James DiEugenio

That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying. But that is how desperate these loons get. Notice he does not say any of it is wrong. Because its not. BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked? Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.

ROTF 😁

The military brass at Bethesda refused to let Finck look at the clothing. They refused to let Humes request a medical examiner from Baltimore to advise them since they were not accustomed to doing trauma type pathologies. They would not allow a dissection of the back wound. Something else I just found out. After Malcolm Perry's afternoon conference, either a Secret service guy or FBI guy told him never to repeat the info about an anterior neck wound again. If you take a look at the time of that conference, this means someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be. Need i add that every single video recording of that conference is gone? And the Secret Service lied about not having a transcript. These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.

WOW, this case is getting more out there by the day. It will keep the news busy for weeks on end.

LOL, 😃 ROTF as I endure spasms of uncontrollable laughter.😁 This accusation of bias comes from a scientist who will not even admit that the CBLA was smelly from the start. By the way, from what I have been able to dig up, it was first originated in the JFK case. But the FBI did not think it was ready for prime time. Guinn perfected the hoax. Baker, the scientist, cannot bring himself to admit that. VIncent Guinn made a lot of money covering up the facts in the JFK case.

That is a pretty good list I think as far as JFK goes. I cannot say that I am in any way an expert on the 9-11 episode.

Oh no, with Baden you know the fix is in. Baden flipped once Tanenbaum left the HSCA. And Bob will tell you that openly and ridicule what he did after. As Speer showed, this is the guy who did not even know how to orient the rear skull photo. He then said the FBI took pics that night at Bethesda. He then advised Ido Dox how to draw raised edges around that drop of blood on Kennedy's hair to make it look more like a wound in the crown of the head. We actually have that in his writing now thanks to the ARRB. Mili Cranor left him without a leg to stand on when she demolished his book.

I think this may be the beginning of the excuses/cover up. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/11/jeffrey-epstein-guards-1458136 I ask again, what about the camera? All you have to do is look up at it every few minutes.

David Wrone said 80 % of the film JFK is in factual error? That is not the case, and it pains me to write that since I like the professor. In my book, The JFK Case: The Evidence Today I go through about the first third of the film from the director's cut on the DVD. There was not one scene that was factually unsound. I then summarized the rest of the film and I thought that on the issue of dramatic license, allowing for when the script has Costner say, "let's speculate shall we" that the film was fairly accurate. Some of the story has been made even stronger, like Kennedy's intent to withdraw from Vietnam and Clay Shaw's CIA status. But the achievements of the ARRB have also been ignored. So that media does a lot of CYA in that regard.

That is interesting Ron. For more than one reason. But I recall one night after the RFK murder where Truman Capote came on and he questioned the whole motif of the major assassinations. He said that the idea that all of these men would have diaries was weird. He was a writer and he did not have a diary. But Oswald and Sirhan did? It would not surprise me if Carson did the other show to counteract Capote. BTW, Melanson wrote about the Capote appearance in his book on the RFK case. Carson really showed his true colors with those cases.

Rob: As I thought would happen, your article is now number one at K and K. Congratulations pal. And thanks.

I would have to agree with the above.. I just wonder if they will get away with the usual cover up this time.

Whitney Webb is going some interesting work. She called me while she was prepping this long article. Mintpress has some real guts.

What happened with Mort Sahl was even more direct. Mort was waiting back stage. After the show Carson was so angry he confronted him with: "You will never be on this show again!" And he was not until Jay Leno took it over. As you note, the key was the NBC special on Garrison that had aired previously. There was no way on earth that the Sarnoffs were going to let Garrison have a fair shake. And at that time, Carson had not renegotiated his contract. Therefore his career was pretty much in their hands. He went along with it. BTW, all you need to know about what a "free press" we have in this country is this fact: the NBC hatchet job, the CBS 4 hour propaganda machine, and then Johnny's briefing all came within a few months of each other. BTW, NBC and Carson realized what a black eye that was on Carson's career so they deep sixed it. For decades there was only an audio of it available. In recent years, there have been certain videos on TV but I have never seen the entire show.

Look at this one: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/10/jeffrey-epstein-death-conspiracy-theories-1456309 Politico is one of the worst ones out there in creating an agenda. Just horrible. They don't report the news, they adjust the score.

You got that right Victor. I think this shows we have made some progress. Tons of people and a large part of the media is looking at this with an arched eyebrow. I mean, he apparently tried to hurt himself before and then these documents about Richardson and the Prince Andrew come out, and then he dies? Those documents really were interesting. I just wonder is this phenomenon goes back to the John DeCamp and his book The Franklin Cover Up?

But what about the cameras? You are going to tell me that they had neither cameras on Epstein nor had him on watch? I mean who was a higher profile person in that prison?

