Jesse Ventura's JFK "Conspiracy Theory" program

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Re: Jesse Ventura's JFK Conspiracy Program

All,

Here is the note I sent to Jesse via his son, Tyrel, who produces his show. I did not mention that he takes for granted that the Zapruder is authentic. If any of you were unable to watch last night, it will undoubtedly be repeated a number of times on TruTV. And of course Jack and I disagree about the identity of the third "tramp". But this was a remarkable program and should have considerable impact. No one should miss it.

Jim

Jim Fetzer wrote:

Tyrel,

You can tell Jesse this was the best television program ever produced about JFK. In one hour, more people learned more about JFK than ever before. My admiration for having fingered Nixon, Ford, Bush, and LBJ knows no bounds. I noticed three factual errors, two of which were insignificant in relation to the program and the other actually advanced it. Oswald did not shoot J.D. Tippit, where the best discussion may be found in THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD by Robert Groden. The second is that Marina did not take the backyard photographs: no one did! They were faked. For proof, see an article by Jim Marrs and me, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco". The third is that the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows, and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey. But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

Warm regards,

Jim

Edited November 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JFK Deathbed Confession: The Famous Bush Photo, FBI Document Bush Was on His Way to Dallas | DBKP -

deathby1000papercuts.com

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2010/11/jfk-deathbed-confession-the-famous-bush-photo-fbi-document-bush-was-on-his-way-to-dallas/

This is a remarkably informed discussion about the assassination by LBG1. Those Jesse implicates in the crime–including LBJ, Nixon, Ford, G.H.W. Bush, and Specter–all had roles in removing JFK from office or in covering it up. Among the most important books that substantiate his allegations are Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON, my MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA, James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, Phillip Nelson, LBJ: THE MASTERMIND OF JFK’S ASSASSINATION, and Russ Baker, FAMILY OF SECRETS. Add to that Judyth Vary Baker, ME & LEE, and you will be current with what is known about his death. I interviewed Jim Marrs today and will interview Russ Baker on Monday on “The Real Deal”, M/W/F from 5-7 PM/CT, on revereradio.net. In the meanwhile, visit the on-line journal I co-edit with John P. Costella, Ph.D., at http://assassinationresearch.com and go to v5/n1 for my review of Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY, where I explain how E. Howard Hunt’s confession fits in with the rest of what we know about JFK. I compliment LBG1 for his intelligence.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For those unfamiliar with LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION,

here are two reviews from amazon.com that will offer a clue or two:

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

32 of 33 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars

Lyndon Johnson and the CIA murdered John Kennedy

October 7, 2010

By Robert P. Morrow (Austin, TX USA) - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

This review is from: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (Paperback)

This book is a MUST READ book for students of the JFK assassination. I have over 200+ books related to the JFK Assassination and LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination is the #1 book that I recommend to folks to read. As Mr. Fetzer says, read it then read JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he Died and Why it Matters by James Douglass, which covers the CIA angle of the JFK assassination.

It is time for Americans, historians, journalists, and opinion makers to start speaking HONESTLY about Lyndon Johnson and his role in the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson was a psychopathic serial killer, who had a personal hit man named Malcolm Wallace. LBJ was literally murdering people over the years to keep a lid on his gargantuan corruption. One good example, would the murder of an Agricultural Dept. bureaucrat Henry Marshall, of Bryan, TX in June, 1961. This murdered was plotted by Vice President Lyndon Johnson, his top aide Cliff Carter, Billie Sol Estes and Malcolm Wallace who probably carried it out. Lyndon Johnson had already murdered perhaps 15-20 people by the time LBJ made a dirty deal with the CIA and he got the blood of JFK on his knife.

The murder of John Kennedy was an elite domestic conspiracy very probably involving Lyndon Johnson, the CIA, Texas oil men such as HL Hunt, Clint Murchison, Sr., high ranking elements of the US military, and high level elitists of the Eastern Establishment, perhaps in including Allen Dulles, Nelson Rockefeller, perhaps even David Rockefeller. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the CIA's expert on coups, assassinations and propaganda was photographed ON SITE at Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63 [later identified by both Col. Fletcher Prouty and Gen. Victor Krulak]. The author does not mention the role of George Herbert Walker Bush, but he may very well have been involved, too- especially with his close ties to CIA and the Kennedy-hating anti-Castro Cubans. In a nutshell, with prodding from the shadow government and rich Texas oil men, and the Rockefeller intelligence nexus on the East Coast, the CIA murdered John Kennedy.

But the most critical element was the foreknowledge, approval and participation of the traitorous Vice President Lyndon Johnson. LBJ and his close friend (and neighbor of 19 years) J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI were in charge of the cover up. Many folks do not know how close Lyndon Johnson and Hoover were, that they were neighbors for 19 years in Wash, DC and that Texas oil men had J. Edgar Hoover in their pocket. Please check out the following passages:

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

"The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK ... During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, JOHNSON of Texas, GEORGE BUSH, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, p. 638-639].

Madeleine Duncan Brown was the most beloved mistress of Lyndon Johnson for 21 years from 1948 until 1969. Madeleine is one of the truth tellers and keys to understanding the ugly reality of the JFK assassination. She had a son Steven Mark with Lyndon in 1950. Madeleine lived from 1925 to 2002 and was madly in love with Lyndon Johnson when she wrote the book Texas in the Morning 24 years after the death of LBJ. She makes some BLOCKBUSTER revelations in this book, such as:

In the night of 12/31/63 or morning of January 1, 1964, just 6 weeks after the JFK assassination, Madeleine asked Lyndon Johnson:

"Lyndon, you know that a lot of people believe you had something to do with President Kennedy's assassination."

