Paul Rigby

Gosh, what a sinner Jack is - a genuine non-conformist who must be browbeaten into line. As opposed to good old Lee, who gives every indication of a fierce desire to gain brownie points by the zeal of his conformity: Harry Zitzler, “From Readers Letters: The Conforming Dissidents,” The Minority of One, May 1962, (Vol 4, No 5 [30]), p.15 Yeah, Jack, get honest like Lee - and omit all reference to the eyewitnesses who described Secret Servicemen swarming on the presidential limousine while it was stationary on Elm. Quick, some one hand him the pointy hat before he slinks off to the corner...to reconsider, if nothing else, the folly of uncritically regurgitating the Duke of Earl's micro-analysis of the witnesses to the limo stop. Mind you, isn't that always the problem with conformists?

Your problem here, Pat, is that you know, I know, and every one reading this knows, that you've never conducted any properly systematic survey of the eyewitnesses' responses to the Z fake - which renders your insistence that "zero" believe the film to be fake, well, at most generous, a nonsense. You don't know, and we know you don't. What we do know, and can prove, is that the WC: a) failed to call witnesses it considered inconvenient; sought to browbeat into submission those it considered malleable; and c) revealed to the attentive - or should that just be "honest"? - reader the existence of two versions of the Z fake: Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2: And you ask us to discount eyewitness testimony which contradict the Z fakes and their supporting filmlets? Now why would you want to do that?

Thompson emerged from the same stable, and at much the same time, as Edward J. Epstein. An interesting assessment of Epstein’s role was offered by Marian Kester in a Third Decade essay of July 1985: "His role seems to be that of a neutralizing agent: his books are interjected as a kind of psychological counterstroke whenever the consensus seems dangerously close to crystallizing around the anti-Castro covert operations hypothesis"(1) Thompson’s interventions in the past decade or so leave little doubt that he, too, has been deployed as a neutralizing agent. His superficial objections and backslidings – the former faithfully echoed by his very own chorus, the latter assiduously ignored like so many inconvenient witnesses - are interjected as a propaganda counterstroke whenever the consensus seems dangerously close to crystallizing in favour of the wholesale fraudulence of the assassination’s photographic record. Not working any more, I'm pleased to say. (1) "Better Red than Ed: Reflections on "Who is Edward J. Epstein?", The Third Decade, Vol. 2 #5, (July 1985), p.11.

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 Miss this leading of witnesses, did we, Pat? How very convenient.

In late November 1967, Max Lerner, long a zealous stenographer of the plotters’ shifting explanations for the Dallas coup, reviewed Thompson’s SSID, and pronounced himself a convert. The emergence of serious critics of the Warren Report – by serious Lerner meant academics, men like Epstein, Popkin, and now Thompson – had persuaded him that there was “some kind of collaborative shooting” and that “a trap had been set for the President” (1). At the end of his review, Lerner expressed the hope “That Thompson will leave Kierkegaard alone for a while, and turn to the big problem remaining in the assassination: who were the three men, where did they come from, what plot did they form, by what strange motives were they moved?” (2). Forty-years on, we know that Lerner pleaded in vain. Not merely did Thompson add nothing to the plot so fuzzily sketched in SSID, he now devotes his time to dismissing the very evidence he adduced for a plot. There is continuity in his work, though, and we overlook it at our peril: He continues to offer a politics-free analysis, whether of Time-Life, Kennedy’s relationship with the CIA, or the Warren Commission. (1) Max Lerner, “A New Book Shoots Big Holes in Warren Report,” L.A. Times, 26 November 1967, p.P7 (2) Ibid.

Bill Lord interview of James Chaney for WFAA-TV, 11/22/63, cited within Richard Trask. That Day in Dallas: The Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass: Yeoman Press, expanded edition, 2000).

I believe it slowed down Jack as I mentioned in my previous e-mail...I don't believe it stopped dead. Not so much a question of whether it stopped, but for how long exactly:

http://www.archive.org/details/OnTheKenned...iamOconnell1968 So who was Thompson protecting when he manufactured this fantastic criterion of investigative procedure, and invested such excessive emotion in the baseless assertion which followed it? Paterni, as Vince Palamara has pointed out, served in the OSS, in Italy, with James Jesus Angleton, the man whose CI unit, SIG, ran the patsy. Small world. Now we begin to see only too clearly who Thompson - and, indeed, the entire Axis of Deception which seeks to prop him up - were created to serve.

