James DiEugenio

An unusual article from a new writer. I cannot even recall this subject being written about before. But its interesting about how the original conservatives who were conspiracy oriented have now seem to returned to prominence in the GOP, e g Steve Bannon. I mean how can anyone forget Revilo Oliver? https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jfk-and-far-right-conspiracy-rhetoric

I just wonder if Nhu had understood by then what Lodge was up to. Interesting if that was the case. But if you look at Halberstam's book, The Making of a Quagmire, Nhu was actually working on two coups at the time. A real one, and a fake one. The latter was to rally support for the failing Diem regime. BTW, the guy who is doing some pretty good work on this subject, that is the myriad problems with American support for Diem, is a guy named Seth Jacobs. Jacobs has written two books on the subject in the new millennium. He brings up a little noted event that he feels was crucial. This was the arrest of Pham Quan Dan in 1960. The important point being that Pham was an anti communist. This caused the creation of something called the Caravelle Group which publicly protested the despotism and corruption of the Diem regime and its failure to build any kind of reform movement to benefit the lower classes in South Vietnam. Jacobs sees this as a really crucial event. https://alphahistory.com/vietnamwar/caravelle-manifesto-1960/ The other point he sees as key was the Collins mission back in 1955. That sealed Foster Dulles' support for Diem, even though there were other leaders who America could have backed at the time. For anyone who is interested, although there have been a few books written in the new millennium on this topic, I recommend Jacobs's books.

But the thing is FC, like his soul brother Litwin, does not even seem aware of how the HSCA tests have all been either demolished or brought into serious question. And this was done largely based upon the declassified documents of the ARRB. Which he and DVP all but ignore. I did this in short form in The Assassinations, once I read through some of the HSCA docs in the nineties that the ARRB set loose. (pp. 69-86) But, for example, Pat Speer has done even longer and more detailed demolitions of, for example, Canning and Guinn and Baden. Gary Aguilar, again, based on declassified docs, has shown that the claim of photographic authenticity may or may not be true. Because the HSCA found the right camera but we do not know if they located the right camera and lens. (pp. 279-80) I guess The Assassinations is a book that, again, FC does not have in his 200 volume library. As per the X-rays, these claims are inexplicable. Let me repeat why. Because the Fisher Panel disagreed with the original autopsy on two key points: the disappearing particle trail and the 6.5 mm fragment. Again, it is really hard to imagine that these guys missed all this information. I mean 200 books and FC never stumbled across any of this?

FC, I think that what Sandy is saying is that Baden was not aware of the twenty morgue witnesses who said they also saw the wound in the rear of JFK's skull, until Gary Aguilar showed him the statements released by the ARRB in, I think, 1995. If I have this wrong, Sandy will correct me. But the evidence is in the chart that is in MIDP. Its on page 199. You say you have 200 books on the JFK case and you do not have that one? I have less than that and I do. As per your other point about Baden saying the wound was a mess, I dealt with that already. I do not buy it because of the specifics of the Dallas doctors memories, including the testimony about the cerebellum. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p.161) But that argument collapses when one recalls what I also said: Bowron and Hinchliffe cleaned the body before it left Dallas. Believe me, their testimony does not support your side. And then you have the 20 witnesses in Bethesda who saw the cleaned body. It gets a bit discouraging when it becomes clear that you and DVP and Lancie either do not read the right pieces of information in book form or documents, and then you just rattle on as if you do.

Everyone and his mother knows about what happened with Scully and me and how the forum was then closed down. As per spies, they were not on forums. They were on conversations his group would have over for example, who was going to debate on Anton Batey's show. C'mon Davey. Are you going to say that did not happen either?

BTW, I should add while doing Black Op Radio this week, Len Osanic told me that Jerry Ford once said there was no documentary record that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam at the time of his death. HA HA HA HA Which is about as bad as Vince Bugliosi saying there was no evidence that the FBI concealed anything in the JFK murder case But I find it interesting that somehow Ford who was in on the WC cover up, then later said the same about what Kennedy's policy in Indochina was. Which makes him a twofer.

I love it. DVP is such a denial artist in every single way imaginable. I even have this from a guy who knew him and his partners and was infiltrating their conversations. (I used to have all kinds of spies out for DVP back then.) He said in one conversation that he had to tone it down to get back on and he only blew up once and got a warning from a mod when he and I went through a back and forth about Jean Davison and her POS book. But just use logic, if he got thrown out for his usual invective and then later got back in, then obviously he would have had to amend his ways.

Robert, The reason DVP is not as bad here as he was at Lancer is this: he was actually thrown out of that forum and this one many years ago. When I decided to join up here, he and Reitzes decided to join. Not a coincidence, as one member told me. At that time, DVP had to make a pledge to Simkin that he would not start insulting people as he had before on both sites e.g. recommending books on curing paranoria etc. The odd thing is that Lancie Boy is actually the one who does that now, and rather frequently.

