David G. Healy

Deep Throat, Bob Woodward and the CIA

Strange Bedfellows

By JIM HOUGAN

That Deep Throat should turn out to be Mark Felt is not the most

welcome news at the Washington Post. The paper would have much

preferred a crypto-liberal such as Leonard Garment in the role

(assuming that Adam Sandler wasn't available). Almost anyone, in other

words, would have been better than the guy responsible for supervising

the FBI's infamous COINTELPRO operations during the 1960s.

As anyone who marched in the Sixties knows, these were secret and

unconstitutional counterintelligence programs targeting the Left and a

handful of white supremacists. As head of the FBI's Inspection

Division, it was Felt's responsibility to maximize the effectiveness of

the program in the field. Lest there be any doubt about this, it should

be emphasized that Felt's brief was not to ensure that anyone's civil

liberties were protected, or even that the law was adhered to, but to

make certain that Hoover's attack on the anti-war movement ran

smoothly.

So bestowing the mantle of Deep Throat on the Toscanini of black-bag

jobs must have felt like crowning Jenna Jamison "Sweetheart of the

Year." (Yes, she's done important work, but) Watergate editor Ben

Bradlee and his colleagues would no doubt like the public to see this

as an irony---one of those wacky things that happen in Washington all

the time. But it's not that. It's much more.

Historically, Deep Throat has been cast as an American hero, the Nixon

Administration official who came forward, however secretively, to blow

the whistle on the Administration's improprieties and crimes. By

helping the Post unravel the White House cover-up, Throat and his

cub-reporter buddies almost single-handedly destroyed the Wicked

Warlock of the West Wing. The rest is history.

And myth.

One of the most lasting consequences of the Watergate affair has been

its corrosive effect upon investigative reporting. Through its

unquestioning embrace of Deep Throat, Hollywood and the press have

romanticized the anonymous source and, in doing so, legitimized him.

The results are there to be seen in your daily newspaper: story after

story, attributed to no one in particular. "Speaking on condition of

anonymity, " "White House sources denied," "A Pentagon official said."

As sources disappear, the news becomes more propagandistic. Ambitious

and calculating pols drop innuendos and send up trial-balloons, without

ever having to take responsibility for what they've said. Or not said.

In the playground of anonymous sources, the public is increasingly

informed by creative writers like Jason Blair (formerly of the New York

Times), Stephen Glass (ex-New Republic), Jack Kelly (gone from USA

Today), and, ironically, Woodward's former protégé at the Post, Janet

Cooke. Not surprisingly, the public becomes increasingly skeptical.

The problem with anonymous sources is not just that they might be

"composite" characters, or that they might not exist at all, but rather

that the source's motives remain beyond scrutiny. So the story is

necessarily incomplete.

Our view of the Watergate affair may now be changed by the certain

knowledge of Throat's identity. Until recently, his motives could only

be inferred. And the inference was that he must be a government

official who was so outraged by the Nixon Administration's hubris and

patent disregard for the law that he risked all to alert the public. A

real Good Guy, in other words.

That's what Hollywood and the Post have led us to believe over the

years, and it is what Mark Felt's grandchildren believe. But inasmuch

as Grandpa was himself convicted for "conspiring to injure and oppress

citizens of the United States," having authorized numerous black-bags

job and warrantless searches at the Bureau, he seems an unlikely person

to be so deeply shocked by the break-in at the Watergate.

So perhaps Throat's concern was as much political as civic.

In his June 2 article in the Post, outing his source, Woodward tells us

that Felt regarded the Nixon White House as "corrupt...sinister...(a)

cabal." And, as the Post reporter makes clear, this was before

Watergate. Indeed, Woodward says, "Felt thought the Nixon team were

Nazis."

As it happens, this is exactly what I thought at the time, as did

nearly every other liberal that I knew. Strange, then, to learn that

this same point of view was shared by Mark Felt, a professional

Red-hunter so highly placed in the FBI that only the Director, J. Edgar

Hoover, outranked him.

Or maybe it's not so strange.

A similar view of the Nixon Administration was held by James McCord,

the rightwing evangelist and former CIA Security chief who led the

break-in team at the Watergate. In a series of queer "newsletters"

written after he had been arrested, McCord put forward a conspiracy

theory suggesting that the Rockefeller family was lunging for control

of the government's critical national security functions, using the

Council on Foreign Relations and National Security Advisor Henry

Kissinger as its means to an end.

At the Pentagon, the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, went

even further. To Zumwalt, the Nixon Administration was "inimical to the

security of the United States." (1) Indeed, as the admiral later

explained, he eventually left the Administration (this was in 1974)

because "its own officials and experts reflected Henry Kissinger's

world view: that the dynamics of history are on the side of the Soviet

Union; that before long the USSR will be the only superpower on earth

andthat the duty of policy-makers, therefore, is at all costs to

conceal from the people their probable fate..." (2)

Zumwalt, Felt and McCord were by no means alone in their deep mistrust

of the Nixon White House. Within the Pentagon, a military spy-ring was

pillaging Kissinger's secrets on behalf of Adm. Thomas Moorer, Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since 1970.

Within the offices of the National Security Council, and on secret

missions to China, Kissinger's briefcases were rifled and his burn-bags

ransacked. In all, perhaps a thousand top-secret documents were stolen

and transmitted to Moorer's office (if not elsewhere, as well) by

Yeoman Charles Radford, a young Mormon acting on orders of Adm. Robert

Welander.

Here, matters become a bit incestuous.

Admiral Welander was an aide to Moorer. But he was also a mentor of Lt.

Bob Woodward, whose commander Welander had been aboard the USS Fox.

Reportedly, it was at the urging of Welander---who had yet to be

implicated in "the Moorer-Radford affair"---that Woodward extended his

tour of duty in 1969, going to the Pentagon to serve as Communications

Duty Officer to then-CNO Tom Moorer.

In that capacity, Woodward presided over the CNO's code-room, reading

every communication that went in and out, while acting, also, as a

briefer and a courier. This, he tells us, is how he met Deep Throat,

while cooling his heels outside the Situation Room in the White House.

It was 1970 and, according to Woodward, Mark Felt was sitting in the

next chair.

