Paul Rigby
-
Posts
1,741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Rigby
-
-
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.
Some days can, in retrospect, seem a little too eventful for their own good. Never fear, a helping hand is always at the ready. First Stolley, then the historian:
Richard Stolley, “The Greatest Home Movie Ever Made,” Esquire, November 1973, (Vol LXXX), p.135:“On Monday morning, as thousands of grieving Americans filed by Kennedy’s coffin in the Capitol rotunda, the film was shown to Time Inc. executives in New York, Life’s publisher, the late C.D. Jackson, was so upset by the head-wound sequence that he proposed the company obtain all rights to the film and withhold it from public viewing at least until emotions had calmed.”
Perfect timing for a C.D. Jackson intervention on November 25, after the cinematic bird had, temporarily at least, flown the cage. Enter a man with a net:
“According to later reports, LIFE publisher C.D. Jackson, upon seeing a projection of the film on Sunday, November 24 was shocked and repulsed at the possibility of its morbid and graphically bloody scenes being shown to the public. For this reason, as well as to keep it from his competitors and to control all rights to this historic film, Jackson authorized that Time Inc. attempt to purchase all rights. These instructions were forwarded to Stolley in Dallas,”Richard B. Trask. National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 2005), p.132.
And by way of confirming the date of the first of the "fact finding" recreations/surveys:
“Secret Service at Scene,” The Dallas Morning News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, section 4, p.7:“Onlookers lined the wreath-covered area on Elm Street Monday to watch Secret Service men check trajectory of bullets that killed President Kennedy on Friday. Agent in street, lower arrow, stands at spot where the President was shot. Upper arrow marks window from where assassin fired.”
-
*****************
I came across this document it maybe of some use to you..........
B......
Bernice,
Any follow up to this to be found within the files?
Paul
-
Sorry, Bill, but I've accidentally sent my only pair of reading specs to Jim Fetzer. Please remind me of the page reference and/or footnote in Trask's Pictures of the Pain wherein he explicitly states that Muchmor's film was shown on WNEW-TV on 26 November 1963 at, well, anytime? I would hate readers of this thread to be left with the impression that you've just made this up and that, in fact, there is no such claim made by Trask anywhere in the book.
Paul
PS Check your pants aren't aflame. I fear a conflagration.
Paul, you're joking - right? Trask's book tells of the sale of the film - date - etc.. I then went to Gary Mack to find out that the details of the Muchmore film showed up in the press. That article told of the showing of the Muchmore film (I believe the night before). Maybe if you'd get all the facts before drawing your conclusions, then possibly you'd better understand my position. Here is Mack's email address ... feel free to learn as much as you can on the matter - GMack@JFK.Org
Bill,
You claimed Trask's Pictures of the Pain as the source for WNEW-TV showing Muchmore's film not long after midday on November 26 - it does no such thing. If you wish to persist in the untruth, that's, er, great!
Paul
-
Len Colby: “Scenes” can refer to stills and it wouldn’t surprise me that even though one can’t see much in the Muchmore film people might have considered seeing a person get killed in real life “gruesome” and judging on the stills from Muchmore on Duncan’s link there are better quality versions than the one on YouTube.
Needs more work, frankly, as attempted explanations go. Perhaps Tarantino could shoot the covert remake of the Muchmore film?
AP, "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3:Dallas, Tex.-AP - A strip of color movie film graphically depicting the assassination of President Kennedy was made by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8 millimeter camera.
Several persons in Dallas who have seen the film, which lasts about 15 seconds, say it clearly shows how the president was hit in the head with shattering force by the second of two bullets fired by the assassin.
Life magazine reportedly purchased still picture rights to the material for about $40,000.
("The film also was being distributed by United Press International Newsfilms to subscribing stations. WITI-TV in Milwaukee is a subscriber, but will reserve judgment on whether to show the film until after its officials have viewed it.")
Len Colby comments: "The author presumably hadn’t seen either film, he or she could have falsely assumed it was the same film. The last two sentences were obviously added by a local reporter."
The last two sentences were, indeed, and thus the report is all the more credible, as the unnamed reporter gives unmistakable indication that he - or she - rang WITI-TV and checked.
