Paul Rigby

The building consensus on the location of the real assassin: https://youtu.be/P6hTbo6IKSI?si=IHExUXQXU9ye7RD6 Below, Robert Barnes’ overview, which has the great merit of explaining the otherwise inexplicable attempt to link the patsy to Iran, a country now much, and entirely coincidentally, on Anthony Blinken’s mind https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/distraction-blinken-says-iran-just-1-2-weeks-away-producing-material-nuclear-weapon https://www.youtube.com/live/fp4KvbRlD0Q?si=KgQ4psW__PBeCnmi An early, and appropriately, satirical take on the garbage served up by MSM: "The Script" For Trump's Assassination Plot Needs Rewriting... https://www.zerohedge.com/political/script-trumps-assassination-plot-needs-rewriting

From our own correspondent [Louis Heren], “Washington Inquiry into CIA Activities in Laos,” The Times, Wednesday, 31 May 1962, p.11 Washington, May 30 – The Administration is conducting an investigation into the activities of the Central Intelligence Agency in Laos. Both President Kennedy and Mr Averell Harriman, the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, were perturbed by the report published in this correspondence last Thursday, and investigations are now under way. Your Correspondent reported that CIA agents who helped to bring about the downfall of Prince Souvanna Phouma in 1960 were long suspected of influencing and strengthening the resistance of the right wing to a political solution; that apparently the evidence showed that CIA agents opposed the official American objective of trying to establish a neutral Government, and that it was believed they provided General Phoumi Nosavan with some funds after the suspension in February of the monthly subsidy of $3m. (more than £1m.) It is understood that the American Embassy in Vientiane has reported there is no evidence of the agency disregarding official policy. The Ambassador is believed to have expressed his confidence that all arms of the United States Government in Laos, including those responsible for military and civil assistance as well as intelligence, are loyally carrying out official policy. AGENTS NOT WITHDRAWN It is admitted that officers and agents who were close to General Phoumi when he overthrew Prince Souvanna were not withdrawn, except when their tours of duty expired, and that the decision to leave them in Laos was made because of their usefulness; the point is made that they were perhaps best equipped to deal with the general. The Embassy, however, is convinced that they have not been involved. All this is reassuring, although in the past American Ambassadors have been unaware of the activities of CIA men placed in their own embassies, but the Administration has received information to the contrary from other foreign missions on Vientiane, including the embassies of Britain and France. There appears to be a disposition, however, to minimize the importance of this information, although it is agreed that both embassies are well informed. Contrary evidence of a kind is provided by General Phoumi himself. The general apparently was quite outspoken and made it known that he could disregard the American Embassy and the military advisory group because he was in communication with other American agencies. ENCOURAGING GENERAL The truth will probably never be fully revealed, although apparently the investigations have yet to be completed. The situation at present is that the American Ambassador in Laos is confident of the loyalty of all American officials; foreign embassies, which are not concerned with the loyalty of the American officials as such, believe that American agents have encouraged General Phoumi in his intransigence, and the general seems to have provided confirmation. The general’s remarks are perhaps not to be taken entirely at face value, but for many here the danger of employing an agency such as the CIA in a backward Asian country is that American policy can be misunderstood. The danger is enhanced when officials and agents who helped to establish the general and the right wing of the princes in power remain after official American policy has been radically changed. Here more concern was expressed than in the past because President Kennedy is not an umpire ensuring fair play between his departments and agencies, but a chief executive determined that his policies shall be carried out loyally and efficiently. It can be assumed that this determination will prevail. POLICY UNCHANGED The Administration is now anxious that this should be demonstrated. United States policy, it has authoritatively learnt, remains unchanged. As before, the Administration is working for a neutral Laos with a Government of national unity. When General Phoumi is persuaded to return to Laos, the negotiations will continue. The Administration seems convinced that the Soviet Union is also anxious to stabilize the situation, and the recent speech of Mr Khrushchev was well received. Unfortunately, because of the recent disasters, the Laotian right wing is no longer so well placed and the fear is that the Pathet Lao will increase their demands. Nevertheless, the effort is to be made.

