Paul Rigby

Quite the contrary, it furnishes conclusive proof that he's a xxxx and a fraud. But then I've actually read it. It's far from clear you have. I agree, which is why I've never said or written any such thing. The mystery is why you would suggest so. A straw-man erected in desperation, perhaps? Yup, that does it for me. One interesting snippet, though, from a friend who did a PhD overseas some years ago. He met a couple of coves from MIT, who told him, among other things, that Chomsky a) employs unacknowledged researchers; and obliges them to sign secrecy agreements. Unsubstantiated, as yet, but hardly stretching plausibility. Good to see that rich tradition of anti-Irish bigotry, a stream of filth tapped by Chomsky himself in Rethinking Camelot, is alive and well. It reflects great credit on you, him, and the arguments of his you regurgitate like a parrot (Norwegian blue, I fear). See above. It's like reading a nineteenth century copy of Punch, only with the added frisson of that interesting piece of diction: "Ol'Pumkinhead." Nice. As Executive Action tends to be.

You've been reading those very excellent threads on Starnes and Muchmore, haven't you, you little tinker? Don't blame you. I appreciate quality myself. Now, as to your "surprise," isn't that just a tad weird expressing "surprise" at your own decision to jump into a thread? You can't seriously mean you surprised yourself, can you? Mind you, surveying the mind-numbing drivel which follows, I woudn't put it past you. Your problem is that I have, he is, and, worst of all, I'm prepared to say so in public. That's not unique: what is is the detail deployed by way of confirmation. So much reading - you claim - so little comprehension. I'm beginning to give credence to all those nasty little rumours about the decline in US educational standards. You don't think it's anything to do with all that money your government spends on killing and torturing foreigners, do you? I rather fear that's the case in the UK.

For any newcomers to the debate about Z film alteration in general, and Dan Rather's role in particular, here's a website where you can both hear and read his earliest descriptions on CBS (radio and TV): http://www.etcfilmunit.com/iaccuse.html I-Accuse - a Gil W. Toff current project on JFK assassination Toff's involvement in the case goes back to the late 1960s: I have some audio tapes of interviews he conducted at the time, seemingly for Newcomb and Adams' Murder From Within. His point couldn't be clearer. The Z film described by Zapruder (on 22 November) and Rather, twice, (on 25 November), is not the version which emerged in the course of the Clay Shaw trial; and thus to accuse Rather of lying is to miss the much bigger and more important point - the film was significantly reworked after its initial emergence: http://www.i-accuse.com/audioRather.html http://www.i-accuse.com/audioZap.html

Nat, Trask’s National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, MA: Yeoman Press, 2005), pp.137-144, offers transcripts of Dan Rather’s two surprisingly detailed descriptions of the film, as offered on November 25, first to radio listeners, then to CBS television news watchers (Walter Cronkite presiding). I have assumed them accurate, whether wisely or not remains to be seen. Rather’s descriptions suggest a compelling reason for the recall of the first public version of the Z film. In both of them, Rather describes Connally as having turned to face the President, with his right arm extended towards the latter (radio) or merely reaching with an unspecified arm (tv) in response to Kennedy’s agonised response to the first bullet’s impact. Anatomically, then, Connally was in completely the wrong position to receive a bullet in the back from the rear. In fact, he was side-on to the TSBD, chest facing the grassy knoll, when, according to both Rather descriptions, the front of his exposed white shirt clearly manifested the exit wound. You see at once the problem for the manufacturers of the two official orthodoxies (TSBD and the grassy knoll – I think of them as a pair). Interestingly, Trask notes elsewhere that Rather was shown the Z film again on November 26 – in effect, one can’t help thinking, “re-educated” as to the film’s contents – at KRLD. According to Trask, it was one of the two copies sent to Washington, and recalled by the Dallas Secret Service (p.131). Call me cynical, but I rather suspect they were not the same film: By coincidence, November 25 was not only the day that Rather offered his two descriptions, but also the day on which Time-Life initiated a survey/reconstruction; and, late in the afternoon, that the same organisation felt belatedly compelled to buy the film rights to Z (or so the received version has it). Even more interestingly, it was the same night that Russian TV viewers were treated to a film of the actual shooting, a film that could not – because of the time differences involved – have been the Muchmore film. All in all, then, for the Zapruder film, a very event-filled day, November 25. Paul. “The second little matter flows clearly from the first…You can’t begin and then stop. If you begin, you must keep on beginning; that’s the truth. No rest for the wicked,” Robert Louis Stevenson, The Body Snatcher. Dick Russell. On The Trail of the JFK Assassins: A Groundbreaking Look at America’s Most Infamous Conspiracy (NY: Skyhorse Publishing, 2008), chapter 41, an interview with Doug Horne: “Two Caskets, Two Autopsies, Two Brain Exams: The Disappearing Evidence,” p.293: Z film’s early history a retrospective fiction: Ibid., p.295: Necessary continuities in deception: * Not so: Progressive Labor – A Special Supplement, “Kennedy’s Assassination: A System in Crisis,” Wednesday, 27 November 1963, p.5: “CBS News reported on the afternoon of November 25 that a movie made of the assassination showed three shots hit President Kennedy and Governor Connelly [sic] in a period of ‘five seconds.’”

