James DiEugenio

Parnell seems to forget a very big point: Its the so called people with forensic expertise who got us into this evidentiary mess. Do I really have to explain that? Don Thomas spent a large part of his book on it. Never was a book so well subtitled. Ever hear of social constructivism? Should we start with good ole Vince Guinn and his phony CBLA? How about Dr. Petty who said so memorably, in 2003 at the 40th anniversary to CNN that the Kennedy autopsy was done well. And he also said that it would be nice if Kennedy's brain were available. Oh really? Or how about Pierre Finck, who had to be asked something like 8 times why Humes did not dissect the back wound. Or Humes himself who was finally exposed later as making up a cover story about souvenir seekers getting the blood stained copies of his autopsy report. And also how he did not just jettison his notes but also the first copy of the report. Or Cecil Kirk, the so called photo expert, who Bugliosi believed about the head explosion without Kirk even knowing anything about the phenomenon of cavitation. Or how about the Haags, who Gary Aguilar and Cyril Wecht tarred and feathered from pillar to post. To the point that they would not even show up to debate them even when Gary offered to pay their plane and hotel fare!!! Or how about Alvarez who lied about his melon experiment and also how many jiggles are in the Z film? Maybe you are talking about FBI agent Frazier? He told the Commission that the recovered bullet from the Walker house had the same general characteristics that the alleged Oswald rifle would have. Bugliosi then tells us that means four lands and grooves and a right hand twist to its rifling. Vince left out the fact that practically all rifles had that twist and that rifling. Which makes for a very large universe. These are the experts Parnell has chosen to stand by.

Hey, what's wrong with Italian?! Right Paul?

Nice work Dave. So on the 23rd the FBI finds that the serial number of the rifle was not sent to Klein's. What do you make of that "further review" the next day that now says, hey we did find it after all. Was not the FBI at Klein's for something like 8 straight hours that night?

John Newman does have docs on QJ WIN and he does drop a name in his second volume and its not Skorzeny.

I don't know what his source is, but that info was in the Talbot book about Dulles. And it was sourced to Harvey's chief of staff.

Paul: Why would you use a 6 foot four, infamous ex Nazi as QJ Win? Its one thing for Skorzeny to have been in the Congo, as so many mercenaries were. Its quite another to have him sneaking around the UN guarded house where Lumumba was being protected by a detachment of soldiers. And if that were the case, how could it have remained a secret for fifty years? The fact that it did remain a secret, does that not argue that QJ Win was someone who we did not hear of before?

It would save us all a lot of money would it not? Plus time.

Thanks Steve. I also like the way he made the point about QJ WIN also. One of the more disappointing aspects of the recent crop of literature on the JFK assassination itself, is the fact that it makes little or no use of the ARRB documents. I have said that before but since it continues, I have to say it again.

Robin is a decent guy, but he used to partner with someone named Steve Dorrill. Dorrill was one of the earliest writers to try and say that Permindex was a disinformation story that Jim Garrison fell for. If I recall, that story ran in their magazine, Lobster. And he blamed it on Pease Sera. In other words, this was a preview of what Helms would say, and then what Max Holland would reshuffle through all that ex KGB agent BS. It has all been proven to be utter baloney. And we have it sourced in so many ways now that its ridiculous: State Dept docs, Bloomfield archives, and this book. Permindex/CMC was just what Garrison thought it was many years ago. And that is why Clay Shaw was on the board and that is why he later tried to hide his association with that body.

One of our most valued contributors, Michael LeFlem, takes look at Major Ganis' The Skorzeny Papers. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/major-ralph-p-ganis-the-skorzeny-papers-evidence-for-the-plot-to-kill-jfk

Yes they should have. He talked to them once he infiltrated Garrison's investigation. In fact, he once said under oath that once he snookered Garrison, he would have about five of these guys waiting outside his apartment almost every night, pumping him for info. Since this was in early 1967, you then know that Hoover was really worried that Garrison was going to show what a joke the FBI inquiry was. Later on the FBI decided to just tap his phones.

Prouty I thought was quite insightful as an insider into what Kennedy was trying to do. Especially in Vietnam, since Krulak and he wrote the Taylor/McNamara report which backed up NSAM 263. Yes, Robert Sam Anson began the attack on Prouty, and then Chip Berlet picked it up and then it got into the MSM with that asset Ed Epstein. Prouty wrote for some men's magazines in the seventies as many other people did since they paid well and he could get mass circulation. He then wrote for some rightwing journals in the eighties and he did a paid speech for Liberty Lobby. And for this he i stabled an anti semite. Its pure guilt by association. Here is an expose of this crap and Epstein. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-abstract-reality-of-edward-epstein

I agree with you Bart. Sounds like nutty Alex Jones with the other ambushes in Dallas. And Oswald knew zilch about what was going to happen that day.