He shot up out of bed and began pacing and waving his arms screaming like a madman. I was scared!

"That's bull___, Madeleine Brown!" he yelled. "Don't tell me you believe that ____!"

"Of course not." I answered meekly, trying to cool his temper.

"It was Texas oil and those %$%& renegade intelligence bastards in Washington." [said Lyndon Johnson, the new president; Texas in the Morning, p. 189] [LBJ told this to Madeleine on 1/1/64 in the locally famous Driskill Hotel, Austin, TX in room #254. They spent New Year's Eve `64 together here (12/31/63). Room #254 was the room that LBJ used to have rendevous' with his girlfriends - today it is known as the LBJ Room, and rents for $600-1,000/night as a Presidential suite at the Driskill; located on the Mezzanine Level.]

What Lyndon Johnson did not tell Madeleine was that Texas Oil (read H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Sr) and the CIA (especially the Gen Ed Lansdale, Operation 40/Operation Mongoose crowd) were murdering John Kennedy with the full knowledge, approval and participation of VP Lyndon Johnson.

Author Phillip Nelson does a fabulous job of detailing the evil and corruption that was the psychopath Lyndon Johnson. Lyndon Johnson was at the CENTER of the JFK assassination and he had plenty of help. I give this book 10 out of 10 stars and it is a MUST READ.

Robert Morrow, Austin, TX - Google me on the internet or find me at Education Forum, or Facebook. Contact me and I will send you my "LBJ and CIA killed JFK" file, which dovetails with this fabulous book!

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Report abuse | Permalink

Comment Comments (6)

26 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars

Brilliant and pivotal, bringing coherence to our understanding, October 5, 2010

By James H. Fetzer (Oregon, WI USA) - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

This review is from: LBJ: The Mastermind of JFKs Assassination (Kindle Edition)

From first chapter to last, this is a beautifully written, intellectually captivating, and ultimately persuasive account of the role of LBJ in the assassination of JFK. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown, one of his many mistresses but the only one who bore him a son. She, too, became convinced that Lyndon was profoundly involved in the death of his predecessor. On New Year's Eve, six weeks after the assassination, they had a rendezvous at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, where she confronted him with rumors, rampant in Dallas at the time, that he had been involved, since no one stood more to gain. He blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had decided that JFK had to be taken out. She wrote about it in her book, TEXAS IN THE MORNING. Her account has been reinforced by Billy Sol Estes, the Texas wheeler-dealer who made mountains of money for Lyndon, Connally, and their buddies, who explains in his book, A TEXAS LEGEND, how he became convinced that Cliff Carter, LBJ's chief administrative assistant, and Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, his personal assassin (by whom Lyndon had a dozen or more persons terminated, including one of his sisters), had been personally involved. E. Howard Hunt, in his "Last Confessions" in ROLLING STONE, explained to his son, St. John, that LBJ, Cord Meyer, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales, and others in the CIA had been involved in the assassination. For an overview, enter "John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy", and download Chapter 30. Or visit [...], "Reclaiming History: A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public", and you will understand the context within which it took place. For a short course, try "Reasoning about Assassinantions" via google. I also recommend James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE. Both make profound contributions to the case.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So the only member of this forum who is not dead above the neck is in the UK? It was fantastic,

Martin. Jesse approached him sitting on his porch. Jesse asked him what was the most important

reason he did not believe Lee worked for the CIA. Vince spouted off about there being "not the

least shred of evidence" that he had ever worked for any government agency. Jesse gave a look of

disbelief, and Vince retreated into his mantra--this time sarcastically--implying that, because he

was an unstable loner and a poor shot, no serious conspiracy would have relied upon him to take out

JFK. Jesse replied directly that the very traits that would have made him a poor choice for being

an assassin were perfect for framing him in the role of a patsy! Vince looked desperate and tried

to get the camera to shut off. It was humiliating for him. Bugliosi will never recover from this.

Jesse kept the image of him on the screen and observed, "The is what we are having to put up with!"

It was stunning. The whole thing was brilliant. The production values were excellent. And yet you

are the only one who is displaying the least sign of intelligence with comments or inquiries about it.

Damn. Can't get TruTV here in the UK. What did Bugliosi have to say for himself?

[Kevin Greenlee]

The third (factual error) is that the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows, and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey. But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

Warm regards,

Jim[/i]

Are you saying that making factual errors is acceptable- even "brilliant"- as long as it makes it easier to present whatever your current theory of the case happens to be? That actually explains quite a bit about your work over the years.

[Pat Speer]

The third (factual error) is that the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows, and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey. But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

Warm regards,

Jim[/i]

Are you saying that making factual errors is acceptable- even "brilliant"- as long as it makes it easier to present whatever your current theory of the case happens to be? That actually explains quite a bit about your work over the years.

Agreed. Jim's statement, on the surface, indicates that it is not inappropriate to tell little lies to fight a big lie. The problem, as I see it, is that once those little lies are exposed, you lose credibility, and those telling the big lie can use this to dismiss the rest of what you have to say, no matter how true.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes, of course. That's why I wrote him to explain that there were some mistakes. This is one of the least seriously flawed programs about the assassination that has ever been broadcast on national television. Neither of you has even see it! I was a participant, not the producer. This is the kind of shabby s--t that I would expect from the two of you. Your own work, Pat, commits such gross blunders that I cannot imagine why anyone would take it seriously, once they understand that you dismiss the most important expert witnesses we have about the injuries that JFK sustained, namely, the Parkland physicians. For someone who's not even in the ballpark to dismiss a show on the big picture is tawdry, shoddy and cheap.

