Did the JFK Assassination almost kill the Saturday Evening Post?

[Paz Marverde]

On 13/3/2018 at 5:05 PM, Pat Speer said:

In October 2007, the Johnson Presidential Library released a batch of previously withheld recordings of President Johnson's phone calls while President. Most interesting of these was a January 11, 1967 phone call between Johnson and his most trusted adviser, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. This call built upon similar calls with Fortas on October 1 and October 6, 1966; it was made, moreover, just one week after the "smoking gun" document was written. In this call, amazingly, Johnson drops his guard completely, and tells Fortas that he believes Senator Robert Kennedy--his predecessor's brother--and Robert Kennedy's supporters are behind the recent spurt of books and articles on the assassination. He claims, moreover, that: "They've started all this stuff...they've created all this doubt...And if we'd had anybody less than the attorney general--ah, the chief justice--I would've already been indicted."

What about secret contacts between RFK and Garrison?

[James DiEugenio]

The Mellen book is almost six years old.  Fine.

The questions you ask, I believe, are fundamentally unknowable.  They amount to what is, at root, guess work.  And people can arrange clever arguments for their side, just as others can arrange clever arguments on their side.  You can go as low as the WC and its three shots, Single Bullet Fantasy, or to the other end with Fetzer and his 9-10 shots, where he actually names the assassins.

The fundamental problem here is that the autopsy in this case was interfered with.  We know that from FInck's testimony at the Shaw trial which was covered up in the press via the work of James Phelan and his after hours snacks at his rented house in New Orleans.  Neither the back wound nor the head wound was dissected.  Therefore there are some people, like David Lifton for example, who seem to think that the back wound was actually "punched in", it really did not exist.

You can make arguments that the back wound was at T 1, T 2, or T 3.  In your case, you do not want to agree with the autopsy photos since it  counters your argument that is was at T 3.  We have all heard this ad infinitum from you: the pics are not properly labeled, they do not have a proper chain of possession etc etc etc until we all throw up.  You have been arguing with Pat Speer on this for years on end.  He has gotten sick of it; you have not--since your radius of interest in this case is much smaller than his.  

As per the timing of the back wound, again, how can anyone know for sure?  Its guess work.  I mean some argue that the last shot is now at Z 328. Was that it?  Or did it come much earlier? Strange that you would go after Thompson on this issue.   Because he argues in his book that it was at Willis 5.  Where he says the shirt is not bunched. I have seen others use a different slide to say that his shirt was bunched.

Personally, I really do not have a lot of interest in these kinds of timing and shot sequencing arguments today. There was a period when I did, many years ago.  But like latter day Jim Garrison, I kind of look at this as a parlor game today. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To Steve and Ron:

Thompson does not believe that today, about the two head shots back to back.

He thinks that this is an illusion based upon a smear on the film.  He argued this in Pittsburgh at the Wecht Conference in 2013.  And it will be in his book called Last Second in Dallas.

He used the work of Dave Wimp to conclude this.

If he is right its a pretty good argument for our side.  In fact, one could argue that if the slight forward motion is an illusion then its game, set, match that the fatal shot came from the front.

Of course, others on our side, argue that it was not. They will insist it was a blur, in part since they think the  Z film was altered.  Just like they do not buy the acoustics, largely on that ground. 

Thompson is going to argue that the acoustics is valid in his book.

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Paz:

It is not an exaggeration to say that, by 1967, Johnson was really unbalanced when it came to the subject of Bobby Kennedy.  Dan Hardway came up with some really interesting evidence that indicates some of LBJ's employees entered false data into the record to insinuate that RFK suggested Dulles for the Warren Commission. Johnson actually formulated a shell committee to argue against Kennedy's statements against Vietnam.  In my opinion, one of the reasons Johnson decided not to run was that he did not want to be defeated by RFK. Which is what would have happened if he had.

There were some contacts with the RFK camp and Jim Garrison's office.  But from what I can determine, they were all indirect.  I have never been able to locate any credible evidence of a meeting between RFK and Garrison.  I don't think Bobby wanted that since, if it got out, he would be labeled a conspiracy monger, based on what they did to Garrison.

But RFK was monitoring what Garrison was doing.  I wrote about this a bit in the Second Edition of Destiny Betrayed. In fact, according to Mort Sahl, he was doing this almost all the way up until the California primary.

What makes this even odder is that by 1967, LBJ thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK case himself.  And, according to Marvin Watson, he thought the CIA had something to do with it. I think he based this on the CIA IG report on the Castro plots.  

