Paul Rigby

CIA steers us in the Right direction. Very helpful, I must say: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_intellige...hutto_0107.html

In Diebold we trust...New Hampshire resurrections a speciality!

I wonder if Knacker of the Yard and cohorts will ever get past the first gunman to the second? Or compile a comprehensive list of eyewitnesses and - perish the thought - interview them? Nope, I don't think so either. http://unitepakistan.blogspot.com/2008/01/...n-pakistan.html Conspiracy theories thrive in Pakistan? Incredible. Can't think why.

When not sniffing Diana's underwear, the fearless guardians of the realm otherwise known as MI5 - the Insecurity Service (IS) - were bugging her phones. A late 1989 conversation was surfaced by the IS in 1992 in an "affair" that became known as "Squidgygate." The matter resurfaced in the course of the latest official whitewash: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/ndiana109.xml Meet the "dark forces" described elsehwere by Elizabeth II.

“The project to establish "a pan-Islamic Caliphate" is part of a carefully devised intelligence operation.” Pakistan and the "Global War on Terrorism” http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7746 The photos are priceless. Do have a look.

For the benefit of those without the Richard Trask book cited by John Costella, here is the relevant extract: That Day in Dallas: The Photographers Capture on Film The Day President Kennedy Died (Danvers, Mass: Yeoman Press, expanded edition, 2000), p.115 & p.119: At about this time Bill Lord of ABC News did a brief interview of Chaney, recording his activities for a broadcast over WFAA television. Chaney recalled of the motorcade incident: http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol7/page345.php Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. 7, p.345 Testimony of Forrest V. Sorrels http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol4/page353.php Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. 4, p.353 Testimony of Winston G. Lawson http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol12/page28.php Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. 12, p.28 Testimony of Chief Jesse E. Curry http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol4/page161.php Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. 4, p.161 Testimony of Jesse Edward Curry http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol3/page266.php Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. 3, p.266 Testimony of Marrion L. Baker http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page294.php Warren Commission Hearings: Vol.6, p.294 Testimony of Bobby W. Hargis

An unwitting dupe. There are plenty about.

Fascinating piece from Global Research site: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7709 Ahmed Quraishi is an investigative reporter, currently hosting a weekly political talk show titled Worldview from Islamabad

"Immediate purpose," sir, not "the only" - but the point is well made. Paul

I wonder at the depth of resistance within the Pakistan military to US imperialism? If so, expect to see a great deal more film on the assassination from Pakistan media - well, the bits with strong CIA backing anyway - appearing within and on mainstream Anglo-American media. For the rest of the piece, follow this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-01-05-pakistan_N.htm

Particularly the sequence capturing the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston onto Elm*: Longer version: This transcript is from video tape of the live broadcast seen nationwide on the ABC network at about 2:10pm CST, November 22, 1963. The interviewer, seated on the left, is WFAA-TV program director Jay Watson. On the right, with his hat on the desk, is Abraham Zapruder. * As confirmed by the compilers of the Warren Report:

An unwarranted assumption. It doesn't show "an abrupt slowdown." There's no "perhaps" about it. Several eyewitnesses describe a stop of sufficient duration for a number of secret servicemen to swarm upon the presidential limousine. That's a long way from a brief slow down, and Clint Hill's lone sprint. I note with amusement that you seem very keen to avoid moving beyond the issue of the stop. Very wise. But, yes, if sufficient eyewitnesses say it stopped, and the film shows no such thing, I am obliged to accept the former and must account the film a fabrication. Alvarez's status and the timing of his study are irrelevant; and his conclusion worthless, as the film - his predicate - is a fake.

http://naknews.co.in/newsdet.aspx?11297

As you well know, the differences between film and witnesses are not reducible to that one question; and Alvarez's "explanation" does not explain eyewitness testimony about a stop of longer duration during which SS personnel (plural) went both to the presidential limousine and up the knoll. It goes to the heart of the matter, which is why you don't like it. It's also a direct riposte to a passage in the book under discussion. If you'd read it, you would have recognised that at once. I await your condemnation of the relevant passage in the book with interest.