The third (factual error) is that the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows, and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey. But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

Warm regards,

Jim[/i]

Are you saying that making factual errors is acceptable- even "brilliant"- as long as it makes it easier to present whatever your current theory of the case happens to be? That actually explains quite a bit about your work over the years.

Agreed. Jim's statement, on the surface, indicates that it is not inappropriate to tell little lies to fight a big lie. The problem, as I see it, is that once those little lies are exposed, you lose credibility, and those telling the big lie can use this to dismiss the rest of what you have to say, no matter how true.

Edited November 20, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Within the framework provided by this program, Bush's eulogy for Ford assumes a different -- and far more self-serving -- meaning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/washington/02cnd-ford-ghwb.html?_r=3&oref=slogin

George H.W. Bush’s Eulogy for Gerald R. Ford

Published: January 2, 2007

Following is the transcript of the eulogy for former President Gerald R. Ford delivered today by former President George H.W. Bush in Washington, as recorded by The New York Times.

Well, as the story goes, Gerald Ford was a newly minted candidate for the United States House of Representatives in June of 1948 when he made plans with a reporter to visit the dairy farmers in western Michigan’s Fifth Congressional District. It was pouring rain that particular day and neither the journalist nor the farmers had expected the upstart candidate to keep his appointment. And yet he showed up on time because, as he explained to the journalist, “they milk cows every day and, besides that, I promised.”

Long before he arrived in Washington, Gerald Ford’s word was good. During the three decades of public service that followed his arrival in our nation’s capital, time and again he would step forward and keep his promise even when the dark clouds of political crisis gathered over America.

After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.

A decade later, when scandal forced a vice president from office, President Nixon turned to the minority leader in the House to stabilize his administration because of Jerry Ford’s sterling reputation for integrity within the Congress. To political ally and adversary alike, Jerry Ford’s word was always good.

And, of course, when the lie that was Watergate was finally laid bare, once again we entrusted our future and our hopes to this good man. The very sight of Chief Justice Berger administering the oath of office to our 38th president instantly restored the honor of the Oval Office and helped America begin to turn the page on one of our saddest chapters.

As Americans we generally eschew notions of the indispensable man, and yet during those traumatic times, few if any of our public leaders could have stepped into the breach and rekindled our national faith as did President Gerald R. Ford.

History has a way of matching man and moment. And just as President Lincoln’s stubborn devotion to our Constitution kept the Union together during the Civil War, and just as F.D.R.’s optimism was the perfect antidote to the despair of the Great Depression, so too can we say that Jerry Ford’s decency was the ideal remedy for the deception of Watergate.

For this and for so much more, his presidency will be remembered as a time of healing in our land. In fact, when President Ford was choosing a title for his memoirs, he chose words from the book of Ecclesiastes.

Here was the verse:

“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.

“A time to be born, a time to die.

“A time to kill, and a time to heal.

“A time to weep, and a time to laugh.

“A time to mourn, and a time to dance.”

He acknowledged that he was no saint. To know Jerry was to know a Norman Rockwell painting come to life. An avuncular figure, quick to smile, frequently with his pipe in his mouth. He could be tough. He could be tough as nails when the situation warranted. But he also had a heart as big and as open as the Midwest plains on which he was born. And he imbued every life he touched with his understated gentility.

When we served together in the House of Representatives years ago, I watched from the back bench — I watched this good man — and even from way back there I could see the sterling leadership qualities of Jerry Ford. And later, after I followed his footsteps into the Oval Office, he was always supportive.

On the lighter side, Jerry and I shared a common love of golf and also a reputation for suspect play before large crowds.

“I know I’m playing better golf,” President Ford once reported to friends, “because I’m hitting fewer spectators.”

He had a wonderful sense of humor and even took it in stride when Chevy Chase had to make the entire world think that this terrific, beautifully coordinated athlete was actually a stumbler. Ford said it was funny. He wrote it in his memoir.

I remember that lesson well, since being able to laugh at yourself is essential in public life. I’d tell you more about that, but as Dana Carvey would say: “Not gonna do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.”

In the end, we are all God’s children. And on this bittersweet day we can take solace that the Lord has come and taken this good man by the hand and led him home to heaven.

It is plain to see how the hand of providence spared Jerry in World War II and later against two assassination attempts. And for that we give thanks. It is just as plain to see how the same hand directed this good man to lead a life of noble purpose, a life filled with challenge and accomplishment, a life indelibly marked by honor and integrity. And today we give thanks for that, too.

May Almighty God bless the memory of Gerald R. Ford, keep him firm in the hearts of his countrymen. And may God bless his wonderful family.

[Pat Speer]

So the only member of this forum who is not dead above the neck is in the UK? It was fantastic,

Martin. Jesse approached him sitting on his porch. Jesse asked him what was the most important

reason he did not believe Lee worked for the CIA. Vince spouted off about there being "not the

least shred of evidence" that he had ever worked for any government agency. Jesse gave a look of

disbelief, and Vince retreated into his mantra--this time sarcastically--implying that, because he

was an unstable loner and a poor shot, no serious conspiracy would have relied upon him to take out

JFK. Jesse replied directly that the very traits that would have made him a poor choice for being

an assassin were perfect for framing him in the role of a patsy! Vince looked desperate and tried

to get the camera to shut off. It was humiliating for him. Bugliosi will never recover from this.

