Paul Rigby

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Who Is Osama Bin Laden?

by Michel Chossudovsky

Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa

Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), Montréal

Posted at globalresearch.ca 12 September 2001

A few hours after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration concluded without supporting evidence, that "Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organisation were prime suspects". CIA Director George Tenet stated that bin Laden has the capacity to plan ``multiple attacks with little or no warning.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell called the attacks "an act of war" and President Bush confirmed in an evening televised address to the Nation that he would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them". Former CIA Director James Woolsey pointed his finger at "state sponsorship," implying the complicity of one or more foreign governments. In the words of former National Security Adviser, Lawrence Eagleburger, "I think we will show when we get attacked like this, we are terrible in our strength and in our retribution."

Meanwhile, parroting official statements, the Western media mantra has approved the launching of "punitive actions" directed against civilian targets in the Middle East. In the words of William Saffire writing in the New York Times: "When we reasonably determine our attackers' bases and camps, we must pulverize them -- minimizing but accepting the risk of collateral damage" -- and act overtly or covertly to destabilize terror's national hosts".

The following text outlines the history of Osama Bin Laden and the links of the Islamic "Jihad" to the formulation of US foreign policy during the Cold War and its aftermath.

Prime suspect in the New York and Washington terrorists attacks, branded by the FBI as an "international terrorist" for his role in the African US embassy bombings, Saudi born Osama bin Laden was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders" (1).

In 1979 "the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA" was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in support of the pro-Communist government of Babrak Kamal (2):

With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI [inter Services Intelligence], who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad (3).

The Islamic "jihad" was supported by the United States and Saudi Arabia with a significant part of the funding generated from the Golden Crescent drug trade:

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels (4).

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) using Pakistan's military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) played a key role in training the Mujahideen. In turn, the CIA sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam:

Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete socio-political ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow (5).

Pakistan's Intelligence Apparatus

Pakistan's ISI was used as a "go-between". The CIA covert support to the "jihad" operated indirectly through the Pakistani ISI, --i.e. the CIA did not channel its support directly to the Mujahideen. In other words, for these covert operations to be "successful", Washington was careful not to reveal the ultimate objective of the "jihad", which consisted in destroying the Soviet Union.

In the words of CIA's Milton Beardman "We didn't train Arabs". Yet according to Abdel Monam Saidali, of the Al-aram Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo, bin Laden and the "Afghan Arabs" had been imparted "with very sophisticated types of training that was allowed to them by the CIA" (6).

CIA's Beardman confirmed, in this regard, that Osama bin Laden was not aware of the role he was playing on behalf of Washington. In the words of bin Laden (quoted by Beardman): "neither I, nor my brothers saw evidence of American help"(7).

Motivated by nationalism and religious fervor, the Islamic warriors were unaware that they were fighting the Soviet Army on behalf of Uncle Sam. While there were contacts at the upper levels of the intelligence hierarchy, Islamic rebel leaders in theatre had no contacts with Washington or the CIA.

With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of US military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a "parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government" (8). The ISI had a staff composed of military and intelligence officers, bureaucrats, undercover agents and informers, estimated at 150,000 (9).

Meanwhile, CIA operations had also reinforced the Pakistani military regime led by General Zia Ul Haq:

'Relations between the CIA and the ISI [Pakistan's military intelligence] had grown increasingly warm following [General] Zia's ouster of Bhutto and the advent of the military regime,'... During most of the Afghan war, Pakistan was more aggressively anti-Soviet than even the United States. Soon after the Soviet military invaded Afghanistan in 1980, Zia [ul Haq] sent his ISI chief to destabilize the Soviet Central Asian states. The CIA only agreed to this plan in October 1984.... `the CIA was more cautious than the Pakistanis.' Both Pakistan and the United States took the line of deception on Afghanistan with a public posture of negotiating a settlement while privately agreeing that military escalation was the best course (10).

The Golden Crescent Drug Triangle

The history of the drug trade in Central Asia is intimately related to the CIA's covert operations. Prior to the Soviet-Afghan war, opium production in Afghanistan and Pakistan was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin (11). In this regard, Alfred McCoy's study confirms that within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, "the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 percent of U.S. demand. In Pakistan, the heroin-addict population went from near zero in 1979... to 1.2 million by 1985 -- a much steeper rise than in any other nation" (12).

CIA assets again controlled this heroin trade. As the Mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant opium as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan Intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories. During this decade of wide-open drug-dealing, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in Islamabad failed to instigate major seizures or arrests ... U.S. officials had refused to investigate charges of heroin dealing by its Afghan allies `because U.S. narcotics policy in Afghanistan has been subordinated to the war against Soviet influence there.' In 1995, the former CIA director of the Afghan operation, Charles Cogan, admitted the CIA had indeed sacrificed the drug war to fight the Cold War. `Our main mission was to do as much damage as possible to the Soviets. We didn't really have the resources or the time to devote to an investigation of the drug trade,'... `I don't think that we need to apologize for this. Every situation has its fallout.... There was fallout in terms of drugs, yes. But the main objective was accomplished. The Soviets left Afghanistan’ (13).

