Michael Griffith

SOFTWARE GLITCH. DUPLICATE.

The basics of the shooting have been obvious for many years to anyone who is willing to acknowledge what the Zapruder film so clearly shows. JFK starts to react to a shot at Z200, and Jackie starts to react to JFK's reaction at virtually the same moment. Yet, 26 frames later, JFK is visibly knocked forward and his hands and elbows are flung upward, from Z226-232. On top of this, 10 frames after JFK is knocked forward, and 30 frames after JFK clearly starts to reach for his throat, Connally's right shoulder is suddenly driven downward, and his face and cheeks puff, obviously in reaction to a shot that struck him a fraction of a second earlier--Connally himself said the moment of impact was Z234. Then, of course, there is the obvious head shot at Z313. That makes four shots. Thus, if nothing else, the Zapruder film proves there were at least four shots, which means that the SBT is false and that more than one gunman was involved.

Leaving aside your grade-school-level punctuation errors, I see that you are part of the microscopic minority of Western civilization who thinks that Ukraine "provoked" Putin to invade. Gee, why am I not surprised? Given that you believe the Secret Team may have killed John Lennon, that you regard Fletcher Prouty as a reliable source on the JFKA, and that you swallow 9/11 Truther lunacy, it's not surprising that you think Ukraine provoked Putin to invade. And just FYI, I don't bother answering every idiotic argument and bogus claim that some people make in replies. It's not that I can't answer them; it's that I determine that I'd be wasting my doing in doing so.

"Only Michael Griffith could. . .." Wow, that's rather rude. Anyway, yes, I confess that I jumped to conclusions about the article when I read the following statements as I skimmed over the article: "Where should one start? No shots came from the grassy knoll." and "Regarding the notion of shots originating from the grassy knoll location, it’s illogical to say some shot came from there while also saying Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy." I stopped reading after I read the second statement, which obviously was a mistake on my part. So I happily stand corrected.

No need to move this discussion. It is entirely appropriate as related commentary on the point that RFK Jr. was misguided in placing all the blame on the CIA. I think you somehow failed to discern that my reply was intended to support most of your position, not challenge it. I agree that there were other powerful players besides the CIA involved in the plot, and that the CIA's role in the cover-up was somewhat marginal compared to that of the FBI, the Secret Service, the DPD, and the military. And the Mafia's significant role in the cover-up--i.e., Ruby's shooting of Oswald--can't be ignored either. I don't think it has been proved that LeMay was influencing the autopsy. I'm not certain that he was even there. The Navy brass in the autopsy room would not have taken kindly to an Air Force general ordering around Navy doctors in their presence, even assuming LeMay was in the room. This would have been a serious breach of military protocol. Of course, if the admirals were complicit in the cover-up, then, yes, they would have allowed it, but that's a big "if"--and it doesn't address whether they were ordered to be complicit and who ordered them and what they were told about the reason for the order, etc. My general point about the military and the autopsy is that we just don't know who was ultimately responsible for the fraudulent autopsy. We don't know if the White House ordered the military to do a false autopsy. We just don't know, and probably will never know in this life.

Previous content deleted because while skimming over the first few paragraphs of the article, I mistakenly concluded that it was arguing for the lone-gunman position. I goofed!