Jesse kept the image of him on the screen and observed, "The is what we are having to put up with!"

It was stunning. The whole thing was brilliant. The production values were excellent. And yet you

are the only one who is displaying the least sign of intelligence with comments or inquiries about it.

Damn. Can't get TruTV here in the UK. What did Bugliosi have to say for himself?

While I wouldn't call the program "fantastic," I must admit it was a bit better than I thought it was gonna be.

Positive: Jesse made an attempt to replicate Oswald's purported shooting. While firing on stationary targets, he was unable to get three accurate shots off in less than 8.79 seconds. This cuts into the widespread belief the shots were easy. Problem: he should have had at least one other experienced shooter give it a shot, and should have offered how much practice they'd had in recent weeks, including how many practice shots they'd had with the rifle. They also should have showed us where the shots impacted.

Positive: William Newman was allowed to tell his story. Problem: when Newman said he'd thought the shot had come from behind him and pointed to the arcade, they inserted a shot of the picket fence, 30 feet or so to the west of where Newman was pointing. This was incredibly deceptive.

Positive: Jesse allowed or provided the opportunity for Gary Mack to admit that while he'd found no proof of conspiracy, that he also felt there was more to it than Oswald. Most programs present Mack as though he is a dyed-in-the-wool single-assassin theorist.

Positive: Jesse allowed Vincent Bugliosi a minute or two to contradict him, but cut Bugliosi off when he started claiming "there was no evidence DeMohrenschildt had any relationship with the CIA" or whatever smoke he was blowing. It showed Bugliosi to be the belligerent we know him to be. And that he shouldn't be taken as seriously as the media wants to take him.

Positive: it gave a little air time to Len Osanic, and discussed the deep politics view of the shooting via Fletcher Prouty.

Positive: it discussed a possible relationship between the assassination, Watergate, and the political careers of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush, and Specter. Problem: it presented as credible the theory Bush was in Dealey Plaza on 11-22, and that Howard Hunt was one of the tramps. By presenting these "It sorta looks like him" arguments, IMO, it undermined the more concrete elements of the program. The program could have scored a bullseye, IMO, if it had presented the info contained in part 1 of my video series, which establishes, beyond any real doubt, that Specter suborned perjury re the re-enactment of the shooting in Dallas, and that Johnson never really believed the Warren Commission.

[Pat Speer]

Yes, of course. That's why I wrote him to explain that there were some mistakes. This is one of the least seriously flawed programs about the assassination that has ever been broadcast on national television. Neither of you has even see it! I was a participant, not the producer. This is the kind of shabby s--t that I would expect from the two of you. Your own work, Pat, commits such gross blunders that I cannot imagine why anyone would take it seriously, once they understand that you dismiss the most important expert witnesses we have about the injuries that JFK sustained, namely, the Parkland physicians. For someone who's not even in the ballpark to dismiss a show on the big picture is tawdry, shoddy and cheap.

The third (factual error) is that the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows, and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey. But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

Warm regards,

Jim[/i]

Are you saying that making factual errors is acceptable- even "brilliant"- as long as it makes it easier to present whatever your current theory of the case happens to be? That actually explains quite a bit about your work over the years.

Agreed. Jim's statement, on the surface, indicates that it is not inappropriate to tell little lies to fight a big lie. The problem, as I see it, is that once those little lies are exposed, you lose credibility, and those telling the big lie can use this to dismiss the rest of what you have to say, no matter how true.

Wow. Not a surprise. Rather than defend your description of what you believe was a gross inaccuracy as "brilliant," you chose to attack me. Should we take this to mean that you stand by your description of a gross inaccuracy that might deceive people as "brilliant?" Is promising young men access to virgins if they blow themselves up for a cause "brilliant"? Is promising people everlasting life if they give money to your chosen faith "brilliant" as well?

I watched the program, and took notes. What you don't know about my research could fill the Grand Canyon, Jim. If you'd had an inkling, you'd know that I went back to the earliest statements of the Parkland physicians, and have shown that what they actually said scarcely relates to what people like yourself would like us to believe they said. You would like us to believe they described an exit on the far back of the head in the occipital region. What they really described was a single wound--presumably of both entrance and exit, on the right back half of the head, primarily in the parietal region. The statements of these witnesses and the photographs of them pointing out the wound location suggest a wound inches above and forward of where you'd like it to be, and inches back from where it is shown to be in the autopsy photos. So you're no more closer to being true to their statements than the lone nutters. In fact you're miles further away. Because the witnesses to the shooting, the Zapruder film, the statements of the autopsy doctors, and the autopsy photos and x-rays are all in agreement. I'm sorry for bursting your bubble.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for some decent comments about the program, Pat. They are better than I had expected. I

would observe that there is not room to cover every aspect of a complex case about JFK, and the

points I made about Tippit and the backyard photographs were not serious in relation to the focus

of the show. In fact, what he was saying about the photographs -- which even a computer scientist

from Dartmouth has contended are authentic! -- was that Marina looked him in the eye and told him

she took them. He said that, on that basis, Jesse believed they were real. I can understand why he

said that, but even if she took SOME photographs, they cannot be the ones we have at hand, since,

as I previously observed, NO ONE TOOK because they were faked. And there are also those who

still insist that Lee shot Tippit. So I think it that could be argued that Jesse was still in the ballpark.