Len Colby: Are you really proposing that WNEW actually broadcast the Z-film? Can you quote anyone who claims to have seen it? Don’t you think that after a big deal was made about it being shown on TV for the “first” time in 1975 someone would have said ‘hey I saw that 12 years ago!’? If “they” were plotting to further alter the film why show and release a copy on the 26th? Don’t you think someone who saw it might have noticed it matched the stills of Zapruder in Life?Lot of very interesting and important questions thrown together here. In order:
Yes; No; Was any member of the media going to listen to such a figure? How do you know they didn't?; The figures who spotted the need for changes were not in total control of the film and its distribution: CD Jackson intervened on their behalf, using Time-Life as cover; The stills in the first post-assassination of Life were few and of poor quality.
Paul
-
The Chuckle Brothers have been conferring. Amnesia and obfuscation resulted:
Also, it is quite possible that the date of the Russian TV film appearance is in error or the reporter's characterization of it weeks later is simply wrong.As Mack well knows - it's been on this forum before at least once - Tass stated flat out that Soviet viewers had been shown footage of the actual shooting, and contemporaneous Foreign Office files, inspected years later, confirmed it. Links to both:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/worldreaction.html
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_pe...lmson%20TV.html
I note with a smirk that one G. Mack, no less, assured Ian Griggs, the man responsible for the fine piece of research at the other end of the first link above, that "the Muchmore Film had been shown on a New York TV station, and probably others, on the 25th. He added that since the film was owned by UPI, it was likely to have been distributed to other news outlets and so it was quite possible that the film shown on Soviet TV was Marie Muchmore’s footage."
Awesome.
Paul
-
Paul...I checked the chapter on Muchmore. I could find no mention of WNEW-TV.
Thought as much, Jack: Bill Miller is a purveyor of porky pies. Trask either missed this claim, or else knew it to be false and steered clear of it, leaving the dirty work to the footsoldiers of falsehood. Take your pick.
Paul
-
Something very interesting was going on with the assassination films on November 25-26, 1963. What it was, and why, offers the potential to shed important light on much more than just the history of the films.
The history of the Muchmore film can be read in Trask's book "The Pictures of the Pain". If anyone doubts what film was flown to NY and shown on TV, then read Trask's book. The interesting part about Muchmore's film was that it wasn't known to the Feds until after it had been aired to the public.
Sorry, Bill, but I've accidentally sent my only pair of reading specs to Jim Fetzer. Please remind me of the page reference and/or footnote in Trask's Pictures of the Pain wherein he explicitly states that Muchmor's film was shown on WNEW-TV on 26 November 1963 at, well, anytime? I would hate readers of this thread to be left with the impression that you've just made this up and that, in fact, there is no such claim made by Trask anywhere in the book.
Paul
PS Check your pants aren't aflame. I fear a conflagration.
-
Paul...I find all of your Z research valuable, fascinating, and largely new to me.
Keep up the good work.
Jack
Only if you guarantee to ensure Jim Fetzer makes good use of the spare pair of reading specs I've popped in the post to him tonight!
Appreciated.
Paul
-
The name of the film-taker was totally irrelevant. UPI
“Scenes” can refer to stills and it wouldn’t surprise me that even though one can’t see much in the Muchmore film people might have considered seeing a person get killed in real life “gruesome” and judging on the stills from Muchmore on Duncan’s link there are better quality versions than the one on YouTube.
Doesn't convince, Len. There was a film circulating which was genuinely gruesome and it wasn't the Muchmore:
"In the meantime, sometime on Sunday in New York City, Life's publisher C.D. Jackson viewed with horror the images of the newly arrived film. According to secondhand sources, its shocking scenes convinced him that the magazine should acquire motion picture rights to the film as well to keep the its frightful death sequences out of the hands of exploiters and such gruesome images away from the public,"David R. Wrone. The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003), p.35.
Sounds like the same film to me:
“By Tuesday, numerous pictures, both still and movie, were being offered to news media. At least one television station was besieged with protests after it had shown scenes of the President’s motorcade at the moment of the shooting. Many viewers considered them to be too gruesome,”Rick Friedman, Pictures of the Assassination Fall to Amateurs on Street, Editor & Publisher, November 30, 1963, p.67
Paul
-
Paul, I'm not a very filmy citizen, but it souds very interesting, to put it mildly.
