The RFK Assassination Project [Home Page] Contact us at RFKAssassination@yahoo.com

Chris Columbus to Direct Robert F. Kennedy Film

Source:Variety

Variety says that Chris Columbus will direct a feature about Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential run. Columbus and his 1492 Productions have acquired screen rights to the Thurston Clarke book "The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy and 82 Days That Inspired America."

Columbus will produce with 1492 partners Michael Barnathan and Mark Radcliffe. Columbus will write the script solo or invite another screenwriter to work with him, adds the trade.

Kennedy's idealistic campaign, which focused squarely on poverty, racism and ending the unpopular Vietnam War, resonated with Columbus and his 1492 partners. While losing his iconic brother made him wary of crowds, Kennedy refused to insulate himself from the public during his run.

New York City Los Angeles Barack Obama Haiti United Kingdom Fashion Twitter Deaths hot topics

Movies Couples Music TV Hot Pics Babies Bad Behavior Celebrity News Fashion Break-ups photos

Most Recent Most Popular videos

Most Recent Most Popular twitter

Tweets Twitter Pics Twitter Rankings

Latest Stories

Marc Malkin

Lyons Den

Party Girl

Answer Bitch

Movie Reviews

Photos

The Big Picture

Fashion Police

Party Pics

Movies

Video

Fashion

Fashion Police

Red Carpet

Oscars 2010

Grammys 2010

SAG Awards 2010

Golden Globes 2010

Sundance 2010

Emmys 2009

E! Shows

Schedule

Personalities

Play a Part

E! Tunes

Message boards

WATCH with KRISTIN

AWFUL TRUTH

SHOP E!

Sweepstakes

Newsletters

EXTRAS

Mobile

Podcasts

RSS Feeds

Widgets

About Us Contact Us Staff Careers FAQ Advertise Sitemap Use of this site signifies your acceptance of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Copyright 2010 E! Entertainment Television, Inc. All Rights Reserved. E! Online E! International Edition: USA

Australia

Germany

Italy

France

Canada

USA

FEEDBACK

Read more: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b168608_ask_why_not_matt_damon_play_rfk.html#ixzz0ggFDKrjE

The RFK Assassination Project

YOUR

HELP

NEEDED

We are gathering and examining media coverage of

the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy

Please contact us if you have any sound recordings, video tape

or film concerning the RFK killing in June 1968 (whether it's

TV or radio, professional or amateur); or please contact us

if you know of someone else who has such material

(note: we accept even poor quality home-made

recordings of TV or radio broadcasts)

Please also contact us if you can identify, by name or by news

organization, the following journalists (pictured below) who

were at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on the night

that Bobby Kennedy was shot there, June 4-5, 1968 . .

vid, vo, pkg, video, videotape, 'video tape', video-tape, videos, videotapes, 'video tapes', video-tapes, tape, tapes, aud, audio, audiotape, audio tape, audio-tape, audios, audiotapes, 'audio tapes', audio-tapes, 'audio on tape', audio-on-tape, audioontape, audioontapes, 'audio on tapes', audio-on-tapes, 'audios tape', 'audio taped', 'audios taped', audiostape, audios-tape, 'audios on tape', audios-on-tape, audios-on-tapes, audiosontape, audiosontapes, 'audio recording', audio-recording, 'audio recordings', audio-recordings, 'audio recorded', 'audios recorded', audios-recorded, audio-recorded, 'audios recording', audios-recording, 'audios recordings', audios-recordings, audio-recordings, sound, soundtape, 'sound tape', sound-tape, sounds, soundtapes, 'sound tapes', sound-tapes, 'sound on tape',ound-on-tape, soundontape, soundontapes, 'sound on tapes', sound-on-tapes, 'sounds tape', 'sound taped', 'sounds taped', soundstape, sounds-tape, 'sounds on tape', sounds-on-tape, sounds-on-tapes, soundsontape, soundsontapes, 'sound recording', sound-recording, 'sound recordings', sound-recordings, 'sound recorded', 'sounds recorded', sounds-recorded, sound-recorded, 'sounds recording', sounds-recording, 'sounds recordings', sounds-recordings, sound-recordings, recording, recordings, recorded, sot, sots, s.o.t., s.o.t.s, aot, aots, a.o.t., a.o.t.s, actuality, actualities, phoner, 'phoned in', phoned-in, interview, intvw, report, cassette, cassettes, reel, reels, reel’s, reel-to-reel, reel-to-reels, reel-to-reel’s, reels-to-reel, reel’s-to-reel, reels-to-reels, reel’s-to-reel’s, reel’s-to-reels, 'reel to reel', 'reels to reels', reel to reels', 'reels to reel', 'open reel', film, films, film’s, film footage, footage, footages, footage’s, 'film on footage', 'films on footage', 'footage on film', 'footage on films', film-on-footage, films-on-footage, footage-on-film, footage-on-films, 'video footage', 'videotape footage', 'video tape footage', 'video-tape footage', 'footage on video', 'footage on videotape', 'footage on video tape', 'footage on video-tape', 'footage on videos', 'footage on videotapes', 'footage on video tapes', 'footage on video-tapes', the, 'the rfk assassination project', 'rfk assassination project', 'rfk assassination', 'the rfk assassination', 'the rfk assasination project', 'rfk assasination project', 'rfk assasination', 'the rfk assasination', 'the rfk assination project', 'rfk assination project', 'rfk assination', 'the rfk assination', 'assassinaton', rfk, r.f.k., r-f-k, r/f/k, r_f_k, r*f*k, 'rf kennedy', 'r.f. kennedy', 'r. kennedy', 'r kennedy', 'robert f. kennedy', robert, 'robert francis', francis, kennedy, 'robert francis kennedy', 'robert kennedy', bobby, 'bobby kennedy', 'bobby f. kennedy', bob, 'bob kennedy', 'bob f. kennedy', senator, sen., 'attorney general', 'atty. gen.', 'senator kennedy', 'sen. kennedy', 'attorney general kennedy', 'atty. gen. kennedy', assassination, assasination, assination, assassinate, assasinate, assinate, assassinator, assasinator, assinator, assassinater, assasinater, assinater, assassin, assasin, assin, assailant, conspiracy, jfk, j.f.k., 'j kennedy', 'j. kennedy', 'jf kennedy', 'j.f. kennedy', 'john f. kennedy', 'john kennedy', 'jack kennedy', 'john fitzgerald kennedy', 'jack f. kennedy', 'jack fitzgerald kennedy', john, jack, dallas, gunman, gunmen, killer, killers, murderer, murderers, assassins, sirhan, 'sirhan sirhan', 'sirhan b. sirhan', 'sirhan bishara sirhan', seerhan, 'thane eugene cesar', 'thane cesar', 'eugene cesar', 'gene cesar', 'thane gene cesar', 'polka dot girl', 'polka-dot girl', 'polka dot woman', 'polka-dot woman', 'girl in the polka dot dress', 'girl in the polka-dot dress', 'woman in the polka dot dress', 'woman in the polka-dot dress', 'girl in a polka dot dress', 'girl in a polka-dot dress', 'woman in a polka dot dress', 'woman in a polka-dot dress', 'polka dot', polka-dot, 'polka dots', polka-dots, 'polka dot dress', 'polka-dot dress', paul, 'paul sharaga', 'paul scharaga', sharaga, scharaga, serrano, 'sandy serrano', 'sandra serrano', 'sandi serrano', sandy, sandra, sandi, sander, booker griffin, vincent, vinnie, vinny, vince, 'vincent di pierro', 'vincent dipierro', 'di pierro', dipierro, philip melanson, philip h. melanson, phil melanson, william klaber, bill klaber, jonn christian, william turner, bill turner, dan moldea, lisa pease, lyn mangan, lynn mangan, theodore charach, ted charach, teddy charach, congressman lowenstein, representative lowenstein, 'greg stone', 'gregory stone', greg, gregory, stone, floyd, nelson, 'floyd nelson', paul schrade, shrade, ira goldstein, irwin stroll, erwin stroll, william, bill, billy, billie, weisel, wiesel, weisle, wiesle, elizabeth evans, liz evans, betty evans, bess evans, arthur evans, art evans, tv, t.v., television, radio, news, abc, cbs, nbc, ktla, kttv, fox-11, fox11, knxt, kcbs, knbc, kabc, khj, klac, kla, kpfk, pacifica, 'pacifica radio', krkd, knx, kfwb, kfi, mutual, westinghouse, rko, metromedia, wolper, 'continental news', 'santa monica evening outlook', variety, 'los angeles times', 'l.a. times', 'herald examiner', 'manchester guardian', 'minneapolis tribune', newsweek, time, 'time inc', 'time inc.', time-life, 'new york post', 'n.y. post', 'ny post', 'new york daily news', 'n.y. daily news', 'ny daily news', upi, u.p.i, 'united press', 'united press international', ap, a.p., 'associated press', 'assoc. press', 'london daily times', 'london evening standard', pasadena, 'pasadena independent star news', 'free lance', freelance, independent, independant, 'kansas city star', life, 'newark news', 'citizen news', 'culver city', 'culver city evening star news', gannett, 'flare news agency', 'flare news', 'valley citizen news', 'portland oregonian', 'ny times', 'n.y. times', 'new york times', 'boston globe', 'wash post', 'wash. post', 'washington post', 'wash star', 'wash. star', 'washington star', 'baltimore afro american newspaper', 'baltimore afro-american newspaper', 'pakistan news agency', 'pakistan news agencies', 'chicago tribune', 'chicago sun times', 'chicago suntimes', 'chicago daily news', 'city news service', 'saint louis dispatch', 'st. louis dispatch', 'london daily mirror', 'london mirror', 'london times', 'london sunday times', 'london observer', 'torrance daily breeze', look, 'whittier daily news', 'register newspaper', 'citizen news', hearst, 'hearst publications', 'hearst newspapers', 'hearst papers', mcclatchy, 'mcclatchy newspapers', 'mcclatchy papers', newhouse, 'newhouse newspapers', 'newhouse papers', bbc, cbc, 'milwaukee journal', 'new york news', 'ny news', 'n.y. news', 'philadelphia bulletin', 'portland oregonia', 'christian science monitor', 'anchorage daily news', 'danish broadcasting', denmark broadcasting', 'minneapolis star', 'pacific coast news bureau', ridder, knight, knight-ridder, telegraph, 'ny review', 'n.y. review', 'new york review', scripts-howard, 'scripts howard', scripps-howard, 'scripps howard', 'european community magazine', 'european union magazine', 'columbus dispatch', wmca, wins, 'paris match', nana, 'swiss television', 'swiss tv', 'swiss t.v.', 'television suisse romande', tsr, t.s.r., 'suisse romande', 'suisse romand', 'swiss romand', 'swiss romande', mccalls, mccall's, 'baltimore sun', 'german tv', 'german t.v.', 'german television', 'german radio', 'german broadcasting', wsj, 'wall street journal', 'wall st. journal', 'business week', businessweek, 'birmingham news', 'san diego evening tribune', 'boston herald', 'toronto star', 'montreal gazette', 'american heritage', 'cleveland plaindealer', 'cleveland plain dealer', reuters, reuter, 'sud deutshe zeitung', 'sud deutsch zeitung', cowles, 'odhams periodicals', 'corriere della sera', taagesspiel, 'london sun', 'japan broadcasting', 'japanese broadcasting', 'japan tv', 'japanese tv', 'japan radio', 'japanese radio', 'amsterdam news', 'senstock chain', 'senstack chain', altonbladet, 'alton bladet', aftonbladet, 'afton bladet', 'los angeles sentinel', 'l.a. sentinel', 'london daily telegraph', 'london daily express', 'london sun times', 'london suntimes', 'boston globe', bostonglobe, kavalposten, 'french news agency', 'french news agencies', 'frankfurter zeitung', orange, 'orange county', cnty, city, state, register, registry, 'san francisco chronicle', 's.f. chronicle', 'sf chronicle', 'fairchild publications', 'sf examiner', 's.f. examiner', 'san francisco examiner', 'harvard crimson', 'nuevo diario', oregonian, 'net washington', 'village voice', 'san diego tribune', 'san diego trib.', wcbs, 'johnson co. daily news', papert, 'k & l', 'sacramento union', khs-pbl, 'barbara frank', 'barb frank', 'barbara j. frank', 'barb j. frank', 'barbara joyce frank', 'barb joyce frank', 'eli hollander', ucla, 'ucla students', 'the last campaign', 'last campaign', 'rising target', rai, 'italian tv', 'italian t.v.', 'italian television', wolcott, carlson, wilshire, 'century radio network', 'century radio', 'usa radio', 'cnn radio', cnn, kbbi, rtv, 'belgian radio', lausanne, 'canadian broadcasting', death, slaying, slain, funeral, 'funeral train', 'st. patrick's cathedral', 'saint patrick's cathedral', arlington, 'arlington national cemetery', 'arlington national cemetary', 1968, ‘68, 68, 'june 1', 'june 2', 'june 3', 'june 4', 'june 4’5', 'june 5', 'june 6', 'june 7', 'june 8', 'june 9', 'jun 1', 'jun 2', 'jun 3', 'jun 4', 'jun 4-5', 'jun 5', 'jun 6', 'jun 7', 'jun 8', 'jun 9', '1 june', '2 june', '3 june', '4 june', '4-5 june', '5 june', '6 june', '7 june', '8 june', '9 june', '1 jun', '2 jun', '3 jun', '4 jun', '4-5 jun', '5 jun', '6 jun', '7 jun', '8 jun', '9 jun', 6/1/68, 6/2/68, 6/3/68, 6/4/68, 6/4-5/68, 6/5/68, 6/6/68, 6/7/68, 6/8/68, 6/9/68, 6/01/68, 6/02/68, 6/03/68, 6/04/68, 6/04-05/68, 6/05/68, 6/06/68, 6/07/68, 6/08/68, 6/09/68, 06/01/68, 06/02/68, 06/03/68, 06/04/68, 06/04-05/68, 06/05/68, 06/06/68, 06/07/68, 06/08/68, 06/09/68, 6/1/1968, 6/2/1968, 6/3/1968, 6/4/1968, 6/4-5/1968, 6/5/1968, 6/6/1968, 6/7/1968, 6/8/1968, 6/9/1968, 6/01/1968, 6/02/1968, 6/03/1968, 6/04/1968, 6/04-05/1968, 6/05/1968, 6/06/1968, 6/07/1968, 6/08/1968, 6/09/1968, 06/01/1968, 06/02/1968, 06/03/1968, 06/04/1968, 06/04-05/1968, 06/05/1968, 06/06/1968, 06/07/1968, 06/08/1968, 06/09/1968, 1/6/68, 2/6/68, 3/6/68, 4/6/68, 4-5/6/68, 5/6/68, 6/6/68, 7/6/68, 8/6/68, 9/6/68, 01/6/68, 02/6/68, 03/6/68, 04/6/68, 04-05/6/68, 05/6/68, 06/6/68, 07/6/68, 08/6/68, 09/6/68, 01/06/68, 02/06/68, 03/06/68, 04/06/68, 04-05/06/68, 05/06/68, 06/06/68, 07/06/68, 08/06/68, 09/06/68, 1/6/1968, 2/6/1968, 3/6/1968, 4/6/1968, 4-5/6/1968, 5/6/1968, 6/6/1968, 7/6/1968, 8/6/1968, 9/6/1968, 01/6/1968, 02/6/1968, 03/6/1968, 04/6/1968, 04-05/6/1968, 05/6/1968, 06/6/1968, 07/6/1968, 08/6/1968, 09/6/1968, 01/06/1968, 02/06/1968, 03/06/1968, 04/06/1968, 04-05/06/1968, 05/06/1968, 06/06/1968, 07/06/1968, 08/06/1968, 09/06/1968, 6-1-68, 6-2-68, 6-3-68, 6-4-68, 6-5-68, 6-6-68, 6-7-68, 6-8-68, 6-9-68, 6-01-68, 6-02-68, 6-03-68, 6-04-68, 6-05-68, 6-06-68, 6-07-68, 6-08-68, 6-09-68, 06-01-68, 06-02-68, 06-03-68, 06-04-68, 06-05-68, 06-06-68, 06-07-68, 06-08-68, 06-09-68, 6-1-1968, 6-2-1968, 6-3-1968, 6-4-1968, 6-5-1968, 6-6-1968, 6-7-1968, 6-8-1968, 6-9-1968, 6-01-1968, 6-02-1968, 6-03-1968, 6-04-1968, 6-05-1968, 6-06-1968, 6-07-1968, 6-08-1968, 6-09-1968, 06-01-1968, 06-02-1968, 06-03-1968, 06-04-1968, 06-05-1968, 06-06-1968, 06-07-1968, 06-08-1968, 06-09-1968, 1-6-68, 2-6-68, 3-6-68, 4-6-68, 5-6-68, 6-6-68, 7-6-68, 8-6-68, 9-6-68, 01-6-68, 02-6-68, 03-6-68, 04-6-68, 05-6-68, 06-6-68, 07-6-68, 08-6-68, 09-6-68, 01-06-68, 02-06-68, 03-06-68, 04-06-68, 05-06-68, 06-06-68, 07-06-68, 08-06-68, 09-06-68, 1-6-1968, 2-6-1968, 3-6-1968, 4-6-1968, 5-6-1968, 6-6-1968, 7-6-1968, 8-6-1968, 9-6-1968, 01-6-1968, 02-6-1968, 03-6-1968, 04-6-1968, 05-6-1968, 06-6-1968, 07-6-1968, 08-6-1968, 09-6-1968, 01-06-1968, 02-06-1968, 03-06-1968, 04-06-1968, 05-06-1968, 06-06-1968, 07-06-1968, 08-06-1968, 09-06-1968, 1963, '63, 68, 11-22-63, 22-11-63, 11-22-1963, 22-11-1963, november 22, nov. 22, nov 22, 22 november, 22 nov., 22 nov, 4-4-68, 4-4-1968, april 4, apr. 4, apr 4, 4 april, 4 apr., 4 apr, martin, martin luther king, martin king, king, martin l. king, m.l. king, mlk, m.l.k., ml king, memphis, moses, armstrong, bruce, abramson, piers, anderton, army, armey, archer, 'john t.', allen, ‘ruth ashton’, ‘ruth ashton taylor’, richard, dick, rich, richie, richy, rick, rickie, ricky, bergholtz, tom, thomas, brinkley, ‘david brinkley’, brokaw, charles, charlie, chuck, bailey, lester, les, bernstein, ‘chuck bowman’, ‘mike boyd’, james, jimmy, jim, breslin, ronald, ron, 'ronald t.', bennett, jeff, 'jeff a.', jeffrey, 'jeffrey a.', brent, brant, 'jeff brent', 'jeff brant', brown, steve, bell, dan, daniel, blackburn, jerry, 'jerry e.', gerald, costigan, ernest, 'ernest m.', ernie, crowley, alastair, alistair, ‘lew allison’, ‘lew alison’, ‘lou allison’, ‘lou alison’, ‘stan chambers’, cook, cooke, inger, 'inger stevens', 'inger stephens', stevens, stephens, robert, 'robert e.', bob, clark, clarke, theodore, ted, teddy, anthony, tony, clifton, coffee, rosie rosey rosemary clooney, maria ferrer, miguel ferrer, jeremy, campbell, cronkite, richard edward, 'richard e.', claud claude w. dudley, drew, davis, ‘david dick’, walter, walt, wally, dombrow, dumbrow, terry, terrence, terrance, drinkwater, dick drens, joe, joseph, joey, dyer, 'james k.', dubois, patty, paty, patti, pati, patrictia, desautels, 'john j.', doohan, william, willie, willy, will, bill, billy, billie, deimer, diemer, matt, matthew, douglas, eppridge, ralph, elmore, george, ‘carl george’, ‘karl george’, fulton, karl, flemming, 'james r.', forbes, fontonini, fontainini, fontanini, sal, salvatore, folino, farmer, franklin, harold, filan, wallace, fong, milt, milton, fries, freis, 'evan p.', freed, fried, freid, hays, gory, gorey, germond, germonde, ginny, virginia, guy, goldberg, robert goodman, pearly goodman, gabrielson, 'richard e.', gaither, gaithier, grosh, ira, hart, jon, jonathan, paul, huston, michael mike harris, harwood, 'harold e.', hughes, john herbers, bill billy billie will willie willy william herford, paul hope, harold e. hughes, 'robert l.', healy, 'paul b.', hope, peter, pete, hamill, august, auggie, hatula, hill, dana r. houdyshell, paul houston, chet, huntley, ‘chet huntley’, ray, johnson, james b. jones, david, dave, jayne, jane, larry, lawrence, laurence, jackson, max, martin, marty, kasindorf, phil, kerbe, leo, katcher, david hume, kennerly, kennerley, iqbal, khalid, lavern, komsak, art, arthur, kevin, sy, korman, korran, koran, henry, hank, kokojan, ‘bill lawrence’, ‘bill laurence’, lawrence, laurence, lynn, lyn, darrel, darrell, lembke, leo, leider, lieder, jim jimmy jimmie james lewis, littlewood, gregory, greg, labrache, lord, constance, connie, conny, lawn, hugh macdonald mcdonald, art arthur maddox, jess, jesse, marlow, marlowe, marshall, marshal, lockman, frank, morgan, sandra, meffetal, mettetal, morris, marsilio, mccarthy, miller, ross miller, ‘roger mudd’, david dave murray, monarch, menteer, malmin, grady, tom thomas tomas tommy tommie ottenad, jon john b. ortega, ‘jack perkins’, pilger, profuno, profumo, pearl, margaret, marge, maggie, patten, patton, edwin, ed, 'edwin lee', payne, fred, frederick, frederic, parsons, page, stas, stash, stanislaw, stan, stanley, pruszynski, pruszynsky, prushinski, prushinsky, prushynsky, prushynski, pruzinski, pruzinsky, pruzynski, pruzynsky, ‘charles quinn’, lisa ratner, sam sammy samuel ries reis, rosengarten, warren, rogers, rodgers, timothy, tim, timmie, timmy, 'timothy p.', robert bobby bobbie bob rose, 'robert l.', stout, ‘larry scheer’, ‘larry sheer’, scheerer, sheerer, sherrer, scherrer, shultz, schultz, don, donald, schulman, shulman, showman, bud budd schulberg, Geraldine schulberg, shulberg, sheagy, shealy, schumocker, schumacker, schumacher, shumocker, shumacker, shumacher, schermerhorn, schererhorn, lilian simmang, simang, smith, ‘howard k. smith’, smyth, smythe, gay, scott, scot, stadler, 'robert r.', stone, joseph, josef, 'st. amant', 'saint amant', swearington, margarette margarete sweeney sweeny, george, sozio, gibson, bob thomas, theis, ‘richard threlkeld’, tretick, tretik, 'robert j.', 'james h.', vrieling, 'john p.', viazanko, viasanko, sander, sandy, vanocur, phillippe, 'phillippe t.', phil, 'phil t.', watson, wrightson, juels, witcober, jules, witcover, wallace turner, judy vinal, warren, weaver, 'james p.', watts, sylvia, syl, wright, andrew, andy, west, laurie werris, 'james s.', wilson, julian, wasser, wasserman, whitt, whit, 'william h.', wilde, boris, yaro, 'california presidential primary election', 'california presidential primary', 'california primary', california, calif, ca, pres, primary, election, elec, elex, us, u.s., 'united states', 'united states of america', usa, u.s.a., hubert, 'hubert h.', 'hubert h. humphrey', 'hubert humphrey', hhh, h.h.h., 'h.h. humphrey', 'h. humphrey', 'h humphrey', 'hh humphrey', 'hubert horatio', horatio, eugene, 'eugene j.', 'eugene j. mccarthy', 'eugene joseph', 'gene joseph', gene, 'gene j.', 'gene j. mccarthy', 'eugene mccarthy', 'gene mccarthy', mccarthy, 'e.j. mccarthy', 'ej mccarthy', 'e. mccarthy', 'e mccarthy', 'g mccarthy', 'gj mccarthy', 'g. mccarthy', 'g.j. mccarthy', ejm, e.j.m., gjm, g.j.m., live, coverage, 'live coverage', 'live news coverage', 'news coverage', 'live news', 'live report', 'live reports', bulletin, bulletins, flash, flashes, 'lee oswald', 'lee harvey oswald', 'lee h. oswald', 'l.h. oswald', 'lh oswald', 'l oswald', 'l. oswald', 'harvey oswald', oswald, 'lee h oswald', 'james earl ray', 'james ray', 'earl ray', 'j. earl ray', 'james e. ray', 'je ray', 'j.e. ray', 'james e ray', 'j earl ray' rifle, manlicher, mannlicher, manlicker, mannlicker, carcano, '22 caliber', '22 calibre', .22, 22, 'iver johnson', iver-johnson, cadet, 'cadet model', 'ambassador hotel', ambassador, hotel, embassy, 'embassy room', 'embassy room ballroom', ballroom, kitchen, kitchen pantry, pantry, 'ambassador room', 'ambassador room ballroom' stairs, stairway, 'stairway in the back', 'back stairs', 'back stairway', 'we shot him', 'we killed him', 'we shot kennedy', 'we killed kennedy', 'funny nose', 'with polka dots', 'with polka-dots', 'ebay', 'e-bay', 'e.bay', 'anthony hopkins', 'demi moore', 'sharon stone', 'lindsay lohan', 'elijah wood', 'william h. macy', 'helen hunt', 'christian slater', 'laurence fishburne', 'freddy rodriguez', 'nick cannon', 'emilio estevez', 'shia labeouf', 'brian geraghty', 'joshua jackson', 'ashton kutcher', 'james marsden', 'martin sheen', 'joy bryant', 'mary elizabeth winstead', 'david kobzantsev', 'kip pardue', 'heather graham', 'svetlana metkina', 'harry belafonte', 'jacob vargas', 'mark valley', 'spencer garrett', 9/11, 9-11, 9/11/01, 9-11-01, 9/11/2001, 9-11-2001, ‘september 11’, ‘sept. 11’, attack, attacks, ‘world trade center’, pentagon, ‘new york’, ‘new york city’, nyc, washington, ‘washington d.c.’, ‘washington dc’, pennsylvania, 12/7, 12-7, 12/7/41, 12-7-41, 12/07/41, 12-07-41, ‘december 7’, ‘dec. 7’, ‘pearl harbor’, hawaii, infamy, ‘super bowl’, ‘world series’, ‘stanley cup’, championship, olympics, olympic, game, games, opera, classic, classics, classical, mozart, beethoven, bach, music, collection, trade, swap, buy, sell, purchase, lease, auction, bid, dub, transfer, patch, cord, professional, amateur, recreational, splice, wired, hardwired, hard-wired, elections, ctv, wor, u.c.l.a., u.c., u.s.c., uc, usc, e.d. hill, ann coulter, kiran chetry, lauren green, harris faulkner, julie banderas, juliet huddy, catherine herridge, page hopkins, linda vester, lis wiehl, alisyn camerota, dari alexander, dagen mcdowell, greta van susteren, laurie dhue, jane skinner, claudia cowan, anita vogel, caroline shively, jennifer griffin, carol mckinley, brenda buttner, angela mcglowan, martha maccallum, brigitte quinn, patti ann browne, alicia acuna, amy kellogg, rebecca gomez, julie kirtz, terry keenan, molly henneberg, michelle malkin, brooke alexander, uma pemmaraju, molly line, meredith whitney, megyn kendall, malini bawa, rachel amatt, rudi bakhtiar, jamie colby, donna fiducia, lisa bernhard, courtney kealy, janice dean, reena ninan, gretchen carlson, kim mcintyre, rebecca santana, kimberly guilfoyle, peggy kuo, sarah hughes, carol iovanna, georgia witkin, cheryl nelson, fawn boyd-vigil, kristen sullivan, marianne silber, arthel neville, ursula errington, heather nauert, jennifer eccleston ecclestein, carol lin, daryn kagan, kagen, soledad o'brien, solidad o'brien, miles o'brien, wolf blitzer, paula zahn, anderson cooper, larry king, christianne christiane amanpour, katie couric, diane sawyer, natalie morales, chris jansing, alex witt whitt, nora norah o'donnell, monica crowley, chris matthews, tim russert, russertt, kieth keith olbermann olberman oberman obermann, john siegenthaler sieganthaler seigenthaler seiganthaler, rush limbaugh, bill o’reilly, sean hannity, tony snow, george w. bush, dick cheney, don donald rumsfeld, condoleezza condi rice, ?, !, @, #, $, %, ^, &, *, (, ), -, _, +, =, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w, x, y, z, ;, :, ‘, “, ,, <, ., >, ?, /, [, ], {, }, \, |, `, ~, mel ayton, steve barber, james barger, charles roman, michael roman, gordon campbell, david morales, george joannides, daryle daryl gates lyn lynn compton buck compton brad johnson, brad k. johnson, bkj, bkj333@aol.com, bkj333@bellsouth.com, bradley keith johnson, phil van praag, philip, spence whitehead, vince bugliosi, vincent bugliosi, robert vaughn, marlon brando, jesse unruh, jess unruh, rosey grier, rosey greer, rosie grier, rosie greer, rafer johnson, karl uecker, carl uecker, jerry owen, oliver brindley owen, walking bible, granja vista del rio ranch, wild bill’s stables, santa ana, st. moritz hotel, hollywood, coliseum hotel, beverly hilton hotel, oxnard, slapsie maxie rosenbloom, diary, rfk must die, r.f.k. must die, dewayne wolfer, thomas noguchi, thomas k. noguchi, tom noguchi, robert rozzi, charles wright, al grenier, william bailey, william bryan, bill bryan, william j. bryan, bryan junior, bryan jr., di salvo, boston strangler, paul le mat, joseph gellman, lorraine y.s. cradock, y. s. cradock, jocelyn brando, robert j. joling, robert joling, bob joling, allard k. lowenstein, allard lowenstein, al lowenstein, dianne hull among free men there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost my thanks to all of you and now it’s on to chicago and let’s win there thank you very much senator robert francis kennedy died at 1:44 am a.m. today june 6 june sixth 1968 nineteen sixty-eight jefferson airplane jefferson starship grace slick darby marty balin monterey international pop festival lsd bolero alice in wonderland through the looking glass john fahey jim morrison janis joplin jimi hendrix haight-ashbury matrix bible code revelation revelations ezekiel israel hezbollah lebanon syria assad haifa beirut jerusalem tel aviv damascus kiryat shmona egypt cairo jordan amman iraq baghdad iran tehran teheran hassan nasrallah afghanistan kabul taliban taleban pakistan islamabad osama bin laden usama ayman al-zawahri zawahiri abu musab al-zarqawi time travel albert einstein theory of relativity alfred fisher mary grohs kristi kristie kristy christi christie christy witker witkin wittaker whittaker wittacker whittacker ed edwin newman neuman dave david burrington burington berington berrington ginny virginia grey assignation asignation scot scott ellsworth elsworth jeff a. jeffrey jeffery brent brant warren wilson steve steven stephen bell andy andrew george west john marshal marshall art arthur kevin keven ray williams phil philip philippe watson watsen watsin watsun, The Forgotten Terrorist: Sirhan Sirhan and the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, milt gwirtzman