The immediate purpose of Diana’s assassination has long been banished to the memory hole by the simple expedient of removing all reference to the murder’s political context: It was to influence the referenda on devolution for the UK. To follow, two contemporaneous press reminders of the plotters’ intent: Tom Baldwin, “Referendum hangs in the balance: Labour fears low turn-out for devolution vote following funeral,” The Sunday Telegraph, 7 September 1997, p.21: Nick Watt, “Princess’ death may sway devolution vote,” The Times, Monday, 8 September 1997, p.13: We should not lose sight of the plotters’ objective merely because it was not achieved. More, the proclaimed intent of the plotters'political allies should make us think again about the wave of national hysteria – widely denounced subsequently by newspaper columnists, who thought it bespoke a profound moral degeneration in the British people – which followed Diana’s death. For the plotters own media, from the BBC to the Daily Mail, were at the forefront of encouraging that very phenomenon.

Jack, All points well-made and taken. But look at Meagher in 1967. She knew about Chaney, the left veer and the stop; she had an encyclopaedic grasp of the testimony: “After the assassination, reports that the President’s car had stopped after the first shot was fired were interpreted in some quarters as evidence that the driver believed that the shot came from somewhere in front of the car. The Warren Report dismissed the allegation: The Presidential car did not stop or almost come to a complete halt after the firing of the first shot or any other shots…Motion pictures of the scene show that the car slowed down momentarily after the shot struck the President in the head and then speeded up rapidly. This passage is found under “Rumours and Speculations,” an appendix to the Warren Report which the Commission used as a graveyard for the claims of various early critics of the lone-assassin theory. One such critic, Mark Lane, testified on March 4, 1964 that he believed that the car had come to a halt when the shooting began, on the basis of statements by “…various witnesses, including Mr. Chaney, a motorcycle policeman, Miss Woodward, who was one of the closest witnesses to the President at the time that he was shot, and others. I think that is…conceded by almost everyone, that the automobile came to – almost came to a complete halt after the first shot…” (2H 45) According to Lane, reporter Mary Woodward had corroborated, in a telephone conversation, the statement in her story in the Dallas Morning News of November 23, 1963 that “instead of speeding up…the car came to a halt.” (2H 43) Lane’s allegation about Chaney is corroborated in the testimony of another motorcycle officer, M.L. Baker. Baker testified on March 24, 1964 that his fellow officer, James Chaney, had told him: “He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at the time the chief of police, he didn’t know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped…Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely.” (3H 266) When he testified on March 24, 1964, Roy Truly corroborated Baker’s statement. Various other witnesses said that the car had come to a complete stop or almost a standstill when the noise of the shot was heard – Senator Ralph Yarborough (7H 440), for example, and Mrs Earl Cabell (7H 487), among others. Policeman Earl V. Brown, who was stationed on the triple overpass farther down Elm Street, testified on April 7, 1964 that: In sum, at least seven witnesses to the assassination indicated that the President's car had come to a complete stop, or what was tantamount to a stop. Two of those witnesses (James Chaney and Mary Woodward) were not asked to testify before the Commission on this or on other observations of some importance reported to the Commission as hearsay (see, for example, 2H 43-44 and CE 2084). Apparently the witnesses were mistaken in remembering that the car had stopped; motion pictures, according to the Commission, contradicted them. Yet it seems clear from the way in which counsel led witnesses that the Commission had considerable resistance to inferences which might be drawn from evidence that the car had stopped at the first shot. “Stopped” was transformed into “seemed to stop” and then into “slowed down.” Such leading of witnesses, which would have been challenged in a courtroom, was facilitated by the Commission's closed hearings, to which there was only one exception, by request of the witness concerned. (2H 33) The films of the assassination have not been released for public showing, although it is possible to see the most important one, the Zapruder film – taken by amateur photographer Abraham Zapruder – at the National Archives. That film does not seem to support the witnesses who said that the car stopped dead. This being so, it is baffling that counsel conducted the questioning somewhat improperly and why the Report presents this evidence with some lack of partiality (in a passage failing to indicate that some seven witnesses mistakenly believed that the car had stopped at the first shot). Yet in dismissing an allegation related to the source of the first shot, the same passage seemingly yields ground on the source of the third. The statement that “the car slowed down momentarily after the shot that struck the President in the head “ is consistent with other evidence, to be discussed later, that the fatal shot came not from the Texas School Book Depository, as the Report maintains, but from a point in front of the car and to its right. So now we know - the true heirs of the Warren Commission are the anti-alterationists. Neither countenance(d) events such as the stop: both afford primacy to the film over the eyewitnesses. And neither were/are comfortable with questions about the film's chain of possession and early history. Paul