http://www.swans.com/library/art14/barker10.html *In the case of Machine Translation, not true: the CIA "influenced" the allocation of funding, ordinarily through the National Science Foundation, but also through direct grants. Sydney M. Lamb (Edited by Jonathan Webster). Language and Reality (London & NY: Continuum, 2004; 524pp): From context, we’re talking the period 1956-58. *National Science Foundation US “Government” funding for machine translation at MIT, 1954-1964 Language and Machines: Computers in Translation and Linguistics (1966), p.108: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9547&page=108

By way of confirming Len's agreeably honest assessment of the source of funding: Sydney M. Lamb (Edited by Jonathan Webster). Language and Reality (London & NY: Continuum, 2004; 524pp): From context, we’re talking the period 1956-58. *National Science Foundation _____________________________________________________________________ US “Government” funding for machine translation at MIT, 1954-1964 Language and Machines: Computers in Translation and Linguistics (1966), p.108: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9547&page=108 _____________________________________________________________________ Lost in translation Efforts to design software that can translate languages fluently have encountered a problem: how do you program common sense? by Stephen Budiansky http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98dec/computer.htm

Take a break, chum, that's an awful lot of research for one night. Put your feet up and enjoy, particularly the first 18 or so minutes: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/55858 The Evertons Supporters' Club. Nefarious bunch, with sinister designs on your mind, Len. Used notes only, big brown envelopes. Here endeth the dream.

From the admirable thread “Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV on November 26, 1963?”: Why was it necessary to suppress the first version of the Zapruder film on November 25/26, and revise it? One key element of any answer lies with the Parkland press conference. The insistence of Perry and Clark that Kennedy was shot from the front threw a significant spanner in the works, not least because their expert, disinterested, first-hand, matter-of-fact descriptions were broadcast live. How to preserve the credibility of both the patsy-from-the-rear scenario, and the similarly pre-planned supporting film? The solution was to suppress the film-as-film, hastily edit it, and meanwhile bring the public round by degree through the medium of the written word. Here’s the latter process in action. Note how in example 1, the first shot, which does not impact, is fired while the presidential limousine is on Houston: In this second example, the first shot, which now does impact, occurs as the turn is made from Houston onto Elm: And here’s the process completed in example 3, with the presidential limousine now “50 yards past Oswald” on Elm: The film-as-film could not be shown while the above process of fraudulent harmonisation - of medical testimony and the lone-assassin-from-the-rear – was undertaken. More, it was predicated on the removal of the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Showing of that turn would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit To which one can add the following from Mark Lane:

For the broader perspective on Chomsky's role as a wedge between the US Left and conspiracy researchers, the following remains the outstanding piece in the field:

For those reading this thread who are unfamiliar with the three National Security Action Memoranda in question, 55-57, there's a fascinating, if somewhat discursive, discussion of them at the link below: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/ch...0on%20NSAM%2055 Understanding The Secret Team, Part III: Fletcher Prouty interviewed As a necessary follow-up to this assault on CIA prerogatives, McNamara brought the Defense Intelligence Agency into being. The resultant, and inevitable, bureaucratic struggle between the two organisations was described at some length, albeit exclusively from the CIA's point of view, by Stewart Alsop, an old Agency mouthpiece, in the Saturday Evening Post, a similarly notorious CIA mouthpiece, in its edition of July 27, 1963: "CIA: The battle for secret power" (pp.17-21). It contained this early assurance, "Nowadays the CIA is back on top of the heap" (p.18), which sat ill with the subsequent admission that "the DIA has no choice but to concentrate on the political-strategic intelligence which is the CIA's chief function" (p.21) and the bald statement that "13 issues had arisen at last report between DIA and CIA" (ditto). These were anything but trivial matters: They ranged from who controlled liaison with, for example, MI6, and "the CIA-created national photo interpretation centre" (ditto). The CIA was under serious institutional pressure with Kennedy alive and in the White House.

Care to elaborate? With pleasure: June 12-13, 1961: Robert Slusser. The Berlin Crisis of 1961: Soviet-American Relations and the Struggle for Power in the Kremlin (John Hopkins U.P., 1973), p.24 Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, Vol XIII, 1961-62, p.18622A.