Thanks Mike. Is it not a travesty that we had to wait for Jamie Galbraith to open his mouth about this to tell us how important his father was? And that was only done on the occasion of Newman's book being published. I mean that is how bad our so called historians are. Halberstam set the mold, and everyone followed like lemmings. Somehow Vietnam was some kind of inevitable tragedy out of a Greek Homeric poem. Complete and utter baloney. And one of the reasons everyone fell for it was secrecy. It was the ARRB which finally put the kabosh on that. But the Pentagon Papers also shed some light on it. They have a section called Phased Withdrawal 1963-64. But very few people who read the PP picked up on this. But even with that, one can see that Johnson was not continuing JFK's policy in Indochina. Mike Morrisey once wrote that the biggest lie ever told in the second half of the 20th century was Oswald shot Kennedy. The second biggest lie was that Johnson continued Kennedy's policy in Vietnam.

I did not know it might have been that long. Hard to buy that he does not recall the exact time. That web site started some time in 2002. Hmm. Well that explains why I do not go there anymore. When I saw how they thought Halberstam's book was the be all and end all on Vietnam, that was it for me. That book is clearly a relic of the past with little if any use today. I am still trying to figure out if it was a deliberate put up job. And his complete misfire on JKG is a part of it.

If he did, they are not in the Parker biography. At least I did not see them, but I admit I did not read the whole book which is pretty long.

The relationship Galbraith had with Kennedy was really something. I mean I cannot think offhand of anyone in the Administration, except for RFK, who had this kind of rapport with the president. I think it must go back to the fact that he was his tutor at such a young age. Is that something about that crazy firebombing. Sixteen square miles means they incinerated 1600 blocks. Subdivide that by say, minimum, twenty homes per block--excluding ones with apartment houses-- and you are talking about mass devastation. I actually think in one of the cities the effect of the firebombing was worse than the atomic bomb. Rostow was a dedicated Cold Warrior. Harriman was a different case. He negotiated the Laos neutrality deal, and later on the Test Ban Treaty. But something was really up with him about Vietnam. As I said, the biggest regret is what would have been possible if Galbraith had taken the job as ambassador to Russia and Kennedy had lived. If that had happened, I think Khrushchev may have survived. And you really would have had a chance at detente. Remember, when Kennedy died, Khrushchev was one of the first to sign his condolences at the US embassy and he was choking back tears.

Galbraith was a truly underrated character in the Kennedy White House. This began with that misleading and pernicious book by David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest. The fact that the morons at Daily Kos idealized that book is one of the reasons I left the so called liberal blogosphere. In his book, Halberstam says that Galbraith was on the periphery of Kennedy's thinking on Vietnam policy. What utter BS. It turns out that Galbraith was at at the center of the story. And in 1962 he offered two alternatives to get out. One may or may not have worked but was stymied by Harriman. But the second one did work. And its what Kennedy was using when he was killed. Not even John Newman told the whole story about this amazing figure. Thanks to Richard Parker we now have it. https://kennedysandking.com/articles/john-kenneth-galbraith-a-hero-in-our-time

How do we know its him if there is no photo comparison of Roy H.? Or Vidal? Can we see some work from someone elite Robin Unger or Groden?

Parnell is so funny on this and he doesn't even know it. The presentation was not to Morley, it was to Paramount and they accepted it. Even without Morley. And guess what, you are not going to like it Tracy. It might even give Davey a stroke, so I should warn him in advance: get on some meds.

With that last piece of fruitiness by Payette, with "conspiracy loons" and all, I gladly sign off of this thread. He doesn't want to talk about the evidence, Bugliosi like, he wants to denigrate the process and the people. Bye Bye Lancie.

OMG. I love this one. TP: I would refer you to Bugliosi's comments on the chain of custody and admissibility of evidence. I believe it was a good argument made by someone who would know. As I know something about RH, Vince argued he could win out over all the chain of custody evidence arguments the defense could argue. I said good. But why would you want to? What prosecutor would want to argue the evidence below: 1. Like CE 399? That projectile that never hit anything in Dealey Plaza and which the FBI had to prevaricate about so many times that not even Hoover could keep his story straight? Like saying Odum showed it to the witnesses, when he did not. 2. Like CE 139? Which turned out to be the wrong rifle, which even going on their evidence was not the one the defendant ordered? 3. Like the shells at the scene which Fritz had to rearrange because they looked so close to each other that they were clearly planted? And when the FBI tested the ejection mechanism on the wrong rifle, they proved that was the case. 4. Like the three shells that were found at the scene; or was it only two? Because the photos and evidence reports say only two went to the FBI? And then the BS story the DPD came up with was that Fritz kept one of the shells in Dallas for "testing" purposes. Except the one he kept there was the miraculously dented one. The one which TInk Thompson tried all day to dent in that manner and could not. And Chris Mills found out it could only be dented that way by dry loading and then only very rarely. 5. Like the hole that disappeared from the back of JFK's head, which the HSCA lied about by saying that only the witnesses at Parkland saw it? When in fact forty witnesses saw it at both Parkland and Bethesda. 6. Or that raised rear skull wound that the Fisher panel had to elevate since Thompson's book disturbed Ramsey Clark so much? Except now you have two Magic Bullets in six seconds. Because that bullet now leaves its center part at the rear of the skull while the head and tail fly forward to the front of the car. Something which your guy Sturdivan says is not possible. 7. Or the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail? Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there. 8. Or the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives? Which the man who took them, Mr. Stringer, when examined by Gunn said, no he did not take them. Because he never used that type of film, and he never used the Press Pack technique they were taken with. When you witnesses on the stand, like Stringer, who are going to say that he never took the pictures that the official story has him taking, and Humes saying the x rays do not match what is in his report, and 42 witnesses saying that heck yes there was hole in the back of JFK's skull. I mean what kind of case is that? What self respecting prosecutor would bring such evidence into court in the first place?