The Moorer-Radford affair is not usually considered a part of the

Watergate story, though it deserves to be. The Nixon Administration

learned of the Pentagon spy-ring in late 1971, but the affair did not

become public until almost three years later. By then, the Watergate

story was almost played out.

While president, Nixon was determined to keep the affair secret,

telling Kissinger aide David Young, "If you love your country, you'll

never mention it." But the Pentagon's chief investigator, W. Donald

Stewart, was more forthcoming. Asked how seriously the affair should

have been taken, Stewart replied with a rhetorical question: "Did you

see that film, Seven Days in May? That's what we were dealing with..."

The film is about a military conspiracy to topple the president. A coup

d'etat, in other words.

So it is interesting to learn that Mark Felt placed Yeoman Radford

under electronic surveillance long after the White House learned of his

activities, and even after Radford had been transferred to a dead-end

military post 3000 miles from Washington. This suggests that Felt may

have been more concerned with counterintelligence issues than he was

with prosecutorial ones. (Radford was never charged with a crime.)

So why did Radford do it?

According to the yeoman himself, his "superiors" were of the opinion

that Kissinger's foreign policy was "catastrophic" by design. His own

espionage activities, he said, were intended to defeat a conspiracy

conceived by "the Rockefeller family" and orchestrated by the Council

on Foreign Relations. The purpose of this supposed conspiracy, Radford

said, was to win the Soviets' cooperation in guaranteeing the

Rockefellers' "continued domination" over the world's currencies. In

return for this, Nixon and Kissinger were to construct a foreign policy

that would ensure eventual Soviet hegemony and a one-world government.

(3)

Yikes! It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for Nixon. But not

quite.

It wasn't just Donald Stewart who was worried about a Seven Days in May

scenario. The CIA, which was also spying on the White House, as well.

In this connection, another of Woodward's sources is relevant. This was

Robert Bennett.

Until Woodward identified Mark Felt as Deep Throat, I was of the firm

opinion that the honor belonged to Bennett. This was so because it

seemed to me that, at a minimum, for someone to be taken seriously as a

candidate for Deep Throat, there should be some evidence that he met

secretly with Woodward and fed him stories about Watergate.

Until Woodward outed Felt, the only candidate who fit the bill was

Bennett.

In 1972, when Mark Felt was reading transcripts of Yeoman Radford's

conversations, Bennett was the new owner of the Robert R. Mullen

Company. This was a CIA front with offices in Washington and abroad.

Among Bennett's employees was the seemingly retired CIA officer, E.

Howard Hunt. Politically hyper-active during the Nixon Administration,

Bennett was also the Washington representative of the Howard Hughes

organization (which was just entering negotiations with the CIA over

plans to recover a sunken Soviet submarine from the Pacific Ocean's

floor). It was Bennett who suggested that Hunt might want to interview

ITT lobbyist Dita Beard, and it was Bennett who volunteered his own

nephew to work as an infiltrator at the DNC. One might go on, but the

point is made: Bennett was a very well-placed source, if not a

co-conspirator.

Today, Senator Bennett is a Mormon elder and one of the richest men in

Congress. That he was also a key source of Bob Woodward's during the

Watergate affair is memorialized in a Memorandum to the Record written

by Martin J. Lukoskie, Bennett's CIA case-officer in 1972. (4)

According to Lukoskie, Bennett "established a 'backdoor entry' to the

Edward Bennett Williams law firm which is representing the Democratic

Party (and the Washington Post...)" Bennett's job was to "kill off any

revelation" about the Mullen Company's relationship to the CIA. But he

was also responsible for dissuading reporters from the Washington Post

from pursuing a 'Seven Days in May' scenario" that would have

implicated the CIA in a conspiracy to "take over the country."

Perhaps Bennett ought to have had a word with Donald Stewart, as well.

The relationship between Bennett and the Post was later clarified by

Lukoskie's CIA boss, Eric Eisenstadt. In a memo to the Deputy Director

of Plans, Eisenstadt wrote that Bennett "has been feeding stories to

Bob Woodward of the Washington Post with the understanding that there

be no attribution to Bennett. Woodward is suitably grateful for the

fine stories and by-lines he gets and protects Bennett (and the Mullen

Company)." (5)

Hunh! It's enough to make you wonder, though not, apparently, enough to

make the press wonder. But this is what the Deep Throat mystery is all

about. It's not just a parlor game to canonize yet another celebrity.

Rather, it's a question of deciding whether or not the Post's coverage

was manipulated by a cabal of spooks who were working to destroy an

unpopular president.

This is, of course, a conspiratorial point of view. Most of the press

has embraced Mark Felt as the celebrity de jour and, toward that end,

the only motive they impute to his behavior is a love of country. And

that is what's likely to be taught in the schools.

More cynical observers, however, will point to the fact that FBI

Director Hoover died a few weeks before the Watergate break-ins, and

will suggest that his second-in-command, Mark Felt, went after the

Nixon Administration because he was disappointed at not being named to

take Hoover's place.

That's possible, of course, but even if Felt didn't get to be Director,

he got the next best thing. That is, he got the files. Within hours of

Hoover's death, Felt took charge of the Hoover's Official and

Confidential files---including one that was headed "Black-Bag Jobs."

The fate of other files in Hoover's executive suite, including the

Director's Personal and Confidential files and the so-called "Do Not

File" files, remains a mystery. (6)

Now that we know that Mark Felt is Deep Throat, it would be grand to

ask him about the Director's missing files, his view of Yeoman

Radford's spying, and his reasons for going to the press, rather than

to the Justice Department, with his concerns about Watergate. It's

clear, however, that his family has no intention of making the old man

available. He is, after all, 91-years-old and not entirely well.

My guess, however, is if asked about these issues, Throat would take a

more conspiratorial view of them than most. What makes me think so is

Woodward's account of a meeting he had with Throat, shortly before the

Watergate hearings began. According to Woodward, Throat---Felt---told

him:

Everyone's life is in danger

(E)lectronic surveillance is going on and we had better watch it.

Who was responsible?

C-I-A (7)

Now, there's a story! Strange that it never appeared in the Post.

