Paul Rigby

I note with amusement how similar is the above to the kinds of grotesquely leading questions posed to witnesses, most notably the Parkland doctors, by Warren Commission lawyers. Still, it's worth examining a few of Thompson's assumptions if only to expose them. 1) Why try to alter or fake up the Zapruder film when the genie has already escaped from the bottle? This assumes the original version of the Zapruder film was a genuine record of what transpired on Elm. Zapruder's WFAA-TV description of the headwound - he famously mislocated it - together with the descriptions of the first version of the Z fake furnished by Dan Rather et al are not reassuring on this score. The preplanned narrative - and film? - were at pains, for example, to persuade us the presidential limo never stopped. The first version of the Z fake was indeed junked, largely because of what the Parkland doctors had to say. This suppression permitted the campaign by journalists like Snider and Mandel to embark upon that preposterous attempt to harmonise the Parkland doctors' description of front entry wounds with the bogus film. The upshot resulted, among other alterations, in the removal of the left turn of the presidential limo from Houston onto Elm. 2) Let’s say you are the mastermind of a plot to make the Kennedy assassination look like the work of a single gunman. This a hugely important point. The plot was not so simple-minded. It had built within it a fall-back deception, the grassy knoll. In short, there was an inner and an outer layer of deception. xxxxx the first, think yourself clever, and lo, you met the second or inner deceit. Nor should this be any surprise, given the background and world-view of men like Dulles and Angleton. Both had vast experience of false flag ops, pseudo-gangs, and controlled oppositions. The assassination research community was assidously steered in the direction of the grassy knoll to lead us away from the centrality of Kennedy's SS detail to his murder. Thompson knows this because he suppressed for SSID readers the import of the clearest testimony to the role of the SS in leading the charge up the grassy knoll. 3) Let’s say that no one ever imagined that someone like Zapruder would get up on his pedestal and shoot the assassination as he did. Er, why? What research did Thompson conduct on Zapruder's pre-assination contacts and milieu? And if he did, where is it; and why has he never published it? The available evidence suggests Zapruder's presence was anything but accidental.

Bill, Some agreeable and appropriate sentiments, not least in regard to Doug Horne for provoking, and John/this forum for hosting, such a robust debate, but we are a long way apart on our history of research in the case, and the role of Thompson within it. You offer a rosy vision of a continuous tradition of honest striving moving us ever upwards and on: To me, this is the old Whig heresy, writ small. By contrast, I see an effort entirely in keeping with CIA tradition, one deliberately and systematically subverted by penetration and red herrings, a process that is, as far as I can see, alive and flourishing. The problem is that what I stated is true. This may be inconvenient, uncomfortable, and/or regrettable, but it nevertheless remains a fact. SSID systematically suppresses testimony that points to: Here’s a classic example of what I mean, in this instance, in support of claim 4): Witness 66, p.259, in Thompson’s Six Seconds table is Mrs Charles Hester. Here is Thompson’s summary of her evidence in the, by now, familiar format: Location: N. side of Elm St. on slope No. of shots: 2 Bunching of shots: --- Direction of sound/shots: --- Date of report: 11/25/63 Total time of shots: --- References: 24H523 Remarks: Thinks she and her husband were in the direct line of fire Here is Mrs Hester’s full statement to the FBI, from the Hearings volume and page cited by Thompson, as made on 24 November 1963: Mrs CHARLES HESTER, 2619 Keyhold Street, Irving, Texas, advised that sometime around 12:30 p.m., on November 22, 1963, she and her husband were standing along the street at a place immediately preceding the underpass on Elm Street, where President Kennedy was shot. Mrs HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw President KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband grabbed then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. She stated that she believes she and her husband actually had been in the direct line of fire. She did not see anyone with a gun when the shots were fired and stated she could not furnish any information as to exactly where the shots came from. After the President’s car had pulled away from the scene, she and her husband proceeded to their car and left the area as she was very upset.” In other words, Thompson’s summary of Mrs Hester’s location and statement is “erroneous” in the extreme. An honest version would read: Location: S. side of Elm St. close to underpass No. of shots: 2 Bunching of shots: --- Direction of sound/shots: --- Date of report: 11/24/63 Total time of shots: --- References: 24H523 Remarks: Accompanied by husband; thinks she and her husband were in the direct line of fire The purpose of furnishing us with a bogus film record of the assassination was, in large measure, to stop us looking at what the witnesses said. Thompson not merely fails to challenge the fraudulent film record, but instead actively works to buttress it, by whatever means necessary. As I have repeatedly insisted and demonstrated, his methods are disgraceful, whether considered from the dry perspective of mere scholarship, or within the broader confines of the most important debate yet waged about the death of American democracy. What am I to do, pretend otherwise? Paul

