Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

James DiEugenio

Members
  • Content count

    3,507
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James DiEugenio

  1. The KGB and the JFK case

    Since Tommy G has been bouncing all over the forum trying to promote his KGB did it concept, why not give him his own thread? To my knowledge, no one has proposed this since Epstein in Legend, which we all know was done in cooperation with Angleton. Even there, Epstein kind of hedged his bets at at the end and gave himself a Castro did it out. I think most of us would say that the book is not really a stellar effort since it really does not deal in any way with the evidence in the case. In that regard, it resembles PJM and her acolyte Jean Davison, and her horrendous Oswald's Game. Legend in my view, and Epstein taken as a case study, does not inspire confidence since in any discussion of his career, its pretty evident that Epstein flipped sides somewhere along the line. And the idea that the KGB was behind the murder of JFK does not have many followers that I know of. In fact I know of none. Let me explain why: 1. If the Russians were behind the hit, why would they hire Richard Case Nagell to track down the actual conspiracy. Further, the Russians knew that there was a domestic plot and that the actual conspirators would try to blame the communists. 2. In the recently declassified files, both the leader of the USSR, Nikita K, and the upper level of the KGB, strongly suspect a right wing plot involving US security forces and they urge the American authorities to do a very vigorous inquiry. 3. There is no evidence I know of that Oswald was ever recruited by the KGB. In fact, from what I know, the Russians had Oswald smoked out very early as a CIA fake defector--which he was. Oswald knew that and he had to fake a suicide attempt to even be allowed to stay in the country. 4. But even at that, they then shipped him 400 miles from the seat of government to Minsk. And they then surrounded him with a ring of electronic and human surveillance. Why would they do that if they had recruited Oswald? 5. What is the evidence that once Oswald left the USSR, that he had any KGB contacts in the USA? The White Russians' goal was to overthrow the Communists in Moscow. George DeM stated that he would never have met Oswald if it had not been requested of him by his CIA handler J. Walton Moore. And I also think most of us know that when the Baron went to Haiti he was working in tandem with the CIA again. 6. It is clear that once Oswald left for New Orleans he was again associating with reactionary, CIA associated figures like Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and Guy Banister. And also with some Cuban exiles. Where was the KGB? 7. When he returns to Dallas from Mexico, is anyone going to argue that the Paines or Wesley Frazier were Russian agents? 8. In Mexico City, I mean please. What is the evidence that he even visited the Russian Embassy? If we recall, Phillips once said that when all was said and done, there would be none. David Josephs has come up with some revolutionary work on this subject. And it is going to get even more convincing I predict. To the point that I believe it will set a new paradigm. But even if you buy the whole Passport to Assassination book, which I do not, where is the tie in between the Russians and Oswald in Dallas? 9. What was the KGB tie in with Jack Ruby? How did they influence him to kill their agent, Oswald? 10. How did the KGB arrange to falsify the autopsy at Bethesda that night? Was Curtis LeMay a secret double agent? Is that why he was flying in from Michigan that afternoon? In light of the above, why would anyone even begin to postulate such an idea?
  2. This is an updated version of Jerry's CBS piece with much more information on how the CBS project went from a critical viewpoint to one which was now going to attack the critics. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination This is kind of a model of how a bureaucracy buckles under to outside forces. In this case it was McCloy. (But I am sure TG will show us how the KGB infiltrated CBS and was the real cause behind Salant, Stanton, and Paley turning around Midgley and Schorr. Or why, maybe Salant was a KGB double agent. And Golitsin told the CIA about him. )
  3. The size of the Darnell frame and Buttons...

