‘The Brothers’ by Stephen Kinzer - anyone read it?

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

The gaping wound in the back of the head?

Granted, it no longer physically exists like JFK's clothes. But how many eyewitness accounts does it take (some officially lied about and suppressed, some included as WC exhibits and simply ignored) for something to be taken as fact?

I would put it second on a list (the "theory" being a shot from the front) after the holes in the clothes.

I take your point.  The problem I have with the head wound(s) is the sheer speculation of -- how many times was JFK hit in the head? -- once? twice? my money's on thrice...

[Glenn Nall]

18 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

The gaping wound in the back of the head?

Granted, it no longer physically exists like JFK's clothes. But how many eyewitness accounts does it take (some officially lied about and suppressed, some included as WC exhibits and simply ignored) for something to be taken as fact?

I would put it second on a list (the "theory" being a shot from the front) after the holes in the clothes.

you've nailed it again, Ron - clarified what i was trying to say.

that the "accepted" adjudication of the murder is that LHO did it alone, shots from the front, although almost everyone who can read knows that at least one occurred, it's still "theory."

 

I love this question:  how many eyewitness accounts does it take [...] for something to be taken as fact?

right. i ask myself about a formulaic ratio (something like Brennan versus all the rest...) - including the reliability of witnesses and the reasonableness of their testimony, the probability of their having "seen" what they say they "saw," into the formula.

a formula like this alone would pretty much destroy the "accepted" findings.

[James DiEugenio]

CV Of course Kennedy was not going to do that -- there was consensus agreement by his national security team that such intervention was not going to happen.

Then why did they ask him to do it?  More than once.

And the Bundy call does not go to your favor.  He would only have made that call at Kennedy's request.

[Glenn Nall]

well, so much for content on ‘The Brothers’ by Stephen Kinzer...

:)

[Cliff Varnell]

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

CV Of course Kennedy was not going to do that -- there was consensus agreement by his national security team that such intervention was not going to happen.

Then why did they ask him to do it?  More than once.

Last ditch face saving effort.

The pressure was tepid at best.

Cabell turned down the opportunity to make the case for intervention directly to Kennedy on D-Day-1 but he backed off.

And Dulles disappeared throughout.

Quote

And the Bundy call does not go to your favor.  He would only have made that call at Kennedy's request.

As per agreed upon US policy.  How does that reflect pressure on Kennedy?

Edited April 13, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

The pressure was tepid at best?

Cabell was raging at Marchetti to tell the White House there were MIGs at the beach strafing the exiles.  Marchetti insisted that he was not going to make up something to give the president the wrong information.  

That call is what caused the whole presumption of the intervention to collapse.  Because at Quarter's Eye when the reports started coming in about the disaster that the operation was becoming, people began asking Cabell to go ahead and order a fighter plane run.  He hesitated and said words to the effect that, he could not do that on his own. And it is why when Bissell and Cabell went to see Rusk and he offered to put them on the phone with the White House they declined.

Kennedy himself told Red Fay that is what he thought about the whole secret CIA agenda--that when he saw it collapsing, he would send it American forces.

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The pressure was tepid at best?

As your examples show.

Quote

Cabell was raging at Marchetti to tell the White House there were MIGs at the beach strafing the exiles.  Marchetti insisted that he was not going to make up something to give the president the wrong information.  

That's pressure on Marchetti, not Kennedy.

Why wasn't Dulles raging at Kennedy, or Rusk, or Bundy?

Quote

That call is what caused the whole presumption of the intervention to collapse.  Because at Quarter's Eye when the reports started coming in about the disaster that the operation was becoming, people began asking Cabell to go ahead and order a fighter plane run.  He hesitated and said words to the effect that, he could not do that on his own. And it is why when Bissell and Cabell went to see Rusk and he offered to put them on the phone with the White House they declined.

It was on D-Day-1 that Rusk offered Cabell to hear the no-second-strike order directly from Kennedy, and Cabell declined.

Wow!  That's some heavy pressure! Ok, no, nevermind...

Quote

Kennedy himself told Red Fay that is what he thought about the whole secret CIA agenda--that when he saw it collapsing, he would send it American forces.

Not the first politician to engage in self-puffery.

Other than the D-Day 4am call from Cabell and Burke's face-saving D-Day+2 request -- what pressure directly on Kennedy for intervention was there?

Edited April 13, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Glenn Nall]

On 4/12/2017 at 1:48 PM, Ron Ecker said:

but good try, Ron. (I remember your flails at logic in my little test last year. you are truly an individual.)

Ron, I think I owe you a very sincere apology. I'm sorry, I think I was thinking of someone else (JGTidd) when i said that - no offense.

I had posted an exercise in logic/reason, designed by a couple of respected scientists/psychologists, a year or so ago and it got some fervent attention - including that of a couple of people who insisted on telling me where and how wrong I was in my logic (and that of the scientists who wrote the exercise) while presenting some very creative logic of their own.

it was based on the very basic "if then" - investigative practice - concept, one which apparently evades some people altogether.

my apologies.

[Ron Ecker]

Glenn,

No problem. I get mistaken for J.G. Tidd all the time.

 

 

[Glenn Nall]

not sure why - i think i would begin proceedings to get that fixed, if it was me.

anyway, peace.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Glenn Nall