David Josephs just sent me something I had need seen before. Evidently, the CIA had information that there was a plot by Nhu to assassinate the American ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and the Buddhist leader Thich Tri Quang in October of 1963. And then to burn down the embassy, The idea was to sponsor a student demonstration and then infiltrate about 100 of Nhu's security forces into the building to do the job. Whew.

Ron, please pay attention to Cliff Varnell and his request. Don't feed them, just look at them like they are in an aquarium.

Since my name has come up here, let me reply. First, according to Joan Mellen's well documented book Our Man In Haiti, H L Hunt went to Washington not Mexico after the assassination. (p. 345) This was at the request of employee Paul Rothermel. He stayed at the Mayflower Hotel. That book is worth reading just for the appendix she has on HL Hunt and the CIA. For Rothermel turned out to be a CIA asset who later regaled researchers with tales about the Hunts and the JFK case. Secondly, for about the ninth time: Does anyone read my books? I do put a lot of work into them and you will find information there you will not find anywhere else. I understand there are so many crappy books out there that the market is glutted with baloney. But still, if you know me I am not that kind of writer. At the end of Chapter 12, of Destiny Betrayed, second edition, i spend about seven pages on Boxley/Wood. In those pages, I discuss the genesis of Farewell America. Harold Weisberg did some of the most remarkable work I have ever seen done by one researcher on its ostensible writer Hepburn/Lamarr. Weisberg tracked Lamarr everywhere he went because he was very suspicious of him and his sources. He found out that one of the guys he worked with in America was, presto, CIA agent, Boxley. As Harold accumulated more and more information about that book, he began to coordinate the info with the sources. He then turned over his file to Garrison and Ivon. At the top of the file was the name Philippe de Vosjoli. In my book I describe the final encounter between Garrison, Ivon and Lamarr. When I read this file many years ago, I did not know who this guy was. But in reading Mangold's book on Angleton I did find out who he was. Then i understood why the book was composed the way it was, accusing the Hunt family specifically. I also understood why Lamarr would not tell Garrison who his sources were, since Weisberg had found out who they really were. And they were not from French Intelligence. (See Destiny Betrayed, pp 281-83)

Well, yeah, the inventor as I recall of that helicopter was Arthur Young who was Mike's stepdad. And from my understanding he helped Mike get his security clearance and hs job at Bell Helicopter. When asked about what type of clearance it was, Mike got selective amnesia. According to Prouty, the CIA arranged a meeting between a Texas based company called Textron and First National Bank of Boston and the transfer was made as the CIA began to order what was called Huey helicopters for Vietnam. If I recall, there were very few of them in service in 1960. But then I think they ended up selling something like 7000 of them for Vietnam. But, a lot of companies got rich during that endless war. Both endless and a truly ugly, evil, wasteful war. As I note in my presentation, it made Vietnam safe for McDonald's. And also Starbucks and Burger King. What a pile of baloney the Domino Theory was.

Well that is always a possibility. But I have not seen any evidence of that. Although I agree its hard to imagine that McNamara could have forgotten about NSAM 263, because he is the guy who was sent by JFK to brief the press about it. (John Newman, JFK and Vietnam, p. 407) I have to add, this is really one of the best parts of John's book. It depicts how Kennedy rammed NSAM 263 through his advisors. Then sent McNamara out to make the announcement And Kennedy says as he leaves, "And tell them that means all the helicopter pilots too!" (Geez, think Lancie pooh is going to jump on this one and say, "Oh I love how these conspiracy zealots quote these factoids. I am going to show how this is all so weakly based if it takes me weeks to do so." Geez I am quaking in terror at this guy. Pretty soon he will have us all thinking that JFK was a Cold Warrior and the Magic Bullet happened. I will soon be over at Duncan's repenting the error of my previous ways.)

Lancie: Here is a more recent article on Perry's recanting and how it haunted him https://crosscut.com/2017/11/john-f-kennedy-assassination-files-seattle-trump-release-shooters

Yes, that is what both Humes and FInck said according to Gary. (See MIDP, pp 206-07)

Incredible, Davey swears by the HSCA authentication without mentioning any of the serious problems I listed about it. Talk about religious zeal. Now, Cory tries to get him to tell the truth about the missing photos, and what does he refer to: the Clark Panel inventory. When in fact Clark admitted himself that Humes said there was at least one missing photograph. Gary Aguilar then writes, this is wrong, Humes actually said there were two missing pictures. One showed the bullet entry into the skull and the other was in the thorax. (MIDP, p. 203) Boswell also agreed that they took a photo of the thorax that he has never seen. (ibid) FInck agreed about the missing skull photo. (p. 207) Things are about to get worse. Stringer also said he recalled two photos of the thorax which are not present. But he also said that he took 11 duplex folders which should have yielded 22 pictures. He said he was only shown 16 by the HSCA. ( Ibid, p. 204) Stringer's assistant, Riebe, also said he took several photos which are not there either. Both men said they were ordered to sign a false inventory. (p. 205) The end game: Both Knudsen and Spencer later told the ARRB (remember them?) that they saw pics that are not in the inventory. (pp. 208-09) Both revelations are bad for the WC. Knudsen said he saw probes in JFK's back that did not match up with the throat wound. (Others recalled this picture being taken.) Spencer said she saw a picture that revealed a wound in the back of the skull of about an inch or two in diameter. Did VB report on any of this Davey?