I think I should start by revisiting a severe gaffe you made in your "review" of Rory Kenedy's documentary. I discussed this gaffe in a previous reply to you, but I think it warrants another look because it shows that you really have no clue what you're talking about. You said, in all seriousness, that "well over 100,000" South Vietnamese did not want to stay behind to live under communism, when the actual number was at least several million. This blunder is as bad as saying "well over 300,000 European Jews did not want to remain in German-controlled territory." One could excuse this egregious gaffe if you had just started studying the Vietnam War and had only read a few general articles on the subject. But you pretend to be qualified to review books and documentaries on the war. You posture as though you are some kind of an authority on the subject. Yet, you've made numerous statements that show that your research has been meager and largely limited to fringe sources. Yes, you are most certainly far left, and I cannot believe you could be so delusional as to believe otherwise. In this forum alone, just in the last year or two, you have made numerous far-left claims on a wide range of issues. I cited a few examples in my previous reply, but you ignored them. You keep trying to hide behind John Newman. But we're not talking about Newman, and I haven't compared your views on JFK's Vietnam policy to Newman's. I've compared your views to those of numerous liberal historians, and I've pointed out that your views on the subject are even farther to the left than theirs. I answered your distorted claims about the decent interval in considerable detail in another thread, yet here you are, as usual, repeating your claims while saying nothing about the facts that contradict them, facts that I personally presented to you, with sources, in another thread. I'm guessing you still have not read Dr. Larry Berman's book No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam, which examines the decent interval in great detail. And I would again point out that Rory Kennedy's documentary does not even mention the decent interval, not even once, but your "review" of the film goes on and on about it. I notice you ignored the point that in the first year after the Accords, when American aid was even just barely adequate, South Vietnam's army more than held its own against the NVA. It was only after repeated aid cuts that the situation changed, as Ira Hunt documents in painstaking detail in his book Losing Vietnam: How America Abandoned Southeast Asia (University Press of Kentucky, 2013). Hunt was the deputy commander of USAAG in Thailand after the Paris Peace Accords and was responsible for tracking the fighting in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The U.S. Naval Institute says of Hunt's book, "For the serious historian or military strategist who would want to have one book in his library to explain the loss of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, this would be it." Hunt's book sheds important light on the decent interval by debunking the liberal myth that maintaining adequate U.S. aid would not have changed the outcome of the fighting. Finally, regarding your odd claim that I have "ignored" what Graham Martin did, no, I have not. Go back and read what I said. I have not "ignored" it at all. I just disagree with your extremist spin on his actions. I agree with Rory Kennedy's portrayal of Martin in her documentary: that Martin made a tragic mistake in delaying the evacuation but that his motives for doing so were honorable, and that once he realized that an evacuation had to be done, he did everything in his power to evacuate as many South Vietnamese as possible. And, needless to say, if your good buddies the North Vietnamese had honored the Paris Peace Accords, there would have been no need to even think about an evacuation. Let's put the blame where it morally and actually belongs, and not on a good and decent man who was put in a terrible situation because of the treachery and brutality of the Communists and because of the back-stabbing of the anti-war majority in Congress.

This is true, but the military may have been ordered by their civilian superiors to conceal the truth about JFK's wounds with the excuse that this was necessary to avoid World War III, or the military brass at Bethesda may have been misled by the Secret Service into believing that the Kennedy family did not want a complete autopsy. Given Doug Horne's evidence that the Secret Service facilitated the alteration of the skull x-rays and the suppression of autopsy photos, this suggests the military may not have been the driving force behind the medical cover-up. The CIA did not control the FBI either, and the FBI played a leading role in the cover-up regarding the evidence against Oswald and Oswald's activities. The CIA was not the agency whose agents literally abducted JFK's body in Dallas, prevented the local medical examiner from performing an autopsy, and whisked the body off to DC. The Secret Service also confiscated news footage of Dr. Perry's observations about the throat wound. There was so much more going on here than the stuff done by the CIA.

So in response to my post recommending Rory Kennedy's documentary, this is your crude, juvenile reply? I think your reply says volumes about your maturity, mindset, and credibility. Apparently, in your mind, a person is a prostitute for the military industrial complex if they wish that 18 million people had not fallen under brutal tyranny, if they point out the suffering and atrocities that the Communists imposed on those people, and if they observe that this terrible outcome could have been avoided if Congress had honored our commitment under the Paris Peace Accords to resupply South Vietnam's military forces. When you're not busy defending an anti-Semitic fraud who provided WC apologists with a gold mine of bogus claims to shred, you're peddling nutty theories such as the 9/11 Truther lunacy. You are a dream come true for WC apologists. They love it when JFK conspiracy theorists discredit themselves and the cause by advocating fringe, bizarre theories that have nothing to do with the JFK case. Are you actually denying that your ideology is far left? Surely you must realize that anyone who has read your posts over the last few years alone knows that you are very near the left fringe of the political spectrum. Surely you know that even most liberal historians, some of whom are very liberal, reject your fringe view that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Surely you know that even most liberal historians regard Fletcher Prouty as a fraud, if not a genuine nutcase, whereas you claim he was a valuable and reliable source. Surely you know that even most liberal historians reject your fringe view that there would have been no Cold War if FDR had lived. Surely you know that even most liberal human rights advocates would view your rosy portrayal of life in Vietnam as false, if not bizarre and shameful. And on and on and on we could go. And, I take it that you have no comment on the point that your review omits numerous important facts discussed in the documentary, and that your review gives the misleading impression that the film supports your far-left view of the war.