The revolt and coming triumph of the Dems' donor class:

The rich? Solidly Biden, as you would expect for the party of empire and war: There are no Fortune 100 CEOs who are supporting Donald Trump, says Yale’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld: As for your argument that we should be grateful to Biden - more accurately, whoever is actually running US foreign policy given that the POTUS is a corpse - for only killing 80,000 Palestinian civilians, continuing to occupy a third of Syria (and still stealing its oil), not to mention the sabotage of the peace agreement in Ukraine and the worst act of ecological terrorism in history, the less said the better. Biden has been a thuggish, far-right catastrophe draped in rainbow colours and gimp masks. Hunter would have done less damage, and would undoubtedly have been more entertaining.

Good Lord. He stunk the place out literally? Below, a wonderful tribute to the Moonie-like cult that is the current Democrat party, that motley coalition of oligarchs, war-mongers, bankers, spooks, lawyers, toadies, back-stabbers, neo-cons and other undesirables. A particular nod to the epic contributions from that one-man smoke-machine, Joe Marlborough, who moved from sweary, brown-nosing bore to gimlet-eyed assassin quicker than it takes the cadaver in the White House to plunge down airplane steps.

Who filmed the sequence attributed to Muchmore? I don't know, but I do know which organisation had the best official cover for the deployment of cameramen - and women - along the parade route: Wick Fowler, “’I Don’t Blame Dallas,’ Says Ex-Security Chief,” Dallas Morning News, Wednesday, 4 December 1963: “Presidents sometimes ignore the best-laid plans to protect them from assassins, a retired chief of the U.S. Secret Service told the Dallas News Tuesday… Baughman said Secret Service agents are trained to throw their own bodies over the person they are guarding if an attempt is made on their lives. Agent Rufus Youngblood, riding with the then Vice-President Lyndon Johnson did just that… Baughman said he helped to design the security plans for the special presidential car. Secret Service agents should ride the running boards to screen the president from possible assassins. They normally ride the running boards or walk along side the car… Police, he said, as well as military guards should at all times face the crowds and watch the buildings. There should be no camera trucks allowed in the motorcades and parades. Cameramen should be stationed along the route, he said.”

It is, of course, inconceivable that multiple copies of a JFK assassination film, distributed to scores of American television stations, could all have vanished without trace. The very notion of such an effective campaign of suppression is ludicrous on its face, and without historical instance. Only lunatics, the great unwashed, and nasty people who read your nonsense critically, could possibly entertain such absurd nonsense. Alas for you, it happened, and did so to the first version of the first film to corroborate the first version of the Zapruder film. Recall that on the evening of Monday, 25 November 1963, there were, according to the anti-alterationists’ own standard narrative, two films of the assassination identified and viewed. The second of the two, the one attributed to a woman (Muchmore) who denied taking it, and snatched from under the noses of the FBI in a scene worthy of a bad spy novel, had allegedly been purchased by UPI Newsfilm, and disseminated to US television customers across the country. The segment was two minutes long, with the shooting shown four times at different speeds and under different magnifications. It swiftly vanished, like mist before the morning sun. Why? Because it corroborated a version of the Zapruder that had itself been suppressed

Richard J. H. Johnston, “Movie Amateur Filmed Attack; Sequence Is Sold to Magazine” New York Times, November 24, 1963, p5: Life magazine will publish the pictures in its issue dated Friday, Nov. 29. The issue will be on the streets next Tuesday. Ed Seitz, “What’s Going … Those Assassination Films,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, Wednesday, 27 November 1963, 7: From ‘Black Friday’ to ‘Blue Monday,’ the one thing Cincinnati TV watchers did NOT see was camera coverage at the instant of assassination. This may have been a blessing. But when the word got round Tuesday that Life magazine’s current issue was carrying movie clips of the actual shooting, news stand stocks were bought up in a hurry. Bell-Block sold out its quota of 150 copies in two hours, then said ‘sorry’ to a stream of would-be purchasers. Rick Freedman, “Pictures of Assassination Fall to Amateurs on Street,” Editor & Publisher, November 30, 1963, pp 16, 17 & 67: “The picture sequence ran as a four-page spread in Life’s Nov. 29 issue, which came out Nov. 26.”