In the Wake of the Cold War

In the wake of the Cold War, the Central Asian region is not only strategic for its extensive oil reserves, it also produces three quarters of the World's opium representing multibillion dollar revenues to business syndicates, financial institutions, intelligence agencies and organized crime. The annual proceeds of the Golden Crescent drug trade (between 100 and 200 billion dollars) represents approximately one third of the Worldwide annual turnover of narcotics, estimated by the United Nations to be of the order of $500 billion (14).

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates, the production of opium in Afghanistan in 1998-99 -- coinciding with the build up of armed insurgencies in the former Soviet republics-- reached a record high of 4600 metric tons (15). Powerful business syndicates in the former Soviet Union allied with organized crime are competing for the strategic control over the heroin routes.

The ISI's extensive intelligence military-network was not dismantled in the wake of the Cold War. The CIA continued to support the Islamic "jihad" out of Pakistan. New undercover initiatives were set in motion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus essentially "served as a catalyst for the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the emergence of six new Muslim republics in Central Asia” (16).

Meanwhile, Islamic missionaries of the Wahhabi sect from Saudi Arabia had established themselves in the Muslim republics as well as within the Russian federation encroaching upon the institutions of the secular State. Despite its anti-American ideology, Islamic fundamentalism was largely serving Washington's strategic interests in the former Soviet Union.

Following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1989, the civil war in Afghanistan continued unabated. The Taliban were being supported by the Pakistani Deobandis and their political party the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI). In 1993, JUI entered the government coalition of Prime Minister Benazzir Bhutto. Ties between JUI, the Army and ISI were established. In 1995, with the downfall of the Hezb-I-Islami Hektmatyar government in Kabul, the Taliban not only instated a hardline Islamic government, they also "handed control of training camps in Afghanistan over to JUI factions..." (17).

And the JUI with the support of the Saudi Wahhabi movements played a key role in recruiting volunteers to fight in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

Jane Defense Weekly confirms in this regard that "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI" (18).

In fact, it would appear that following the Soviet withdrawal both sides in the Afghan civil war continued to receive covert support through Pakistan's ISI (19).

In other words, backed by Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) which in turn was controlled by the CIA, the Taliban Islamic State was largely serving American geopolitical interests. The Golden Crescent drug trade was also being used to finance and equip the Bosnian Muslim Army (starting in the early 1990s) and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In last few months there is evidence that Mujahideen mercenaries are fighting in the ranks of KLA-NLA terrorists in their assaults into Macedonia.

No doubt, this explains why Washington has closed its eyes on the reign of terror imposed by the Taliban including the blatant derogation of women's rights, the closing down of schools for girls, the dismissal of women employees from government offices and the enforcement of "the Sharia laws of punishment" (20).

The War in Chechnya

With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to Yossef Bodansky, director of the U.S. Congress's Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, the war in Chechnya had been planned during a secret summit of HizbAllah International held in 1996 in Mogadishu, Somalia (21). The summit, was attended by Osama bin Laden and high-ranking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence officers. In this regard, the involvement of Pakistan's ISI in Chechnya "goes far beyond supplying the Chechens with weapons and expertise: the ISI and its radical Islamic proxies are actually calling the shots in this war" (22).

Russia's main pipeline route transits through Chechnya and Dagestan. Despite Washington's perfunctory condemnation of Islamic terrorism, the indirect beneficiaries of the Chechen war are the Anglo-American oil conglomerates which are vying for control over oil resources and pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea basin.

The two main Chechen rebel armies (respectively led by Commander Shamil Basayev and Emir Khattab) estimated at 35,000 strong were supported by Pakistan's ISI, which also played a key role in organizing and training the Chechen rebel army:

[in 1994] the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence arranged for Basayev and his trusted lieutenants to undergo intensive Islamic indoctrination and training in guerrilla warfare in the Khost province of Afghanistan at Amir Muawia camp, set up in the early 1980s by the CIA and ISI and run by famous Afghani warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In July 1994, upon graduating from Amir Muawia, Basayev was transferred to Markaz-i-Dawar camp in Pakistan to undergo training in advanced guerrilla tactics. In Pakistan, Basayev met the highest ranking Pakistani military and intelligence officers: Minister of Defense General Aftab Shahban Mirani, Minister of Interior General Naserullah Babar, and the head of the ISI branch in charge of supporting Islamic causes, General Javed Ashraf, (all now retired). High-level connections soon proved very useful to Basayev (23).

Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In 1997-98, according to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) "Chechen warlords started buying up real estate in Kosovo... through several real estate firms registered as a cover in Yugoslavia" (24).

Basayev's organisation has also been involved in a number of rackets including narcotics, illegal tapping and sabotage of Russia's oil pipelines, kidnapping, prostitution, trade in counterfeit dollars and the smuggling of nuclear materials (See Mafia linked to Albania's collapsed pyramids (25)). Alongside the extensive laundering of drug money, the proceeds of various illicit activities have been funneled towards the recruitment of mercenaries and the purchase of weapons.

