Paul Rigby

In the thread he initiated on Thomas Buchanan, author of Who Killed Kennedy? (!964), John Simkin wrote on Apr 13 2005, 04:38 PM Sorry, John, but this is wrong. Secker and Warburg, the UK publisher of Who Killed Kennedy?, was not a “left-wing” publisher by 1964, if it ever had been. Quite the reverse – it was a CIA “beard,” as Francis Stonor Saunders made clear in “Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War” (London: Granta, 1999). Frederick Warburg was in fact a witting collaborator first with IRD (on the board of the British Society for Cultural Freedom no later than 1952), then with CIA (whose chief Encounter panjandrums referred to Warburg as one of “The Cousins,” the other so described being Malcolm Muggeridge). Stonor Saunders offers this touching portrait of the edifying business of dishing out the tax-payer’s dosh: “Later the IRD paid the money into a private account at publishers Secker and Warburg, and Warburg would then arrange for a cheque for the same amount to be made out to the British Society for Cultural Freedom, of which he was treasurer. The British Society, by now no more than a front for IRD’s cash-flow to Encounter, then made over the same amount to the magazine. In intelligence phraseology, this kind of funding mechanism was known as a ‘triple pass’” (Ibid., p.177). Thus Thomas Buchanan’s Who Killed Kennedy? was published, in the UK, by a publisher at the very heart of the Anglo-American spook politico-cultural nexus. Nor is this the only evidence of CIA-backing for Buchanan’s book. Stonor Saunders’ book is fascinating and I warmly commend it, not least on the subject of CIA control of Hollywood. But there are problems. One for the moment. In order to earn the status of mainstream dissident – and thus garner favourable reviews from The Guardian, and other nominally left-wing organs – Saunders must perforce exercise a highly selective eye. Thus there is nothing in her book on a remarkable review of Buchanan’s “Who Killed Kennedy?” by that habitual CIA gofer, Goronwy Rees. Here is the review in full: The principle underpinning the CIA’s decision to commission and run such a review isn’t hard to discern: Anybody but the Agency killed Kennedy. In assessing Buchanan’s bona fides, it would be useful to see what French Communists wrote about the Elm Street coup. Alas, my French is negligible, so the best I can offer is the work of British Communist contemporaries. Both pieces are taken from Labour Monthly, the product, slightly confusingly, of the British Communist Party. The first, in chronological order, is Palme Dutt’s January 1964 piece, “Notes of the Month: After Kennedy,” Vol. XLVI, No. 1, pp.1-15: The second piece is by Ivor Montagu, the film-maker, and Lenin Peace Prize Winner (1959):

Peter, I like what I've seen of you, and your posts. I take, believe it or not, no pleasure in following the logic of the case, and rounding on someone whose work I initially thought irreproachable. But as you well understand, the CIA played - is playing - a deep and dark game; and we must meet that challenge. Let me offer you a concrete example of why I turned against Weisberg: "In one of those tricks of fate which later assume importance, this motorcade had no photographic car in the lead, no camera trained on the President from the front or otherwise close and with him in constant focus" (Whitewash: The Report of the Warren Commission (NY: Dell, December 1966), p.30) I must put it to you that the above is preposterous: It was no accident; and that Weisberg was too shrewd to have believed any such thing. I wont labour the point, but I ask you, as you so politely asked me, to reconsider. Best wishes, Paul

Uh, you left out the part about him being a "witting servant of the CIA." How very true - he was. Nothing to say about Mr. Lardner? Thought not.

