Pat Speer on The Ochelli Effect

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Robert Morrow said:

1) Holland McCombs of LIFE Magazine ending up killing that "new investigation" into the JFK assassination - https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/1977/january/profiles-a-hedonist-with-no-regrets/

2) Over at the NYT, no new investigation of the JFK assassination occurred there either. As James "Scotty" Reston of the NYT climbed higher and higher there no new investigation of the JFK assassination occurred there either. James Reston was a CIA media asset and he was very close to former CIA director Allen Dulles. Reston was very high up at NYT from 1964 to 1974, a time when the NYT was especially militantly pro Lone Nutter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Reston

 

 

 

If I'm not mistaken, the proposed new investigation of the Kennedy assassination at the NYT was cut off when Harrison Salisbury was shipped off to Vietnam, where he wrote articles opposing the war, and even visited North Vietnam. So...if he was shipped off as part of a plot, by the CIA and LBJ etc, it backfired. 

[Larry Hancock]

Happy New  Year Ron, and no I had not heard of him but I really like the song  you posted....he sort of reminds me Jimmy Buffet a bit..I'll check him out for some more Youtube videos.

But just to keep some relevance and for anybody who has not come across the iconic Lee Harvey was a Friend of Mine, here is that link....for some strange reason I seem to have to listen to it occasionally...

 

[Gary Murr]

I am attaching herein a link to Chapter 35, from Volume 3, of my unpublished work on the wounding of John Connally. Those not interested in the exchanges to date in this thread, in particular the role[s] played by TIME/LIFE, Holland McCombs, John Connally et al in various "secret" post WR release investigations of the assassination will probably find this a bit of a slog. The chapter, which took several months to research and write, is long - 180 pages - and does contain 788 footnotes, not for the faint of heart as it were. I cannot remember precisely when I wrote this, but it was finished, as attached warts and all, at least five or six years ago. If you are interested in John and Nellie Connally's efforts to "control the past" you might discover some details not previously known to you. The first dozen or so pages deal with John Connally in the immediate aftermath of his arrival at Parkland Hospital, but give it chance and read on for the bulk of the chapter really is all about John and Nellie and their writings, published and secretly discussed, in the years after the assassination. 

FWIW

Link:  https://www.transferbigfiles.com/6cf3ca5d-8028-4660-889e-21aef4e3382b/pWQUgeSCOckz0pusCGTnrA2 

[James DiEugenio]

Sometimes, I wonder if anyone reads me,  e.g. Gerry Down.. This is from my review of Last Second.

 

After giving the author his due, I must add that I did have some reservations with this part of the book. Some of it emerges from Thompson’s point of view, which is pretty much a first-person journey. Therefore, he cannot help but describe the shutting down of Life magazine’s inquiry into the JFK case. He only mentions in passing that the New York Times had fielded an inquiry and also shut it down. (Thompson, p. 92)

There was an interesting crossover between the two inquiries. His name was Tom Bethell. Bethell ended up being a pal of Dick Billings. Billings was the member of the Life team who told Thompson the inquiry was being closed down. (Thompson, p. 91) Bethell was the Englishman who ended up working for Jim Garrison, but not before he journeyed to Texas to live and hang out with Penn Jones. Billings had been part of the infamous Bayo/Pawley raid into Cuba, an event which the author does not mention. The two B’s agreed that there was not a covert effort by the government, the Commission, or the FBI to conceal the truth in the JFK case. They also agreed that Life did not really suppress the Zapruder film, since interested parties could see it at the National Archives. This seems a bit ridiculous in light of what happened when the film was nationally viewed in 1975.

Both Billings and Bethell were cognizant of the New York Times inquiry. Bethell said that in November of 1966 he had met up with Times reporter Martin Waldron in Dallas. Waldron had a 4–5 page questionnaire of items they were looking into as problems with the Commission. Many of these questions were about New Orleans and they focused on David Ferrie. This was independent of Jim Garrison. (Click here for details)

This is important in two ways. Apparently, Thompson was unaware that around the time he was retired, early February of 1967, Billings was also in New Orleans. He had been tipped off by Life stringer David Chandler that Jim Garrison was investigating the JFK case. Garrison had agreed to share information with Billings in return for some photographic services. This links directly to the following quote:

What Patsy [Swank] and I did understand was that there was a level of the Life investigation beyond our participation or understanding. I never knew what [Holland] McCombs was supposed to be doing, and it was apparent that I was not supposed to know. (Thompson, pp. 26–27)

