Paul Rigby

Two, Tim.

Nat, There aren't many of us; and of the few I've come across, I can think of none who reject the entire film as a fabrication. But most do posit some degree of alteration. It is a question of degree, ranging from simple frame removal, to, as in Fred Newcomb's case, something much more elaborate. Paul

Sadly, I and a couple of friends have, too. Wherever you are, Fred, best wishes & thank you.

Charles, I believe two shots were fired at Kennedy from within the presidential limousine. The first hit him in the throat, struck his spine, and lodged in a lung. The second entered the left temple and exited from the right rear of his skull. I believe the wound in his back was a post-mortem fabrication. Ditto the entrance wound in the rear of his head. Hope that clarifies. Paul

Tim, Your decision to start this thread seems to me an intelligent and constructive response to my suggestion. I wish the thread every success - anti-alterationists, put your best foot forward, and let newcomers - and any other interested parties - see why you believe what you believe. I intend to read it avidly; and sincerely hope to profit from it. But, true to my part of the bargain, I'll refrain from any critiques. I urge fellow pro-alterationists to do the same. Again, good luck, and well done. Paul

Your choice, Dennis. It ain't mine. Paul

The purpose of this thread is to furnish a one-stop shop for those commencing their exploration of the issue: It isn’t to provide yet another pretext for the renewal of old hostilities. To that end, I urge the anti-alterationists to establish an equivalent thread. Here’s the deal – we respect each others threads, and keep them purely for reading lists, suggested links, extracts etc. The ultimate goal, upon which both sides should surely be able to agree, is to relocate the debate on the most informed and rational ground we can. That means giving newcomers the widest range of information and options possible – on both sides of the argument. There is no party line. I happen to be an unrepentent in-car shootist - but I neither seek nor desire to limit contributions to the like-minded. All I do insist upon is a commitment to the rational exposition of the case for alteration. Fair enough? To kick-start the thread, I begin, appropriately enough, with the very first sustained written assault on the Z-film’s veracity. It’s only part of the chapter concerned, and contains much with which I profoundly disagree. Yet I remain deeply in its debt. So, too, do many others, as we shall see in future postings: (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.

Dupe, deleted.

A much more impressive point in the hands of someone who can spell, punctuate, and construct coherent sentences without recourse to swearing.

Tim, Take a deep breath and have another go: One was viewing from the limo's front, the other from its rear. Ergo, their testimony is mutually reinforcing. As general propositions, unobjectionable. Of course, it is every bit as true that eyewitnesses sometimes get things spectacularly right. They are, though, whatever their strengths & deficiencies, the foundation of any criminal justice system. Why is that not the case in the matter of the assassination of John F. Kennedy? And is it seriously your contention in this specific instance that all of the cited witnesses got it wrong? How many eyewitnesses had a clear enough view to see? But you're right in one sense - it would be nice to have more testimony to that effect. But I have to observe - Is there a theory on the "how" of the assassination that doesn't have exactly the same problem? Loyal foot-soldier of the National Security State, I assume. Incidentally, take a look at the sentence structure of some of Kellerman's replies before the Commission - unless he learnt his American English from the pages of Time-Life, I get the strong impression his first language was a Germanic one.

Nat, Interested in more on Fitzgerald's career and politics - suggestions welcome. Paul

As an ancient Russian proverb – that distilled essence of the accumulated peasant wisdom of the millennia, no less – has it: “Beware of White Russians bearing cinematic gifts.” How very true. Once we move beyond the fake film and its motley supporting acts, we are obliged to fall back on one of our deepest and most primitive instincts – the desire to read. Strange things happen when we revert to nature: we find patterns. Here’s another of them: But it’s NOT in the films, went up the cry. Exactly. We either believe the films – or the spontaneous, uncoordinated testimony, for no conceivable gain, of six eyewitnesses observing from all four points of the compass. Take your pick. Make your choice. The next question – is there any testimony or evidence that would support the contention that the presidential limo reached the south curb of Elm? Happily, there is.