[Steve Thomas]

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To Steve and Ron:

Thompson does not believe that today, about the two head shots back to back.

 

Jim,

 

I'm thinking about all of the ear witnesses who were asked to recreate the sounds of what they heard.

 

Steve Thomas

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Jim,

 

I'm thinking about all of the ear witnesses who were asked to recreate the sounds of what they heard.

 

Steve Thomas

A strange thing happened at the 2013 Wecht Conference; Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, appearing one after the other, offered up the same "new" theory regarding the shooting. And this was that Kennedy was hit twice in the head within a second or so, with the first shot impacting at Z-313.

So....Thompson's recent change is still in line with the bang-bang heard by the witnesses.  The second head shot (which I believe he says came from behind) just came in a bit later than he'd previously believed.

[James DiEugenio]

Yes at Z  frame 328,

[Paz Marverde]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

There were some contacts with the RFK camp and Jim Garrison's office.  But from what I can determine, they were all indirect.  I have never been able to locate any credible evidence of a meeting between RFK and Garrison.  I don't think Bobby wanted that since, if it got out, he would be labeled a conspiracy monger, based on what they did to Garrison.

But RFK was monitoring what Garrison was doing.  I wrote about this a bit in the Second Edition of Destiny Betrayed. In fact, according to Mort Sahl, he was doing this almost all the way up until the California primary.

What makes this even odder is that by 1967, LBJ thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK case himself.  And, according to Marvin Watson, he thought the CIA had something to do with it. I think he based this on the CIA IG report on the Castro plots.

Jim,

thanks as always.

What I think is that the Paese Sera 1967 investigation had, behind, somehow, RFK efforts to establish the truth on his brother assassination

P.S: I know your book, and it's a masterpiece 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Paz Marverde

[Cliff Varnell]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Mellen book is almost six years old.  Fine.

I've read most of the second half of Talbot's Devil's Chessboard, if that makes you feel better.

Quote

The questions you ask, I believe, are fundamentally unknowable.

At the 2014 Bethesda Conference, Pat Speer cited Gaeton Fonzi's 1966 confrontation with Arlen Specter, who had a nervous breakdown over the clothing evidence.

Pat thus stipulated to the fact Specter couldn't get Fonzi's shirt or jacket to elevate.

Around 2014 David Von Pein grudgingly stipulated to the fact that JFK's visible shirt collar on Elm St proves the clothing wasn't significantly elevated.

That fake debate has been over for years, Jim.

Quote

They amount to what is, at root, guess work.

You don't guess with physical evidence, Jim.

Bullet holes in the clothes too low to associate with the throat wound.

When Salandria/Fonzi/Epstein wielded the weaponized fact of conspiracy in 1966 they had the cover-up types nervous.

Quote

And people can arrange clever arguments for their side, just as others can arrange clever arguments on their side.

Neither Speer or Von Pein argue the clothing was elevated.

Quote

 

 

 You can go as low as the WC and its three shots, Single Bullet Fantasy, or to the other end with Fetzer and his 9-10 shots, where he actually names the assassins.

The fundamental problem here is that the autopsy in this case was interfered with.  

The fundamental problem is people who claim that the clothing evidence, the properly prepared medical documents, and the consensus statements of 16 witnesses are trumped by autopsy materials not prepared according to proper protocol.

Quote

We know that from FInck's testimony at the Shaw trial which was covered up in the press via the work of James Phelan and his after hours snacks at his rented house in New Orleans.  Neither the back wound nor the head wound was dissected.

The back wound was probed.

Quote

Therefore there are some people, like David Lifton for example, who seem to think that the back wound was actually "punched in", it really did not exist.

David's mutilation argument rests on mis-characterizations of SS SA Glenn Bennett's contemporaneous statements and the photo evidence which corroborates Bennett.

Quote

You can make arguments that the back wound was at T 1, T 2, or T 3.

Only by pretending that physical evidence, properly prepared documents, and witnesses don't count.

Quote

In your case, you do not want to agree with the autopsy photos since it  counters your argument that is was at T 3.

The Fox 5 photo does not agree with the physical evidence, the properly prepared documents, and 16 eye witnesses, plus it shows a wound with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

It isn't even a good fake.

Quote

We have all heard this ad infinitum from you: the pics are not properly labeled, they do not have a proper chain of possession etc etc etc until we all throw up.

How strange.  Usually "we" celebrate proofs of conspiracy and government cover-up.

Quote

You have been arguing with Pat Speer on this for years on end.

There was never an argument.  Pat has an assumption -- the Fox 5 photo is genuine.  He has had that assumption from the begining of his research, and he makes assertions based on cherry picked evidence to support his assumption.