Citations? There is a really outstanding thread on this forum going by the name of "'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam." Within it, you'll find many goodies, not least the articles and citations pertaining to them, which cover all three claims advanced above. Once you've found them, intellectual scruple will, of course, compel you to acknowledge as much. I take it you're aware of Chomsky's obsession with the NYT? Good, now take another look at the thread cited above and let me know what you find. A hint: we're talking a late October 1963 piece. On the broader point, and given Chomsky's repeated posturings to the effect history is written by the winners, why is there nothing from the Diem camp in Chomsky's work? After all, no one was better placed to comment on who and what was trying to overthrow them, not least because they retained a very extensive and effective intelligence gathering network almost to the bitter end. So where is the material from these sources, and on what grounds is it entirely ignored by Chomsky? Len translated: I don't know who funds Chomsky, and I'm not going to find out. You have only precedent, which means less than my insistence that you have no proof. Actually, Len, and this may come as a surprise, the reason we don't have publicly available chapter and verse on the sources of Chomsky's funding is because he is an ongoing operation. If he wasn't, it would be out there.

There are several problems here. First, Kennedy sought major reform of the CIA post-Bay of Pigs – well over a year before the Cuban Missile Crisis. Second, the removal of Dulles et al was part of a package of measures: you continue to ignore the other two elements, to wit, the stripping of CIA control of covert ops of any significance (a hugely controversial move, as Prouty, among others, has documented, in his case, from a vantage point of considerable credibility, whatever his motivation); and the reassertion of the primacy of US ambassadors. The entire package is utterly irreconcilable with the view that Kennedy held the CIA in anything approaching trust or respect. Third, McCone was not Kennedy’s first choice – that honour went to Fowler Hamilton* – and was thus the product of considerable jockeying and pressure. Fourth, what is the evidence for your contention, following Chomsky, that McCone “revitalized the intelligence process”? Have you checked the cited sources for Chomsky’s assertion? If not, I suggest a quick look. It’s instructive. Fifth, given the availability of considerable, consistent evidence, much of it contemporaneous, of Kennedy’s war with the CIA, Chomsky’s scholarship and ethics are simply unacceptable. * AP, "Retirement of CIA Chief Announced," Washington Post, (Tuesday), 1 August 1961, p.A2: Salinger yesterday announced retirement of Allen Dulles, claiming retirement in November 1961 had been Dulles' intention when accepted JFK's offer to stay on. Salinger declined to answer questions concerning Fowler Hamilton. Hamilton, according to forthcoming issue of Newsweek (August 7), due to succeed Dulles in October "after several months of working with Dulles". Again, problems. There is no reliable evidence that “the CIA wanted JFK as president in 1960.” Bissell’s claim to have briefed Kennedy “about the proposed CIA action in Cuba” is powerfully contested, manifestly self-serving, and almost certainly a lie.

So, then, let me press you on the issue: Is it your view that any account of Kennedy's relations with the CIA can be called honest which omits his removal of Dulles et al, the stripping of Agency responsibility for covert ops of magnitude, and the reassertion of ambassadorial primacy?

I think it could be, just, at a stretch, because he was murdered before he could see all of his initiatives come to fruition. On the opening to the Left in Italy, for example, he had some limited success, which doubtless partly explains why Harvey turns up in Italy after enraging RFK with his footsie with the Mafia over Cuba.

"Late, but in earnest," as the Salisbury motto has it, eh, Len? Yes, I can: Chomsky lies principally by omission. Vast areas of inconvenient knowledge are systematically plunged down the memory hole by MIT's answer to Orwell's Goldstein. Example: To read Rethinking Camelot one would think that attempts to assassinate and remove Diem began in 1963; were motivated by a desire to terminate peace negotiations between Hanoi and Saigon; and were the sole responsibility of JFK.* Nothing could be further from the truth. CIA sought to overthrow Diem in November 1960. Attempts to assassinate him began no later than 1957. Kennedy backed Diem's peace moves with Hanoi. It speaks volumes for the racism and intellectual dishonesty of Chomsky that he won't let his readers see and read South Vietnamese sources who attest to both CIA involvement in the paratroopers' putsch of November 1960, and/or Kennedy's backing of Diem's negotiations with Hanoi. And while your in full flood on the source of funding - nice touch that, by the way, on the subject of Barrett and Jones - who/what has been funding Chomsky's research since the 1950s? If you can't tell us, the presumption must be that his funding's ultimate sources remain much as before. * Of course, Chomsky can't even hold this line with any conviction in Rethinking Camelot. At one point in its erratic, preposterous progress, he informs the reader that "Kennedy left decisions on Vietnam largely in the hands of his advisers" (London: Verso, pbk, 1993, p.116). Compare and contrast with the rest of the book: Just in case his less nimble readers missed the point, the Gnome served up a variation on the theme. Subtlety, as is clear, really isn't his strongpoint: Still not got it? Chomsky had a third variant on the same basic slogan: Impressively sophisticated stuff: If you can’t convince ‘em with the quality of your argument or evidence, beat ‘em into submission by mindless repetition.