Censored and misleading summaries of eyewitness testimony in Six Seconds in Dallas Six Seconds In Dallas (Bernard Geis, 1967), Appendix A, “Master List of Assassination Witnesses”: Witness Austin Miller, witness 96, p.262: Location: RR overpass No. of shots: 3 Bunching of shots: 2 & 3 Direction of sound/shots: --- Date of report: 11/22/63 Total time of shots: “few seconds” References: 6H223-227; 19H485; 24H217; Archives CD 205, p.27 Remarks: Saw “smoke or steam” coming from a group of trees N. of Elm; saw shot hit street past car Inspect the first testimony cited by Thompson and you find Miller not offering the following opinion on the origin of the shots on Elm St: Unscrupulous coves, these people who quote eyewitness testimony accurately. Not that you would know, of course, having sought systematically to expunge any testimony you found inconvenient.

Hi Dean: The reason that "grandpa" did not pass a copy "Murder From Within" down to you is because it was never (legally) for sale. In truth it was a joint effort constructed by Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, copyrighted in 1974. I was fortunate enough to be one of those who contributed, in some small way, to this venture, as were many others, some of whom contribute to this forum as of this date - including both Josiah Thompson and David Lifton. Newcomb and Adams published a very limited number of "pre-publication" drafts, in their words "expressly for the use of the United States Congress and other interested law enforcement bodies, and not for the general public." My copy is #84. I believe Fred Newcomb is still alive, but I have not spoken to him for about 4 or 5 years. Perry Adams unfortunately passed away a number of years ago. If you like I will contact Tyler Newcomb, Fred's son, who, along with fellow researcher, Larry Haapanen, has a lot of Fred and Perry's original research materials, and ask permission to make a copy for you. Or , you can contact Tyler directly yourself. I believe he has posted on this Forum in the past, though I could be wrong about that. Gary Murr Yes, thanks for the background, Gary. I should explain the background to the placing of the text in Word format. In the mid-1990s, two friends and I sought to persuade a British TV company to put together a documentary on the Z film provisionally entitled "Z for Fraud." We avoided the notorious BBC for the obvious reasons: MI5 has on office in the Beeb's London HQ, and ruthlessly winnows out both "unacceptable" ideas and personnel. Only one independent TV franchise expressed interest, Carlton TV, which covered the London and the south-east region. This was something of an expensive hike for three guys from the north-west of England, but we gave it a crack anyway. In the course of researching the background to the Z film, we heard about Murder From Within, and went in search of a copy. We eventually found both it and Fred Newcomb, and were so impressed with the manuscript - and so thoroughly appalled that it had never received publication - that, with Fred and Perry's permission, we typed it up and distributed copies to a number of UK publishers. From memory, I think we obtained two responses. Both were absurd, and it was difficult to resist the conclusion that word had gone out that this was a manuscript too far. Fred and Perry had told us as much at the outset. In the age of print-on demand, it is surely not beyond the realm of the possible to get a copy, complete with the manuscript's many brilliant graphs, tables and illustrations, assembled and available for purchase by all who are interested? If there are any reading this who are serious about publication, and would like assistance, please get in touch. Paul

This is the kind of analysis Thompson should have produced in SSID were he remotely interested in the truth of the subject. Compare the quality of observation below with that to be found in SSID. And laugh. 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.