What are the sources on your comment about Dan Rather describing the film on Nov. 25th?
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:
“The evening of November 25 the Secret Service contacted the FBI requesting that the FBI-lent first-generation copy be returned to the Dallas Secret Service, as it was needed the next morning. The film was put upon a Braniff Airlines fight scheduled to arrive in Dallas at 3:21 a.m. By 9:00 a.m., the film was delivered by an FBI agent back into the hands of Secret Service Inspector Kelley,”Richard Trask. National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, MA: Yeoman Press, 2005), p.122.
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.
-
It is an article of faith among leading anti-alterationists that Mary Muchmore a) definitely did shoot film footage of President Kennedy’s execution (despite her explicit denial to the FBI); and
that this brief film sequence was shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on Tuesday, 26 November 1963. When asked for both a specific timing and print sources for this certainly, however, said advocates have a marked tendency to become a little vague, or just plain conflicting. Responses for the showing time range from “morning,” to “just after midday,” or “afternoon” – of November 28, according to a recent bizarre contribution from Josiah Thompson – with appropriately imprecise citations of an unnamed New York newspaper report, of unspecified title on an unknown page, which appeared either on the afternoon of 26 November, or a day, possibly two, later. All of which is odd, because there are contemporaneous print sources for the showing of an assassination film by WNEW-TV on Nov. 26. The trouble is, as we shall see, that they don’t quite reinforce the simple-minded story the anti-alterationists would have us believe.
I first came across a dating of and location for the Muchmore film’s debut in Barbie Zeliger’s Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assassination, the Media, and the Shaping of Collective Memory (University of Chicago Press, 1992), which directed the reader – see p.68 n7 (p.233) - to the December 2, 1963, edition of Broadcasting: The Businessweekly of Television and Radio (Vol 65, No 23), and a piece entitled “A World Listened and Watched.” On p.37, I found the following:
“United Press International claimed it provided the first film for TV of President Kennedy’s assassination when it sold sequences shot by Dallas amateur photographer Marie Muchmore to WNEW-TV New York, which showed it last Tuesday (Nov. 26). The 8mm film, which was enlarged to 16mm, shows the President being hit by the bullets as Mrs Kennedy and a Secret Service agent try to help him. UPI Newsfilm rushed additional copies to its subscribers around the world.”So far, so good for the anti-alterationists.
Better still, the same edition, on p.69, carried a full page advertisement from UPI. Curiously, however, the advert made no mention of the film-taker’s name. Here it is, in full:
“The first film showing the assassination of President Kennedy was telecast in New York on November 26. It was a UPI Newsfilm exclusive It was serviced to UPI Newsfilm subscribers the world over.”This reluctance to name the film-taker, as noted, struck me as curious: It was not without precedent, though, as we shall shortly see.
Further reading unearthed an even earlier print source for the claim that the Muchmore film had debuted on WNEW-TV, New York, on Tuesday, Nov 26. The lengthy report, entitled Pictures of the Assassination Fall to Amateurs on Street, was authored by Rick Friedman, and appeared over three pages in the Editor and Publisher edition dated November 30, 1963. The germane passage ran as follows:
“Another film clip taken by an amateur went out to the public Nov. 26. United Press International released to its television subscribers around the world a 16mm sequence which was exclusive to the wire service. Taken by Marie Muchmore of Dallas, it also shows the motorcade coming into view, the President slumping over, Mrs Kennedy reaching for him, and Secret Service man jumping into the back of the President’s car. The film was enlarged for tv from its original 8mm format.”This seemed such unequivocal confirmation of the anti-alterationists’ version of events – I didn’t flatter myself that all of them had missed the item - that I wondered what on earth stopped them from citing this source with cheerful regularity. Then I turned the page.