Davey: I hate to repeat this again, but you cannot be serious about that alleged authentication? As Gary Aguilar pointed out many years ago, not only did the HSCA misrepresent the witness testimony on this issue, they also misrepresented the fact that they could not find the original autopsy camera. They did. But they could not get a photographic match. So they then said well, the camera lens or shutter must have been altered. Which may or my not be true. But the ARRB--you do know who they were right?--could not find the notes on the experiment they did to determine such a thing occurred. Further, if the x rays are authenticated as the originals, then how does one explain the appearing 6.5 mm fragment that was not there originally, and the disappearing particle trail that was there originally and then vanished? Because you do not mention them, does this mean they do not exist? In your world of faith, maybe. But in our real world of testimony and evidence, they do exist. As do the densitometry readings of Mantik as described by Doug Horne in Volume 2 of Inside the ARRB. Again, I do not know if you simply hide all this data in order to mislead, or are somehow unaware of it. Maybe its a mixture of the two. But really, its an unflattering display for you and your web site. Why not stick to Leave it to Beaver?

Is this guy really asking us to present a shooting scenario? How is that possible with an autopsy as bad as this one? Even Baden said it is the exemplar as far as bad autopsies go. Without the back wound dissected how can one determine directionality or if the wound transited? You cannot. Without the brain sectioned and tracked, again how can one determine the pathway or if there was only one bullet? Anyone who ways they can is again is simply urinating in the wind. Your side is stuck with the Single Bullet Fantasy, an idea that was based on nothing more than expediency. As Belin and Ball wrote as early as January 1964. They were stuck with a particular three bullet scenario, one with which Hoover never agreed, nor did the CIA agree with it. And it has been demolished seven ways to Sunday in about a dozen different ways since. Until today, Robert Wagner, a VB clone and Oswald did it advocate, won't even come near it. And anyone who uses Dale Myers in this dispute should have their head examined. Bob Harris and Pat Speer and Mili Cranor have demolished his work many times over. Click here https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/dale-myers-an-introduction

Not one thing that i posted is scoffing or inferences. It is all direct evidence or testimony. If you characterize it as such then its because neither you nor DVP nor FC t want to deal with it. So let me post it again. Above he says both the photos and x rays were authenticated. And he relies on the HSCA for that, even though we just showed him how the HSCA completely misrepresented their own evidence on this point. And then both Baden and Blakey said they did not recall seeing those witness statements.(The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 273-76) Now let us proceed to repeat something I already stated and that somehow the Von Pein, FC, TP crowd ignores. FC distorted it out of its actual meaning, par for the course with him. In the HSCA volumes it says that they could not find the original autopsy camera with which to do a comparison photo for authenticity purposes. (HSCA Vol 6, p 226 FN 1) As I noted above, the HSCA already misrepresented the evidence on the issue by saying the Bethesda witnesses saw something completely different than the Parkland witnesses. As Gary notes, they also misrepresented this camera evidence. Because they did find the camera. But Blakey sent it back saying it could not be the correct one. Because it could not match the pictures to this camera. Hmm. Now there is a way out of this and that is to claim the camera lens and shutter had changed. But we cannot determine that is the case since the HSCA deep sixed the actual notations on this experiment. (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DIEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 280) Again, none of these people were aware of this? That book has been out there for 15 years. As per the x rays, I mean this is ludicrous. The 6.5 mm fragment did not show up on the original x rays. But it did show up for the Ramsey Clark panel. The particle trail in the rear of the skull rising upward was reported by Humes in his report. To his chagrin, before the ARRB, he had to admit its not there now.(The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today pp. 151-54) And these guys do their Lt Frank Drebin impersonation on this one. Plus there is the Mantik densitometer readings, which they also ignore. (Inside the ARRB Volume 2, by Doug Horne, pp. 543-62)