Assumption and assertion are not argument.

For Pat JFK's back wound was at T1 if his clothing was bunch up a couple of inches, and his wound was at T1 even tho the clothing wasn't bunched up at all.

Go figure.

Quote

He has gotten sick of it;

Cognitive dissonance.

Quote

 

you have not--since your radius of interest in this case is much smaller than his.  

Yes, in the Salandria school we learn as much as we can from the physical evidence and then go macro looking for potential perps among the high level liars.

Y'all a bunch of wild geese chasing red herrings down rabbit holes.

Quote

As per the timing of the back wound, again, how can anyone know for sure?  Its guess work.

Not according to SS SA Glenn Bennetts well-corroborated contemporaneous notes, which put the back shot right before the head shot.

Quote

 

 I mean some argue that the last shot is now at Z 328. Was that it?  Or did it come much earlier? Strange that you would go after Thompson on this issue.   Because he argues in his book that it was at Willis 5.  Where he says the shirt is not bunched.

I got into a ten minute discussion with Tink Thompson at the 2005 Bethesda Conference.  I mentioned his study of Willis 5 in Six Seconds and he looked surprised -- "I did?  Well, if you think that's evidence..." he rolled his eyes.  At that point a friend of his cut in and I stood there stunned.

SSID sez the back wound isn't knowable, just like you Jim.

Quote

 

I have seen others use a different slide to say that his shirt was bunched.

No, you haven't.  The only part of his shirt visible from behind is his normal amount of shirt collar.

Quote

Personally, I really do not have a lot of interest in these kinds of timing and shot sequencing arguments today. There was a period when I did, many years ago.  But like latter day Jim Garrison, I kind of look at this as a parlor game today. 

The T3 back wound ends the parlor game, which is why CT Pet Theorists are the biggest nay-sayers.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

Paz: P.S: I know your book, and it's a masterpiece 

 

Thanks so much for that Paz.

[Paz Marverde]

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paz: P.S: I know your book, and it's a masterpiece 

 

Thanks so much for that Paz.

My pleasure

[Ron Bulman]

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A strange thing happened at the 2013 Wecht Conference; Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, appearing one after the other, offered up the same "new" theory regarding the shooting. And this was that Kennedy was hit twice in the head within a second or so, with the first shot impacting at Z-313.

So....Thompson's recent change is still in line with the bang-bang heard by the witnesses.  The second head shot (which I believe he says came from behind) just came in a bit later than he'd previously believed.

Pat and Jim, excuse my density once again.  I'm not sure I follow your discussion here.  I realize Jim, you don't want to mess with a parlor game but it's not that to me. I'm trying to understand and still just looking for the Truth in all aspects.  So Mr. Thompson no longer believes in the white spot or smudge on unaltered film indicating first forward motion from a rear shot then back and to the left?  But he does still believe in two almost simultaneous head shots, the frontal coming first, then the rear?  I've read a wise man will change his mid but a fool never does.  He was there in 66-67 old enough to be curious and investigate himself.  I was 10-11.  If he's writing another book (finally!) he has obviously kept up with developments over the years.  While I've never read his book as it's never been republished and is a collectors item I hold him in the utmost respect for what I've read of it and begun to learn about it from the article.  I look forward to the new book. 

[James DiEugenio]

Yes, he does not buy the slight forward motion he described originally back in 1967.  He now says its a smudge on the film, an illusion.

Therefore, the only direction the skull took at that time frame was straight back.  Which is important if he is right.

What he now says, and what he talked about in Pittsburgh, is that he believes there was a final shot at Z 328.  Which would make it two shots in less than one second. Which would be pretty close to each other and would match what  a lot of witnesses said.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Not to dissect which of two shots hit from the front or back first but from the article in December 1967...  In November 1966 with a Life editor Mr. Thompson went to interview  S M Holland.  He said the third and fourth shots were so close together they sounded like a double shot.  'Well, the third and fourth shots hit the president",  Thompson "In the head", Holland, "In the head".

A relevant link?

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mark+lane+sm+holland+&view=detail&mid=F861BE905744EB3F4306F861BE905744EB3F4306&FORM=VIRE 

He does mention a fourth shot, twice.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Cliff Varnell]

On 3/15/2018 at 6:54 AM, James DiEugenio said:

You can make arguments that the back wound was at T 1, T 2, or T 3.

Thrill us with your acumen, Jim, let's see your "clever" arguments for a T1 back wound.

(I'm putting you on a bluff).