Click here, too

Who is this man?

Was he an American reporter or perhaps a member of the foreign press?

How about this guy?

Was he domestic

or foreign?

Perhaps a

radio or

print reporter?

Click here to see other journalists we're also trying to identify

Click here to see a list of the audio & visual material we seek

(please read below)

The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: The Acoustics Evidence

By Steve Barber

Mr. Barber’s work was seminal in proving that the dictabelt recorded by the Dallas Police Department that allegedly contains sounds of the shots in the JFK assassination was actually recorded elsewhere. He worked directly with a panel of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics (CBA), which included two Nobel prize-winning physicists, Norman F. Ramsey, chairman of the committee, and the late Luis Alvarez, who were hired by the Justice Department to reexamine earlier findings of the acoustics experts hired by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, who had concluded that the dictabelt contained the gunshots that killed President Kennedy. Most recently, Barber assisted several members of the CBA panel who regrouped for the purpose of examining a 2001 acoustics paper by Donald Thomas, published in the journal ‘Science and Justice’ (2001:41 p21-32). Thomas criticized the CBA's findings.

Some years following the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel on the night of June 4/5 1968 critics of the official version of the assassination said there were audio recordings of more than 8 shots fired when RFK was shot. Such conclusions, if correct, would have established that more than one gunman had been firing because the assassin’s gun could not hold more than 8 bullets. These claims of extra shots fired originated from television recording equipment located in the rear of the Embassy Ballroom of the Ambassador Hotel, the scene of Robert Kennedy’s California Primary election victory speech.

In his important book about the RFK assassination, The Killing Of Robert F. Kennedy (1995), veteran crime reporter Dan Moldea identified ABC News as the only television network broadcasting when the shooting began. Both Andrew West of Mutual Broadcasting and Jeff Brent of Continental Broadcasting were also recording but switched on their microphones after the shooting began.

Moldea wrote, “In November and December 1982, these three audio sound recordings were subjected to scientific, but controversial, acoustical analysis, in an attempt to determine if a distinctive gunshot ‘audio signature’ can be identified and the number of gunshots counted. According to Dr Michael H.L. Hecker – an electrical engineer with the Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, California – who conducted the tests, ‘On the basis of auditory, oscillographic and spectrographic analyses of these three recordings, it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that no fewer than 10 gunshots are ascertainable following the conclusion of the Senator’s victory speech until after the time Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was disarmed.’ ”

In the 1980s I was given an opportunity to examine an audio copy of the ABC tape. A writer by the name of Robert Cutler had sent me the tape and I was asked to determine if any shots were audible. At that time I believe I was told I might hear balloons popping, and not to confuse this with gunshots. After examining the tape I wrote Cutler back and told him that I couldn’t hear anything except what could possibly be balloons being popped and that I could hear where the recorder was turned off and then back on in spots, but that I couldn’t determine whether or not with certainty that there were gunshots.

In 2006, British author Mel Ayton, who has written books on the JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. assassinations, sent me an audio tape recording of live broadcasts made at the Los Angeles Ambassador Hotel which had been compiled by JFK researcher and author Larry Sneed. The tape is a collection of the live news broadcasts on the night RFK was shot; none of the recordings were made in the pantry. Part of the compilation contains the broadcast made by ABC News, which was stationed in the Embassy Ballroom. After making a more thorough examination of the ABC tape I concluded that the recording was obviously made AFTER the shooting. The vocal contents of the pandemonium going on during the segment of the tape proves this. The screaming and shouting of people are those of panic stricken individuals who were reacting to the apparent gunshots. The sounds that I heard which suggested gunfire were nothing more than the sounds of the microphones held by the person recording the pandemonium, bumping either into things with it, or fumbling around with it, or something of that nature. They do not resemble gunfire at all. I concluded that the ABC tape was absolutely worthless.

In order to carry out further research on these recordings Mel Ayton asked if I would work with Michael O’Dell who also had experience in acoustics research. I first became acquainted with O'Dell in 2001. O’Dell was a technical analyst who, from 2001 through 2005, worked with a committee of leading scientists when it reexamined the acoustics evidence in the JFK assassination. The committee included Norman F. Ramsey of the original CBA committee that I had worked with, during the period 1980-1982. O’Dell stated, “…I don’t believe any shots were captured on the ABC tape.... I think (the ABC tape) is worthless....”

In early 2006 Ayton, who had been writing a book on the controversy over the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, discovered from one of his sources in the United States that there was a tape recording located at the California State Archives (CSA) that supposedly captured the actual gunshots as they were fired at Kennedy and that the recording was the only one in existence that captured the shooting from beginning to end. The recording was made by a freelance reporter, Stanislaw Pruszynski, on the night of June 4th 1968. Pruszynski told the Los Angeles Police Department his cassette recorder was running all through the shooting.

The CSA records describe the tape as : “Pruszynski, Stus - At Ambassador Hotel on June 4th; tape is his recording of events at the hotel. Includes end of RFK’s speech, possible shots being fired, post-shooting hysteria in kitchen, and interviews with a man who claims Sirhan was not alone. Pruszynski narrates what he is seeing.” The tape was eventually lodged with the California State Archives. (The tape is mentioned in the California State Archives lists of the Investigation Records Audio Tapes, Appendix E.CSA-K123 I-4837 June 4-5 1968.)

Mel Ayton asked me if I had knowledge of the tape recording and I replied in the negative. My initial reaction was that the “Pruszynski Tape” was probably not going to reveal anything more than the CBS and ABC tapes, which as stated before, revealed nothing but a lot of crowd noise, and what sounded like microphones banging into objects, and/or balloons popping here and there.

Ayton asked the California State Archives to send me a copy of the tape recording. Later he was able to obtain a digitized copy of the recording and it was mailed to me. As I was working on the CSA Pruszynski audio cassette tape and the Pruszynski Tape digitized version, Moldea told Ayton that he had earlier been approached by a CNN journalist, Brad Johnson, who had told Moldea about the Pruszynski Tape.