Two views on Pax Americana: John J. McCloy, letter to fellow Philadelphian George Wharton Pepper: "In the light of what has happened, I would take a chance on this country using its strength tyrannously…We need, if you will, a Pax Americana," (Kai Bird. The Chairman: John J. McCloy: The Making of the American Establishment [NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992], p.661) John F. Kennedy, speech delivered at the American University in Washington, June 10th, 1963: "What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by weapons of war…"

Er, no, I didn’t. Quite the reverse. The sequence of incremental newspaper fictions, designed to persuade readers that Kennedy was shot by Oswald from behind, could only work if the filmic turn from Houston onto Elm, present in the first version of the Z fake and showing no such shooting, was suppressed. That couldn’t be clearer. Nor is the presence of an organizing intelligence behind the reports of Herbers (NYT), Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), and Mandel (Life). So who was feeding the aforementioned reporters these lies about bullet strikes on Houston and/or the beginning of Elm? To find a precedent for this kind of work, we need look no further than the reportage on the Bay of Pigs, as “headlines throughout the US recounted mass uprisings by the Cuban people against Castro, Soviet MIGs blasting the invaders, rebel capture of the Isle of Pines, the surrender of Castro’s brother. An eight-column banner in the Miami News screamed: CUBAN NAVY IN REVOLT.” One problem: All of these claims were invented, as Victor Bernstein and Jesse Gordon noted in their fascinating analysis, The Press and the Bay of Pigs (Columbia University Forum, Fall 1967, 5-13). So who was responsible for feeding this earlier string of progressively more preposterous fabrications to the US press? Again Bernstein and Gordon provide the answer: “About the press coverage of the invasion itself, the less said the better. The chief source of information was a Mr. Lem Jones who, according to Arthur M Schlesinger Jr., in his A Thousand Days, “was putting out in the name of the [Cuban Revolutionary] Council press releases dictated over the phone by the CIA.” The CIA, Mr. Schlesinger intimates wryly, had not even bothered to inform the Council that Mr. Jones had been hired to do the invasion publicity. Who was Mr. Jones? In Haynes Johnson’s The Bay of Pigs, he is described this way: “The president of Lem Jones Associates, Inc., a Madison Avenue public relations firm …had done public relations work for such clients as a lay committee of the Armenian Apostolic Church and corporation stockholders waging proxy fights; but his present client, he told a reporter, was ‘a very serious thing, too.’ Mr. Jones was still in the proxy business, it appeared; this time he was proxying for the Cuban Revolutionary Council and the CIA. Largely on the basis of his news releases, headlines throughout the US recounted mass uprisings by the Cuban people against Castro…” The CIA had always, were possible, avoided blood on its collective pinny, so we may reasonably hypothesize that they used a cut-out or proxy, just as they had earlier with the Bay of Pigs, when it came to orchestrating their holding operation on the left turn from Houston onto Elm. Did Lem Jones do double-duty? Or was it a different PR man, perhaps for Life (and Langley)? Identifying that figure would be very useful. https://archive.org/details/pressbayofpigs00vict

It is a universally acknowledged truth that nothing betokens a commitment to the truth than strictly compartmentalized intelligence inspections of an assassination film. It becomes even truer when we realize that the NPIC’s two inspections of the Zapruder fake, even when combined, were fleeting and desultory by comparison with the amount of time and effort dedicated to the infinitely more important matter of…analysing a January 1966 article in Science & Mechanics magazine devoted to a Soviet propaganda film called Walk in Space. Yes, you read that right. “Fifty-eight Polaroid prints,” no less, “and four transparencies were generated during the study” (1). Now compare and contrast the level of detail contained within that report with that which emanated from both NPIC encounters with the Zapruder fake. This fact is even more extraordinary than it may at first appear, as the author of the magazine piece, Lloyd Mallan (2), had previous with the CIA: His early 1959 piece for True magazine – in expanded form, to issue later the same year as a Fawcett book, [Russia and] The Big Red Lie (exposing, inter alia, the Soviet monster plot to pretend it had a space programme) - was subjected to a withering dissection by, yes, the Agency’s own analysts later that same year (3). The NPIC was thus set, in early 1966, to detailed scrutiny of the claims of a figure who was, at most generous, a nut, as his subsequent two books in the same year were to confirm: Russia’s Space Hoax (“Documented Proof That The Soviet Space Program Has Been Faked”); and the no less remarkable It Is Safe To Smoke (a Hawthorn book, no less). The CIA authors of the Analysis of Russian Walk In Space Film – it was nominally attributed to the Chief of the Agency’s Technical Intelligence Division - were unabashed by the inspiration, cheerfully confessing that “this entire analysis seems to have been inspired by Mr Lloyd Mallan…with each point made by Mr Mallan…considered.” If only someone had bunged Mallan to write an article or book on the Dallas coup. (1) ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN WALK IN SPACE FILM CIA-RDP80T01137A000500030001-2 (2) Noel Valis, Who Was Lloyd Mallan? (The Volunteer, 12 March 2023) https://albavolunteer.org/2023/03/who-was-lloyd-mallan/ (3) The Big Red Lie (True, 2 January 1959): CIA-RDP63T00245R000100290001-8.pdf COMMENTS ON ARTICLE BY LLOYD MALLAN, ' THE BIG RED LIE ', PART II, TRUE MAGAZINE, JUNE 1959 cia-rdp67b00446r000100350003-0 Memo To Honorable Bob WIlson From John S. Warner, 19 January 1960: CIA-RDP63T00245R000100290007-2.pdf