With regard to the third "tramp", there is even more room for argument. While I believe that he was

Chauncey Holt and organized a symposium at the Lancer Conference one year to prove it, even

an expert as qualified as Jack White continues to insist that it was E. Howard Hunt. Jesse provided

photos of Hunt for comparison purposes; I did not mean to exaggerate the strength of his position.

My own family made observations that appear to support my view, but I was less faulting Jesse for

what he had presented than offering a counter-argument. As for the Newmans, Jesse did more than

the Warren commission by featuring them, where his belief that one of the shots had come from the

picket fence would still have placed it as coming from behind (and to the left) of the Newmans at

the time that it was fired. So it wasn't "incredibly deceptive". But most of your other points are fine.

The one I would take strongest exception to shows that criticisms of programs like this that don't

acknowledge their strengths are "incredibly deceptive". For you to suggest that it would have been

more to the point--and scored a "bullseye", in your view--to have followed something that you have

produced, which shows that Lyndon "never really believed the Warren Commission", is far too weak in

terms of what we know about his complicity in "The Big Event". Insofar as Lyndon had sent his chief

administrative assistant, Cliff Carter, to Dallas to make sure all of the arrangements for The Big Event

were in place and that his personal hit man, Malcolm "Mac" Wallace, was probably one of the shooters,

that is whitewashing his involvement. Try Madeleine's TEXAS IN THE MORNING, Billy Sol's A TEXAS

LEGEND, and Nelson's LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK'S ASSASSINATION if you have any doubt. Indeed,

were I trying to make a point, I might even say that your own depiction of LBJ was "incredibly deceptive".

One final point. To the best of my knowledge, I may have been among the first to notice that a photo in

Jesse Curry's JFK ASSASSINATION FILE includes a tall man in a suit with his hands in his pockets,

his head tilted in a familiar way, and the other characteristics of George H.W. Bush. I would have

encouraged Jesse to include the full photograph, which was taken in front of the Book Depository in

the early afternoon, because it is so much easier to see that this is indeed George H.W. Bush. So

I dispute your suggestion that was an appeal to a "sort of looks like him" argument, even though the

photo that was presented during the program is not as well defined as the one in Jesse Curry's book.

There are many other reasons to encompass Bush as complicit in the assassination, too, which Russ

Baker, whom I interview Monday, has laid out in his extremely interesting book, FAMILY OF SECRETS.

So the only member of this forum who is not dead above the neck is in the UK? It was fantastic,

Martin. Jesse approached him sitting on his porch. Jesse asked him what was the most important

reason he did not believe Lee worked for the CIA. Vince spouted off about there being "not the

least shred of evidence" that he had ever worked for any government agency. Jesse gave a look of

disbelief, and Vince retreated into his mantra--this time sarcastically--implying that, because he

was an unstable loner and a poor shot, no serious conspiracy would have relied upon him to take out

JFK. Jesse replied directly that the very traits that would have made him a poor choice for being

an assassin were perfect for framing him in the role of a patsy! Vince looked desperate and tried

to get the camera to shut off. It was humiliating for him. Bugliosi will never recover from this.

Jesse kept the image of him on the screen and observed, "The is what we are having to put up with!"

It was stunning. The whole thing was brilliant. The production values were excellent. And yet you

are the only one who is displaying the least sign of intelligence with comments or inquiries about it.

Damn. Can't get TruTV here in the UK. What did Bugliosi have to say for himself?

While I wouldn't call the program "fantastic," I must admit it was a bit better than I thought it was gonna be.

Positive: Jesse made an attempt to replicate Oswald's purported shooting. While firing on stationary targets, he was unable to get three accurate shots off in less than 8.79 seconds. This cuts into the widespread belief the shots were easy. Problem: he should have had at least one other experienced shooter give it a shot, and should have offered how much practice they'd had in recent weeks, including how many practice shots they'd had with the rifle. They also should have showed us where the shots impacted.

Positive: William Newman was allowed to tell his story. Problem: when Newman said he'd thought the shot had come from behind him and pointed to the arcade, they inserted a shot of the picket fence, 30 feet or so to the west of where Newman was pointing. This was incredibly deceptive.

Positive: Jesse allowed or provided the opportunity for Gary Mack to admit that while he'd found no proof of conspiracy, that he also felt there was more to it than Oswald. Most programs present Mack as though he is a dyed-in-the-wool single-assassin theorist.

Positive: Jesse allowed Vincent Bugliosi a minute or two to contradict him, but cut Bugliosi off when he started claiming "there was no evidence DeMohrenschildt had any relationship with the CIA" or whatever smoke he was blowing. It showed Bugliosi to be the belligerent we know him to be. And that he shouldn't be taken as seriously as the media wants to take him.

Positive: it gave a little air time to Len Osanic, and discussed the deep politics view of the shooting via Fletcher Prouty.

Positive: it discussed a possible relationship between the assassination, Watergate, and the political careers of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush, and Specter. Problem: it presented as credible the theory Bush was in Dealey Plaza on 11-22, and that Howard Hunt was one of the tramps. By presenting these "It sorta looks like him" arguments, IMO, it undermined the more concrete elements of the program. The program could have scored a bullseye, IMO, if it had presented the info contained in part 1 of my video series, which establishes, beyond any real doubt, that Specter suborned perjury re the re-enactment of the shooting in Dallas, and that Johnson never really believed the Warren Commission.

Edited November 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest Tom Scully]

Deleted- Edit caused duplicate to post as #15

Edited November 21, 2010 by Tom Scully

[Guest Tom Scully]

Fully braced for receipt of similar treatment as Pat received from Jim merely for the act of weighing in here and offering some opinions contrary to Jim's, I will share my reaction to Jesse's program episode, and to the styles of Jim and of Robert Morrow.