Among his hundreds of interviews about this case, Moldea had spent fourteen hours with Sirhan Sirhan and believed that the convicted assassin had murdered Senator Kennedy and acted alone. Despite Johnson’s enthusiasm for this new discovery, Moldea was skeptical, insisting that only eight shots had been fired and that Sirhan had fired all of them.

During the Spring of 2006, I worked on the Pruszynski Tape with the assistance of Dr. Chad Zimmerman, a researcher who had some experience in examining the scientific aspects of the JFK assassination, and Michael O’Dell. After months spent examining the tape I concluded that I could not be certain that I hear more than seven shots. I heard what might have been the eighth shot, but couldn’t be absolutely certain at that point. The sound that may be the eighth shot appears just a millisecond before the sound of a very high pitched scream made by a female in or near the pantry.

Michael O’Dell was in agreement with my findings but stated, “I still have a lot of uncertainty about how many shots are clearly identifiable on the Pruszynski Tape. Right now I’m willing to identify six for certain. But of course the real question is whether there is solid evidence for more than eight. I certainly don’t see how anyone can use it to claim more than eight and that’s the main point.”

Chad Zimmerman examined the tape using computer software. Zimmerman stated, “I ran the audio through an analysis program, which provided [an] audio analysis. I took two different graphs and split them apart, enhanced the second to a different color then overlayed them with 50% opacity.

You can see eight spikes that correlate to the audio gunshots. The last occurs just before the scream. However, I don’t think one can necessarily say that more shots couldn’t have existed after that point, but that they would have been drowned out by the scream. However, in my opinion, there are only eight, .22 caliber gunshots heard on that tape. Now, preceding these eight, I hear one deeper audible ‘pop’ just prior to the eight shots in rapid succession. However, this is a bit longer and deeper, which sounds more like a balloon pop than a gunshot….My only real contribution here is the spectrographic run that I did, which showed 8 spikes. [My conclusion is] 8 or fewer shots are heard and none would be a .38.” With regard to the possibility that RFK could have been shot by security guard Thane Cesar, who carried a .38 caliber pistol, Zimmerman said, “…there certainly isn’t a .38 shot on [the] tape.” Both Chad Zimmerman and I also agree that the conspiracy writers’ No. 1 suspect as the ‘second gunman,’ Thane Cesar, could not possibly have fired his .38 revolver. (Moldea, who had also interviewed Cesar dozens of times, had concluded in his book that Cesar, who passed a lie-detector test that Moldea had arranged, was an innocent man who had been wrongly accused.)

There are three sounds which take place approximately 1 second before the string of shots fired from Sirhan’s weapon. Chad Zimmerman and myself identified one of them as a “deeper toned pop,” meaning that it doesn’t have the same popping sound as the string of 7 or 8 shots fired from Sirhan’s weapon. The sound which precedes the “deeper toned pop” is very difficult to reach a conclusion as to what, exactly, it is. I believe that the two sounds are connected to each other, physically, but that neither of them are gunshot sounds.

Brad Johnson’s chronology of events of the Pruszynski tape, refers to one of these sounds as a “mysterious thump.’’ I will refer to the Johnson “mysterious thump” as sound #1, and the “deeper toned pop” as sound #3. I do not know which of the two sounds he considers the “mysterious thump,” but will assume that it is sound # 1. There is also a peculiar sound that occurs between sounds 1 and 3, which I refer to as “sound #2.”

Sound #1 bears the resemblance of a microphone bumping into something solid, producing a tone that resonates briefly. There is the sound of an audible bassy-type “click," when the digital version of the Pruszynski recording is played. One can actually feel a “thump” emanating from the speakers. I noticed that the “thump” is not as pronounced on the cassette copy.

Sound # 2 is a sound akin to someone running their finger up the lowest (or thickest) of the guitar strings on a guitar, which makes a sound such as “zzzziiip." Simultaneous with the “zzziiip" sound, a female voice can be heard saying something indecipherable, that rhymes with the word “Tuesday." These sounds are joined together, and one is left with the impression that the sound may be an appliance in the pantry turning on. There was a very large ice machine in the area where the shooting took place, which Sirhan was hiding behind, before he began shooting. It could have been an exhaust fan, or ventilator turning on.

Sound # 3. This section of the recording peaked my interest, because I am reasonably certain that some will try to claim that sound #3 could be gunfire from a different weapon and not fired by Sirhan.

Soon after I began studying the Pruszynski tape, I decided that I would be able to obtain more accurate results using my computer. I transferred the tape onto my computer hard drive, and used a tool on my computer which allows me to slow down a recording to a crawl without changing the pitch of the of the recording. When I slowed sound #3 I noticed that it didn’t make a singular sound, rather, it contained a double sound giving the impression that it contained echo. When played at true speed, however, the double sound cannot be detected by the human ear. None of the shots fired from Sirhan’s gun produced an echo-type sound, nor did the voices of the people in the pantry who were shouting. I can’t rule out echo altogether, but, it seems odd that this sound alone produced a double sound that can only be detected when the recording is slowed, but none of the voices or string of shots produced an echo.

My first instinct was that since there were two swinging doors that led to the kitchen where Senator Kennedy was shot, it is possible that sound #3 is one of the two doors being pushed open and banging into the wall. Sometimes, when someone is pushing a door open, they keep their hand on the door all the while pushing on it while it hit’s the wall. Once it hit’s the wall, and with the hand still pushing on the door, the door bounces off the surface of the wall, then back again, causing a second “thump’’ when it hits the wall a second time. This is something that can easily be demonstrated. The sound does not sound like a gunshot to me.

I would like to add that, after listening to the sounds very carefully, it is my conclusion that these sounds are not in the same location as Sirhan, who fired the 7or 8 gunshots. They seem to have slightly less volume than the string of 7 or 8 gunshots heard on the tape. This, to me, lends more support to the conclusion that if a .38 caliber weapon was fired from within the same location as Sirhan, the sound of the shot would be much louder since it was suggested it was a .38 caliber weapon, which would create a higher level of sound, than that of a .22 caliber.

Furthermore while listening to a gentleman talking with Pruszynski, he actually stated that the shots ‘weren't very loud,’ and he thought the sounds were a 'Chinese type of fireworks.' This, to me, certainly adds to the fact that no .38 caliber weapon was fired.

Whatever sound numbers 1 and 2 are, they do not bear any resemblance to a .38 caliber hand gun.

In 2006, Mel Ayton asked a British acoustics firm, JP French Associates, to examine the Pruszynski Tape. Using state-of-the-art acoustics computer-based technology Philip Harrison, a JP French Associates acoustics expert, who was given the task of examining the tape, wrote a report for Ayton (appended to his book The Forgotten Terrorist). I worked closely with Philip Harrison and forwarded to him my analysis of the tape. Harrison looked at what information I had discovered and listened to those things I pointed out, before compiling his own analysis. Harrison’s report decisively concluded that only eight shots were fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. Harrison’s findings were examined and verified by Professor Peter French, visiting professor at the University of York. Professor French is an expert in the analysis of digital and magnetic recordings.

The "High Pitched Scream”

Within a millisecond of what appears to be the final gunshot, there is a high-pitched female scream coming from within, or near the pantry.

After the blood curdling scream “AHHHHH!” the woman continues, saying, “I think my husband's been shot!” I believe that this may have been Ethel Kennedy, the Senator’s wife, who was not in the room when the shooting occurred. As the crowd reacts to the shooting, the woman is screaming "Back…No! “Get back...get back!’ These are the last words picked up by Pruszynski’s microphone of the woman at this point, probably due to her rushing to aid her husband.

We do not know where Pruszynski was located when he captured the shooting. If the woman is Mrs. Kennedy, I believe that she holds the key as to just where Pruszynski was standing with his recorder In order for her voice to be so distorted, she had to be standing within inches of the microphone.

Interestingly, immediately after the woman whom I believe to be Mrs. Kennedy, screams, “AHHHHHH! I think my husband's been shot!“ a distinct male voice utters the word “How?” I determined the voice to be that of Mr. Pruszynski by comparing this voice with Pruszynski's as he is interviewing witnesses about 20-25 minutes after the shooting on the tape.

ALLEGATIONS OF EXTRA SHOTS FOUND ON THE PRUSYNSKI TAPE.

In correspondence with Dan Moldea and me, CNN reporter Brad Johnson alleged that the Pruszynski Tape contains evidence of more than eight shots fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel.

Working with Philip Harrison, we had an opportunity to respond to the claims made by Johnson.

The CNN journalist had told Moldea in 2005, “After having listened to this recording many times over a number of months, I believe that I am hearing 10 shots as follows: 2 shots fired in quick succession and then a string of 8 shots fired in quick succession. An acoustics expert here in Atlanta has just issued a confidential report on this recording that concludes there are 9 high-probability gunshots captured in this tape (one less than what I believe I'm hearing, but one more than Sirhan Sirhan could have fired).”

Brad Johnson and his purported acoustics expert had matched the Pruszynski Tape to some CBS footage and counted 11 shots. Johnson provided Moldea a timeline in which he stated:

12:16:00.5 am PDT - The first shot or shots are fired in the kitchen pantry (to my hearing, there are two shots being fired in quick succession at this time but presently an examination of my acoustics expert can confirm the high probability of only one shot).

12:16:01.0 am PDT - A mysterious "thump" sound is heard but at this point in my research it appears unlikely this sound was a gunshot.

12:16:04.0 am PDT - By this time, a string of eight additional shots have been fired (all eight are high probability shots according to my acoustics expert). Our count of high-probability gunshots is now 9.

12:16:05.0 am PDT - A long, very high-pitched female scream is heard in the kitchen pantry.

12:16:18.5 am PDT - Andy West turns his tape recorder back on, upon entering the kitchen pantry (his recorder has been off for the past 66.5 seconds).

12:16:55.0 am PDT - Two more high probability shots are fired as a struggle with Sirhan Sirhan continues for his handgun (since Sirhan emptied his weapon, these could have been the last two bullets discharged as a result of the struggle). Our count of high-probability gunshots is now 11.

12:17:41.0 am PDT - Andy West shouts into his microphone, "Ladies and gentlemen, they have the gun away from the man.”

Harrison responded to the timeline by stating:

According to the timeline created by [Brad Johnson] there is a period of 50 seconds between the ‘long, very high-pitched female scream’ and the ‘two more high probability shots … fired as a struggle with Sirhan Sirhan continues’. If his timings are correct then these events have not been captured on the Pruszynski recording. In terms of elapsed time the corresponding point on the Pruszynski recording is approximately 14 seconds into the interview with the man where ‘negroes’ are discussed. However, if [is] timings are wrong and the events he is referring to are those identified by Steve [Barber] that occur at 6:00 and 6:01 on the CD then I cannot agree that they are gun shots. Firstly, the two sounds have very different auditory qualities. The first sound gives the impression that it occurred quite close to the microphone and could be described as a ‘light tap’, whilst the source of the second sound appears to have been further away. Neither of the two sounds shows any significant auditory or spectrographic similarity to either the 7 identified shots or the unknown sounds preceding them. Spectrographic analysis of the second sound at approximately 6:01 shows a clear ‘double impulse’ structure. The two impulses are about 20 milliseconds apart. This configuration is not found in the earlier section of the recording where the shots occur. As stated before it is not possible to accurately identify what these two sounds are but there is no evidence within the recording to support the claim that they are both shots.

My findings are in agreement with Harrison’s. In examining Johnson’s claims I looked at the CBS news coverage and I was able to synchronize the film footage with audio to the Pruszynski tape, of the moment in question after the shooting. I concluded with 100% certainty that there are NO extra gunshots on the Pruszynski recording. They do not appear on the CBS footage, which is being shot just inches from where Senator Kennedy is lying on the floor, which would put the cameraman within only feet from where Sirhan would have been apprehended. I timed the section at the beginning of the Pruszynski Tape, and it adds up to approximately 16 seconds. This is the section during the wrestling with Sirhan, where you can hear a man yelling, ‘Break his hand...break his hand’ and scuffling in the background. Within this 16 seconds of audio, I hear nothing resembling gunfire.

This new acoustics evidence in the RFK case suggests to a high degree of probability that on the night of June 4/5 1968 in the Ambassador Hotel pantry there were no other gunmen who fired shots at Senator Kennedy. Furthermore, this evidence negates to a high degree of probability the allegations by conspiracy advocates that extra bullets were either discovered or retrieved from the pantry’s swinging doors.

RFK acoustic evidence (#108311)

by Leonard Robinson on April 4, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Bravo! I've always considered the argument that acoustic evidence proved there was a second gunman in the pantry to be ridiculous. Most people without access to the audio tape you analyzed have latched on to the ABC video as proof of more than 8 shots, but as you state, it is clear even from a cursory glace and listen that the ABC broadcast proved nothing of the kind. I remember Howard K. Smith asking one of ABC's reporters in LA (perhaps Bob Clark or Carl George?) why the gunshots were stretched out over a full minute, and the reporter responded that he had no explanation for what the ABC tape seemed to indicate, because having been close the scene at the time of the shooting, he (the reporter) knew that the shots had all been squeezed off within a short period of time. It always struck me that the sounds that Howard K. Smith identifed as being shots were really ABC's microphones banging around or balloons popping. Again, job well done.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK acoustic evidence (#108435)

by Jim Moore on April 8, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Excuse me, but I believe the following items in Steve Barber's article more than indicated that two shots COULD have been fired a minute after the initial shots went off:

12:17:41.0 am PDT - Andy West shouts into his microphone, "Ladies and gentlemen, they have the gun away from the man.”

Obviously, the above indicates Sirhan still had the weapon in his hand a full minute after the initial shots were fired (and may have still had the weapon in hand for another 46 seconds beyond that until it was finally taken away from him). While that alone does not prove the two sounds heard a minute later were shots, it does show that we can't discount the possibility of shots occurring that late in the game. Just my 2 cents.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK acoustic evidence (#108439)

by Leonard Robinson on April 9, 2007 at 1:48 AM

I respect your opinion, however, although it is THEORETICALLY possible that two shots could have been fired a minute after the first shot, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. Not just from the aforementioned tape, but from eyewitnesses on the scene. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a single witness who has claimed that a full minute passed from the first shot to the last shot. In fact, every witness I've seen interviewed (I own DVDs of the live coverage by CBS, NBC and ABC from that night, as well as other DVDs and tapes in which witnesses are interviewed) has indicated that the shots came rapidly--two shots, then a brief break, then more in rapid succession. Moreover, no witness ever says that there was anything close to 10 or 11 shots--most witnesses when interviewed that night estimated that between 4-6 shots were fired. I only know of one witness who even estimated it as high as 8 shots: Kristy Witner (not sure of the spelling), who worked for American Heritage at the time.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK acoustic evidence (#108449)

by Jim Moore on April 9, 2007 at 12:43 PM

Well, I don't know whether or not there's an overwhelming prepoderance of evidence against two shots being fired during the struggle a minute after the initial shots. I respect the fact that you feel there is. I'm just not as sure of that. Witnesses are very unreliable and it's got to be difficult in a situation like a shooting to accurately count the number of shots anyway. If such a situation suddenly erupted while you were there, do you really believe you would be able to give an accurate count of shots past a certain point? I don't think very many people would be able to do that. But let's get off that and turn to some other things I'm troubled by in Mr. Barber's article. This quote, for example, from one of these experts he mentions: "However, I don’t think one can necessarily say that more shots couldn’t have existed after that point, but that they would have been drowned out by the scream. However, in my opinion, there are only eight, .22 caliber gunshots heard on that tape." In reading that, it certainly seems obvious to me that there is considerably less than an overwhelming prepoderance of evidence - and I hope you don't mind my borrowing your words for a moment; I don't mean to be cute, just making a point - that no more than eight shots were fired at the hotel. I don't see how anyone can hang their hat on this analysis when the expert makes such a statement as that. Furthermore, these experts cited in Mr. Barber's article seem to go through all of this scientific state-of-the-art stuff to examine this recording only to reach their final (or apparently not-so-final) conclusions based on what they are "hearing." I don't understand the point of going through all of this expensive analysis and showing a bunch of graphs if all you're going to end up doing is draw your conclusions based on what your ear is hearing (if I'm not mistaken, a truly scientific conclusion here would not be based upon what one's ears are picking up). I feel like these experts are holding something back or not all of their analysis is being reported. Well, I've said my peace. I don't want to get into a long rambling debate about this. You see it your way and I see it my way. Just thought I'd offer a couple more of my cents for what they're worth. Best regards, Jim.

RFK Acoustic Evidence (#108465)

by Steve Neil Barber on April 9, 2007 at 4:11 PM

Dear Mr. Moore, and Mr. Robinson

Thank you both for your comments on my article.

The gunshots are very, very audible.

They are not being drowned out by crowd noise, or distortion. They are very rapidly fired, evenly spaced, except for the tiny gap between the last shot and the high pitched scream.

I might add that the scream is **not** blocking out the sound of a gunshot, if one had occurred at that point. Clearly, people can be heard talking and hollering during the scream, so, had a gunshot been fired at the same time as the scream, A) I would have detected it with my hearing and B) The spike would appear on the graph.

All in all, there is absolutely no evidence of more than 8 shots having been fired at Robert Kennedy, according to this tape recording, and all appear to have come from the same weapon as they all bear the same sound.

Comparing and synchronizing the Pruszynski recording with the CBS footage I mentioned does *not* reveal gunshot sounds of any nature within the moments following the string of 6-8 shots fired.

Pruszynski never shut his recorder off, except for one time, immediately following the speech, where all other major news network reporters did. Comparison of the Pruszynski recording and the CBS footage--alone--disproves any claim that gunshots were picked up by Pruszynski's recorder, by synchronizing the two recordings.

Mr. Moore, I can assure you that no one is holding back anything pertaining to the results shown on the graphs.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Kind Regards,

Steve Barber

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK Acoustic Evidence (#108478)

by Jim Moore on April 10, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Well, Mr. Barber, I don't quite understand this comment of yours:

Comparison of the Pruszynski recording and the CBS footage--alone--disproves any claim that gunshots were picked up by Pruszynski's recorder, by synchronizing the two recordings.

I'm afraid that is as clear as mud. What exactly are you trying to say there? Did the Pruszynski recording pick up any gunshots or didn't it? In reading over that paragraph of yours it almost seems like you're now saying that the recording didn't pick up any shots. Please clarify.

Lastly, Mr. Barber, you are trying to assure us that "no one is holding back anything pertaining to the results shown on the graphs." I'm sorry, Sir, but you must know this simple comment of yours is not going to suffice.