Slightly off the beat, but relevant: Do you know anything about the company that made "Suddenly" - who financed it, that sort of thing? Paul

Bill, Apologies for the delay in responding – off looking at other things. And may I say what a pleasure it is to encounter an old opponent from the Department of Zapruderland Security (DZS). At the sight of Miller lumbering into view, I just know I’m going to have some fun. So let’s get to it…. No he hasn’t: He spat his dummy out because I refused to take seriously two of his splendidly absurd propositions. You agree with him, as we shall see, because you’ve a record of responding with strikingly similar guff. Here’s Mr. H’s prize pair of nonsenses: 1. Zapruder’s testimony in 1968 is to be preferred to Zapruder’s description of the film on the afternoon of 22 November 1963, even though the latter, with respect to the first version of the Z film capturing the presidential limo’s turn from Houston onto Elm, was confirmed independently by at least two journos, CBS’ Dan Rather and Snider of the Chicago Daily News, within days of the assassination; 2. That Zapruder really meant “at an acute angle from me back down Elm toward Houston” when he said the first bullet struck Kennedy “as the car came in line almost” with him. Again, I furnished prior independent corroboration of Zapruder’s own Warren Commission testimony/description from two newspaper reports, one by an anonymous AP-er, the second from John Herbers of the NYT. Unless we assume the four journos above were psychic, none could have known that the Z-film was to be suppressed. All described what they or their sources had seen in Dallas – note, not where CIA (Life) was altering its version – in the reasonable expectation that the version they saw would appear on U.S. television. As you know, I think it did. The true measure of any researcher’s authenticity is how he/she deals with inconvenient evidence. Hulk Hogan fell at the first hurdle. He couldn’t even bring himself to mention the independent journalistic corroboration, never mind furnish some rational account of how and why it was to be discounted. In previous exchanges, I’d dealt with Hogan with courtesy and honesty. Hogan showed he couldn’t deal with key points, so simply evaded them. I thereupon adopted the motto of that legendary British JFK researcher, Sir Arthur Strebe-Greebling: “Why bother?!” Hogan’s pattern of evasion was repeated in regard to my point that Zapruder testified that he was conscious of the potential street sign impediments on Elm, and positioned himself accordingly to avoid them. Odd, then, to find a bloody big street sign blocking his camera line of site! But I am haunted, as I suggested earlier, when reading Hogan’s responses, by an overwhelming sense of déjà vu. Haven’t I heard Hogan’s guff somewhere before? Ah, yes, from Bill Miller. What an extraordinary coincidence. Could this be – I tremble at the line of wild speculation upon which I am embarked – the official DZS line?: Let’s compare Hogan and Miller on the point 2 above. Here’s Hogan: “Semantics,” forsooth! The testimonies are patently irreconcilable. Now here is your vastly different piece of weasling: Ho-hum The DZS party line, methinks. Sorry, Bill, but you are. That old amnesia rearing its ugly head again? We’ll explore that issue shortly. And come on, Bill, who ya kiddin’? Of course you could help yourself – who else could? (Cancel that: Mr. Dunkel?) In truth, this is a characteristically bungled attempt to repay an old bull’s eye I landed some months ago. Let us - purely in the interests of historical accuracy, you understand - revisit that terrible moment for you. I have my handkerchief at the ready. Cue the violins: And so to the crowning glory. Search me for where this last one came from. Presumably Bungler Bill wants to steer the debate in a direction he feels more comfortable with? I’ve never referenced any such. Who you thinking of? Go on, give us a clue. Or perhaps ask Mr. Lamson. He always seems terribly keen to buy one. Your enduringly grateful opponent, Paul

Childish stuff. As I noted previously, no argument of substance, just a call for help. Presumably the Department of Zapruderland Security will again despatch Bill Miller to the attempted rescue. And of course Weisberg would help, everyone from the genuine enquirer from Hicksville to, er, George Lardner, Jr., that committed truth-seeker from WaPo. That was his cover. I don't care if Weisberg was good with puppies - he still sought to sell the Z-fake as an authentic record. It isn't, and he lied. Period.

