Paul Rigby

Why did Luce's empire briefly, tactically, embrace conspiracism in late 1966? The answer is China. The "strike north" group - the echo of Japanese interwar militarism is intentional - within the Pentagon/CIA sought to use Vietnam to embroil Peking. The opposition - Luce, among others - sought to apply pressure to prevent the spread of the war. Perhaps the key figure in deciphering this elite riddle is Harrison Salisbury. No sooner is he granted a visa to Hanoi than the incipient establishment calls for a reinvestigation of Dallas subside. What we see is nothing less than an attempt, mediated via the doctored film, to conscript public opinion behind the Luce/Salisbury position by adding a frontal shot to the establishment's rear shot. But the frontal shot had to be ultimately harmless to the establishment's position - hence the grassy knoll. Paul

Fair point, Charlie, the problem lies with the selectivity of that scrutiny. Consider, for example, JFK's alleged infidelities. We're treated to endless rehashes of this topic, yet I'd be willing to bet a tidy sum that Allen Dulles betrayed his wife's trust on many more occasions than JFK. Yet what do we hear on that subject? Nothing. This is particularly odd given Dulles' legendary penchant for extra-marital sex. So why the silence on this issue? Is it only Presidents, not senior spooks, who are susceptible to blackmail? And if unfaithfulness to one's wife is held to be a capital offence, how many senior Agency people should have been put up against the wall and shot? Or members of this forum? Paul

Or merely provide a semblance of an alibi for their failure to protect. As for the rumour of an SS death, surely we're are merely looking at tactical sykewar - a planned fabrication designed for deployment on the "battlefield" to cover/explain the removal of the presidential corpse from Dallas? No great mystery. Paul

John, At least one American did try to initiate some public discussion of Dulles' membership of the Presidential Commission in 1963; and of the CIA's role in the sojourns of the patsy. To follow, the proof. As I have noted elsewhere, the reporter responsible was to be rewarded with unpersonhood in the U.S. assassination discourse, as your own comments attest. It's also worth noting that Communist observers saw at once both the significance of Dulles' participation, and the true role in the assassination of the CIA. Anglo-American ignorance of this literature tells its own, rich story. Let me conclude with a compliment: How refreshing to see a contributor look critically at the early critics of the official pabulum. Good. It's long overdue. Paul

Another Grauniad piece, another piece in the jigsaw. This morning’s edition carries a joint report from Sibylla Brodzinsky in Bogota and Rory Carroll, the paper’s Latin American correspondent, by the title “Key US ally ‘helped Colombian traffickers’” (p.26). It opens with a revolutionary proposition - the head of the Colombian army, General Mario Montoya, “has collaborated with right-wing paramilitaries and drug traffickers.” Now there’s a shock. The second paragraph contains equally surprising news: Said Montoya “allegedly worked closely with illegal militias during a military crackdown against leftwing guerrillas in 2002 which left dozens of people dead or missing.” Again, so far, so predictable. Now for the interesting bit. The organisation scuppering US loyalist Montoya is none other than…the CIA: “News of the CIA report, which was leaked to the Los Angeles Times, was expected to add to pressure on the Bush administration to reduce its annual £350m in aid to Colombia, most of which goes to the military. It will also engulf President Alvaro Uribe in more political turmoil over his government’s ties to the paramilitaries.” The appalling general, the report discloses later, “has worked closely with the Pentagon,” and not, you will be relieved to hear, those nice, civilised people over at Langley. Chavez, or his successor, wait in the wings, petro funds in hand – and no bad thing, of course, for the long-suffering people of Colombia; or the United States’ long term plans for the continent. Paul