They did - I quoted a couple of them. But such observations didn't fit the official narrative, so were never given the prominence they merited. You proceed as if key elements of that official narrative were not in place by the evening of 22 November. Demonstrably untrue. The official narrative was already set in stone, and insisting the attack was an external one, involved a rifle, fired by a Marxisant malcontent from high to the rear. To illustrate the scale of the deception. Consider the media treatment afforded the Parkland doctors' first major press conference. It should have been given considerable prominence, but wasn't. Why? Because it had two doctors who had treated Kennedy insisting he had been shot twice from the front. What was the average US newspaper editor to do? Run with the doctors, or the official narrative? One was guaranteed to pay the mortgage - and it wasn't the former. Absolutely. What you characterise as "junk" - the eyewitness testimony - is the foundation of the system of justice. I haven't got all the early reports - any chance you can get Mack to start sharing them?

Yes Paul ... and even an airplane flying several hundred miles an hour will look to be stopped in midair when either viewed coming directly towards or away from you. Merriman Smith said that his car stopped as did the motorcade, but he states that the President's car only faltered. Ta for the Zen philosophy, Bill. I trust there's no extra charge for these words of wisdom? Merriman Smith? Interesting character. Couldn't stand Kennedy or the New Frontier types he brought with him to Washington. Read Murder From Within - there's a couple of excellent extracts in the footnotes. So, then, how long did the limo stop? According to a bunch of the earliest-cited and/or closest eyewitnesses, sufficiently long for one or more armed SS men to reach the presidential limo, presumably to check that the mission was accomplished: Norman Similas: "I looked back at the car and a Secret Service man ran up with his gun drawn...The Secret Service man opened the car door and I saw the President slumped to the floor and falling towards the pavement," "Metro Man Eyewitness to History," Toronto Telegram, 23 November 1963. Earl Cabell: "...there was confusion in the presidential car - activity. The Secret Service men ran to that car," 7WCH479 Robert Baskin: "The motorcade ground to a halt. There was a good deal of activity round the President's car, with Secret Service men running about," Dallas Morning News, 23 November 1963, p.2. Policeman D. V. Harkness: "...some of the agents piling on the car," 6WCH309. Anonymous reporter: "Secret Service men bounded out...one with a sub-machine gun at the ready," Newsweek, 2 December 1963, p.21. Policeman Marion Baker, citing Chaney's account: "...during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get into the car," 3WCH266 There we have one of the reasons why Chaney wasn't called to testify by those fearless truth-seekers on the Presidential Commission.

Myra, Judging by the content of the briefing given the Sunday Times' Insight team for its piece, "The Bodyguards...and the broken first commandment," 24 November 1963, p.6, the training outlined by Smith was standard stuff in 1963. According to this piece, "agents of the elite bodyguard are hand-picked," and as part of their bog-standard training, "learn judo," and become proficient with "revolver, sub-machine gun carbine, and riot pistol." Oh, and they had an axiom drummed into them: "Never look at the President, he's not going to kill himself." They must have forgotten that, too. Paul

Just to get the ball rolling: Hugh William Betzner, Jr., 19WCH467: "I walked down toward where the President's car had stopped." Roy Truly, 3WCH221: "After the first shot... I saw the President's car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in the area..."

Kathy, Exactly the way you would in any other murder case – from the media reports, and law enforcement investigations. In this instance, we have an extraordinary abundance of both. But to flip your question over, how do we know from the films? Pity the poor soul who relies on them. For example, where on the Z film are the three female book depository employees who said they stood together on the south curb of Elm at roughly the mid-point between the TSBD and the overpass? (Holt, Simmons and Jacob in 22WCH652-3; presence on Elm St in shooting’s immediate aftermath confirmed by policeman Lewis in 19WCH526. You’ll find an amusing series of exchanges on the subject on the JFK Lancer thread entitled Z-film chain of possession needs revising, topic id #41859. By the thread’s conclusion, Bill Miller had shifted the entire south curb of Elm up to the side of the book depository, and all three ladies into Oklahoma. The entire heroic endeavour still makes me chuckle.) Where, also, is the schoolboy, Alan Smith, who was widely quoted on 23 November in US newspapers? Smith said unequivocally the head shot had struck Kennedy in the forehead, which would strongly suggest he was in front of the President at the time. Now scan the films – he, too, has vanished. (“The car was ten feet from me when a bullet hit the President in the forehead…the car went about five feet and stopped,” Jack Bell, “Eyewitnesses describe scene of assassination: Sounds of shooting brought car to a halt,” NYT, 23 November 1963, p.5) Minor contradictions between witnesses and films I could accept and rationalise. Wholesale, irreconcilable conflicts, not a chance. Paul

