Paul Rigby

Good. You're fired.

The single most shameful and contemptible post I've yet seen on an assassination website.

I had no idea the following piece existed until I stumbled across it on Ebay a couple of months ago: It is absent from Guthrie and Wrone’s seemingly definitive The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography, 1963-1979 (Greenwood Press, 1980); and, upon cursory inspection, David Lifton’s Best Evidence (Signet, 1992). Nor does it appear to be available anywhere on the internet. This is a pity – whatever my disagreements with it, it’s unquestionably full of good things, and deserves a new audience, not least on this forum, where some recent threads have sought to wrestle with key issues it confronts. Paul

Duplicate post deleted.

Hey Mark,Show Charlie how it's really done: And just in case the inattentive reader thought the above was a one-off, here's our real pro a few exchanges later in the same thread: What an impressive rhetorical amalgam: pomposity, puerility, and predictability. Face it, Charlie, you're a mere amateur when it comes to childish insults.

Nathaniel, A brief glimpse of both Goodfellow in action post-war, and the clique's approach to the conduct of foreign policy: Quite who - or what - is running U.S. foreign policy in the post-war era remains a continuing puzzle! Or perhaps not... Paul

Dacre is loathsome - didn't he offer a platform to the grotesque Angelton in an interview in the 1970s? - and so is his paper. But on the above point, he couldn't be more right: The BBC is appalling, most notably when it comes to regurgitating spook lies. No wonder. MI5 still vets its employees - and still has an office in the building, no? - and MI6 ("the Foreign Office") funds the World Service. And the sheer gutlessness of what pitifully little investigative journalism it undertakes is an enduring source of wonder. That is, of course, when Panorama etc., isn't simply acting as a front for Britain's murderous secret police!

Ashton, Was the Eisenhower speech delivered according to the pre-published text? If memory serves, or merely half serves, Eisenhower either didn't deliver the speech or had to truncate it, omitting the key bits about peace, due to an untimely affliction. The point, of course, was to ensure there was no swift U.S. echo of Churchill's expressed desire to respond to Beria's wide-ranging overtures. From the point of view of both CIA and the CPUSSR, Beria had to go before he gave away eastern Europe, and dethroned the Communist Party. We would have to wait another 40+ years for Gorbachev's backers to do that. Paul

Utter Bosch? Paul

The issue is settled. Or rather, it soon will be. Definitively. Forever. Hugo is the real McCloy. We know this because Mr. Philip Agee is, according to The Gruaniad, Britain's dauntless "centre-left" daily, shortly to pronounce on Chavez's terrible ordeal at the hands of CIA coupsters. (You remember, the ones who didn't depose him, the swines.) Agee is to tell all - courtesy of peturbed CIA moralists/pinko State Dept whistle-blowers/the man in the Brooks Bros boiler suite at the corner of the bar (delete as applicable) - in a forthcoming tome of unspecified title: "...he remains as committed as ever, and busy on another book, this time about the CIA's activities in Venezuela over the years," (Duncan Campbell, "The spy who stayed out in the cold," The Guardian, G2, 11 January 2007, p.15). Mr. Agee the fearless 21st century chronicler of the CIA in Venezuela is no relation to Mr. Agee the fearless 20th century chronicler of the Agency in the broader region who, in the mid-1970s, told Claude Bourdet, in "The CIA Against Portugal," as found in JEAN PIERRE FAYE (Ed.). Portugal: The Revolution In The Labyrinth (Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 1976), p. 194, that "...the CIA is not a mysterious body with its own brand of politics: it is a tool in the hands of the President of the United States…" I am pleased to help dispel the confusion.

Interesting point. As it happens I was reading this book last night. The purpose was to look at his reaction to the JFK assassination. As you say, that part of the diary is missing. Very strange. The omission is more shocking than I can adequately feign. Yet let there be no doubt, Mr. Agee is indeed a genuine dissident, as the following makes clear: A point of view which is not to be confused with official pap such as… Much less truly outrageous subversive nonsense like…. Or patent insider flim-flam of this kind… Never mind manifest insider-drivel… And certainly not be confused with the authentic note of old-left dissent… Dissidence, US-style. Fearless stuff, no? Paul

I must remember to pinch that description of the great fraud: Plagiarism, the highest form of literary compliment. Couldn't agree more. In mitigation, those who've fallen for the deception have precious little else to hold on to, most obviously in America. It did - and still does - look that way to me. Going from memory, wasn't the Reagan-era esquadron de la muerte gang running this one? Now that lot aren't synonymous with the Agency. The grand clash, though admittedly not at the highest levels, between Agency and pro-Pentagon neo-cons was still to come: Iraq. Imagine the Agency's fate had that one gone to plan! Paul

Myra, Don't know for sure if Chavez is Agency, or merely a useful, if largely unwitting, tool. Ultimately, it makes little difference. Nevertheless, some reflections on the matter: 1) If he is Agency, he'd sure as hell undertake precisely the kind of action you accurately described, just as a Special Branch officer infiltrating, let us say, the Anti-Nazi League or the Socialist Workers'Party, would be sure to declaim his hatred of the SB/MI5 - before pouching the membership secretary's or treasurer's post! 2) His attribution of responsibility for 9/11 is, in my view, entirely justified. His recent decision to promote sales of the work of Noam Chomsky, the Agency's favourite "leftist" dissident, strongly suggests, however, a certain lack of lit crit rigour, and political consistency. Chomsky, is after all, the man who gave us the following pearl of Agency-serving nonsense:""One thing I would mention is that when it's a CIA operation, that means it's a White House operation. It's not CIA. They don't do things on their own…If it's a CIA operation it's because they were ordered to do it…" (Noam Chomsky. Class Warfare (London: Pluto Press, 1996), p. 92.) Very convincing. 2) On cue - very obliging of the chap, I must say - I note in my morning paper, under the headline "Chavez lays ground to socialism" (The Guardian, 8 January 2007, p.16) - that he is moving to occupy the vacuum left by the dying Fidel. 3) The Agency may yet decide to martyr him, but only if there's a suitable replacement in the wings. 4) A relatively unified Central and Southern American left offers rich scope for a Republican come-back after 4 to 8 years of Republican-lite government by the nominal opposition. (Buggins turn dictates some safe Democrat centrist is due for a spell in the White House.) In crude summary, think a re-run of the early/mid Reagan years. 5) All the while, Venezuelan oil money will be recycled on lots of essential infra-structure projects. They will benefit the countries concerned immensely, but prepare the country for integration with the US/North American trading bloc. Sorry to seem so cynical, but this is the way it strikes me. Paul