John, You seem to be, but he ain't, and he is. The principle of getting your asset out front and steering the debate is as old as intelligence bureaucracies. The Agency didn't invent it, but it sure as hell used it post-November 22, 1963. Here's Napoleon's chief spook, Joseph Fouche, on the subject: I understand the resistance to examining the "deep politics" of the Warren Report's critics: I initially shared it. But facts, no matter how tough or disillusioning, must be faced. Weisberg's work is a trade-off. In return for some good stuff, he quietly shunts you in the wrong direction. For the most part, he does it with vigour, and no little chutzpah. As I've observed about him before, he was very bright - and thoroughly misleading. Paul

Astonishing - not a counter-argument in sight, just an appeal for reinforcements! I accept the complement! Paul

Excellent post, the proposition that the plotters overlooked the role of the SS is fantastic! Best wishes, Paul

Paul, Let me back up and regroup. I do not think the articles on the CIA were necessarily false. Most of it was right on -- what I was trying to say was that Lodge wasn't exposing the CIA's behavior and practices because he had a golden heart and mind, it was because he coveted what Richardson had -- his own little kingdom. Best, Debra Debra, I forgot to post this explicit denial by Starnes that Lodge was his source for Richardson's name and role. Apologies for the oversight. Best wishes, Paul

It was an important event in the post-war history of the U.S. media, yet the murder in Greece of CBS’s George Polk in May 1948 has generated a surprisingly small crop of articles and books. I’ve read only part of that literature: In none of it have I come across any mention of Polk’s necessarily anonymous contribution to George Seldes’ remarkable weekly, IN FACT, in late March 1948. I began reading about the case in an attempt to understand American press acquiescence in the numerous obvious lunacies advanced by the Warren Report; and the better to measure Richard Starnes’ courage in writing “‘Arrogant’ CIA Disobeys Orders In Viet Nam” (Washington Daily News, 2 October 1963, p.3). It almost goes without saying that study of the Polk case did not diminish by an iota my wonderment at the sheer, bloody-minded fearlessness of the Scripps-Howard man. In the first of the three extracts to follow, Seldes sets the scene for the unattributed Polk despatch to follow. In the second, Polk’s piece from the same edition. In the third, Seldes identifies Polk as the author of the second piece, and points the finger of responsibility squarely at the “Greek monarcho-fascist govt.” Here I must dissent: I don’t believe the latter would have acted without permission from the nascent CIA; and I have little doubt the Agency would not have entrusted such a task to its Greek minions without intense supervision. Interestingly, the case was handled by the New York law firm of William Donovan, the first and only head of the OSS. Day-to-day responsibility for the case fell to a youthful lawyer called William Egan Colby, future Director of Central Intelligence. The titans of the U.S. press corps – Lippmann, Morrow, Paley et al – acquiesced shamefully and without exception in the ensuing official whitewash, including the arrest and prosecution of a “communist” patsy. The example of Polk’s fate was surely not lost on American reporters at home and abroad. It would be interesting to know to what extent it dried up the flow of under-the-counter contributions by the mainstream U.S. press corps to Seldes’ publication. If there are any Seldes/IN FACT experts out there, please feel free to chip in. Polk’s report contains the explanation for his death, and represents a catastrophic misreading of the limits to which his opponents, both domestic and foreign, would go in defence of the Truman Doctrine. His words on the role of the NYT and its correspondent, Sedgwick, have a decidedly contemporary ring with the recent revelation that the same paper suppressed news of Bush’s vast – and thoroughly criminal - domestic “eavesdropping” (spying!) programme until the last presidential election had safely passed. The NYT a “liberal” paper? Below, and finally, Seldes identifies his previously unidentified Greek-based contributor, and laments his death. The last time I looked, the greater part of IN FACT’s run was available online at the University of Pennsylvania’s Schoenberg Centre for Electronic Text and Image. Anyone interested in the period should give it an extended look. It’s a treasure. No wonder the U.S. government closed IN FACT down. As a CIA historian once observed, propaganda thrives best when there is no competition. dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/AdvancedSearch.cfm

Cliff, Were McCone and Colby really opposed to the November coup – er, the one in Vietnam, that is - as so many U.S. historians have sought to convince us? One interested party certainly didn’t think so - the Diem government. In a fascinating piece in the Times of Vietnam on 19 September 1963, under the headline “Pardon, CIA, Your Split Is Showing” (p.1), we find the following: “There is now a campaign to whitewash the CIA’s costly blunder… The Washington Post on September 17, said, ‘CIA Director John A. McCone and his assistant for Asia, William Colby, former agency head in South Viet Nam, reportedly have great confidence in the Diem-Nhu regime.’ It did not explain why, if this true, these two persons claimed to be responsible for CIA activities authorized the financing of the planned coup d’etat, and why they continue to permit the financing of continued activities aimed at overthrowing the Government of Viet Nam.” The Washington Post whitewashing the Agency's role in a coup? Unthinkable.