No, Bill, it isn't my position. The film is designed to mislead us utterly on what happened when on Elm. It wasn't just to hide the activities of Greer and Kellerman. A question best addressed, I rather think, to those who argue same. That's because I generally employ English; and you're sitting on your head again.

Nor will you, Bill, the film's a fake! How do you arrive that this conclusion? Instead of 'faking' this film, wouldnt it have been better for them to destroy it and have no video record? Seems to me without the Z film, there is no conspiracy at all...it dies on Nov. 22, 1963. Mark, You assume that the conspirators would not have wished to suggest a conspiracy, that such a tack had no utility to them. Why? Without wishing to embark on a dissertation on French and Italian intelligence theorists, paranoia has a profound and comprehensive range of uses for a secret police bureaucracy. In 1967-68, it appears to have been used to help focus suspicion on LBJ, contributing to his decision to throw the towel in; from '69 on, Nixon is mired (and mires himself) in a swamp of suspicion, mistrust, and fear. Remember, too, that not all the literature on the case points the finger at the CIA: It doesn't. The grassy knoll comes to function like a medieval stock, into which a given enemy of the moment can be moved, and removed, as the needs of the hegemonic group within the US elite require. Furthermore, if no Z fake, we would all be discussing the eyewitness testimony. Now, that would never do, for that would be to treat events Elm as - a crime, like any other, and not a celluloid mystery. The film is designed to obscure and negate the testimony of the eyewitnesses; it has been given a primacy it does not enjoy in law, and should not in common sense. Paul

Very true: It also tells us a great deal about the imminence of an attack on Iran. Terrible, I left out the essential precursor to that heady moment - the false flag attack that enables it. Large, liberal-leaning city, just to ensure the non-Repubs are swung behind the long pre-planned assault? West coast, perhaps, just to balance 9/11? --------------- Paul reminds me the words of some wacky conspiracy theorist a few months ago that a false-flag attack would precede a U.S. led Iran attack. Oh, wait a minute... that was Ziggy Breszinski... it hasn't been mentioned once in four months so I forgot.... is "conspiracy theory" a matter of how frequently something is mentioned in the the NYTimes? Is circulation a factor? Tells you something about how dire things have got when we have to keep company with establishment loonies like, er, Ziggy and the Fisk. Are we now "establishment" types? God, what a thought.

Yes, Paul ... Greer is apparently recalling the events of that day some 20 years later ... is he getting things out of order or did the interviewer make the error? Either way - none if it has to do with him allegedly shooting JFK. Bill Miller Neither, Bill, he was almost certainly recalling the intended "autopsy" at Parkland. See testimony of Jane Webster, “the assistant supervisor in the operating room,” who testified as follows before the Presidential Commission in March 1964: Later in the same exchange, Webster identifies the operating room into which Connally was wheeled as room 5, the site of the intended thoracotomy. For David Lifton’s ruminations on the plotters intentions at Parkland, and why they were thwarted by the shooting of Connally, see Best Evidence’s Afterword (p.819 in my paperback edition). For a critical response to Lifton, see Joel Waggoner in The Third Decade, Jan-March 1992, (Vol 8, No 2-3), p.42.