During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander "Al Khattab" who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev's return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujahideen fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab's posting to Chechnya had been "arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [international] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya" (26).

Concluding Remarks

Since the Cold War era, Washington has consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at same time placing him on the FBI's "most wanted list" as the World's foremost terrorist.

While the Mujahideen are busy fighting America's war in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, the FBI --operating as a US based Police Force- is waging a domestic war against terrorism, operating in some respects independently of the CIA which has --since the Soviet-Afghan war-- supported international terrorism through its covert operations.

In a cruel irony, while the Islamic jihad --featured by the Bush Adminstration as "a threat to America"-- is blamed for the terrorist assaults on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, these same Islamic organisations constitute a key instrument of US military-intelligence operations in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, the truth must prevail to prevent the Bush Adminstration together with its NATO partners from embarking upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Endnotes

(1) Hugh Davies, International: `Informers' point the finger at bin Laden; Washington on alert for suicide bombers, The Daily Telegraph, London, 24 August 1998.

(2) See Fred Halliday, "The Un-great game: the Country that lost the Cold War, Afghanistan,” New Republic, 25 March 1996.

(3) Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999.

(4) Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992.

(5) Dilip Hiro, Fallout from the Afghan Jihad, Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.

(6) Weekend Sunday (NPR); Eric Weiner, Ted Clark; 16 August 1998.

(7) Ibid.

(8) Dipankar Banerjee; Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry, India Abroad, 2 December 1994.

(9) Ibid.

(10) See Diego Cordovez and Selig Harrison, Out of Afghanistan: The Inside Story of the Soviet Withdrawal, Oxford university Press, New York, 1995. See also the review of Cordovez and Harrison in International Press Services, 22 August 1995.

(11) Alfred McCoy, Drug fallout: the CIA's Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade. The Progressive; 1 August 1997.

(12) Ibid.

(13) Ibid.

(14) Douglas Keh, Drug Money in a changing World, Technical document no 4, 1998, Vienna UNDCP, p. 4. See also Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1999, E/INCB/1999/1 United Nations Publication, Vienna 1999, p 49-51, And Richard Lapper, UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000.

(15) Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, op cit, p 49-51, see also Richard Lapper, op. cit.

(16) International Press Services, 22 August 1995.

(17) Ahmed Rashid, The Taliban: Exporting Extremism, Foreign Affairs, November- December, 1999, p. 22.

(18) Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998.

(19) Tim McGirk, Kabul learns to live with its bearded conquerors, The Independent, London, 6 November1996.

(20) See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals, India Abroad, 3 November 1995.

(21) Levon Sevunts, Who's calling the shots?: Chechen conflict finds Islamic roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, 23 The Gazette, Montreal, 26 October 1999.

(22) Ibid.

(23) Ibid.

(24) See Vitaly Romanov and Viktor Yadukha, Chechen Front Moves To Kosovo, Segodnia, Moscow, 23 Feb 2000.

(25) The European, 13 February 1997, See also Itar-Tass, 4-5 January 2000.

(26) BBC, 29 September 1999.

Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.

The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.

It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.

Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.

As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.

I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.

By happy coincidence, I took receipt yesterday of the editions of The Minority of One which more or less complete my collection. (Ah, the wonders of ebay...) Flicking through them late last night I came across the following letter from a Chicago-based gentleman named Harry Zitzler. Shrewd guy, Harry:

“My own personal experience in such groups taught me that dissenters are frequently only inverted conformists…That is to say, he desperately wants popularity, attention (& sometimes even prestige) so that while he is willing to fight an unpopular cause, he struggles for personal popularity within the band of common dissidents…The result is that…the dissenter takes over the tactics and procedures of those he opposes.”

Harry Zitzler, “From Readers Letters: The Conforming Dissidents,” The Minority of One, May 1962, (Vol 4, No 5 [30]), p.15:

Paul,

The incident between Greer and Jackie at Parkland is described in Manchester, page 290.

Reliable evidence?

Please, no more lightweight supposition in support of this theory.

Your choice of term is interesting: eyewitness testimony is "lightweight supposition"?

I can't shake the feeling that you are an accomplished satirist.

I'm leaving the satire to the opposition on this thread.

They're doing a great job.

Paul

This idea is too much for me...

I can assure you, Mark, I had precisely the same reaction when I first began kicking this solution around.

But force of logic compelled. Let me offer you another important reason why.

In no other scenario do we find this advantage - the gunman controlled the speed of his prey.

I put it to you that this is no small advantage.

I think there were things that occurred in DP which have been concealed from the public but this isn't one of them. JBC, Nellie and Jackie are going to see the driver shooting at them and if they did, no amount of pressure or intimidation would have prevented them from saying so.

I'll try and dig out something that addresses directly Connally's post-Dallas attitude to the SS.

And Jackie's gonna let Greer tearfully hug her later at Parkland? No.