Look, it's just an exaggeration to say that without the military the CIA is "toothless." That is just not true. If you want to say that in some cases without the military the CIA would be less effective or even unable to deploy, well, yes, I would agree with that. But to say they'd be "toothless" without the military is going too far. And as for JFK's order that mandated that military-type operations be taken out of the CIA's hands and put under the responsibility of the JCS, the CIA flat-out ignored it, as some of our fellow conspiracy theorists have noted in their books and articles. The CIA continued to carry out paramilitary operations without the JCS's knowledge, much less their approval. In Vietnam, in many cases the military had no idea what the CIA was doing. In both Vietnam and Laos, in many cases the CIA was a law unto itself. It had its own bases, its own weaponry assets, its own intelligence apparatus, its own supply chain, etc., etc. We'll agree to disagree.

They were "called" all sorts of things: advisors, attaches, assistants for this or that, and not always in an allegedly military capacity either. The CIA not only had its own weaponry assets in South Vietnam, it had its own bases.

As a 21-year veteran of military intelligence and as a long-time student of military and intelligence history, I can assure you that that is not true. Just look at the Vietnam War: The CIA had numerous weapons and assets of its own in South Vietnam.

Most liberals everywhere regard the NY Post as a "rag," even though its journalism is better than that of most left-leaning newspapers. I agree that RFK Jr.'s focus on the CIA as the chief culprit is overly simplistic. Plus, this is not the kind of stuff he needs to be saying right now if he hopes to be taken seriously as a candidate. If he had limited his comment to saying that he believes JFK was killed by a conspiracy, without naming the CIA as the chief suspect, his comment would not have been nearly as controversial or newsworthy. Some of the best evidence regarding suspects points to the Mafia. We should keep in mind, however, that in several government-sponsored assassinations and attempted assassinations, the Mafia was the hired gun, not the mastermind, although the Kennedys' war on the Mafia may well have prompted the Mafia to play a more active role in the case of JFK's death. Yet, there is also credible evidence that points to the involvement of powerful rogue elements of the CIA. My own belief is that several powerful groups combined to assassinate JFK and then to cover up the crime.

