Paul Rigby

For the most part, it's all pretty predictable fair. In fact, a typical Farley post, commingling, as it does, aggressive self-pity, tawdry logic, and self-satire - all suffused with that characteristic ill-suppressed hysteria. But then things take a turn for the better. Among the detritus of the the following paragraph, a sentence, highlighted, commands attention: The highlighted sentence is so clunkingly sub-tabloid that it just had to be the work of, not Farley, but DisIngenuous*. All of which begs the inevitable question: how much of the rest of this, and other posts, ostensibly by Farley, are actually the work of DisIngenuous? And is this an isolated instance of DisIngenuous sock-puppetry? Keep your eyes peeled, folks, and perhaps also the ears: some of those Black Op emails to Jimbo are frightfully sycophantic. *“That quote he uses does not mean what he takes it to mean,” DisIngenuous, 6 Nov 2008 https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?226-Where-to-buy-the-very-good-1992-British-documentary-on-the-assassination-of-RFK&p=958#post958

In another thread, Pat Speer asked: Question 1 assumes the compilers of 1327C were concerned with protecting the WC. In fact, the purpose of the publication of the 26 volumes was to destroy the former. The very act of detailing the evidentiary base from which the conclusions ostensibly derived was to expose them as an absurd non-sequitur. Question 2 assumes 1327C was written in time for publication in the 26 volumes. I'm not convinced, for the success or failure of 1327C rested in considerable measure on the passage of time, both in distancing the fraudulent 1327C from memories of the Kilduff press conference which proceeded it; and in finalising the content of the recast fake Z-film. So why manufacture it all? In part, it was designed to negate the enduring suspicion which inevitably attended the "disappearance" of all film and sound recordings of the Parkland doctors' first, untainted descriptions of the wounds. It sought to turn this act of negation to advantage, in the classic CIA manner, by conceding ground (on the throat wound) even as it continued the suppression of Perry's initial location of the head entrance wound. The first sustained attempt at negation came from CBS as early as 1967. In conceding the throat wound as entrance, 1327C offered opponents of the official fiction a useful and desperately desired fillip, and a degree of vindication: But in suppressing the true nature of Perry's first description of the location of the head wound, it did nothing to challenge the grip exerted upon those same opponents by the CIA's primary weapon of ambiguity, the second version of the Z-fake. An accurate rendition of Perry's first and authentic testimony would have exposed as fabricated the fake's depiction of the exploding upper right side of Kennedy's head. Just how glaringly obvious is the fraudulence of the transcript? This obvious: At just after half-one CST, the president's official (albeit acting) press secretary, citing the president's official physician, informs the assembled journos that it is a simple matter of a bullet through the brain. A bullet, moreover, which entered the (right) temple. A mere half hour latter - at most generous - more or less the same group of reporters find nothing remotely odd about about wound descriptions which make no mention of an entrance wound in the location specified by Kilduff,citing Burkley. Not one of them. This is not remotely plausible. Better yet, the one (AP) despatch which does incur the wrath of the cover-up's defenders - most notably Manchester - just happens to be precisely the despatch in which we find consistency & congruence between the Kilduff location, and that provided by original,authentic Perry testimony: the front of the head. That's a striking coincidence.

Beats the hell out of the absurd official transcript of the press conference, for sure. From defending the fake film to defending the fraudulent transcript - what a fearless opponent of the cover-up you are!

Er, is that so? Mark Lane, “The Warren Commission Report and the Assassination: Text of Mark Lane’s Extemporaneous Lecture at University College, London, 10 December 1964 ( The British ‘who killed Kennedy?’ Committee, December 1964 [Pamphlet, 32pp]). Yup, particularly when you're so obviously wrong. But I have enjoyed both the amateur psychologizing and your repeated insistence that you have no interest in the medical evidence. The more frequently you repeat it, the more I believe it. Honest.

Bump in response to David Lifton's attempt to sell a patently censored news archive as the definitive word on who said what and when at Parkland on November 22.

