Paul Rigby

A truly compelling analysis of the sickness which underpins belief in the OCT. And a first, I believe, for this forum: A contributor dismisses himself as "psychotic." Impressive honesty. More seriously, if, as appears to have been established by the FBI, her husband lied about the duration and content of her phone calls, which part of the Barbara Olson narrative are we to accept, and on what basis?

John, here's what I've found. I can cannot vouch for any of it, so take it on board or not... 1. The shows were live - and as a result, very little of Dee's work can be found today. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/carousel/pob18.html Can't be too many instances in that period, surely, of a British talkshow host permitting discussion, however stoned (or spiked) the initiator, of the Dallas coup; getting fired for it; and then commenting publicly on the power over British broadcasting exercised by the CIA? Three very good reasons for the end of a career, it would seem.

Some sources say the interview with Lazenby was pre-recorded, which, if true, makes the episode even more curious. Either way, like John, I'd be interested to know the content of Lazenby's thoughts on the subject. Incidentally, Dee also publicly opposed British membership of the EEC (or whatever title it had in those days) - not a wise career move at a time when British intelligence, in conformity to the wishes of its American masters, was engaged in wholesale manipulation of public opinion on the issue.

And most of the membersip of the 'Who Killed Kennedy?' Committee Russell was so instrumental in forming... Other members of the "Who Killed Kennedy Committee” included: John Arden (playwright), Carolyn Wedgwood Benn (wife of Tony Wedgwood Benn, M.P.), Lord Boyd-Orr (former director-general of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization and a Nobel Peace Prize winner), John Calder (publisher), Professor William Empsom (professor of English Literature at Sheffield University), Victor Golancz (publisher), Michael Foot (M.P. and later leader of the Labour Party), Kingsley Martin (editor of the New Statesman), Compton Mackenzie (writer), J. B. Priestley (playwright and author), Sir Herbert Reed (art critic), Tony Richardson (film director), Dr. Mervyn Stockwood (Bishop of Southwark), Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper (Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University) and Kenneth Tynan (Manager of the National Theatre). One of the two extended pieces Trevor-Roper produced on the case:

And most of the membersip of the 'Who Killed Kennedy?' Committee Russell was so instrumental in forming...

Reading your replies, David, is almost always cringeworthy. Why do you bother? Do everyone here a favour and stop, it's extremely tiresome. From the man responsible for this gem - "While I'm on the subject, proof of a second shooter on the grassy knoll is not proof of a conspiracy. There could have been two people operating independently. It's a remote possibilty, sure, but infinitely more likely than a fake Zapruder film!" - that's something else. Do keep it up, "infinitely"!

From Elm Street to New York, the illusion of filmic veracity... http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=5061

The Washington Daily News, Wednesday, 14 September 1960, p.51 Dr. Peale Just Wasn’t Available By Richard Starnes

This is unusually funny, for the pictures Hunt presents - taken a mere quarter century apart, but hey-ho - are plainly not the same. As the man said, "cracks don't go away" - but they did in this case! As for prefering the testimony of the body snatchers of the SS to disinterested observers like Stavis Ellis, what can one say? And as to the broader question of what this very lengthy nonsense is all about, here's a very plausible explanation: Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams, “The Fifth Shot,” from Chapter 3, “Execution,” within Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Probe, 1974) (1) Zapruder frame number 330. (2) Charles Roberts, op. cit., p. 17. (3) Ellis, loc. cit. (4) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26. ‘FBI report, dated July 17, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 472-474. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27. ‘Letter from the FBI to the Commission, dated August 12, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 475-477. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29-30. ‘Charts prepared by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt showing locations of curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 478-480. Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “’Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. ‘Piece of curb containing lead markings removed from Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, p. 482. According to Shaneyfelt, “These metal smears [on the curb] were spectographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found. The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.” [Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated Sept. 1, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 15, p. 700.

Too true. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and now Pakistan - not to mention in the various manufactured resource wars in East Africa - have been killed by US, Israeli, and European military and spook believers in the whack job OCT of 9/11. And not one of them "a lone nut." Truly shocking. What is to be done with these legions of brutal & deluded fanatics?

Thank you, Craig Lamson, the J. Danforth Quayle Professor of Warren Commission Hermeneutics: "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things." Yew kan say that agin. Ant agani. From the self-crowned king of photography...who didn't know that perspective compression by telephoto lens is a myth. Good thing, in the circumstances. Mental halitosis, like death, can be fatal.

A tad harsh on Frank, I think, but not without an element of justice: Perspective compression by a telephoto lens: A myth http://scubageek.com/articles/compression.pdf As for the tutorial, I don't know which impressed me the most - the banality or the selectivity. On second thoughts, I do - the selectivity.

