Did the JFK Assassination almost kill the Saturday Evening Post?

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Btw, there is also I think another aspect to TInk's new book.

This was presented in Pittsburgh in 2013.  

He is going to argue that  Z 313 was not the final shot.  He is going to say that Kennedy was hit at about 328 also.

I have to add, there are others who agree with this also like Dave Mantik and Groden, who are also arguing for a shot after 313.

How many times was JFK shot in the head?

Once?  Twice?  Thrice?

We'll never know.

The study of the head wound/s takes us no where and tells us nothing.

[James DiEugenio]

Oh, and one last point.

About that CBS four part special, when I sent TInk my essay on that pastiche, called How CBS News Aided the JFK Cover Up, he replied back that he had talked to the producer of that segment and the guy told him the figures on the rifle tests were rigged.

What a disgrace.

Edited March 10, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 1:37 PM, Ron Bulman said:

So their Washington Photographer wrote an 88 page story that was featured on the cover that week?  Odd.  Then a year later he became Nixon's White House photographer, that could speak volumes itself.  I'm ordering it.  Maybe we shall see.

Thanks for the links Steve.  The shipping and Tax cost more than the magazine itself.  As Pat mentioned, I wondered based on the cover imprint of Six Seconds in Dallas if it was not just a review of the book within the magazine.  I think the 88 pages refers to the number of pages in that weeks edition of the magazine.  It still perplexes me though that they would have their Washington Photographer (why not an experienced Writer?) at the end of 1967 write the article.  Then when Nixon wins the 68 election he becomes the Whitehouse photographer in 69 after the Saturday Evening Post folds.

Well, for $17 I'll soon have my own personal copy of a historical artifact that cost 35 cents at the time.  Less than a few books I've bough that turned out to not be worth the price.

I'm guessing it's a Mockingbird interpretation based on the authors position and the higher positions he went on to.  But the title is intriguing, "Three Assassins Killed Kennedy".                         Surprised at that on a MSM publication Cover. 

[James DiEugenio]

I should add here, back then this was not all that rare.

If you recall, in Ramparts there was a famous article by David Welsh and David Lifton that also argued a similar thesis. It was called The Case for Three Assassins.

In late 1966, in Life Magazine, there was a milder version called A Matter Of Reasonable Doubt, which TInk also worked on.

And you had Mark Lane on national TV.

IMO, the CBS special was really a milestone in the beginning of the snuffing out of dissent on the case.

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Thanks for the links Steve.  The shipping and Tax cost more than the magazine itself.  As Pat mentioned, I wondered based on the cover imprint of Six Seconds in Dallas if it was not just a review of the book within the magazine.  I think the 88 pages refers to the number of pages in that weeks edition of the magazine.  It still perplexes me though that they would have their Washington Photographer (why not an experienced Writer?) at the end of 1967 write the article.  Then when Nixon wins the 68 election he becomes the Whitehouse photographer in 69 after the Saturday Evening Post folds.

Well, for $17 I'll soon have my own personal copy of a historical artifact that cost 35 cents at the time.  Less than a few books I've bough that turned out to not be worth the price.

I'm guessing it's a Mockingbird interpretation based on the authors position and the higher positions he went on to.  But the title is intriguing, "Three Assassins Killed Kennedy".                         Surprised at that on a MSM publication Cover. 

When one looks back on the history of this case, it's clear there was a window--from mid--66 to late 67--when the research community had a lot of supporters among the MSM. That tide began to turn in June 67, when CBS aired a four part special saying there was nothing to the talk of conspiracy, and the AP pushed out a multi-part series saying pretty much the same thing, that was published in almost every paper in America.

Tink's book came out just after this. And the Johnson Administration reacted to it the same way it had Inquest, Rush to Judgment, and the Manchester book---through a strong offense. In Tink's case, it was with a lawsuit from Life, and the creation of a secret panel to counter his observations about the bullet trajectories (AKA, The Clark Panel).

[Steve Thomas]

4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well, for $17 I'll soon have my own personal copy of a historical artifact that cost 35 cents at the time.  Less than a few books I've bough that turned out to not be worth the price.

 

Ron,

 

When you get it, put it under lock and key in a climate controlled dark place.

After 40 or 50 more years of being spoon fed Warren Commission propaganda, you can pull it out and tell people, "Here's what some other people were thinking about at the time."