A challenge, then, to all the many adept film & picture afficionados, Bill Miller included - let's see the best enlargement obtainable of the SS hand in question. If my belief is erroneous, show it for all to see. The challenge still stands. A bit more on why, in the fuller account of SS Taylor's decoy shot at the intersection of Houston and Elm: (1) Film by Robert J. Hughes. (2) James N. Crawford, “Testimony of James N. Crawford dated April 1, 1964,” in Hearings, v. 6, p.172 (3) Ibid. (4) Hurchel D. Jacks, “Commission Exhibit No. 1024. ‘Statement of Hurchel D. Jacks, Texas Highway Patrolman, made on November 28, 1963,’ within Letter…” in Hearings, v. 18, p.801. (5) Heard first shot as “firecracker”: Winston G. Lawson (v. 4, p.352) Roy H. Kellerman (v.2, p.73) David F. Powers (v.7, p.473) Kenneth P. O’Donnell (v. 7, p.447) Glen A. Bennett George W. Hickey, Jr. John D. Ready Clinton J. Hill Claudia A. (Lady Bird) Johnson Jerry D. Kivett Clifton C. Carter Thomas L. Johns Warren W. Taylor Earle Cabell James R. Underwood Robert H. Jackson S.R. Yates Mrs. Jack Franzen Jack Franzen William F. Newman Mrs. Billy P. Clay John A. Chism Mrs. Jean Newman James W. Altgens Ronald B. Fischer Dolores A. Kounas Hugh W. Betzner Jr. Edgar L. Smith, Jr., Miss Mary A. Mitchell Mrs. Ruby Henderson Welcome F. Barnett Roy S. Truly Mrs. Donald S. Baker Miss Judy M. Johnson William H. Shelley Billy N. Lovelady Miss Victoria F. Adams Dorothy A. Garner Mrs. Alvin Hopson George A. Davis S. M. Holland J. W. Foster Nolan H. Potter Austin L. Miller James T. Tague Barbara Rowland Seymour Weitzman Mrs. Lillian Mooneyham Harry D. Holmes Betty Jean Thornton Heard first shot as “backfire”: William R. Greer Thomas L. Johns Malcolm O. Couch Mrs. Billie P. Clay Howard L. Brennan Amos L. Euins Hugh W. Betzner, Jr. James N. Crawford Buell W. Frazier Miss Doris F. Burns James Jarman, Jr. Bonnie R. Williams Royce G. Skleton Austin L. Miller Arnold L. Rowland Edward Shields Mrs. Ruth Thornton L.C. Todd L.C. Smith (6) Warren W. Taylor, “Commission Exhibit No. 1024. ‘Statement regarding events in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, November 22, 1963,’ within Letter…” in Hearings, v.18, p.782 (7) Interview with Jean L. Hill. In explaining his first reactions to newsmen, Johnson said that he thought, “the communists had done it.” (David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest, p.298.) He said, “I think I heard the first shot. I know Mr. Youngblood acted almost simultaneous. I heard reports about shots, ah, exchanges about firecrackers, er, what might be mufflers [backfire], ah, but I, er, I couldn’t be sure. I know I heard the first one. Perhaps heard the others, unless his [Youngblood’s] body covering me kept the sound from coming in there – may have muffled it, but I’m just not sure.” (Walter Cronkite, “LBJ: Tragedy and Transition,” CBS News, May 2, 1970.) The part in Altgens’ photo that shows Johnson leaning forward is cropped out of the Warren Report (p. 113) and in one of its supporting volumes (v. 18, p.93). The photo was published in another one of the 26 volumes – not as a direct print, which would be clear – from the two-page spread in the Saturday Evening Post of Dec. 14, 1963 (pp.24-25). In addition to poor reproduction, it was not printed whole: one half was printed on one page, the other half on the next page (v.21, pp.781-782).

Very true: It also tells us a great deal about the imminence of an attack on Iran. Terrible, I left out the essential precursor to that heady moment - the false flag attack that enables it. Large, liberal-leaning city, just to ensure the non-Repubs are swung behind the long pre-planned assault? West coast, perhaps, just to balance 9/11?

Very true: It also tells us a great deal about the imminence of an attack on Iran.

Nor will you, Bill, the film's a fake!