Jim Hougan is an investigative reporter and former Washington editor of

Harper's. His book Spooks was one of the first to expose the

privatization of the US spying agencies. In 1984, he published Secret

Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA (Random House).

Notes

1. Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., On Watch (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1976),

p. xiv.

2. Ibid.

3. Jim Hougan, Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA

(Random House, New York, 1984), p. 75.

4. The memo was first published in the so-called "Nedzi Hearings" of

the House Armed Services Committee's "Inquiry into the Alleged

Involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in the Watergate and

Ellsberg Matters," which began May 11, 1973. See, also, Secret Agenda,

pages 329-31.

5. The memo is dated March 1, 1973.

6. For details, see Inquiry into The Destruction of Former FBI Director

J. Edgar Hoover's Files and FBI Record-keeping, Hearings before the

Government Information and Individual Rights Subcommittee of the House

Committee on Government Operations, 94th Congress, 1st session, Dec. 1,

1975.

7. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, all the President's Men (Simon and

Schuster, New York, 1974), p. 317.

Ron wrote:

Also, it takes time to remove a president, if you have to impeach him. Time was running out. With what Johnson was facing, it would have been a double impeachment. Talk about a constitutional crisis.

constitutional crises for whom, the media? The political face of Washington? The pantywaist naysayers that hated Catholics and thought the Pope changed his residence to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? Having endured the Civil War and all that THAT entailed, this country and the citizens of this country were much tougher than that -- having the nukes hanging over ones head, well, thats a different story. That was the making of - a constitutional ERASER!

If his sins were exposed, I don't think JFK would have resigned. All he had to do was lay out the known case against Johnson and say, "I'm the best that you've got. I promise to be good from now on, and I'm going to have a new running mate."

In addition, resignation or impeachment could not be blamed on Castro.

bingo

David Healy

David wrote:

what? one of his closest friends - come on, rofl

Do you dispute that C. Douglas Dillon was a close friend of JFK? That is incredible!

presidental politics and you think CLOSE friends exist within the political community. Now THAT'S incredible

Your opinion of Dillon's business ethics, of course, tells us nothing of the relationship between JFK and Dillon.

you dispute Wall Streets involvement in the '24 - '35 GOLD Dollar Bond scandals?

Have any of you folks who are so interested in solving the assassination of JFK read the basic biographies of him, e.g. Sorenson, Schlesinger, Reeves?

why? You think any of the above were involved?

Tim wrote:

And those facts are, Shanet?

Man, you accuse one of JFK's closest friends, the Secretary of the Treasury, of complicity in his murder, but you can't even spell his name correctly!

what? one of his closest friends - come on, rofl -- you want to know anything about Dillon Read -- catch up with Robert Sobel and his publications, taught at Hofstra University for years died in '98(?), and a great great guy. The best, when you needed a Wall Street Historian so said NBC and CNBC. 'THE' leading expert when it came to Dillon-Read and on a first name basis with Mr. Dillon

I mean it's one thing to accuse the man of murder without a SHRED of evidence, but to misspell his name just adds insult to injury. I for one would never accuse anyone of murder unless I was certain of the spelling of his or her name.

I believe the poster said "theory". Did I spell that right?

Dillon's biography here:

http://www.medaloffreedom.com/CDouglasDillon.htm

* * * * * * * * * *

be nice if the article went into how much Dillon Read [the company] made while screwing the American Investor during the Gold Dollar Bond scandals post WW1 [1924-1935].

When one thinks about it, the OSS didn't have far to go when forming their foreign service ranks - just look to Wall Street firms. Which reminds me, some would say the bond scandals were the driving force for the creation of the SEC (Securites Exchange Commission) first headed by none other than Joseph P. Kennedy

I would also be interested in your basis for asserting that John McCloy had access to confidential surveillance files on JFK.

Tim wrote:

I think David finally got one right. There is no doubt in my mind Felt would not have gotten much from Hoover, since Hoover died two weeks before the break-in.

___________________

Where you been? Hoover was murdered, wasn't he?

Can't sneak anything past you Florida rag weekend supplement writers, you sure catch on fast -- So, when might we see something, anything original from you? The FY-del 'did it' stuff, is getting boring.

Tim wrote:

[...]

Next question is: what are the ethics of a journalist who knowingly accepts information from a source who he knows is commiting a crime in releasing the information?

Nixon may very well have been a crook. So was Mark Felt.

______________________

Ethics? Go with the truth as the editors and publisher see it, only thing a paper has going for it, ANY paper. Even the rag in No Name Key, Florida-- There was checks and balances. I'd say ethics forced them to publish...

You suggesting Felt should of sauntered in to the Attorney General's office and said: tell Dick I'm onto his shennanigans? John Mitchell's office? roflmao!

As for the leak, the WH including the "trickster - dickmeister", knew who did the leaking -- Mark Felt!

Jeb MacGruder was the only WH staffer who knew the TRUE seriousness of the situation! How much time did he do? The other two bit allegiance blind crooks on Nixon's staff? Wasn't there something like 35 indicted, even Attorney General John Mitchell? I don't think Felt would of got much of a hearing in J Edgar Hoover's office nor, Mitchells!

Tim Gratz wrote:

... interchange with Robert Charles-Dunne:

[...]

If Fidel had walked up to the presidential limousine, pulled a pistol, and shot JFK in the face in front of hundreds of spectators in Dealey Plaza, and was caught with the smoking gun, Robert would no doubt claim it was all a CIA frame-up.

[...]

You really think that, don't yah?

There are few researcher-investigator working this debacle, RCDunne is one of them. You haven't earned your stripes yet...

One Day At A Time, Jack!

^5

David Healy

Pat Speer wrote:

Thanks, David. I do find its wide-spread availability in the sixties to everyone but the American public a wee bit suspicious. You don't suppose Hoover and Clyde showed it at parties, do ya?

you know Pat, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a copy of the film found it's way out west during J Edna's yearly horse racing junket - evidently he and of course a close CLOSE friend were housed at that notorious SoCal golf and resort enclave owned by the mob - the very same mob he, Hoover was sure didn't exist...

Hey Pat, while I've got you here - my apologies for getting off on the wrong foot with you, I made comments I shouldn't of made and apologize for same....

