Paul Rigby

I did a number of things, Bob, but, for the moment, I'll refrain from boring you with all of the tedious detail. One avenue of inquiry provided powerful, if indirect, confirmation of my proposition. Without being too cryptic about it - for I made a promise to one respondent which I intend keeping - it's safe to say that sight of the first version of the Z-fake could be almost as injurious to health as witnessing the assassination itself. A second elicited a mildly amusing reply from an eminent collector in the kinescope field, who irately demanded to know why I didn't just google "Zapruder film" and watch it on-line. I had sent him this: I forgave him his impatience for the obvious reason.

“Lane’s Defense Brief for Oswald,” published by the National Guardian, 19 December 1963: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/Lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html How could Lane write, in an article published in the 19 December 1963 edition of the National Guardian, of having viewed the Zapruder film on television, when, according to the Department of Zapruderland Security and fellow-travellers, the film wasn’t shown on television until 1975? (1). Well, if the hypothesis advanced in the thread Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on 26 November 1963? – to wit, that the first version of the Z film debuted on that station at 12:46 a.m. on the morning of Tuesday, 26 November 1963 - is correct, we have an explanation. So where was Lane 25-26 November 1963? According to the forward to A Citizen’s Dissent: Mark Lane replies (NY: Fawcett Crest, April 1969), in New York. From the same source, we learn that he commenced work on his defence brief for Oswald on Tuesday, 26 November: Lane’s recollection of the showing of the Z film fulfils the classic criteria for preferment as an historical source: it was spontaneous; contemporaneous; and, seemingly, disinterested. It also had recent and related precedent. Just as in the case of Dan Rather and his rather more detailed descriptions of the radically different first version of the Z film, as offered on CBS (radio and TV) on 25 November, Lane could have had no inkling of the plotters’ plans for the film. There never was, it almost passes without remark, formal notice of the first version’s withdrawal for “editing,” merely the announcement that Time-Life had acquired film rights in addition to the still ones. In A Citizen’s Dissent, Lane noted that advance proof sheets of his original defense brief were “sent to the United Press International (UPI) by the Guardian. The UPI responded that they ‘wouldn’t touch it’” (3) No wonder. If the Milwaukee Journal report of 26 November 1963 was accurate, UPI had “obtained” (or, more likely, merely been allocated) the original film rights for the Z film’s first version (4). Lane’s reference to having viewed it on TV would inevitably have set alarm bells ringing within the senior ranks of the organisation: It was now involved in the dissemination of amnesia and confusion with regard to the film, not the film itself. It should be noted that: 1) Lane’s ignorance of the changes made to the first version of the Z-fake was still complete by the time of Rush To Judgment’s publication in 1966; and 2) the left turn was from Houston onto Elm is recorded as being present on the Z-fake (version 1) by the Warren Report itself, a fact blithely and enduringly overlooked by the sharp-eyed and principled defenders of the Z-fake’s veracity. Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2: You’ll find these useful, too: The edited Zapruder film: The vanishing left turn from Houston onto Elm http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8952&view=findpost&p=87147 Early print reports of the Zapruder film and its contents (most extensive, though there is an earlier version somewhere on this site): http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261

All the above is spot-on. Pity Truman came so late to the game. Kennedy was warned about Dulles almost immediately after his election. And this wasn't the wisdom of post-assassination hindsight:

Thanks, Mike, I had quite forgotten how utterly devastating Miller was on the grassy knoll gunman nonsense. So much for initial shots from distance. Useful ammunition for those who think diversionary shots came later.

I agree. In fact, it was shown on WNEW-TV on the morning of Tuesday, 26 November. Even worse, I have a moderately well-known assassination researcher who wrote so at the time (a Mr Mark Lane); a journalist who wrote that UPI Newsfilms had distributed it to subscribing stations (in this instance, in Milwaukee); and two other written recollections of the film being broadcast on television during that time frame. I wouldn't mind, but I got this far entirely unassisted by a generous Foundation grant. The question is, who to believe: David and the contemporary orthodoxy, which once held the film had never been near the CIA in the days following the assassination, or the contemporaneous witnesses? It's a tough one, I concede, but who said history was easy? Except in this case, of course.

Fair enough. We've established your criterion. Bearing that in mind - no prizes for anticipating what's coming - show me exactly the same from any one of your preferred (non-car) locations. Simple, straightforward challenge, no tricks. Same sort of question, again, no tricks, no "side." On what basis did you decide some frames are genuine, and others not?

