Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Rigby

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Rigby

  1. "When asked to specify, Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head," AP, "Treatment Described," Albuquerque Tribune, 22 November 1963, p.58
  2. Published on Mar, 25, 2019 Mueller’s Sideshow Closes – But it has Served its Purpose Kit Knightly To state my position clearly – I never believed, for a second, that the Mueller investigation would find any evidence of “Russian collusion”. And not simply because there isn’t any. I mean, let’s be honest, the powers that be “find evidence” of things that never happened all the time. They “found” photos of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle, and they “found” Satam al-Suqami’s passport in the rubble of the World Trade Center. They produced “evidence” the Russians shot down MH17 and poisoned the Skripals. There is “evidence” Assad gassed his own people. There was “evidence” Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be here in 45 minutes. (Mueller himself testified to that). The Deep State have made it more than clear that objective fact does not matter to them. When the CIA, the FBI or the Pentagon want the evidence, they invent No, I was sure they wouldn’t find Russian collusion, because they didn’t really want to. Firstly, it’s dangerous. However mad many of the leaders of the US deep state are, there are some who recognise that going to war with Russia is a bad idea. Publicly stating that Russia performed a coup in your country could lead to an international incident, a civil war, or even a nuclear holocaust. That’s not good for business. Secondly, it’s an admission of weakness. The bedrock of Imperial power has always been an unwillingness to admit its own limitations. Finding that Russia had installed Trump would be admitting to a major defeat. They can’t afford to lose that much face. Thirdly, and most importantly, they can’t take down one of their own. Trump might be crude, unpredictable, politically incorrect and lacking class…but at the end of the day he’s a billionaire son of a millionaire. He has been mixing with the elites all his life. He’s one of them, and sending down a member of the in crowd for corruption (or anything else) sets too dangerous a precedent. Trump has to be exonerated, it’s simply a matter of the system’s immune response protecting itself. (Not to mention he’s been President of the United States for over two years now, you take him to trial and who knows what he might start saying). No, Trump was never going to be charged, let alone convicted. Mueller’s investigation has ended the way it was always intended to end – with a whimper, not a bang. Do NOT make the mistake of thinking this makes it a failure. Think about how our reality has been shaped by this investigation. One, it has established as a “certain fact” in the mainstream media, that “Russian interference” is a thing that happened, even though to this date there is NOT A SINGLE PIECE of publicly available evidence to support this. The often cited “Russian xxxxx factory”, the Internet Research Agency, is a small viral marketing firm that published anti-Trump ads. The “experts” tracking Russian “influence operations” are small-time paranoiacs with nothing but homemade infographics to back up their theories. The “research fellows” of the Atlantic Council are reduced to pointing to real people – be they retirees from England or internationally renowned concert pianists – and claiming they are “Russian bots”, because they cannot find any real ones. The idea that Russia “hacked” the election, or launched a “campaign in support of Trump” is not even close to being proven, but if we embrace the Mueller report, then we are tricked into accepting that version of reality. Two, there is the very idea of “collusion”. “Collusion” has no meaning under US law. It simply is not a thing, and yet we’ve all been talking about it for years. Letting “collusion” stand as a concept is a big victory for the establishment. It has no meaning, which means it can have any meaning they want it to have. Tulsi Gabbard can have “colluded” with Assad or Modi by defending them on US TV. Jill Stein can commit “collusion” with Russia by attending a meeting. They have invented an imaginary crime, that can be used to tar anti-establishment figures whenever they want. If we embrace the Mueller report, we hand the corporate media more power to smear any political candidate, independent journalist or an ordinary citizen. Three, if we accept Mueller, then we accept the concomitant affirmation of the idea that US institutions are trustworthy, that the FBI is inherently honest, that “Gary Cooper types” like Robert Mueller are the beating heart of US democracy. The narrative is running now that an accusation was made, a special counsel investigated and got to the bottom of it. If we embrace the Mueller report, we lend credibility to a US system that deserves none. We put our trust in a body that has betrayed the public trust a thousand different times, and we accept the lie that the system is working as intended. Four, Mueller has been a tremendous distraction. Don’t underestimate the value of that. Most of you will be familiar with the Karl Rove quote: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”, but just as important is the less well-known end to that thought: “And while you’re studying that reality —judiciously, as you will— we’ll act again, creating other new realities.”