Friedman’s article was spread over three pages. The passage on Muchmore and WNEW-TV appeared on p.17, the second of them. The third and final page was to be found distantly on p.67. As I read it, I realised at once why Friedman’s article could not be adduced by Thompson, Mack et al: Friedman had proceeded to commit heresy. The Muchmore film was not the only film of the assassination to have made it onto American television on November 26, 1963:
“By Tuesday, numerous pictures, both still and movie, were being offered to news media. At least one television station was besieged with protests after it had shown scenes of the President’s motorcade at the moment of the shooting. Many viewers considered them to be too gruesome.”This couldn’t have been the Muchmore film, which, even allowing for changing mores, could not conceivably have been considered “too gruesome,” even in 1963. Nor, to his limited credit, did Friedman seek to pretend it was. But what was this film, and who had taken it? Was there another assassination film in circulation in the US on November 26? Indeed there was, according to the Milwaukee Journal of November 26:
AP, "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3:Dallas, Tex.-AP - A strip of color movie film graphically depicting the assassination of President Kennedy was made by a Dallas clothing manufacturer with an 8 millimeter camera.
Several persons in Dallas who have seen the film, which lasts about 15 seconds, say it clearly shows how the president was hit in the head with shattering force by the second of two bullets fired by the assassin.
Life magazine reportedly purchased still picture rights to the material for about $40,000.
("The film also was being distributed by United Press International Newsfilms to subscribing stations. WITI-TV in Milwaukee is a subscriber, but will reserve judgment on whether to show the film until after its officials have viewed it.")
The tale is not quite finished, though. There was, I discovered last year, an even earlier print source for a film shown on WNEW-TV on Tuesday, November 26. Again, note the absence of an attribution to a named film-taker:
“WNEW-TV (Channel 5) claimed it was the first TV station in the country to televise an amateur photographer’s film footage of President Kennedy’s assassination. The film was distributed by United Press International and aired by Channel 5 at 12:46 a.m. yesterday,”Richard K. Doan, “Now the Task of Righting Upset Schedules,” New York Herald Tribune, 27 November 1963, section 1, p.21.
As with Friedman’s piece, so, too, with Doan’s report – it didn’t quite tell the tale the anti-alterationists peddle. And begged the question: Was it really the Muchmore film shown on WNEW-TV? Or was it the first public version of the Zapruder, the one seen and twice described by Dan Rather on November 25? Had the films been switched, with the Z film (public version one) hastily withdrawn, and the Muchmore – or merely frames from it - substituted? What there any evidence to support such a hypothesis? To my surprise, there was.
On the front page of the Philadelphia Daily News, 4 star edition, on Tuesday, 26 November 1963, under the headline “Man Who Came to See JFK Makes Tragic Movie,” there is the following blurb above 4 stills, which take up the rest of the page:
“These dramatic pictures are from an 8mm ‘home movie’ reel, shot by Dallas dressmaker Abraham Zapruder who went to see President Kennedy ride through cheering throngs in Texas city. His camera recorded one of the most tragic moments in American history. Story page 3,” Philadelphia Daily News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, p.1 (4 star edition).Below lay from 4 frames from…the Muchmore film.
Something very interesting was going on with the assassination films on November 25-26, 1963. What it was, and why, offers the potential to shed important light on much more than just the history of the films.
-
I've had suspicions, I've looked through a lot of old threads on CIA propaganda assetts of the "left." A couple of things that keep popping up: Noam Chomsky and MIT. Any opinions?
Tribune, 21/28 August 1998, p.11
Letters: Noam, Sweet Noam
Is Noam Chomsky a dissident? Donavan Pedelty insists so (Tribune, July 31) but the truth is otherwise. Chomsky’s bogusness is revealed by his repeated insistence upon the CIA’s unwavering fidelity to successive Presidents. Where the evidence is contrary, he ignores it. Nowhere is the suppression more systematic than in Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture (Verso, 1993). Consider, in particular, his survey of the Vietnam coverage of the New York Times from October 3 to December 4, 1963. One omission, among many, will suffice.
On October 3, 1963, the NYT carried a column entitled “The Intra-Administration War In Vietnam.” It opened: “The Central Intelligence Agency is getting a very bad press in despatches from Vietnam…”
Its author, Arthur Krock, proceeded to quote extensively from one such despatch, “Arrogant CIA Disobeys Orders in Vietnam”, by Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard group. The quotes below are from Starnes’s courageous and hauntingly prophetic original.
