[…] that regardless of how and by whom the Zapruder film may or may not have been altered, what was left was still compelling enough evidence of a conspiracy. The real question then becomes whether, having done such a bad job of covering-up the ultimate evidence of the frontal shots, they might have been trying […]
[PDF file]: […] (almost certainly the latter). And no MI5 people had been involved in ‘any attempt to destabilise the government’. But burglary, leaking official material, planting disinformation and other conspiracy is not denied. These ‘little hints’ were collected and discussed by Steve Dorril in ‘Five at Eye’ in Lobster 17 and examples of the anonymous documents […]
[…] their arguments may well be wrong. (p. 109) Well hell, details of anyone’s arguments ‘may well be wrong’. That’s almost praising with faint damns *new* Cock-up? No, conspiracy. Back to Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations – i.e. what used to be the beating heart of the US establishment. They […]
[…] (with much help from Robert Morrow)1 but Mae Brussel? Currently on the site is an essay lauding Brussel by Kuzmarov and Alexis Baden-Mayer.2 Brussell was a California-based conspiracy theorist in the 1970s and 80s who had a weekly radio programme. I came across her in the late 1970s as I was getting interested in […]
[…] their arguments may well be wrong. (p. 108) Well hell, details of anyone’s arguments ‘may well be wrong’. That’s almost praising with faint damns *new* Cock-up? No, conspiracy. Back to Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, what used to be the beating heart of the US establishment. There is a […]
[…] At or 13 5 Project (BAP)14 which was first written about by Tom Easton in 1997 in Lobster 33. This ‘official’ account notes that what it calls conspiracy theories about the organisation’s origins first began in Lobster, which it describes as ‘an obscure, anti-American news-sheet’. Obscure? Yes. Anti-American? No. Anti-American foreign policy and anti-British […]
[…] their arguments may well be wrong. (p. 108) Well hell, details of anyone’s arguments ‘may well be wrong’. That’s almost praising with faint damns *new* Cock-up? No, conspiracy. Back to Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, what used to be the beating heart of the US establishment. There is a […]
[…] At or 13 5 Project (BAP)14 which was first written about by Tom Easton in 1997 in Lobster 33. This ‘official’ account notes that what it calls conspiracy theories about the organisation’s origins first began in Lobster, which it describes as ‘an obscure, anti-American news-sheet’. Obscure? Yes. Anti-American? No. Anti-American foreign policy and anti-British […]
[…] (almost certainly the latter). And no MI5 people had been involved in ‘any attempt to destabilise the government’. But burglary, leaking official material, planting disinformation and other conspiracy is not denied. At another level, was there an inquiry at all? Wallace, Holroyd and Wright were not interviewed by the Duff inquiry.2 It apparently looked […]
[PDF file]: […] are using Safari which sometimes doesn’t ‘read’ it. Try another browser, eg Chrome. 3 Smith wrote for Lobster. See, for example, his ‘The Murder of Hilda Murrell: Conspiracy Theories Old and New’ in Lobster 28 and ‘Is Libya still the prime suspect in the murder of WPC Fletcher?’ in Lobster 32. We met once, […]