David Healy

Mr. Phillip Chamberlain's manuscript depicting events related to the handling and processing of the Zapruder films by Kodak in 1963. Original was written in the late 1970s. Cover note stipulates that he added footnote revisions following June 1997 discussions with Zavada and Blair.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Zavada/zat1-13.pdf

you know, this guy Chamberlin when queried during Zavada's look see into the Zapruder film, wasn't sure how many optical prints were made/processed Nov 22nd '63, he seemed confident two was the number. Evidently he saw the light when interviewed or reinterviwed by 6th floor museum folk(s) he concluded it was three optical prints. I've been reviewing the Zavada report of late, I think it was in the annexes somewhere. I'll find the cite.

Just more conflicts surrounding the Zapruder film -- reminds me of Zapruder's business partner, he comments, as he recalled at one time: AND he wasn't sure, but, one film was given to LIFE immediately after the deal was struck on Saturday, the other (again, he wasn't sure) went to LIFE on Monday or Tuesday.

Memorandum, letter Zapruder to Jackson 11/25/63, confirming he took the 8mm film of the Assassination and had it processed

[...]

I recently picked up former CBS producer Leslie Midgley's memoirs. He has a couple of chapters about the creation of CBS' Warren Report special, and its 4-part re-investigation in 67 where Humes lied his butt off. Anyhow, Midgley says they tried to get access to the Zapruder film but Life said no-way, and so they were forced to supply bootleg copies of the Zapruder film to their experts, including Luis Alvarez, to study. Since this was years before Life had the film copied to supply to the trial of Clay Shaw, and long before Groden was to get his copy, the thought occurred: who had the film in 67?

Might want to check Moe Weitzman's testimony HSCA/AARB. He owned the NYC film company that LIFE sent the 8mm Z-film for 35mm blowup -- The Zavada report goes into some detail, letters back and forth are in the addendums. Groden got access to a 35mm blowup print at Moe's lab while a lab techie. His new career was launched. Can't remember when LIFE sent the film to Moe, who knows how many copies were made.

Rumor has it a well known researcher made an attempt to purchase the Z-film from LIFE, I think before 1970, it was screened on a lightbox at LIFE's Los Angeles offices, LIFE rep's hovering nearby --

Maybe one of the alterationists on this forum knows the answer.

While it's possible Midgley merely remembered things wrong, my immediate instinct is to suspect CBS received a copy from the FBI or Secret Service, and that Midgley lied about this because he knew how it would look. Is anyone aware of any private collectors who had the film in 67?

Private? No, but Z-film optical prints or early generation version of same were duplicated in NYC by a film printing house for the FBI -- very soon after the assassination, almost immediately I suspect..

see:

http://www.mte.com/nysmpte/meetings/sum0004.htm.

about 2/3rds of the way down the article the following appears, evidently this Hall guy participates in and with Roland Zavada during the 4/8/2000 NYC SMPTE conference... The title of the conference was Film Forensics and the Zapruder Film -- transcripts are no longer available, at least that's what I was told.

<quote on>

A long question and answer session included an anecdote related by Everett Hall who, in 1963, was president of Cine Magnetics Film Laboratory. He recalled that three FBI men visited his laboratory and requested that a copy of a single 8mm film of the Kennedy motorcade be duplicated. A 16mm printing machine was modified to accept the 8mm film, which was prepared with appropriate leaders and threaded up or the printing machine.

<quote off>

Just trying to determine how many Z-film prints were out there before 1970 is neigh on impossible. In whose hands they were in? That question is off the charts...

Ray wrote:

[...]

David, here is what Josiah Thompson says"Meanwhile, Zapruder had tracked down Forrest Sorrels, head of the Dallas Secret Service office. He and Erwin Schwartz gave Sorrels two copies of the film while retaining the camera-original and the best of the three copies. At 9:55 PM that night, Secret Service Agent Max Phillips sent off one of these two copies to Chief Rowley in Washington. Very likely, it was that copy which National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) technicians studied later that weekend."

dgh01: probably a wee bit more than just studied... Initially, I never questioned what Dr. Thompson says regarding the films. I do however find it very curious that Zapruder and Schwartz had to 'track' down Sorrels and give him two copies of the film, two copies of the film of the century, the very same film that agents never lost sight of during the processing of the film. NOW Zapruder and Schwartz have to track down Sorrels for delivery? Chain of evidence problem, perhaps?

Further that, Schwarts is on the record, somewhere, I can't remember at the moment, his take regarding delivery of film, specifically, the in-camera original and the "final" optical print to LIFE - one or the other came a day or so later! possibly Monday or Tuesday? As I recall, Schwartz could not remember --

then there's the confusion about pesky control number #0184, what does THAT mean?

I interpret Phillips's memo to refer to 3 films i.e. the original retained by Zapruder and the 2 copies given to Sorrels. The third of these (one of the two copies given to Sorrels) is being forwarded by Phillips to SS HQ. (Phillips was one of Sorrels underlings in the Dallas SS office?) It seems Phillips was unaware that Zapruder had retained one copy along with the original. 2+2=4 or, if you prefer, 3+1=4.

dgh01: The film of the century, and folks unaware as to who has what film? and along came #0184.

The complications of a 4th print, on the same film stock as the Zapruder in-camera original... ALL 4 films essentially on the same film stock, the use a Jamieson edge printing attachment, whose to tell what was the camera original, what was a print? -- Perhaps, its all in the 16mm optical printer light-house --ideas, Ray?

David Healy

Tim wrote:

Yes, David, I'm "clueless" in Key West. At least that is a step up: you last called me a right-wing "whacko". I assume to be "clueless" one must at least be sane. And just for your information, puerile name-calling is not legally actionable, so you can rest soundly.

dgh01: Yeah, right-wing whackos litter internet boards of late -- you know, onetime I called a reporter for jerkwater local NorCal newspaper few years back, clueless! We were on the same story, he print media and always in my shots - me ENG -- you know, he won a damn Pulitzer a year later -- bought me dinner, we still speak every now and then... as for 'pureile' name calling, hey I call 'em as I see 'em. Thank God about actionables, its the weekend. My attorney can get a full 18 in tomorrow...