According to Starnes’s senior diplomatic source, “Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge”, even though one set had been brought direct from Washington. Likening the CIA’s growth to a “malignancy”, which he was “not sure event the White House could control any longer”, the source predicted: “If the United States ever experiences a Seven Days in May it will come from the CIA” (Washington Daily News, October 2).
PAUL RIGBY,
BANKS, LANCASHIRE
-
The archives are full of places where I posted ...
...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.
-
LOL !!! Another three decades has elapsed ???
Not, alas, in your reading age, Bill, but we can't have everything. Still, we do, after all, have your wit and charm to sustain us.
Your paragraph is basically saying that if you grow bored and aren't happy with the script, then just make one up.Odd, this, as I tend to follow the eyewitnesses. You know, fringe figures like, er, James Chaney. Remember him?
The discovery of alteration in the JFK assassination films would be news that would be in every newspaper and on every news station in the world within the first day of its discovery. But that news would have to be verifiable and that's precisely why such evidence never gets past a forum like this.Sorry, Bill, but I appear to have missed your no doubt compelling explanation on this thread of where exactly Chaney vanished to in the the following fakes: Zapruder, Nix and Bell. Perhaps you'd deign to point me in the direction of your disquisition on the matter.
As for the US mainstream media, it has as much connection with freedom of speech, truth and accuracy as Pravda in the time of Stalin.
If the bar was ever set any higher to where posters here couldn't no long just be able to step over it, then most of the threads seen here wouldn't exist.From the Fosbury to the Miller flop in a generation. The decline of America in a nutshell.
Paul
“If you toil so for Trask, what would you do for treasure?”
John Clarke, Paroemiologia Anglo-Latina, 1639
-
I have no doubt that the Z-film was altered by the killers of JFK.
Not primarily in an effort to excise visual proof of conspiracy, but rather to promote arguments for same.
The most obvious alterations -- the splices and missing frames -- were designed to be detected and subsequently to engender confusion, false mystery, and antagonisms within the research community that the conspirators knew would form in the wake of their unmistakably conspiratorial deed.
I would argue that, on balance, honorable alterationists inadvertantly have done severe damage to our cause.
Charles,
I can't speak for "honourable alterationists" - good grief, what a Miltonian burden that imposes upon the poor souls* - but only for myself, a thoroughly dishonourable one. And, unsurprisingly, I couldn't disagree with you more. Would you have us cohere round a politico-literary fiction? Of course not. So why so around a series of mutually reinforcing celluloid ones?
As for the alteration of the Z-film not being undertaken "to excise visual proof of conspiracy," I can only say "phooey." That was precisely why it was undertaken. In inverting that truth, you leave the field wide open to every limited hang-out the CIA and associated drones can dream up. The anti-alterationists have effectively held the field since at least 1975, and have taken us nowhere, precisely as intended. Some of us want to see a very outcome long before another three decades have elapsed.
Paul
*"Those who would be free must first be wise and good." Hell, that means eternal tyranny for the overwhelming majority of humanity!
-
Removing Chaney was part of simplifying the falsification of the Z film...
For those interested in making the comparison for themselves between the Altgens photo in question*, and the Z frame – 255 - held to be the same instant in time only captured from the north pergola pedestal allegedly occupied by the dressmaker, there is no better place to turn than National Nightmare on six feet of film: Mr. Zapruder’s home movie and the murder of President Kennedy (Danvers, Ma: Yeoman Press, 2005), p.71. The Z frame is at the top of the page, Altgens’ immediately below.
*Strictly speaking, Altgens’ most famous photo of the assassination was, at most generous, his fourth photo of the motorcade. For an outstanding exposition of the issues surrounding attribution of photos to Altgens, see John Costella's essay, “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication,” within James H. Fetzer (Ed.) The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 2003), pp.199-206. As Costella notes, “Trask would have been a perfect addition to the staff of the Warren Commission!” (p.206).
-
I have questions for you and the other alterationists:
When exactly do you think Chaney passed the limo?