Yup. Not to mention self-pitying, illogical and dishonest. The real Paul Rigby emerges. Your lack of a meaningful response to the issues raised in my last post actually speaks more about you and your theories than the above quote. Paul, I'm going to resist the temptation to continue the discussion on that level. Take care. Mike Hogan Ah, yes, Mike Hogan in full, disputational flow, the very epitome of sweet reason and iron discipline. This the real Mike Hogan? I feel quite ashamed that I’ve never scaled those dizzy depths of intolerance and petulance! Anyway, your hypocrisy, not to mention that transparent, nauseating amalgam of over-familiarity, oleaginousness and highly-strung fanaticism, is of no real interest or consequence – save perhaps to your shrink. But this is interesting, mildly. Now, I’ve heard this sort of pseudo-legalese before. But who from? It finally came back to me today: Stephen Dorril, in a telephone conversation, circa 1993. It is Dorril we have to thank for that immortal opening to a footnoted paragraph, “Helms is not a man I would normally trust, but in these circumstances…” (“Permindex: The International Trade in Disinformation,” Lobster, 2, (November 1983), p.30). Coincidence? Or horses from the same table? You take good care, Mike

Vacuity allied to pretension: potent combo you got there, Mr. G! Bang on the money, Tom, pleasure to read. Paul

John, You read me perfectly. Paul

Great spot. Presumably the Cuban-Russian embassy visits? Likely scenario: CIA first manufactures the link, then rides to rescue of LBJ et al by nulllifying said link with photo of man manifestly not Oswald entering embassy. Paul

Yup. Not to mention self-pitying, illogical and dishonest. Quite so. Have a stern word with yourself. Which leaves us where exactly? On 22 November 1963, Zapruder said he filmed the turn from Houston. Reporters who viewed the film 23 November and shortly thereafter said/wrote they saw the turn. Film as available to be viewed as film - since late 1964? - has NO turn. Not that difficult, surely? Paul

Mike, Reposing all that weight on the severed crutch of Zapruder’s honesty strikes me as unwise. Valiant, but unwise. If the issue is the limo turn, whether filmed or not, then the burden is positively overwhelming. Here is his very first public testimony on the matter: This transcript is from video tape of the live broadcast seen nationwide on the ABC network at about 2:10pm CST, November 22, 1963. The interviewer, seated on the left, is WFAA-TV program director Jay Watson. On the right, with his hat on the desk, is Abraham Zapruder. ZAPRUDER: “I got out in, uh, about a half-hour earlier to get a good spot to shoot some pictures. And I found a spot, one of these concrete blocks they have down near that park, near the underpass. And I got on top there, there was another girl from my office, she was right behind me. And as I was shooting*, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…” Early viewers of the Z film (public version 1) - Rather, Snider, and, I have no doubt, others – were thus merely following the film-taker himself when they described the filmed turn from Houston onto Elm! Paul * Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p.77, offers the parenthetic variant “filming” for “shooting.”