Purely out of curiosity, Kathy, where else one might be convinced but "in the mind"? Down a "Lane," perhaps? Speedy recovery. I've heard it can be most painful. Almost as agonizing, I fear, as reading about John McAdams: Junkkarinen’s appeal to the Langleyians John McAdams for Beginners http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html But these things must be done if we are to regain our full health.

Junkkarinen’s appeal to the Langleyians John McAdams for Beginners http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html In summary, then, good old Barb, that disinterested voice of reason, the last great hope of logic in the case, has appealed to some of the most overt Agency people on the net to assist in repudiating the charge that Josiah Thompson was from the first, and remains to this day, er, a creature of the CIA. Splendid.

You're right, Cliff, but that wouldn't stop me buying a round, on the eminently reasonable ground that anyone who admires Starnes, and repudiates Lamson, is anything but a lost cause. Paul

Jack, The mere fact that you have the SS right in there among the rest of them is exactly what I'm getting at. The opposition, in its various forms, don't! Paul

Doug's served up a powerfully apposite metaphor for the evidence in the case; and, by reason of his truth-telling, given the mainstream media further excuse for running a mile from the case. After all, what is the mainstream media in Britain and America but an organised avoidance of complexity and deep political truth. Paul

Unbelievable tosh, even for late 1967, yet it's a position Thompson and his network still cling to. For reasons, we are invited to believe, of intellectual "scruple."

http://www.archive.org/details/OnTheKenned...iamOconnell1968 No, it’s not Vincent Price, though the listener could be forgiven for the error, initially at least. Thompson moves swiftly to establish himself as the prudent professional (er, scholar) who scrupulously resists the powerful temptation to “let one’s wishes pull the conclusions further than the evidence warrants.” The exemplar of the critic who does succumb to precisely this “problem of the unlimited,” according to Thompson, is Garrison, who had just pronounced the assassination a coup d’etat: “If a very steely-eyed and cool investigative reporter said, ‘Now, Mr. Garrison, that’s very interesting rhetoric, let’s have a few facts…” Thompson’s interest in the considerable contemporaneous evidence of conflict between Kennedy and the CIA was, then, pronounced from the first. Listen on…

http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_...Issue/ssid.html

It isn't "the government," Pat, to whom the finger is pointed by alterationism, as you well know: The alterationists, this writer included, point the finger directly at an element of the Secret Service, the presidential bodyguard, as the primary instrument of the assassination. The distinction is of profound significance, as a moments reflection will disclose. Establishing that a plot hatched within the intelligence establishment, of which the SS is a small, but crucial component, claimed Kennedy's life offers America the possibility of reform and renewal: a broad, vague assertion of conspiracy, by figures unknown, does not. The crucial nexus is that between the CIA and the SS, for what is the plot, in the last analysis but a counterintelligence operation with a domestic target? It was, after all, James Jesus Angleton and his SIG unit who ran Oswald and dominated the plot. And, through a figure like Epstein, intervened so interesting within the literature of the case.

This isn't really a question, now is it, Barb, but rather a string of emotional assertions of orthodoxy. You regurgitate the standard chain of possession which is very obviously a retrospective fiction. Worse still, you ignore long-available and blatant evidence that, for example, Altgens's most famous photo does not match moving film shot from his right. In fact, a very different copy of the Z film was distributed and even shown on US TV; and here it is: Your guy Tink told us this was the Muchmore film, offered at least three different dates for its showing, and then turned silent when confronted by the clipping above, which Mack was said to have possessed all along but could never quite find. Really. How did they suppress this film? They simply recalled it. Oddly, however, they manifestly didn't tell Zapruder, who didn't recognise elements of his alleged own film when confronted by it by the WC. Remind me - how many photos did Moorman initially say she'd taken? Did Nix not complain of editing? And so on and so forth. You also proceed from the assumption that the creators of the second version of the Z fake did not attempt to integrate the revised version with elements of the extant film record. This assumption strikes me, all things considered, as surprisingly simplistic. But, of course, for your point to have any validity, you would have to have undertaken a survey of the testimony and literature in search of evidence either way. Can you demonstrate that you've made any effort whatever to enquire into the matter? If so, where is it? For if you haven't made such an effort, how do you know the answer? By the way, if you get stuck, just ask. Again, an assumption pretending to be a question. How exactly do you know that the plotters did not observe closely the relatively small number of people who lined the stretch of Elm upon which the shooting took place? Was it really impossible to monitor and interdict swiftly those observed using cameras? Your objections here are wildly over-stated. But then one might flip the question around and enquire how was it possible that all the cameras trained on the fag end of the motorcade missed the left veer and stop, not to mention the SS run to the stationary presidential limousine? Paul

As for your assertions about Tink and his "unlimited access" and time spent .... citations, please! I asked you about? Barb Pamela gave you the citations you requested here: Now, Barb, it's time for your response.