Not seen any reliable evidence for this. By all mean produce for consideration. But I can offer you this:

Newcomb & Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara: Probe, 1974) – Extracts from footnote 86 to chapter 4, Execution:

Around January 1965, Mrs. Kennedy told Mary Gallagher to “be careful” about transportation in cars. She said, “You should get yourselves a good driver so that nothing ever happens to you.” (Mary B. Gallagher, My Life with Jacqueline Kennedy, p. 351.) A caption in Ms. Gallagher’s book of group photograph at the White House mess refers to “…Roy H. Killerman [sic]…” (Ibid., photo section, unpaginated.]

Lyndon Johnson also believed that a good driver was important and readily indicated the matter was both urgent and of great significance. According to Youngblood, “A few days after he became President, LBJ held a conference with me. ‘I’ve got a lot of important things to do, Rufus, and I’m gonna assign one of the most important projects to you. Get Norman [Edwards, a Senate employee who Johnson had as a driver during his term there] for me. I need him as much as I need you and Lady Bird.’” (Youngblood, 20 Years, p. 154.)

And, in fairness, the reader will also find this within the same footnote:

Mrs. Kennedy later sent William R. Greer, the driver of the Presidential limousine, a handwritten note. It said, “For Bill Greer, whom the President loved, and who was with him until the very end. Thank you.” (New York Times, July 2, 1966, p. 10.)

Paul

I cannot make the decision to publicize this person's point of view. To be frank, it was expressed to me privately as a hypothesis in need of significant supporting research and analysis. I'd term it more of a "hunch" or intuitive leap. And I wouldn't count on more info any time soon. Sorry ... really.

Understood. But please enter a plea on my behalf to the researcher concerned to give serious consideration to offering his findings publicly. This is a subject long overdue revisiting.

I would add only that a pm or fabricated back wound would not necessarily support your in-car shooting hypothesis -- one with which I respectfully if forcefully disagree.

True; and a pity. I am reminded of something from Wordsworth: "Apostacy from ancient faith brought but conversion to a higher creed."

But I'll continue to support your efforts to challenge us with your thinking.

Noted, with appreciation.

Paul

Interesting and useful reading. I will go back and look for the two left legs.

I am wondering if the in car shooting hypothesis is dependent upon film alteration. Are there any proponents of the in car view who also think that the Z-film was NOT altered. In short, are these dependent variables all the way around?

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

This is not accurate. Originally I thought like Newcomb that the alteration

was mostly frame removal plus alteration of frame 313.

After considerable more study and expert opinions, I now believe that

Zapruder did not shoot the extant film but was a witting accomplice in

a hoax which is not fully understood, but involves a very quick rough cut

followed by a more detailed sophisticated version which is a fabrication

based on a guide film combined with actual images of the assassination...

essentially an ANIMATION. Others who endorse some version of this besides

me are John Costella, David Healy, David Mantik, David Lifton and Jim Fetzer.

So do not include us in your "most who posit some degree of alteration",

because we believe it was FABRICATION, not ALTERATION.

There is considerable significant evidence that Zapruder did not take

the extant film.

Jack

Jack,

You have the wrong end of the stick. Nat asked me specifically about advocates of an in-car shooting, not pro-alterationsists per se. And, no, to anticipate a possible future objection, I do not claim now, nor have I the slightest interest in claiming in future, that pro-alterationists are crypto-in-car-shootists. The evidence is abundant, and unequivocal - they aren't.

More's the pity.

Paul

Unfortunately, for once I must agree with Gratz.

No witness and no limo occupant was aware of such an activity. A gun FIRED IN THE CAR

WOULD MAKE A DEAFENING SOUND.

And what, Jack, are these witnesses saying?

(Paul Rigby @ Aug 26 2007, 09:15 AM)

1.Bobby Hargis (Police motorcycle outrider, left rear of limousine):

Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots?

Hargis: "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me," 6WCH294.

2. Austin Miller (railroad worker, on triple overpass):

Mr. Belin: "Where did the shots sound like they came from?"

Miller: "Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car," 6WCH225.

3. Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): "in front of or beside" the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.

4. Officer E. L. Boone (policeman, corner of Main and Houston Streets):" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was," 19WCH508.

5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. told the Dallas County Sheriffs Office that he "saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or somewhere immediately around the President's car," 19WCH467.

6. Jack Franzen: "He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and ...small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile," 22WCH840.

7. Mrs. Jack Franzen: "Shortly after the President's automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President's automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President's automobile," 24WCH525.

7. Clint Hill (on the second shot, the fatal one to the head): "It was as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object," 2WCH144.

8. James Altgens: "The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518.

Moving on...

If having Greer fire the fatal shot WAS PART OF THE PLAN, it is the most stupid thing imaginable.

To the contrary, it's audacious, certainly, but infinitely more logical than relying on an external assassin, firing from a greater distance, at a car whose speed the conspirators cannot control, in a motorcade teaming with potential obstacles, not least motorcycle outriders, and the general public. Now that really would make nonsense of all the other pieces of careful planning.