I will be interested in what you say when my scenario is demonstrated to be, at least substantially, correct.

dgh01: losing track of the scenarios, which one? Fi-del did IT?

Your information on Posner is interesting.

dgh01: it's not my website, Mike has a way of paring down the POZ and the Posnerites, Mike is thorough - still out there, too.

Of course, publishers will always dump books after the sales slump and I am sure there are also many pro-conspiracy books now selling for $1.99.

dgh01: not sure this one really got off to a good start, which even surprised me, what with the multi million dollar promotional tour -- Pro conspiracy books for $1.99, yeah I suspect so, heard the one I helped out with is still over $13.00 bucks. Yeah win some - lose some!

The sales of Posner's book are nevertheless impressive since, at last count, there were only 55 people in America who still believed in the "lone nut" scenario of the Warren Commission. I think after Posner's book the number increased to approximately 76.

Thats about 326 more than I thought, lot of folks seeking shelter down your way...?

Don Roberdeau wrote:

Good Day.... Does anyone have the transcipt (or scan) of the November 1973 "Esquire" magazine article authored by RICHARD STOLLEY wherein STOLLEY, supposedly, wrote that ZAPRUDER told STOLLEY, (obviously sometime before ZAPRUDER‘s death in 1970.... perhaps even the same weekend as the assassination)

<QUOTE>

My first impression was that the shots were coming from behind me.

<END QUOTE>

Which is almost the exact same gunfire source that United States Protective Research Section agent MAXWELL PHILLIPS documented at 9:55 pm Dallas time on 11-22-63 of where Mr. ZAPRUDER said in his gunfire source earliest statement (Warren Commission Document 87)....

<QUOTE>

To: Chief Rowley 9:55 PM

From: Max D. Phillips

Subject: 8mm movie showing President

Kennedy being shot

Enclosed is an 8mm movie film

taken by Mr. A. Zapruder 501 Elm St., Dallas

Texas (R.I 8-6071)

Mr Zapruder was photographing

the President at the instant he was shot.

According to Mr Zapruder the position

of the assassin was behind Mr Zapruder.

Note: Disregard personal scenes

shown on Mr. Zapruder's film. Mr. Zapruder

is in custody of the "master" film. TWO print

were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.

The third is forwarded.

M. D. Phillips

Special Agent-PRS

dgh01: 2 prints to SAIC Sorrels one to follow that makes 3 -- Life got the camera original + plus 1 optical print, that makes 5 films, every piece of documentation regarding this case states there was Four [4] films...

Tim Gratz wrote:

Once more Pat has a VERY perceptive post (with the exception, of course, about his comments about Pres. Bush!). I would also add that neither Posner nor McAdams are "nincompoomps" and this demonstrates that intelligent people can disagree. Of course, I too find it very difficult to understand how an intelligent person can subscribe to the "lone nut" scenario.

dgh01: based on 10+ years of the of alt. conspiracy.JFK, alt.assassination.jfk, jfk lancer and jfk research, there are a whole host of folks, quite knowledgable regarding Posner/.john and the subject matter, that I suspect, disagree, actually they'd probably tell you, you haven't a clue. Now I wouldn't tell you that, you might want to sue me, too!

I believe McAdams sincerely believes his position and I doubt that he receives any compensation for it.

dgh01: hey, the guy is publishing [alt.assassination.jfk website], professors get paid for that sort of thing, even Catholic university Prof's? Got an endless stream of Lone Nueter's out there too

Posner, of course, presumably made quite a bit from his book which sold quite well.:

dgh01: rumor has it, he got a substantial advance for Case Closed, some say in the 7 figure range, recieved mega-star status and exposure on the radio/tv/cable talking head circut. Despite the above, the book had less than ho-hum sales... At a K-MART in Reno Nevada 3 years ago, in a book bin, I found 20 copies of Case Closed for $1.99US ea. I've been told, you'll also find a copy of the book in every library in America, compliments of the publisher

** Case Closed is "rife" with errors.

see below - this goes wayback

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id81.htm

Tim Gratz wrote:

[...]

Obviously the sexual appetite is a strong force in all of our lives but I do not think a strong sexual appetite justifies adultery ("the importance of getting laid" as Mr. Healey once put it). I believe I once read that the pills that JFK were taking for his medical problems had the side effect of increasing the sex drive.

[...]

All this brilliant research going on and you can't spell my name right, it's H E A L Y! What else do you get wrong?

Most of the rabid right-wing whacko's I've dealt with over the years, do the same thing -- hell-of-a-spelling problem!

I suspect, what YOU think justifies adultery, interests no one, certainly not me... My experience shows, most rabid right-wingers have a penchant for anything sexual, especially regarding other folks sex lives, must be something in GOP issue bottled water. Karl Rove bottle the stuff?

TGratz wrote:

It does seem apparent from the heavily redacted FBI report copied in "The Last Days of Marilyn Monroe" that Kennedy had discussed national security matters with Marilyn Monroe. The seriousness of this cannot be over-emphasized.

[...]

So Tim,

... apparent? From a heavily redacted FBI report...? Who, is this apparent to? The FBI, you, maybe someone sporting the banner of the GOP? Hey, Kennedy liked the ladies - they liked HIM.

Let me give you a liberal take on the subject, summed up in one sentence: The seriousness of getting laid cannot be over-emphasized. How's that? Maybe someone can sell this thread to Floridians, it won't wash in California, never will!

J. Raymond Carroll wrote:

"In the meantime, I must thank you for inspiring me to figure out the winner of the Kentucky Derby. I predict that it will be (a) an exciting race ( the best two minutes in sports this year and © that the winner will be a long shot.

dgh01: you can send me via this forum a 15% comission... wasn't that big of a deal, had to be the one with 4 legs -- I accept VISA or MC

It is only appropriate that the winner's name will be CLOSING ARGUMENT."