Your review provides further evidence that you really have no business talking about the Vietnam War on a public board. You have every right to do so, but you have no business doing so. You allow your far-left ideology to drive your conclusions, and your review is further proof that your reading has been limited and one sided. When people read your review and then watch the documentary, or vice versa, they are going to see that your review ignores much of the information presented in the film, and that your review goes off on tangents that merely seek to buttress your spin. It is curious that your review seeks to paint the documentary in a mostly positive light, and that you pretend that the film supports your far-left spin on the war. Every other far-left review stridently condemns the documentary; one of them even accuses Rory Kennedy of being as bad as a right-wing reactionary. One suspects that since Rory Kennedy is RFK's daughter, you could not bring yourself to condemn her documentary, and so you decided to pretend that it supports your viewpoint, when in fact it does no such thing. It is telling that your review says nothing about the documentary's information on the devastating impact of Congress's aid cuts, which violated our promise in the Paris Peace Accords, and which forced South Vietnam's army to ration everything from ammo to barbed wire to bandages. Funny how that point never made it into your review. It is also telling that your review says nothing about the film's segment on Communist brutality during the war, including the horrific massacre at Hue (which dwarfed the My Lai massacre in scale and brutality). To read your review, one would think the documentary spends considerable time on the "decent interval," since you spend several paragraphs discussing it, when in fact the film does not even mention it. I've already dealt with the holes in your spin on the decent interval in another thread, so I won't reinvent the wheel here. Yes, the film does heap considerable criticism on Ambassador Martin, but it also gives him praise and puts his tragic delay in ordering an evacuation into proper context, another fact that is missing from your review. The film notes that Martin could have left much earlier but that he insisted on evacuating as many South Vietnamese as possible before he left. The film further notes that Martin thanked Herrington for making unauthorized runs to take South Vietnamese to the docks to get them on boats. Your review ignores these facts and demonizes Martin in a way that goes far beyond what the documentary says about him. People who read your review and who watch the documentary are going to wonder how and why you failed to mention and discuss any of these facts, among others. And people whose reading on the Vietnam War has been more balanced than yours are going to see that your review repeats a number of long-debunked liberal myths and contains several rather glaring omissions, such as the impact that the continuation of adequate U.S. aid would have had on the course of the fighting, the fact that Nixon and Kissinger fully intended to honor our pledge to aid South Vietnam but that Congress made that impossible, the performance of South Vietnam's army, etc. Even with the disgraceful aid cuts imposed on South Vietnam's army by our Congress, it took the North Vietnamese army over two years of hard fighting and massive casualties to conquer South Vietnam. Fighting resumed within weeks after the signing of the Paris Peace Accords. As the documentary notes, soon after the Accords, the North Vietnamese kept escalating their attacks on South Vietnam, and then finally decided to launch a full-scale invasion in March 1975 because they concluded the U.S. would not intervene. Newly disclosed/available North Vietnamese sources confirm that when the U.S. provided just barely adequate aid in the first year after the Paris Peace Accords, South Vietnam's army more than held its own. Finally, your review says there were "well over a 100,000 [sic]" South Vietnamese who did not want to stay behind to live under communism. Yikes. As any serious student of the Vietnam War can tell you, the number was at least several million, not 100,000-plus. Over 1 million South Vietnamese fled by boat. Around 400,000 of them died at sea. About 800,000 made it to other nations. Those refugees would be the first to tell you that there were many, many, many other South Vietnamese who wanted to flee but who did not have the means or could not escape.

By the way, in 2014, RFK's youngest daughter, Rory Kennedy, produced a superb documentary on the end of the Vietnam War titled Last Days in Vietnam. Yes, I said RFK's daughter, i.e., one of RFK Jr.'s sisters. The film was nominated for an Oscar award. Here's some of what Kyle Smith says about the documentary: Last Days in Vietnam, the Oscar-nominated 2014 film by Rory Kennedy (the youngest child of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, who died before she was born) is available for streaming on Netflix. It’s a devastating counterpunch to the anti-American propaganda Hollywood and the rest of the leftist culture have been spewing about Vietnam for more than four decades. . . . The effort Kennedy documents so vividly led to the rescue of 77,000 Vietnamese. The immense courage and honor of the heroes depicted in the film, and the clamor of the South Vietnamese to receive their share of American liberty as Communism descended upon their homeland, make for an eloquent rejoinder to those who dismiss the entire war as a misbegotten mess. (‘Last Days in Vietnam’: War Victory Squandered by Congress | National Review) Far-left critics howled at the documentary, one even going so far as to accuse Kennedy of resembling a right-wing reactionary. The documentary pulls no punches about the Communists' brutal conduct. It also discusses the devastating impact that Congress's aid cuts had on South Vietnam's army and notes that the U.S. had promised in the Paris Peace Accords to resupply the South Vietnamese army. The documentary also acknowledges that "hundreds of thousands" of South Vietnamese were sent to concentration camps after the war and that many people died of disease and starvation in the camps. To its great credit, PBS aired the documentary. It is now available on numerous streaming platforms, including Netflix and Amazon.