Tom, Always felt sorry for Shaneyfelt. Imagine trying to reconstruct what happened on the basis of a film previously dismissed by one of your bosses as being of "no evidentiary value"! (Was this Hoover or one of his top lieutenants? Nor can I remember the bloody date...) I wont labour the obvious objections to Shaneyfelt's claim re the hiatus in filming: you anticipated them perfectly well. Paul

Mike, Point taken - he didn't. I rather admire his deftness on that score. But my general point, I think, is a fair one. Paul

Mike, Rest assured, I didn’t. You pointed out a mistake – “abreast” – and were entirely justified in doing so. You made a series of rational objections, supported by quotations and citations. Again, admirable, and no possible offence could be taken, or was. I profoundly disagreed with them, that’s all, and sought to demonstrate why. Absolutely, yes, to all three. That’s exactly where the evidence points. Note that it wasn’t just Zapruder who saw a different, earlier version: Journos and their sources did, too, as I demonstrated above. The concordance between Z’s description and that contained in early reportage is striking. It just ain’t the same film. And that’s to exclude not merely eyewitness testimony which placed the bullets’ impacts further up Elm, but also at least one early re-enactment. Yes. A failure of diction on my part, for which resultant lack of clarity, apologies. In mitigation, it was late, I was tired, and I was going purely from memory. Yes. Very convenient assumption, it has to be said. And are we really to believe that Trask, Wrone and Weisberg had no inkling of the journalism I’ve instanced? Or missed that Zapruder’s early interviews and testimony contained no reference to a suspension in filming? Is this plausible? It’s as if an archaeologist pronounced definitively upon a recently exposed cliff face after examining only the top layer. Apply Peter Dale Scott’s “negative template” to Weisberg’s oeuvre, and the results are striking. Was Weisberg really unaware, for example, when he began writing in 1964/5, of the Luce empire’s fanatical hostility to Kennedy? Over, say, most obviously, Cuba? Or of its history of collusion with the CIA? Such propositions are self-evidently absurd. This was, after all, an ex-OSS man, a former Congressional researcher – in short, a politically savvy guy, with a fine mind, and a real eye for detail. My broader point is this. For the past forty-plus years some simple-minded myths have dominated what is what called, rather grandly, “the research community.” A couple of useful correctives: The fact that a critic opposes the Warren Report is no guarantee that he/she works in the interests of truth. The Report was designed to be demolished by the evidence contained in the 26 evidentiary volumes. Salandria saw this blatant disjuncture between Warren Report and the 26 volumes as evidence of what he termed, courtesy of an academic friend, a “transparent conspiracy.” I agree, but with this important addition: We were confronted by not one, but two layers of deception. The outer was the Oswald-from-the-rear-with-flintlock idiocy. For those who flattered themselves cleverer than the herd, however, there was a second, inner layer of deception provided, the grassy knoll. The work of Weisberg (and others) in the sixties and seventies pierced the outer layer, precisely as intended, and left us stranded, none the wiser and permanently susceptible to further befuddlement, on the knoll. PS Dave Healey's question about Zapruder's own testimony on the duration of his filming seem to me entirely legitimate. If there is a source for Zapruder himself attesting to his stopping, please instance it. It's not an unreasonable request.