. “Russiagate” has consumed hundreds of hours of television, thousands of column inches. It has cost millions and returned nothing but sound and fury. It’s a chew toy, a scratching post. Something to get our claws and teeth into while our owners are busy. And how busy they have been. Think about all the issues knocked off the front-pages by “Russiagate” rumours and totally fictitious “smoking guns”. Venezuela inches closer to destruction every day. France is a couple of street clashes away from a second 1789. Trump has slashed infrastructure and welfare budgets, and increased military spending. Again. While every anchor in the country was talking about “the walls closing in”, the US has pulled out of an arms treaty and announced they have already built the weapons that the treaty banned. While the media hammer out the propaganda message that Trump is in Putin’s pocket, the US deep state has been winding the Doomsday clock up to 1 minute before midnight. Finally, much like the “antisemitism crisis” in the Labour party, “Russian collusion” now exists as a concept that keeps everyone in check. Trump now can’t afford to meet with Putin, not without a chorus of “AHA!” from the punditry. Other political figures, those on the actual fringe (not the fake Trump fringe), have even more to lose. There’s no doubt that “Russian collusion”, or the like, will be used to file down a crowded Democrat primary field. Gabbard, Sanders, maybe even Warren, will doubtless face charges of being “soft on Putin” in one form or other. These McCarthyite smears force the Overton window closed. They control what people feel comfortable saying, even thinking. All in all, Mueller has been very, very useful to the status quo. He’s a controlled reaction, like in a nuclear power plant, keeping public anger available as an energy to harness, whilst making sure it never boils over into a chaotic meltdown. There is an understandable feeling of glee throughout the alternative media, emotions are high and “We told you so” always feels good to say. Those of us who have been dismissed as bots, Putin-apologists, useful idiots and “Trumptards” have been officially vindicated. …but do we want vindication from a corrupt establishment? Should we take any value at all in an admission of “truth” from institutions who been shown to hold the very concept of truth in contempt? The Mueller distraction has run its course, to the only the end it was ever going to reach. The Liberal cheerleaders who thought that OrangeManBad would be dragged out of the White House in chains might be tearful and angry, and in some ways that feels like a victory, but it’s only on the surface. Maddow and Harding et al might be temporarily humiliated, but their bosses are perfectly fine. Every step of the way Mueller has been an exercise in narrative control, and every step of the way it has worked. And it is still working now. They have reinforced convenient myths, stoked controversies from non-stories. Put “evidence” out into the public domain that was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. They have shown that they have total control over the vast majority of public discourse. They can set the agenda. They can dictate terms. They can invent concepts, scenarios, even entire events, and we’ll happily argue over the details of something that never even happened. “We’re an Empire now, and we act we create reality”. When we accept the Mueller report we are letting them create reality, we shouldn’t be tempted down that path because it feels like we scored some points for the little guy. If we buy into the hype around the announcement, if we let the myth survive that the US government has any interest in objective truth, then we’re playing their game. I called the Mueller report a sideshow, and that’s just what it is. A fixed ring-toss game, with prizes that seem attainable but are always kept just out of reach. Hustlers always let you win the first one, to make the game look fair. Don’t fall for it. Pick up your money and walk away from the table. It might FEEL like the good guys won, but that’s only because they let us. Next time they might not. The only real way to win is not to play. https://off-guardian.org/2019/03/25/m...
  3. You can read - or join up & download - the report here: https://archive.org/details/PikeCommitteeReportFull
  4. Fingers-crossed. Thanks for taking the time & trouble to run this piece down.
  5. I defer to you on the precise title, Andrew. If you do manage to obtain a copy of the piece featuring Stewart, please post.