    Nice one, by both of you. I really like that comparison photo by David. Duncan "I lost my date" McRae was such a hack.
  4. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    I am pretty sure it will.
  5. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    The other thing is this: Allan could find no evidence of any film of the autopsy. To me, that is a central finding. Because that is supposed to be the reason d'être.
  6. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    Ray; How many witnesses does one need? The guy's nephew just said it above: he was right handed and there was no deformity. Don't you think his wife would have noticed? Please, please tread carefully. There are so many jokers in the deck in this case.
  7. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    Ray: Alvin Edwards was an eye witness who says he saw him sign things using his right hand. How could it be deformed then? I would think that people who have been on this case for awhile would understand that there is a propensity by certain people to change their stories, to add information, and for some to just plain confabulate. For some there is always the promise of 15 minutes of fame, e.g. Baker, Files, the late Chauncey Holt.
  8. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    Sandy, did you read the four part series? Allan is a careful researcher and he spent ten years on this case. Plus, he is an honest person who does not say something to just gain an advantage, like others do. Here is the key segment concerning the fact Pitzer was right handed: Since LCDR Pitzer's colleague Dennis David and widow stated it unequivocally (according to author Harrison Livingston in High Treason 2 (Carroll & Graf, 1992) and in Stunning New Evidence in the JFK Case [http://www.harrison-e-livingstone.com/jfk/]), it appears certain that William Pitzer was left-handed. However, Mr. Livingstone failed to remind his readers that Mrs. Pitzer had already given him different information: High Treason (co-authored by Robert Groden, Conservatory Press, 1989) states, "His widow said...he was right-handed." In a telephone conversation with Daniel Marvin in 1995, of which I have an audiotape, Mrs. Pitzer stated clearly that her husband had been right-handed [4]: Marvin: Was he -- was Bill -- right-handed or left-handed? Mrs. Pitzer: He was right-handed. Marvin: Right-handed. And documents released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1997 to Marvin by the FBI (who investigated Pitzer's death in conjunction with the Naval Investigative Service) confirmed that Pitzer was right-handed. Yet, in a 2003 interview for a television documentary shown in Russia, of which I also have a copy, Marvin stated that William Pitzer had been left-handed. Thus, despite information to the contrary from the best possible source -- the widow -- both Livingstone and Marvin appear to have a vested interest in perpetuating a myth. I have verified that he was right-handed with two other members of the Pitzer family and with navy colleague Alvin Edwards, himself left-handed, who witnessed LCDR Pitzer committing his signature to paper on many occasions. A sketch of the death scene made by NIS and FBI investigators shows an ashtray on the floor to the right of an empty chair (the other chair had a pad and pencil on it), a strong indication in itself that Pitzer was right-handed (Figure 1). If you read this closely, that false information about the case is really from the late Harry Livingstone. Which makes it a secondary source. It also shows that Marvin, who knew better, misrepresented--for whatever reason-- the info later. Therefore, since Pitzer was right handed, there was no deformity, or how else could he use that hand to write with? Please do not ask me to get into the case of Jerrol Custer either. Suffice it to say that if you know the medical aspects of this case, I should not have to.
  9. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    Len Osanic's series Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years was really good. And to think that he and Jeff Carter did that by themselves, with no one else producing? It shows what two dedicated people can do with the modern technology we have today. If you have not seen it, you should.
  10. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    Ray and Joe: Look, anyone can cherry pick certain things people say or post to make things sound mysterious or sinister. When I referred to Allan, I did not mean his postings here. I meant his assiduous and painstaking and lengthy four part analysis at his web site. Which you can see here: http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Pitzer/ There are more than two or three things that I find convincing about this analysis. First, he changed his mind about the case when confronted with new evidence. Second, he concluded there was no film made of the autopsy. Third, he looked at the autopsy photos. Fourth, he consulted three professionals--MacDonnell, Wecht and Rydberg--who concluded that it was not a murder. NIgel Turner, as I said, wasted a great opportunity. He should be ashamed of himself.
  11. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    Read Allan Eaglesham on the Pitzer/Marvin story. The Kilgallen story, from what I understand, is under serious consideration as a documentary. As it should be.
  12. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    I haven't seen that but that is what I heard about the Morris film. Really too bad.
  13. Michael LaFlem on C. D. Jackson Biography