Purely out of curiosity, Dean, if you don't buy the eyewitnesses, and you think the Z-fake's a fake, what exactly are you relying upon? Is there something that we've all missed? Or, if you are persuaded by some eyewitnesses, but not others, what are your criteria for so discriminating? Nothing too esoteric, mind, as it's getting late.

That's a fairly radical take on the necessity for specialization within the SS, Greg, one thoroughly repudiated, moreover, in the publicly available literature that I've come across; and common sense would suggest. Greer wouldn't always be driving when on duty with the SS; presidential limos occasionally stopped and were momentarily engulfed in well-wishers; and he didn't need to "multi-task" when delivering the fatal shot to his President's left-temple: He stopped the car against the south curb of Elm, turned round, and fired. Footnote from chapter 4, The Filmed Assassination, of Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams’ Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974) Nowt to do with supposition. It's there in the statements and observations of some of the closest eyewitnesses:

Ah, yes, Plan B: If you can't convince them, emote. In fact, Bob, the average TV viewer in 1975 could simply pop down to the cinema and watch much worse than the Z-fake any day of the week. Not to mention television news. As I observed above, you're an anti-historian.

And if I listed the anti-alterationist absurdities you ignore I'd be here all night. Be that as it may, let's consider the question of "relative" to what. First, and most obviously, the Muchmore film could not conceivably have been considered "gruesome" even had it been shown in 1963, complete with added footage of the assassination untaken by Muchmore. The first version of the Z film could. Second, what was this age of innocence? One in which footage of a firing squad and its victims was shown (live?) by CBS TV; and the assassination-by-stabbing of a Japanese cabinet member broadcast. Very innocent. One of the many troubles with the anti-alterationist cause is that it is fundamentally anti-historical. It reads history backwards; and with CIA spectacles. Fortunately, Angleton had at least one thing right: The past, if we allow it, can telescope into the future.

At last, a point of substance. And the Muchmore film isn't a gorefest. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/Lane/Natl-Guardian/Natl_Guardian.html Of course, what was shown on WNEW-TV in the first hour of Tuesday, 26 November had to be withdrawn and history rewritten. But, happily, we've caught back up with them and now know what they did. Enter stage right, the PNAC...

What do you reckon, Francois, Lucky Strike or Virginia Slim? Given the range, it would have to be the latter, surely?

No, it isn't. But it should have been. Hence the laughter. Perhaps you could help him out, Jim, by vetting his posts on the subject? That way he could get to say what you think he should, instead of mangling things hopelessly.

Good question. Shall we explore further? Let's. A promising start, it has to be said: a non-summary summary. But now our resident stand-up gets into full comedic stride. From circular logic... ...to, er, no logic: Brilliant. And now for the punchline: You've forgotten something here, Bob, and it's kind of important: The film described as "gruesome" is meant to be the Muchmore film, not the Zapruder, remember? So explaining why late November 1963 TV viewers were shocked by seeing the Zapruder film is, from your anti-alterationist perspective, just not very bright. Now that is funny. Yes; and right over your head it sailed, too. Never mind, keep trying!

The contrary is true: It was an elegant, if brutal, schema which boasted powerful advantages over any other alternative plan for a public assassination using guns. 1. Any plan predicated upon the SS not merely facilitating, but firing, the fatal shots, gave it a portability which no other alternative could match: The assassins would be with their target on all relevant occasions, ready to go at any opportune moment. 2. The selection of the driver as the assassin fixed the distance between target and shooter; and ensured that the shooter controlled the speed of his target: No alternative can match this plan for economy and efficiency. 3. The selection of the driver as assassin offered element of surprise (for both target and observers); a natural alibi (“I was merely returning fire, guvnor, honest”); and more control over external factors – an excited spectator, a wandering motorcycle outrider, a curious local policeman unwittingly interdicting or merely disturbing a sniper team – than any of the alternatives. 4. The selection of the driver as assassin utilised a man with an existing skill-set perfect for the task. 5. The selection of the driver as assassin guaranteed ready access to incriminating evidence, which could then be made to vanish etc.; and furnished the most powerful motive of all for participation in the subsequent, inevitable, cover-up. And so on and so forth.