Ray

David, three out of four ain't bad. I bet $3 Win, Place & Show on CLOSING ARGUMENT and collected $134.00. Granted I had two minutes hard work jumping up & screaming, and I had to sing a Stephen Foster song, but I enjoyed it all immensely. I now predict that:

(a) Closing Argument will run in the money in the Preakness in two weeks.

dgh01: I'll still take the one with 4 legs, I'll narrow it down a bit, this one has a regular length tail

( History will determine that

1. the Zapruder film is basically authentic (splices/missing frames notwithstanding)

dgh01: Authentic? With missing frames? you better get no further than the 2 dollar window Ray, what the hell are you smoking? roflmao!

2. The film proves that JFK was killed by an exploding bullet fired from the wooden fence on the Grassy Knoll, from the guy shown in the Moorman photo (From memory its page 126 in Josiah Thompson's book).

3. Fetzer will never topple Thompson from the pantheon. Even though Thompson has feet of clay, his contribution to the case will forever be important.

So put that in your pipe & smoke it!

dgh01: soon as you find me something authentic, to light it with! roflmao

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

dgh01: you should of seen it on the big screens at the Bellagio in Vegas. If you can't be trackside, the ONLY place to watch the races, is at a Vegas Sports book, period!

David

Shanet wrote:

Porter Goss wants to move the CIA out to damn Denver.

You know, Denver, where the Pentagon isn't,

where the Chinese Embassy isn't,

where the White House and foreign consulates aren't,

where foreign diplomats don't stay

when they are in the United States.

dgh01: I heard they have a Holiday Inn there, though

I think it is a fabulous idea, maybe the best one since hiring Dr. Sandoz.

What will they leave behind by accident?

The operational files for the 2004 election?

William Colby's last will and testament?

The Zapruder negative?

Osama bin Laden's cell phone and dialysis machine?

What will be left in the old corporate offices

after the super flashy transition to new digs in Bronco Town?

Robert Novak's security clearance?

Stephen Turner wrote:

Bye Bye Craig..

I see what Jack means about personel attacks,

dgh01: Yes, Jack certainly has had his share, unfortunately -- I wouldn't worry a whole-hell-of-a-lot about it though Stephen. Lamson and the "gang" carry a lot of baggage wherever they go. Something about "preserving the history of Dealey Plaza Events, that day in Nov '63... anything, any subject, ANYWHERE, contrary to 'Lone Neuter' JFK assassination PARTY line 'disinfo', has to be met headon. Especially when it comes to Nov 22nd '63 Dealey Plaza events, on film, motion or photo...

As to your thread topic: we have so many vocal 'patriots' in the USofA these day's -- damn shame most of them never saw "active military duty status"! Majority of these flag wavers are GOPer's (Grand Ole Party = Republicans) to boot!

David Healy

As I said in my last post, others

will either find merit in what I have to say, or they won't. but I maintain, if the

standard of evidence required by Craig were to be transfered to the criminal

justice system, no case would ever make it to court. I and many others

belive that Bush and those around him, know much more about 9-11 than will

ever be admitted, or sought,by the main stream media. As for not living up to

my expectations, Just whose expectations did Shrub live up to that day?He sits

with a far away look on his face while his country is attacked. and then runs away

like a coward. Guess thats par for the course with this particular draft dodger.

Much more tomorrow........

dgh01: clear you haven't read HOAX, but that's okay -- as to the "others" I'm not quite as impressed as you seem to be with their "investigations' and/or research -- so sure, and you've never seen the film loaded onto a projector much less PASS through a projector, never held the film in your hand, never seen a frame under a lupe, yet you can tell me, an many others around here (not to mention elsewhere), your positive the film was NOT altered. Nice try!

More fetzerisms I see, you guys are like a broken record. Yes I read hoax...got the galleys from Tink, don't you remember? Read and it and then tossed it in the trash where it and all of Fetzers work belongs. Did I say I was positive the film was not altered? Trying to put words in my mouth now eh? The evidence supports it being unaltered. "hoax" offers nothing that changes that.

dgh01:How did these "people determine the film was the camera original, the timeline, Gary tell'em it was? You? roflmfao

I'm happy with what Roland Zavada had to say. Besides where is the evidence that the film is altered? Whites crackpot work? Costellas study of his interpolated frames? Sheesh...

dgh02: Interpolated frames? On a optical 'film' printer? Hey listen, I understand how difficult and sore your side feels -- they couldn't BS JCostella, he didn't buy the nonsense -- so, just dig up your own Physicist that can challenge John and give it a whirl -- been 2 going on 3 years now, still NO experts from your side... Just Rollie hiding behind; " Doug Horne must not of understood..." please!

dgh01: didn't realize your problems extend to the english language, No, Jim Fetzer wrote nothing for me -- Now I KNOW you haven't readthe Great Zapruder Film HOAX -- IS the film altered or isn't it, tough to answer? Especially when not many from the film community have a chance to look the question.[/b]

Then why do all of your words sound exactly like his? You a clone? Read your book, tossed it in the trash... again see my comments above on the alteration of the film. Zavada has inspected the film. As to you, we dont even know it you have ever been in the lab and made a composite.

dgh02: I certainly hope you paid or it, knowing how the galley's were acquired, I suspect NOT!

dgh01: haven't seen one argument disputing the alteration side of things that amounts to a hill of beans. Lots and lots of noise, gnashing of teeth oh yeah! You know, from folks that need attention and recognition, they've no experience in the motion picture field, but they're trying to sound knowledgable and important.

Good for you. I feel otherwise. Heres a news flash for you David. Compositing exists outside of the film busiiness and the principals are exactly the same. In fact they came from the still world. I've got hands on experience in making film based composites, from start to finish, in the lab and from behind the camera. Can you say the same or are you just a digital geek. The "film world" means nothing when it comes to composites. BTW, your attempt at creating a z frame in AF sucked.

dgh02: yeah, I know compositing comes from way back, made mention of that somewhere, and of course the black art of motion compositing came from the 'still' world...