With the help of British researcher Malcolm Blunt, we now can shed some light on what McCombs was doing. As noted above, it seems that when the Times started delving into New Orleans, they decided to drop the case. That parallels what happened with Life. McCombs retired Ed Kern and Thompson, but Billings and Swank stayed. In fact, Swank was writing reports to McCombs on the case well into 1968. (Swank to McCombs 7/16/68) With Kern and Thompson gone, McCombs now began to turn his guns on Garrison. Why? Because as Blunt has shown, he was best of friends with Clay Shaw. (See letters of 3/9/68, 3/22/68, 6/20/68, 7/31/68 and beyond) McCombs now began to work with and encourage the likes of hatchet men like Chandler and Hugh Aynesworth. (See letter of 5/13/67 to Duffey McFadden)

What makes this even more interesting is that, in February—around the time Thompson and Kern were cashiered—Billings had received a telegram marked confidential. It said Ferrie had been seen by two witnesses at White Rock Airport in Dallas in October and November of 1963. They also discovered a pilot in Dallas who knew Ferrie and flew to New Orleans to meet with him in 1964. (message of 2/26/67) Therefore, like the Times, Life now had interesting information about Shaw’s friend Ferrie. And make no mistake, Chandler knew of this relationship. His son emailed this reviewer in the early part of the millennium and said that his father knew that Shaw and Ferrie were friends. By May, McCombs was referring to Life’s reopening as a joke. (McFadden letter)

In June, it got worse. McCombs was in direct contact with Ed Wegmann, Shaw’s lead lawyer. (See letters of 6/14 and 7/25/67) By 1968, Shaw was congratulating McCombs on making speeches against the critics of the Warren Report. About reading their works, Shaw wrote: “It is almost unbelievable how much nonsense I have had to absorb.” (Letter to McCombs, 6/20/68)

The evidence adduced by Blunt would indicate that McCombs was there to ensure that what he labeled Life’s “so called reinvestigation” did not stray too far from the homestead, which was Rockefeller Center in New York City. In addition to these two inquiries, which were clearly neutered, there is a third parallel with what happened at CBS. Through the late Roger Feinman, we know those circumstances in detail, since Roger worked there. In that case, the middle level employees like Dan Schorr wanted to do a real investigation into what happened to President Kennedy. They were turned back by upper level management like Dick Salant, Bill Paley, and Frank Stanton. And then, as in the case of McCombs, John McCloy was employed as a secret consultant for the program. I know Thompson has this article since I sent it to him. (Click here for that essay)

I bring this up for two reasons. In this book, Thompson says he and Kern were retired because Time-Life did not want to pay for a continuing inquiry plus the time to educate its reporters on the case (Thompson, p. 92) With what we know today, this is rather underplaying it, especially with Swank and Billings staying in place. I think I understand why Thompson underplays what I believe was a significant pattern. At a conference in Chicago back in 1993, we were both on a panel focusing on the media. As I recall it, he was the only person arguing that there was no broad pattern of editorial coercion on the JFK case. At that time, he chalked it up to the fact that there were too many editorial levels in the chain. When one has people like McCombs as a circuit breaker, one does not need such an institutional hierarchy.

IV

[James DiEugenio]

Contrary to what Jerry is implying, Mockingbird was hovering over all three reinquiries: CBS, NY Times and Life magazine. 

In the case of Life why cashier Tink and Kern, who were clearly doing the best work on gathering evidence? Yet keep Swank and Billings?  

The net published result of what McCombs did was so anemic as to be an insult, especially compared to what was in Six Seconds in Dallas.

Yet, as weak as it was, Life even gave Specter the right to reply.

Is it only a coincidence that both the Times and Life imploded their operations when they got into New Orleans?

Edited January 1 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Contrary to what Jerry is implying, Mockingbird was hovering over all three reinquiries: CBS, NY Times and Life magazine. 

In the case of Life why cashier Tink and Kern, who were clearly doing the best work on gathering evidence? Yet keep Swank and Billings?  

The net published result of what McCombs did was so anemic as to be an insult, especially compared to what was in Six Seconds in Dallas.

Yet, as weak as it was, Life even gave Specter the right to reply.

Is it only a coincidence that both the Times and Life imploded their operations when they got into New Orleans?

I think there is some confusion as to what Mockingbird was and is. 

If one believes, as some, that a department at the CIA keeps an eye on all things media, and shuts down articles or investigations as they arise, and publishes non-stop propaganda, then one is incorrect, IMO. 