  6. Some dates for Dr David Stewart's interviews and media appearances. Don't know if they're exact, but useful as a starting point: 1) New Lebanon, Tennessee, Democrat", 3/30/67 2) "The Joe Dolan Show", KNEW radio, Oakland, CA, 4/10/67 3) Nashville Banner as reported in The Milwaukee Sentinel - Jan 30, 1967 http://kennysideshow.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/jfk-and-doctors-at-parkland.html
  7. Hi Daniel, Good to see you back hereabouts. On the subject of Yarborough's observations about the Secret Service detail's movements on Elm, it's worth noting that he has powerfully supported by the long-ignored testimony of the motorcycle escort. There is a quite outstanding & readily accessible collection of these testimonies in Larry Rivera & Jim Fetzers' The JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interviews: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/01/the-jfk-escort-officers-speak-the-fred-newcomb-interviews/ Paul
  8. Shots from inside the presidential limousine 1. Bobby Hargis (Police motorcycle outrider, left rear of limousine):Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots? Hargis: “Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me,” 6WCH294. 2. Austin Miller (railroad worker, on triple overpass): Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?” Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225. 3. Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): “in front of or beside” the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, first post-assassination edition, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176. 4. Officer E. L. Boone (policeman, corner of Main and Houston Streets):" I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508. 5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. told the Dallas County Sheriffs Office that he “saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or somewhere immediately around the President's car," 19WCH467. 6. Jack Franzen: “He said he heard the sound of an explosion which appeared to him to come from the President's car and ...small fragments flying inside the vehicle and immediately assumed someone had tossed a firecracker inside the automobile,” 22WCH840. 7. Mrs. Jack Franzen: “Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile…at approximately the same time she noticed dust or small pieces of debris flying from the President’s automobile,” 24WCH525. 7. Clint Hill (on the second shot, the fatal one to the head): “It was as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object," 2WCH144. 8. James Altgens: “The last shot sounded like it came from the left side of the car, if it was close range because, if it were a pistol it would have to be fired at close range for any degree of accuracy," 7WCH518. 9. James N. Crawford: “As I observed the parade, I believe there was a car leading the President's car, followed by the President's car and followed, I suppose, by the Vice President's car and, in turn, by the Secret Service in a yellow closed sedan. The doors of the sedan were open. It was after the Secret Service sedan had gone around the corner that I heard the first report and at that time I thought it was a backfire of a car but,in analyzing the situation, it could not have been a backfire of a car because it would have had to have been the President's car or some car in the cavalcade there. The second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one. I could not see the President's car,” 6WCH171 10. Royce Skelton: “around” the car 11. Mary Moorman, KRLD Radio interview, 22 Nov 1963, 1530hrs: “The sound popped, well it just sounded like, well, you know, there might have been a firecracker right there in that car.” 12. In his Warren Commission Testimony Dr. McClelland stated that the wound in the back of the president’s skull could be expected: “From a .45 pistol fired at close range,” 6WCH38
  9. Labour Monthly, January 1964, pp. 1-15; Notes of the Month: After Kennedy By R. Palme Dutt December 10, 1963 Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long Shakespeare Extract: Presidential Murders as a Political System For a century the murder of the President from time to time has been an unwritten article of the American Constitution. Commentators have observed that out of thirty-two Presidents during the past century four have been assassinated (leaving out the score unsuccessful attempts on others), and that one in eight chances of sudden death might appear a somewhat high casualty rate. But they have either remarked on this as a curious phenomenon, or deduced from it a strain of violence in the American Way of Life. What they have not observed is the constitutional significance of this practice. Under the United States Constitution the President, once he is installed in office for his term of four years (which in practice in the modern period has tended to become a term of eight years), exercises supreme executive power at will, and cannot be removed by any device in the Constitution. He cannot be forced to resign by a vote of Congress. He cannot be impeached. If a President develops progressive tendencies, and begins to enter on courses of action displeasing to the great propertied interests which are the real rulers of America, there is no legal or constitutional way of removing him, there is no way of getting rid of him save by physical elimination. The record of the kingdom of the Carnegies and Rockefellers has shown no scruples in that respect, either within the United States or through the actions of the Marines or the C.I.A. or other agencies in Latin America or other countries. A Roll of Dead Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy were shot dead in public. Others also from the moment of causing displeasure to the ruling interests vanished rapidly from the scene. Woodrow Wilson, aflame with the ideal of the League of Nations as a vision of international peace, incurred the obstructive hatred of the Elders of the Senate, who understood very well that American monopoly capitalism could not yet dominate an international organisation of this type and would