Nathaniel, Is this the right way to look at the issue? Was it a case of trusting Lansdale, or merely seeking to keep him on a tight leash, close at hand? I reframe the question because Kennedy was one of relatively few US politicians who maintained a long-standing and informed interest in Vietnam; and thus he could not have been unaware of Lansdale’s role as Allen Dulles’ principal agent in the scuppering of Eisenshower’s attempt to dump Diem in 1955. I strongly suspect it was the Agency, not Kennedy, which wanted Lansdale back in Saigon: Who better to overthrow Diem than the man who had done most to install him? For details on the affair, see this terrific piece: David L. Anderson, “J. Lawton Collins, John Foster Dulles, and the Eisenhower Administration’s ‘Point of No Return’ in Vietnam,” Diplomatic History, Spring 1988, (12), pp. 127-147. See p. 141 for Lansdale as Allen Dulles “personal representative out there”; and pp. 140-141 for Lansdale’s central role in Diem’s victory. For a well-informed (ie. CIA-originating) contemporary account of Collins’ hostility to Diem, see C.L. Sulzberger, NYT, 18 April 1955, p. 22. For Eisenhower’s determination to avoid another Korea, see Ernest K. Lindley, “Washington Tides: Objectives in the Far East ,” Newsweek, 23 February 1953, p. 10: “Many military men have favored the application of…additional force…the Administration wants to move in precisely the opposite direction, disengagement…” From Eisnehower's perspective, establishing another Syngman Rhee, this time in Vietnam, was merely storing up trouble for the future. How right he was. A couple of final, related questions: To whom are we indebted for our information on the SG(A)? Are the sources reliable? Paul

John, This is a wild allegation. Can you substantiate? I mean, given "Mangold's" - not real name, I remember being told some years ago - track record as, among other things, the last journo to see Mr. Ward alive; a Summers collaborator; a purveyor of disinfo on the fate of the Tsar's family; and a whitewasher of James Angleton's disgusting career? A "journalist"? Paul

George Polk’s brother replied in this morning’s edition. Below, his angry – and justly so – response. The important question of how such a transparent smear piece found its way into the pages of Britain’s “liberal” daily deserves an answer. Paul

Nathaniel, Not read the particular Gibson book you ask about, but I have got - and have read - another of Gibson's books, The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up (NY: Kroshka Books, 2000), which I unreservedly recommend (and did so in a review on Amazon). The first time I was provoked to question the conventional view of JFK's economic policies - you seem to me to characterise accurately the current mainstream consensus - was when I came across a brief Times (of London) piece on Kennedy's visit to Mexico. In the course of it, Kennedy was reported as accepting a significantly larger economic role for the state than is currently fashionable. If I can find it, I'll post in due course. Paul

Thanks and well done, John, for giving Seldes his own thread - no US journalist of the 20th century deserves it more. Interested readers can find a complete run of In Fact, his remarkable weekly, here: http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/AdvancedSearch.cfm We have the University of Pennsylvania’s Schoenberg Centre for Electronic Text and Image to thank for the riches therein. Paul

Sid, Don't believe Stone's Weekly/Bi-Weekly is available on-line, but you can buy reprints of whole and/or part volumes - there were 19 in total - by following this link: http://www.periodicals.com/html/ihp_e.html?ei03914 If I could afford it, I'd buy the lot, his shameful acquiescence in the Warren Report nonsense notwithstanding. Paul

The total of articles has been swelled by one, and a very curious addition at that. In Monday's Guardian, Media section, Polk was "swift-boated" by one by Richard B. Frank. To follow, the full, squalid ad hominem in full. The Guardian as Britain's leading Mockingbird asset? You bet: As a nineteenth century journalist, Ferdinand Desnoyers, once wrote, "Among the dead are those who still have to be killed" - Polk is thus in good and honourable company on a forum dedicated to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Paul

The total of articles has been swelled by one, and a very curious addition at that. In Monday's Guardian, Media section, Polk was "swift-boated" by one by Richard B. Frank. To follow, the full, squalid ad hominem in full. The Guardian as Britain's leading Mockingbird asset? You bet: As a nineteenth century journalist, Ferdinand Desnoyers, once wrote, "Among the dead are those who still have to be killed" - Polk is thus in good and honourable company on a forum dedicated to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Paul

Pure, unadulterated bathos! Len, What exactly is it that made you trust the BBC in the first place? Is it that MI5 vetting office which the grapevine has it still sits in Broadcasting House? Is it the rich history of careers destroyed, stymied, or merely re-routed harmlessly by the far-rightists who people British Intelligence, and who sit in unaccountable judgement on who gets to go where in, and make what for, this fine, thoroughly democratic institution? Is it the foreign correspondents who whitewash British and American crimes across the globe? And where is your commitment to freedom and choice? Do you think it right that the British people are compelled under threat of fine and/or imprisonment by the state to pay for a service a growing minority do not use, like or want? Paul