I was impressed with much of Jesse Ventura's program. I thought the repeated emphasis of St. John Hunt hunkering down in a seedy motel room somewhere on Hollywood Blvd detracted from the program. I was disappointed, after the advance hype, that "the confession" was a rehash of the Howard E. Hunt story, and I saw no justification for why his son St. John should be hiding, or who he would be hiding from. The material Jesse received in the envelope from the old man in the wheelchair that Jesse said reinforced the information provided in the recordings by St. John Hunt of his father, Howard, should have been developed and presented in more detail. A bunch of names of mysterious deaths of people associated with the assassination mystery was briefly flashed on the screen, and Karyn Kupcinet's name was prominent, but there was no explanation of the visual of her name, or of the others, and there was no mention of the death of Howard Hunt's wife in the airliner crash in Chicago.

I enjoyed Jesse's observations that Spector and Ford were so cooperative in advancing the WC line and were rewarded with higher political office; according to Jesse, because of that cooperation. The disarming manner of Jesse, telling Gary Mack that he knew Gary was expected to tout the official line because of his position at the museum, and then predicting that Gary might be more candid if the two were sharing cold beers after hours, is Jesse's best feature. Jesse provided a way to help Gary out, and Gary stated before the camera that he always believed there was more to it than only LHO.

The time devoted to give the impressions that the third tramp was Hunt and that Bush was in the TSBD photo could have been better spent developing the Bush links much further, especially by adding the Tom Devine meeting with DeMohrenschildt and even Bush filling in for DeMohrenschildt's late nephew, Edward Hooker, in the wedding of Hooker's daughter to the son of Rionda Braga. DeMohrenschildt's suicide was covered, but there was no mention that it happened between interviews with Epstein, and just after DeMohrenshildt returned to his daughter's home and ewas informed that Fonzi had been there looking for him. There was no mention of the recording of the TV soap opera audio in the room where DeMohrenschildt died, and how the sounds on it tended to make his "suicide" more suspicious. There was no mention of the activities of Priscilla Johnson, from Oswald to Marina, to DeMohrenschildt later in Haiti, and to Stalin's daughter, and that Priscilla's father was a banking partner and neighbor of CIA personnel director, Trubee Davison, and of Cord Meyer.

It was entertaining to hear Jesse call his Carcano a cheap "POS" as he struggled with the bolt action to eject the first catridge, and I agree with the other posted observations that another expert shooter should have been teamed with Jesse for comparison, and both of their results on the targets could have been shown, instead of the vague referral that Jesse "had some hits" and only the emphasis on the time it took to make three shots.

The segment of the program with the hidden Marina and her husband was probably the most disappointing, and the

worst of it was Jesse emphasizing through repetitive declarations that Marina said she had taken the back yard photos and did not know why Lee wanted them taken. The theme throughout was that everyone with any knowledge was still in grave danger of being killed to silence them. Instead of driving home the point of how afraid Marina was "for her children", even after nearly 50 years, Jesse should have asked her why she permitted Priscilla Johnson McMillan and the La Fontaines to draw attention to her for their own gain. He should have asked her why, if she was so fearful, she drew so close to Priscilla, and how she was able to discern that Priscilla had no intelligence agency ties, while she claimed to be living in fear so intense it caused her to refuse to even appear on camera as late as in 2010.

It would have been much better to see interviews with Joseph McBride and or the other George Bush along with his affidavit that supported the point that the Bush and the CIA's reaction to McBride's 1988 article in the Nation, amounted to a flimsy farce by a guy trying to make the leap from VP to the presidency, with the help of a subservient and nearly unquestioning media atmosphere, at a critical time in his campaign.

My new "Alex Jones" award goes to Robert Morrow for his style in distributing his take on what happened in Dallas and why, with Jim Fetzer receiving honorable mention, and Jesse a distant third, only because the competition is so much stronger.

I am "the choir", Jim. You and Robert are preaching to me, and you are turning me off because of your "Alex Jones" sensational style. I've stopped reading Robert's posts. I could easily follow your lead, and weave what I have found into a sensational presentation supported by coincidental connections too numerous to be mere connections, but since I wince at the enthusiasm both you and Robert bring to promoting themes like "LBJ was the mastermind behind the plot" in Robert's case, and JVB is so obviously the "real deal" in your case, I'll keep it real.

You have a passion, Jim, but it is too bad you cannot see how you come off to us folk sitting in the cheap seats in the office. A carnival barker approach to informing the public on the subjects of the official cover ups of the events surrounding the murders of JFK and Oswald, and the domestic incidences on 9/11, does not seem to me to be the most effective strategy of building credibility for the purpose of building allies to defeat the lies and the propaganda. The dilemma is that sensationalism is required to get the public's attention and the media is programmed to push the presentations of the Posners and the Bugliosis.

I was very disappointed when the emphasis in countering the government's line on 9/11 turned to "cutter charges" and thermite, when all that seemed to be needed was relentless emphasis on the collapse of WTC 7.

NIST was the biggest ally in that strategy, failing to increase its investigative staff and admitting it had not collected and saved any structural steel samples from that nearly 50 story tall building. There were numerous articles reporting in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that the collapse of WTC 7, since it was not impacted by fuel laden, heavy airliners traveling at record, low level speed, was the most troubling collapse for engineers and the people responsible for revising building codes. NIST suspended work on its investigation of that collapse in order to churn out reports on the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, and did not issue a report on WTC 7 until August, 2008; an unconvincing mess that determined the near free fall rate of collapse of the entire structure was caused by fires "fueled by ordinary office contents" a first in the history of tall, steel framed building construction.