This is science, Mr. Barber. You can't really expect us to take your assurances on faith, now can you? No. I would suggest that you take the next necessary step which is to publish the complete report that you and/or your colleagues (Mr. O'Dell and Dr. Zimmerman) prepared so that we may all see it and evaluate it for ourselves. Just writing an article and then posting a few notes is hardly sufficient.

If you would, Sir, please publish your complete report somewhere on the internet and provide us, right here, with the web link to that report.

If you and your colleagues are not holding anything back, as you say, then you should have no problem fulfilling my request. I thank you. Best regards, Jim.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK Acoustic Evidence (#108482)

by Steve Neil Barber on April 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Dear Mr. Robinson,

Thank you for pointing out my massive typo.

That was supposed to read as follows:

Comparison of the Pruszynski recording and the CBS footage--alone--disproves any claim that extra gunshots were picked up by Pruszynski's recorder, by synchronizing the two recordings.

My sincere apologies for throwing you off, and leaving out the word "extra". "Extra" meaning more than 8 gunshots.

As for my statement that "...no one is holding anything back pertaining to results shown on the graph"...

All I can tell you is to please wait until Mr. Ayton's book is released next moth, to book stores. The full "JP French and Associates" report will be included as an Appendix to his book. I am not at liberty to release the the report, since it is part of Mr. Ayton's book.

As far as a report of my own...you have my report in front of you, with the HNN article, and, I point you to what I have stated there, and reemaphasize what I said in the HNN paper, as to the conclusions I reached.

Warm Regards,

Steve

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK Acoustic Evidence (#108483)

by Steve Neil Barber on April 10, 2007 at 12:38 PM

Dear Mr. Robinson,

Please forgive me for attributing the post made by Mr. Moore, to you.

Mr. Moore, please excuse me for not addressing you by name, in my response to yours of this morning, at 10:08 a.m. and incorrectly addressing Mr. Robinson instead.

I am deeply sorry for the error.

Sincerely,

Steve Barber

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK Acoustic Evidence (#108517)

by Leonard Robinson on April 11, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Mr. Barber,

Don't sweat the confusion over identities. At any rate, I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis and findings. It is too bad that LAPD did such an uneven job in its investigation (e.g., not preserving evidence, not confiscating Cesar's gun, etc.). The very fact that reporters and other had what amounted to a free run of the pantry for at least two hours after the shooting made for compelling TV, but in and of itself is reflective of LAPD's mishandling of the case, right from the outset. Many of these questions could have--and should have--been put to rest a long time ago, save for the bungling by the police.

I will be interested to read Mr. Ayton's forthcoming book. I agree with his argument that Sirhan was the lone gunman in the pantry, but have always been much less persuaded of some sort of PLO connection. To me, that argument smacks of a writer trying to force-fit a supposedly objective analysis of the case to fit their own (i.e., the writer's) political agenda (further discrediting the Palestinians by hanging another act of terror on them as a nation). Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Regards,

Len Robinson

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: RFK Acoustic Evidence (#108516)

by Jim Moore on April 11, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Mr. Barber,

There's something else about this that I don't understand. This author you keep mentioning, Mr. Ayton, asks you to conduct this audio research. You not only conduct the research but Mr. O'Dell and Mr. Zimmerman are recruited to assist you with it. You (or the three of you, I guess) reach your conclusions but, after all that work you put into this, you don't issue an actual report (this article is it, you say). Even Mr. Ayton, although he asked you to do this work in the first place, is apparently not planning to reference your work in his book (or is he? I am gathering from your comments that he probably is not planning to do so). Instead, Mr. Ayton will be publishing a report by JP French and Associates. And so the only venue for your work (and that of Mr. O'Dell and Mr. Zimmerman) is this HNN article, which probably will get very little attention? Unless there's something else you haven't told us, this would seem to be a lot of work and effort on your part (and those of your two colleagues) for very little return. Please understand I'm not meaning to put you down here. This just struck me and it seemed rather curious to me. Best regards, Jim.

Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108576)

by Tom Willis on April 13, 2007 at 11:18 PM

This guy Barber is a joke. He obviously has done next to zero research on the Bobby Kennedy case.

This is evident from his statement: “With regard to the possibility that RFK could have been shot by security guard Thane Cesar, who carried a .38 caliber pistol…”

Barber states it as if it were an unquestioned fact that Cesar was carrying a .38 at the Ambassador Hotel. But this is far from an established fact.

Even the most basic research into the RFK case should reveal to anyone with minimal intelligence that Cesar’s weapon was never examined that night, meaning no one will ever know for sure (except Cesar himself) whether he was carrying a .38, or carrying a .22 like Sirhan had.

The truly pathetic thing here is that if Barber were a serious researcher, he needn’t have gone to great lengths to get a clue here. He could have found it right here on this very web site. In a posting to HNN a few months ago, even Barber's pal Mel Ayton acknowledged that the LAPD never examined Cesar’s gun because the clods never considered that an important thing to do. Writes Ayton: “(Cesar) was taken to the police station after the shooting and offered his .38 pistol to police officers. They didn’t believe that examining his weapon was necessary.” http://hnn.us/comments/101810.html

So even Ayton isn’t willing to trust Cesar’s word for it that he was carrying a .38 that night (and is willing to admit the LAPD never verified Cesar's claim).

Apparently Barber doesn’t bother to keep up much with Ayton. Therefore there’s no reason why we ought to bother with Barber.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108584)

by Mel Ayton on April 14, 2007 at 7:37 AM

In an interview with Dan Moldea Thane Cesar said he remained in the Embassy Room for more than an hour after the shooting. Cesar said, "I was getting ready to go home and I thought to myself 'I wonder why nobody's questioned me'...I went to a police officer. I said 'Don't you really think you need my statement?' He said, 'Why?' I said, 'Well, I was standing right by Kennedy when he got shot.'....And from there they took me down to Rampart [Division]. I thought it was a necessary thing. What a mistake that was! If I hadn't said anything to that one particular police officer, nobody would have known to this day that I was even there."

Cesar bought his .22 H&R revolver in or around 1962. He admitted that, unintentionally, his remarks to the police about when he had sold the gun had been false. However, Cesar insisted the proof of his good intentions was when he told the police to whom he sold the gun and where he lived. Now what kind of conspirator would have done that?

Furthermore, Cesar sold the gun in September 1968 - three months after the assassination. If Cesar had shot RFK with this weapon do you really think he would have held on to it for 3 months? If you do, you are delusional.

Cesar was tested by one of the most respected polygraph experts in America - Cesar passed with flying colors.Please don’t do the conspiracy mongerer shuffle and go on about polygraphs. Dan Moldea spent a considerable amount of time over a number of years researching Cesar’s background and finances. Cesar isn’t guilty - therefore you are accusing an innocent man.

Steve Barber has made a remarkable contribution to this case and doesn’t deserve to be criticised by a non-expert like you. Perhaps you would like to inform HNN readers of your qualifications as an historian, forensic scientist or acoustics expert. You may also like to inform HNN readers which magazines, newspapers or publishers have accepted your work. If you don’t, then we have to conclude you are yet another uninformed blowhard who thinks he knows the truth when, in fact, he doesn’t.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108586)

by Tom Willis on April 14, 2007 at 9:06 AM

Hey Ayton,

Can't you follow a simple line of thought?

Sit down, pour yourself a spot of tea, calm your nerves and read my note again.

Even you will do that in a calmer state, even you should see that I was making only one point in my note:

That Barber incorrectly presented it as an established fact that Cesar was carrying a .38 that night. Clearly this is not an established fact as you yourself admit. So why yell at me about it? We are not in disagreement over this one basic point I made.

You've been over this territory enough times. You know the drill. Cesar claimed he had a .38 that night. That claim alone doesn't prove he had a .38. His weapon was never examined that night. Therefore you, Barber, Moldea, me, the LAPD and the Man in the Moon cannot state with any certainty what caliber of weapon Cesar had. For Barber to state it as an established, unquestioned fact that Cesar had a .38 that night is to lie or to guess. Lies or guesswork (especially on an issue that is so easily researched) are immediate signs of a person who is NOT to be taken seriously. Thus my point about Barber being a fool -- my one and only point in my note -- stands.

Your response reveals various points to now be made about you, Ayton. Chief among them, that you do not think very clearly.

If you had a clear and rational mind, you would have understood I was making only the one point and no other points. Instead, your rampant imagination got the better of you and you spewed several untruths concerning my post:

You addressed me directly on the matter of Cesar keeping his .22 for three months after the RFK assassination as if I'd made any comment on that subject, which I did not.

You suggested I had some interest in doing some kind of conspiracy mongerer shuffle by going on about polygraphs, when my note mentions nothing about polygraphs or anything close.

You said I accused Cesar of being guilty for the RFK assassination, which I clearly never did. Lay down your tea. Go back. Read my note again. Where in my note do I accuse Cesar of anything. Whether I personally believe in Cesar's guilt or innocence is an opinion I have not expressed. I only make one single point, and that is that it is not an established fact that he was carrying a .38 on the night of the shooting.

For a so-called expert, as you proudly claim to be, you are quite a muddled-minded piece of work. You establish that very thing as fact by your own response to my note. It takes no special qualification on my part or that of any HNN member to see this clearly.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108587)

by Mel Ayton on April 14, 2007 at 9:57 AM

Willis,

If that's your real name, which I suspect it isn't because people like you tend to hide behind a mask of anonymity, your bluster confirms one thing to readers of HNN - you, like other conspiracy mongerers post nonsense like this to sow seeds of doubt on every piece of evidence then run away from it when the truths are established.

In your obviously childish, anti-English and pompous rant you have proven also that you neither have the intellect nor qualifications to post rational arguments on sites such as these. You may be better suited to the looney conspiracy sites which I'm sure you get most of your information from.

You even try and hide the motive for your post - a motive which centers around the need to spread doubt where non exists and use it as an opportunity to attack anyone who dares to challenge your pet conspiracy theories.

And who is Tom Willis? A non-entity who calls Steve Barber a joker because he dares to mention an establshed fact - Cesar was carrying his .38 pistol on the night of the assassination.

Again, I challenge you to give readers your credentials.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108588)

by Tom Willis on April 14, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Ayton,

So now you have swung 180 degrees to the opposite end by suddenly claiming that it IS an established fact Cesar was carrying a .38 that night. Very sad.

Established, you claim. Okay, prove it.

You heard me old chap. Prove it right now. Reply to this post with actual proof. Reply with unquestionable facts that prove to us that it is indeed an established fact that Cesar was carrying a .38 that night.

I'll wager anyone any amount of money that not only will you not be able to do this, but that you won't even try. Instead, you will try to change the subject. And of course it will work because we - non-experts among the Great Unwashed - who do not breathe your rarefied air or sip your delicious teas are so easily thrown off course and fooled, now aren't we?

No, not this time, Mel. This time, we will make sure you stay on point and either support what you're claiming with unquestioned facts or expose yourself as the blowhard you really are.

When you respond in your next post, Mel, don't just simply report to us that such-and-so is what Cesar claimed. We're not stupid. We know that just because Cesar claimed he had a .38 does not establish that as a fact. So you must do better than simply report what Cesar said in 1968 or 1969 or 1994 or 2001. You must cite proof.

Don't just go on about how the guards always carried .38's with them. Again, we're not stupid. Even if it were standard practice for the guards to carry .38's, this does NOT prove that Cesar did NOT break from standard practice on the night of the RFK shooting by carrying something other than a .38, whether it was a .22 (as Sirhan had) or a .45 or whatever weapon he could have put into his holster. The simple fact is, we don't know whether Cesar followed standard practice on that night or broke from it.

So prove to us it has been established as actual fact that Cesar was indeed carrying a .38 that night.

Proof, Mel, proof.

We eagerly await your next post and, more importantly, we await - hmmm, what's that word again? - oh, yes, that's right... your proof.

If you fail to provide such proof (beyond statements made by Cesar and beyond standard weapons practice of the guards), then you will be unwittingly proving all of my points.

Love & kisses,

Tom (not Dick, Harry or anyone else but just little old me... Tom)

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108599)

by Mel Ayton on April 14, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Willis,

You have again not established exactly who you are, nor have you provided readers with any information which would persuade them you have some kind of superior knowledge to Steve Barber, Dan Moldea or I. This is why you feel you are on safe ground - you are an anonymous entity who feels safe to post any comments he likes without fear of exposure.

Readers will judge for themselves.They will also recognize you have not answered my questions pertaining to your background, especially those questions about your 'authoritative' crededentials.

The proof in the matter, as you harp on about, of Thane Cesar's participation in the purported conspiracy to assassinate Robert Kennedy, rests with Dan Moldea's excellent research - read Moldea's book and you will realize that Cesar was telling the truth.It is now an established fact, at least for those historians who have some kind of training in recognizing the difference between speculation, innuendo, guesswork as opposed to concrete, hard facts.

You appear in your posts to be a person who refuses to engage in rational and adult debate. You have adopted child-like expressions which ultimately detract from any valid arguments you think you may be making.

Your attempts to be witty don't seem to work.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108601)

by Tom Willis on April 14, 2007 at 4:06 PM

Ayton,

I've read Moldea's book. It offers not one shred of conclusive evidence that Cesar was carrying a .38 on the night of the RFK shooting.

Not a shred.

Moldea's book is a love poem to Gene Cesar (just as most of your posts are love notes to Moldea). All Moldea's book does on this particular subject is quote Cesar's claims and then blindly believes in them. Does it really need to be explained to you and Moldea that merely quoting back Cesar's claims is NOT conclusive evidence?

Apparently so. Which of course is itself thundering evidence that spending any money on a book you write about this case is surely money wasted.

It is as I have said, Mel. No one on this planet has ever been - or ever will be - able to provide conclusive evidence that Cesar was carrying a .38 on the night of the Kennedy shooting.

Because no such conclusive evidence exists.

You're not even bothering to lift a finger to try to provide such conclusive evidence. Simply because you know you can't. Instead, you're taking refuge in bosom buddy Dan's book, hoping that no one will actually make the effort to check on this matter (but I have checked on it, my friend, and as I've already said, Moldea's book also does not provide such conclusive evidence).

So you are copping out, of course. Just as I predicted you would, Blowhard.

And therefore my point stands: Steve Barber's article is absolutely dead wrong in suggesting that it is an established fact that Thane Eugene Cesar was carrying a .38 on the night of the RFK killing.

Rather than having you answer for him, Barber ought to answer this one himself (instead of hiding behind you).

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108607)

by Mel Ayton on April 14, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Willis,

You are still taking the coward's way out by not revealing anything about yourself and who you are despite my repeated requests.

It would appear that you are some kind of unbalanced individual who has an inability to understand the simplest and established facts about this case.If your arguments are so strong I suggest you find a reputable media outlet who will accept your 'research'.

You have reduced your arguments to the level of schoolyard taunts in your attempts to lure Steve Barber into your pathetic and rather silly juvenile world; a world that conspiracy forum members love so much; a world in which logic and reason is abandoned in favor of fantasy, speculation, and rumor.I believe the opportunity for rational debate within this forum has been abused by your posts.

No doubt you will have the last ridiculous comment on this matter but I,for one, have had enough of debating fools like you.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Barber dead wrong about Cesar's gun (#108611)

by Tom Willis on April 14, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Melvin,

You are still taking the coward's way out by not citing proof for your ridiculous claim that it is an established fact Thane Eugene Cesar was carrying a .38 on the night of Bobby Kennedy's murder despite my repeated requests.

It would appear that you are some kind of unbalanced individual who has an inability to understand the simplest and established facts about this case. If your arguments are so strong concerning Cesar and his alleged .38 then I suggest you lay them out for us right here and now.

You have reduced your arguments to the level of schoolyard taunts in your attempts to lure me into your pathetic world of titles and so-called prequalifications before being allowed to speak out (how very British of you); a world that propagandists who fear those who disagree with them (and dismiss all of them as conspiracy forum members) love so much; a world in which logic, reason and truth is abandoned in favor of protecting one's staked out public position and business interests. I believe the opportunity for rational debate within this forum has been abused by your posts.

No doubt you will, at some point, attempt to have the last ridiculous comment on this matter (perhaps by coming back to this page in a few weeks when it's safe because I might not be hanging around it anymore then) but I, for one, have had enough of debating fools like you...

Blowhard!

Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder

By Mel Ayton

Mr. Ayton is the author of ‘The JFK Assassination : Dispelling The Myths’, ‘A Racial Crime – James Earl Ray And The Murder Of Dr Martin Luther King Jr’ and ‘Questions Of Controversy – The Kennedy Brothers’. He has worked as an historical consultant for the BBC and has written articles for UK newspapers, David Horowitz’s Frontpage magazine, History Ireland, Crime Magazine and History News Network. In 2006 he was interviewed about his latest book, ‘The Forgotten Terrorist - Sirhan Sirhan and the Murder of Senator Robert F. Kennedy’, for the NBC television documentary ‘Conspiracy: Mind Control’. ‘The Forgotten Terrorist’ will be published by Potomac Books in April 2007.

Update: On 12-4-06 Mr. Ayton emailed HNN to say that he had developed additional evidence against the case made in a recent BBC broadcast about the assassination of RFK. Mr. Ayton's fresh evidence is incorporated into an addendum posted at the bottom of this article.

A recent BBC news program, Newsnight (November 20th 2006) broadcast a report by an Irish screenwriter, Shane O’Sullivan, that purported to prove that three CIA agents had been present in the Ambassador Hotel on the night Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. The agents, O’Sullivan claimed, had been responsible for the assassination. Newsnight editors believe O’Sullivan is correct in his assumptions. A related article on their website states, “[O’Sullivan’s investigation] reveals that the operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles in the moments before and after the shooting on 5 June, 1968.”

It is evident that the BBC has accepted O’Sullivan’s research without adequate checks. What appears to be missing from this report is an editorial review that the public should expect when a story of international significance is broadcast by a reputable news organization.