Welcome WN. BTW, the way you do this is to hover the cursor over the person's name, then you do a pull down. Then it gives you a choice on how much of the person's activities you wish to ignore.

If you can comprehend it, the MSM is actually trying to uncover the facts about this one. I think its just too suspicious in its timing. Sort of like Ferrie's death five days after Garrison's inquiry is exposed.

Hinckle at Ramparts and Art Kunkin at LA Free Press were the only ones trying to present the case he had in a fair manner. Kunkin was the guy who discovered Phelan had rented a house in New Orleans at Shaw's trial and was gathering all the reporters there at night to coordinate the next day stories. To show you just how bad the MSM was on Garrison, everyone recalls the four night propaganda piece that CBS prepared and which management overruled the employees in order to back the WC. They then used McCloy as a consultant without telling the public. And lied about it after. (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination) Well, the guy they sent down to interview Garrison first was Joe Wershba, who Roger Feinman liked and admired. Well Wershba made a mistake. He tried to treat Garrison fairly. So therefore, JG came off kind of well. I know since I saw the transcript. That was a no no for CBS president Dick Salant, who micro managed the project once he took it over from the producers. So what happened? Salant had Wershba's interview with JG deep sixed. And then sent in Mike Wallace to redo it. Wallace was his usual reliable self and got in all the smear stuff and that is what ran. That article I wrote based upon the materials that Feinman spirited out of CBS was the most detailed expose of just how far the media would go in silencing any critical reporting on the Warren Commission. Anyone who says the contrary is simply ignorant or a stooge. It is an object lesson in how the Power Elite (McCloy in this case) crosses over and meets with the media managers (Salant in this case), to make sure that the former's spin of the facts is presented to the public and the dissenters are marginalized and ridiculed. Roger Feinman made that article possible. He paid the price of sacrificing his career at CBS.

Good interview with the author of Chaos. I will be developing these points even further in my review. https://whowhatwhy.org/2019/08/09/everything-you-know-about-charles-manson-is-wrong/

That's the playbook alright and the NY Times took it up.

I would like to give some advice to WN. He is a very valuable poster here and he is erudite with a broad background. Don't waste your time with Peyote. He is about at the level of DVP, except he is more pompous. Do what I did and you can hide his posts and not have to read them, unless you slip up and come in on the wrong browser, which fortunately I have not done lately. He has about as much interest in the facts and truth of the JFK case as I have in astrophysics. He redefines the word T-r-o--l-l Just a complete time waster. If I recall correctly, its a very simple process to hide someone's posts. If you do not know how, PM Kathy Becket, as she showed me how and I now have about four people on my list. It makes it a much more enjoyable experience.

Richard Sprague was one of the finest criminal lawyers of his era. He had a stellar record in Philadelphia. He was appointed special prosecutor on the Jock Yablonski case. In two legal proceedings involving several trials he proved a conspiracy to kill candidate Yablonski that stemmed from incumbent miners' leader Tony Boyle. In his book, Badge of the Assassin, Bob Tanenbaum showed how he uncovered a conspiracy to kill two New York City policemen by 3 members of the Black Liberation Army. The hunt for evidence went from San Francisco to New Orleans to Mississippi and took something like four years. Conspiracy is as American as apple pie. Goes all the way back to Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. These types of cases get prosecuted in court every day. As Lance DeHaven Smith showed, it was the MSM that began rebranding the term in 1967 right after the CIA memo came out on the JFK case. That concept was then revivified when the film JFK came out. In other words, this is not an evidentiary move, its a polarizing political move. Conspiracies are all over the historical map, how do you get a bigger conspiracy than Iran/Contra? And recall how that was uncovered? By accident: the Hasenfus shootdown. He survived and they found the CIA ID on him that led to Ilopango air base in El Salvador and the likes of Felix Rodriguez and Richard Secord. (Sort of like Oswald placing Banister's address on his FPCC stuff) And even though there was a massive senate and court inquiry, neither one got to the worst aspect: the drugs for arms trade. What made it all worse was that George H W Bush covered it all up by pardoning everyone. So please with this goofy stuff about conspiracies not being part of American life. They are part and parcel of the American state. If Sprague and Tanenbaum had been around for three years, they would have unraveled this one.

One of the really big problems with the WR was trying to supply a motivation for Oswald. Because the indications from both LHO and Marina were that he liked Kennedy. I never thought I would see a worse try at this than from the WC. It was pretty bad. But Bugliosi's was even worse. It was just complete nonsense. Really embarrassing. And this is bad because lawyers know that although its not necessary to prove motive--you only have to prove intent--it is very helpful in a murder case. So in addition to his pitiful attempt to paper over all the obvious forensic and evidentiary problems in the WR, he also failed at that.