Paul Rigby

I can't wait for Pat's explanation of how Chaney managed to get sufficiently ahead of Kennedy to turn round and see the latter shot in the face - while managing to elude the cameras of Z et al. Did he become invisible, Pat, or are the films a fake? And speaking of Z's testimony before the cameras of WFAA, whatever happened to his statement that he filmed the presidential limo making the turn from Houston onto Elm? A cynic could begin to conclude that your arguments are not merely contradictory and perverse, but plain dishonest. And that would be a pity, I'm sure.

I am delighted to remind Herr Speer of the pith of Brehm's original statement: “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.] I did like the weaselly reference to Brehm's "earliest interviews," though. Nice one, Pat.

Someone has unquestionably made a stool of himself, but is it necessarily the blessed Craig Lamson?

Interesting piece on JFK's Executive Producer, Arnon Milchan, the noted "liberal" arms dealer, Mossad officer, and propagandist for white-ruled South Africa: ANN LOUISE BARDACH In her long journalism career, Ann Louise Bardach has interviewed world leaders from Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto to Cuba's Fidel Castro. Bardach stays on the world stage this month with her story on enigmtic producer Arnon Milchan ("The Last Tycoon" page 74), who already exerted a certain global influence before he came to town. "Most Hollywood people think they're very sophisticated, but in fact, they're not," says Bardach, who writes for Vanity Fair and the New York Times and is the winner of the 1995 PEN West Award for Journalism. "Milchan is truly an international player" Bardach's work has also appeared in The New Yorker and the New Republic.

Strange, but I get the same impression every time I read anything by you. I confess, I’m so unfamiliar with Newman’s work that I had an argument with him about it at the Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool in the 1990s. It was, in brief, about his attempt to exonerate the CIA as an institution from involvement in the coup. I thought his line was preposterous and told him so. He was, if I recall, unimpressed. We parted without exchanging addresses. For those interested in a devastating analysis of the Newman Exoneration, try Salandria’s, as found within Michael D. Morrisey’s Correspondence with Vincent Salandria, 1993-2000 (Lulu, 2007). Scott’s a curious figure, with important limits to his dissent. His continued support, for example, for the proposition that Lodge removed Richardson as CIA station chief in Saigon to remove an allegedly important impediment to an anti-Diem coup, is demonstrably untrue; and I continue to wonder why he persists with this nonsense, not least given the abundant evidence of CIA responsibility for earlier attempts to remove Diem. Here we come to one of those petulant and dishonest outbursts to which you are intermittently given. Unless I've missed something,I've never suggested Kellerman was anything more than a hood under orders, albeit one with several pressing problems, most notably at Parkland. The case you make for the plotters’ supposed plan to pin the blame on Castro is remarkably old-hat; and blithely disregards the diverse evidences that the CIA installed Castro in Havana as a hemispheric bogeyman for the long-haul. I agree with you without reservation when it comes to Hoover, but with some element of doubt as to what Landslide knew and when. That doesn’t mean he was involved in the planning of the hit; or that he was a particularly valuable player afterwards. It’s simply a question of his foreknowledge. Given that he could read a paper, he could not fail to be unaware of the rift between Kennedy and Langley. Did it go beyond that? I don’t know for sure. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the coup and its purposes. The major players – Dulles, Angleton et al – first sought to restore the domestic political status quo ante, not furnish a casus belli for immediate action against Havana. It wasn’t a fallback, so much as the original intent. The anti-Castro stuff was merely red meat for the rubes in the trenches. Again, this is to miss several important points, most particularly, that involving the CIA's approach, which has proved as flexible and unscrupulous as one might expect. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with it, the CIA itself produced the most sustained conspiratorial piece in the entire 26 volumes of evidence: It’s in the final volume, boasts Helms’ imprimatur, was dated late February 1964, and urged the Commission to consider “ties between Ruby and others who might have been interested in the assassination of President Kennedy” (p.470). The memorandum sets out just about every false sponsor the CIA was subsequently to sponsor, through a variety of authors, not excluding the two you (correctly) identify, Russo and Epstein. A bit of a nonsense, this, but one serious point needs making: Black's work on the Chicago plot, while fascinating, and perhaps entirely true, requires a lot more research and thought. I remain open-minded on it.

Pretty rich coming from a guy who's still trying, a la Thompson, to sell us the Zapruder fake; and exculpate the SS. You may fool the Yanks, Jimbo, but you cut no mustard this side of the Atlantic.

Still trying to keep the focus away from the SS, are you, Jim? Reckon its working?

Bowron came from Derbyshire in the UK, the same county as Maurice Oldfield, the MI6 station-chief in Washington, 1960-63. I've long wondered if there was a family - or professional - connection. Bowron's WC testimony left me scratching my head the first time I read it: Was Texas/the US really so short of nurses, even specialists in the emergency room, that it needed to hire in the UK? Curious. Bennett's testimony is about as trustworthy as Kellerman's (or Greer's).

And so it begins, with the customary straightforward early eyewitness account... Which medical experts are then held to have rendered as nought... A second gunman? Or was the alleged assassin in two places at once? Au contraire, Don, it's the familiarity of the thing which disturbs.

For students of intelligence history: For more on Peters, see George Leggett's The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police - The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combatting Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (December 1917 to February 1922)[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], in particular, pp.266-268. The decision not to prosecute Peters has been construed as an intervention by British intelligence, anxious to preserve an asset.

Unfortunately not, Jay, as we are in the governmental grip of a bunch of economic illiterates who solemnly propose to revive the UK economy by sacking everyone and raising taxes. Gideon Osborne is, I contend, Brian Cowen's love-child. But greetings returned, nonetheless. You mean up the grassy knoll? Outrageous! Have no doubt, my solicitor will be contacting your solicitor with a view to both solicitors making a large sum of money at our expense. That'll teach you.

Au Contraire, Monsieur! It is Mr. Rigby who needs to prove where the film went if he wants to support his silly theory. But of course he CANNOT PROVE HIS CLAIMS! No, quite untrue, Jay, and you know it - otherwise you wouldn't be SHOUTING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, would you?

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English. Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't. Paul

Supposition - the first refuge of the anti-alterationist: God knows how true any of this is. Huffaker was, it should be noted, not above modifying the record in the light of the received version. Rather reportedly stated (to Hughes Rudd and Richard Hotelett) on CBS radio earlier on 25 November 1963: "“Well let me tell you then, give you a word picture of the motion picture that we have just seen."* Balance of probability? Rather had indeed just watched the first version of the Z-fake before he went on air for the first time on 25 November 1963. Paul *Richard Trask, National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr Zapruder’s home movie and murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), pp.138-142.

As they tend to when you strangle the English language.

Sure it was Muchmore's film .... this is old news. Bill, Thanks for the bump. And with apologies to John Gillespie, whose New Year best wishes I missed first time around and now belatedly reciprocate. Paul

Particularly unfair on Mrs Hester, who offered a perfectly comprehensible account of her position during, and movements immediately after, the shooting: A far from unique case of an eyewitness whose testimony is completely at odds with the Z-fakes. Yes, Duncan, anti-alterationism is. But I'm told the pay is better, so there is an upside.

Nope, it wasn't. For those interested in the contrary case, try here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216&view=findpost&p=176434&hl=wnew-tv&fromsearch=1

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.