therefore be stronger outside. Buoyantly Wilson entered on a speaking tour to convert the nation with his unrivalled prestige and popularity. On the tour he was suddenly struck down with physical collapse from which he never recovered; and he died an embittered man. Roosevelt returned from Yalta with its triumphant vision of American-Soviet co-operation for peace and popular advance in the post-war world, and incurred such venomous hatred from American reaction as has never been equalled. Within two months he was dead. He was replaced by the miserable pigmy Truman to inaugurate the cold war. A C.I.A. Job? The facts of the Dallas murder may become later more fully known. Or, as is more likely, they may remain forever buried. Universal suspicion has certainly been aroused in all countries by the peculiar circumstances and the still more peculiar actions and successive statements of the authorities both before and after. The obvious tale of "a Communist" was too crude to take in anyone anywhere, especially as it was evident to all that the blow was a blow precisely against the aims most ardently supported by Communists and the left, the aims of peaceful co-existence, American-Soviet co-operation and democratic rights, which Kennedy was accused by the right of helping. The old legal maxim in a case of murder, cui bono "for whose benefit?" still has its value for sniffing out the guilty party. It is natural therefore that most commentators have surmised a coup of the Ultra-Right or racialists of Dallas. That may be but the trail, if followed up seriously, seems to reach wider. Any speculation at present can only be in the air, since the essential facts are still hidden. But on the face of it this highly organised coup (even to the provision of a "fall guy" Van der Lubbe and rapid killing of the fall guy while manacled in custody, as soon as there appeared a danger of his talking), with the manifest complicity necessary of a very wide range of authorities, bears all the hallmarks of a C.I.A. job. Can the Rat be Deodorised? After all, the C.I.A. had just arrived fresh from bumping off Diem earlier in the same month. The Kennedy job was certainly a larger order to undertake; but the operation was manifestly organised with the customary elaborate attention to detail. Even the background information offered with regard to the Van der Lubbe presented a highly peculiar story. From the Marines; a supposed "defector" to the Soviet Union being rejected by the Soviet Union; after he has done his job there, returning with all expenses paid by the U.S. Government (not usually so generous to "defectors"); endeavours to join anti-Castro gangs in New Orleans, but is rejected by them on the grounds that they regard him as an agent of the C.I.A.; turns up next as a supposed Chairman of a non-existent branch of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which denies knowledge of him or the existence of any branch either in Louisiana or Texas; applies vainly for a visa to Cuba; travels about widely, including to Mexico, with no visible source of finance. Here is typical small fry (�so weary with disasters, tugg�d with fortune, that I would set my life on any chance, to mend it or be rid on �t�) fit to be chosen, and equipped with damning "evidence" as an expendable fall guy, while a more skilled hand does the deed. By accident, when the whole of Dallas is screened in vigilant preparation, the one most strategic building on the route is overlooked. By accident the one notorious suspect, already under supervision by the F.B.I., but intended this time to be found as a suspect, is overlooked in the general rounding up and clearing out of all suspects. By accident, when immediately after the murder the whole building is swarming with police, he is able to walk out unmolested. And then the unhappy fall guy, tricked and trapped and no doubt double-crossed in face of previous promises of an easy getaway and rich reward, noisily protests his innocence, a quick shot inside the prison closes his mouth; and the shot is fired, oddly enough, again through an accidental oversight in letting this unauthorised intruder come close with a revolver, by a type described as an underworld character close to the police. No. The whole story is really too thick; and the more details are offered, the thicker it gets. Of course it will all be cleared up now by the Presidential Commission of Enquiry. Or perhaps not. Naturally we can have every confidence. For on the Presidential Commission Enquiry sits appropriately enough our old friend Allen Dulles, former Director of the C.I.A. The full piece here: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1251-Suspicion-in-Plenty-An-anthology-of-scepticism-published-in-Britain-1963-1973&p=6147#post6147
  10. Yes; and there was a fourth female witness removed from the south curb. In citing her intial testimony, I touch upon the issue has kept troubling you in this thread - that is, the question of time. You're rightly puzzled by the problem of timings - when did such-and-such a witness move to where and at what speed. The problem partly arises because time - in the form of frames - were excised from the Z fake, condensing the execution sequence, with important consequences for what followed. As to the question of an "innocent" mistake by the FBI man in his location of the group of three, look again at my earlier posting - this "error" was not isolated, but rather part of a series of moves designed to solve the problem posed by the Z fake: how to make reality, in the form of too many witnesses on the south curb, conform to the cinematic deception.
  11. Delighted to at least partially assist, doubting Thomas. Here is Holt from the ROKC website thread, Minor Witnesses, courtesy of Stan Dane, who, to his additional credit, correctly identifies the side (south) of Elm on which she took temporary residence: http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13242379-minor-witnesses So, in the spirit of amicable reciprocity, a question for a question: where are the group of Holt, Jacob, and Simmons on the south curb of Elm facing Zapruder?