With pleasure: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216 Muchmore’s FBI interview, 4 December 1963: “…she advised she did not obtain any photographs of the assassination scene.” http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/documents/wcd_hsca/wcd_hsca_0080a.gif

No, it wasn't. The first version of the Z-fake was: Mary Muchmore shot no footage of the presidential limo on Elm: There is a spectacularly good thread on this very issue elsewhere on this site. I must find my own work.

Never said you did, Greg. I simply drew attention to a faulty distinction you'd drawn. What puzzles me, quite genuinely, is why those who embrace the abundant evidence of SS treason find it so unimaginable that that involvement should extend to the actual shooting. It's particularly perplexing in the case of those such as you who have seen through the Z-fake. Clear this CIA-constructed impediment out of the road, and we transform the case into a standard murder inquiry - one dependent upon witnesses, not a lot of junk celluloid.

The verb you chose - "refute" - reveals you have missed my point by some distance, quite possibly the length of Elm. No, I am not "refuting" the existence of non-Oswaldian assassins by such arguments, not least because the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald had nothing whatever to do with the shooting. So the facts oblige us to consider the alternatives. I merely pointed out that the particular objection advanced by Jim DisIngenuous is, contrary to the impression he sought to convey, every bit as applicable to all other alternatives to Greer. It thus tells us nothing about the case against Greer, or, indeed, the alternatives, but plenty about DisIngenuous. Here again, all is confusion. You seek to persuade us of a distinction between active and passive SS involvement which rests upon your belief that as Greer didn't shoot his President, the SS involvement was thus "passive." The distinction is bogus. "Active" complicity is stripping the layers of protection, slowing the limo to a halt etc. The question is then not whether the SS was actively or passively complicit, but whether one of its number pulled the trigger. And judgment on that issue rests with consideration of the eyewitness testimony, the Parkland doctors observations etc.

Basic comprehension, like elementary logic, really isn't your strong point, is it? You dismissed Betzner's claims about a handgun being visible on the ground that he also referred to a rifle. I adduced Holland's testimony from 1966 to show that Betzner's claim about the former had corroboration. There are others. I like both, but I'll settle for the former.

I'm unsure of your point, Paul. Is the sarcasm aimed at the idea of the existence of "nameless, faceless, assassins without nationality" whose families are already secured away at our "resorts" and will remain safe as long as the assassin plays the game? Or does your sarcasm have more to do with Greer? If you are so naive as to believe that "mechanics" exist only in movies--and that their cooperation is not GUARANTEED by coercion and severe manipulation...you haven't done your homework. My point was perfectly clear, Greg. Precisely the same basic objection can be raised against one set of non-Oswaldian assassins as any other. As for "coercion and manipulation," why are their deployment unthinkable in the case of Greer (and other elements of the SS detail in Dallas), but viewed by you as givens in the case of your preferred alternatives?

Agreed. It makes nonsense of the claim all shots were fired from distance. Problem here, Jack, is that I am merely reading what eyewitnesses said about the smell, the sounds, and the events on Elm Street. I'm not inventing anything. Now, if one believes what they reported about the stench of gun powder, on what rational ground(s) do we discount what they said about shots from within the presidential limo? Why is one observation to be believed and the other discounted? Their actions could scarcely be more indicative of participation. As championed by, among others, Garrison in late 1967, a fact often airbrushed from history. But how does a shot (or shots) from the storm drain a) account for the fact the smell of gunpowder clung to the presidential limo and JFK's clothing all the way to Parkland; and b)match the wound patterns observed at Parkland? Left, surely? More visible than a shot from within the limo, when you think about it. The problem here is the old one. The question is not whether we like a given scenario or not, but what did the eyewitnesses say. Austin Miller, George Davis and Royce Skelton had elevated and unimpeded views of what transpired. They had no discernible motive to lie; and have been assiduously neglected or flat misrepresented by a succession of writers, from Josiah Thompson to Mark Lane. Miller answered straight before the WC ("from inside the car"); Davis described weapons in the hands of the Secret Service; and Skelton expressed the view that the shots came from "around" the presidential limo. The problem lies not with them, but with those among us who don't like what they reported.