He was in the process of passing the presidential limo in the Altgens photo. Chaney appears to have held his course and speed, as captured in the aforementioned: The presidential limo, by contrast, slowed and went left, towards the south curb of Elm, whereupon, according to eyewitnesses, it stopped; and a final shot was fired. Chaney, of course, drove straight on to the lead car.
And why do you think the plotters would want to remove this?Removing Chaney was part of simplifying the falsification of the Z film. By removing from the shooting sequence the lower level of the first version – by first version I mean the one described by, for example, Dan Rather on CBS radio/TV on 25 November – the fabricators could concentrate on the middle and upper layers of it ie the presidential limo and the south curb, their occupants and dispositions in the course of the shooting. The decision to excise the lower level - in effect, the north curb and its occupants - from the film is strongly suggestive of the scale and complexity of the task, not to mention the time constraints, confronting the fabricators.
Second, any trace of Chaney passing the limo lent credence to both his own description of events, and any observations attributed to him like, say, those by Marion Baker; and those of corroborating witnesses.
Third, Chaney’s interposing himself between the north curb and presidential limo did little for the built-in fall-back position, the knoll.
Paul
-
Yet I know the real reason he his wanted back.....the totty updates, cunningly disguised as Sky News, Weather and Sport readers.
A quite outrageously true suggestion!
My solicitor will shortly be contacting your solicitor with a view to both solicitors making a large sum of money. There can be only one outcome: a full review of all the available evidence, followed by drinks all round.
Make mine a Sky* double.
* An ancient Scottish libation.
-
There is also a very interesting passage in David McKean's book Peddling Influence (2004). While doing his research into Tommy Corcoran he discovered that during the 1930s he was paying Stone to write hostile articles about opponents of FDR. In the 1960s Corcoran was working as a "fixer" for LBJ. Concoran was also closely connected with the CIA and right-wing businessmen who were very hostile to the policies of JFK. Maybe, Concoran was paying Stone via the CIA to write those attacks on conspiracy theorists in 1963-64.
Fascinating. Some more detail, please, from McKean's Peddling Influence!
-
Seems that I am not aware of the background that led to his decision, since he is still here - which I didn't know - but is under permanent moderation since September - which I also didn't know.
A couple of weeks ago John told him he could post via John and if the latter thinks it is "worthwhile" he will post it under Chappers name. Might as well ask for the Moon to be delivered to his home in a Pizzahut box wrapped with a garland of carnations, for all the chance that proposition had the hope of being accepted.
I have now offered to do the same with no restrictions, other than abusive curses -- although I'll have to think hard to censor curses as I am very partial t them myself.
Good news. Let's hope the irascible bugger will consent to the mediation and put us out of our misery. It really was a very distinguished piece of crime analysis.
Paul
-
David Guyatt: Michael Chapman left the forum in a miff and despite my suggestion he return, he wouldn't. It's a pity because there were a number of threads in which he had important insights. I am no longer in contact with him.
A great pity, David. His contributions to this thread were very interesting and welcome. If by chance you bump into him - in person, or on the web - do ask him to reconsider. I was genuinely looking forward to his promised update(s).
Paul
-
...that most pathetic and tragically futile of all Earthly creatures...
Strewth, fair reminds me of the definition of an Aussie front row: Three fat men with their heads up their traps, heading backwards at the speed of light.
Al "the Contortionist" Baxter
-
I will devote most of August to completing this thread...
Take it from me all ye truth seekers - if you want to get to the bottom of this affair this thread is the only place to be.
While Mr. Chapman continues his prolonged, er - what exactly? rest? enforced imprisonment? - a little something to sustain us:
Cathy Scott-Clark & Adrian Levy, “Why a spy was killed,” The Guardian Weekend, (Saturday magazine), 26 January 2008, pp.39-41, 43, & 45:
“When Alexander Litvinenko fled Moscow for Britain, he found it hard to find work; London was awash with former KGB agents. So he turned to Italy, where he found a ready market for intelligence, not all of it real. What happened next was to make him some dangerous enemies.”Summary: Litvinenko involved in far-right Italian smear campaign designed to keep Berlusconi in power. Sheds interesting light on that steaming pile of manure otherwise known as the Mitrokhin archive.