Rolly Zavada’s talents were wasted. He might more usefully have conducted a study of the film’s mysterious influence upon human memory, an effect, it should be noted, not confined to the assassination city itself. Leaving aside those scores of participants and/or eyewitnesses in Dallas who saw things unrecorded by, or very different to, the dress-maker’s remarkable camera and its even more remarkable self-healing film stock, spare a moment’s thought for the poor staff who laboured within Life magazine’s photographic department, most of whom had wandered through life, prior to November 1963, with excellent reputations for sobriety, professional competence and a basic ability to distinguish ripped film from unripped film. Then along came the dreaded Z film. From the anonymous technicians, to their bosses Richard Pollard (photographic director) and Herbert G. Orth (deputy supervisor of the magazine’s laboratory), all suffered a similar mass hallucination to the Dallasites, one which caused them to believe, on no rational basis whatever, that the same aforementioned technicians had accidentally destroyed four frames from “the original, intact, color film,” and to publicly admit such. Little did those suckers know. Good, thankfully, can still issue from mushrooms (or whatever it was preciseIy that caused this extraordinary collective imagining). I propose a memorial to the victims of ZFP (Zapruder film psychosis), possibly in the form of a giant metal replica of an optical printer bearing the inscription: Mr. Liebeler: ‘…Now, what about picture No. 210 – however – there is no No. 210 in here.’ Mr. Zapruder: ‘No.’ Mr. Liebeler: ‘How about No. 222?’* For after all, one fake film frame is ultimately of no more value than any other; and, like principles, the CIA always have others. *Richard H. Levine, Film of Kennedy Torn, ‘Life’ Says (The Baltimore Sun, Thursday, 22 December 1966, A1 & A4)

The anonymous Milwaukee Journal reporter responsible for the words in parenthesis above was not the only local journalist who pursued the story-behind-the-film(s). Ed Seitz of the Cincinnati Enquirer was also moved to enquiry. The result was this fascinating report: Ed Seitz, “What’s Going … Those Assassination Films,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, Wednesday, 27 November 1963, 7: From ‘Black Friday’ to ‘Blue Monday,’ the one thing Cincinnati TV watchers did NOT see was camera coverage at the instant of assassination. This may have been a blessing. But when the word got round Tuesday that Life magazine’s current issue was carrying movie clips of the actual shooting, news stand stocks were bought up in a hurry. Bell-Block sold out its quota of 150 copies in two hours, then said ‘sorry’ to a stream of would-be purchasers. Behind this grisly episode in American history lies a story of high finance and commercial competition. Life, in spirited bidding for a Dallas amateur’s eight-millimeter movies, paid $40,000 for so-called ‘still’ rights – and that’s the short of it. For the movie rights, Time, Inc. (of which Life is a subsidiary) put out a reported $250,000. Mims Thomason, United Press International president, told the Enquirer Tuesday he had bid $100,000 for the movie rights. He said one of his attorneys reported Time’s successful quarter-of-a-million bid. Because of the money involved, Mr. Thomason said he was glad his bid wasn’t accepted. But he conceded that the Time movies were ‘pretty good stuff.’ ‘It’ll be a good investment for 100 years,’ he said. ‘For documentary and historical purposes, it is priceless. For example, what would a movie of Lincoln’s assassination be worth now?’ Mr. Thomason said he had bought (price undisclosed) another amateur’s eight mm. movie film. Those are the shots you might have seen on WCPO-TV at noon, 7p.m. and 11 p.m. Tuesday. But the UPI executive admits they are inferior to Time-Life’s films, having been taken from the opposite side of the presidential limousine. Both movie strips, however, show the former First Lady frantically climbing out onto the trunk, shouting at the Secret Service man on the back bumper. How she bore up – then and in many public appearances of the next few days – no one can ever know.