OpEdNews Original Content at: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_pe...knoll_in_pa.htm January 3, 2008 A Grassy Knoll in Pakistan By Peter Chamberlin All things have come full circle in the mountains of Pakistan. The “great game” has been played-out. The cycle of death which we unleashed upon the world there, bringing the war on terrorism home to us, now draws us inexorably into the vacuum of its violent ending. The convulsions now wracking that country threaten to become a revolutionary explosion capable of bringing down the foundations of the world. The rapidly building democratic-revolution is now entering the “critical mass” stage. Its expansion is accelerating beyond human control. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto was a calculated risk, intended to derail democracy in Pakistan because Islamic extremists were making the democratic transition from militias into political parties. For this reason, it is unlikely that she was assassinated by real Islamists, true Taliban. It is more likely that the hit on Bhutto was connected to the Administration’s getting the “green light” (the day before the attack), to move large numbers of Special Forces “trainers” into the tribal regions. Even though Bhutto was allegedly stirring the cauldron, “...demanding after returning to Pakistan that the ISI be restructured; and in a press conference during her house arrest in Lahore in November she went as far as asking Pakistan army officers to revolt against the army chief” (1) recent revelations by various neocon-men points to a covert US plan to eliminate her. Musharref seems to be laboring under the illusion that the United States government supports his efforts to contain the building political explosion, when, in fact, the explosion of Pakistan is what the neocon traitors have been waiting for. With big “events” come big opportunities. Bush does not intend to do anything to help him stave off the inevitable. Their aim, all along, has been to plan for the day after the catastrophic event, for the day when their real plans could be fully implemented. The Pakistani leader let their ceaseless warnings about the day after move him into cooperating with them, in allowing the new expansion of the war into Pakistan. The actual neo-con objective, according to Professor Michel Chossudovsky, is: By cooperating with Bush and Cheney, Musharraf is supporting their efforts to revive the CIA training operation which had originally destabilized Pakistan. This had proven to be a winning strategy against powerful adversaries like the Soviet Union, but when the same strategy was tried elsewhere, where there were no large technological forces to attack, the trained militias targeted civilians. When it was transferred to the illegal “contra” war against Nicaragua it was quickly perverted, degenerating into organized death squads. “Targeted assassinations” and death squads, by trained, paid “militias” (mercenary armies) will overthrow regimes and terrorize the populations that dare to resist the American secret assault, will it will win no hearts and minds for the causes of democracy or freedom. In the article, “Key Pentagon strategist plots global war on terror” (Dec. 30), we learn that the man who planned the strategy and directed the actions of the former Afghan Mujajedeen has been given the same job in the new improved “Global War On Terror,” patterned after it. According to the Guardian, Vickers will expand the Special Forces units now in Pakistan, to “...train the Frontier Corps and recruiting local militias to take on the insurgents.” We will train a large roving Frontier Corps paramilitary force, as well as local Islamic militias. “A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said. Militants have extended their reach beyond the tribal areas. If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agreed to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said. The “war on terrorism,” focused primarily on a fictional global insurgency named “al Qaida,” that, in fact, fought for American interests in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Croatia and Chechnya is an exercise in hypocrisy. The more “evidence” that is provided to us, to prove the al Qaida connection to every act of terrorism, the more evident it becomes that the war is a fraud, based on a cover-up of a treasonous attack, intended to whitewash history and to paint America as a heroic nation, dedicated to bringing freedom and democracy to all people. The United States’ claim to be promoting democracy, while it exports state terrorism, has demolished the hopes of all those who still believe in American “good will,” all over the world. Informed people all over the world cannot fathom how the American administration can seriously claim to be pursuing “al Qaida-connected terrorists,” when they know that “al Qaida,” the terrorist organization never existed. Thanks to revelations by British MP Robin Cook in the Guardian, and French intelligence agent Pierre-Henry Bunel at the Wayne Madsen Report, people know that when the United States needed a new enemy, after the demise of the Soviet empire, they decided to call “the base” (an international computer data base in Saudi Arabia of Afghan fighters), designated as “al Qaida” [an email address], an international terrorist network. “Elements associated with al Qaida” has become the new official catch-all phrase, used as often as possible, to incite terror among the American people and to justify new attacks by American forces and American-supported militia groups. We are going into Pakistan in force, to train new Pakistanis to fight other Pakistanis that we had trained too well in the past. How will we separate the “friendly” al Qaida from the unfriendly ones, when we bundle the whole bunch together under the rubric “al Qaida?” Why are Islamists like