  12. Gloria Jeanne Holt, statement to FBI’s SAs Eugene P. Petrakis & A. Raymond Switzer, 18 March 1964: Left the TSBD “at approximately 12.10 p.m.” Stella Mae Jacob, statement to the FBI’s SAs Eugene P. Petrakis & A. Raymond Switzer, 18 March 1964: Left the TSBD “at approximately 12.00 p.m.” Sharon Nelson (nee Simmons), statement to the FBI’s SA E.J. Robertson, 18 March 1964: Left the TSBD “at about” 12.20 p.m. The presence of these three south Elmers in a group, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, was confirmed by Deputy Sheriff C.L. “Lummie” Lewis: We know the FBI comprehended the threat posed by the presence of these three women to the Z-fake because a) of the omission of any reference to the side of Elm Street from which Simmons observed the motorcade; and the near-simultaneous attempt, by the same FBI man who interviewed Simmons, but not Holt and Jacob, to relocate Jean Hill (from the south curb back towards the TSBD). By separating Simmons from Holt and Jacob, then relocating Hill, the FBI reduced five women on the south curb of Elm facing Zapruder, to two - with Moorman & Hill temporarily supplanted by Jacob & Holt. That this effort was subsequently abandoned is neither here nor there - what we see is an aborted cover-up, which is of great value in and of itself.
  13. Who said sarcasm travels? Not me. By the way, Epstein? You mean Angleton's amanuensis?
  14. Medford Evans, another rightist, by contrast, took until 1967 to point the finger at the Secret Service: http://fpparchive.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Coup-dEtat_Medford-Evans_Apr-6-1992_The-New-American.pdf Coup d’Etat November 22, 1963 by Medford Evans AMERICAN OPINION, September 1967, pp. 73–100 This article is taken from the introductory chapter to Dr. Evans’ forthcoming book on the Johnson administration. [The Usurpers, Western Islands Press, Boston, 1968, 249 pp.—KAR] Medford, Evans, a former college professor and once Administrative officer on the U.S. atomic energy project (1944–1952), holds his Doctoral degree from Yale University. Dr. Evans’ work has appeared in Harper’s, Sewanee Review, Human Events, National Review, and elsewhere. He has long been an AMERICAN OPINION Contributing Editor and regular correspondent. .
  15. You make very sound points, Robert, with which I agree. Lane, for example, got a bundle of stuff off, well, let him tell you: So let me see if I have this sequence, in all its innocence, aright: On November 26, Lane commences work on his first literary defence of Oswald. In mid-December, said defence is published by that legendary right-wing organ, The National Guardian. Yet in January 1964, author of said defence travels to Dallas to be greeted by a journalist, professionally active in the cover-up from the outset, and – get this - a recent applicant for employment with the CIA, who just happens to hand him (Lane) a stack of photostats exonerating Oswald, and calling into doubt a number of key official claims. Odd, no?
  16. A very good question, when we consider how content not merely Lane, but so many other of the first generation researchers were to ignore so many of the closest witnesses, not least the motorcycle outriders immediately behind and to the side of the presidential limousine. This "oversight" reinforced the omissions of the Warren Report's compilers, and was only corrected thanks to the work, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, of Fred Newcomb and those interviewers working with and for him. One point of fact on Brehm, though, his first quoted testimony to reach print pointed somewhere very different than the grassy knoll: Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): The shot(s) came from “in front of or beside” the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, first post-assassination edition, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.
  17. He wasn't and isn't. Lane's work between 1963 and the end of 1966 was studiously non-committal on the question of CIA involvement. Four examples: 1) Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination,” The British who killed Kennedy? Committee, December 1964 (Pamphlet, 32pp): Anything here on the CIA-did-it? Not a sausage. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1251-Suspicion-in-Plenty-An-anthology-of-scepticism-published-in-Britain-1963-1973&p=6831#post6831 2) Mark Lane, “Who is Jack Ruby?” The Minority of One, April 1965, (Vol VII, No. 4), 8-11. Here, on p.9 (and again later in the same piece), we find Lane approvingly quoting the Agency: 3) Mark Lane interviewed: “Who Killed Kennedy?” Fact, Nov-Dec 1966 (vol 3, issue 6), 7-8. From the Harold Weisberg archive: Anything here on the CIA-did-it? No, again. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/T%20Disk/Thornley%20Kerry/Item%2036.pdf 4) “Interview: Mark Lane,” Playboy, February 1967, 41-42, 44-64, 66-68. On p. 62, the following: Lane's position only shifted following his involvement with Garrison and the Shaw trial. In so far as Lane lit after any of the intelligence-cum-law-enforcement bureaucracies in the period in question, it was the FBI. He was even more of a late-comer when it comes to the question of Secret Service centrality to the plot. William Loeb, the right-wing editor of the Manchester Union-Leader, for example, beat Lane to the punch by a mere 40+ years, printing an editorial, on 26 November 1963, entitled "Investigate The Secret Service."