    The Russians took the brunt of the Nazi war machine during Barbarossa. Something like 80 per cent of the German casualties were on the Eastern Front. Which, according to people like Tom Hanks, did not really exist. The combination of the Russian winter plus the brilliance of Zhukov, stopped the blitzkrieg. After the Battle of Kursk, Dulles started getting his ideas about a separate peace with the Nazis. And then when that did not work, he then decided to heist the Gehlen apparatus. Later we got the German scientists also. There was an interesting book on the subject of what happened to FDR's ideas for a post war world it was called Roosevelt's Lost Alliances. I have to read it. Has anyone here read it?
  14. Michael follows up his nice Alliance for Progress article with this review of a book about C. D. Jackson. https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/john-allen-stern-c-d-jackson-cold-war-propagandist-for-democracy-and-globalism
  15. Its a disgrace that they have now stopped Bloomfield's papers from being released. There is a genuine defiance of the law in that decision. Clearly, what happened was that Maurice Phillips was getting documents which exposed just how connected to the world wide Power Elite Permindex was e.g. Rockefellers and Rothschilds. And they decided, enough is enough. The common people do not need to know how we operate.
  16. The Men Who Killed Kennedy series

    It will not happen, at least not with Nigel Turner. Which is, as far as I can see, fine. Nigel Turner had the opportunity to really do some excellent and ground breaking work and to really inform and educate the American public on a key event in contemporary history. To put it mildly, he did not do a good job. And the longer he went at it the worse he got. What with Judy Baker, Dan Marvin, Barr McClellan, Steve Rivele, and Tom Wilson etc. The guy ended up being a joke. I mean why not Chauncey Holt or Files? Or did I miss those? The original series was the best part and I thought even that was kind of average, what with Rivele and Gary Mack's Badge Man. And man, did no one notice that Rivele's theory clashed with the blowhard McClellan's? When you title your series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and then you posit two separate sets of assassins? Maybe the better title would have been The Many Groups who Killed Kennedy, or simply I Have No Idea who Killed JFK but hey, Who Cares? Well, some of us are genuinely interested in trying to find that out. And we do not rely on people like John Hankey to do so. But, there is some help coming along. I can inform you of that. I hint at it on Black Op Radio this week. Keep your fingers crossed. The reaction has set in to the 50th Anniversary orgy of denial and BS.
  17. It never fails to amaze me how parts of the so called liberal blogosphere feels they can only establish their credibility by going after President Kennedy. Its like you aren't leftist enough if you don't. I fell out with them many years ago over Jane Hamsher doing this with Caroline Kennedy. But here we go again at Truthdig with Mr. Street. It would be nice if these so called intellectuals did some current research before they misinformed the public. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/paul-street-meets-jane-hamsher-at-arlington
  18. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    Yes, that it what I mean about the Cabots and Lowells, and God. They were British Protestants . Another thing, Kennedy always used to bring up the signs his parents talked about, "Irish need not apply." And he used to jab Bradlee with it. Meaning it was Bradlee's class of people who put the signs out.
  19. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    Ron, The Rockefeller-Morgan fortunes were yes, much larger than Joe Kennedys, but they were not really that much older. They came about in the Robber Baron era, or the Gilded Age which was around the 1890's. But the difference is that those two groups were much more active in infiltrating the government and creating bodies that influenced government policy than Joe Kennedy was. For instance, the establishment of the Federal Reserve Board, if you look at the original signees, its the Rockefellers, Morgans, and Warburgs. If I recall correctly, the Rockefellers had the largest percentage. Then, the CFR was first set up with a deed of gift for their headquarters from a Standard Oil heir. It was very strongly influenced by the Rockefeller and Morgan empires, which is how Allen Dulles and John McCloy became so influential on it. And, btw, this is how Kissinger first rose to fame. It was his work on nuclear policy for the CFR, which they funded, and they turned it into a book. Which sold very well. You cannot make those kinds of parallels with Joe Kennedy. He never had that kind of overwhelming influence within the Power Elite. He was not part of the Astor/Cabot Boston Brahmins. To take one example, take a look at how far Bradlee's family went back at Harvard. If I recall correctly, it was five generations. And Bradlee always liked to steer away from his middle name which was Crowninshield, that part of his family went back to New England in the 1600's! And was Boston Brahmin all the way. See, JFK never joined the CFR. He never joined any secret societies, as did people like Kerry and the Bushes. He did not like working intelligence. He transferred out to those suicide missions in the South Pacific with those Joe SIxpack guys. And then be brought a couple of them back to the White House with him. Another important point to recall in all this is really central: Kennedy was Irish. Which is another point that made him an outsider to the Brahmins. But even more important is this: Some people, a good example being Nixon, forget where they came from once they become successful. JFK never forgot. When he was talking to Nehru and the Indian leader was trying to lecture him on the evils of colonialism, Kennedy raised his hand and stopped him in mid sentence. He then said something like: No one has to lecture me about colonialism. I come from a people who suffered under that for eight centuries, and in some ways it was worse than what they did in India. He never forgot he was an Irish Catholic. That is why he told RFK after he was confirmed in the senate to get out and start working on court cases for civil rights.
  20. Bill Moyers - LBJ's trusted aide is getting

