Paul Rigby

That's so sensible you'll never get anywhere in US politics, Don.

Explains quite a bit, all things considered, Bill, not least your standards of "proof" and "evidence": Goodness, that's compelling. I wonder what the excuse was when the CIA helped the Guatemalan military and its death squads eradicate several hundred Mayan villages - and many of their occupants - in Guatemala? http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/peten.htm The human rights of the land owners had been violated, perhaps?

And what about the Belgian nuns, Bill? Really, this is just a compendium of State Department nonsense attempting to justify an oil grab and regime change.

I see the parallel at once - both uprisings were a disaster for black people: Racial exterminism - as American as apple pie:

That's a smokescreen - they're nothing of the sort: They're intellectual secret policeman, working to channel dissent among the thoughtful and the politically active in directions either helpful or unthreatening to the deep state in general, and the CIA in particular. The point is easy to prove. A genuine structuralist would examine the CIA as a power system and institution, precisely as he (or she) would any other: Chomsky runs a mile from doing any such thing, most notably in Rethinking Camelot, which, stripped of its rhetorical veneer of New Leftism - and a very thin layer it is, too, in this instance - is one of the crudest pieces of CIA hack-work yet committed to paper. Much of it is laughably contradictory, as Donald Gibson showed in The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (NY: Kroshka Books, 2000), most notably in his chapter "Establishment Radicals and Kennedy: Lamont, Chomsky, and Russell" (pp.203-223). What they were really up to is this: What sustains them is a Foundation- and CIA-funded pseudo-Left, an echo chamber (based largely in British and US universities), and a control of the "alternative" media every bit as rigid and suffocating as that which pertains in its nominal opposite, the mainstream. Amy Goodman would no more permit a thorough-going critique of Chomsky's services to Langley - which funded him in his research endeavours - than NBC would give 9/11 dissidence a platform. Calling them "structuralist" is not merely to reproduce their own preening propaganda, but to miss the point entirely.

No wonder Counterpunch never runs out of money... Self-satire: the last refuge of the pseudo-Left

I see the parallel at once - both uprisings were a disaster for black people:

A modest proposal for an Obomber re-election speech: With apologies to Peggy Noonan, a truly great satirist.

Al Jazeera small ad: Some antidotes to Bill's nonsense: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/fake-revolutions.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/11/libya http://www.voltairenet.org/The-plan-to-destabilize-Syria http://tarpley.net/2011/06/20/cia-fake-arab-spring-becoming-summer-of-war/ The Revolution Business: http://youtu.be/lpXbA6yZY-8

Just how naive so many students were - and, in the current moment in North Africa and elsewhere, remain - is clear: This Big Business dialectic with the New Left is confirmed independently by Gerald Kirk, who as a student at the University of Chicago, and became active in the SDS, the DuBois Club,[31] the Black Panthers, and the Communist Party, as an informant for the FBI. Kirk broke from the Left in 1969. The following year, he testified before the House and Senate Internal Security panels: Twitterers of the World Revolution: The Digital New-New Left by Dr. K R Bolton, February 28, 2011 [28] Left-liberal Democratic presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy. [29] Conservative Southern Democratic presidential candidate George Wallace. [30] James Kunen The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary, (New York: Avon, 1970), “At the convention, Men from Business International Roundtables,” pp. 130–131. [31] A Communist Party front named after Afro-American scholar W E B DuBois. [32] “Investigation of SDS 1969,” Committee on Internal Security, 91st Congress, 1st Session, Pt. 5, pp. 1654-1705 of hearings. http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/28/twitterers-of-the-world-revolution-the-digital-new-new-left/2/