Ayman al Zawahiri considered al Q., after they provided the US Islamic fighters in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia, as well other Islamic recruits who served US interests in Chechnya? The Islamic mercenaries were fighting for us when the embassies were bombed in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, even after bin Laden and Zawahiri announced the establishment of "The International Islamic Front for Holy War Against Jews and Crusaders," (an umbrella organization linking Islamic extremists in scores of countries around the world, the bin Laden group that was renamed Al Qaida). The militant group, now called al Qaeda was the instant answer to the 9/11 attacks, even though it was never what it was alleged to be, the ultimate terrorist bogeyman. The conjunction of US and al Qaida interests all over the Muslim world should warn thinking individuals, whenever attacks happen to occur in just the places that the neo-con war planners would most like to invade. It is more than reasonable to question where al Qaida ends and the secret world of their CIA trainers begins. Was it other trained al Qaida agents who pre-planted the demolitions that brought the towers down, obtained US security codes, timed the attacks into ongoing war games and stood down fighter cover, or was that part of the act of war the CIA’s domain? Questioning further along that line, was Pakistan’s ISI (secret service) still acting as the CIA’s surrogate, when ISI head General Mahmud Ahmad allegedly had Sheik Omar wire Mohammed Atta $100,000? According to Chossudovsky: According to the AFP (quoting the intelligence source): The name “Sheikh Omar” should set off alarms to those who are paying attention. He was the one who Bhutto fingered on the David Frost interview on 2nd November 2007 (2:15), “Omar Sheikh, the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” Omar is mentioned in connection with a man that Bhutto feared might be involved in threats against her. President Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire stated that the Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6 to go to the Balkans. Here is another shadowy figure linked to al Qaida, Western intelligence agencies and the US program, organized by Bill Clinton, to bring radical Islamist Jihadis to the war in Yugoslavia. They fought on the US side, in a war prosecuted by the United States, as an Islamic paramilitary force. The new secret world war, based on the contra strategy, follows on the heels of what has been described as a “winning strategy” in Iraq, where the strategy was implemented and proven to be faulty. In Iraq, another former military/CIA contra trainer, James Steele has helped to implement the “El Salvador option,” injecting the same training that he provided to Central American “death squads” during the illegal covert war against Nicaragua. But we know that the scenario, as it played-out in Iraq, produced the same results as in El Salvador, that of further polarizing the populace and turning the people against the US efforts. But, in Iraq, the policy was judged successful, by some, because of the unexpected bonus of inciting religious sectarian civil warfare. Between this new policy of promoting religious civil war and hiring armies of mercenaries, Bush & co. think that they are now winning in Iraq. For this reason, they plan to repeat the pattern in Pakistan. We have seen elements of this new war strategy backfire in Gaza and Lebanon, where the political forces associated with Elliott Abrams sought to create viable insurgencies, like Mohammad Dahlan’s U.S.-backed Preventive Security Services who were ran out of Gaza and the Lebanese Fatah al-Islam faction, allied with Said Hariri, who were driven from the Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp near Tripoli. These small forces were far too weak to successfully engage the Lebanese government, or the Hamas government in Gaza, yet the US was willing to gamble on them. Joint efforts between the CIA and the Israeli Mossad to train offshoots of the PKK terrorist organization in Iraq, for cross-border attacks upon Iran, have also gone astray, leading to Turkish military action in Iraq, to eliminate the intolerable terrorist attacks upon it, that were a bi-product of misguided American efforts. Similar efforts to train Jundallah terrorists in Pakistan to attack Iran succeeded in killing a few Iranians, but managed to bring international opprobrium on the US for its support of terrorism. The new program to inflict mass terrorism upon Pakistan’s Western Provinces will backfire as well, further compounding America’s military dilemma, while increasing the suffering and tribal hatred of the Pakistani and Afghan people exponentially. If America would only stop being the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism, then its leaders might realize that promoting real democracy is the only answer to the global unrest. In Pakistan, democratic forces will sweep Musharraf and the Americans completely out of power there. Both he and Bush must decide to do whatever is necessary to make that “clean sweep” a relatively peaceful one. There is no room for a dictator in any democracy – not in Pakistan, or America. If the attempt by the Pakistani government to cover-up the Bhutto assassination, by claiming that she was not shot is any indication of the path that Musharraf has chosen for Pakistan, then there will be no chance for peace in that beleaguered country. Authors Website: Morty's Cabin Authors Bio: antiwar activist/writer thirty years. Op-ed writer The Herald-Dispatch, Huntington, WV (1) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7709 (2) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7705 (3) http://www.bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/?p=143 (4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

