability to think through the consequences of successive evasions or obfuscations. November 22, 1963: 21:15hrs Dulles to Angleton: "What are we going to do about this Z-film, Jim?" Angleton: "Nothing, boss, it's private property." Dulles: "But it exposes our deception, Jim..." Angleton: "Bad break, boss, but that's just the way it goes." Anti-alterationism: About as plausible as the single-bullet theory.

Still festering about that one, eh, Craigster? No wonder. What a complete crock that rendition of the sun's position over Dealey was. But I did like the shadow squiggles. Taxi for the Craigster!

Unlike,say, the enormous pink head-blob in the Z-fake, which is utterly undetectable; and was particularly so for the Parkland doctors, who saw nothing remotely resembling it. Or prepared in advance.

Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974) Chapter 4: The Filmed Assassination Notes: 1) Abraham Zapruder, “Testimony of Abraham Zapruder [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 570. 2) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated June 4, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 5, p. 139. 3) Calculation by photo triangulation. 4) “…the Secret Service agent…must be able to hit the target under any and all conditions…” (C.B. Colby, Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment, p. 20.) According to Merriman Smith, “All [agents on the White House Detail of the Secret Service] are crack shots with either hand. Their pistol marksmanship is tested on one of the toughest ranges in the country. The bull’s-eye of their target is about half the size of the one ordinarily used on police and Army ranges. They must qualify with an unusually high score every thirty days, and if any one of them – or any of the White House police, which falls under Secret Service jurisdiction – falls below a certain marksmanship standard, they are transferred. Agents must also qualify periodically firing from moving vehicles. This accounts for the requirement to shoot well with either hand. A right-handed agent might be clinging to a speeding car with that hand and have to shoot with the left.” (Timothy G. Smith (ed.), op. cit., p. 226.) In his testimony, Greer claimed he “…made a quick glance and back again,” over his right shoulder, at the time of the second shot. He stated, “My eyes [turned] slightly [to the right] more than my head. My eyes went more than my head around. I had a vision real quick of it.” (Greer, op. cit., v. 2, p. 118.) One study (1971) of the Zapruder film approximated the direction, clockwise, that the occupants faced in the limousine. In orientation, noon was the front of the car, 6 o’clock was on the trunk, 9 o’clock was the mid-point on the left, and 3 o’clock that on the right of the limousine. Greer was judged to be looking to the right and rear twice. He was in the 4:30 position from frames 282-290, the sequence when Connally is shot; in the 3:30-5 position from frames 303-316, the sequence with the fatal shot. Another study (1967), made without the film and working only from the frames, estimated Greer to be 40 degrees to his right beginning at frame 240 and extending to 80 degrees from frame 270 through frame 309 (309 was the last frame available to the researcher). (Ronald Christensen, “A Preliminary Analysis of the Pictures of the Kennedy Assassination,” p. 69.) 5) Shaneyfelt, loc. cit. 6) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885. ‘Album of black and white photographs of frames from the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films,’” in Hearings, v. 18, pp. 1-80. According to FBI Director Hoover, in a letter of Dec. 14, 1965, frames 314 and 315 were transposed in printing. Visually, it appears to reverse the direction of the head movement. 7) In a few of the more sophisticated available copies, splice marks were retouched out. A 16 mm version contained evidence of only one splice. 8) In a few of the more sophisticated copies, color change was consistent throughout the film A 16 mm version, in the Life magazine photo library, is of excellent quality, containing consistent color throughout. This copy, however, does contain evidence of a splice between frames 156-157. 