If the plan was to have Greer do the deed, it did not need to be in a motorcade in Dallas in Dealey Plaza. He could have done it at any time anywhere.

Not so. Once the conspirators decided upon a public execution, everything possible had to be done to minimise the risks of failure. A loyal chauffeur-cum-bodyguard, a la De Gaulle in August '62 at Petit-Clamart, could not be permitted.

Everyone is entitled to analyse the facts and theorize what happened. But the only theory dumber than this is that Jackie fired the shot.

Jack, that's forty+ years of tired, fruitless, and, for the most part, unexamined, orthodoxy speaking. You've never hoved to the easy, safe consensus on the photographic record, and I urge you to take that same invaluable spirit of critical enquiry into the province of the mechanics of the assassination.

Paul

Paul, please correct me if I am wrong on what follows.

In order for the (ridiculous) Greer shot Kennedy" premise to be true, these points must be true:

(1) At least two if not three of the motion pictures taken in DP had to have been altered.

Yes: but worth reminding ourselves of the duration of those films. They're not exactly of epic length.

Nix himself claimed his film had been tampered with; Zapruder was manifestly confused before the Presidential Commission when confronted by what purported to be "his" film. His descriptions of his own film do not match the film we have today. Even more bizarrely, Moorman reportedly told the FBI she hadn't taken any film of the assassination. And so on and so forth.

(2) Since none of the limousine occupants reported seeing Greer shoot Kennedy or hearing a shot from within the car...

Do we know this for sure? How do we know what was said in private by the limousine occupants? Do we have a full picture of what private pressures to conform were exerted? I must put it to you that we have scant knowledge of these matters.

...then it follows that Kellerman must also have been part of the conspiracy since he would have had to see and hear it...

A fair conclusion; and, yes, I believe he was. There can be no doubt, surely, that Kellerman was part of the cover-up?

...and that Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy who at least most probably would have seen or heard the shot must have kept their mouths shut for a reason you cannot suggest.

Oh, but I can suggest - two of the profoundest reasons of all - politics and fear.

In so doing, they knew they were letting the man who shot their husband escape criminal prosecution.

Yes; and saving their country from potential tumult.

Moreover, you must admit, I think, that none of the witnesses (one exception I think) said he or she saw a gun in the limousine.

Fair point: I make no bones about it, I would like more. But again, this is hardly dispositive since a) none of the alternatives are significantly better; and we have abundant proof of widespread tampering with statements. How many eyewitnesses were asked the relevant straight questions?

You must also admit you cannot really suggest a cogent reason why Greer would kill the man he was sworn to protect.

I admit nothing of the sort: I have. What you're really saying is that you don't agree. That's a different matter all together.

Paul

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

Thank you, Paul.

FYI, one of the most respected and brilliant of the so-called second generation researchers shares your belief regarding the back wound.

I'd be fascinated to see his (?) argument. Any chance of posting it?

Paul

Paul entitled this thread: "Shots from inside the presidential limo."

Paul, just how many shots do you think Greer got off?

Two, Tim.

Interesting and useful reading. I will go back and look for the two left legs.

I am wondering if the in car shooting hypothesis is dependent upon film alteration. Are there any proponents of the in car view who also think that the Z-film was NOT altered. In short, are these dependent variables all the way around?

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

Is anyone in contact with Fred Newcomb? I lost contact with him when he

moved from California to Alabama.

Jack

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

Paul,

So I'm clear: You write that you are "an unrepentent in-car shootist ... "

Unrepentent and, to me at least, obtuse.

Am I to understand that you are of the opinion that at least one shot was fired at JFK from inside the presidential limo?

No judgment intended. Just want to know.

Charles

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

They left in the backward head snap when they altered it.

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

There's only four eyewitnesses I would take notice of, in THIS context, that would be Jackie Kennedy, Governor Connally and Mrs Connally.

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:

Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams. Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, CA: Probe, 1974): From chapter 4, The Filmed Assassination:

One of the most important films of the murder was an 8 mm color movie taken by Abraham Zapruder. The Secret Service had first access to his original film, which was then altered in an attempt to cover up the agency’s part in the plot.

Zapruder stood mid-way between the depository and the underpass (1) and filmed the Presidential limousine from the time it turned the corner of Elm and Houston Streets until it reached the triple underpass. His untampered film recorded what occurred inside the vehicle.

A number of copies of the Zapruder film, whose clarity ranged from excellent to poor, including the films and slides at Life magazine and those at the National Archives, were made available to the authors. Each copy was carefully examined and this chapter deals basically with the results of that examination.

A movie is a series of individual pictures, or frames, in consecutive order (2). In describing the film, we refer to numbers assigned to each frame.