Peter, Damned if I can work it out. Thomas Shipman? Paul

Mike, You’re right and I was wrong: I was thinking of the following when I used the word “abreast”: 1. AP, "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3: Dallas, Tex.-AP - A strip of color movie film graphically depicting the assassination of President Kennedy was made by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8 millimeter camera. Several persons in Dallas who have seen the film, which lasts about 15 seconds, say it clearly shows how the president was hit in the head with shattering force by the second of two bullets fired by the assassin… This is what the film by Abe Zapruder is reported to show: First the presidential limousine is coming toward the camera. As it comes abreast of the photographer, Mr. Kennedy is hit by the first bullet, apparently in the neck...” 2. John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20: A strip of color movie film taken by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8-mm camera tends to support this sequence of events. The film covers about a 15-second period. As the President’s car come abreast of the photographer, the President was struck in the front of the neck. The President turned toward Mrs. Kennedy as she began to put her hands around his head…” I have to observe that “almost in line” with is a pretty good match – a synonym, dare one say it – for “abreast” (“parallel to, or alongside of something stationary,” Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1987 edition, p.7). Zapruder’s consciousness of the potential impediments on Elm Street to a clear filming line of sight is unambiguous: “I tried another place and that had some obstruction of signs or whatever it was there and finally I found a place farther down near the underpass” (7WCH570). A place which presumably suffered no such impediments, else why move and stay there? Now, who introduced the street sign into Zapruder’s testimony/line of sight? It wasn’t there initially, as is clear from your extract from Z’s testimony (7WCH571). So who introduced it subsequently? Ah, yes, the scrupulous Mr. Liebeler: Mr. Liebeler. Now, I've got a list of them here that I want to ask you about--picture 207 and turn on over to this picture. It appears that a sign starts to come in the picture--there was a sign in the picture. Mr. Zapruder. Yes; there were signs there also and trees and-somehow--I told them I was going to get the whole view and I must have. Mr. Liebeler. But the sign was in the way? Mr. Zapruder. Yes; but I must have neglected one part--I know what has happened--I think this was after that happened- -something had happened (7WCH573) This is priceless – Zapruder “remembers” a street sign impeding his view only after some less than subtle prompting from Liebeler? And then goes on to say: “I told them I was going to get the whole view and I must have”? Told who exactly? Wasn’t his possession of a camera on Elm a last-minute, spontaneous thing? And how to reconcile his expressed belief that he had obtained the “whole view” with his prior acceptance that it was in fact impeded? I note that this sequence of contradictory nonsense follows the same pattern as an earlier one, in which Zapruder initially offers a definite location for the shots – behind him, to his right – then reverses himself under pressure from Liebeler (7WCH572). And again, we find that early contemporaneous media descriptions of the film contain not a single reference to a street sign blocking the view, however fleetingly, between camera and President. Which brings me back to the goose-farmer. Weisberg ignores the context in which Liebeler introduced the street sign intrusion, and uses it to push the impact of the first bullet back down Elm Street to Houston, to before the street sign. I love the “therefore” in the Weisberg extract you quote. A sure sign a grotesque non-sequitur is to follow! “The startling meaning of Zapruder's testimony comes through anyway: He saw the first shot hit the President! He described the President's reaction to it. Had the President been obscured by the sign, Zapruder could have seen none of this. Therefore, the President was hit prior to Frame 210, prior to Frame 205, the last one that shows the top of his head, and the exact point can probably be reconstructed from the Zapruder footage the Commission saw fit to ignore entirely” (Whitewash: The Report on the Warren Report, NY: Dell, December 1967 edition, p.104). So, in summary, let me see if I have this straight: Zapruder goes before the Warren Commission’s Liebeler and says the first bullet hit Kennedy when the presidential limo was “almost in line” with him. Liebeler introduces a street sign impediment to Zapruder’s line of camera sight that Z had not recalled unprompted, and no contemporaneous reports had registered. Weisberg then proceeds, post hoc propter hoc, to argue that “almost in line” really means back down Elm toward Houston before the street sign! The really startling meaning of Weisberg’s passage is much more interesting: He was part of the cover-up. Only a witting servant of the CIA could conceivably have written: “It would have been better had Life been able to buy all the films exposed at Dealey Plaza that day…” (Whitewash II: The FBI-Secret Service Cover-up, NY: Dell, May 1967, pp.217/8). My IQ test is on Tuesday – care to stand in for me? It appears I could use the help! Paul