There is no such thing as a conspiracy mindset in the JFK case. I did not enter the JFK case looking for a plot. I read both sides for awhile. And I simply came to the conclusion that the WR was not a very convincing document. For the simple matters--among others-- that: 1.) It left too much important information out. Like some very interesting stuff going on in New Orleans. 2.) It relied on some questionable witness accounts e.g. Marina and Brennan. 3.) It seemed too biased in its presentation. A prime example being the medical evidence. It does not take some kind of mystical "mindset" to determine those matters. Anyone with any objectivity or insight could determine that. But what Payette wants to do is say that somehow these matters do not exist and therefore people who harp on them are somehow of a mystical "mindset." What crud. They do exist. And anyone who says they do not is in denial. And as time has gone on, especially with the discoveries of the ARRB, the matters I listed above have gotten even more serious. If Payette wants to ignore them and personally attack people who do not, then I suggest he resembles the Bryan character so memorably played by the late Fredric March in the film Inherit the Wind. And that comparison might be more apt than I thought considering the exchange above about religion. But I consider that to be his problem, which unfortunately he is playing out on this forum. And let me reply to Parnell's recurrent complaint above. About people like me not doing something to take our info to the masses. There are two multi installment projects being planned right now for broadcast. I was invited to be aboard on both of them. Because of certain unforeseeable circumstances, I will only be aligned with one of them. And those two are not the only times certain producers have approached me. Morley--who you seem to think is the be all and end all of outlets--was not invited to be on either. Which shows us the level of your insight into this.

One good thing about this thread is Payette urged these guys to show just how bereft of a case they really do have. As you can see, first Carlier comes on and says, well see, Kirk Coleman really was not a good witness. This is based on an interview he did with French cops. Really? Did they talk to Kirk? Did Carlier talk to Kirk? But see, Carlier wants to get rid of Coleman any way he can. Sort of like the WC, who never talked to him. Then, Parnell comes on and says well see, "the documented physical evidence in this case supports the lone gunman theory." Oh really? 1. You mean like CE 399? That projectile that never hit anything in Dealey Plaza and which the FBI had to prevaricate about so many times that not even Hoover could keep his story straight? Like saying Odum showed it to the witnesses, when he did not. 2. You mean like CE 139? Which turned out to be the wrong rifle, which even going on their evidence was not the one the defendant ordered? 3. You mean like the shells at the scene which Fritz had to rearrange because they looked so close to each other that they were clearly planted? And when the FBI tested the ejection mechanism on the wrong rifle, they proved that was the case. 4. You mean like the three shells that were found at the scene; or was it only two? Because the photos and evidence reports say only two went to the FBI? And then the BS story the DPD came up with was that Fritz kept one of the shells in Dallas for "testing" purposes. Except the one he kept there was the miraculously dented one. The one which TInk Thompson tried all day to dent in that manner and could not. And Chris Mills found out it could only be dented that way by dry loading and then only very rarely. 5. Do you mean like the hole that disappeared from the back of JFK's head, which the HSCA lied about by saying that only the witnesses at Parkland saw it? When in fact forty witnesses saw it at both Parkland and Bethesda. 6. Do you mean that raised rear skull wound that the Fisher panel had to elevate since Thompson's book disturbed Ramsey Clark so much? Except now you have two Magic Bullets in six seconds. Because that bullet now leaves its center part at the rear of the skull while the head and tail fly forward to the front of the car. Something which your guy Sturdivan says is not possible. 7. Do you mean the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail? Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there. 8. Do you mean the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives? Which the man who took them, Mr. Stringer, when examined by Gunn said, no he did not take them. Because he never used that type of film, and he never used the Press Pack technique they were taken with. Today, in every element of the case, if there is one thing your side should not argue, it is the so called "Documented physical evidence". The last thing it does is support the Warren Commission. Today it proves that Sylvia Meagher was correct. The WC was not just a disgrace. They were accessories after the fact.

Davey, you never answered my question. Why did Kirk Coleman never appear to testify before the Warren Commission?