One smells something different in the air at the moment. A deal, perhaps?
-
Another outstanding piece from the Global Research crew:
Using Benazir Bhutto for Imperial Gain
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 14, 2008
Musharraf and other Pakistani officials deny it, but there's no hiding the facts or that nothing of consequence happens in Pakistan without Washington's knowledge and/or consent. It's also no secret that Pakistan's ISI is a CIA branch, and their regional activities are closely linked.
http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.p...r=0&thold=0
Musharraf had handlers in Mossad-US Agency since the 80s
Articles / Serving Colonial Masters
Jan 18, 2008 - 06:51 PM
It is possible that Musharraf could be under the control of these handlers even now?..... It shows that as an Army officer, Pervez Musharraf covered the connection of a lady to a foreign intelligence agency. Normally one is supposed to tell the authorities. That gives credence to the well founded allegations that he also had, and still has, foreign handlers.
Musharraf had handlers in Mossad-US Agency since the 80sBy Abid Ullah Jan
It is possible that Musharraf could be under the control of these handlers even now? If you are aware of WTC-Building 7 controlled demolition on September 11, 2001, then you know there is something fishy – that it was an inside job . Like the other two towers, Building 7 came down in seconds [1] defying gravity (100 metres in 4.5 seconds) which was a controlled demolition [2] and BBC read [3] the demise of the Building 20 minutes before [4] it happened.
However, how does it connect to Musharraf and him being the agent of foreign intelligence agencies long before he even thought that he would be the Commander in Chief?
Here are some tips for thoughtful, resourceful and brave researchers to find the truth about the real Musharraf and bring him to justice for treason and betrayal under his own Army Act [5]:
- Question: Why was Musharraf fired in Oct. 1999?
- Tip –1 : Musharraf's illegal foreign contacts [6] are not so hidden either [7] . Some were revealed [8], but no one will talk. They became state secrets. See the case of Javed Hashmi [9], for example.
- Tip – 2: In the 80s, there was a Journalist John Doe and his wife Agent Jane Doe, in Rawalpindi.
John Doe was divorcing his wife. It was in court. Musharraf was the representative of the lady Jane Doe in the court. Divorce happened but Mush made sure that John Doe did not open his mouth about the real reason behind the divorce in Public Court.
The real reason behind the journalist John Doe divorcing his wife was that she was an agent of a foreign intelligence agency. As John Doe discovered it, he no longer wanted to continue the marriage. Interestingly, journalist John Doe's wife was a very close relative of Musharraf.
- Tip – 3: This is authentic story. But to find out about the journalist John Doe and his wife Jane Doe in detail, one has to check the family court record in Rawalpindi. During the divorce proceedings Musharraf was the representative of the lady Jane Doe.
It shows that as an Army officer, Pervez Musharraf covered the connection of a lady to a foreign intelligence agency. Normally one is supposed to tell the authorities. That gives credence to the well founded allegations that he also had, and still has, foreign handlers.
How is it connected to 9/11? When I was doing my research into the ISI connection to 9/11, I gave General Musharraf a huge benefit of the doubt in the book, From BCCI to ISI: The Saga of Entrapment Continues [10]. However, the deeper one goes, the more he realizes that it is almost impossible
that ISI would be using its human assets [11]; its human assets will be linked to the CIA, M16 and others; the human assets will be meeting Osama and the foreign agencies at the same time; the Chief of the ISI will also be meeting his human assets as well as the high level officials in the US around the same time and also wiring money ($100,000 [12]) to the lead "hijacker” in the Operation 9/11.
Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad was never questioned by 911 commission, is a Tableeghi Jamaat member with a long beard now. He maintains a house at Mai de Khoi, Faisalabad and one in Islamabad. He was chairman of a government entity like fertilizer corporation. Musharraf was never asked as to why he said," Daniel Pearl got over intrusive [13]......". Why Omar Sheikh was never produced in an open court? And why Benazir talks of Omar Shiekh as the murderer of Osama [14] with David Frost on November 2,2007?
