James DiEugenio

This Rufus Youngblood myth was taken care of by Bob Groden in his book JFK:Absolute Proof. Johnson was upright when the shooting started. ( see page 272)

This book I think is a good example of when theorizing about what happened to JFK takes precedence over data and analysis. If you read the second part of my review, what Fetter does with Mexico City is another example of making theory first and then shoving data into it. He wants to conclude that the whole Mexico City mess was about freezing RFK in place. Which is not, for instance, what John Newman thinks. Or Peter Scott as another example. And I think they have done more work on that than Fetter has. Scott, for example, has come up with the whole Phase 1 and Phase 2 idea. That Mexico CIty was done to jump start a war on Castro, but then when LBJ and Hoover put the brakes to that, the idea was to make Oswald into a sociopathic loner model. I have never seen anyone put forth what this book does. And as I pointed out, with evidence, he does not prove his idea.

And BTW, Fetter leaves that whole aspect about Rayburn out, namely that the guy was incorruptible. Yet when I was reading about him for this review, that is the aspect of his character that struck me the most. The guy was legendary in. that regard. The other things that struck me were the contradictions. If Rayburn and LBJ were scheming to get Johnson as VP in 1960, why did Rayburn advise LBJ not to take the offer? Why did LBJ run at all that year? And BTW, JFK knew that Johnson would be his toughest opponent which is why he sent RFK down to Texas in 1959 to feel him out. The whole question about that election is this: Why did Johnson not enter earlier, as Rayburn was clearly trying to get him to do? And BTW, Fetter leave that out also, Rayburn's urging of LBJ to get in the race in the spring. Rayburn even set up a shell HQ called Citizens for Johnson to push him into getting into the race. (Shesol, Mutual Contempt, p.28). Johnson not only refused to go over there, he got mad at Rayburn for doing it behind his back! This is why I used the word solipsistic in my critique. Because the stuff he leaves out, gives the reader a different picture. And I compared him to Waldron for that reason.

Welcome Steve. BTW, Fetter actually says that the plotting by Rayburn and LBJ began back in 1956. I am still trying to find his evidence for this. I should add if you read Part 2 of the review, Rayburn's major characteristic as a politician is that he was incorruptible. Go figure.

Tom Gram: That was quite possibly the worst JFK book I’ve ever read in my life That is because you have not read this one. Not only does Fetter cook up a motive for Rayburn and Johnson that is almost ludicrous, but he is obsessed with the late David Lifton. He does not even call him that, he calls him Samuel Lifton. And that is just the beginning of his crusade against the deceased. Fetter really needed an editor on this book. To protect him from his worst tendencies.

Gil: He is aware of those matters. But it does not matter. He all but ignores the differences between LBJ and JFK on Vietnam which go back to the siege of Dien Bien Phu in 1954, and the use of combat troops in 1961. Then, he uses a picture of Wheeler leaning over a desk in front of LBJ during a conference to somehow articulate a conspiratorial angle to the JCS. I have rarely read a more agenda driven, solipsistic book. I think one has to go back to the heyday of Lamar Waldron with his whole C day invasion/Mob did it scheme to find any kid of comparison.

I paid 90 bucks for this two volume set that clocks in at over 1000 pages. To put it mildly, it was not worth the money or the time to read it. Because its so long, the review is in two parts. The first is about his spin on the medical side, and the second is his case against Johnson and his co-conspirator. I mean Sam Rayburn was a plotter? The guy died two years before JFK was killed! You will double over when you read the motive. Because it says it had utterly nothing to do with any of JFK's policies. Further, it did not matter who was nominated that year, they would have been knocked off also. And wait until you read what he does with his footnotes. As per the medical aspect, although the author despises David Lifton, he actually outdoes Lifton's body switching scheme. The body was switched at Parkland and Jackie knew it. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/under-cover-of-night-by-sean-fetter

Blakey I think was really chagrined about two things that he fell for as chief counsel: 1. Guinn's "junk science" about the NAA testing which has been exposed today as being completely unreliable by two separate teams. 2. How the CIA lied to him about Joannides not being involved in the JFK case in 1963. Those are two strikes against his inquiry. Ben: he sounded seriously ill to you? The last time I saw him he needed a cane to get around with.

I should have mentioned this in my review. In all fairness to the program, they did seem to have some effect on Blakey. He said a couple of things that I did not recall him saying before. First, he said that the JFK murder set up Oswald as a false flag creation. Secondly, he said that Harvey likely worked with Roselli on the hit plan. If one combines that with what he said previously about the Cuban exile Diaz Garcia, what he has come to now is a CIA/Mob/Cuban exile conspiracy. Which is a big improvement over what he thought back in 1979. So congrats to Rob for that.

That is probably correct about Meacham Sandy. But, I think he sacrificed something there. To be perfectly honest, I am not so sure that Reiner disagreed with him. When I was meeting with that group, Rob would say, "Let's not get into the weeds." But Rob, sometimes that is where the facts are.

Really interesting. Thanks Robert.

Thanks and its been corrected.

Here is the final review of Part 10 plus two extra segments, one on the still classified files and an interview with Landis. I tried to be kind to him at the end. I think his heart was in the right place. https://jamesanthonydieugenio.substack.com/p/rob-reiners-who-killed-jfk-pt-4

I just listened to the last three parts. Charles W was the man behind the assassination? I guess DIck Russell never got over that anonymous note he got when working at The Village Voice. And Bill Harvey? From Rome? Astonishingly they brought back Plumlee again. And Ralph Mowatt Larsen without saying he thinks Oswald did it. More on this tomorrow. Sheesh.

I read the book and I don't see how Mantik retreated from his previous positions. I don't think I missed anything. BTW, the book is really selling well. I do not recall any recent book in the field selling like this one. Because of Corsi's connections with rightwing media.