You're welcome, Jim: You get the support of this complete stranger because, my goodness, you've earned it. For imagine, if you will, the situation today had you, Jack White, Dave Healey, Bernice, and others on the pro-alterationist side, simply folded the tent and walked away in the face of the mockingbird consensus: Horne would have been ripped to pieces upon publication, dismissed by, say, Gary Mack, in a couple of lines - "pro-alteration, believes Greer fired at Kennedy" - and the status quo ante restored. Barb could be referencing Tink, who would in turn be deferring to Jerry, who would be agreeing with Bill while he was applauded by etc. In summary, the ability of Doug to get a hearing is in large measure down to the work of the awkward squad. Long may they - you - prosper. Paul

As others before me have observed, a truly outstanding post. I commend you for it. Paul

Useful to remind ourselves what a real pro had to say about the most basic precepts of intel work: Hubert Cole. Fouche: The Unprincipled Patriot (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode Ltd., 1971), p.140, PRO, FO 27/63 The proposition that the CIA has, presumably from some hitherto unidentified form of scruple, disdained to infiltrate and misdirect the research community is fatuous. Come, come, Tink, get it right. What I've done is demonstrate that you systematically suppressed, distorted, mischaracterised and mislocated eyewitnesses and their testimony in an attempt to buttress a fake film, and suppress realisation of the centrality of the SS to the assassination. If you'd like few refresher examples, don't hesitate to ask. In this matter, at least, at I'm at your service. Not one of your better days in the service of the cover-up, I have to observe. Still flogging this expired quadruped, I see? Very well, let's exhume the evidence to the contrary one more time: Parkland medical staff: a) Dr. Robert McClelland: "The cause of death was due to a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple," Commission Exhibit 392. [‘Admission Note,’ written 22 Nov 1963 at 4.45 pm, reproduced in WCR572, & 17WCH11-12: cited in Lifton’s Best Evidence, p.55; and Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact, pp.159-160.] Dr. Marion Jenkins: "I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process," 6WH48. [Cited by Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, & The Report (New York: Vintage Books, 1992 reprint), p. 40.] c) Dr. Robert Shaw: "The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head," Letter from Dr. Shaw to Larry Ross, "Did Two Gunmen Cut Down Kennedy?", Today (British magazine), 15 February 1964, p.4. d) Dr. David Stewart: “This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President’s head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right back side of the head, and it was felt by all the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front,” The Joe Dolan (Radio) Show, KNEW (Oakland, California), at 08:15hrs on 10 April 1967. (Cited by Harold Weisberg. Selections from Whitewash (NY: Carroll & Graf/Richard Gallen, 1994), pp.331-2.) Designed to buttress the central fake. Would an agent have done that? Absolutely. And that's exactly what you did. I know the feeling. But you're worth it. What a hypocrite: You and your motley band of acolytes undertake precisely the kinds of attacks you pretend to abjure on a near-daily basis. This entire post is little more than a sustained ad hominem against a man, whatever his faults, and however much I disagree with him on certain issues, has contributed more to the establishment of truth in the case than you could achieve even if granted the gift of eternity. We are talking about the same Sylvia Meagher, aren't we? The one who wrote: "In sum, at least seven eyewitnesses to the assassination indicated that the President's car had come to a complete stop..."? We're not, are we?

Which begs the obvious question - and all answering it must promise to keep a straight face, lest they be banished forever from what Tink today solemnly called "the community of scholars" - which version of Thompson's Life-sanctioned "exposure" to the Z fake was/is the lie? Today's, or that offered in SSID? Or are both complete fabrications? My congratulations, Pamela, on what is unquestionably the most thorough-going demolition of Thompson's credility, er, today. By way of illustrating just how robust - and enduring - is Thompson's commitment to honest scholarship, a further example: The Truth: 5WCH140

Which begs the obvious question - and all answering it must promise to keep a straight face, lest they be banished forever from what Tink today solemnly called "the community of scholars" - which version of Thompson's Life-sanctioned "exposure" to the Z fake was/is the lie? Today's, or that offered in SSID? Or are both complete fabrications? My congratulations, Pamela, on what is unquestionably the most thorough-going demolition of Thompson's credility, er, today.