Charlie, If you're aware of the following, apologies, but if not, try these books on Luce and his empire. Both are informative places to start: W.A. Swanberg. Luce and His Empire (NY: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1973); George Seldes. 1000 Americans: The Real Rulers of the U.S.A. (NY: Boni & Gaer, Inc., 1947). Luce was a committed pro-fascist until at least the late-30s, albeit one content to hide behind his minions, most notably Laird S. Goldsborough. His opposition to the Kennedy White House was unconcealed. That his empire controlled - ostensibly, at least - the film of Kennedy's murder is nothing short of extraordinary. Even more extraordinary is the blind-eye turned to this by apparent truth-seekers such as Weisberg and Garrison. Not a sign of it in the UK - things any better in the States? Paul

Last time I looked, Pat, even US courts were still relying on such irrelevances as eye-, and ear-witness testimony. If that weren't the case, we would be confronted with an awful lot of unemployed legal types. A not unattractive development, I concede, but hardly the present state of affairs. And as demonstrated above, Elm Street witnesses DID indicate shots emanated from within the presidential limousine. All you have told me so far is you don't like the fact. Nor were they alone: At least four Parkland doctors have expressed an opinion that the head wound was caused by a handgun. Three did so before the Warren Commission. As far back as 1975, Newcomb and Adams offered an eminently sensible explanation for why more witnesses did not offer same: "Self-censorship may exist most strongly when people are confronted with a force capable of killing a very important victim, in broad daylight, with impunity. The odds of their experiencing reprisal would dictate prudence. In short, witnesses' opinion of the political power of the killers would determine their amount of recall," Murder From Within, chapter 3, "Execution." It makes perfect sense if the event depicted on the Z-fraud never happened. Paul

Pat, Regardless of one's opinion of the precise degree of SS complicity, this simply isn't true. Here's four examples, and a boon, for starters: 1.Bobby Hargis (Police motorcycle outrider, left rear of limousine): Mr. Stern: Do you recall your impression at the time regarding the shots? Hargis: “Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me,” 6WCH294. 2. Austin Miller (railroad worker, on triple overpass): Mr. Belin: “Where did the shots sound like they came from?” Miller: “Well, the way it sounded like, it came from the, I would say right there in the car,” 6WCH225. 3. Charles Brehm (carpet salesman, south curb of Elm St.): The shots came from “in front of or beside” the President. Source: Dallas Times Herald, first post-assassination edition, November 22, 1963, cited by Joachim Joesten. Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy? (London: Merlin Press, 1964), p.176. 4. Officer E. L. Boone was standing on the corner of Main and Houston Streets when the shots rang out:"I heard three shots coming from the vicinity of where the President's car was,” 19WCH508. 5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. in the Dallas County Sheriffs Office…"I saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or around the President's car," On the latter, what an outlandish proposition! It is, after all, self-evidently easier to shoot a man in car from 40ft to 150yds with a rifle than it is from under 10ft with a handgun. Still, on the plus side, at least you've offered a new definition of a "literalist" - a critic who reads and quotes the bits of testimony WC-ers and their bosom pals, the grassy knollers, won't. Nope, it ain't clear. Paul

And for the grand Anglo-American strategy underpinning the inter-war period - in summary, it explains why Fascism couldn't conceivably have triumphed in Washington or London, even though significant, if not preponderant, sections of both countries' elites devoutly desired such a development - try this: Guido Giacomo Preparata. Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich (London: Pluto Press, 2005). A remarkable book, which sheds just as much light on the present as the past. Paul Thank God I didn't - your "take" is admirable! Paul PS My point was to suggest a very different take on who approached Smedley Butler and why. I don't know the answer, but I do think the hypothesis should be explored that the Wall Streeters who sought out Butler may have had the opposite purpose to the ostensible.

Except, of course, the successful theft of successive elections. Monbiot miss this? Not bad for men and women "not capable of anything! Let me see if I have this straight: the really big problem is not the theft of elections, nor even domestic mass-murder used as a pretext for mass-murder abroad, but the sceptic's conviction that the neo-Cons have frightening power? Again, this is simply weird. Evidence for this? So when a sceptic or outright opponent of the official conspiracy theory writes to his/her political representative, joins a march, or posts an oppositional email etc., this doesn't count as political activity? Why? Who defined it as such? Arguing about, say, climate change is more threatening to the national security state than insisting 9/11 was an inside job? I've heard it all. Straight rip off of the Chomsky nonsense in Rethinking Camelot: If you don't believe the Warren Report, you're a Cargo Cultist, or somesuch. Piffle. And so unoriginal, a characteristic of both Monbiot pieces on the subject. Then there is the small matter of Monbiot's elitist contempt for those easily distracted defectors from campaigns of which he approves. One wonders a) what evidence for this Monbiot has; and how does this work? Anyone know someone who gave up campaigning on other subjects because of a bad attack of 9/11-itis? The idea is silly. The reverse is true: 9/11 scepticism has brought people into the realm of political activism. I have to say, John, I'm astonished, and not a little disappointed, to see you lined up with such a transparent establishment gate-keeper. Paul