Am I the only one who wants to run the other way when the more farfetched and harder to support ideas and theories are chosen for loud distribution and heavy promotion? All doing that seems to accomplish is to make the entire lot of the people who question what the governments tell us, seem more similar to Alex Jones than to serious researchers armed with compelling but alternative POV.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Tom, I think your observations, by and large, are well taken. If Pat had given his second critique, which included his summary, first instead of second, it would have gone down far more favorably with me. I have written so many articles and made so many presentations on JFK and 9/11 that it simply astounds me when a person as intelligent as Pat "cherry picks" the evidence and violates basic canons of scientific reasoning. I have encountered so much nonsense from the likes of Burton, Lamson, and Colby, among others, that I feel as though I am besieged when I make an appearance here. That probably predisposes me to be more assertive and/or defensive than I need to be. In relation to this specific program, by the way, I have now written,

Tyrel,

Tell Jesse I have watched the program again with special interest in these

three issues. He says "supposedly" when embarking on the route that Oswald

is alleged to have taken and points out that it would have been odd for him

to have removed cartridge casings from his revolver at the scene of Tippit's

shooting. So that is no problem. In talking about the photo of the third

tramp, he says "Many experts believe that this was E. Howard Hunt" or words

to that effect, which is true, including my friend, Jack White. So that is

no problem either. Marina's claim that she took the backyard photos cannot

be true, yet she seems to believe it. The only hypothesis that comes to my

mind is that she may have been induced to believe that, possibly by means

of hypnotic suggestion. Either way, she believes something that is untrue.

But the program is simply terrific and also appears to be having an impact.

Warm regards,

Jim

Quoting jfetzer@d.umn.edu:

> Tyrel,

>

> You can tell Jesse this was the best television program ever produced about

> JFK. In one hour, more people learned more about JFK than ever before. My

> admiration for having fingered Nixon, Ford, Bush, and LBJ knows no bounds.

> I noticed three factual errors, two of which were insignificant in relation

> to the program and the other actually advanced it. Oswald did not shoot J.D.

> Tippit, where the best discussion may be found in THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY

> OSWALD by Robert Groden. The second is that Marina did not take the back-

> yard photographs: no one did! They were faked. For proof, see an article

> by Jim Marrs and me, "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco". The third is that

> the old tramp was not E. Howard by Chauncey Holt. The ears, the eyebrows,

> and the mouth are wrong for Hunt. I organized a symposium in Dallas a few

> years back featuring his daughter, Karyn, his wife, Mary, and photos from

> the family album, which Karyn superimposed on the tramp. It was Chauncey.

> But your identification of him as E. Howard worked beautifully for making

> the transition to the confession. I have no complaints. It was brilliant!

>

> Warm regards,

>

> Jim

About 9/11, your remarks puzzle me. In addition to the press releases for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I long since drafted "Why Doubt 9/11?", archived at the upper-left hand corner of http://911scholars.org. I would be very interested in your take on it, because it seems to me that virtually none of my work on 9/11 or on JFK satisfies your "carnival barker" characterization. The letter to Jesse was complimenting him for a job well-done. That is not an article or a presentation, but has a more personal, enthusiastic quality. And if you scroll down the page to "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", which I presented in Buenos Aires in 2009, or go to http://noliesradio.org/archives/21621/, "Are Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan justified by 9/11?", which I presented in London this summer of 2010, which are very typical of my public lectures, I think you would have a hard time making the case that they had a "carnival barker" character, either. So the only thing that is bothering me is why you think that is true. It seems to me the evidence is against it. Or are you talking about some of my posts in this more informal environment, where, no doubt, I sometimes come on too strong? Tell me more, because I would like to do better.

Edited November 21, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest Tom Scully]

Jim,

Thank you for reacting to my post as I intended to convey it, as constructive criticism.

I read your piece linked in the upper right corner of the Scholars for Truth page. Aside from my thinking it

is not a good strategy to include so many points of contention in your argument, you are correct, it does

not give the impression that it is sensational or something a carnival barker on the midway would deliver.

I think it could have done without this, but I can see why a public speaker would chose to include it.:

http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=46

19....The government has not even produced their tickets as evidence that they were even aboard the aircraft they are alleged to have hijacked. Did Osama call from a cave in Afghanistan and charge them to his MasterCard?

You are also correct about an impression formed of you based on the contents of your posts in a venue such as

this forum not being a fair or accurate way to get a sense of how you communicate to public audiences.

While I searched for the link I posted above, I came across a 2006 piece by a Dr. Green who chose to take the easy way out in responding to your numerous arguments, he resorted to making it about you, attacking you instead of taking on your numerous points.

I found the best way to avoid being targeted for that tactic was to confine your arguments to your three strongest points, maximum. It becomes much more unlikely an attempt will be made to make it about you, and if it does happen, you'll have to deal with only a fourth point to defend, instead of a dozen, plus an attempt to make you the main issue. The ones I liked to use were the 9/11 Commission and the press ignoring Leon Mineta's testimony and his timeline, all of the inconsistancies and delays in the investigation and the final NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7, amd the fairy tale told by Ted Olson about his wife on the plane that hit the Pentagon.