But if one believes corporations have interests beyond simply reporting, and that they frequently compromise with powerful entities to protect those interests, well, then, one has a better understanding of how Mockingbird worked, and works.  

The best example of Mockingbird in action, in my opinion, is not a movie about Mockingbird. It is The Insider, which tells the story of a news department backing down in fear when their corporate parents decide it's against their best interests to pursue a story...that could be damaging to a rich and powerful entity. 

Now, the rich and powerful entity in this story was the tobacco industry. Now imagine how much fear would be installed in these corporate parents should the rich and powerful entity have been a department of the U.S. Government, or the President himself.

And now imagine that the CIA had at times decided to avail itself of this fear, and had used its reputation for dirty tricks to manipulate those tasked with protecting the interests of media corporations into spinning stories in this direction or that.

No one has to order anything. A suggestion is enough.

 

Edited January 2 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Contrary to what Jerry is implying, Mockingbird was hovering over all three reinquiries: CBS, NY Times and Life magazine. 

In the case of Life why cashier Tink and Kern, who were clearly doing the best work on gathering evidence? Yet keep Swank and Billings?  

The net published result of what McCombs did was so anemic as to be an insult, especially compared to what was in Six Seconds in Dallas.

Yet, as weak as it was, Life even gave Specter the right to reply.

Is it only a coincidence that both the Times and Life imploded their operations when they got into New Orleans?

JD-

Thanks for these elaborations on what happened to Garrison, a telling tale. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think there is some confusion as to what Mockingbird was and is. 

If one believes, as some, that a department at the CIA keeps an eye on all things media, and shuts down articles or investigations as they arise, and publishes non-stop propaganda, then one is incorrect, IMO. 

But if one believes corporations have interests beyond simply reporting, and that they frequently compromise with powerful entities to protect those interests, well, then, one has a better understanding of how Mockingbird worked, and works.  

The best example of Mockingbird in action, in my opinion, is not a movie about Mockingbird. It is The Insider, which tells the story of a news department backing down in fear when their corporate parents decide its against their best interests to pursue a story...that could be damaging to a rich and powerful entity. 

Now, the rich and powerful entity in this story was the tobacco industry. Now imagine how much fear would be installed in these corporate parents should the rich and powerful entity have been a department of the U.S. Government, or the President himself.

And now imagine that the CIA had at times decided to avail itself of this fear, and had used its reputation for dirty tricks to manipulate those tasked with protecting the interests of media corporations into spinning stories in this direction or that.

No one has to order anything. A suggestion is enough.

 

PS-

Well...sometimes Op Mock is ephemeral, and sometimes nots and bolts. 

Carl Bernstein's report on 400 Op Mocked journalists is still worth a read. 

What happened to Garrison in N.O. goes way beyond simple suggestions from higher-ups to the troops, or the suffocating of a story. 

In some ways, today is worse than ever. There has been a blobbing of party, intel agencies and media. Narratives have replaced news. 

That's my cheer-up talk for the new year. 

 

 

 

 

[Pat Speer]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PS-

Well...sometimes Op Mock is ephemeral, and sometimes nots and bolts. 

Carl Bernstein's report on 400 Op Mocked journalists is still worth a read. 

What happened to Garrison in N.O. goes way beyond simple suggestions from higher-ups to the troops, or the suffocating of a story. 

In some ways, today is worse than ever. There has been a blobbing of party, intel agencies and media. Narratives have replaced news. 

That's my cheer-up talk for the new year. 

I would agree that certain events go way beyond someone's making a phone call and saying "You shouldn't publish that" or whatever. The Garrison case is a good example. It seems clear the CIA was not a fan, and wanted it shut down, and sought help in doing so. 

But we have reason to believe they did this for reasons other than covering their own butts. 

Helms and others made statements over the years suggesting that they thought Garrison had been manipulated by the Soviets or some such thing. If this is true, well, then, they thought shutting it all down and making him look foolish was the patriotic thing to do. 

There's also this. (From chapter 1)

Now, should one have doubts so many men--not only those working for the commission, but those working for the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA--would agree to give Johnson a free pass (in the name of national security, etc) one should consider that some of these same men defended the conclusions of the Warren Commission for these very same reasons...and left a "smoking gun" document in the National Archives as proof of their activities.

Here is a link to this document: The Smoking Gun Document.

One might wish to take a quick look at it before returning to our discussion...