Despite his claims that he has ‘researched this case for three years’ O’Sullivan has deliberately ignored the research carried out by Dan Moldea, one of America’s leading investigative journalists. Although they solicited Moldea’s contribution, without success, they could have used the results of his research in his excellent and acclaimed book, The Killing Of Robert F Kennedy – An Investigation Of Motive, Means and Opportunity. (1995) Moldea’s research provides evidence that challenges O’Sullivan’s ‘shooting scenario’ at every turn. Since 1995 it has been clear to anyone researching this case that a first point of reference would need to be Moldea's excellent study of the dynamics of the shooting and the collection and collation of evidence by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

Had O’Sullivan bothered to consult Moldea’s book he would have discovered that the people he had interviewed for his documentary and who appeared on the program, had a precarious grasp of the facts of the case to begin with. The BBC reporter put Sirhan Sirhan’s former lawyer Lawrence Teeter on camera and accepted, without comment or criticism, Teeter’s exposition of the Ambassador Hotel ‘shooting scenario’ in which the lawyer attempted to demonstrate how Sirhan could not have fired the shots that killed RFK. Teeter believes that RFK’s autopsy, which revealed the Senator had been shot in the back of the head at point blank range, exonerated Sirhan. Teeter has also claimed that Sirhan probably had blanks in his gun. However, if O’Sullivan had checked his facts aganst the hard evidence he would have understood the ridiculous nature of Teeter’s remarks. Bullets removed from RFK and the other victims were matched to Sirhan's gun 'to the exclusion of any other weapon in the world.' (The head wound bullet was too damaged for a postive match).The gun was immediately handed to Rafer Johnson, a friend of RFK's. Johnson then gave it to the Los Angeles Police. The provenance of the weapon and the postive matches to the bullets retrieved are therefore not in doubt, thus rendering Teeter’s hypothesis that Sirhan had been firing blanks null and void. Moldea, along with other researchers, has concluded that Sirhan was “… heavily influenced by Teeter, who believed that the CIA was responsible for anything that went wrong in society and was a real conspiracy buff.”

O’Sullivan accepts without criticism the position adopted by conspiracists who claim that the RFK Ambassador Hotel pantry witnesses all agreed that Sirhan had never been in a position to shoot Kennedy at point blank range. In his article for the Guardian which was published to coincide with the Newsnight broadcast O’Sullivan wrote, “But the autopsy report suggests Sirhan could not have fired the shots that killed Kennedy. Witnesses place Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy, but the fatal bullet is fired from one inch behind. And more bullet-holes are found in the pantry than Sirhan's gun can hold, suggesting a second gunman is involved.”

However, as Thane Cesar, Ambassador Hotel security guard and RFK’s escort through the pantry, said, “A lot of people testified that [Sirhan] was standing this way [with Kennedy facing his assailant]. I know for a fact [that’s wrong], because I saw him [Kennedy] reach out there (to shake hands with a busboy) and which way he turned. And I told police about that.” Although eyewitness Frank Burns insisted the gun was never less than a foot or a foot and a half from Kennedy he nevertheless described the dynamics of the shooting in such a way to make it entirely feasible that Sirhan’s gun moved to an area inches away from the Senator.

As Dan Moldea concluded, “All twelve of the eyewitness’ statements about muzzle distance are based on – and only on – their view of Sirhan’s first shot. After the first shot, their eyes were diverted as panic swept through the densely populated kitchen pantry. The seventy-seven people in the crowd began to run, duck for cover, and crash into each other…no one saw the muzzle of Sirhan's .22 get that close - but no one saw the Senator get shot either. All of the eyewitness testimony is based on Sirhan's location, relative to Senator Kennedy's, at the moment of the first shot…”. Moldea believes that RFK was accidentally bumped forward, toward the steam table and into Sirhan’s gun, where he was hit at point blank range.

O'Sullivan's Newsnight report was also flawed in that he used interpretations about the scientific evidence about the actual shooting only from committed conspiracists like Teeter. His claim that more bullet holes were found in the pantry than Sirhan’s gun could hold is simply wrong – see http://www.crimemagazine.com/05/robertkennedy,0508-5.htm

Why O’Sullivan prefers Teeter’s theories beyond anything anyone else has to offer becomes clear as the film report progresses. If a conspiracy took the life of RFK then the purported contribution made by CIA agents becomes more plausible.

It is also clear that Newsnight’s researchers have ignored vital information about the assassination which renders the BBC/O’Sullivan story not only biased but also uninformed. In an article related to the broadcast the BBC stated: “However, even under hypnosis, [Sirhan] has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time.” Unfortunately O’Sullivan has again erred in not seeking out members of the medical community who believe Sirhan had been displaying ‘feigned amnesia’ and that it is impossible to hypnotize a subject to do what his or her moral beliefs oppose.

O’Sullivan is on safer ground when he describes his research into photographs he discovered which led him to believe there were three CIA agents at the scene of the crime. If O’Sullivan is correct these discoveries would be important as the CIA had no domestic jurisdiction and some of the officers he named were based in South-East Asia at the time with no reason to be in Los Angeles. The alleged agents would also not have been present in the Ambassador Hotel to provide ‘protection’ for the Senator.

O’Sullivan connects the agents through their work in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its Secret War on Castro and that they had been positively identified as senior officers who worked together.

O’Sullivan named the men as David Morales, the Chief of Operations who once told friends, ‘I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard.’; Gordon Campbell, Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides, Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations. Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination.

The identification of David Morales as the man seen in the film footage of the Ambassador Hotel is flimsy at best. The LAPD film footage only reveals someone who has common features with known photographs of the agent, as did many people in the Ambassador that night who were captured on grainy film. In fact, when the LAPD photos of ‘Morales’ are enlarged from the original footage there emerges what appears to be only a generic African-American male.In fact, to the undiscerning eye he bears a resemblance to OJ Simpson. Furthermore, O'Sullivan's 'witnesses' who identify the ‘agents’ don't seem that sure of themselves – which is not surprising considering the poor quality of the captured images.

O’Sullivan claims that one of the ‘agents’ looked “…. Greek, and I suspected he might be George Joannides.” Aside from the fact that the person O’Sullivan identifies in no way resembles someone who ‘looks Greek’ there are further reasons why O’Sullivan is on unsafe ground. According to American journalist Jefferson Morley, who writes for the New York Review of Books:

When it comes to the late George Joannides, the BBC story is unfounded and unfair. Its evidence is weak, its conclusions unwarranted. The story accurately quotes my reporting in Salon, the New York Review of Books and elsewhere about Joannides' still unexplained roles in the JFK assassination story but I see no basis for author Shane O'Sullivan's extrapolation that Joannides had some role in the RFK story. Specifically, there is no evidence to corroborate Ed Lopez's claim that the man in the photo is Joannides'- the authentication of the photo is uncertain. There is no other evidence that Joannides was in Los Angeles in June 1968, much less than Joannides was involved in RFK's assassination. To make such serious allegations on such flimsy evidence is irresponsible.

Later Morley told a JFK Internet forum that he thought Lopez’s identification of Joannides is credible and requires ‘more investigation’. However any further investigation of Lopez’s identification would have to include Lopez’s colleague, Dan Hardway, who spent the same amount of time as Lopez with Joannides when they visited CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia. Incredibly, O’Sullivan did not tell Newsnight viewers that Dan Hardway could not identify Joannides from the photos he was showed.

O’Sullivan does include in his report comments made by close friends of Joannides and Campbell - Tom Clines and Ed Wilson - who denied the men in the photographs were the same people they knew. However, O’Sullivan immediately introduces skepticism about one of these witnesses by writing, “We meet Clines in a hotel room near CIA headquarters. He does not want to go on camera and brings a friend, which is a little unnerving. Clines remembers ‘Dave’ [Morales] fondly. The guy in the video looks like Morales but it is not him, he says: ‘This guy is fatter and Morales walked with more of a slouch and his tie down.’ To me, the guy in the video does walk with a slouch and his tie is down.” O’Sullivan again attempts to pour scorn on Clines by writing, “A seasoned journalist [unnamed] cautions that he would expect Clines ‘to blow smoke’, and yet it seems his honest opinion.” Yet O’Sullivan uncritically accepts the stories of other former CIA operatives he spoke to and uses their testimony to make his case.

JFK assassination author Anthony Summers concurs with the view that O’Sullivan’s evidence is too weak to support the conclusion that CIA agents had been present at the Ambassador Hotel and were responsible for the assassination. “....This seems on its face to be an extremely thin story,” Summers wrote, in correspondence with a JFK forum. “Photographs and photograph recognition are infamously unreliable, especially coming from witnesses so long after an event. That does not mean these fellows were not in the Ambassador on the night - though I would have thought that's the last place such officers would have allowed themselves to be seen and photographed - but I'm surprised (at least on the basis of what I read in the Guardian) that the BBC would have judged the story worth running.”

Viewers had also been unaware that one of O’Sullivan’s witnesses, Bradley Ayers, a retired US Army Captain who had been seconded to the CIA’s Miami base in 1963 to work with Morales, had written a JFK ‘novelized’ conspiracy book and been involved with the conspiracy research community for years. He once tried to sell information to two JFK/RFK researchers, Lisa Pease and Jim DiEugenio, hinting that Morales was involved in the Martin Luther King Jr assassination. Ayers never mentioned to Pease and DiEugenio at the time that Morales may have been involved in the RFK assassination. According to Pease, Ayers was ‘desperate for money.’ Viewers were also unaware that Wayne Smith had a vested interest in the conspiracy angle. Smith has been convinced for many years that the CIA had been involved in the purported JFK conspiracy and told author Eric Hamburg five years ago, “…the [JFK] assassination was carried out by the ‘cowboys’ of the CIA – men like Morales. Who I knew well from my days in Cuba.” The witness identifications by Smith and Ayers are therefore considerably weakened as a result. Furthermore, claims made by O’Sullivan’s defenders on the Newsnight website that these witnesses had no motive in identifying Morales and Campbell are therefore now made redundant.

However, it is O’Sullivan’s use of the LAPD’s film footage that brings his research skills into serious question. In his Newsnight report O'Sullivan said, “Moments after the shooting agent No. 2, Gordon Campbell, walks from the direction of the pantry with a small container in his hand as a ‘Latin Man’ waves him towards an exit.” This is pure speculation on O’Sullivan’s behalf. An examination of the original Los Angeles Police Department footage reveals that the Latin Man is not connected with Campbell at all. After the Latin Man waves the crowd away from the area of the pantry he turns around, without a word to Campbell, and walks off in a different direction. He is clearly not pointing to an exit for Campbell. The Latin Man is shown with the palm of his hand outstretched, directing people away from the chaos in the pantry. The viewer would be unaware of this as the footage has to be run in total context before a proper understanding of the Latin Man’s actions can be made.

Sadly the BBC has erred in not providing checks and balances to this story and they should have solicited the expertise and views, or written works, of those in the research community who have challenged the RFK and JFK conspiracy theories that have been presented to the public over the past 40 years. The broadcasters would, at the very least, have provided a more informed and balanced account of this event.

However,O’Sullivan’s research should not be dismissed out of hand and he deserves encouragement to develop his work further in order to make a convincing case. This may take some time in light of the common experience of researchers who have had dealings with US Government bureaucracy. In the meantime I, for one, cannot accept O’Sullivan’s evidence based on what he has thus far provided.

Addendum

Since the BBC broadcast a story by Irish screenwriter Shane O’Sullivan that CIA agents had been present in the Ambassador Hotel the night Robert Kennedy was assassinated, I have discovered further evidence which shows that O’Sullivan’s research was misleading and flimsy. From the new evidence presented in this article it is now clear that his allegations are unfounded.Friends of CIA agents David Sanchez Morales and a colleague of Gordon Campbell have now established that the O’Sullivan identifications are unsound. The George Joannides identification remains in question.

George Joannides: Ed Lopez made a positive identification of Joannides, the CIA liasion to the House Assassinations Committee. HSCA investigator Dan Hardway, who had spent the same amount of time with Joannides as Lopez, failed to identify the agent from the photos.

Gordon Campbell: Campbell was identified by Bradley Ayers, an army captain attached to the Miamai CIA station JM/WAVE, and purported freelance CIA operative David Rabern. Don Bohning, a former leading reporter for the Miami Herald who spent years interviewing participants in the War On Castro wrote about Ayers in his book ‘The Castro Obsession’. The information about Ayers was based on an interview with JM/WAVE Station Chief Ted Shackley. Bohning wrote, “Ayers was to become so emotionally involved, both in the Cuban exile cause and with a Cuban refugee woman, that (Ted Shackley) terminated him. Shackley, in an interview, recalled Ayers as a 'strange guy' although acknowledging Ayers’ portrayal of the station activities was generally accurate as far as it went. (Shackley said) ‘He (Ayers) was assigned to do training...real gung ho. He came with the impression he was going to train and then lead a team into Cuba. That was always a problem with the Special Forces. When they found they were not going to lead a team they became enamored of the Cuban cause. He started messing around with some female down there. We could see problems and ordered him to return to his parent unit. He was basically a good guy, but they go native.' Shackley said that the station had ‘maybe fifteen or so military trainers at any one time.’” (See: http://www.amazon.com)

However, it is the statement made by Grayston Lynch to this author that eliminates the possibility that the man observed in the LAPD film footage and photos supplied by O’Sullivan is Gordon Campbell. Lynch is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces captain and former CIA intelligence officer. His awards include three Purple Hearts, two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star with V for valor, and the CIA's most coveted award, the Intelligence Star, for heroism at the Bay of Pigs ‘above and beyond the call of duty’. When a force of U.S. trained Cuban exiles invaded Castro's Cuba in 1961, Lynch was the CIA's case officer, their point man, on the command ship, Blagar. He handled every communication between Washington and the beachhead and led the first combat team ashore. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh described Lynch as the man who was , “….there at the Bay of Pigs and was in the perfect position to write the definitive ground-level account of what went right and what went wrong”. According to Lynch the man in the LAPD film footage is not Campbell and that he “…knew Gordon Campbell.”

David Sanchez Morales: Bradley Ayers, diplomat Wayne Smith and David Rabern positively identified Morales, although their initial responses to O’Sullivan’s grainy photos were hesitant. As an 'objective seeker of truth' O’Sullivan should have presented his television audience with research which showed how two of his Morales ‘witnesses’ had a bias for JFK conspiracy theories. Since the first part of this article was published further information has come to light which shows that Bradey Ayers was a committed conspiracist for years. (See: http://www.amazon.co.uk/ Readers will recall that in part one of this article I quoted Eric Hamburg as identifying Wayne Smith as a believer in CIA-linked JFK assassination theories without providing any evidence whatsoever that this was true. Two former agents, Thomas Clines and Ed Wilson failed to identify David Morales from the photographs shown them.In fact they said it wasn’t Morales.The veracity of Clines and Wilson can now be supported by statements made to this author by CIA operatives Grayston Lynch and Lt. Col. Manuel Chavez.

Manny Chavez is a former air force intelligence officer who served in Venezuela as a military attaché in Venezuela during 1957 -1959 while Dave Morales was assigned to the CIA office for a year during the period 1957-58. After examining the photo clips of the LAPD film footage used by O’Sullivan Chavez stated, “I was assigned to the CIA Office in Miami from 1960 to 1964. Dave Morales worked in my office (we shared desks) during a 4 month period (1961), until they moved to their own JMWave location in Southwest Miami. We often socialized.….. the tall dark man (in the LAPD film footage) does not look like Dave Morales… (He) looks like a young, late 30s early 40s, Afro-American…I worked on the photo to make it clearer and am more convinced that the person in the photos is not Dave Morales as I knew him up until 1963.” Manny Chavez’s wife also knew Morales well. She denied the man in the film clip was Morales. In fact I have captured from the LAPD film footage what I believe to be O’Sullivan’s ‘Morales’ standing amongst a group of African American males who are assisting one of the shooting victims into an ambulance.

In his Guardian article O’Sullivan wrote, “In person, Ayers positively identified Morales and Campbell and introduced me to David Rabern, a freelance operative who was part of the Bay of Pigs invasion force in 1961 and was at the Ambassador hotel that night. He did not know Morales and Campbell by name but saw them talking to each other out in the lobby before the shooting and assumed they were Kennedy's security people. He also saw Campbell around police stations three or four times in the year before Robert Kennedy was shot.”

However, according to Don Bohning, his ‘pretty thorough research’ and friendship with the late Jake Esterline, the CIA's project director for the Bay of Pigs, and Marine Col. Jack Hawkins, the paramilitary chief for the project, indicated there were no such ‘freelance operatives’ as part of the invasion force. Don Bohning said, “….This reference to David Rabern… intrigued me. I called Jack Hawkins, the Marine Colonel in charge of the paramilitary side of the Bay of Pigs …... He said what I thought: the only two American CIA contract employees who even made it to the beach during the invasion - and then against orders - were Rip Robertson, now dead, and Grayston Lynch…Hawkins seemed quite certain Rabern was not part of the invasion force itself. ”. Bohning said he was “99.9 per cent certain that David Rabern was not a part of the Bay of Pigs invasion force, as O'Sullivan identifies him”. In fact, Bohning had never heard of a David Rabern and said there were no Americans who participated in the invasion itself; all were Cuban exiles. According to Bohning, “The only other Americans directly involved in the invasion were those contracted pilots from the Alabama National Guard. And all the trainers in Guatemala were American military personnel….. if he had a role in the Bay of Pigs invasion it is not part of the recorded history of the event. While a small thing, it does tend to discredit O'Sullivan's account; and Ayers, who presumably introduced Rabern to O'Sullivan.”

Bohning allows for the fact that it may have been possible that Rabern had been involved in the Guatemala training of the force, “…but most if not all the trainers at the beginning were foreigners and later US military personnel, led by Lt. Col. Frank Egan. I have never heard the name David Rabern associated with the Bay of Pigs in any context.” Grayston Lynch’s wife told this author, “My husband said to tell you that the only two Americans involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion were he and his CIA partner William "Rip" Robertson. Anyone else that tells you they were there, or says they can vouch for someone being there, is a... in no uncertain terms...liar.There have been, over the years, a whole raft of wanna be Bay of Pig invaders both American and Cuban”.

It should be recalled that Rabern did not know David Morales or Campbell or Joannides. Lynch and Chavez did. It should be obvious to most historians and researchers that Chavez’s and Lynch’s identifications must take precedent over Rabern’s.

It is clear from this new evidence that O’Sullivan’s ‘witnesses’ have now been discredited.However, it is the most incredible part of O’Sullivan’s story that renders his theory suspect - the premise that CIA agents, bent on killing a political opponent would allow themselves to be photographed at the scene of the crime.As RFK assassination expert Dan Moldea told this author, “ I couldn't agree more with your analysis. Why in God's name would these guys be there and allow themselves to be photographed if they were part of a plot to kill Senator Kennedy? That would make as much sense as a woman with a polka-dot dress running out of the crime scene, gleefully shouting, ‘We shot him. We shot him.’ It sort of defeats the goal of getting away after successfully executing a complicated conspiracy.”