Yes, very good point. The bullet-shaped dent in the windshield frame is another fatal fact for the lone-gunman theory. And then there's the bullet mark in the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street observed and reported by Eugene Aldredge. From my article "Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza": Within a day or two of the assassination, Dallas resident Eugene Aldredge saw a dug-out, four-inch-long bullet mark in the middle of the sidewalk on the north side of Elm Street, which is the side nearest the TSBD. Aldredge did not tell the FBI about the mark until shortly after the release of the Warren Commission Report because he assumed, logically enough, that the mark had surely been noticed by law enforcement officials and would be discussed in full in the Commission's report. When he realized that the mark apparently had been "overlooked," he immediately contacted the FBI and told them about it (Weisberg 383-390). Aldredge related to the FBI that Carl Freund, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News, had also identified the mark as a bullet mark. Less than a week after Aldredge informed the FBI of the mark's existence and location, he took a friend to see it. They found the mark, but saw that it had been altered--it had been filled in. Said Aldredge, . . . we went to the site and found the mark, [which was] formerly about 1/4 inch deep, had been filled in with what appeared to be a mixture of concrete and asbestos. . . . A crude attempt had been made to make the altered mark appear to be weather-worn to match the surrounding concrete. In its report on the mark, the FBI admitted to locating it and described it as being approximately 4 inches long, 1/2 inch wide, and "dug out." And why did the FBI dismiss the significance of this mark? Because, explained the Bureau, it could not have been made by a shot from the window from which Oswald allegedly fired. Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza

As I said, I have nothing more to say about Prouty in this thread, nor have I continued to follow the thread. However, I thought I would pay a quick visit to the thread to let you folks know that the rumble.com website that Matthew Koch keeps citing includes articles that argue that the moon landings were faked.

Let's put it this way: Something clearly knocks JFK visibly forward starting at Z226. Not only is he knocked forward, but his arms and elbows are flung upward. These reactions, second only to those of the head shot, are the most obvious and dramatic reactions in the Zapruder film, and they occur after JFK has already started clutching at his throat. These movements clearly have nothing to do with the shot that causes JFK to freeze his waving motion and to start to bring his hands toward his throat, and that causes Jackie to suddenly turn her head to the right to look at JFK, beginning at Z200. And neither of these two shot reactions can rationally or credibly be connected with Connally's dramatic reactions that start at Z238. In Z238, Connally's right shoulder collapses, his cheeks and face puff, and his hair becomes disarranged. After reviewing high-quality enlarged prints of the Zapruder film, Connally said the frame of impact was Z234, and he said "there was no question" that he was not hit before Z231. This was the guy who actually experienced the wounding and who obviously knew himself better than anyone else. There is just too much evidence of the Z184-186 shot to wave aside. In addition to JFK's and Jackie's reactions that start at Z200, there's a strong blur episode that starts at Z189. Howard Brennan starts to snap his head to the right at Z207. George Hickey starts to turn his head to the right at Z195. But even if one cannot bring himself to acknowledge the evidence of at least one pre-Z190 shot, it is hard to fathom how the bullet that knocks JFK forward starting at Z226 could be the same bullet that slams Connally's right shoulder downward starting at Z236, especially given the fact that Connally was certain he was not hit before Z231.

I haven't bothered to look, and I almost hesitate to ask, Are some people still defending or excusing Stone's bizarre, disgraceful statement? Certain things are beyond the pale of decency and reason, and defending Putin is certainly one of those things. Except for the leaders and sycophants of totalitarian regimes, virtually everyone on the planet recognizes that Putin is a murderer, a tyrant, and an aggressor. Russian journalists who dare to question his policies end up dead or in jail. He has shredded every semblance of an elective/democratic process in Russia. He has ordered countless assassinations. He invaded the peaceful, liberal democracy of Ukraine with no provocation or justification. The barbaric warfare he is waging in Ukraine is a shockingly cruel type of aggression that civilized people never expected to see waged in the 21st century by an advanced nation. Thousands of Russian young men have lost their lives carrying out Putin's Hitleresque orders against Ukraine. And thousands of innocent Ukrainian civilians have been murdered by Putin's deliberate bombardment of schools, shopping centers, and residential areas, and by his cutting off of electricity and food supplies in several areas.