Description

The Presidential limousine first appears on available Zapruder film at frame 133, at a point in the street opposite the centre of the depository (3). The President, seated in the back on the right, is waving to the crowd with his right arm. He is hidden from camera view by a freeway sign, beginning at frame 203, and is shot in the throat at approximately frame 207. When he reappears from behind the sign at frame 225, his mouth is open and his hands are raised to his throat. From this point, he starts to lean forward, and to his left, until frame 313, when his head is impacted by a bullet.

Beginning with frame 305, the driver turns around, one hand on the wheel, and faces the President (4), at which point the President’s head is struck by the fatal bullet.

Between frames 313 and 323, the President is slammed backward by the impact of the shot. Between frames 323 and 340, he falls forward, and to his left, into his wife’s lap.

Mrs. Kennedy scrambles out of the limousine, over the trunk, between frames 345 and 375. Her bodyguard, Clinton J. Hill, touches the back of the limousine at frame 345, placing his foot on the car at frame 371, to assist her.

When the Governor reappears from behind the freeway sign at frame 223, he is looking to his right. Then he begins to turn his head forward. Between frames 227 and 230, he raises his hat (the whereabouts of which, possibly containing bullet hole, is unknown) up-and-down in reaction. At frame 233, he starts to raise his left forearm and to turn to his right again. The Governor’s mouth is open. Between frames 255 and 292, he continues to turn his head to the right, exposing his back to the front seat, until he is looking at the President. At frame 285, he is shot. He is then pulled backward by his wife.

After the fatal shot to the President at frame 313, the Governor begins to pull himself up, placing his right hand on the metal handhold on the top of the back of the front seat. At frame 323, he is sitting up, looking into the front seat.

A visible flare on the windshield of the limousine occurs at frame 330 as the result of another shot.

Authentication

For the Warren Commission, an FBI photographic expert numbered each frame of the Zapruder film. The first frame of the motorcade sequence was number “1” and the following frames were counted in order (5).

In its published record of the film, the Commission printed black-and-white photographs of frame 171 through 334. This is just before the limousine disappears behind the freeway sign until just before Mrs. Kennedy begins to climb out of the back seat (6).

The same numbering was used for those available copies of the Zapruder film that the authors examined. Each copy was placed on a viewer that allowed every frame to be seen and counted individually.

The examined copies agreed with the published version. For example, frame 171 of the copies we examined was identical to the published frame 171. The head shot at frame 313 in the copies was the same as frame 313 printed by the Commission.

All available copies were a single, continuous strip of film, without any mechanical splices.

In sum, those available copies matched the film that the Warren Commission viewed.

The original Zapruder film, however, seems to be unavailable.

Cuts

Between the period that Zapruder took his film and the Commission saw it, the film was altered.

Available copies that we examined showed splices present (Fig. 4-3). All splices were photographic, i.e., the mechanical splices of the original were copied onto the duplicates (7).

The following is an inventory of our examination.

Splices in frames 152-159 concern the period after the limousine turned Elm and Houston Streets and before the freeway sign.

Frame 152 is spliced at the bottom of the frame. In the next frame, splices exist at both top and bottom. In addition, the color changes. Instead of the previous warm color, the frames have a bluish cast. A great difference between frames 153 and 152 is indicated by the movement of the limousine: it makes an extremely rapid forward lurch indicating frames are missing here.

Frame 154 has a splice at the top and is bluish in cast. Frame 155 contains a splice at the top third of the frame. Splicing tape marks are present in the foreground of frame 156, which is also bluish; a crude splicing gap appears at the base. A splice may exist at the lower third of frame 159.

The next sequence in which splicing and color change occur is during that period when the limousine is hidden by the freeway sign.

There is a possible splice in the top eighth of frame 205. Splicing tape adhesive marks are visible on the freeway sign in frame 206. Frame 206 has a bluish cast, as do frames 207-212.

Frame 207 is spliced at the top. A splice may have been made on frame 210 near the bottom. On frame 211, splicing adhesive tape marks are present. Splicing adhesive covers frame 212; a crude cut out is at the base. Frame 213 has a splice at the top; the color changes back to warm hues. At frame 215, a splice line runs across the top fourth of the frame.

Color change indicates that different copies of the film were used to produce one continuous film (8).

A graph, made to show the feet the limousine traveled per frame number, indicates the limousine moved about 20 feet every 20 frames (Fig. 4-4). Between frames 197 and 218, when the limousine is behind the freeway sign, it moved only 10 feet within 21 frames. This means that the limousine either slowed down or stopped between frames 197 and 218. If it stopped then an unaccountable number of frames could have been removed.

Throughout the entire Zapruder film, nothing indicates that frames have been added. What is clear is that frames have been removed. Time has been deleted from the film. With time removed, the film is useless as a clock for the assassination.

Retouching

Retouching has been done with the image of the driver in the film between frames 214-333. It appears after the limousine emerges from behind the freeway sign. Retouching is evident on the front of the limousine windshield on the driver’s side to obscure his movements. The author’s reconstruction film, taken of a car on Elm Street, under similar lighting conditions, on Nov. 22, 1969, at 12:30 p.m., shows the driver’s motions clearly through the windshield.