The most recent Bhutto assassination has offered the curious spectacle of key components of the Anglosphere media suddenly taking the subject of high-level conspiracy seriously – the same media outlets, it should be noted, who have historically given conspicuously short-shrift to the merest suggestion of a conspiracy underpinning the death of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. At least one American blogger has turned his attention to the striking inconsistency: So why has the Anglosphere media offered abundant material undermining the Pakistan government’s (hastily revised – and just who prompted that risibly unconvincing about-face?) version of events? Part of the answer lies in the racism which underpins the Anglosphere media. Eight years ago, I wrote a piece attacking a then Guardian columnist, Francis Wheen, in the course of which I pointed to the race hierarchy which pertained in the paper’s treatment of conspiracies: In addition, we must factor in a specific US goal – the collapse of the Musharraf regime. The undermining of the official account of Bhutto’s death has been lead within Pakistan by two media organisations, the Dawn publishing empire, and Geo TV. Here’s a Pakistani poster’s take on the latter: And here’s some of the back story to the Musharraff regime’s pre-assassination battle to control Langley’s favourite Pakistani newspaper group, and TV station:

Naargh, intellectual mis-match: the dog's a Jack Russell, and thus has a mind of its own. You'd be out-foxed.

No need. Sit down. Pour a drink. Enjoy some more lone nuttery: http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic...p;&start=40 Posted: 28 Dec 2007 08:13 pm If all the conjectures point that if the job was not completed from outside then the only way it was done was from inside the car when it sped away. Some one inside the car did the rest. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic...;&start=120 Posted: 29 Dec 2007 04:18 am Bullets in abdomen will confirm that it is either armour piercing bullets, confirming army's involvement or someone shooting from inside the SUV, which means someone close to BB is involved in the assassination.

Oh dear, wrong again, Len - and that's discounting other contributors to this thread: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/1...led_bhutto.html

Happy New Year to you, John, and thanks for the response. In principle, I agree with your refusal to impose upon the early critics the preoccupations of subsequent generations. Nor is it fair to expect prophetic powers in the former. But I’m not insisting upon either. What I find inexcusable in the work of the early critics with regard to the Zapruder film is something much more mundane – hypocrisy. The point is that the early critics insisted the Z film was evidence. As such, it should have been treated in exactly the same way as, let us say, a pristine bullet alleged to have inflicted a series of wounds on two men. The early critics demolished the claims, manifestly ludicrous, advanced for CE399, yet remained mute when it came to the Zapruder film chain of custody. So, was the latter evidence? And, if so, why was the film not subject to precisely the same kind of rigorous examination as the aforementioned CE399? The early critics failure to deal with the basic question of the film’s veracity is even more curious given, among many other considerations: None of the above required “hindsight.” Nor easier access to the Zapruder film. It merely required the early critics to view and report accurately what was readily available to them. Is this the same Ray Marcus who, in Addendum B, solemnly opined of Truman’s December 1963 piece, “US should hold CIA to Intelligence Role,” that “according to my information, it was not…picked up by any other major newspaper”?. The claim is simply untrue: See Richard Starnes’ Scripps-Howard column, “Truman and the CIA” (New York World-Telegram & Sun, 24 December 1963, p.13). Still, hardly an earth-shattering mistake of the kind that caused Meagher to turn against Garrison and become an active supporter of Clay Shaw (the latter a nugget from your book that really did surprise me). For more worthy of condemnation, however, is the authentic note of contempt for the general public that Marcus’ remark conveys. Don’t tell ‘em difficult truth, is the thrust, just give the unwashed sufficient to get them marching in step. Now that really is awful, not least because it allows the real perps to skip off scott free and land the crime on a different set of patsies (Cubans, the Mob, take your pick). Paul

Right on cue, up pops the dead guy to reinforce the message: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSL...0071230?sp=true Assassination as integrated component of imperial strategy. Turning into a bit of a text book example, this one.

Be careful, Evan, any one capable of producing such an imaginative, albeit satirical, scenario may yet find himself fielding a recruitment pitch from the ISI or its master!

You couldn't be more right - now practice what you preach, and stop offering us anything emanating from, or filtered through, the motley assortment of murderers and thugs known as the Pakistan government. The latter is as credible as George "We don't torture" Bush. Have a splendid New Year! Paul