Michael, Inference and supporting contemporaneous evidence: When did Zapruder start filming? “ I started shooting--when the motorcade started coming in, I believe I started and wanted to get it coming in from Houston Street” (7WCH571) I interpret this as meaning there was no break in filming. After all, there's nothing in Z's testimony to suggest there was. Am I wrong? Humour me for a bit. Assuming there was no break in filming, where is this footage of the turn from Houston? And how does Weisberg, that fearless apostle of truth, the restless intelligence ever eager to clarify and pin-point, deal with this question? There wasn't one, according to Wesiberg. Zapruder began filming, he writes, “before the first shot was fired” (Whitewash II: The FBI-Secret Service Cover-up, NY: Dell, May 1967, p.213). Now that what’s I call incisive. Of course, we don’t have to rely on my interpretation of Zapruder’s word alone, though you wouldn’t know it from Weisberg, who’s as anxious to suppress the confirmatory detail to follow as any Warren Commission shyster. (A challenge: name one newspaper article on the Zapruder film from the period November –December 1963 instanced by Weisberg. Some of us seek a free flow of information, while Weisy...?) According to the legendary Mr. Dunkel, photographic curator at the Sixth Form Museum in Dallas, “reporters apparently viewed the film Saturday morning.” And so they did. Here’s Arthur J. Snider in a syndicated piece for the Chicago Daily News, describing the film as he, or his source, witnessed it: “As the fateful car rounded the turn and moved into the curving parkway, the President rolled his head to the right…” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 27 November 1963. It tells you all you need to know about Mr. Dunkel that he solemnly argued Snyder’s piece demonstrated the inviolability of the Z-film! And then, of course, we have Mr. Rather famously describing the film to Mr. Cronkite: "The films we saw were taken by an amateur photographer...The films show President Kennedy's open, black limousine, making a left turn, off Houston Street on to Elm Street..." (CBS Evening News, 25 November 1963, from Trask, Pictures of the Pain, p.89) To turn to the early newspaper descriptions is to be struck by the complete absence of any mention of a hiatus in filming. Perhaps all of this very disparate group of official briefers and reporters, some of whom presumably saw the film, either missed this break, or felt it unworthy of mention. Of course, one might simply flip question round, and say - where is the written or spoken confirmation that he did turn the camera off? Here’s a list of early print descriptions, with their versions of the sequence’s duration. No wonder Weisberg sought to withhold this sort of basic info from his readers. After all, he was selling it as genuine: 1. 24 November 1963: 15 seconds Richard J. H. Johnson, “Movie Amateur Filmed Attack; Sequence Is Sold to Magazine,” NYT, 24 November 1963, p.5; 2. 26 November 1963: 15 seconds Associated Press, "Movie film depicts shooting of Kennedy," Milwaukee Journal, 26 November 1963, part 1, p.3; 3. 26 November 1963: 35 seconds UPI (Dallas), “Movie Film Shows Murder of President,” Philadelphia Daily News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, p.3 (4 star edition): “It is seven feet long, 35 seconds in colour, a bit jumpy but clear.” 4. 27 November 1963: 15 seconds 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, 27 November 1963, p. 20; 5. 30 November 1963: 25 seconds Rick Friedman, “Pictures of Assassination Fall to Amateurs on Street,” Editor and Publisher, 30 November 1963, p.16. 6. 30 November-4 December 1963: 20 seconds "The U.S.," Time (International Edition), 6 December 1963, p.29 7. 28 September-2 October 1964: 8 seconds Life, 2 October 1964 More to follow. Paul

Extract from Shadow on a Dry Light: In February 1959, Cambodia police broke up the Dap Chhuon plot and fingered Victor Matsui, a CIA officer working under light diplomatic cover at the Phnom Penh embassy(1), as the co-ordinating agent(2). In late August of the same year, a bomb blast at the royal palace in Phnom Penh killed the protocol minister(3). The following month, Diem reached a modus vivendi with Sihanouk, despite the attempts of Viet-Nam Presse, the official Saigon news bulletin, to sabotage the deal(4). (1)Michael Field. The Prevailing Wind: Witness in Indo-China (London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1965), p.213, citing the French-language newspaper Realites Cambodgiennes, 19 September 1959. (2)Mona K. Bitar, “Bombs, Plots and Allies: Cambodia and the Western Powers, 1958-59,” p. 162, within Richard J. Aldrich, Gary Rawnsley, and Ming-Yeh Rawnsley (Eds.), “Special Issue on the Clandestine Cold War in Asia, 1945-65: Western Intelligence, Propaganda and Special Operations,” Intelligence and National Security, Winter 1999 (Vol. 14, No. 4). (3)“Friends of Former Envoy Questioned,” The Times, 3 September 1959, p.8. (4)Bernard Fall, “Cambodia’s International Position,” Current History, March 1961 (Vol.40, No.235), p.167.