9) Nix film. Muchmore film. 10) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 11) She stated, “And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did that, put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap.” (President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Report of Proceedings, v. 48, June 5, 1964, p. 6814.) 12) Especially in Life magazine’s 4 x 5 transparency of this frame. 13) John Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 133. Nellie Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 147. Commission Document No. 188, p. 6. Kellerman, op. cit., v. 2, pp. 74, 78. In an interview with William R. Greer, Greer said, “…my back was covered with it.” 14) This area also displays optical enlargement, especially between frames 317 and 318 (magnification jumps from 1 to 1.3). 15) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 16) Modern Cinematographer, June 1969, pp. 566, 567, 568. Note: Connally testified, “I had seem what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in hospital in Dallas.” (Connally, op. cit., v. 4, p. 145.) 17) Abraham Zapruder, Commission Document No. 7 [dated Dec. 4, 1963],” p. 12. 18) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 19) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 751. 20) Dan Rather, loc. cit. 21) Zapruder film, “Commission Exhibit No. 885,” op. cit., v. 18, p. 19. Note: Life magazine later accepted the blame for this. It said that four frames “…had been accidentally destroyed by its photo lab technicians.” (New York Times, Jan. 30, 1967, p. 22.) 22) Commission Document No. 87, p. 434. 23) Interview with Orville O. Nix in film Rush to Judgment. 24) Commission Document No. 385, p. 70. FBI lab report says Nix’s camera was running at an average speed of 18.5 frames per second. 25) Marie Muchmore. Commission Document No. 735, pp. 124, 103. 26) Mary Moorman. Commission Document No. 5, p. 37. John Wiseman, “Decker Exhibit No. 5323. ‘Supplementary Investigation Report dated Nov. 23, 1963,’ within Dallas County Sheriff’s Office record…” in Hearings, v. 19, pp. 535-536. “Commission Exhibit No. 1426, ‘FBI report dated November 23, 1963, of interview of Mary Ann Moorman at Dallas, Tex. (CD 5, pp. 36-37),’” in Hearings, v. 22, p. 839. 27) “Commission Exhibit No. 1426,” loc. cit. 28) Interview with Jean L. Hill. 29) Ibid. 30) Philip L. Willis. Commission Document No. 1245, pp. 44-47. 31) Willis slide number five. 32) Altgens, op. cit., v. 7, p. 519. 33) ABC Television, Nov. 23, 9:00 a.m. Tom O’Brian, ABC News Director. 34) Of the amateurs, an 8 mm color film by Robert J. Hughes does show the depository with the limousine directly below the sixth floor “sniper’s nest.” The FBI examined this film and concluded there was no person in the window (Commission Document No. 205, p. 158.) In addition, “Itek Corporation, a photo-optical electronics firm, concluded the object in the window…was not a person.” (Life, Nov. 24, 1967, p. 88.) A polaroid photo taken by Jack Weaver, who was standing near Hughes at Main and Houston Streets, was also examined by the FBI with the same negative results (Ibid., p. 175). 35) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 571. 36) Ibid. 37) J. Herbert Sawyer, “Testimony of J. Herbert Sawyer [dated April 8, 1964],’” in Hearings, v. 6, p. 324. 38) Forrest V. Sorrels, op. cit., v. 7, p. 352. 39) Commission Document No. 1014, “Sorrels memo to S.S. Chief Rowley and S.S. Inspector Tom Kelley [dated Jan. 22, 1964].” 40) Dallas Police Department, “Commission Document No. 705. ‘Channel 2’…” op. cit., v. 17, p. 482. 41) Sorrels, loc. cit. 42) Affidavit of P. M. Chamberlain, Jr., Production Supervisor, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963. 43) Letter of Abraham Zapruder to C.D. Jackson, Publisher, Life magazine, dated Nov. 25, 1963. 44) Affidavit of Frank R. Sloan, Laboratory Manager, Jamieson Film Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963. 45) Affidavit of Tom Nulty, Production Foreman, Eastman Kodak Co., Dallas, Tex., dated Nov. 22, 1963. 46) Zapruder, op. cit., v. 7, p. 575. 47) Commission Document No. 87, “Max D. Phillips, Note of transmittal [undated] 9:55 p.m.” According to Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, the disposition was “…one copy sent off to Washington and another given to Dallas police. Zapruder kept the original and one print…” (Richard B. Stolley, “What happened next…,” Esquire, November 1973, p. 135.) 