That's very definitely the second version. There is a further reason for believing that UPI Newsfilms had, and disseminated widely, the Z fake (version 1), and it’s one that should be familiar to both David Lifton and all readers of his fascinating essay, The Pig on a Leash.* In that admirable reconsideration of the Z films’ history and authenticity, Lifton twice dwelt on a remarkable feature of Time-Life’s handling of the Z-fake: “In short, it would appear that Life behaved in a manner that what was most unusual, and peculiar for an institution in a capitalist economy: It laid out the equivalent of some $900,000 for a literary asset and then failed to exploit that asset…Life magazine is not an eleemosynary institution” (p.314). He returned to the same theme later in the essay: “Life seemed to behave in a most extraordinary way: It failed to recoup its investment” (p.351). He went on to observe that even though “social mores were different in 1963, human nature does not change. Life had an extraordinary property – a motion picture film, yet, aside from the publication of a select number of frames, it acted to keep it off the market” (pp.351-2). Now here’s the oddity (and similarity): Both UPI and WNEW-TV, NY, proved surprisingly modest when it came to celebrating their journalistic scoop. UPI, for example, issued a booklet in December 1963 which included examples of its journalism in the period November 22-26, but which omitted all reference to the assassination film of which it had so proudly boasted in its despatch from New York in the early hours of November 26. And likewise WNEW, which, in conjunction with UPI, produced the LP Four Days That Shocked The World. Again, the silence on the great scoop was deafening. Modesty, like amnesia, proved surprisingly common amongst the titans of the US media in the wake of November 22. * Page references from Jim Fetzer (ed.) The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003).

http://www.jfk-info.com/wfaa-tv.htm Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. VII Another ringing endorsement from Zapruder of his film’s authenticity Zapruder, the prosecution’s twenty-third witness at the Shaw trial, was reported as follows after his appearance:

Out of curiosity, Bill, who was actually running the NPIC in late November 1963? If veteran CIA-mouthpiece Stewart Alsop is to be believed, the answer, formally at least, was McNamara and the DIA. Or was that control nominal and contested; and lapsed entirely with the Dallas coup, with power reverting to CIA?

1. Wolper produced 32 episodes of the 1954 series OSS: it is inconceivable that the CIA did not take a keen interest in the shaping of the series, not least because of the presence of so many ex-OSS in its own ranks, among them, the most senior. 2. The Wolper documentary Four Days in November, released in October 1964, was made in conjunction with UPI, and debuted just as UPI completed its takeover of Wolper's production company and its (five?) subsidiaries. 3. Four Days is perhaps most remarkable for what it omits - any footage of the presidential limousine turning the corner from Houston on Elm: 4. The absence of any footage of said turn is more than a little curious because according to a UPI despatch from New York in the early hours of Tuesday, November 26, 1963, it had footage of precisely that turn: My conclusion from the above? Rather to my surprise, I find Pamela's recollection entirely credible, for this additional reason: The version of the Zapruder fake which, unannounced, followed Wolper's cynical piece of pro-WC hackwork was almost certainly the second version, the one which had removed the left turn from Houston on to Elm. What I suspect she was subjected to was a small scale experiment in perception management, as part of the preparation for introducing the new, improved version of the Zapruder fake. Paul

(1) Transcript 1327C, page B-5, as found in Appendix C, James H. Fetzer (ed.). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1998), p.423. (2) John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says/Physician Reports One Shot Remained in President’s Body After Hitting Him at Level of His Necktie Knot,” NYT, November 27, 1963, p.20.