I think the evidence of a shot at Z186-190 is compelling--not just strong, but compelling. LNs ignore this evidence because it destroys their shooting scenario and the SBT. They know that the bullet that hit JFK at around Z190 could not have been the same bullet that collapses Connally's right shoulder and causes a pained look on his face starting at Z236. The far-fetched Z224 SBT means that the alleged lone gunman, at the very least, went two for two in 4.9 seconds, a feat that not one of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test was able to duplicate.

I sincerely hope for RFK Jr.'s sake that MSM journalists don't find out/don't mention that Douglass is a 9/11 Truther. I wish he had recommended Doug Horne's five-volume book on the ARRB and the medical evidence, or Anthony Summers' book, or Gerald McKnight's book, or David Mantik's stunning new book on the medical evidence.

If you want to rely on truly fringe, paranoid, and openly pro-Communist sources like The Black Dwarf for your information about Richard West and the Vietnam War, that is of course your right. In any case, Paul's post failed to address the fact that Richard West's statement about South Vietnam was demonstrably correct: that the Saigon regime allowed considerable freedom of the press. In contrast, North Vietnam allowed no freedom of the press. And just FYI, Richard West was so outspokenly anti-American for a time that the U.S. government included him on a list of journalists with a "negative publication pattern." He was so critical of apartheid South Africa that South Africa refused to issue him an entry visa. But, of course, in liberal eyes, West committed the unpardonable sin when he changed his mind about Communism after seeing its horrendous fruits up close, especially in Vietnam. When West began to tell the ugly truth about the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese, liberals went berserk. Radical leftists and Communists accused him of working for British intelligence, peddling CIA "propaganda," etc., etc. If you want to read what two respected, non-fringe British newspapers said about West, here are two lengthy articles about him, one by The Guardian and one by The Spectator: Richard West obituary | Newspapers | The Guardian In memory of Richard West, 1930-2015 | The Spectator Finally, it should be remembered that the same liberals who attacked Richard West after he realized the truth about Communism had nothing to say when the North Vietnamese imposed a reign of terror on South Vietnam after Saigon fell. They had nothing to say when the Communists executed tens of thousands of people, engaged in truly massive looting, and sent around 1 million people to concentration camps ("reeducation camps") where the death rate, due to cruel treatment and harsh conditions, was at least 5%. To this day, very few liberal books and supposed "documentaries" on the Vietnam War mention these facts.

In a simulation to test the reaction of people holding cameras during gunfire, in each and every case the subjects jiggled their cameras upon hearing gunfire, even when they knew it was coming. I might add that the Z189-197 blue episode is stronger than the blur episode that starts at Z312. In any case, JFK's reactions to two separate wound events are obvious. He was already hit in the throat and reaching for his throat when another shot hit him in the back at Z224, visibly knocking him forward and flinging his hands and elbows upward in the second-most dramatic reaction in the Zapruder film. I think it bears repeating that the Z186 shot occurred while the sixth-floor window's view of the limo was blocked by the oak tree. If this early shot was fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building, it would not have been a wild miss but a close miss. There's a blur episode at around Z160. The HSCA: The photographic evidence panel also noted some correlation between the acoustics results and a panning error reaction to the apparent sound of gunfire at about frame 160. (HSCA Report, pp. 83-84) Connally snaps his head to the right starting at Z162. Rosemary Willis keeps running with the limo from Z133-160. Then, certainly by no later than Z161, she begins to slow down noticeably. She begins to stop swinging her arms at around Z165, and by Z174 her arms are down to her side. She starts to come to a stop at Z180, and she clearly comes to a complete stop by Z188. She said she stopped and turned because she heard a shot. People in any crowd react differently to a series of loud noises. Some don't notice the first bang, while others do. There was a lot of noise at street level from the police motorcycles, which would have made the sounds of shots harder to hear for some people. I find Connally's Z162 head snap and Rosemary Willis's Z161-Z188 slowdown and stop convincing evidence that a shot was fired before Z160. And I do not think it is a coincidence that a blur episode starts just before Z160.