48) Interview with Harry D. Holmes. 49) Inspector Kelley. Commission Document No. 1014, op. cit. 50) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138. 51) Agreement between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963. 52) Contract between Abraham Zapruder and Time, Inc., dated Nov. 25, 1963. Record of physical possession is confused. Zapruder’s agreement of Nov. 23, 1963, reads: “You [Life] agree to return to me the original print of that film, and I will then supply you with a copy print.” Life’s agent, Richard B. Stolley, claimed he “…picked up the original of the film and the one remaining copy…” after the agreement was signed. (Stolley, loc. cit.) 53) Ibid. 54) Life, Nov. 29, 1963, p. 24. Time, Nov. 29, 1963, and Dec. 6, 1963, made no mention of the film although it printed four frames in the latter issue (pp. 33A, 33B.) 55) The issue dated for Nov. 29, 1963, was to have been on sale by Nov. 26, 1963. Although, according to Life, “The editors said that time limitations did not permit reproductions in color,” they also said “…they were unable last night [Nov. 23, 1963] to give precise details as to what the film showed but that they were assured that it depicted the impact of the bullets that struck Mr. Kennedy.” (New York Times, Nov. 24, 1963, p. 5.) 56) Life, Dec. 13, 1963. The Memorial issue is unpaginated. 57) Lifton (ed.), op. cit., p. 72. 58) Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 138. 59) Life, Oct. 2, 1964, pp. 43-46. 60) Researcher Paul Hoch determined that five versions were issued by Life by comparing the text and captions 3, 5, 6, and 8 on p. 42; picture 6 on p. 45; the text in column 2 and caption of line 3 on p. 47; and 4 captions, lines 1, 9, 13 and 18, on p. 48. Using this method, the authors discovered a sixth version. Vincent J. Salandria noted three versions (“A Philadelphia Lawyer Analyzes the Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds,” Liberation, January 1965, pp. 6-7.) 61) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit. 62) “Motion Pictures and Film Strips,” Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series, v. 21, pts. 12-13, no. 1, January-June 1967, p. 19. Though the film is at least 27 seconds in length, Life, on Oct. 2, 1964, described it as “…an eight second strip…” In the Catalog of Copyright Entries, in 1967, it is listed as 10 seconds in length (p. 42). Life’s representative, Richard B. Stolley, claimed it was “…seven seconds of film” (Stolley, loc. cit.) He also said, “…in the beginning of the film…pictured some children at play…” (Ibid., p. 134), a sequence not shown on any film made available to the authors. 63) Lifton (ed.), loc. cit. 64) Emmett J. Hudson, “Testimony of Emmett J. Hudson [dated July 22, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 7, p. 562. 65) An official use of the film, other than by the Warren Commission, was made by the CIA. It wanted to borrow the FBI’s copy”…for training purposes.” (J. Edgar Hoover, Letter of Dec. 4, 1964.) 66) Dallas Morning News, Nov. 26, 1963, Sect. 4, p. 7. 67) Agent John J. Howlett. Commission Document No. 5, p. 117. 68) “Commission Exhibit No. 585. ‘Surveyor’s plat of the Assassination Scene,’” in Hearings, v. 17, p. 262. 69) Ibid. 70) Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, pp. 105-109. 71) Ibid., p. 97. Shaneyfelt, op. cit., v. 5, p. 153. “Commission Exhibit No. 2444. ‘FBI report of FBI Laboratory examination of various items relating to the assassination (CD 206, pp. 45-61),’” in Hearings, v. 25, p. 576. 72) Report of the President’s Commission, loc. cit.

Obituary for Robert Boyle, Hollywood production designer, not least on several of Hitchcock's classics: The anti-alterationist argument must necessarily be that CIA couldn't or wouldn't access and/or mimic contemporary Hollywood techniques; and that Dulles, Angleton et al were content to alter the Presidency, but not a piece of film. Ridiculous, but that's what they invite us to believe. Best of all, they invite us to dismiss the CIA's ability to undertake pretty basic matte-ing on the basis of no knowledge or experience of the Agency's capabilities in this and related areas. Again, it's absurd, but that's what they would have us believe.