UPI had the Z film, and it was shown on US TV, most notably on New York's WNEW-TV in the early hours of November 26: Same despatch: 1. “Exclusive Films Show Shooting of Kennedy in Dallas,” Logansport Pharos-Tribune, (Logansport, Indiana), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, Page 2 2. “UPI Newsfilm First On Air With Exclusive,” Great Bend Daily Tribune, (Great Bend, Kansas), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, Page 9 3. “UPI Newsfilm Has Shooting On Film,” Humboldt Standard, (Eureka, California), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, p.2 Elsewhere in the US: Mark Lane? http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html Paul

It wasn't, at least not initially, even in the hands of Time-Life: UPI, Helms' pre-war outfit, had it. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;hl=Muchmore Paul

The obvious question hitherto unbegged: Given that no film, sound recording or example of contemporaneous note-taking has yet surfaced, how was transcript 1327C compiled? And why was the basis for it - the recordings or notes - not produced upon its emergence? It was not, after all, as if the absence of record(ing)s was uncontroversial, from the mid-1960s on. Until and unless the advocates of its "authenticity" adduce the basis for its production, we have no alternative but to conclude that it is a CIA forgery. A very shrewd one, it must be acknowledged, which combines elements of the truth - the throat wound was of entry - with a sustained pretence that there was no front entry wound of the face/head. Paul

Fair enough. That strikes me as an honourable and prudent position to take. I am not, and never have been, opposed to the raising of legitimate objections/questions, what I have resisted - and will continue to - is the attempt to place the paradigm beyond the realm of legitimate discussion. Now, having long advanced the proposition that Kennedy was killed by a member of his own bodyguard, it seems to me I have an obligation to set how I think the killing went down. Let me say at the outset I have no beef with the idea that the CIA plan included provision for shooters from distance - but just not for the actual hit, assuming things went broadly to plan. I can see two very good grounds for their utilisation: 1) emergency cover for unforseen intrusion or failure; and 2) for the purposes of misdirection. I believe the later is the key to the entire scheme: misdirection. So here is my paradigm, as assembled from the most germane testimony I have found to date. It is predicated upon the provision from the outset of a fabricated film: The Secret Service and the false trail up the grassy knoll Ingenia nostra rerum contrariarum vicinitate fallantur (Our minds are confused by the close proximity of opposites) Petrach Summary: Secret Service men leave follow-up car: a) run to presidential limousine; lay false trail up to knoll, c) Kellerman's part in the misdirection; d) SS place responsibility for run up grassy knoll on Dallas police; and e) are blown out by the CIA in satirical, if hubristic, mode. A) The SS checks the target is mortally wounded: The false trail to the knoll: C) Kellerman’s role in the misdirection: D) The Secret Service covers its tracks * The assassination took place, of course, further up Elm Street, nearer the Triple Overpass, than the second version of the Z-fake would have us believe. E) Overview of the rehearsed role of the SS

Who intervened contemporaneously to skew knowledge about the wounds? Secret Service at Parkland: Secret Service/KRLD collaboration at Parkland: Prior Secret Service/KRLD collaboration: Alleged FBI intervention into coverage of Parkland doctors’ recollections:

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...85445&page= A third observer, and one with a particularly well-deserved reputation for honest and temperate comment, confirms that Horne does indeed give Greer's involvement serious consideration. Quite right, too.

Dulles to Humes: (Humes’ response was no less remarkable: “Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind"!)