I don't buy your wingnut sources. More credible, respectable sources thought highly of West. Here's what Wikipedia says about Richard West: Richard West (18 July 1930 – 25 April 2015) was a British journalist and author best known for his reporting of the Vietnam War and Yugoslavia.[1] He is described by Damian Thompson as "one of the finest foreign correspondents of the 20th century",[2] with a career that covered the span of the Cold War in most of its theatres. Life and career[edit] Born in London, West attended Marlborough College before his national service spell in Trieste awakened a lifelong interest in Yugoslavia. Starting off his journalistic career at the Manchester Guardian, West became a foreign correspondent in Yugoslavia, Africa, Central America and Indochina. Described by Neal Ascherson as the "paragon of the independent journalist for his generation",[3] he would spend much of the next two decades in Vietnam, Africa and eastern Europe, where he was codenamned Agent Friday by Communist Poland's secret police. Among his books are The Making of the Prime Minister (with Anthony Howard),[4] An English Journey (1981) and Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia (1995).[5] Along with Patrick Marnham and Auberon Waugh, West was one of three signatories to a letter to The Times that called for a British monument to honour those repatriated as a result of the Yalta Conference; it was eventually erected in 1986.[6][7]

Here are three reasons that the Zapruder film refutes the single-bullet theory: -- The HSCA’s Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) concluded that that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit with a shot at around Z186-190. The PEP noted that at around Z200, JFK's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the middle of a waving motion; his right hand also drops to the chin or throat level in a fraction of a second and stays there until he disappears behind the freeway sign at Z207; and his head moves rapidly from the right toward his wife on his left. The PEP also detected a strong blur/jiggle episode from Z189-197, further confirming this pre-Z190 shot. During this same time frame, Jackie Kennedy also reacts. By Z202-204, Mrs. Kennedy has made a sudden sharp turn to the right, toward her husband. When she reemerges into view at Z223, she is looking intently at JFK (obviously her attention was drawn to him because the reaction that he had started at around Z200 had become more noticeable while the car was behind the freeway sign). Here's what the PEP said about JFK’s reactions that start at Z200: At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot. (6 HSCA 17) If you view these frames in slow motion, these reactions are readily apparent. You don’t need to be a photographic expert to see the movements that the PEP described. JFK was obviously responding to being hit in the throat. And, it goes without saying that this clutching motion could not have been in reaction to a Z224 shot, since it began long before Z224. This shot poses insurmountable problems for the lone-gunman theory. One problem it poses is that the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK was obscured by the intervening oak tree from Z166-209. Obviously, this shot did not come from the sixth-floor window. -- At least 2 seconds after JFK visibly reacts to the Z186-190 shot, he clearly reacts to a second hit starting at Z226. Beginning at Z226, Kennedy's body is visibly jolted sharply forward, and his hands and elbows are flung upward and forward, obviously in response to a shot in the back. The force and speed of these movements are quite startling when one watches the Z226 to Z233 segment in slow motion. Although the WC, and to a great extent the HSCA, ignored these movements, they are among the most dramatic and visible reactions in the entire Zapruder film. JFK was obviously reacting to being shot in the back. In addition, Dr. Luis Alvarez and HSCA photographic experts Hartmann and Scott noted a blur/jiggle episode at around Z225-229. This shot must have hit at right around Z224, at least 2 seconds after the Z186-190 shot. Needless to say, this means the Zapruder film refutes the single-bullet theory and shows that JFK suffered two non-fatal shots. -- The Z186-190 and Z223-224 shots become even more problematic for the lone-gunman theory when we acknowledge the evidence that another shot was fired around Z145-150. Even Gerald Posner agrees that a shot was fired at around Z160 (Case Closed, Random House, 1993, pp. 320-326). Consider these facts: ** There is a blur episode at Z155. ** Connally starts to turn his head rapidly to the right at Z162. ** Several witnesses said the first shot was fired during the limo's turn onto Elm Street or just after it completed the turn. ** Rosemary Willis, running along the grass to the left of the limousine, starts to slow down at around Z160, and by Z187-190 she has stopped and is looking back toward a point to the rear of the limousine. She said she stopped and turned because she heard a loud bang. This shot was probably fired between Z145 and Z150.