Hands on? Well lets see a few pieces your film work, after all if your claiming compositing expertise, I think I can pass judgement on that -- you've done motion work? Post a URL, more than one of us would like to see your 'expertise' in action....

dgh01: yeah, yeah-yeah, I've heard that nonsense before -- let's cut to the chase, nobody on the other side of this debate wants to see ANY testing done on the "alledged" camera original Z-film -- which leaves you with: the best you could do was challenge John Costella humorous "rain sensor" sthick

So get off your high horse and actually do something. Miller is right you are all bluster and no action. I dont care if they test the film but it seems pointless to cut it up based on the silly theories your side is making. But since it has been tested, I can live with that. No, Durnavich showed the total weakness of Costellas work. What a joke trying to normalize two 2-d images to the same camera position. Costella needs to spend some time with a real camera.

dgh02: F L A S H --it's not the camera, Craig it's the L E N S, I can't believe I had to remind you of this -- now JCostella has a PhD in Physics specializing in OPTICS and Joe D qualifications is what?

Maybe he should stop by and I can even show him how a shadow works LOL! As to the rain sensors...Costella put a fine point to his being a woo woo.

dgh02: Durnavich showed what? roflmfao! You are behind the times... Loved his Pov-Ray (sign)nonsense though tsk-tsk... Miller? Well we know all about him, it does provide comedic relief at times!

dgh01: is that line from the 'preserver' of history crowd...? "Cribbing from Fetzer..."? rofl, ah, your just jealous -- keep coming back though, you get anything, ANYTHING original -- we'll give it a look [that original enough :-)

No its the truth. And the truth is you have nothing that makes giving the film up to you or the rest of the horde meaningful. When you have something other than z frames that have been altered, what 4-5 times via interpolation, then maybe we can talk.

dgh02: then I suspect you'll endorse the release of the NARA alledged camera original Z-film to a team of film experts for further study, yes?

upps...missed one...

dgh01: the MPI fiasco, those fools! The latest along the line of Z-film alterationists. You do agree they altered the film, correct?

Did I say anything about MPI? How about this one. Did Costella alter the Z film? Yes he did.

dgh02: the MPI version, and added the missing frames --

dgh01:if they make money, of course we do them, the company is in business, you know. You shooting triple wide interiors?

Your company or are you working on OPM? At least I own my company.

dgh02: What's this? mine is bigger than yours? Company's been in the family for 29 years.

Triple wides? What are those? No I shoot RV's, Motorhomes, High End Boats, Automotive. You know stuff that makes money, kind of like rodeos.

Gotta run now, need to finish the shot I am working on. Its part of a composite...

dgh02: triple wide = 3 section mobile home, they're all over the place out here... bet that composite is digital... LOL

"here's where I stand, I'm not positive the film is altered. WHY? Because I can't get access to the film for review and test purposes. MPI for all their know-how, screwed up, why should anyone trust those from years gone by telling ANYONE they have the "alteration" answer". However, based on attacks that I've personally witnessed to those that do believe the film is altered... [although not the only reason why] I'm leaning toward the alteration side of things. From both professional standpoint and personal, for me and others, all leads me to believe something significant is there. If true, the real question then becomes, WHY did the film need alteration?"[/i][/b]

Wow...did Fetzer write that one for you?  Lets review, you dont know if the film has been altered and since YOU have not put your hands on it you cant decide.  Never mind others have and concluded its original, you cant trust them.  Did I get that part right?

dgh01: clear you haven't read HOAX, but that's okay -- as to the "others" I'm not quite as impressed as you seem to be with their "investigations' and/or research -- so sure, and you've never seen the film loaded onto a projector much less PASS through a projector, never held the film in your hand, never seen a frame under a lupe, yet you can tell me, an many others around here (not to mention elsewhere), your positive the film was NOT altered. Nice try!

And since people defend their stance that the film is unaltered you consider it attack so that means there is a good chance you are on to something. 

dgh01:How did these "people determine the film was the camera original, the timeline, Gary tell'em it was? You? roflmfao!

Sheesh Fetzer DID write this for you.  And no...the real questions is it real or not.  Fetzer wrote that one too eh?

dgh01: didn't realize your problems extend to the english language, No, Jim Fetzer wrote nothing for me -- Now I KNOW you haven't readthe Great Zapruder Film HOAX -- IS the film altered or isn't it, tough to answer? Especially when not many from the film community have a chance to look the question.

"Let's get the Z-film into a lab with R E A L production types, all I need is a few frames for forensic purposes and a new set of 4x5's. After that, the alledged camera original can sit in a box at NARA forever, I don't care. Then we'll recreate Dec 1963 - Jan 1964 optical printing conditions, and make a few changes to a *new* Z-film, game?..."

Its been there, you just dont want to believe the results. 

dgh01: the MPI fiasco, those fools! The latest along the line of Z-film alterationists. You do agree they altered the film, correct?

And why give what amounts to a national treasure to YOU? 

dgh01: GIVE? xxxx, I paid for it! So'd you. What are you smoking back there? Do I have to fill you in on how NARA deals with film duplication at NARA approved facilities?

Based on your gut feeling that since you and others are getting "attacked" that something is amiss? I dont think so.  I can clearly understand why others will not provide it to you as well.

dgh01: Jack White must be off for a few day's -- Or is Owen taking your shift?

Why wait to do your "recreation" do it now, make your own.  You dont need the zframes to do that.  The cameras exist, film can be had, go do your thing.  Provide some emperical evidence for a change.

dgh01: yeah, yeah-yeah, I've heard that nonsense before -- let's cut to the chase, nobody on the other side of this debate wants to see ANY testing done on the "alledged" camera original Z-film -- which leaves you with: the best you could do was challenge John Costella humorous "rain sensor" sthick

You might want to suggest that to the rest of your "horde" as well.  Seems all of the work you guys do is a bit shy in that regard.

dgh01: haven't seen one argument disputing the alteration side of things that amounts to a hill of beans. Lots and lots of noise, gnashing of teeth oh yeah! You know, from folks that need attention and recognition, they've no experience in the motion picture field, but they're trying to sound knowledgable and important

Nice try at a fade dude but you need some original lines.  Cribbing from Fetzer aint gonna cut it.

dgh01: is that line from the 'preserver' of history crowd...? "Cribbing from Fetzer..."? rofl, ah, your just jealous -- keep coming back though, you get anything, ANYTHING original -- we'll give it a look [that original enough :-)]

You still doing important work like shooting rodeos?

dgh01: if they make money, of course we do them, the company is in business, you know.

