Paul Rigby

There is a wonderful scene in John Barbour's The Garrison Tapes, John, one in which Lane mocks feigned surprise. It was a subject he assuredly knew. For when he watched the Z film "debuting" on US TV in 1975, was there not a little part of him that smiled inwardly with a sense of deja vu? Two different versions, of course, but same general deception! http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html I have it somewhere, but it may take a week or two, as I "reorganised" my files recently, which means I currently can't find anything. If you're in a hurry, ask Bernice. Paul

A curiosity - sorry, read "typical trait of amateur filmers" - which just happened to coincide with the frames in which Chaney passed the limo and rode ahead? How very convenient. And the inception of the Nix and "Muchmore" fakes? They just happened to start filming after Z255/Altgens? How even more convenient.

And so lacking in wit and logic that good old Barb's even raised the Specter of an entirely different film landing at the NPIC. Now what does that do for the anti-alterationist argument? Answers on a postcard, please, to Langley, Virginia. Usual terms and conditions apply.

Not unexpectedly, you have it, as the famous Latin phrase has it, arse about tit. What actually happened was Muchmore interesting. The publication of Altgens “5” caught Chaney in such a problematic position and motion (in the process of overtaking the presidential limo) that the second version of the Z fake – that’s the one without the turn of the presidential limo from Houston onto Elm – had to decentre the presidential limo and its occupants, dropping them to the bottom of the frame, thus apparently excluding Chaney legitimately from the seeming field of view. And if that was true for the bogus film from the north side of Elm, it was necessarily true for the supporting filmlets from the south: The Altgens photo was so problematic to the fabricators that it compelled them to commence the two key early supporting filmlets, Nix and “Muchmore,” after “Z255,” the supposed Z frame-correlative of Altgens 4. A direct comparison of that Altgens still with the Nix and “Muchmore” fakes was rightly feared, and thus eschewed, by the fabricators. The two key still photos of the assassination either published (Altgens & Moorman) or both published and broadcast (Moorman) in the first two days after the assassination were not “gathered and altered and returned” – a straw man of agreeably comic appearance – but instead worked around, with a view to integrating them into the new filmic narrative represented by the second version of the Z fake. This also obliged some work with the eyewitness testimony, as the shooting was moved back down Elm towards the TSBD. Quite so. Which is why those responsible for recasting the Z fake didn’t do it that way.

That word "gruesome" again:

I'm pretty sure all the various elements of the Zap/Time-Life agreements, the above included, were retrospectively "tweaked" to conform to the agreed lie we are today familiar with. Lifton's Pig on a Leash, full of prudent and productive scepticism in general, is richly suggestive on this subject. Paul

Will, I am as yet unable to verify the following, but I nevertheless pass it on for two reasons. First, the researcher concerned is reputable; and, second, because it dovetails neatly with an alternative history of the early days of the Z fake, one which matches contemporaneous evidence, and answers some otherwise perplexing questions about that history. According to the aforementioned researcher, he has a kinescope of Rather on CBS TV on the evening of November 25. The available description of that Rather appearance is unlike anything to be found in either of the two readily available transcripts of Rather's descriptions of the Z fake on November 25. The researcher states that Rather mentioned nothing whatever about "legal reasons" preventing him from showing the first version of the Z fake. To the contrary, Rather showed most of the film, describing the scene as it ran, up to the point of the head shot. At which point Rather looked into the camera and explained: "This is too gruesome for you to see so I just have to describe what is happening. There is a gunshot. John Kennedy is struck in the back of the head and thrown violently forward.” If true - and I stress the "if" for the very good reason I haven't yet seen the kinescope in question - then the Rather narrative contained within Four Days in November is a retrospective fiction: The film, as a film, was not yet owned by Time-Life on the evening of November 25. Paul

And these were the men we are solemnly invited to believe were not complicit in his murder...

I say, Jay, very well put. And I agree with you on shots to Kennedy from the rear - (a) shifting, transparent, post-mortem fabrication(s). Lifton here is impeccably sound. Two commendations in one post? I apologise. Twice. Paul

Did Greer and Kellerman really fear discovery? I doubt it. Just who was going to move against them, the spear-point of the conspiracy? Sure, there was the inconvenience of the interviews with the FBI on November 27; and Greer in particular could be forgiven, assuming he was aware of the fact, for a momentary pause when the G-men set down a physical description of him - just as in the case of the medical intern who so helpfully pumped up and down on Oswald's gut immediately post-shooting - but I'm sure that passed quickly. Never said - or wrote - that you were. Did you have someone else in mind, Jonathan? No, that's a fib. You're not here to "understand" anything. You're here to object to the idea, as you stated at the outset of your post. Weasel words. You don't like the import of their statements. Again, a different matter. I'm sure one or more did; and therefore await the release of the unexpurgated WC testimony with some interest. if you have Jackie's, do share with the rest of us! Is that true? If so, why the refusal of those who questioned, say, Austin Miller and George Davis, to ask the question directly? After all, if you were right, there wasn't anything to fear from their answers. You assume the films genuine - why? The evidence against them is overwhelming: The witnesses take precedence over the films; their testimony is incompatible with the films; and the films have no provenance worth a damn. End of story.