There were a number of Kennedy aides present that night who had been close to the Senator when he was Attorney General in his brothers’ administration. RFK was given the task of overseeing the War on Castro and during his period in the JFK administration he paid a number of visits to CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia and the CIA station in Miami accompanied by aides. Some RFK aides present in the Embassy Ballroom of the Ambasador Hotel were therefore in a position to recognize CIA agents who they may have come into contact with during RFK’s trips to the CIA establishments.Any identification of agents at this time would have given grave cause for concern particularly as this was just a year after the Jim Garrison New Orleans investigation in which charges had been made that Cuban exiles and rogue CIA agents had conspired to murder JFK. It thus becomes highly implausible that CIA agents would expose themselves at the risk a Kennedy aide might recognize them or allow themselves to be photographed at the scene of a major assassination they had purportedly organized.

The BBC blunder did not end with the broadcast of O’Sullivan’s report. On the Tuesday morning following the Newsnight programme I posted criticisms of the Newsnight story on their web blog – it was registered as “No:1”. The post contained criticisms of the program which were eventually incorporated in Part 1 of this article. It contained no libellous, slanderous, provocative or obscene material.The post remained there for 4 or 5 days and was then removed. Such censorship is not worthy of a great news corporation that has a long history of integrity; a corporation that has prided itself on the free dissemination of news and ideas.

Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#101803)

by Shane O'Sullivan on November 24, 2006 at 4:44 PM

Mr. Ayton,

Your article shows a disturbing ignorance and misreading of this new evidence and appears to be no more than a hastily-googled cut-and-paste job of the nastiest reaction you can gather from across the internet to beef up your weak analysis.

Let me correct several errors in your piece:

1. I have read Moldea's book but, like many others, found his U-turn at the end and subsequent reconstruction on the Discovery Channel entirely unconvincing. There is no evidence whatsoever that Kennedy was "accidentally bumped forward" into Sirhan's gun. If Kennedy fell backwards, how could he have been pushed forward while shot from behind in an upward trajectory? It's absurd.

2. Teeter did not say Sirhan was firing blanks in our interview or in any other I've read with him, so why bring it up here?

3. The fatal bullet has never been matched to Sirhan's gun and the Coroner, based on the evidence, has never accepted that Sirhan was definitely the assassin.

4. I interviewed Frank Burns last week. He acted out what he saw for me in his living-room - Sirhan's gun was three feet from Kennedy at the time of the first shot. He insists the autopsy report describes a different gun than Sirhan's. Since when do we take Thane Cesar's testimony over Frank Burns?!

5. The paragraph on hypnosis is nonsense. We interviewed Dr Herbert Spiegel of Columbia University who believes Sirhan was hypnotically programmed to fire at Kennedy. Estabrooks, Milton Kline, Marcuse et al agree that hypnotising someone to do something against their moral code is very possible with the right subject.

6. To the undiscerning eye, he may look like OJ Simpson but to the men who knew him, he looks like David Morales!

7. Clines and Wilson were close friends of Morales, not Campbell and Joannides.

8. A clue - the name of the "seasoned journalist" who distrusts their identifications appears earlier in your "story".

9. Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith are not former CIA operatives. Ayers was seconded to the CIA from the Army and is not bound by the CIA oath of secrecy. There's a difference. You obviously haven't read his book because it has nothing to do with JFK conspiracy theories.

10. You give a paragraph to quotes from Tony Summers when he admits he hasn't even seen the film!

11. Bradley Ayers was not paid for his whole-hearted cooperation and was disgracefully slurred by Lisa Pease. If you read my Guardian piece or saw the BBC film, you will know that the only piece of information Brad had about the RFK assassination was a contact called David Rabern, who saw a man matching the image of Morales seen in the 1959 photograph at the hotel that night. I showed Brad my video, he identified Morales and Campbell and put me in touch with Rabern as well as countless others.

12. Well, Ed Lopez thought the man next to Campbell in the photograph looked Greek. In fact, he was 99% sure it's Joannides! Dan Hardway's exact words were: "This could be him. Much younger in the picture than in the 70's and its been a long time." Please don't twist the story to suit your own ends.

I welcome your caution regarding these gentlemen and your encouragement in continuing my investigation. But please research these new suspects more carefully before you attack the credibility of men brave enough to step forward and identify them.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#101810)

by Mel Ayton on November 24, 2006 at 7:14 PM

Mr O’Sullivan,

Your reaction to my article has shown that you are not willing to listen to alternative views about conspiracy-based RFK assassination theories. I believe you have given the game away by characterizing my response as ‘ignorant’ and ‘nasty’. In fact, I believe your research from the get-go has been ‘conspiracy-led’.

To correct your misinterpretation of my article:

1. As an 'objective seeker of truth' it is irrelevant whether or not you accept Dan Moldea's hypothesis of the crime scene scenario. Your audience deserved to hear an alternative version of the Teeter myth.You have proven that you had pre-conceived notions of Moldea’s theories. Did you tell Dan Moldea what you thought of his ‘shooting scenario’ when you solicited his opinions?

2.You need to read more about the late Lawrence Teeter's conspiracy theories - yes, he has said on a number of occasions he believed Sirhan's gun had been firing blanks. Obviously Teeter didn't tell you that and you didn’t bother to research his previous statements which are on record.Are you saying that everything you present in your forthcoming documentary will be based only on interviews?

3. The Coroner Thomas Noguchi has never said Sirhan was the only assassin because his professional ethics prevent him from making guesses. But he has never disagreed with Dan Moldea’s shooting scenario; he has simply posited that no one can ever really know. Read Moldea’s book.

4. Thane Cesar,who will be completely exonerated with new evidence that will be released early next year, was ‘polygraphed’ and interviewed by Dan Moldea. He was taken to the police station after the shooting and offered his .38 pistol to police officers. They didn’t believe that examining his weapon was necessary as he was never a suspect to begin with. Moldea spent some considerable amount of time researching Cesar’s background. Cesar was never a suspect because no one at that time saw him do anything except fall to the ground after Sirhan began shooting. Cesar then drew his gun. If Frank Burns said the autopsy report described a ‘different gun’ you are the first to reveal this startling piece of information. Unless you and Burns have simply taken a JFK Lancer article which purports to prove that a bullet larger than a .22 was responsible for RFK’s head wound. I can assure you that the person writing this article is not a wounds ballistics expert and his theories have been challenged and disproven by a real wounds ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan in an appendix to my book. Sturdivan’s excellent work on the JFK scientific evidence can be found here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/JFK-Myths-Scientific-Investigation-Assassination/dp/1557788472/sr=11-1/qid=1164412789/ref=sr_11_1/202-7043817-0146258

5. I believe if you tell some of the leading authorities on hypnosis that their work is nonsense it will further destroy your credibility. One example: (I quote many more in my book) Psychologist Dr. Graham Wagstaff of the University of Liverpool, a leading authority on hypnosis told me , “On the basis of such research….Hypnotic subjects do not lose consciousness, control of their behaviour, or their normal scruples, and are no more likely to engage in self-repugnant or anti-social activities than equivalently motivated non-hypnotic subjects. Indeed, the recent definition of hypnosis provided by the American Psychological Association clearly rejects the notion of the hypnotic automaton; thus it states, ‘Contrary to some depictions of hypnosis in books, movies or television, people who have been hypnotized do not lose control over their behavior’….Notably also, in a further recent survey of ten experts on forensic hypnosis conducted by Vingoe (1995), all rejected the view that, ‘during hypnosis the control a person normally has over him or herself is in the hands of the hypnotist.' A similar view is expressed by the editors of the contributors to what is probably the most important academic volume on hypnosis to be published this decade, Theories of Hypnosis…edited by Lynn and Rhue…Thus Lynn and Rhue conclude: ‘Since the “golden age” of hypnotism (the 1880’s and 1890’s), the view of the hypnotized subject as a passive automaton under the sway of a powerful hypnotist has faded in popularity. In fact, this rather extreme position is not endorsed by any of the theorists whose ideas are represented in this book.’”

6. Tom Clines and Ed Wilson said he didn’t and that’s what I explicitly state. As I said in my article this part of your research should not be dismissed out of hand.

7.Point taken. Perhaps they will be questioned further.Did you ask them?

8.Is it Morley or Moldea? They both said your evidence is flimsy.

9.One of your witnesses, David Raburn, was not a CIA agent but was indeed a ‘CIA operative’ in that he sub-contracted his skills to the Agency. I never said that Ayers and Smith were CIA operatives.

Is this a different Bradley Ayers? –

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Zenith-Secret-Insider-Exposes-Brothers/dp/0975276387/sr=1-4/qid=1164410169/ref=sr_1_4/202-7043817-0146258?ie=UTF8&;s=books

10. He read the Guardian article which reveals more than your Newsnight piece.

11. I’m sure Lisa Pease will stand by her statements. You’ll have to ask her.

12.This isn’t twisting words – ‘Could not identify Joannides’ simply means that Hardway did not positively identify Joannides as the man in the photograph.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#108533)

by Tom Willis on April 12, 2007 at 3:14 AM

Hey Mel,

How nice of you to admit Thane Eugene Cesar's gun was never examined. Which of course means there's no way in Hell you or I or anyone else knows for sure whether that right-wing nut was carrying a .38-caliber or a .22-caliber on the night of the Bobby Kennedy shooting.

Mind doing us all a favor and explaining that to your bosom buddy Dan Moldea? Cuz that boy sure seems pretty fond of insisting -- without any proof whatsoever -- that Cesar was holstering a .38 that night.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#101881)

by Mel Ayton on November 27, 2006 at 3:02 AM

I criticized Mr O'Sullivan's Newsnight story on Tuesday morning, the day after it was broadcast. I was the first poster: see below

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2006/11/who_shot_bobby_kennedy_1.html#commentsanchor

The criticisms contained no insulting or obscene material and everything I posted was eventually included in my HNN article.The Newsnight post remained in place for 4 days then was removed.Why?

This can only be another example of the shoddy tactics the BBC are now engaging in. When posters criticize the American government for censorship the BBC's act becomes risible.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#101886)

by John D. Beatty on November 27, 2006 at 7:26 AM

Of course, just as they have assasinated all persons since the beginning of time.

The world is a CIA conspiracy. The CIA runs the universe. All persons, of course, know this.

Explain to us why this issue would be important. What difference does it make who killed him? What happened afterwards that was so different? What motive would anyone have?

Get a life. Get a grip.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#102003)

by Lawrence Brooks Hughes on November 29, 2006 at 2:24 AM

If the CIA had killed Bobby we would have known all about it years ago. The CIA leaks like a sieve. Common sense should tell you Americans cannot keep secrets of that kind.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#102005)

by Mel Ayton on November 29, 2006 at 4:10 AM

Lawrence,

You are absolutely correct. Furthermore, I think O'Sullivanwould need to contact these people, if he hasn't done already, for further identification of Morales:

Paul Bethel – USIA’s Press Officer at the American Embassy in Cuba at the time Morales was stationed there.

Felix Rodriguez – CIA agent who together with Morales aided in the capture of Che Guevara in 1967.

JM/WAVE’s station chief Ted Shackley’s widow who may have met Morlaes.

Bob Wall – Morales’ Assistant Chief Of Operations at JM/WAVE.

Ruben Carbajal – lifelong frind of Morales.

Robert Walton – friend of Morales.

Residents of Willcox and El Frita, Arizona, who may remember Morales.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#102265)

by Lisa X. Pease on December 3, 2006 at 5:00 PM

What a joke. The CIA's Office of Security bugs CIA employees and assets to prevent such leaks. If something leaks out it's because the Agency WANTS it to leak.

You can't make a statement that all secrets come out because if they don't, no one would ever know - so there's no way to prove your point.

How long did it take us to find out who Deep Throat was (if indeed Felt is the end of the story, which some doubt)?

Former CIA director Richard Helms once said a successful operation is one that remained secret FOREVER. And he bomoaned the fact that he could not talk about the CIA's successes.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#102266)

by Lisa X. Pease on December 3, 2006 at 5:03 PM

Shane, since my post on Brad Ayers, many members - reputable members - of the JFK research community have contacted me to say privately they share my views. They don't want to be accused of being unpatriotic but I'm more fearless than most. My patriotism is not at issue, nor is Ayers. It's simply his identification, given his very obvious obsession with Morales as I described on the blog post you commented on. I don't trust Ayers, and I'm far from alone in that matter.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: Did the CIA Kill Bobby Kennedy? The BBC's Blunder (#102558)

by Mel Ayton on December 10, 2006 at 6:40 AM

Yet another friend of Dave Morales has put the lie to the allegation that Morales is the man in the LAPD film footage. Manny Chavez sent this email to me this morning: "Mel,I told you many days ago that I sent a copy of the photo (of Morales) to Luis Rodriguez, the Army Rep. in the Miami CIA office who worked side by side with Dave Morales and me. Rodriguez’s reply today. 'That is definitely not Dave Morales.' Although a little late for your article it is another 'Slam Dunk'."

When you are finished with the comments for this entry, close the window to return to "The Robert F. Kennedy Assassination: The Acoustics Evidence".

SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108687)

by Mel Ayton on April 17, 2007 at 4:01 AM

Mr Robinson,

Thank you for your eminently sensible comments.

I am not tying Sirhan in with any Palestinian terrorist group - in fact there is no evidence to suggest any connection despite author Peter Evans' attempts to prove otherwise. Please see - http://hnn.us/articles/10781.html However, there is a wealth of evidence, especially in his conversations with his friends, that he agreed that violence was the only way Palestinians could achieve anything positive.

There is no evidence that Sirhan met with any terrorist group representatives, but the Arab community in the Los Angeles area gave its wholehearted support to a violent solution the Palestinian problem.

Sirhan was a student at Pasadena City College from September 1963 until May 1965. During this period two Arab groups were active on campus — the International Club and the Organization of Arab Students in the United States and Canada (OAS) — but they were not recognized by the college. According to the OAS’s president, Kanan Abdul Latif Hamzeh, Sirhan had intense feelings against the Israelis.According to writer James H. Sheldon, in a contemporary article titled “Anti-Israeli Forces on Campus”, the OAS was dangerously active in spreading extremist and violent ideas during this period.

Based on my research into the groups and individuals he conversed with, I have no doubt Sirhan saw himself as an ‘avenger’ for perceived wrongs against the Palestinian people.

These facts, however, do not eliminate Sirhan’s personal motive as you describe it. Sirhan was no different from many assassins of the past who had multiple motives for their crimes. He was virulently anti-American and anti-semitic. He was resentful and envious of American wealth and power, had an obsession with previous US assassinations and harbored an intense desire to be a ‘somebody’.

Mel Ayton

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108951)

by Leonard Robinson on April 25, 2007 at 1:00 AM

Sir,

Thank you for your reply to my previous message. Indeed, I am aware of Sirhan's connections with the campus groups you mentioned. Furthermore, I am aware of some anti-semitic statements he made prior to the assassination, and of his underlying resentment towards the United States. I do not deny that these sentiments had something to do with the shooting. On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true that any number of public figures in 1968 were professing their support for Israel. This then begs the question--why choose RFK as a target? I know there is some discrepency over the date on which the RFK documentary that supposedly set Sirhan off actually aired. It is my opinion that this is may be a potentially crucial issue--if the documentary was aired BEFORE the May 18th entry in his notebook "RFK Must BE Assassinated," etc. then it may lend credence to the angle you suggest. If, however, it aired AFTER the infamous entry in his notebook of May 18, then it seems to me that it is highly unlikely that RFK's support for Israel was the final tipping point in driving Sirhan to choose assassination.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108952)

by Mel Ayton on April 25, 2007 at 4:11 AM

Mr Robinson,

I really don't think the airing of the documentary is crucial in determining whether or not Sirhan had an extreme animus towards RFK or why he eventually chose RFK as his target.

Sirhan was an avid reader of political periodicals and could not have failed to notice that RFK met with the Israeli Premier, Levi Eshkol, in January 1968 and expressed his support for Israel. In January and February of 1968 RFK made at least three statements recommending arms aid to Israel.

In April 1968 Sirhan expressed his hatred for RFK to an African-American garbage worker he befriended. Alvin Clark testified under oath at the trial about Sirhan’s desire to shoot Kennedy.

Following the television broadcast Sirhan continued to express his hatred for Robert Kennedy.During the two well-publicised primary contests in Oregon and California RFK expressed his views of total commitment to Israel. In two comments during the primaries RFK expressed an appeal that was anti-Arab and pro-Jewish.

Sirhan also stated he heard a radio broadcast in which “[the] hot news was when the announcer said Robert Kennedy was at some Jewish Club or Zionist Club in Beverly Hills.” At the Neveh Shalom Synagogue Kennedy said, “In Israel—unlike so many other places in the world—our commitment is clear and compelling. We are committed to Israel’s survival. We are committed to defying any attempt to destroy Israel, whatever the source. And we cannot and must not let that commitment waver.” Sirhan’s brother, Sharif, told Egyptian journalist Mahmoud Abel-Hadi that, following the broadcast of the speech, “he [Sirhan] left the room putting his hands on his ears and almost weeping.”

Sirhan was upset that his brothers and mother did not see Robert Kennedy as a malevolent force and they argued about it. According to one of his lawyers at the trial, “[Sirhan] was disturbed that both his mother and his brothers did not see Senator Kennedy as the same destructive and malevolent and dangerous person as Sirhan perceived him to be; and I gather that he and his family . . . had some arguments about this.”

Sirhan believed he was an important revolutionary; he was in the vanguard of the third world as he expressed it. He thought RFK would be “like his brother,” the president, and help the Arabs but, “Hell, he fucked up. That’s all he did. . . . He asked for it. He should have been smarter than that. You know, the Arabs had emotions. He knew how they felt about it. But, hell, he didn’t have to come out right at the fucking time when the Arab-Israeli war erupted. Oh! I couldn’t take it! I couldn’t take it!”

Sirhan could have targeted any of the leading presidential candidates that year to publicize, through a violent act, the cause of the Palestinians. Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Richard Nixon, and Nelson Rockefeller all supported military aid to Israel and believed in the continuing American/Israeli alliance. So why did Sirhan choose RFK?

Initially, Sirhan would likely have been satisfied with any opportunity to kill a leading American politician. At one point, he even had UN Ambassador Goldberg in his sights. Sirhan said he considered killing Vice President Humphrey.