Dan, If the Clint Hill anecdote is indeed in one of Doug Horne's volumes, and I take it that it is given Bill Kelly's non-denial denial, then it directly addresses your claim that no "son of a b*st*rd somewhere quickly noting such an extraordinary detour in proper procedure..." Bill's reluctance to acknowledge the fact tells us something about him, a great deal about the power of group-think in the research community, and nothing whatever about the merits (or otherwise) of the case for an in-car shooting. Second, you trot out that hoary old line about the execution taking place "in the middle of a downtown parade." What a pity it isn't true: It took place at the sparsely populated fag-end of the drive through Dallas. This irony was noted in contemporaneous press reports. You should really catch up. Third, I'm very struck at the eruption of foul language. Why this level of emotion? Is this really the disinterested response of an independent researcher? I note with interest that this is not the first time we've seen a similar recourse to this kind of language in response to the proposition. Fourth, as a matter of readily verifiable record, Allen Dulles didn't like any suggestion that Kennedy was shot from in front or beside. And, as you've just so eloquently demonstrated, neither do you. Fifth, feel free to let rip without fear of the mods intruding: I've never reported anyone for anything. To the contrary, the more ill-tempered and irrational the response, the better. 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. Dan Rather's second description of the first version of the Zapruder film on CBS, this time for television news, from November 25: Source: Richard B. Trask. National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), pp. 142-14, citing “CBS Radio Description of Zapruder Film by Dan Rather,” from a transcript from the Richard Sprague Papers, Special Collections Division, Georgetown University Library, Washington, D.C., p.[1-3]

Richard Trask. Pictures of the Pain: Photography and the assassination of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 1994), pp.86-87. Dan Rather’s first detailed public description of the Z-film, 1963, versus Bob Huffaker’s, 2004: Dan Rather, CBS radio, 25 November 1963, as interviewed by Hughes Rudd and Richard C. Hotelett: 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. Bob Huffaker of KRLD on, er, the same film: When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963 (Lanham, Maryland: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2004), pp.67-8

One sees immediately why Horne is so very, very "misguided": You join very distinguished company in your concern, Dan, men like...Allen Welch Dulles, for example.

Truman’s attack on the CIA in the Washington Post of 22 December 1963 was sure to prove a source of profound irritation to a murderous bureaucracy that believed itself above both criticism and the law. Dulles was still scratching vigorously four months later, even as he engrossed himself in the finer points of intimidating a Dallas doctor. Here’s the sequence in order: A week after the publication of Truman’s attack, the Washington Post rubbed editorial salt into the wound: “Truman and the CIA,” 28 December 1963, p.A8: Francis J. Gavin, “Politics, Power, and U.S. Policy in Iran, 1950-1953,” Journal of Cold War Studies, Winter 1999, (Vol. 1, No 1), pp.88-89: *Dulles had evidently developed a taste for this sort of thing during the period in question: http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol3/page377.php Monday, 30 March 1964: More on Truman’s attack on the CIA post-Dallas; and Dulles’ attempt to neutralise the former President’s criticisms http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/122909b.html

Um. Thompson on McClelland in SSID. A tad inadequate, that explanation, perhaps? Let's revisit a classic piece of Thompsonian "honesty": Or, How to make an exit wound into an entrance wound… Was McClelland doing any such thing? Not according to the Admission Note made out by McClelland on the afternoon of the coup, which is to be found within the Warren Report itself (2): As Thompson knew full well, when asked by Arlen Specter whether he stood by this verdict – the heroic lawyer, it should be noted, could not bring himself to specify out loud what that verdict was – McClelland replied in the affirmative” (4). 1. Six Seconds in Dallas (Bernard Geis Associates, 1967), p.107, citing 6WCH33. 2. Warren Report, Appendix VIII, Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., p.527. 3. In Commission Exhibit 392, the two-page submission from McClelland, timed at 4:45pm on 22 November 1963, referred to in 2) is again reproduced in17WCH12. 4. 6WCH35.

I don't yet have any of the volumes, but I take the following descriptions as accurate summaries. http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?to...icseen#msg31146 Re: Doug Horne's book(s) now for sale on Amazon « Reply #25 on: December 22, 2009, 07:03 AM » « Reply #26 on: December 22, 2009, 07:24 PM » My congratulations to Doug for having the courage to follow the evidence, however much it offends partisans of the two great CIA-imposed orthodoxies in the case, the TSBD and the grassy knoll.

At some point, one or more of Doug Horne's exegetes on this forum is, I'm sure, going to offer a word or two, if only for honesty's sake, on the seriousness with which he treats the proposition that William Greer shot his President. And perhaps reproduce details of the anecdote concerning Clint Hill and the flight back to Washington?