Myra, Couldn't agree more - until the very end. They were simply additional patsies. My favourite quote on the related subjects of Mob and Cubans appeared in New Times in the late 1970s. Citing a New York Daily News piece - which I've never got round to hunting down, but would be delighted to learn details of - the author quoted unnamed "friends" of John Roselli to the effect that Oswald was a decoy while others ambushed Kennedy from closer range. Roselli shortly thereafter took up residence in a 55-gallon oil drum. (Source: Iona Antonov, “On the Trail of the President’s Killers: part 2,” New Times, 1977, pp.26-30) I think it fell into abeyance, briefly, but has never been truly severed. Why not? The Agency cares not a jot about the well-being of most Americans, so what chance some islanders ninety miles off shore? Paul

Myra,One snap-shot I have of Nelson Rockefeller's attitude to CIA post-assassination: Of course, Keating was spoonfed by the Agency - most likely by McCone himself, according to one author - precisely to embarrass Kennedy. Paul

Here's an earlier, CIA-serving attempt, from the same (Scripps-Howard) newspaper group, to rewrite history. Note the passage highlighted. It's demonstrable rubbish:

The Cuban angle was spiked along time before that! Paul

Ah, such wit. Er, no, do you? He wasn't certain where the shots came from? Quite sure?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 Plainly, a man who had no firm opinion. So are you... Yep, you have that honour... This is what Thompson's table said on page 262 about Austin Miller's statement: No. of shots: 3 Bunching of shots: 2 & 3 Direction of sound/shots: --- Date of report: 11/22/63 Total time of shots: few seconds References: 6H223-227 19H485 24H217 Archives CD 205, p. 27 Remarks: Saw "smoke or steam" coming from a group of trees N. of Elm: saw shot hit street past car. Thanks for reviving that - vindication. In the column entitled "Direction of shot/sounds," hyper-reliable Thompson would have the reader believe Miller offered nothing on the subject. Oh yeah? You can't be serious? Happily, you are. Let's revisit Miller not offering a view on where the shots originated: 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 This the best you could do? C'mon gents, raise the old game. Paul

As I general rule, I bother to read my opponents and quote them fairly. You should try it some time. Oh, and Austin Miller? 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 Verily, a "bizarre" theory!

Now this I like! By the by, I thought parts of Tarpley's Synthetic Terror: Made In USA (Progressive Press, 205) the best things I've read in years. Paul

Intelligent response, Mark. So glad you can read. It gets better: Perhaps you'd care to share with us Austin Miller's response to where the shots originated? Or some of the other interesting testimony from observers on the overpass? So now we know: Sheep seldom differ. Paul

Mark: I could not agree more. Dawn Great minds think alike - or fools seldom differ? Either of you got an argument? Paul

John, Interesting post, to which I'll return at greater length when time permits. For the moment, I wanted to draw attention to JFK's familiarity with Smith and his testimony on U.S. support for Castro. Here's the only thing I could find readily to hand: MILTON S. EISENHOWER. The Wine Is Bitter: The United States and Latin America (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1963), p.54: "During the television debate on October 21, 1960, Senator Kennedy referred to testimony given before a Senate Committee by Ambassadors Arthur Gardner and Earl E.T. Smith, both of whom had been in Cuba during the Batista regime and were known to be friendly to Batista…Said candidate Kennedy: "[they] warned of Castro, [and] the Marxist influence around Castro…both of them have testified that, in spite of their warnings to the American Government, nothing was done." A few moments later, he said scornfully: "Most of the equipment and arms and resources for Castro came from the United States, flown out of Florida and other parts of the United States to Castro in the mountains." Paul

Smitty, I see the attractions of this line of thinking, and, in the absence of dispositive evidence, must continue to permit the possibility that Greer was indeed the executioner of last resort. But my problem is this: what if Greer had been hit inadvertently, perhaps, let us theorise, by a ricochet? The limo is stuck on Elm with a wounded President and a dead, or seriously impaired, driver. Numerous potential complications suggest themselves. Was such a risk - in fact, an abundance of risks - necessary or worth it? Now distraction noises or shots, aimed to create the illusion of ambush from distance, that's another matter. Paul

Erick, We can't assume anything of the sort, in fact, quite the contrary: we must proceed, on the basis of abundant evidence, that the film is a fake designed to hide key elements of truth, not least the entrance point on the left temple. The selection of Greer is a subject in itself. His son hints at a fairly pronounced dislike of Catholics, but, of course, there are very many other factors at work, not least in the minds of those who selected him. You've forgotten to factor in the limousine's swerve to the left, against the southern curb of Elm., where it came to rest. Insert that into the paradigm, and you have congruence. Otherwise, how to explain Hargis's left windscreen being hit with brain matter? The limo's swerve placed him to Kennedy's right rear. Paul