    Yes, I think Larry is correct about that. And there is no evidence I have ever sent that Moyers changed the motorcade route.
  21. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    It was pretty good I think. Thanks Ron. BTW, this is really rich from CV "Lamont was running for the seat, not seeking an appointment." This is a distinction without a difference. See, no one would have been running for Clinton's seat. And several people sent Paterson letters saying they were interested. Ned Lamont had been something like a local alderman before. But Hamsher went absolutely batty about him. I don't know, maybe she thought he was cute or something. But returning to the latest, I think I am correct about the liberal blogosphere being a real disappointment. And I don't really miss it very much at all. I think that what it has become is sort of like a trendier echo of the MSM giving people the illusion of both democracy and involvement. But its really the same old racehorse mentality about politics. Which is why many of them made appearances on the MSM, like that is where they wanted to be. And they were as long as they kept certain subject completely off limits. Except it so happens those subject are the most important ones there are.
  22. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    1.) Does Kirk ever get anything correct about what I write? This is what I said: "Hannity must have been giggling the whole time. He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked. That idiot GIlibrand fell for it." " To any objective person, the meaning is clear. Hannity and Stone created a pile of smoke. Gilibrand then jumped into it with both feet. Why? Can she really be that stupid? Those are the two questions we are left with. 2.) As per the original argument Hamsher put out, it came down to two points which I mentioned in my essay: First, that somehow Caroline had not been around like Hamsher had been for the last eight years. And second, she had not held an elected political office before. The first argument really came down to: the liberal blogosphere has not been able to measure her. Which shows you how shallow and ahistorical they are. I mean talk about ignorant. Per the second, where was that argument when Hamsher was going gaga over Ned Lamont as a candidate against Lieberman? The bottom line is this: there is little or no doubt that Caroline Kennedy would have been a first rate senator. But beyond that, she would have been a powerful counterweight because of all her connections through her family ties. And she would have attracted a lot of talented people because of who she was. What Hamsher and Moulitsas did was to create a controversy, which ended up being doubly bad because Paterson then tried to use it to his political advantage. As Chris Smith shows in his excellent article, Caroline understood what he was doing, and she dropped out. Paterson, as I note above, then went a little batty and tried to salvage what he had done--which had now blown up in his face --and ended up looking even worse. He now began to lose popularity at an alarming rate. TO the point that he withdrew from his re-election race and is now out of politics altogether. After all this nuttiness, as I wrote in my original three part article, that circus showed me the shallowness and vanity of the vaunted "liberal blogosphere". Exemplified by that idiotic charge by former CIA applicant Markos, "this country isn't a monarchy". (Does the guy even know what a monarchy is?) And the dumb so called Kossacks who then forged letters from France and manipulated polls etc. Yep, that is what they did, if you can believe it and I noted all of it. Which is why the article ends up being in three parts. It was all a stupid and egotistical sideshow. The net impact of the "liberal blogosphere" has been, at best, politically marginal. And, as exemplified by this outburst of mania, even worse than that journalistically. There very likely will be a wave election this year, but that will not be due to them. It will be due to the revulsion against Trump. Just like their rise was due to the revulsion against W.
  23. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    Now, does anyone think Caroline Kennedy would have been close with the NRA? Hmm, after what happened to her father and uncle? As a lawyer, did she do work for the tobacco companies? Was she friends with Al D'Amato? And Andrew is correct, GIlibrand then helped Roger Stone and Hannity scheme to get rid of the guy who was the most progressive senator in the whole chamber, Al Franken. To me, there is no excuse for something like that which is more or less trading with the enemy. And since Moore lost, there was no strategic advantage to it anyway. Hannity must have been giggling the whole time. He probably called up Stone and said, "Hey Roger, it worked. That idiot GIlibrand fell for it." BTW, in my post above, amazingly, the link to the New York magazine investigative article still works. Its a valuable piece of actual journalism as opposed to blogging.
  24. JFK vs the Liberal Blogosphere