Like Pat said, "When one looks back on the history of this case, it's clear there was a window--from mid--66 to late 67--when the research community had a lot of supporters among the MSM."

I know I'll always remember the Josiah Thompsons, and the Mark Lanes, and the Sylvia Meaghers.

 

Steve Thomas

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

Do you have that AP series on your site?

Was it really as bad as the CBS series?

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 2:17 AM, Pat Speer said:

When one looks back on the history of this case, it's clear there was a window--from mid--66 to late 67--when the research community had a lot of supporters among the MSM. That tide began to turn in June 67, when CBS aired a four part special saying there was nothing to the talk of conspiracy, and the AP pushed out a multi-part series saying pretty much the same thing, that was published in almost every paper in America.

Tink's book came out just after this. And the Johnson Administration reacted to it the same way it had Inquest, Rush to Judgment, and the Manchester book---through a strong offense. In Tink's case, it was with a lawsuit from Life, and the creation of a secret panel to counter his observations about the bullet trajectories (AKA, The Clark Panel).

So do you and maybe Jim or Steve believe the AP and CBS "push" was the result of Operation Mockingbird through Angleton and Cord Meyer (if he was till there, I'm not sure)?

[James DiEugenio]

If you look at how the CBS series developed, the guy who chickened out was CBS president DIck Salant.  And then he brought in Paley and Stanton to send the guys who really wanted to do something to visit this Stanford Law professor names Bayless Manning.  Manning told producer Les Midgley that for the good of the country the show should not attack the WR, but the critics.  He even suggested scientists to use, which is how I think Alvarez got involved.

In 1971, David Rockefeller made Bayless Manning the first president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Coincidence or Conspiracy?

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

So do you and maybe Jim or Steve believe the AP and CBS "push" was the result of Operation Mockingbird through Angleton and Cord Meyer (if he was till there, I'm not sure)?

I don't believe in Mockingbird to the extent most who believe in it believe in it. In fact, I think the belief in "mockingbird" when it comes to the JFK assassination is a bit of a cop-out.

Yes, there are times when the CIA wants to defend itself or push a particular position, and uses its friends in the media to place stories favorable to its position. Of that, I have no doubt. But when I look at the assassination and its aftermath, I see Johnson and suck-ups to Johnson as the main culprits. The whitewash known as the Warren Commission was not a CIA operation, IMO, although Dulles was there looking after the CIA's interests. No, it was a defend Johnson operation, from the get-go. Whether or not Johnson was involved in the assassination, it seems clear his greatest fear was that an honest investigation would somehow point back at him. And so he created a commission in large part to clear himself.

If Trump had a lick of sense he'd have done the same thing with the Russia investigation, that is, appoint a presidential commission to get to the bottom of it that was designed not to get to the bottom of it.

I mean, just imagine...  he could have manned it with people like Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus, Rudy Giuliani, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Mike Huckabee, Orrin Hatch, Michelle Bachman, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Clarence Thomas, and Sarah Palin... In other words, the A team.

[Steve Thomas]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't believe in Mockingbird to the extent most who believe in it believe in it. In fact, I think the belief in "mockingbird" when it comes to the JFK assassination is a bit of a cop-out.

Yes, there are times when the CIA wants to defend itself or push a particular position, and uses its friends in the media to place stories favorable to its position. Of that, I have no doubt. But when I look at the assassination and its aftermath, I see Johnson and suck-ups to Johnson as the main culprits. The whitewash known as the Warren Commission was not a CIA operation, IMO, although Dulles was there looking after the CIA's interests. No, it was a defend Johnson operation, from the get-go. Whether or not Johnson was involved in the assassination, it seems clear his greatest fear was that an honest investigation would somehow point back at him. And so he created a commission in large part to clear himself.

If Trump had a lick of sense he'd have done the same thing with the Russia investigation, that is, appoint a presidential commission to get to the bottom of it that was designed not to get to the bottom of it.

I mean, just imagine...  he could have manned it with people like Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus, Rudy Giuliani, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Mike Huckabee, Orrin Hatch, Michelle Bachman, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Clarence Thomas, and Sarah Palin... In other words, the A team.

Pat,

 

I agree with about 90% of what you said. But while I don't think the deflection of the Warren Commission was a CIA operation per se, I think the Garrison deflection definitely was. I think that's because Jim Garrison zeroed in on the CIA right off the bat.