How can Chomsky's characterisation of JFK's relationship with the Agency be considered "fundamentally correct," John, when he omits such "minor" details as the post-Bay of Pigs removal of Dulles, Bissell and Cabell - three of the most senior CIA figures - the transfer of responsibility for covert-ops of any size to the Joint Chiefs, and the restatement of Ambassadorial primacy overseas? And that's just within a small period of 1961. Secondly, why were you and others on the left so unaware of what was written in papers such as The Times and the New Statesman? Here's an 1961 example from the former. JFK's war with the CIA began long before 1963:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv....m/msg95382.html I couldn't get your link to work, Greg, but the following seems to cover the same ground: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJu...911sep2002.html Subject: Proof of Chomsky's CIA Past 10 Sep 2002 Subject: Fwd: Proof of Chomsky's CIA Past Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 14:35:06 +0000 From: beatrice w -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Alex Constantine To: Mike Ruppert Subject: Proof of Chomsky's CIA Past Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 16:47:38 -0700 From the WBAI People message board: "The text you posted does not say Chomsky worked for the CIA" - Anonymous It is well known that during the 1950s, the CIA funnelled finances for its classified research projects through the military. It is also well known, as reported in Barsky¹s biography of Noam Chomsky, that the budding MIT linguist worked on a "machine translation" project at MIT funded ostensibly by the Pentagon, but as will be shown, in fact by the CIA and NSA. "Ironically," the project was the very sort of intelligence activity Chomsky has criticized publicly: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the Barsky bio: www.alexconstantine.50megs.com [Noam Chomsky, A Life of Dissent, by Robert Barsky, MIT Press, 1998] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But this project was actually funded NOT by the military, but by the CIA and NSA. From a prior post, "Manovich on Chomsky's CIA Ties," which observes that Chomsky, who worked on the program, took some of the ideas he helped develop for the CIA and NSA to his work on "mechanical translation," a full-fledged intelligence program directed against the Soviet Union:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv....m/msg95382.html Ta, Greg, appreciated: I rather suspected as much, but couldn't find a source to extend the link to CIA. Further contributions to improving my knowledge of the perp welcome. Paul

I am undone by your genius, Len, I confess. There really isn't any reasonable or rational ground for insisting Chomsky the dissident is the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency. Then again, perhaps not... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14981

From any other source, such crudely tendentious nonsense would have been the subject of mockery, and ripped to shreds. In fear-filled America, however, the book Rethinking Camelot scarce elicited a protest. Who funded the Gnome of MIT's research? Roy Lisker, “Is Language a ‘Language’ Language? On the Analytic Systems of Noam Chomsky and Heinrich Schenker,” Steamshovel Press, #5, (Summer 1992), p.71:

Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture (London: Verso, 1993), p.144 From any other source, such crudely tendentious nonsense would have been the subject of mockery, and ripped to shreds. In fear-filled America, however, the book Rethinking Camelot scarce elicited a protest.

Psst! Len, read Rethinking Camelot before making a complete arse of yourself - it's such a crude piece of CIA hackwork. Do you really want to waste time defending the incompetent? Oops, I'd forgotten, pace 9/11 - that's your job. Ignore the above, read it, and then let's eviscerate its author's reputation.

Len, baby, that's pitiful. Have another go. Please.

A small dose of triangulation. I thank you for it. By way of repaying that generous donation to the fund of human wisdom, a couple of examples of the CIA hack in action: The Pentagon Papers, as characterised in Rethinking Camelot (London: Verso, 1993): Line the first: They’re great and you can trust them… “The record of internal deliberations, in particular, has been available far beyond the norm since the release of two editions of the Pentagon Papers…While history never permits anything like definitive conclusions, in this case, the richness of the record, and its consistency, permit some unusually confident judgments, in my opinion” (p.32). Line the second: Er, they’re not, and you can’t… “This critically important document is grossly falsified by the Pentagon Papers historians, and has largely disappeared from history” (p.41). Chomsky’s logic, example 2: The kibbutzim I visited in 1953, as characterised in James Peck’s The Chomsky Reader (London: Serpent’s Tail, 1992): Line the first: Freethinker’s paradise “a functioning and very successful libertarian commune,” that he “liked…very much in many ways”, so much so that he “came close to returning there to live” (p.10) Line the second: A Stalinist hell-hole “…the ideological conformity was appalling. I don’t know if I could have survived long in that environment because I was very strongly opposed to the Leninist ideology, as well as the general conformism…” (p.10). How would you know? You've never offered a piece of meaningful dissent in your life.