It must be amateurs' night. First Tink, the ace researcher who threw a hissy fit in Dec 1967 at the mere suggestion of planted evidence; then Herr Speer, who can't get his head around the idea that a proponent of film fraud would refuse to use fake film to buttress his claims (it''s called logic, Pat); and now poor John, obsessed by a thread he claims is nonsense... Guys, come on, raise your game. Get together, agree a line, and inject it into the thread. Anyway, here's Austin Miller not meaning it literally: Yes, clear evidence of profound confusion. John Dugan, meet Doug Horne. Doug, meet John. Fred, say hello to John. And Perry, if you're looking down on this, try to suppress a smile. John's trying very hard to impress.

Thrown, eh, Pat? What's new? Body alteration, film alteration, SS centrality to the plot - in 1974. Kind of topical, don't you think? Old habits of mind really do die hard: Why would anyone use such an obviously fake film to support - or refute - any contention about the assassination? Time for a paradigm shift. Or, failing that, lunch. Rigby

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H24_CE_2111.pdf Jay, Second paragraph, beginning: Sorrels had retained that part of the cover-story about the presidential limo not deviating from the central lane, and either failed to digest, or not been properly briefed upon, the upshot of the campaign to drag the impact points back down Elm. The latter is entirely possible. There are number of important figures – not least Zapruder – who give every evidence of being kept out of the loop on this point. And, yes, I agree with you on Sorrels. A figure of some interest. Paul

Which doubtless explains why you systematically suppressed testimony suggesting same in SSID. Something to hide, Tink? Still, always useful to know Langley thinks I'm on the "wrong" track.

Sir, quality, even the lack of it, will out: You've earned your accolade, not least for rank incomprehension. Keep it up. Now, while your mulling over the many superiorities of evidence found several years after the event, contemplate the genius of SS Sorrels, that unwitting friend of the truth: CE-2111 http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H24_CE_2111.pdf

It is with deep regret that I must forfeit this most coveted title. But forfeit it I must in the face of overwhelming superiority. Here, the swine, is the proof: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15345 It has everything a certain kind of JFK researcher could want in a thread: "Evidence" discovered years after the event, bearing no chain of possession, and unburdened by so much as a sliver of corroborating eyewitness testimony. It is, in summary, a thread with legs. Four of them. Meanwhile, back at the nuthouse we call in-car-shooterland, lunatic fringers weirdly persist in regarding the following sort of dubious photographic nonsense, when allied to a left veer, and the final shot position offered by CE2111 (manhole cover), as far more germane: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...um=41&pos=0 http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...um=37&pos=0 Weird, eh?

You've got to admire the zeal...if only because there's nothing else to admire. The worst thread "ever"? That's some competition, JD, I mean, you've started a few. But it is illuminating to this degree: the emotional hyperbole of the repudiation. No other scenario produces it. And no wonder, for nothing boasts its explanatory power: PS One very good way of assessing the ridiculousness - or otherwise - of a criterion of rejection is to apply it generally. If Connally didn't state it outright, presumably that ends all other alternatives to the TSBD, too? Puerile stuff.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/ Brave and honest stuff from Doug Horne, and Bill Kelly: 10) Do you believe, as it has been alleged on internet forums, that Greer shot JFK in the head with his pistol? Now we see why it was so important to the SS that the victims' clothing was not scrutinised properly; and have an additional reason for the cleaning out the limo.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/ Brave and honest stuff from Doug Horne: 10) Do you believe, as it has been alleged on internet forums, that Greer shot JFK in the head with his pistol? And kudos to Bill Kelly for reporting it straight.

Bang on the money, sir, you're a cad. But fear not. Mindful of the peasants' revolt against Mack and the current line of the Sixth Form Museum, certain establishment forces appear to be contemplating a change of facade, on the sound Tory principle that “If you want things to stay as they are, things will have to change" (Lampedusa's Leopard). Enter stage right...Robert Groden, champion of, er, Zapruder film authenticity. Now that's what I call change we can believe in. Think of it as our very own Obama moment.

Elementary comprehension isn't really your forte, is it, Pat? You're mixing in the wrong circles - and going in them, too.

"Relatively mainstream" = nothing that exposes the wholesale deception upon which my work, and that of my fellow-antialterationists, rests. I don't want to give the impression, Pat, that I don't enjoy your attempt to set yourself up as the epitome of reason and good sense in the case, for that would be untrue: It's hopelessy comic. An honest historian/observer would; but then that's the difference between history and propaganda; and that's a distinction utterly and necessarily lost on you. * The name Edwin Black ring any bells?

Is your hypocrisy; and attempt to parley a minor inaccuracy into a point of significance impugning the integrity of the most influential manuscript yet compiled on the assassination. There, I think that about covers it. Not that Murder From Within won't survive your compelling assault: I'm told that Doug Horne's work includes a Parkland witness to the stench of gunpowder from within the presidential limo. If that distinctive aroma wasn't carried there by the the car, that really was some wind blowing through Dallas that day!

Six Seconds in Dallas... Newcomb and Adams, Murder From Within, chapter 4, "The Filmed Assassination."

What's funny is that just about EVERYONE knew it was fake before you did, Mr. Fake Photo expert. And vice-versa on the Zapruder film, eh, Jay?