Gladly. First, Thompson’s summaries of the Franzens’ statements, as contained within SSID: Mrs. Franzen, witness 54, p.258: Location: N. side of Elm No. of shots: 3 Bunching of shots: --- Direction of sound/shots: --- Date of report: 11/25/63 Total time of shots: --- References: 24H525 Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car. Mr. Franzen, witness 53, p.258: Location: N. side of Elm No. of shots: 3 or 4 Bunching of shots: --- Direction of sound/shots: --- Date of report: 11/24/63 Total time of shots: --- References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840 Remarks: After 1st shot, notice small fragments flying inside the car. Now for Mrs. Franzens’ testimony, edited for pith, from 24H525. She was interviewed on the day of the assassination by FBI men Ellington and Loeffler, who dictated their notes for transcription three days later, on November 25. Is Thompson’s summary remotely fair or adequate, even given its limitation of length? It is perfectly clear that Mrs Franzen’s testimony was of no use to proponents of Zapruder film authenticity for at least three reasons: 1) The position of the Presidential limousine on Elm when the shooting began was too far down toward the underpass (“Shortly after the President’s automobile passed by…she heard a noise”); 2) The point of origin of that noise “which sounded as if someone had thrown a firecracker into the President’s automobile” (i.e. it originated within the presidential limousine); 3) More than one Secret Service agent in the follow-up car drew a weapon. Thompson thus had, in composing Six Seconds in 1966/67, a direct, obvious interest in quashing, minimising or redirecting elsewhere reader interest in any and all testimony pointing to 1), 2), and 3) for no such actions and/or features featured in the revised Zapruder fake, the authenticity of which he was, unquestionably, selling. Worse still, from the point of view of those determined to peddle the revised Z fake to the world, was Mrs Franzen’s husband’s testimony. It was offered to the same FBI duo, and on the same day, as his wife’s. And again, I’ve edited it for essence: Touchingly, Franzen concluded: Jack Franzen not merely confirmed his wife’s testimony concerning an explosion occurring inside the presidential limousine, but also described Secret Servicemen, some of them armed, leaving the follow-up vehicle, whereupon some of them ran up the knoll causing him to doubt his initial reaction as to the shot point of origin. An intellectually honest summary of the Franzens’ testimonies, therefore, would look something like this: Mrs. Franzen: Location: S. side of Elm, towards underpass No. of shots: 3 Bunching of shots: --- Origin of sound/shots: Initially, inside the car; revised to TSBD due to subsequent search activities of SS & uniformed police Date of interview: 11/22/63 Total time of shots: --- References: 24H525 Other salient observations: Shooting commenced after presidential limousine passed her; SS men in follow-up vehicle drew weapons (attrib. to son). Mr. Franzen: Location: S. side of Elm, towards underpass No. of shots: 3 or 4 Bunching of shots: --- Origin of sound/shots: Initially, inside the car; revised to knoll by subsequent search of SS and uniformed police Date of report: 11/24/63 Total time of shots: --- References: Archives, CD 5, p.46; 22H840 Other salient observations: Some SS men in follow-up vehicle, some of them armed, raced up knoll in immediate aftermath of shooting. The Warren Commissioners never called the Franzens to testify, and the compilers of the Hearings volumes, as we have seen, split their largely congruent testimony, publishing hers in volume 24, and his in volume 22. Incredibly, Thompson, that unprecedentedly attentive student of the film, and nominal opponent of the cover-up, was even more cavalier with their names (he misspelt the family surname with a “t” in his table), locations and testimony. He placed all three Franzens on the wrong side of Elm, which just happened to “lose” them in the more populous north side; then offered thoroughly misleading summaries of their testimonies; and, like the Warren Reports compilers, ignored their testimony in the main body of Six Seconds’ text. This latter point is a profoundly significant one. The principle or principles of selection by which Thompson focused on the testimony of some eyewitnesses, while ignoring that emanating, in important cases, from the even better placed, are nowhere articulated and defended in Six Seconds, but can be inferred: If they matched the thesis advanced in his book, they were in. In Six Seconds, Thompson served as a classic establishment gate-keeper, masquerading as critic. He was not alone in the literature of the assassination.