    This is what actually happened back then, from my piece using the only really investigative article on the whole mess as started by Hamsher. Smith also reveals something else that is disturbing. Paterson enjoyed keeping Kennedy jumping because it kept him in the limelight. For instance, instead of doing an Albany cable channel show he was scheduled for, he begged off because of -get this-stomach problems. The stomach problems cleared up enough for him to discuss the upcoming appointment with, on Monday January 19th with Larry King, on Tuesday the 20th CNN News, and Wednesday the 21st, Katie Couric. As long as the spot was kept open, Paterson was in the public eye. And the accidental governor needs to run for office next year. The clear implication of Smith's fine piece is that Kennedy grew sick of the media spectacle that Paterson had created in both the MSM and the blogosphere at her expense. She was being exploited. For instance, King's lead for his interview with him was "Can you hold out against all these Kennedy forces?" That was it for her. She called him to say she was withdrawing. Then Paterson did something that was nakedly self-serving. Yet it supports what Kennedy suspected. He asked her to "release a statement saying she'd changed her mind and was staying in the contest." He pleaded with her, "You can't withdraw, you gotta stay in this thing, and I'll just not pick you." Kennedy would not go along and sent him an e-mail certifying her withdrawal. Now, Paterson was left without his first choice. This is when he turned to the Blue Dog, tobacco lawyering, NRA supporting upstate congresswoman Gillibrand. But actually it's even worse than that. Because Smith reveals that Paterson now got angry with Kennedy for dropping out of his self-created sideshow. And this is where the phony personal smears began to circulate in the press: about back taxes, marital problems, nanny problems etc. He had been shirked and now he had to reverse that image. Smith's article, a real piece of investigative journalism, makes both the MSM and especially the blogosphere look sick in comparison. Besides exposing the false attributions of Hamsher and Markos, it focuses on the real villain of the sorry affair, namely Paterson. (That enlightening essay can be read by clicking here.) And I should add, it also humiliates Joshua Micah Marshall and his Talking Points Memo site. Marshall actually wrote that the reversal of Kennedy's decision to withdraw was by Kennedy. He completely missed on Paterson's pleading with her not to drop out. Probably because he did no investigation. And then Marshall actually had his new hire Matt Cooper do a summing up story on the whole affair. With absolutely no shoe leather—or brainpower— expended, Cooper blamed the affair, in order on: Ted Kennedy (Huh!), Caroline Kennedy, and, ridiculously, Mayor Michael Bloomberg! And the former Time reporter, and Patrick Fitzgerald target, made the same error about the genesis of Kennedy's upstate trip. He says it was her idea, when it was actually Paterson's. Cooper's brief piece is almost a parody of the MSM. It's a disgrace that 1.) It's on TPM, 2.) Marshall hired this Karl Rove confidante, and 3.) the blogosphere still won't print the truth.
×