I cheerfully confess to antecedent bias: I harbour a deeply-rooted objection to having my reading matter determined by an egomaniacal American. If I wanted the latter, I'd buy a Murdoch organ each morning. You are mistaken. Scully's boastful confession of responsibility is cunningly hidden from you in an obscure section of the JFK site, under the thoroughly misleading title of Moderator actions and guide for mods: How to move posts to a new thread. Post 82 in that drear list of interventions runs as follows: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14562&view=findpost&p=229181 I particularly enjoyed a) the attempt to cloak a petty and unjustified act of censorship in the uniform of heroic and disinterested self-sacrifice; and the language of the Western, as Scully describes his activity in language better suited to the movement of steers, not intelligent contributions to an interesting topic. That's 39 words more than you've managed, and 4% more than a good many posters, all of whose posts have gone unmolested. If the Scully criterion - "No historical context or parallels, please, we're researchers" - were to be applied consistently, we'd presumably be obliged to ignore the passages in, for example, Thomas Buchanan's book wherein he looks back at previous presidential assassinations and demonstrates the prevalence & continuity of political motivation. I'm also curious to establish whether or not you are the same Len Colby who objected to the same moderator's act of censorship in shutting down Todd Vaughn's thread concerning DiEugenio's somewhat startling knowledge of the former's acquisition of unpublished Weisberg manuscripts? Or is it just the case that censorship is fine when it suits? Do tell.

An excellent post, with a number of nails hit firmly on the head. I would only dissent to this degree: Scully is a lethal combination of hyperactivity and inconsistency. That's fine as a poster, but not as a moderator. More, this was such a blatantly unfair action as to pose profound questions as to his agenda. If I could only read his extraordinary genealogical posts more easily, I would have some idea what, if any, that is.

No , it isn't, Evan. As Greg Burnham rightly pointed out, Scully's decision to move Fetzer's posting was a) without justification (as it was germane to the subject of JFK); 2) brazenly hypocritical (given his non-action over Lifton's thread attacking Fetzer on the subject of 9/11; and 3) motivated, given 1), by (a) motive(s) not intrinsic to the piece itself, and thus ulterior. Loyalty to a fellow-moderator possesses merit only when criticism is without foundation. In this case, Scully's action was inexcusable. I note that your own antipathy to Fetzer and his take on 9/11 is itself well-attested. Is this colouring your view? Now, how about a response of substance: why was Fetzer's thread moved? Or is arbitrary and unaccountable moderation the new order of the day?

Scully is manifestly unsuited to be a moderator. He should resign at once.

There must have been quite a bit of that sort of thing going on that day, Chris - and I thought Texas was a conservative sort of place:

Good Lord, with one honourable exception*, what a far-out mish-mash. It's like Mae Brussel on acid. I know. Embarrassing, isn't it? Thank goodness for the sober common sense of the in-car shootists. *CIA used a smoke-bomb as a distractor in the Audubon Ballroom on 21 Feb 1965.

Sen. Yarborough's recollections? Let's be really daring, shall we, Pat - and try published stuff from November 1963? http://thedriverkilledkenendy.blogspot.com/2011/05/senator-yardborough-saw-driver-shoot.html#links I loved this bit: Almost as much as I liked this earlier line: Source: Carleton Kent, “Sen. Yarborough Terms It ‘A Deed of Horror,’” Chicago Sun-Times, 23 November 1963, p.14 No wonder you omitted this cutting from your list. Still, no excuses now, eh? Paul

I wouldn't take the usual suspects too seriously, Martin. It's not exactly a secret what they're about: Scratch an anti-alterationist, and you tend to find a Warren Commission lawyer at work: Sylvia Meagher. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities & The Report (NY: Vintage Books, June 1992 reprint), pp.4-5. Know them by their lineage.

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 "You really might want to not stop taking your medication." Thanks for the "clunky" feedback. My clunkometer was damaged when my spine fell out of my back whilst laughing at how somebody like you wields their own incredible intelligence with hands made out of stupid. I think you may have had a hard day at the "Office of Writing Contractual Terms and Conditions." Have a night off, Paul. Even when you do dispense with the thesaurus puking, I still have absolutely no idea what you're prattling on about. P.S. Is everyone cool with members accusing other members of being other people and using pseudonyms? Cool. Because you Paul, you're a ringer for that Gollum bloke from The Lord of the Rings. You're not what one would call naturally witty, are you? Nighty-night, er, Jimbo. Prophetic, indeed.

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?