Counsel for appellant has done an extraordinary job with the materials at hand. The theories of defense advanced on appeal were not, however, those adopted at trial and were not supported or preserved by trial objections. In no instance can we say that the error assigned was plain error that affected “substantial rights.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

*378 Nor can we agree with appellant that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at the time of trial. The trial strategy adopted appears to have been a perfectly valid plan of defense in the face of abundant evidence of guilt and an explanation by the appellant that may well have taxed the credulity of the jury.

Judgment affirmed.