  18. Rusbridger – Handmaiden to Powerby Craig Murray on August 11, 2014 12:27 pm in Uncategorized Rusbridger’s Guardian has become an unrepentant unionist, zionist, and neo-con New Labour propaganda vehicle. Particularly deceitful is their attitude to the security services and the “war on terror”, where Rusbridger stands revealed as a handmaiden to power. He was, a very senior Guardian source told me, particularly upset when I described him as “Tony Blair’s catamite”. Let me say it again. Let me give you a specific case to illustrate my point. On 2 August the Guardian published a piece by Jamie Doward and Ian Cobain which, on the face of it, exposed the British Foreign Office for lobbying against the publication of the US Senate report on extraordinary rendition, lest details of British complicity become public. On the face of it, a worthy piece of journalism exposing deeply shady government behaviour. Except that I had published precisely the same story a full 15 weeks earlier, on April 14 2014, having been urgently contacted by a whistleblower. What is more, immediately I heard from the whistleblower I made several urgent phone calls to Ian Cobain. He neither took nor returned my calls. I therefore left detailed messages, referring to the story which I had now published on my website. In fact, the Guardian only published this story after William Hague had written to Reprieve to confirm that this lobbying had happened. In other words the Guardian published only after disclosure had been authorised by Government. Furthermore, in publishing the government authorised story, the Guardian omitted the absolutely key point – that the purpose of the UK lobbying was to affect court cases under way and in prospect in the UK. Both in civil cases of compensation for victims, and in potential criminal cases for complicity in torture against Blair, Straw et al, British judges have (disgracefully) accepted the argument that evidence of the torture cannot be used because the American do not want it revealed, and may curtail future intelligence sharing. Obviously, if the Americans publish the material themselves, this defence falls. As this defence is the major factor keeping Blair, Straw and numerous still senior civil servants out of the dock, this sparked the crucial British lobbying to suppress the Feinstein report – which has indeed succeeded in causing a huge amount of redaction by the White House. My mole was absolutely adamant this was what was happening, and it is what I published. Yet Cobain in publishing the government authorised version does not refer to the impact on trials at all – despite the fact that this was 100% the subject of the letter from Reprieve to which Hague was replying, and that the letter from Reprieve mentioned me and my blog by name. Instead of giving the true story, the government authorised version published by Cobain misdirects the entire subject towards Diego Garcia. The truth is that Diego Garcia is pretty incidental in the whole rendition story. On UK soil there was actually a great deal more done at Wick airport (yes, I do mean Wick, not Prestwick). That is something the government is still keeping tight closed, so don’t expect a mention from Cobain. I was fooled by Cobain for a long time. What I now realise is that his role is to codify and render safe information which had already leaked. He packages it and sends it off in a useless direction – away from Blair and Straw in this instance. He rigorously excludes material which is too hot for the establishment to handle. The great trick is, that the Guardian persuades its loyal readers that it is keeping tabs on the security services when in fact it is sweeping up after them. Which is a precise description of why the Guardian fell out with Assange and WikiLeaks. I suppose I should expect no better of the newspaper which happily sent the extremely noble Sara Tisdall to prison, but we should have learnt a lot from Rusbridger’s agreement with the security services to smash the Snowden hard drives. The Guardian argues that other copies of the drives existed. That is scarcely the point. Would you participate in a book-burning because other copies of books exist? The Guardian never stands up to the security services or the establishment. It just wants you to believe that it does. Source: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/08/rusbridger-handmaiden-to-power/#comments
  19. Rather's very different versions of the Z-film are discussed in the interview listed below:
  20. David Aaronovitch Posts Fake Book Reviews and Lies About Whyby craig on April 23, 2014 10:25 am in Uncategorized David Aaronovitch entered into a conspiracy with others to post fake 5 star reviews of his last shoddy book on Amazon. He now lies about why. He has attempted to defuse the row by coming clean and making light, courtesy of his Murdoch employer. But his explanation is a plain lie. Aaronovitch claims that : “almost before my book was published, the first 1-star reviews started to appear, from people who had never read it. After a week, even I wouldn’t have bought it.” In fact, the very first eight reviews on Amazon were all five star - which by his own argument must be “from people who had never read it”. That is very probably true, as the first two five star reviews were posted on the very day the book was released, 7 May 2009. In fact the average rating of the first reviews is very much higher than the average rating he gets from the general public overall, extremely suspiciously so. (One remote possibility is he was getting Amazon to delete critical reviews, but that also would negate his justification for procuring the fake positive reviews). He claims “After a week even I wouldn’t have bought it”. In fact, after a week it was averaging a literally unbelievable five stars. It was a full month before the first one star review arrived. Then it was from an amazon real name verified customer who Aaronovitch plainly does not think should be entitled to their opinion. His excuse for this attempt to defraud the public by planting false reviews of his product is, quite simply, a lie. Aaronovitch is a xxxx. Which makes you worry a little about his journalistic standards otherwise, does it not? It is an interesting glimpse into the dark mind of one of the leading propagandists for the Iraq War. It seems that Aaronovitch with others entered a conspiracy to boost book sales through fraudulent reviews. Which as his book in question argues that pro-establishment conspiracies never have existed, is rather ironic. I do not regard this as a minor dereliction. I believe it opens serious questions about a journalist’s integrity. In the days when the Times was a respectable newspaper, it would have led to Aaronovitch’s dismissal. I should say I have never asked anybody to post a positive review of one of my books on Amazon. I am happy to say thatMurder in Samarkand has a much higher star review rating than Voodoo Histories, and unlike Aaronovitch I did not have to cheat to get it. Only one of my 49 reviews by “Biodiplomacy” is actually from a friend but I did not ask him to do it, and I am sure in any circumstances he would give his honest opinion. He often disagrees with me in comments here! I am conscious that one probable consequence of this posting is that neo-con trolls will now bomb Murder in Samarkand with bad reviews. I very much welcome reviews, good, bad, or indifferent, from anybody who has honestly read the book and is giving their genuine opinion. This is an extract from the article in the Times where Aaronovitch admits to his fraud, and lies about the cause. I can’t link to it because it was behind a paywall. To Mr Murdoch’s copyright lawyers, I am quoting a brief extract for the purpose of legitimate analysis and debate. If you have any sense, you would realize I am also doing you a favour by exposing your star columnist as a cheat and a fraud: Something like half of all book sales are now made through Amazon, and when you find a book on Amazon it is accompanied by reviews from “readers” who give it a 1 (lowest) to 5 star rating. So, almost before my book was published, the first 1-star reviews started to appear, from people who had never read it. After a week, even I wouldn’t have bought it. There is only one thing you can do in this situation. You ask every friend and family member to go onsite PDQ and 5-star your baby. You get your frauds to balance off their frauds. Ce n’est pas magnifique, mais (grâce à Amazon) c’est la guerre. Actually, David, ce n’est pas la guerre. La guerre is what you supported so enthusiastically in Iraq, and involves the blasting to pieces of young children, the rape of countless women, the end of hundreds of thousands of lives and the wrecking of millions more. It involves the destruction of the infrastructure of countries and the loss of decades of economic development, and a ruinous expense to our own economy. It involves the bombing of densely packed urban areas in Gaza, for which you are an enthusiast, and from which the terror and suffering is something you will never understand. For you just sit here in the highly paid heart of the warmongering Murdoch establishment, and indulge in lies and cheats to further your income and your grubby little career. Craig Murray: http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/04/david-aaronovitch-posts-fake-book-reviews-and-lies-about-why/
  21. Robert Scheer, “A Political Portrait of Robert Kennedy,” Ramparts, February 1967, 11-16 http://www.unz.org/Pub/Ramparts-1967feb-00011
  22. Why were the plotters and their media mouthpieces so concerned to answer a question - did the limousine stop on Elm? - that was not being posed by the world-public? The answer lies in the testimony of the motorcyle outriders, a group largely - and revealingly - ignored by the Warren Commission. What follows is a necessarily truncated version - there are too many images within the piece to post in its entirely here - focusing on the testimony elicited by an interviewer acting for Fred Newcomb: Larry Rivera, the son of a career military man who served as CID officer in the Army and a Certified Network Engineer, has made a lifelong study of the JFK assassination. He has given interviews on the assassination to Spanish media and has the most complete dossier on Billy Nolan Lovelady ever done. Jim Fetzer is a former Marine Corps officer and McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth.
  • Create New...