However, in the years between 1963 and 1968, American political culture had been dominated by the idea of a Kennedy Dynasty and myths surrounding JFK's assassination. Year after year books, movies, television documentaries, and political news stories gave a cult-like status to JFK's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Sirhan, too, desired fame. Killing any of the other candidates would certainly have given him status throughout the Arab world. But his true target had an even greater symbolism attached to it. Sirhan would become the "Second Kennedy Assassin." He knew that killing RFK would give him greater world exposure the other candidates could not provide. It was no accident that Sirhan set his sights on the candidate who was the brother of the martyred president. It was no accident that Sirhan chose the candidate who was most likely to become the next president.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108958)

by Leonard Robinson on April 25, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Sir,

We can quibble over Alvin Clark's testimony which, while given under oath, has always seemed to me to be a bit too "on the nose" in terms of a future assassin bluntly revealing his plans to someone weeks in advance. I have always suspected that this may have been an instance where an individual wanted to insert himself into the history books by claiming to have such a conversation with the suspect. As you are aware, reviewing the FBI and LAPD files reveals mountains of individuals who contacted authorities with wild stories. Again, I have no way to prove that was the case with Mr. Clark--it's just a hunch.

Actually, in some ways I don't think you and I are all that far apart here in terms of Sirhan's motivations. Again, it is clearly true that he held anti-semitic views, that he resented the United States, and yes, that he was frustrated with RFK because he was a politician who seemed sensitive to the plight of every downtrodden people in the world except the Palestinians.

However, it is also true that probably hundreds of thousands (if not millions)of Americans, including a number of Arab-Americans, held similar views in 1968. I think the core explanation hinges on the fame issue, which you raise. Virtually all US politicians took (and still take) the view espoused by RFK towards the Middle East conflict. Precisely because RFK was so famous, he was the most attractive target; so far you and I are on a very similar track.

However, it is my opinion that it was certain aspects of Sirhan's personality that explain why he is the one person among the millions who held similar political views who chose the route of assassination. As I'm sure you are aware, there are countless antecdotes of Sirhan lashing out at ANYONE who he perceive of as looking down at him, right up to the night of the assassination, when he left the hostess who criticized the way he was dressed a $20 tip. In my opinion, Sirhan was extremely frustrated by the fact that he lived in a society in which many individuals treated him with what he perceived to be a lack of respect, despite the fact that he (Siran) believed himself to be intellectually superior to such individuals. Killing someone of RFK's notoriety gave Sirhan the ultimate revenge against society.

One other point: there is some evidence that the notion that the assassination was driven by Sirhan's commitment to the Arab cause was not something which he seems to have emphasized in the immediate aftermath of his arrest. Rather, there is some evidence that once he learned that others in the Arab-American community were trying to spin the shooting in that direction, and once his lawyers latched on to that explanation, Sirhan himself bought into it because at THAT point he began to see that it might make him a heroic figure in the eyes of some.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108960)

by Mel Ayton on April 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM

Alvin Clark's integrity has not been seriously challenged apart from the points I raised earlier.His story did not change nor did he try to embellish it.Other members of the family often saw Clark and Sirhan together. It all seemed a little pathetic on Sirhan's behalf as he used to rush out with cookies and juice to greet Clark when he saw the garbage truck in the area.

Additionally, a search of contemporaneous newspaper accounts of the period indicates Clark did not seek publicity following the trial nor did he try to exploit his 'star witness' status for financial reward.

Sirhan did indeed shout out the motive for the crime (Words to the effect, 'I did it for my country') according to two contemporaneous witness accounts - those of Dr Marcus McBroom and Jesse Unruh. Unruh's account may be challenged as he expressed some confusion about what he actually said - but not so McBroom.

Furthermore, there is a wealth of evidence,stemming from statements made by friends, family and PCC students to prove that Sirhan did indeed believe in a violent solution to the Palestinian problem and he voiced those sentiments long before the assassination.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108961)

by Leonard Robinson on April 25, 2007 at 2:23 PM

Sir,

I am aware that Sirhan offered cookies and juice to Clark, invited people into his house to play board games, etc. The very fact that he befriended the garbage man and spent some considerable time with people with whom his contact was otherwise superficial, and who were not from his own age cohort, might be an indicator of emotional or psychological problems. However, since it is not possible for me to prove that Clark's testimony may not have been 100 percent accurate, I will concede the point (although it could be argued that the very fact of reporting such a conversation and testifying to it in a court of law MIGHT be indicative of a desire to insert himself into this historic event).

As for Dr. McBroom's statement, it is true that when he was interviewed on ABC after the shooting he claimed to have heard Sirhan (or as he described him "A man in working-class clothes") say "I did it for my country." He also insinuated that someone else was involved in the shooting--someone who tried to rush out of the pantry yelling "Let me by, let me through." This turned out to be one of the many false leads and rumors that circulated that night. In addition, as you state (and I appreciate your honesty), Jess Unruh later admitted that he very well may have misheard Sirhan's supposed statement to the effect that he had done for his country.

One of the problems one runs into in attempting to sort through witness statments in such an emotionally-charged case is that often times individuals on the scene get at best a partial, and at worst an incorrect, view of what is happening around them. For example, you can have a reporter (Piers Anderton) who is literally standing right next to another reporter (Andrew West), but Anderton's "reality" (Kennedy laying on the floor after being shot, but Anderton being so oblivious to the shooter that he asked an individual who was attempting to assist Paul Schrade if that individual knew who the shooter was) is different from West's "reality" (being aware that Kennedy was shot, but also being keenly aware of the struggle with Sirhan). Under such circumstances, even if a witness has the best intentions of being honest, his or her view of "reality" is incomplete at best.

Finally, Sirhan may very well have advocated a violent solution to the plight of the Palestinians; again, however that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that that is why he killed RFK. How would any mentally and emotionally-centered person calculate that by murdering Robert Kennedy he could end the plight of the Palestinians?

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108962)

by Mel Ayton on April 25, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Mr Robinson,

I did not conclude that advocating a violent solution to the plight of the Palestinians necessarily led to the conclusion that that is why he killed Kennedy.You would have to take the evidence as a whole concerning Sirhan's motives to understand why it was RFK he chose and what reason he had to assassinate an American leader.

I believe that I have given much of my time in answering your quesitons but they cannot go on ad infinitum - I'm afraid you'll have to read my book as much of what you are positing is addressed in the book and far too long to repeat in a forum like this.

However, I want to thank you for introducing some excellent points in your posts and some sensible and civil arguments which seem to be missing in other forums I have agreed to participate in.

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Re: SIRHAN'S MOTIVES (#108968)

by Leonard Robinson on April 25, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Mr. Ayton,

Agreed. I look forward to reading your book. Having just co-authored a book on the causes of war in the international system (just published by Rowman and Littlefield) I appreciate the hard work and commitment that such an endeavor requires. In our case, it involved nearly 6 years of blood, sweat and tears (only a slight exageration!).

Peace, Shalom, and Ma Salema.

Len

Salon Salon.com Slate Slate.com Entertainment Tonight Biography Channel Discovery Channel Discovery Times Channel History Channel A&E Network USA Network National Geographic Channel Court TV Tech TV Science Channel Sci Fi Channel CBN C-SPAN CNN MSNBC CNBC FOX

Discovery Times Channel DTMS June 2007

Wednesday Wed. June 6

Thursday Thurs. Thu. June 7

Jun 06, 9:00 pm(60 minutes)

Remind Me

Conspiracy Test The RFK Assassination TV-PG Less than 5 years after his brother John F. Kennedy's assassination, and just two months after Martin Luther King Jr. was killed, Sirhan Sirhan allegedly assassinated presidential hopeful Robert F. Kennedy.

Jun 07, 12:00 am(60 minutes)

Remind Me

Jun 07, 4:00 am(60 minutes)

Remind Me

Jun 07, 7:00 am(60 minutes)

Remind Me

Jun 25, 10:00 pm(60 minutes)

Remind Me

Conspiracy Test The Oklahoma City Bombing TV-PG At 9:02 AM an explosion ripped into the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. In three seconds, almost half of the nine story building was reduced rubble. 168 people died, including 17 children who were in the building's daycare center.

Jun 26, 1:00 am(60 minutes)

Remind Me

Jun 26, 5:00 am(60 minutes)

Remind Me

Jun 26, 8:00 am(60 minutes)

Remind Me

CREDITS

DCL |

OUR NETWORKS

Discovery Channel / TLC / Animal Planet / Travel Channel / Discovery Health / Discovery Times / Discovery Kids / The Science Channel / Discovery Home / Military Channel / Discovery HD Theater / FitTV / Turbo / discovery.com

SHOP

Toys & Games / Telescopes / DVDs & Books / Gift Ideas

CUSTOMER SERVICE

CORPORATE

About Our Company / Advertising / Careers @ Discovery / Privacy Policy / Visitor Agreement

The number-one nonfiction media company.

May 31, 2007

Conspiracy Test

Discovery Times

Conspiracy Test o

48 Hours: Hard Evidence o

City Cops: San Francisco Blue… o

Conspiracy Test o

Decoding Disaster o

Locked Up o

Most Evil o

Murder Reopened o

Sensing Murder o

Supermax o

The FBI Files o

The New Detectives o

The Real Untouchables o

The War Detectives o

Unsolved History

05/30 - 06/30

TV Ratings InformationFor programs designed solely for children:TV-Y (All Children -- This program is designed to be appropriate for all children.) Whether animated or live-action, the themes and elements in this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2-6. This program is not expected to frighten younger children.TV-Y7 (Directed to Older Children -- This program is designed for children age 7 and above.) It may be more appropriate for children who have acquired the developmental skills needed to distinguish between make-believe and reality. Themes and elements in this program may include mild fantasy or comedic violence, or may frighten children under the age of 7. Therefore, parents may wish to consider the suitability of this program for their very young children. Note: For those programs where fantasy violence may be more intense or more combative than other programs in this category, such programs will be designated TV-Y7-FV.For programs designed for the entire audience, the general categories are:TV-G (General Audience -- Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages.) Although this rating does not signify a program designed specifically for children, most parents may let younger children watch this program unattended. It contains little or no violence, no strong language and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.TV-PG (Parental Guidance Suggested -- This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children.) Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).TV-14 (Parents Strongly Cautioned -- This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age.) Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended. This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).TV-MA (Mature Audience Only -- This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17.) This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L).« close »TV Reminders InformationEmail reminders:You can receive email reminders of upcoming shows by selecting the Remind Me box next to your favorite programs. After all selections have been made, simply enter your email address at the bottom of the page and submit. Your reminder will arrive the day before your program airs. Please note, reminders are not available for programming airing in less than 24 hours.« close »Time

Remind Me

Series Title & Description

r Kennedy? Was it a lone gunman, a young Palestinian, named Sirhan Sirhan?

DISCOVERY TIMES CHANNEL PRESENTS “CONSPIRACY TEST: THE RFK ASSASSINATION”

Careful scientific analysis of an audio recording, lost to history for 39 years, reveals there was a second shooter in the Robert F. Kennedy assassination.

The analysis reveals that the audio recording captured more than eight gunshots fired in the RFK shooting, which is more shots than convicted gunman Sirhan Sirhan could have fired. Sirhan was armed with an Iver-Johnson Model 55-SA Cadet .22 caliber double action revolver, which was capable of firing no more than eight shots. Sirhan possessed only the one revolver at the crime scene and never reloaded the weapon once the shooting was under way. Thus, the firing of more than eight shots in the RFK shooting means that, in addition to Sirhan, there was another person who was firing a second gun.

The audio recording further reveals that at least two of these gunshots in the RFK shooting were fired too closely together to have been fired by the same gunman using only one firearm. Thus, this extremely short interval between these two shots also means that, in addition to Sirhan, there was another person firing a second gun.

The emergence of this audio recording is the first time there has ever been stand-alone forensic evidence that a second person -- in addition to Sirhan -- was firing another gun inside the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel at the moment RFK and five other people were shot there at 12:16 am PDT on Wednesday, June 5, 1968. In other words, this is not only forensic evidence but it is self-contained forensic evidence which, in and of itself, without need of further evidence, establishes that gunshots indeed were fired by a second assailant in addition to, and simultaneously with, the shots that were fired by Sirhan.

The audio recording captured the sounds of the entire shooting. It captured sounds immediately before, during and immediately after the shooting without any interruption in the recording of those crucial seconds.

The audio recording was made on a cassette tape that was operating inside a battery-powered, portable cassette tape recorder with an attached microphone.

The audio recording was made by journalist Stanislaw Pruszynski, who was a member of the RFK presidential campaign’s traveling press corps. Stash Pruszynski was a Polish immigrant who resided in Canada and was filing articles for the Montreal Gazette under the byline “Stas Pruszynski” (the “h” in “Stash” was not included in his byline). Today, Pruszynski resides in Warsaw, Poland where he owns and operates two cafes.

Stash Pruszynski and his portable cassette tape recorder were about 40 feet southwest of RFK when the shooting erupted inside a hotel kitchen pantry. At that moment, Pruszynski was about to enter a small back corridor located just outside that pantry. He was accessing it from inside the hotel’s Embassy Room, which was the ballroom where RFK, only moments earlier, had delivered his victory statement following California’s Democratic presidential primary election. When the shooting started inside the pantry just off the ballroom, Pruszynski had just exited a makeshift ballroom stage -- the speaker’s stand where RFK had just spoken -- and he was descending a small set of steps at the east end of that platform. As Pruszynski descended these steps, he was unaware that the tape recorder he carried was still recording. At that moment, he just happened to be holding his recorder’s attached microphone in such a position that the mic was tilted upward and pointed almost directly towards the pantry. The shooting erupted in the other room while Pruszynski’s mic was still elevated above the heads of the crowd inside the ballroom and while all ballroom and pantry doors between Pruszynski and the shooting were open. As the shooting continued, Pruszynski continued moving in the direction of the pantry and, thus, partially closed the distance between the shooting and himself while shots were still being fired.

Pruszynski’s audio recording is today the only recording of any kind known to have preserved the sounds of the RFK shooting. Extensive research involving all other known RFK assassination sound recordings as well as video tape and film footage from that event confirms this. For example, contrary to what some people have believed over the decades, a famous Mutual Broadcasting System audio recording made by KRKD radio reporter Andrew West actually did not capture any of the RFK gunshots because Andy West had turned off his reel-to-reel tape recorder moments before the shooting began and West did not turn his recorder back on until moments after the shooting had concluded. The same is true for a less famous audio cassette recording made by Continental News Service reporter Jeff Brent.

The existence of Pruszynski’s audio recording has been virtually unknown to the public since the night of June 4-5, 1968. Our television program on Discovery Times Channel will air critical portions of the recording’s contents -- as well as our scientific findings concerning those contents -- for the first time ever on the evening of June 6, 2007 (this program will air again on June 7).

Pruszynski’s audio recording has been lost to history for 39 years due to a series of developments. The following are some of the personal circumstances involving Pruszynski which contributed to this. Pruszynski was not making a recording for broadcast. He was not associated with radio or television but with print media, and any cassette recordings he was making in the spring of 1968 were designed not for air but only for his personal use: for example, to help him accurately transcribe quotations from his interviews or to assist him in other ways as he wrote his newspaper articles. Pruszynski assumed incorrectly that the sounds preserved by his RFK assassination recording also had been captured by members of the broadcast media also covering that event, and he therefore assumed -- again, incorrectly -- that his tape had nothing of special note on it that had not already been preserved by radio or TV journalists. In the years that followed, Pruszynski did not remain in journalism or closely follow any of the RFK assassination controversies that occasionally surfaced in some segments of the U.S. media. Pruszynski continued to assume incorrectly that his recording was not of any special importance as he pursued restaurant interests while in Canada and eventually in his native Poland, upon his return there after the fall of the Soviet bloc. Pruszynski remained unaware of the special importance of his recording until a journalist contacted him about it in September 2004.

The following are some of the circumstances involving the Pruszynski audio recording itself which also contributed to its being lost to history for 39 years. In the months following the RFK shooting, Pruszynski had mentioned to friends that, while covering the event, he had made an audio recording. Eventually someone relayed that information to the FBI, which then made arrangements for Canadian authorities to contact and interview Pruszynski. In 1969, after having interviewed Pruszynski, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police provided the FBI with a reel-to-reel dub of Pruszynski’s recording, while Pruszynski retained his original cassette tape of the recording. After examining the open reel dub, the FBI concluded -- we believe, concluded incorrectly -- that Pruszynski’s recording contained no new information that would prove significant for their RFK assassination investigation. The FBI -- that same year, 1969 -- then delivered at least one Pruszynski dub to the Los Angeles Police Department. The LAPD kept a Pruszynski dub for the next 18 years until the dub and other items associated with the department’s RFK assassination investigation records were transported in August 1987 to their final resting place, the California State Archives in Sacramento. The state archives opened the RFK materials to the public in April 1988. Nevertheless, the Pruszynski recording -- although listed publicly by the state archives -- sat virtually ignored at the state archives for the next 16 years. In early 2004, a journalist arranged through the state archives to listen to the recording and, because of his familiarity with many details concerning the RFK case, he immediately grasped the recording’s potential importance. Since that discovery, efforts have been made to fully understand as many details as possible concerning the recording.

Today Stash Pruszynski is not certain where his original audio cassette tape is located. At present, the best known version of his RFK assassination recording is the reel-to-reel dub which the FBI supplied the LAPD in 1969 and which today is held by the California State Archives in Sacramento.

Our scientific analysis of the Pruszynski audio recording is based upon that open reel dub held by the state archives. More specifically, it is directly based upon several high quality analog and digital dubs of that reel-to-reel recording in Sacramento. These dubs of the open reel tape -- made in several different formats -- were created at the state archives in September 2005 by audio expert Phil Van Praag. Later, at his facilities in Tucson, Van Praag conducted an analysis of the Pruszynski recording, based on these several dubs he had made in Sacramento, and Van Praag concluded that the Pruszynski recording captured approximately 13 gunshot sounds. Van Praag also discovered two separate sets of double-shots (a double-shot being two shots that are fired too closely together to have been fired by the same weapon). Van Praag then took his dubs of the Pruszynski recording to the laboratory of another audio expert, Wes Dooley of Pasadena. Based upon a lab analysis of Van Praag’s dubs, and with Van Praag present for this Pasadena examination, Dooley and his associate Paul Pegas confirmed that at least 10 gunshots were captured by the Pruszynski recording. Dooley and Pegas also confirmed at least one double-shot in the recording. Dooley further consulted audio expert Eddie Brixson in Denmark and Brixson also confirmed at least 10 gunshots in the Pruszynski recording.

We have found that there is a right way and a wrong way (probably many wrong ways) to analyze the Pruszynski audio recording. The following are only some of the requirements for proper analysis. To analyze the recording properly, an experienced audio expert must first make sure his analysis is based on the best known version of the Pruszynski recording -- which currently is the reel-to-reel dub located at the California State Archives in Sacramento -- working directly from that open reel or directly from first generation multiple analog and digital dubs of the state archives’ reel-to-reel copy. He must be fully aware of the positioning of Stash Pruszynski and his microphone, both of which were moving during the RFK assassination. He must understand the equipment used to make the original recording as well as the equipment and process used which led to the state archives’ resident version. He must understand the environment in which Pruszynski made his recording of the RFK shooting. He must understand many facts, including the sequence of events, concerning the RFK assassination itself.