In true anti-alterationist fashion, you know better than Chaney himself: What, and deprive you of a job? Unthinkable - you're just so entertaining. The Craig Specter Appreciation Society

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame. There, baffled? Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame? Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider: Zapruder was on stilts. The Altgens photo is a forgery. The Z film is a forgery. You missed the most important solution... Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography. And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear? Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography. Ever thought of running for the Senate? For keen students of political photography – a very different beast from the stuff most of us are familiar with – here’s a very useful guide to Zapruder’s position & line of sight on 11/22; and the height of the motorcycle outriders relative to the presidential limousine and the height of its occupants. For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the obscure photo in question, it is held by anti-alterationists to correspond to Z315/6: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...um=11&pos=4 In political photography, light bends & omits, and subsequent commentators fail to see, that which is inconvenient. Worth bearing in mind as one compares and contrasts the following beauts: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame. There, baffled? Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame? Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider: Zapruder was on stilts. The Altgens photo is a forgery. The Z film is a forgery. You missed the most important solution... Paul Rigby is ignorant of the basic principles of photography. And which "principle" of photography, oh wise one, is that? The principle by which inconvenient objects disappear? Truth to tell, old boy, you're just another Arlen Spector: speciality, political photography. Ever thought of running for the Senate?

It's a terribly vague and ungrounded argument I'm making, Pam, not to mention devious and fiendishly complicated. It involves taking one photograph, not taken by Zapuder and published before any of his frames, and comparing it with what the anti-alterationists have long insisted is the corresponding Z frame. There, baffled? Here is a cropped version of what, for the sake of convenience, I’ll agree to call Altgens’ “sixth” photo: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Here is the allegedly corresponding Z-frame: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg Now, how does fifty-eighty inches or so of motorcycle outrider and bike, manifestly interposed between the presidential limousine and Z's camera, disappear from the Z-frame? Some potential solutions to the strange case of the disappearing motorcycle outrider: Zapruder was on stilts. The Altgens photo is a forgery. The Z film is a forgery.

...compelling rebuttals of James Chaney's testimony, as corroborated by etc. Funny, but I can't find one of them. Nor any from the head of the Sixth Form Museum. Odd, that. Bumpity bump - in celebration of the end of the anti-alterationist case!

Always a pleasure to run across an Angletonian "elicitation." So just who was that "friend," John, Edward J. by any chance?

Does it really? http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Altgens cropped to focus on Chaney… http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg …who has mysteriously vanished in the alleged corresponding Z-fake frame. Wonderful things, telephoto lenses – they can make interposed objects and people disappear. It seems both teams are comfortable falling prey to the fallacy of false alternatives. If things were that simple, we might as well just believe the WCR. Sometimes, Pam, things really are just that simple. But I'm a reasonable sort of bloke, always ready and willing to offer a sucker an even break, so I hereby throw in the use of a limited amount of scaffolding to assist the anti-alterationists in explaining how Zappy's ground-breaking telephoto lens missed Chaney alongside the right side of the presidential limo. How much fairer or more reasonable can a man be? Bill Miller can then discourse on the rapidity with which the Altgens photo hit the wires; Lamson can hammer that club on his keyboard concerning the extraordinary properties of the telephoto lens in question; "Tink" can quote a Danish philosopher (or two); and Barb can tell us that the comparison is odious because it's perfectly apparent that Chaney was a shifty Commie. And so on and so forth. Now wouldn't all that be worth the hearing? Paul

Does it really? http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/galle...bum=2&pos=5 Altgens cropped to focus on Chaney… http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg …who has mysteriously vanished in the alleged corresponding Z-fake frame. Wonderful things, telephoto lenses – they can make interposed objects and people disappear.

Has Mark Lane ever revealed the source of the transcript he was quoting? No, Jay, nor, disappointingly, is the pamphlet footnoted. It's one of the many curiosities of Lane's career - his pre-Rush To Judgment (1966) work is sprinkled with with quotes and statements utterly at variance with the drear orthodoxies embodied in that book. Paul

How different were the actual questions and answers at the doctors’ press conference at Parkland, as opposed to those contained in the fictional 1327C? Are there any non-mainstream media sources we can turn to for guidance? On the evening of December 10, 1964, Mark Lane, at the invitation of the British “Who Killed Kennedy?” Committee, delivered an “Extemporaneous Lecture” at University College, London. A tape recording was made of both Lane’s speech, and the subsequent question and answer session; and a transcript published in pamphlet form under the Committee’s aegis. On page 21 (of the 32pp pamphlet), we find the following: “I examined the President’s back, from the small of his back to the top of his neck, and I felt his whole back and I did not feel any wounds.” Try finding that sentence in 1327C! http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm

Meet the anti-alterationists... http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/areyoubeingserved/ As played by "Young" Mr. Thompson, "Major" Lamson, and Mrs. Slocombe...

Funny you should mention that. I know a guy who really wasn't sure - yes, step forward old Zappy himself: UPI, “Garrison shows Zapruder Movie,” Press-Telegram, (Long Beach, California), Friday, 14 February 1969, p.10 Another ringing endorsement from Zapruder of his film’s authenticity! PS You don't think he'd gone senile by this stage, do you?

A “graveyard,” “organized burials,” “lots of fun” – yes, you can take the philosopher out of Yale, but you can never quite remove Yale from the philosopher. Yet who but the most heartless among us can resist the heady atmosphere of the nocturnal Old Blue initiation ceremony, complete with corpses, shovels, coffins, nudity (compulsory) and, who knows, a little light onanism (optional), all rounded off with a rousing chorus of Die Wacht am Fetzer*, not to mention that all-important certificate of membership for Yale’s latest, and least prized, secret society: Celluloid and Old Rope. Yours for only £322 a throw! Pull the other one? No, it’s attached to WTC7. *“As long as a drop of blood still glows, a fist still draws the mouse, and one arm still holds the keyboard, no enemy will here enter our thread!”