25-06-2009, 11:18 PM
Fascinating piece, with much to admire. But two objections, one small, one enormous:
Didn't Aynesworth give Mark Lane a bundle of goodies in Jan (?) 1964?
Here's where Di Eugenio loses me entirely - the film is a blatant fake, and Groden has been central to this fake's dissemination.
C'mon, Jim, get those critical faculties into gear on the subject of the Z fake. It's long past time.
Quote:"Let me echo the sentiments of Jim Garrison in regards to the above: Anybody who associates with the likes of Hugh Aynesworth on the JFK case is deserving of both suspicion and contempt."
Didn't Aynesworth give Mark Lane a bundle of goodies in Jan (?) 1964?
Quote:"On their web site, they even try and cover up for Life Magazine concealing the powerful evidence in the Zapruder film from the American public. This is what they say: when Abraham Zapruder sold his film to Life, it was with the understanding they not exploit the graphic details of Kennedy's death until emotions cooled down. Zapruder sold all rights to Life Magazine. Once they paid him, he had no power over what they did with the film. Executive C.D. Jackson and Henry Luce—the owner of the magazine—decided to conceal the film from the public since they knew it contradicted the official story. The only way it was shown was when Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film for the trial of Clay Shaw and when Bob Groden spirited out a copy to finally show to the public on TV in 1975. Got that, 12 years later the public saw it. I think 12 years is enough for emotions to cool down."
Here's where Di Eugenio loses me entirely - the film is a blatant fake, and Groden has been central to this fake's dissemination.
C'mon, Jim, get those critical faculties into gear on the subject of the Z fake. It's long past time.