It's always a pleasure to encounter an epistle from the man affectionately known hereabouts as "Pine Gap" - for the zeal and frequency with which he transmits intelligence from the Antipodes, you understand, especially those estimable assorted strayan independent observers - and this latest farrago is no exception. Not since J Edgar Hoover issued his November 1966 statement insisting that the Z film was whole and pure has the case for authenticity been set out with such wit and verve. So, 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 at the Parkland press conference 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 widely disseminated. 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, beginning with the turn from Houston onto Elm, 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. Showing the left-turn from Houston onto Elm would have furnished visual-pictorial refutation of the entire elaborate deceit. So out it went.

I have read little on the subject and hitherto assumed that accounts of the initial Parkland Hospital treatment of Connally were unproblematic. A recently encountered UPI dispatch has caused me pause. In recent years, plaudits for saving the Governor have gone, almost exclusively, to James “Red” Duke, a fourth-year resident at Parkland. That Duke was involved in Connally’s initial treatment is not disputed. It’s the centrality of that involvement that is seemingly challenged by the aforementioned UPI dispatch. A brief preamble to the relevant portion of the dispatch. It’s source was particularly credible for six reasons: 1) He was speaking from recent experience, when the memory was fresh; 2) he was doing so when he had no notion of how subsequent accounts might need to be “tweaked”; 3) the tribute he offered was unsolicited; 4) manifestly heartfelt; 5) without obvious gain, reputational or financial (quite the reverse); and 6) the level of detail. With no further ado, then, the key, concluding section of the dispatch in question: It may just be that Perry, busy working on Kennedy, and therefore unsighted as to who precisely was doing what to Connally “across the hall,” incorrectly assumed Dr. David Mitchel Mebane, a much more experienced surgeon than James Juke, was doing more than merely keeping a watching brief on the latter’s handiwork while offering him (Perry) verbal reassurance. Alternatively, was something perhaps more interesting was going on? Here I have in mind Lifton's long-standing puzzlement at the fate of 6 inches of one of Connally’s ribs, noted as missing by Dr. Shaw prior to the commencement of his work on the Governor. A hypothesis suggests itself: Was Mebane’s role in Connally’s treatment minimized because it was he who removed the lengthy section of rib in question, rib that presumably contained manifold remnants of the bullet which struck the Governor’s back? https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/33515328/david-mitchel-mebane

Pretext for a Fedsurrection (24 Jan 2024) Extract: The real whopper occurs at around the 1:09:41 timestamp. Here we can see a group of children cross the street in the direction of the pipe bomb, and walk within feet of where the pipe bomb is placed. Astonishingly, the Secret Service agents who themselves are standing about don’t even bother to warn these children of the bomb. Shortly thereafter, a Capitol Police officer walks right up to the bomb, snaps a photo of it, gives a thumbs up sign to the other agents, who then for the first time in the entire clip move with hustle and purpose and quickly leave the scene. Here we see the Secret Service detail acting with utter lack of concern for their own lives, for the lives of their protectee Kamala Harris, and perhaps most scandalously of all, for the lives of the group of children they cavalierly allowed to walk right next to the pipe bomb. The Secret Service somehow knew the pipe bomb was a dud, but how would they have known that? A reliable source who has seen the extended non-public footage reports to us that, minutes after the footage above ends, authorities had that very DNC pipe bomb defused by a bomb-safe robot. If the Secret Service were so confident the bomb wasn’t a threat that they would exhibit zero concern for themselves, their protectee, and children walking by, then why bother with the gratuitous spectacle of defusing the bomb with a robot? https://americanmind.org/salvo/pretext-for-a-fedsurrection/ New Details About the Mysterious J6 Pipe Bomber (25 Jan 2024) https://youtu.be/w-jbrLo81Bs?si=PRauV8D1virFfTvA Smoking Gun? New Video of 1/6 Pipe Bomb Raises More Questions (29 Jan 2024) https://youtu.be/6rS6jKovw3Y?si=1OjVM3jgYdgqFTCj

We welcome the views of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. John F. Kennedy: "Remarks on the 20th Anniversary of the Voice of America.," February 26, 1962.