This document, released in 1993 as a result of the 1992 JFK Records Act, which was passed in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, was written on January 4, 1967, at a time when questions surrounding the assassination were beginning to be taken seriously, and appear in mainstream publications like Life Magazine, the New York Times, and The Saturday Evening Post. It is a CIA document, created but six months after former journalist Richard Helms was appointed its director.

 

In any event, the document no doubt approved by Helms in 1967 proposes that the CIA chiefs around the world to whom it was directed "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories."

Now note that the document says "Destroy when no longer needed" across the bottom. We were never supposed to know about this. Note also that January 1967 marks the precise time the so-called mainstream media pulled back from its criticisms of the Warren Commission, and started focusing its criticism on the critics. CBS News, most pointedly, had started an investigation of the Warren Commission months before, but had changed its direction around this same time, after former Warren Commissioner John McCloy crawled onboard as a top secret adviser. 

But note, primarily, the stated purpose of this propaganda push. It says nothing about the danger Americans might think a foreign power killed Kennedy. It says nothing about preventing World War III. Instead, it says, in so many words, that all this talk of conspiracy is starting to circle in on President Johnson and the CIA, and that that would be bad for business.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

Now note that, according to this last paragraph, this trend towards accusing Johnson was, in the eyes of the writer of this dispatch (undoubtedly one of the CIA's top officials), "a matter of concern to the U.S. government," including the CIA. Well, this more than suggests that this order to "employ" the CIA's propaganda assets to help clear Johnson's name did not originate within the CIA itself... but from elsewhere in the executive branch.

[Benjamin Cole]

33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I would agree that certain events go way beyond someone's making a phone call and saying "You shouldn't publish that" or whatever. The Garrison case is a good example. It seems clear the CIA was not a fan, and wanted it shut down, and sought help in doing so. 

But we have reason to believe they did this for reasons other than covering their own butts. 

Helms and others made statements over the years suggesting that they thought Garrison had been manipulated by the Soviets or some such thing. If this is true, well, then, they thought shutting it all down and making him look foolish was the patriotic thing to do. 

There's also this. (From chapter 1)

Now, should one have doubts so many men--not only those working for the commission, but those working for the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA--would agree to give Johnson a free pass (in the name of national security, etc) one should consider that some of these same men defended the conclusions of the Warren Commission for these very same reasons...and left a "smoking gun" document in the National Archives as proof of their activities.

Here is a link to this document: The Smoking Gun Document.

One might wish to take a quick look at it before returning to our discussion...

This document, released in 1993 as a result of the 1992 JFK Records Act, which was passed in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, was written on January 4, 1967, at a time when questions surrounding the assassination were beginning to be taken seriously, and appear in mainstream publications like Life Magazine, the New York Times, and The Saturday Evening Post. It is a CIA document, created but six months after former journalist Richard Helms was appointed its director.

 

In any event, the document no doubt approved by Helms in 1967 proposes that the CIA chiefs around the world to whom it was directed "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories."

Now note that the document says "Destroy when no longer needed" across the bottom. We were never supposed to know about this. Note also that January 1967 marks the precise time the so-called mainstream media pulled back from its criticisms of the Warren Commission, and started focusing its criticism on the critics. CBS News, most pointedly, had started an investigation of the Warren Commission months before, but had changed its direction around this same time, after former Warren Commissioner John McCloy crawled onboard as a top secret adviser. 

But note, primarily, the stated purpose of this propaganda push. It says nothing about the danger Americans might think a foreign power killed Kennedy. It says nothing about preventing World War III. Instead, it says, in so many words, that all this talk of conspiracy is starting to circle in on President Johnson and the CIA, and that that would be bad for business.

Here are the relevant paragraphs:

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

Now note that, according to this last paragraph, this trend towards accusing Johnson was, in the eyes of the writer of this dispatch (undoubtedly one of the CIA's top officials), "a matter of concern to the U.S. government," including the CIA. Well, this more than suggests that this order to "employ" the CIA's propaganda assets to help clear Johnson's name did not originate within the CIA itself... but from elsewhere in the executive branch.

More great reporting from your website. 

Add on: Of course, formal memos are important, but likely only one window into what was being done informally or unofficially. There are no records of phone calls, in person-meetings, and so on. Given the nature of the CIA, likely much was in fact done off-the-record before and after 1967. 

And you are right: If a US intel agency has the legitimatizing aegis of "national security" during the intense Cold War---and don't forget, Russia wanted to put nuke missiles in Cuba, and were the picture of an authoritarian government---then almost everything is justified. 

