Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Rigby

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Rigby

  • Rank
    Super Member
  • Birthday 09/28/1962

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Southport, England

Recent Profile Visitors

17,276 profile views
  1. And that's exactly what happened, but not for the reasons commonly believed or hitherto specified. One further point. I would entirely discount the notion of a unified CIA approach to the matter. The evidence points unmistakably to a plot and cover-up which reflected the prevailing power relations within the agency prior to 22 November 1963; and thus to the dominant role and methodology of a particular unit - faction, if you prefer - among the plotters. The same bunch in effect, who served up Oswald as the patsy.
  2. Doug Horne’s work on the two, rigidly compartmentalized, visits of the Z fake to the CIA’s NPIC - first on the evening of Saturday, 23 November, and again the following night - is remarkable and I remain deeply in his debt. That indebtedness duly noted, there are profound flaws. Two are key. Combined, the pair demolish his case that the primary cause of incriminating evidence remaining within the altered Zapruder film was the consequence of time pressure on the scale and in the sequence he postulated. The first of these flaws comprised an erroneous assumption. Horne proceeded as if there
  3. I can't quite believe you took that stuff about "O J Groden" seriously enough to issue the above-disclaimer. Good grief! 😊
  4. You really haven't read any Doug Horne? Really? What do anti-alterationists do with their time? Swap gifs? Oh well, let's pretend you haven't. Here's part of his answer. I favour a very different one, which I'll come to in due course, but credit where credit's due, it's excellent and may well be entirely sufficient: Why Do So Many in the JFK Research Community Resist the Mounting Evidence that the Zapruder Film is an Altered Film? I do not include here, in this question, those who have written books defending the Zapruder film's authenticity; their obstinacy and closed-mindedne
  5. While Jeremy Bojczuk breaks in his all-new, O J Groden-approved footwear, it is time for the rest of us to take one small step for research, one giant leap out of group-think. In 1964, the task of the Warren Commission lawyers was to support the revised Z fake, first, by excluding those whose recall was deemed too dangerous and/or those whose profession and proximity (motorcycle outriders) conferred added, and decidedly unwelcome, authority to their observations; and then by browbeating the carefully willowed few in an attempt to make their testimony either conform, or merely pose no thre
  6. But Jeremy, where’s the usual lunar stuff? Most disappointing. There can be no doubt, though, that you stand upon the firmest of foundations. Indeed, on nothing less than the shoulders of a titan, the very photo-expert colossus who enabled Geraldo Rivera’s ABC-TV late-night “Good Night America” on 6 March 1975, and the man who is, unquestionably, the world’s leading Dealey Plaza mendicant. I refer, of course, to O J Groden, the man who single-handedly put the “ex” back into expert . It beggars belief, frankly, that anyone would want to take issue with such a pioneer. You should reall
  7. Chris, 1) Yes 2) SOP - according to Newton T Fisher, a senior policeman from the city, even the DPD "had prepared two or three possible routes so as not to be wholly unprepared." Tea on the table.
  8. A brief sketch of what Team Dulles-Angleton would need to have done: Fixed upon the location & nature of the event Settled upon the murder method Established the desired narrative Checked the feasibility of using film to achieve or reinforce the desired narrative Ensured, particularly if niche, the requisite level of photographic-technical expertise Storyboarded, in Hitchcockian detail, the assassination sequence, with variants Despatched photogrammetrists to the assassination scene to obtain measurements, angles etc Amassed and/or procured a librar
  9. Strawmen, guilt-by-association, more obsessing about the moon, the apparent disavowal of the rich history of film fakery, not to mention the rules governing physical evidence in court - oh, and the usual failure of elementary logic - all topped off by the abolition of the eyewitness in the practice of justice and law enforcement. Not bad for one post, Mr Flywheel. Now if the Z fake - and all its buttressing fake films - were genuine, we would expect to find all the closest eyewitnesses identified and questioned in a fair and proper manner. We would, wouldn't we? But because it is a fake,
  10. Any plot, no matter how small or uncomplicated, to kill a sitting President necessarily entails risk, the size of which self-evidently rises or falls based on such factors as, to name but three, location, timing and method. No plot poses greater challenges, in an era of mass camera and vehicular ownership, than one in which the deed is to be committed in a public space lacking minimal access control points. In making this choice, the three great risks to any plot – detection (of one or more element of the plot), prevention (the negation of the whole endeavour), and exposure (actual assa
  11. Boyczuk takes the case Oh dear, a lawyer who doesn’t read. Still, as Smashie and Nicey, two legendary British disc-jockeys, regularly reminded listeners, “charidee” must always be our watchword. In that spirit, I’m prepared to delete this reply just as soon as you’ve read post twelve in this thread. But only upon payment of a seven-cent nickel.
  12. The problem here, Chris, is that you're approaching history the wrong way round, viewing it backwards instead of forwards. Yes, the film's existence was publicized, but the American people initially had no confirmation of the precise content of the Zapruder film until frames were actually printed. Could a substitution have been contemplated - or even attempted? The very thought seems preposterous. But yet it's true. It happened. For the curious fact is that the first four frames to appear in US newspapers, purporting to be from the Zapruder film, are to be found in a few US afternoo
  13. Let me see if I can help your ailing powers of elementary reasoning. If the Dulles-Angleton faction didn't destroy the Z fake, then we are left with a finite number of options. The most obvious one is because it served their purposes - but only after tweaking and refinements. All of the latter had to be undertaken, mind, within a framework that preserved the exculpation of the Secret Service, their primary proxy in the coup. By the way, the first version of the fake included footage of the left turn. It's presence is attested to in such diverse sources as, to name but three, Dan Rat
  14. You make some interesting points, none of which I agree with. The CIA didn't always act to further the interests of its businesses and industries. Far from it. In the cases of, most obviously, the USSR, Eastern Europe and China (post-1949), the agency's extensive programmes of covert action (assassination and sabotage, to be specific) were designed to achieve precisely the opposite - they sought to close markets to Western countries, the better to starve the Communist "beast." Then there is the case of Cuba which, after the near-extirpation of the country's Communist Party & tra
  15. It has been suggested to me, decidedly tongue-in-cheek, that Dulles & Angleton failed to respond to news of the Z film's existence because they were paralyzed by grief and remorse. This is so outlandish that I find this explanation to be as persuasive as any other yet offered, and thus conclude that the deadly duo could have acted but chose not to. Which then begs the question - why? Was it because the CIA created the film or merely recognized its potential utility? For the purpose of argument, I'll here the assume latter. So, what benefits did the film, suitably manip
  • Create New...