I don't know if you are a regular reader of Glenn Greenwald, but I think he has a knack for showcasing the double standards, inconsistencies, and incoherence, and the hypocrisy of the "serious people" and the establishment press that fawns all over them and provides them an unchallenged venue to distribute anonymous

propaganda to the public.:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=11&year=2010&base_name=glenn_greenwald_on_his_exchang

Glenn Greenwald on his exchange with NPR's Dina Temple-Raston:

At roughly 53:00, the Q-and-A session with the audience began, and the first questioner was NPR's national security reporter Dina Temple-Raston, whose Awlaki reporting I had criticized just a couple days earlier for uncritically repeating claims told to her by anonymous Pentagon officials. She directed her rather critical multi-part question to me, claiming, among other things, that she had seen evidence of Awlaki's guilt as a Terrorist (which she had not previously reported or described in any detail), and that led to a rather contentious -- and, in my view, quite revealing -- exchange about the role of journalists and how Awlaki can and should be punished if he is, in fact, guilty of any actual crime.

It's really an amazing exchange -- Temple-Raston snaps at Greenwald, asking him, "Isn't it possible that I've seen something you haven't seen?" When asked about the evidence of al-Awlaki's operational role in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, she smugly tells him that "he doesn't do national security for a living."

Temple-Raston is a good reporter, and hardly ignorant of the civil-liberties side of the national-security equation. I have no doubt that government officials have shown her evidence of al-Awlaki having an operational role in AQAP. But that's really beside the point when we're discussing whether or not the government has the authority to kill an American citizen without due process based on secret evidence. So it's interesting to me that she felt obligated to back Greenwald down, since that suggests the kind of analytical conclusion "objective" reporters aren't supposed to make: Al-Awlaki is guilty therefore targeting him is ok. It's also a marker of what Radley Balko refers to as the media's "statist" bias, which doesn't take place along a clear left-right spectrum but rather represents "bia toward power and authority, automatically turning to politicians for solutions to every perceived problem." Balko was talking about newspaper editorial boards, but I think the analysis probably holds true in a number of other circumstances, especially when we're talking about national security since reporters are so inherently dependent on government sources.

This exchange also illustrates the degree to which the institutional problems of American journalism that helped lead to the war in Iraq haven't changed. In the run up to that conflict, the trust of journalists was purchased with limited access to evidence that brought reporters to blatantly false conclusions about the presence of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's links to al-Qaeda.

Now we're being asked again to trust the secret evidence the government lets journalists take a peek at in order to prove their point, a point which could lead to a devastatingly broad precedent that has implications beyond eliminating this one reprehensible human being. Again, accepting even the likelihood that the government is actually right about al-Awlaki in this particular case, how could we possibly be going down this road again? We've learned absolutely nothing.

COMMENTS (33)

Very interesting, Adam. Thanks for posting on this. If I could expand a bit on what hasn't been learned... It's not just that reporters haven't learned to be skeptical when they are shown little glimpses of the "secret" evidence, or that the statist bias hasn't come onto their radar as something to watch out for. I think it goes deeper.

Reporters like Temple-Raston have this mental calculus they have not been able to question. It goes like this....

"We try to get information on the record, oh, we try mightily. But there are some things our sources won't tell us unless we agree to keep their identities secret (on background) and there are other things they won't tell us unless we agree not to publish them at all (off the record.) It pains us, it's frustrating, and--again--we struggle against it daily, but... if it comes down to being left in the dark completely, or agreeing to these restrictions and seeing what the government has as evidence, a good reporter will take that risk because it's better to know than to be left clueless. If you know, then you have some context for interpreting what the government is saying, publicly. And that's ultimately our job, to give our listeners the context, not just the soundbite. It kills us that we can't go on the record with some of this stuff; and we fight to get as much of it as we can into our reports. But the national security beat is a tough beat, and you have to do a lot of things you don't really want to do..."

That's what they say to themselves. But what they should be saying to themselves is: Every single thing I know that I cannot tell the public is poisoning my relationship with the public and delivering me into the arms of the state.

Which is why the most telling moment for me, in the clip you pointed us to, is when Temple-Raston tries to sever Greenwald from the people who do national security for a living. She doesn't realize that it is exactly this divide her sources wanted to create by inviting her in. She thinks that by accepting their invite, she's gaining information, context, clues to what's really going on. She's not thinking about the other side of it: the loss of solidarity.

Thus she looks with pity on clueless outsiders like Glenn, mixed with anger that they are criticizing her without knowing everything she knows! But that is exactly what she signed up for when she accepted the deal: "I will show what we have but you can't tell the public."

Please excuse me for referencing something I said in a Q and A with Washington Post readers several years ago: (Nov. 22, 2005)

...In theory we send these people out to report back to us. Some of them penetrate the secret worlds of national security and government policy-making on our behalf. But if they keep going into the secret world they can come under the gravitational pull of another planet— the people in power, the secret-makers themselves. They’re still sending back their reports, but have “left” our universe, so to speak. I think this definitely happened with Judith Miller, who is very far gone by now. It may have happened with Woodward too. The mysterious part is you never know exactly when that point is reached.[end]

It's that gravitational pull we see evidence on this clip, which is why it's so compelling for some of us to watch.

Posted by: Jay Rosen | November 12, 2010 1:26 PM

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

Greenwald just keeps the argument about them, as often as possible in their own, contradictory words. He makes them look even more foolish when he is able to draw them out with the intent to try to make it about him. They

are buried by their own, absurd records of statements vs. actions, vs. other statements. He spends little time on the defensive, and he maintains his credibility because they aren't able to shift the focus onto him.