Retouching may also occur at the top of the freeway sign to obscure the action of the occupants and to hide the shot hitting the President in the throat.

The object in the driver’s hand is barely visible between frames 285 and 297, the sequence of the Governor’s wounds. Between frames 303-317, it is easily seen. The telling feature, especially in the latter sequence, is the action: the driver raises it, seems to aim, and, then, in the frame immediately after the fatal shot to the President in frame 313, brings it down.

Although splicing marks were undetectable about frame 313, it is likely that frames were removed and the remaining retouched. The appearance of frame 313 is vital to the health of the scenario.

Given the forward inclination of the President’s head at the time of the fatal shot (Fig. 4-5), a line drawn through the actual points of entrance and exit is horizontal. If a rifleman fired from above and behind, the line between the points of exit and entrance would be at an angle.

To camouflage evidence of a shot from the front, the actual exit wound at the side of the head (Fig. 4-5) was covered with opaque (Fig. 4-6).

Second, an exploding, bloody halo was manufactured on the film in the area around the President’s head in frame 313 (Fig. 4-6). Significantly, other films of the assassination lack this halo (9). The CBS reporter who saw the Zapruder film two days after the assassination at a press showing made no mention of an exploding head (10). Mrs. Kennedy failed to describe this burst in her testimony (11).

The halo, a cartoon-like, red-orange burst that nearly obscures the President’s head (12), not only confuses the features of the head, but also distorts the actual and less dramatic wounding (Fig. 4-5). Furthermore, the burst occurs for one frame only – an eighteenth of a second – and does not appear in the very next frame. The film should have shown the burst developing and decaying over a sequence of perhaps 18-30 frames. For example, a film made of the effect of a rock hitting a window would require a number of frames to record the moment of impact, the spidering and splintering of the glass, then the shattering effect of the rock, and the outward showering movements of fragments, and their eventual descent to the ground.

The two Secret Service agents in the front seat and both Connallys implied a shot came from the rear by claiming that a substantial amount of debris came forward and down on them (13). No pictorial evidence verifies their claims.

A good indication of removal of frames during the fatal shot sequence is found in the out-of-sequence movements of the legs of a woman running across the lawn in the background. The rhythm of her running is broken unnaturally, e.g., running on her left leg twice, which would indicate frame removal.

Retouching can be seen in a comparison of frames 317 and 321 (Fig. 4-7). The President and his wife appear large in frame 321, even though the dimensions of the two frames are equal in size. Frame 321 was optically enlarged and then reframed. This eliminated material at the right hand side of the picture, such as the driver and the windshield. In addition, it is possible that in frame 321 the windshield was painted-in; it fails to match the windshield in frame 317. In addition, a change in perspective occurs. The line in the back seat in frame 321 has shifted. This means that the limousine has gone further down the street and that an unknown number of frames were removed (14).

Refilming

More evidence of tampering is indicated with the framing of the pictures, especially between frames 280-300. There, the heads of both the President and Connally scarcely appear, and almost disappear from view. This means that the original film was probably refilmed, and reframed, in such a manner as to remove certain material just below their heads.

For example, on the afternoon of Nov. 24, 1963, two days after the assassination, CBS newsman Dan Rather viewed a copy of the Zapruder film in Dallas. His report noted that Connally, as he turned to look back at the President, “…exposed his entire shirt front and chest because his coat was unbuttoned…at that moment a shot very clearly hit that part of the Governor”(15). On available copies, only Connally’s head appears in this sequence.

The possibility exists that the original Zapruder film was refilmed on an optical printer. Modern cinematography laboratories are equipped with optical printing machines that can generate a new negative without the “errors” of the original. Optical printers can insert new frames, skip frames, re-size the images, along with other creative illusions. One hour on the optical printer could eliminate the Connally hit (16).

Deletions

Most available copies, when viewed on a screen as a movie, are slightly jerky, especially in the movement of the limousine. Perhaps the maximum number of cuts was made, the greatest number of frames removed, without making it obvious to the casual viewer.

Certain items could not be altered, such as the President’s head and body snapping backward, without elaborate artwork. But, of those who have seen the film, the cuts are overcome by the way in which people see the movie. The viewer’s focus is usually on the President, not on the other people in the limousine.

Some of the action depicted on the film that was difficult to explain had to be eliminated.

First, the limousine initially appears on available copies some 40 feet down from the top of the street; it literally leaps into view. Yet Zapruder stated that he filmed the limousine as it turned onto Elm St. from Houston St. (17). The copy that CBS reporter Dan Rather saw two days after the assassination apparently had the turn on it because Rather described it (18).

Frames deleted between 152-159 probably showed the decoy shot being fired from the Vice-President’s follow-up car.

Cuts between frames 205-215 likely relate to two areas: reaction to the decoy (first) shot, and the second (throat) shot.

Between frames 207-212, the President seems to swing his head very quickly to his left as if in reaction to the decoy shot. His action would indicate the direction of the Secret Service agent’s revolver as well as sharply contrast with the lack of reaction by those agents in the front seat of the Presidential limousine.