The above is better than the below? Really? It was not only Parkland staff who attested to a left-temple entrance wound. Entirely independently of them, Father Oscar Huber, upon leaving the hospital after administering the last rites, said precisely that, an observation he reaffirmed in an interview with Shirley Martin in late 1964; and eyewitness Norman Similas told the Toronto Star the same thing on the afternoon of the assassination. The left-temple entrance, as Sylvia Meagher noted in Accessories After the Fact, was in fact plotted by both Humes & Boswell at Bethesda, the former before alteration, the latter after a brief (and aborted) attempt to expand the entrance wound so as to effect a complete, neat, straight reversal of bullet bath (from front-left, rear-right, to vice-versa). Now why would you want to omit all mention of the above, Pat?

I can't wait for Pat's explanation of how Chaney managed to get sufficiently ahead of Kennedy to turn round and see the latter shot in the face - while managing to elude the cameras of Z et al. Did he become invisible, Pat, or are the films a fake? And speaking of Z's testimony before the cameras of WFAA, whatever happened to his statement that he filmed the presidential limo making the turn from Houston onto Elm? A cynic could begin to conclude that your arguments are not merely contradictory and perverse, but plain dishonest. And that would be a pity, I'm sure.

I am delighted to remind Herr Speer of the pith of Brehm's original statement: “President Dead, Connally Shot,” The Dallas Times Herald, 22 November 1963, p.2 [cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176.] I did like the weaselly reference to Brehm's "earliest interviews," though. Nice one, Pat.

Someone has unquestionably made a stool of himself, but is it necessarily the blessed Craig Lamson?

Interesting piece on JFK's Executive Producer, Arnon Milchan, the noted "liberal" arms dealer, Mossad officer, and propagandist for white-ruled South Africa: ANN LOUISE BARDACH In her long journalism career, Ann Louise Bardach has interviewed world leaders from Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto to Cuba's Fidel Castro. Bardach stays on the world stage this month with her story on enigmtic producer Arnon Milchan ("The Last Tycoon" page 74), who already exerted a certain global influence before he came to town. "Most Hollywood people think they're very sophisticated, but in fact, they're not," says Bardach, who writes for Vanity Fair and the New York Times and is the winner of the 1995 PEN West Award for Journalism. "Milchan is truly an international player" Bardach's work has also appeared in The New Yorker and the New Republic.

Strange, but I get the same impression every time I read anything by you. I confess, I’m so unfamiliar with Newman’s work that I had an argument with him about it at the Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool in the 1990s. It was, in brief, about his attempt to exonerate the CIA as an institution from involvement in the coup. I thought his line was preposterous and told him so. He was, if I recall, unimpressed. We parted without exchanging addresses. For those interested in a devastating analysis of the Newman Exoneration, try Salandria’s, as found within Michael D. Morrisey’s Correspondence with Vincent Salandria, 1993-2000 (Lulu, 2007). Scott’s a curious figure, with important limits to his dissent. His continued support, for example, for the proposition that Lodge removed Richardson as CIA station chief in Saigon to remove an allegedly important impediment to an anti-Diem coup, is demonstrably untrue; and I continue to wonder why he persists with this nonsense, not least given the abundant evidence of CIA responsibility for earlier attempts to remove Diem. Here we come to one of those petulant and dishonest outbursts to which you are intermittently given. Unless I've missed something,I've never suggested Kellerman was anything more than a hood under orders, albeit one with several pressing problems, most notably at Parkland. The case you make for the plotters’ supposed plan to pin the blame on Castro is remarkably old-hat; and blithely disregards the diverse evidences that the CIA installed Castro in Havana as a hemispheric bogeyman for the long-haul. I agree with you without reservation when it comes to Hoover, but with some element of doubt as to what Landslide knew and when. That doesn’t mean he was involved in the planning of the hit; or that he was a particularly valuable player afterwards. It’s simply a question of his foreknowledge. Given that he could read a paper, he could not fail to be unaware of the rift between Kennedy and Langley. Did it go beyond that? I don’t know for sure. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the coup and its purposes. The major players – Dulles, Angleton et al – first sought to restore the domestic political status quo ante, not furnish a casus belli for immediate action against Havana. It wasn’t a fallback, so much as the original intent. The anti-Castro stuff was merely red meat for the rubes in the trenches. Again, this is to miss several important points, most particularly, that involving the CIA's approach, which has proved as flexible and unscrupulous as one might expect. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with it, the CIA itself produced the most sustained conspiratorial piece in the entire 26 volumes of evidence: It’s in the final volume, boasts Helms’ imprimatur, was dated late February 1964, and urged the Commission to consider “ties between Ruby and others who might have been interested in the assassination of President Kennedy” (p.470). The memorandum sets out just about every false sponsor the CIA was subsequently to sponsor, through a variety of authors, not excluding the two you (correctly) identify, Russo and Epstein. A bit of a nonsense, this, but one serious point needs making: Black's work on the Chicago plot, while fascinating, and perhaps entirely true, requires a lot more research and thought. I remain open-minded on it.