Biden has often traced his unyielding support for Israel to dinner-table conversations with his father about the horrors of the Holocaust and to a 1973 meeting in Israel with Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first year as a senator. Even so, it took “a long, long discussion” with Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a famously hawkish Democratic senator from Washington state, for Biden to adopt a more hardline position. As Biden explained in a 1983 eulogy of Jackson, he had not felt “nearly as strongly” about backing Israel before his senior colleague encouraged him to make multiple visits to Israel and Nazi concentration camps. As a result, Biden said, Jackson “changed a major part of my political life and my attitude about a whole segment of society that I did not understand before.” Jackson was once seen as Israel’s strongest defender in the Senate. As a Saudi ambassador put it, he appeared “more Zionist than the Zionists,” despite being the Protestant son of Norwegian immigrants. That was reflected in extreme rhetoric that alienated some liberal American Jews and fellow Democrats. But many American Jews saw Jackson as their champion—in part because of his advocacy for Jews persecuted in the Soviet Union. (Jackson would later be called a “patron saint of neoconservatism”; his former aides Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz were architects of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.) Under Jackson’s influence, Biden could similarly come across as a pro-Israel zealot. In 1982, the year Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu first met, Israel launched an invasion of Lebanon that caused massive civilian casualties. Israel’s tactics in Lebanon as it tried to destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization and empower the country’s Christian minority outraged people in the Arab world and were opposed by key American officials. How Joe Biden Became America’s Top Israel Hawk The president once said “Israel could get into a fistfight with this country and we’d still defend” it. That is now clearer than ever. NOAH LANARD DECEMBER 22, 2023 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/12/how-joe-biden-became-americas-top-israel-hawk/

As ever, nil points for historical accuracy: It was precisely the Soviet Union that JFK urged America to negotiate with.

The world will end if Trump is elected... Jimmy Dore & crew scrutinise Deep State Dems' at their ghastly best:

Do tell, given that you mention this twice. Was this really ever a widely-held theory beyond David Lifton (and then only briefly)? If so, you shouldn’t have any difficulty in producing a list of adherents, who must have roamed the plains of JFK research, given the prominence you afford them, like eighteenth century herds of wild bison. Would, say, six be too many? Perhaps just three, then? You can go all the way back to 1966 if it helps. Of course, if you can’t produce any such evidence, we may reasonably conclude that this is just another gross caricature of the research community, one indistinguishable from those routinely provided by what was once the mainstream media, and is now little more than a fringe legacy. Quite why anyone should be concerned with the approval of such a mistrusted, embittered rump continues to elude me. And again, I ask, how does reproducing the vituperation of the establishment assist in any campaign to win round the declining media of that same establishment? Will, for instance, Jeff Bezos be won over by your insults and throw aside all those lucrative multi-million dollar contracts with the CIA for the sake of a one-off truthful WaPo investigation? If you believe that, you need immediate psychiatric intervention. Your reasoning is no less peculiar with respect to the general public. How does your obsessive need to insult researchers who don’t agree with you “influence[s] the attitudes of reasonable people who are not familiar with the facts of the JFK assassination”? The answer is obvious: In your own words, it “encourages those people not to take the case seriously.” Contrary to your purported goals, this seems to be your real aim.

What if the KGB had Joe? DrJLT Economics Jan 15, 2024 A humorous take on Joe's destructive term: If the Soviets had someone like Joe, would the Cold War not end differently? I examine 8 areas where Joe undermines American prestige, credibility, and viability. Disclaimer: No conspiracy here. Joe is an American patriot. This is only a critique of the results of his ineptitude.

But no more keen than you, for whom it is an apparently obligatory feature of just about every contribution to this forum that you make. An obvious question arises: why do you constantly share a legacy media strawman? It’s particularly egregious in this instance as you’re replying to someone who had nothing whatever to say on the matter in the course of his posts in this thread. You, yet again, introduced it. Might not your putative “reasonable, intelligent member of the public who has no particular interest in, knowledge of, or opinion about the assassination,” considering your obsession, reasonably conclude that you are either disturbed, or worse, that your real function is to attempt to police a debate in the service of the perpetrators? A second question occurs: Why on earth are you worried about the opinion of the legacy media? After all, it lied about the case long before Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the kisser, or Capricorn One hit cinemas. What exactly is the basis for your belief that if only other researchers fell into line with your strictures the legacy media would reverse its position on the assassination? The proposition is so full-moon unhinged that it brings nothing but discredit upon researchers of every stripe, gender, and headwear. Have a word with yourself - and bill for the full hour.