The President’s reaction to the second shot, which hit him in the throat, is missing. Zapruder testified, “…I heard the first shot and I saw the President lean over and grab himself like this (holding his left chest area)” (19). CBS reporter Dan Rather said that “…the President lurched forward just a bit, it was obvious he had been hit in the movie…”(20).

The Commission, which received the film from the Secret Service, published frames 207 and 212, both obviously spliced, but failed to print frames 208-211 (21).

The alterations after the fatal shot probably were concerned with eliminating the limousine stop and the rush by Secret Service agents upon it. Indeed, the Secret Service made an effort “…to ascertain whether any [movie news] film could be found showing special agents on the ground alongside the Presidential automobile at any point along the parade route” (22).

(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.

The "rehashing" of pure BS is not in the realm of learning, within the content and context of education.

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

Now wait a minute. If I read the above correctly, Truly testified the car swerved to the left and Skelton said it got in to the right hand lane.

Presumably both cannot be right.

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.

Eyewitnesses make mistakes. Eyewitness identification often produces grave mistakes in criminal cases.

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?

Moreover I do not recall that you posted a single witness who testified he or she saw Greer shoot the President--not a single one! With all the witnesses around, no one saw Greer pull out his gun? That's pretty hard to accept assuming Greer in fact shot JFK.

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?

Nor have you ever posted your theory re why Greer did it and Kellerman conspired with him by keeping quiet about it.

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.

I wonder was this editing made any easier by Desmond FitzGerald's untimely Tennis Court oath in 1967?

Nat,

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

Paul

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..."

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:

Left Veer witnesses

From in front:

1. Railway worker Roy Skelton, who viewed the assassination from the overpass:

“then the car [the presidential limousine – PR] got in the right hand lane,” 19WCH496.

2. Policeman J.W. Foster, again situated on the overpass:

“immediately after President Kennedy was struck…the car in which he was riding pulled to the curb,” Warren Commission Document 897, pp.20-21.

From side on, 3) to the right of the limousine, 4) to the left of it:

3. Policeman James Chaney and other unnamed Dallas officers, as related by fellow motorcycle outrider, Marrion L. Baker:

“I talked to Jim Chaney…during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get into the car…from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped…I heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly he was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely,” 3WCH265.

4. Jean Hill: “Murder Charge Lodged,” Dallas Times Herald, 23 November 1963, p.8:

“The President passed directly in front of us on our side of the street,” Mrs. Hill said.

From the rear:

5. TSBD employee Mrs. Donald Baker (Virgie Rachley at time of shooting):

Mrs. Baker told Warren Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler that the stray bullet struck the middle of the south-most lane on Elm Street just behind the presidential limousine, 7WCH509-510:

Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the curb on Elm Street was this thing you saw hit; do you remember? It would have been on the curb side near the side away from the Texas School Book Depository Building on the opposite side of the street; is that right?

Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. How close to the opposite curb do you think it was?

Mrs. BAKER. It was approximately in the middle of the lane I couldn't be quite sure, but I thought it was in the middle or somewhere along in there could even be wrong about that but I could have sworn it that day.

Mr. LIEBELER. You thought it was sort of toward the middle of the lane?

Mrs. BAKER. Toward the middle of the lane.

Mr. LIEBELER. Of the left-hand lane going toward the underpass; is that correct?

Mrs. BAKER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where was the thing that you saw hit the street in relation to the President's car? I mean, was it in front of the car, behind his car, by the side of his car or was it close to the car?

Mrs. BAKER. I thought it was--well--behind it.]

6. TSBD supervisor & board member Roy Truly, who watched the assassination from in front of the TSBD:

“I saw the President’s car swerve to the left and stop somewheres down in this area…,” 3WCH220.

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.

Paul,

Your responses get harder to make sense out of them with each one. We know Clint Hill ran to the limo ... makes sense that someone saw that. Agents piling onto the car and SS agents running around with machine guns ... these are all single statements that had they been true ... it would have been all over the news and many witnesses would have described it.

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.

I mean, none of that junk is seen on the assassination films, so is it your position that all those things you mentioned must have been removed from the assassination films???

Absolutely. What you characterise as "junk" - the eyewitness testimony - is the foundation of the system of justice.

Did anyone at the initial showings ever mention agents piling onto the car?

I haven't got all the early reports - any chance you can get Mack to start sharing them?

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..."

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.

C.B. Colby. Secret Service: History, Duties and Equipment (Putnam Pub Group, 1966), 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.), Merriman Smith's Book of Presidents. A White House Memoir. ( NY: Norton, 1972), p. 226.

Was this standard in effect in 1963 Paul, or was it imposed as a result of what happened in 1963?

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

Query for your scholars of this point.

Name the witnesses who said SS100 "slowed or stopped".

Name the witnesses who expressly denied it did either.

Name the witnesses who never addressed thiz issue.

Thanks for your asssistance. I think this may be a worthwhile exercise.

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..."