 

I liked your comment on the blue ribbon commission "designed not to get to the bottom of it"   investigating the Russians. That made me smile.

 

Steve Thomas

[Ron Bulman]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't believe in Mockingbird to the extent most who believe in it believe in it. In fact, I think the belief in "mockingbird" when it comes to the JFK assassination is a bit of a cop-out.

Yes, there are times when the CIA wants to defend itself or push a particular position, and uses its friends in the media to place stories favorable to its position. Of that, I have no doubt. But when I look at the assassination and its aftermath, I see Johnson and suck-ups to Johnson as the main culprits. The whitewash known as the Warren Commission was not a CIA operation, IMO, although Dulles was there looking after the CIA's interests. No, it was a defend Johnson operation, from the get-go. Whether or not Johnson was involved in the assassination, it seems clear his greatest fear was that an honest investigation would somehow point back at him. And so he created a commission in large part to clear himself.

If Trump had a lick of sense he'd have done the same thing with the Russia investigation, that is, appoint a presidential commission to get to the bottom of it that was designed not to get to the bottom of it.

I mean, just imagine...  he could have manned it with people like Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus, Rudy Giuliani, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Mike Huckabee, Orrin Hatch, Michelle Bachman, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Clarence Thomas, and Sarah Palin... In other words, the A team.

Pat your posts helped keep me reading for years before I ever posted.  But I have to disagree somewhat.  I can't link it at the moment easily but I'm sure you've seen the written directions the CIA developed in the latter 60's to discredit conspiracy theorists.  Dulles and Angleton had extensive media connections.  Cord Meyer, as a protégé of theirs ran Mockingbird for several years, for them.  I think you know more about this than I.  As for these days, the 1% own (?) 98% of all media.  

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 8:04 PM, Ron Bulman said:

I'm not sure which thread I read last night that mentioned "Three Assassins Killed Kennedy", Saturday Evening Post, December 2nd 1967.  

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=C2yhN4DD&id=6AD3EBB34CF2C63E78557C07D6C570A5DD599F19&thid=OIP.C2yhN4DDfSt4cy1cneRPdAAAAA&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.oldlifemagazines.com%2fmedia%2fcatalog%2fproduct%2fcache%2f1%2fimage%2f360x480%2f9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95%2fp%2fo%2fpost-1967-12-02_3.jpg&exph=480&expw=360&q=three+assassins+killed+kennedy+saturday+evening+post&simid=608019091780208836&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0

But I looked for it today and only find the cover, well there's this reference.

https://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Killed-Kennedy-Saturday-Evening/dp/B001BPJCXE

Around since 1821 the Post died in 1969.  We subscribed.  I remember the Norman Rockwell paintings coming out of the mail box before computers.  It was brought back to life a  quarterly in 71.

I notice the cover mentions Six Seconds in Dallas.  Does anyone know where the article might be read or who wrote it or if it's been suppressed?

The article is by Josiah Thompson.  He is given full credit,  Washington photographer for the magazine, Oliver Atkins, is never mentioned.  It's more extensive than a synopsis.  Spread out over 12 pages, roughly 8 of them total text, not including pictures and advertisements.  This in a 10 1/2" X 13 1/4" format.  For the time in the Main Stream Media, of the time,  (TV, a few National Newspapers, and a few National Magazines) it was dynamite.  It talks about things they didn't. Four shot's, three shooters, two headshots hitting JFK.  Much clearer film and prints of the z film at Life magazine than at the National Archives or than the FBI used (copy of a copy).  Back and to the Left.    

Edited March 13, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Joe Bauer]

48 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

  As for these days, the 1% own (?) 98% of all media.  

Ron, That says it all..or most of it anyway.

 

[James DiEugenio]

If you have not seen this two parter on CBS, this is how the hammer was brought down on the critics.  And if you combine it was the CIA memo based on Epstein's Counterplot, that was a huge double whammy.

This article, based on the work of the late Roger Feinman, is the most detailed expose of how a media corporation buckled under to internal pressure and failed to do any kind of real inquiry into the subject and instead propagandized it.  It is a shameful episode in journalism.  We all owe thanks to Feinman for making this essay possible.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination

Edited March 13, 2018 by James DiEugenio