We are not at liberty to disclose the name -- or the affiliation -- of the journalist who made the initial discovery on Monday, Memorial Day, May 31, 2004 concerning the Pruszynski recording and who brought it to Phil Van Praag’s attention nearly a year later in early 2005.

New evidence of a second gunman in the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy assassination at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on June 5, 1968…

Who, what, where, when, why, how?

What is this evidence?

An audio recording that captured the sounds of the RFK shooting.

Why is this recording evidence of a second gunman?

Two main reasons: first, the tape captured the sounds of more than eight shots being fired during the RFK shooting; secondly, the tape makes it clear that there was at least one so-called “double-shot” fired during the shooting.

How does this content on the recording prove there was a second gunman?

The fact that the tape captured the sounds of more than eight shots fired during the shooting can only mean that another person, in addition to convicted gunman Sirhan Sirhan, was firing a gun at the same time that Sirhan was firing his gun. Police and prosecutors say Sirhan fired an eight-shot revolver, that he had only this one revolver with him at the time and that he never had an opportunity to reload his gun once the shooting began. Therefore it was impossible for Sirhan to have fired more than eight shots. But the recording makes it clear that there were in fact more than eight shots fired during the RFK shooting. Since it was impossible for Sirhan to have fired in excess of eight shots, it therefore would have taken a second person firing another gun to have produced these excess shots.

Secondly, the fact that the tape captured the sound of at least one “double-shot” during the shooting also means the same thing: that another person, in addition to Sirhan, must have been firing a gun at the same time Sirhan was firing his gun. By “double-shot”, we mean that at least two of the shots fired in the RFK shooting were fired too closely together to have both been fired by the same person. The recording makes it clear that there was in fact at least one such “double-shot” fired during the RFK shooting. Since it was impossible for Sirhan or anyone else to have single-handedly fired both of the shots that make up this “double-shot”, it therefore would have taken a second person firing another gun, virtually simultaneously with Sirhan firing his weapon, to have made such a “double-shot” possible.

How many shots were fired altogether?

This tape captured the sounds of at least ten shots fired during the RFK shooting.

Who made this recording how was it made?

It’s an audio recording made on cassette tape by Stanislaw Pruszynski, who in June 1968 was a Polish immigrant to Canada. He is still alive today and is a well-known local café owner in Warsaw. In June 1968, Stash Pruszynski was a young free-lance newspaper reporter traveling with the RFK presidential campaign and writing articles for the Montreal Gazette. His cassette tape recorder was a hand-held portable recorder with an attached microphone and which Stash Pruszynski carried with him primarily for the purpose of capturing remarks of the candidate and others and for making sure to quote such remarks accurately in his articles. In 1968, print and radio journalists carried two types of recorders: the older reel-to-reel machines and the newer cassette machines.

Tell us more about the circumstances concerning how this recording was made at the Ambassador Hotel…

At the time of the RFK shooting in the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel, Stash Pruszynski was carrying his portable cassette tape recorder and mic not far from the pantry. His recorder was on, operating normally and was recording throughout the entire shooting with no stop-and-starts during the recording. In other words, it was recording -- without interruption -- immediately before, during and immediately after the shots were fired in the pantry. Stash was walking at the time of the RFK shooting, in fact he was moving towards the pantry while the shots were being fired and his mic was pointed upwards and towards the pantry as it was picking up the sounds of the shots. Since Stash was moving towards the shooting while it was occurring, the latter shots sound louder on his tape than the initial shots, since he had advanced closer to the source of the sounds by the time the latter shots were fired. When the first shots erupted in the kitchen pantry, Stash was in the adjacent Embassy Room, which is the ballroom where RFK had just finished delivering his victory speech following California’s Democratic presidential primary election. As those first shots erupted in the pantry, Stash was descending a small set of steps inside the ballroom. This was one of the small sets of steps attached to the makeshift speaker’s platform set up for RFK to make his speech following the presidential primary. Stash was walking down the small set of steps located at the east end of the speaker’s platform, which is the part of the platform nearest the kitchen. Stash was carrying his cassette tape recorder and mic with him at the time and, as he was descending from the platform, the first shots were fired in the kitchen pantry. Stash was headed for the pantry at the time and as he continued moving in the direction of the pantry, the rest of the shots were fired inside the pantry. Now to further acquaint you with this scene: the makeshift speaker’s platform was located at the north side of the Embassy Room ballroom. It was built in a spot of the ballroom located just in front of a curtained-off stage where a concert piano was kept for recitals and dances and other entertainment (however this curtained-off stage area, on that night, was being used not as a stage but as a backstage for the makeshift speaker’s platform where RFK delivered his victory speech). Also at the north end of the ballroom, and just east of the platform, were two kitchen service doors. When you exited the ballroom via either of these service doors, you first entered a small back corridor and if you continued a few steps farther from there, in a northeast direction, you accessed the kitchen pantry by way of two additional doors. These two additional doors were swinging, French doors and, once you passed through these swinging doors, you were inside the west end of the kitchen pantry. The shooting of RFK occurred about half-way into the pantry, that is, several feet ahead of those swinging doors or to the east of those doors. So from his starting position in the ballroom, Stash was not very far from the place where the shooting happened. And since, at the time the shots occurred, there were two sets of open doors between Stash and the shooting scene -- that is, the west-end swinging doors of the pantry which were both open by the time the shooting erupted as well as both ballroom service doors at the north side of the ballroom -- the sounds of the shots traveled, unimpeded, from the pantry to Stash’s mic. And as Stash continued moving towards the pantry, thus closing the distance between him and the shooting, the quality of his recorder’s capturing of that shooting improved.

What makes this evidence new?

Aside from this recording, there has never been a recording that is known to have captured the sounds of the RFK shooting.

How was this evidence found?

Where was this new evidence found?

When was this new evidence found?

Who found this new evidence?

Why are we just finding out about this evidence now?

How could such evidence like this sit unnoticed for decades at the California State Archives?

Who was the second gunman?

Where was the second gunman firing from?

Why was RFK killed?

bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Bradley Keith Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Brad Keith Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Bradley K. Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Brad K. Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Bradley Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Brad Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net B.K. Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net BK Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net B. Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net B Johnson bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net B.K.J. bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net BKJ bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, Bradley Keith bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, Brad Keith bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, Bradley K. bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, Brad K. bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, Bradley bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, Brad bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, B.K. bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, BK bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, B. bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net Johnson, B bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net J, B.K. bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net J, BK bkj333@aol.com bkj333@bellsouth.net

Click here to add text.

The emergence of this audio recording is the first time there has ever been stand-alone forensic evidence of a second gun being fired in the RFK

assassination. In other words, this is not only forensic evidence but it is self-contained forensic evidence which, in and of itself, without need of

further evidence, establishes that gunshots indeed were fired by more than one firearm inside the kitchen pantry of the Ambassador Hotel at the moment RFK and five other persons were shot there at 12:16 am PDT on Wednesday, June 5, 1968.

Discovery Times revisits Robert F. Kennedy's assassination.

• Wednesday, June 6

Conspiracy Test: The RFK Assassination, 9pm ET, Discovery Times. For viewers younger than about 50, talk of a conspiracy surrounding the RFK assassination likely will be a revelation. But the two-gun theory and whether the assassin was a lone gunman are questions not exclusive to the JFK killing.

As we know, Sirhan Sirhan was convicted in the RFK killing. The gun he used could hold eight shells, and witnesses say they heard more than eight shots.

One witness swears he saw security guard Thane Eugene Cesar, who stood behind RFK, shoot him. But L.A. police never confiscated his gun, so ballistics tests were not performed on the weapon. The biggest complication is that the autopsy shows the fatal shot entered RFK’s head from the back, but no witnesses saw Sirhan behind the senator.

Several RFK staffers tell us the assassination investigation was botched, others claim it was a deliberate cover up. There’s no debate that the L.A. police destroyed more than 2,000 photographs taken at the scene and some materials collected there.

This show’s major contribution, which comes about 30 minutes in, is uncovering and analyzing a crime scene recording, which had been languishing in an archive, unnoticed for years. A pair of experts concludes there were more than eight shots fired, meaning Sirhan Sirhan didn’t act alone. Another forensic audio analyst, based in England, dissented, although he was working from a copy of the tape, not the original, and he was unaware of some details associated with the recording. In addition, the show tested the model of gun Sirhan used, and concluded the weapon could not have fired eight times as rapidly as the prosecution case contended.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Highly recommended

All times ET/PT unless otherwise noted.

• Click here for more TV reviews by Seth Arenstein >>

http://www.cable360.net/programming/shows/23793.html

Click here to add text.

Click CABLEWORLD CABLEFAX DAILY COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY

Shows | Ratings | Previews/Reviews | Networks

SMART VIEW: VIDEO | VOICE | DATA | WIRELESS | TOP TEN SEARCH: Advanced Search

June 1, 2007

What to Watch: Coming Up on Cable

Hallmark's "Marco Polo," Lifetime's "Army Wives," Adrian Grenier's directorial debut on HBO and more

Tube Stake: Programming reviews by Seth Arenstein

Brian Dennehy as Kublai Khan in "Marco Polo."

• Saturday, June 2

Marco Polo, 8pm, Hallmark Channel. It’s two weeks in a row and Hallmark is offering another strong original. This time it’s a drama surrounding the 1271 journey of Marco Polo to Kublai Khan’s Mongol dynasty, to verify the claims of his father. Right off, we have to acknowledge the production values, which include a darn good reproduction of Khan’s vast capital city of Cambaluc, now Beijing.

While Lost’s Ian Somerhalder as Marco has the lead role, we enjoyed watching Brian Dennehy as the powerful and unpredictable Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan. One of the ironies, of course, is that China and the West, which barely acknowledged the other’s existence in Polo’s time, may be as suspicious of each other today as they were then.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big & Rich: Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace, 9pm ET, GAC. We loved this uncomplicated show, chock full of good acoustic singing and picking, plus interviews with Big & Rich, who seem extremely happy and level-headed with their success. Speaking of which, the duo’s album (same title as this special) hits shelves Tuesday.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Herbie Hancock: Possibilities, 9:30pm ET, Starz InBlack. Kudos to Starz InBlack for showing this simple but nicely done music documentary during its Black Music Month celebration. The title is well chosen. While Hancock is known for his post-bop jazz sound, well illustrated in some vintage footage of Herbie playing in Miles Davis’s band in the ’60s, he refuses to be stereotyped. Instead he prefers to explore musical possibilities that transcend genres. To illustrate, Hancock collaborates with Christina Aguilera, whose throaty blues is impressive, and Sting, whose versatility is no longer a surprise.

Among other highlights are two young artists from Ireland, Damien Rice and Lisa Hanigan, singing a Billie Holiday tune. Later there’s saxophonist Wayne Shorter, vocalists Carlos Santana, Paul Simon (who’s still a good stylist), Annie Lennox and others.

Beyond the performances, we learn little about Hancock. This is a piece that lets the music do most of the talking, even if we’d like to hear more than the musical excerpts offered. But the foundation of these collaborative conversations is the versatility and musical knowledge of Hancock, who lays down complex chords to support the soloists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kim Delaney and Michael Holden in "Army Wives."

• Sunday, June 3

The Next Food Network Star, 9pm ET, Food Network. O.K., I don’t know about their cooking, but I just can’t trust Food Network stars who look nothing like Emeril or Paula Deen. Do these 11 new hopefuls, with their young, athletic physiques eat their own cooking? Do they eat at all? For the same reason you wouldn't go to a dentist with bad teeth, why should Food pick a host who doesn’t look like he/she enjoys insanely caloric, cholesterol-heavy dishes? O.K., Food star Bobby Flay could be in the movies, but even he’s starting to look a bit rounder these days, as is Rachael Ray. Giada, God bless her, must work out like a fiend, or have the world’s fastest metabolism.

The table is set, so to speak, in tonight’s two-hour opener. First we meet Colombe, a 28-year-old blonde from New York. Her trim figure can be excused—Colombe is a graduate of the Natural Gourmet School, so she’s a health-conscious cook. She’s also a former child actor and an exercise instructor.

Next into the house—there’s always a house in reality series—is Vivien, a swarthy, statuesque native of Brazil, bare midriff, tight jeans, long, flowing dark hair. If they do a movie about Sophia Loren, she gets the gig. We dig deep down and can almost forgive her, she was a model and an actress.

The other contestants’ looks hew closely to the initial two; the men also are attractive and are packing a lot of mousse—hair, not chocolate.

Ah, but finally we meet Jag, 25, a stout sparkplug in military fatigues and a crew cut. While he’s far from unattractive, Hollywood handsome he’s not. We’re getting to Emeril territory. And then there’s the sole contestant without formal culinary training, Tommy, a 33-year financial planner from Massachusetts who looks like Kent “Flounder” Dorfman. In other words, a loveable tubby who, if he had a resume, could fit comfortably between comedian Bruce Villanch and The Sopranos’ Vito Spatafore (Joseph R. Gannascoli) on VH1’s Celebrity Fit Club. We’ve found our winner. Maybe.

The show? It’s pretty good; Food’s beauty is that it runs its programming like an experienced chef. Yes, fancy ingredients are important, but the basics—presentation, fresh ingredients, ample portions—are crucial. So, with this 3rd season of Next Food Network Star the essential show is unchanged, the contestants are challenged to cook various dishes solo and in teams. The fancy ingredients are cameos by current stars like Flay, Emeril, Giada and others. We’re getting hungry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Army Wives, 10pm, Lifetime. It’s not a secret that Lifetime’s been looking for something, anything to grab the type of ratings it enjoyed during the Carole Black years. Army Wives is something, anything. It’s a good guilty pleasure that should grab ratings for a time, at least.

Great TV it isn’t, nor is that other series with the word Wives in the title. It’s also not one of Lifetime’s issues series. This is military life on the margins, with plot elements touching on some of the things soldiers and their families endure. But here Army life is purely a vehicle for drama, a way to unite five disparate characters.

In a sense, Wives fits the traditional Lifetime mold. It contains plenty of the usual Lifetime elements—husbands and fathers with the morals of Saddam Hussein, female bonding, an abhorrence of violence against women (rightly so), a back-stabbing bitch, strong women (one is even a Lt. Col. with 400 men under her command), secrets, an emphasis on emotional relationships and sex (plenty of it, but done pastorally, with many candles and soft music).

But this chick flick ensemble series with its sometimes ridiculous plot lines also continues Lifetime’s move away from some of its traditions. So we find a species rare to Lifetime originals: helpful, understanding husbands (one is a tough Army man who tries yoga). There’s also solid star power, including statuesquely gorgeous Catherine Bell (who should know about military life from nine years on JAG) and Kim Delaney, who gets the rare chance beyond NYPD Blue to play a character that’s not a victim.

The consistent scene-stealer, though, is newcomer Sally Pressman, the energetic pixie who plays Roxy LeBlanc, a rough-around-the-edges 20-something bartender and single mom of two who marries a handsome soldier. Roxy lacks any knowledge of the politics involved with being a wife on a military base. And she doesn’t endear herself to the Army wives by wearing skirts that barely cover her backside, but she certainly will bring Lifetime more than a few male viewers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Inside the Green Berets, 9pm, National Geographic Channel. Although simply shot, this is some of the most gripping television we’ve seen, as Nat Geo’s cameras were granted tremendous access to the elite Berets.

Within minutes this special clearly shows why U.S. forces find survival in Afghanistan difficult. The cliché holds—the possibility of danger lurks continuously. Besides improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which could be anywhere, the country’s numerous mountainous ridges are a haven for snipers, who can kill from distances more than 9 football fields away.

And it’s not easy being a native there either. The Taliban is making a comeback in the south, where Nat Geo’s cameras filmed. Immediately after this Green Beret unit departs, after distributing medicine and other aid to Afghanis, the Taliban likely will kill anybody who had contact with the Americans. [Inside the Taliban follows on Monday, June 4 at 9pm.]

Unfortunately, early in the mission, an IED takes the lives of two Berets, while seven others, including two Nat Geo cameramen, are wounded. It’s the worst IED hit on Special Forces in five years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adrian Grenier's HBO doc, "Shot in the Dark."

• Monday, June 4

Write & Wrong, 9pm, Lifetime. It wasn’t too long ago when young, curvaceous Kirstie Alley played the straight man to the gags of the gang on Cheers. Since her Fat Actress run on Showtime she apparently fancies herself the joke teller, not the butt. That’s her role here, as she launches a fictional whack at Hollywood’s youth movement that’s often funny, but also feels like its genesis was a raw nerve that’s been hit several times.

In this case, the subject’s not young female talent, but women writers (yep, even they have to be young). Alley comes up with an interesting fix that becomes the basis of a rather silly film. Still, Alley is a believable comic, and she carries this vehicle about as far as its entertaining but sometimes limited material can take it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shot in The Dark, 10:30pm, HBO. Several years before he made it big on HBO’s Entourage, 23-year-old Adrian Grenier tried to find out “what father means to me” as he searched for the biological father who abandoned him and his mother when Grenier was just 3—and filmed his quest.

Grenier admits he made this documentary for himself. Indeed, it’s doubtful that anyone would be interested in this slow-moving piece of therapy had its maker not become a major star. On the other hand, the camera loves Grenier’s face, particularly his eyes and his chin, which sports a panoply of facial hair, ranging from stubble to full beard and everything in between. And it’s that face that leads us to want to see how attractive his dad is; his mother, whom he grew up with, is featured in the film’s early moments.

But why is the film so lifeless? Clearly Grenier, who directed the piece, wasn’t interested in faking emotions. In fact, the actor’s laid-back portrayal on Entourage seems several levels up from where Grenier is away from the sound stage. Perhaps this is a Hollywood actor outside Hollywood (far outside: his journey takes him to Ohio), where things are real, less emotional? An alternative view is that Grenier, despite his appealing looks, is nearly helpless without a script.

For trivia fans, one of the film’s cameramen is none other than Ari Gold. No, not that one.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History Channel's "The Universe" ponders life on Mars.

• Tuesday, June 5

The Universe: Mars, 9pm, The History Channel. You could argue that The History Channel has gone out of its zone with this new series on the planets. Indeed, the pure history portion of the tonight's show about Mars is small compared with the cascade of entertaining information about the red planet, which is about half the size of Earth and is usually about 34 million miles from us.

Yet the series educates without being stodgy, thanks to talking head astronomers who delight in talking Mars. We're told that the Martian mountain known as Olympus