Musharraf was the Director Military Intelligence when the CIA supported the creation of the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Brig. Gen. Ejaz Shah [15] was the handler of Omar Sheikh per Benazir. This shows Musharraf was very much part of 911 and cover up (of it being inside job with Dick Cheney at Command [16]. [1]
Musharraf's connections to foreign intelligence agencies since the early period [17] of his carrier suggests that he is not out of the loop when it comes to operation 9/11. He is one of the main culprits. If any other individual had sent even a dime to Atta, he might have died of waterboarding and
other torture techniques by now. However, General Mohamoud is a free main in Pakistan. So despite deep connections to the alleged hijackers to the ISI, nothing happens to the Pakistani Generals or Pakistan as such. To the contrary, remember how former CIA director James Woolsey tried to prove [18] Atta met Iraq security officials, but could not. That was the time when they were looking for justifications for the war of aggression on Iraq.
Eqbal Ahmad in 1998 said [19] that Osama was just the excuse to go into the Oil lands......Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan. And his observation seems true. The warlords needed time. They needed moles at the highest positions, such as the Chief of Pakistan armed forces. Musharraf had to kill the Chief of Air staff Mushaf Ali Mir because he won't agree with Musharraf's policy and planning (Mushaf was a patriot). He had to depart. Mushaf died in a plane crash in clear weather in the safest plane, along with his wife and closest confidants. Controversial author Gerald Posner implies that all of these events are linked together and the deaths are not accidental, but have occurred because of the testimony of captured al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida in March 2002 (see Early April 2002 [20]). The deaths all occurred not long after the respective governments were told of Zubaida’s confessions [21]. This simply confirms foreign hand in Mushaf’s murder.
Benazir did not agree to Musharraf policies. Note that Musharraf says that she was "very unpopular in the Army [22]". Musharraf thinks he alone is the Army. Benazir would not budge on his uniform issue. She had to go.
Musharraf has violated his Oath five times. It is up to the Patriotic Army men to understand the situation and use the Army Act on Musharraf [23] to protect Pakistan from internal aggression.
Abid Ullah Jan is the author of "The Musharraf Factor" and edit www.dictatorshipwatch.com [24].
Notes:
[1] Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney [25] URL: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...lify_case.shtml [26]
Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11 [27]
URL: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html [28] A testimony left out of the 9/11 report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article comes from Dictatorship Watch
http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/
The URL for this story is:
http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.p...le&sid=3574
Links in this article
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0
[5] http://rediff.co.in/news/2007/nov/12pakemergency10.htm
[6] http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.p...r=0&thold=0
[7] http://www.newtrendmag.org/ntma1182.htm
[8] http://www.forward.com/articles/12080/
[9] http://www.dukandar.com/baaghihoon.html
[10] http://www.icssa.org/article_detail_parse....id=806&rel=
[11] http://www.icssa.org/article_detail_parse....k=8&m_id=57
[12] http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum...tageISIatta.htm
[13] http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/mar/07pak.htm
[14]
[15] http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-...rs_1002416.html
[16] http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html
[17] http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/modules.p...r=0&thold=0
[18] http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jtaylor.php?articleid=12208
[19] http://www.middleeast.org/interview/ahmad1.htm
[20] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.js...102zubaidatrick
[21] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19098.htm
[22] http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...14-1-2008_pg1_1
[23] http://www.icssa.org/article_detail_parse....55&rel=1015
[24] http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/
[25] http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...lify_case.shtml
[26] http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...lify_case.shtml
that this brief film sequence was shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on Tuesday, 26 November 1963. 
Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Mack email to me, Education Forum message:
Mack email to me arising from exchange #42933 on JFK Lancer website, 19 January 2006:
Bill Miller on behalf of Gary Mack, JFK Lancer, 15 January 2006: The Shifting TV debut day of Muchmore:
Two years have passed, and still nothing from Mack in support of his repeated claims that there exists a clipping from a New York afternoon newspaper, dated November 26, 1963, that confirms the showing of the Muchmore film earlier that day. Could it be that no such clipping exists? Or does the first cited email above suggest it does exist, but contains information not entirely helpful to the anti-alterationist case?
Paul