And for the grand Anglo-American strategy underpinning the inter-war period - in summary, it explains why Fascism couldn't conceivably have triumphed in Washington or London, even though significant, if not preponderant, sections of both countries' elites devoutly desired such a development - try this: Guido Giacomo Preparata. Conjuring Hitler: How Britain and America made the Third Reich (London: Pluto Press, 2005). A remarkable book, which sheds just as much light on the present as the past. Paul

The most extraordinary non-sequitur I've yet seen on this website. They are capable of anything: They didn't do it. It's also unhistorical tripe. Were the men who staged the coup of November 22 less ruthless? Or the men who brought down Lincoln? Perhaps Monbiot could share with us the secret of his moral calculus. One sees Monbiot's problem, though. All that hyperbolic straining is unavoidable if he is to build credibility before rounding on the real villains of 9/11 - not those who perpetrated it, you understand, but those who sought to investigate it. Weird morality, George. Coincidence theory at its most childish and ludicrous. We are invited to believe that though they eagerly desired to invade Iraq, they failed to see any potential in the large plot under their noses. And yet Monbiot is far more scathing and passionate in his assault on 9/11 sceptics than he is about the man he insists is "responsible for the murder of many tens of thousands of Iraqis." Again, very curious morality, this. Really? Or just preplanning? Again, not very complicated: psywar was built into the planning. Ah, an old favourite, wearingly familiar since at least the days of Clay Shaw's trial; and yet more hyperbole. "Tens of thousands"!? And Monbiot has the cheek to label 9/11 sceptics "morons."

Jack, I'm more shocked by your revelation than I can, er, adequately feign. Paul

Sorry, Charlie, but it couldn't have been, Mack private email or no. The Muchmore film, assuming it was actually taken by her, couldn't have been transmitted from taker to purchaser, from Dallas to New York, viewed and then prepared for transmission, in time on 25 November. Note the time of the Tass despatch; and factor in the eight-hour difference between New York and Moscow. That dog don't hunt. Paul PS Here's a timeline for the Muchmore film on 25 November, as prepared by Larry Peters, a famously reliable authority on this matter, to whom I am happy to defer: The above appeared on this forum: I feel sure Mack would have intervened at once were it incorrect.

Charlie, I think it's more fundamental than the number of copies - it's everything from how many versions of the Z-fraud, the chain of possession, the political purpose(s) of the fake(s), you name it. At root are the inter-related questions of what happened in the motorcade, when, and by whom. In short, why go to all this trouble? The answer, I have no doubt, lies in the presidential limousine, the central focus of the deceptions. Paul

Sure, Charlie, with pleasure. Film of the actual shooting of JFK shown on Soviet TV on evening of 25 November 1963, as recorded in Foreign Office files: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/worldreaction.html As noted in TASS despatch of same day: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_pe...lmson%20TV.html The appearance of the same film was also noted in contemporaneous State Department records, but I’ve lost/can’t find my notes for that. A distinctly Mockingbirdish attempt to muddy the waters of what exactly Soviet viewers saw is to be found in a brief AP despatch published in US newspapers on 26 November. Here is the version which appeared in The Dallas Morning News. Note how film of the actual shooting is transformed into the somehat more nebulous assassination “documentary”: It would seem logical, but by no means certain, that the film seen by Soviet TV viewers on the evening of 25 November also made an appearance on a few selected US TV stations the following day. It remains a curious fact that there is, as matters stand, more evidence for the Z-film being in distribution with US TV stations on 26 November than there is for the anti-alterationist claim that it was the Muchmore film which was shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on the afternoon of the same day. I have only been able to find only one such newspaper report – see below, the paragraph in bold – yet this is one more than I have so far been able to locate for the alleged debut of Muchmore: Paul