Even putting a blanket on the JFKA investigation (from their perspective). 

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by Benjamin Cole

[James DiEugenio]

Pat leaves out the fact that Garrison's office was infiltrated by the CIA from a very early date, see a guy named Bernardo DeTorres, who many people think was actually involved in the JFK murder.

Was Bernardo there to protect the Russians?

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat leaves out the fact that Garrison's office was infiltrated by the CIA from a very early date, see a guy named Bernardo DeTorres, who many people think was actually involved in the JFK murder.

Was Bernardo there to protect the Russians?

I acknowledged that the CIA had it in for Garrison. My understanding is that Garrison was looking for a window into the anti-Castro Cuban world, and up popped DeTorres. Are you saying that DeTorres was involved in the murder, and the CIA ordered him to infiltrate Garrison's staff to protect the CIA, as opposed to protecting the country from anti-government propaganda? 

Because, if so, it seems you're claiming that whoever told DeTorres he should get a gig with Garrison knew who killed Kennedy, and knew it had to be covered up. Care to name names? 

[Greg Doudna]

On 1/1/2024 at 1:21 PM, Gary Murr said:

I am attaching herein a link to Chapter 35, from Volume 3, of my unpublished work on the wounding of John Connally. Those not interested in the exchanges to date in this thread, in particular the role[s] played by TIME/LIFE, Holland McCombs, John Connally et al in various "secret" post WR release investigations of the assassination will probably find this a bit of a slog. The chapter, which took several months to research and write, is long - 180 pages - and does contain 788 footnotes, not for the faint of heart as it were. I cannot remember precisely when I wrote this, but it was finished, as attached warts and all, at least five or six years ago. If you are interested in John and Nellie Connally's efforts to "control the past" you might discover some details not previously known to you. The first dozen or so pages deal with John Connally in the immediate aftermath of his arrival at Parkland Hospital, but give it chance and read on for the bulk of the chapter really is all about John and Nellie and their writings, published and secretly discussed, in the years after the assassination. 

FWIW

Link:  https://www.transferbigfiles.com/6cf3ca5d-8028-4660-889e-21aef4e3382b/pWQUgeSCOckz0pusCGTnrA2 

This is belated—because it took until now to read it—but THANK YOU Gary Murr for making available this chapter of your detailed research on Connally history. 

Could you be persuaded to make available your chapter that deals with when in Zapruder Connally was hit with his bullet and all that? 😊 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

This is belated—because it took until now to read it—but THANK YOU Gary Murr for making available this chapter of your detailed research on Connally history. 

Could you be persuaded to make available your chapter that deals with when in Zapruder Connally was hit with his bullet and all that? 😊 

Yes, thank you, Gary. I thought I'd already said so, but see now I did not. Presumably, I was distracted by my frustration with the tech world. A few months back, my 2 year-old MacBook Pro fizzled and died without any warning. It took me awhile to get all my back up files into the new one. Then, when I went to download your chapter, I discovered that the new one didn't have Microsoft Office, which meant I'd lost access to my many word files and power point files and presentations. I then discovered they'd changed Office from a one-time purchase to a hundred buck a year commitment. Like Bill Gates isn't rich enough!!!

Anyhow, I find that kind of stuff extremely upsetting. 

[Gary Murr]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

This is belated—because it took until now to read it—but THANK YOU Gary Murr for making available this chapter of your detailed research on Connally history. 

Could you be persuaded to make available your chapter that deals with when in Zapruder Connally was hit with his bullet and all that? 😊 

Hello Greg... and thank you for taking the time to read the chapter I previously posted. Regarding your question concerning when I might make available my thoughts/writings regarding when, in/on specific frames of the Zapruder film, John Connally was struck and thereafter wounded, I can say the following. I intend to return specifically to this subject matter later this year. I am in the throes of finishing volume 2 of "Forgotten", which I hope to have completed by late spring/early summer. Once that is finished, I intend to complete a paper I have roughed out that deals only with the wounding of Connally and the Zapruder film, which is, to state the obvious, absolutely necessary to any understanding of the mechanics just when the Governor was struck. If I can work the timing correctly, I may release this paper in conjunction with a potential JFK Assassination Conference in November of this year - 2024 - if I get any invitations to participate.

As it stands right now, this will probably be the last writing I do on the events of November 22, 1963. I have been "at this" since my first contact with Harold Weisberg in 1966 so it is probably time to retire. And on a final note, I will admit that I have changed my mind on the timing of the Connally wounding from what I have written in the past.

FWIW