Charity - or was it sloth? I really can't remember. Anyway, the fact is that while Milicent's story is interesting, it is, in the absence of any chain of possession, documented provenance etc. of little or no consequence; and tells us nothing more, I suspect, than that the CIA produced more than one version of the Z-fake. The action contained within the film described by her is corroborated by few if any eyewitnesses; or the Parkland doctors. By the way, that giant head flap business really is terribly far-out nonsense. I would drop it, personally. Yesterday Robespierre, today a jihadist? This gets weirder. And even more self-dramatising: are you really in imminent danger of being burnt at a stake? Strange place, California. Hate to break it to you, Jim, but Franzen stood on the south curb of Elm and was one of the closest eyewitnesses to the shooting. Sneaky of me to quote people who were there, I realise, but then that's the Brits all over for you: Devious to the last. And to prove it, here's one of the knollers' favourite witnesses, S.M.Holland, "imagining" Kellerman holding a weapon on Elm. Crazy guy, that Betzner cove, not to mention his even crazier timeline: PS That's Lima, USA, not South America.

Ah, but there is Jim: “Paul, you were right. I did seriously posit the existence of a liberal wing of the CIA”– I almost blush to repeat such an absurdity – “who supported RFK.” Shall we look at the key sentence again? I think we should. Which element(s) of the DiEugenio sentence to follow are interrogative? A clue: Not the bit comprising “the liberal wing of the CIA who supported RFK.” Your question manifestly assumes the existence of the absurdity. It questions merely whether Rabern belonged to the fictional faction you advanced as a given. Alas, no. I merely identified a rank piece of disinformation. I thank you for confirming, albeit in somewhat laborious detail, the veracity of my point. I accurately noted that on the two key issues - film alteration and Greer-as-assassin - your positions are, all surface froth aside, identical. And they are. Thompson has worked assiduously over the past decade or so to sustain the Zapruder deception. You are now engaged in exactly the same activity, almost certainly in response to the appearance of Doug Horne's pentalogy. I have, at some length. If you're too lazy to search this site, ask a friend. Can't think why: Jean Hill: “I thought I saw some men in plain clothes shooting back but everything was such a blur...,” Sheriff Department’s statement, 22 November 1963. Don Schulman: “Just then the guard…took out his gun. And he fired also…The guard definitely pulled out his gun and fired,” KNXT-TV reporter, minutes after the assassination of RFK, within Ted Charach’s landmark documentary, The Second Gun. The problem is quite the reverse: You appear entirely unfamiliar with testimony from some of the eyewitnesses closest to the Elm Street action. No distraction operation here, Jim? You don't even have to trust these inconvenient eyewitnesses. The SS itself briefed reporters in the hours after the assassination about this run up the knoll. In order to avoid any suggestion that this was a rehearsed drill, the spin was that the SS men in question where merely following the motorcycle cops lead: I do love a little hyperbole in the evening - this wouldn't even be true had Greer driven with the assistance of stilts - but pity your Z-fake discloses no such thing!

That's genuinely funny, and almost - almost - as preposterous as your claim that Cranor was not describing a variant of the Z-fake. Curious, then, to find Cranor herself writing: "I recently realized that an early description of the film...fits my own impression of this version." David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and so on and so forth. Another DiEugenio porkie. In SSID, Thompson systematically expunged references to an in-car shooting, mislocated witnesses who so stated and concealed inconvenient testimony to that effect from his readers. You're engaged in exactly the same game. What was that quote from a recent Black Op radio appearance of yours? Care to remind us? Thompson insisted on the veracity of the Z-fake - still does - and so do you. On the two key issues under discussion, then, you are exactly as characterised: The continuation of Josiah Thompson by other means. Don't recall ever saying any such thing. But, unlike you, I remember the inconvenient stuff: Lane wrote in November/December 1963 that the Zapruder film had been shown on US TV; Weisberg was pleased that Life, not the USG, had possession of the Z-film; and Thompson, well here I would pull the plug. Meagher, the best of them, is not germane in this context. Given that you're familiar with the thread, you know that I did. They're still there. I particularly enjoyed CD's question: "Again I ask you, how would proof of a left-temple wound of entry support ANY conclusions whatsoever regarding the firing position?" Now if that's what you call being "blown out of the water by Charles Drago" then we have very different conceptions of victory and defeat. Not to mention front and back. You don't know any of this and yet you insist the Z-fake is genuine? Incredible. Er, your point is? In fact, the number of researchers doing original, detailed research on the SS is shockingly small. You obviously know your Irish history. As to Greer's attitude to Irish Catholics, ask his son. I have the topography spot-on. You have offered waffle. Thane Eugene Cesar murdered Robert Kennedy in a pantry full of people. Same MO as Dallas - a direct and positive "hit," obscured behind a complex array of red herrings, distractions etc. But the same MO.