You shooting triple wide interiors?

JRCarroll wote:

Gavid Healy wrote: "You telling me you can ID ole Abe through the Moorman 5 photo. Hell most of us mere mortals can't even tell its a male up there much let alone Abe Zapruder...."

Well there's a male and a female who look like Zapruder & Sitzman. They both testified that they were there and no one contradicted them as far as I know. It is undisputed that Zapruder did own the camera, and he was phographed holding it after he came down from the pedestal. I'm sure there is further corroboration if I had time to look for it, but I have no serious doubt on this particular issue.

dgh01: As I said: based on the photograpic record of Dealey Plaza that day, one cannot identify Zapruder and/or Sitzman on the pedestal -- granted a few eyewitnesses ID someone on the pedestal -- but, we all know how how unrelieable eye witness testimony can be, don't we?

Sadly, however, I havn't yet figured out who WILL win the roses on Saturday

if your IRISH, you'll know

.

"has it ever been published that the Warren Commission members EVER saw the Zapruder film."

Three of the Commission members were present for a screening of the film, per this link.

dgh01: my mistake, should of said; no WC member has ever seen the camera 'original' Zapruder film, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that some generation of the film was shown, based on this testimony -- how much and of what cannot be gleened from Shanneyfelt...

http://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/..._Vol5_0093b.htm

Apparently they were shown a copy made from the camera original (I mistakenly said a copy of a copy in a previous post). This particular session is very interesting. The Z film was shown only once, and no one noticed that JFK was driven backward by the fatal bullet (or if they noticed they made no comment). I get the impression that Spector virtually sneaked the film past them, in such a way that the record would show that they had seen the film, when in reality they barely got a glimse.

"those that have no clue about film are so 'dead certain'it isn't altered. WHY are they so certain? Little birdy tell 'em so?"

The WC session above is one of the little birdys that argues against alteration.

dgh01: it does? How? Actually, that birdy "don't fly" "a copy of the film..." What's that suppose to mean, maybe your apology for mistating was a little premature, maybe it was a copy of a COPY of the film, how many generations down? Transcript -Testimony doesn't say the film Z-film actually 'RAN', we assume it did - but hey we all know about assumptions regarding THIS case

The sneaky way that Spector ran the film indicates to me that he was terrified that they would notice that the film depicted a murder that was nothing like the one he had portrayed for them via the medical evidence. Spector conned the WC, and the con came unglued with Josiah Thompson's book and again when the film went public in 1975. Hence the need to conjure rationalizations like the Jet Effect.

dgh01: good points, Ray... but, we're no closer to the "conspiracy' conclusion than we were when Thompson did his work, why the continue cover-up, opinion?

DHealy

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C. S. Peirce

Pat wrote:

My God, I think I'm sensing middle ground here! If I'm following you, Dave, you believe there was a film taken by Abraham Zapruder, and that most of what we've seen came from his original film, but that there was some alteration performed on it later, most logically to hide something.

dgh01: Zapruder and/or whomever, from the pedestal, yes! The most logical thing removed was the Limo turn onto Elm AND the Limo stop on Elm [as stated by many witnesses, and those that have seen the OTHER film]

While I believe this is possible, it makes sense to me that if they were gonna change anything on the film, it would have been the "back and to the left" movement of Kennedy's head after frame 313. Since this was left in, do you think it was just an oversight, or do you believe the CIA or whomever stupidly felt this movement would help convince the public Oswald acted alone?

dgh01: The CIA did not have the facilities at the time to do ANY alteration, they did not have multi-projector optical film printers at their disposal, They could and DID extract frames for single pic blow-up... Back and to the left, in my estimation is a canard, the SS and the FBI determined soon after the assassination that the fatal headshot occured further down Elm Street, across from the steps to be exact, if that was the case, frame removal MAY be the cause for the 'back and to the left' movement... As to Oz, he may of been involved, I have no certainty regarding his innocence -or- guilt. Simply put, he's convenient!

My gut? He, Oz was a unwitting accomplice, whether he manned one of the two rifles [TSBD - Dal-Tex, I believe] to the REAR is up for debate, of course...

David, this forum will do until a courtroom comes along. We try to be reasonable people, and therefore susceptible to sound argument.

dgh02: seeing that I'm not selling the argument at the time Ray, that doesn't hold much for me...

Most JFK researchers have neever seriosly doubted that the Z-film is authentic, therefore we see no need to question it. If you could create that doubt, however, some of us might be motivated to investigate further, and maybe find evidence of alteration overlooked up to now. But first you must persuade us that there is real, living doubt.

dgh02: as with advances in ANY endeavour Ray, they're just not done in the light of day. Most Lone Neuter's wouldn't know an film optical printer if it hit 'em between the eyes...

"Based on DP photo evidence of the day, I certainly can't ID Abraham Zapruder as standing atop the pedestal..."

I predict that this argument will not win the Kentucky Derby on Saturday.

dgh02: now thats pretty good, Ray! You telling me you can ID ole Abe through the Moorman 5 photo. Hell most of us mere mortals can't even tell its a male up there much let alone Abe Zapruder....

when [was] the last time Abe Zapruder saw the **camera original** laced up on a projector and displayed...?

I believe that was when he testified before one of the Warren Commission lawyers. Here I would concede that the Commissioners were shown a copy of a copy of the film, nowhere near the BEST EVIDENCE. But I believe Zapruder himself authenticated the original

dgh02: "you believe..."? not good enough Ray, and btw, no where, to the best of my knowledge has it ever been published that the Warren Commission members EVER saw the Zapruder film. Now if you know different, might be a good idea to spread the good news -- aides and gophers aside of course...

"What film, Zapruder camera original or a Jamison optical print [which of the three] was used in the Clay Shaw trial?"

I would say that, as an alteration theorist speaking to agnostics, you should be answering this question and explaining its significance to us.

dgh02: There's no agnostics on this one Ray, either it is or isn't -- having said that, seeing that I know the field, and haven't inspected the alledged camera original --I'm on the record Ray as; not sure! What keeps me interested is those that have no clue about film are so 'dead certain'it isn't altered.

WHY are they so certain? Little birdy tell 'em so?