Pretty rich coming from a guy who's still trying, a la Thompson, to sell us the Zapruder fake; and exculpate the SS. You may fool the Yanks, Jimbo, but you cut no mustard this side of the Atlantic.

Still trying to keep the focus away from the SS, are you, Jim? Reckon its working?

Bowron came from Derbyshire in the UK, the same county as Maurice Oldfield, the MI6 station-chief in Washington, 1960-63. I've long wondered if there was a family - or professional - connection. Bowron's WC testimony left me scratching my head the first time I read it: Was Texas/the US really so short of nurses, even specialists in the emergency room, that it needed to hire in the UK? Curious. Bennett's testimony is about as trustworthy as Kellerman's (or Greer's).

And so it begins, with the customary straightforward early eyewitness account... Which medical experts are then held to have rendered as nought... A second gunman? Or was the alleged assassin in two places at once? Au contraire, Don, it's the familiarity of the thing which disturbs.

For students of intelligence history: For more on Peters, see George Leggett's The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police - The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combatting Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (December 1917 to February 1922)[Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981], in particular, pp.266-268. The decision not to prosecute Peters has been construed as an intervention by British intelligence, anxious to preserve an asset.

Unfortunately not, Jay, as we are in the governmental grip of a bunch of economic illiterates who solemnly propose to revive the UK economy by sacking everyone and raising taxes. Gideon Osborne is, I contend, Brian Cowen's love-child. But greetings returned, nonetheless. You mean up the grassy knoll? Outrageous! Have no doubt, my solicitor will be contacting your solicitor with a view to both solicitors making a large sum of money at our expense. That'll teach you.

Au Contraire, Monsieur! It is Mr. Rigby who needs to prove where the film went if he wants to support his silly theory. But of course he CANNOT PROVE HIS CLAIMS! No, quite untrue, Jay, and you know it - otherwise you wouldn't be SHOUTING IN CAPITAL LETTERS, would you?

If you need change for the phone call to Dan, let me know. I'll chip in, and promise not to laugh. I might even do some translation, from Millerese into something approximating standard English. Zavada, I'm afraid, is of no interest or consequence - unless, that is, he can prove the film's chain of possession. Which, of course, he can't. Paul

Supposition - the first refuge of the anti-alterationist: God knows how true any of this is. Huffaker was, it should be noted, not above modifying the record in the light of the received version. Rather reportedly stated (to Hughes Rudd and Richard Hotelett) on CBS radio earlier on 25 November 1963: "“Well let me tell you then, give you a word picture of the motion picture that we have just seen."* Balance of probability? Rather had indeed just watched the first version of the Z-fake before he went on air for the first time on 25 November 1963. Paul *Richard Trask, National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr Zapruder’s home movie and murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), pp.138-142.

As they tend to when you strangle the English language.

Sure it was Muchmore's film .... this is old news. Bill, Thanks for the bump. And with apologies to John Gillespie, whose New Year best wishes I missed first time around and now belatedly reciprocate. Paul

Particularly unfair on Mrs Hester, who offered a perfectly comprehensible account of her position during, and movements immediately after, the shooting: A far from unique case of an eyewitness whose testimony is completely at odds with the Z-fakes. Yes, Duncan, anti-alterationism is. But I'm told the pay is better, so there is an upside.

Nope, it wasn't. For those interested in the contrary case, try here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12216&view=findpost&p=176434&hl=wnew-tv&fromsearch=1