BTW, let me add in relation to the whole Arizona lawyer Church of the Conspiracy slur. In my comments three frames above, I pointed out things that are simply a part of the evidentiary record. I did not discover these pieces of evidence. Others did. I was just repeating facts that have been out there for a very long time, at least 20 years. To anyone who reads the important literature and the important writers, they are not really possible to ignore. They are simply a part of the record: the disappearing particle trail, the 6.5 mm fragment, the failure of the HSCA to resolve the original camera dispute, and the densitometer readings. When you ignore those things, then you are relying not on fact, but on faith. That is belonging to a church. In a court of law, at least in California, you would call a 402 hearing, without the jury, on these artifacts. Maybe in Arpaio land you would not, but in CA you would. Now if I was the defense I am not sure if I would want to knock it out. For the simple matter that I would love to have the jury hear this stuff. Just as I would love them to hear Stringer deny he ever took the pics of the brain. I mean it would get to be Monty Pythonesque going through this ridiculous evidence trail. See, this is what is called fact based analysis, from people who do not want to cover things up. Its the other side that wants to do that because they are faith based. As Bill Alexander said about CE 399, its like the Virgin Birth, you either believe in the miracle or you do not. Well their side does.

Again, do you believe Von Pein? Above he says both the photos and x rays were authenticated. And he relies on the HSCA for that, even though we just showed him how the HSCA completely misrepresented their own evidence on this point. And then both Baden and Blakey said they did not recall seeing those witness statements. Now let us proceed to repeat something I already stated and that somehow the Von Pein, FC, TP crowd ignores. FC distorted it out of its actual meaning, par for the course with him. In the HSCA volumes it says that they could not find the original autopsy camera with which to do a comparison photo for authenticity purposes. (HSCA Vol 6, p 226 FN 1) As I noted above, the HSCA already misrepresented the evidence on the issue by saying the Bethesda witnesses saw something completely different than the Parkland witnesses. As Gary notes, they also misrepresented this camera evidence. Because they did find the camera. But Blakey sent it back saying it could not be the correct one. Because it could not match the pictures to this camera. Hmm. Now there is a way out of this and that is to claim the camera lens and shutter had changed. But we cannot determine that is the case since the HSCA deep sixed the actual notations on this experiment. (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DIEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 280) Again, none of these people were aware of this? That book has been out there for 15 years. As per the x rays, I mean this is ludicrous. The 6.5 mm fragment did not show up on the original x rays. But it did show up for the Ramsey Clark panel. The particle trail in the rear of the skull rising upward was reported by Humes in his report. To his chagrin, before the ARRB, he had to admit its not there now. And these guys do their Lt Frank Drebin impersonation on this one. Plus there is the Mantik densitometer readings, which they also ignore. Drebin times two.

Rick, As a general rule I choose to believe witnesses' earlier statements over their later ones, because their later statements may have changed due to external influences . It sound like you are that way too. In contrast, Francois chooses to trust whatever statements support his beliefs. And that's the reason he believes what Dr. Perry said later on. There's no doubt in my mind about that. Its even worse than that. See, these guys always deny that a cover up took place. Because if you admit that happened then you have to ask: Why? In this case Elmer Moore of the Secret Service admitted that his function after the assassination was to inhabit Parkland Hospital and get the doctors to jump on board the official story, and he specifically talked about what he did to Perry to get him to change his story. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 166-69) Moore was so bad that he showed up for his fist interview for the Church Committee with his lawyer in tow. Now, what are we left with here: either DVP, FC, etc, never knew about Moore, which makes them rather incompetent and unknowledgeable since his name has been out there for over 20 years; or they did know about him but they don't want to bring him up since he really hurts their case. I would rather think its the former, but I tend to think its the latter since DVP has been on these boards for decades in lieu of, as he says, the life he does not have. And that is intellectual dishonesty defined. But the evidence that the WC was a huge cover up is all over the place. What the WC did not know or care to know could have filled up another 26 volumes. Except that info was all much more important and pertinent to a criminal inquiry. The Arizona lawyer called my rather brief recitation of it, "mind numbing". Which tells you all you need to know about who he is and what he is about. The FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph and the WC used that rigged test. David Phillips was running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign operations. Just what was TIppit doing from about 12:20 to the time he was shot? Try and find that in the WR. You will not. But its in Joe McBride's book, and its in my article "The TIppit Case in the New Millennium." And it helps explain why Tippit was not where he was supposed to be at the time he was shot. The Tippit case is extraordinarily important. I mean how the heck did the Oswald ID get there? Why did we have to wait thirty years to find that out? That point is so crucial that Bugliosi simply BS'd his way out of it. As I have always said, you do not have to pull the perfect crime. You just have to control the cover up.

IMO, as I noted in my PP presentation, I think McNamara began to show signs of stress and depression over this in late 1966 at a dinner he had with Schlesinger, Kaysen, Goodwin, and Galbraith. They noted that McNamara realized that Rolling Thunder was not working and America was actually losing the war. But Johnson was still intent on escalating. In Ellsberg's book Secrets, he continues this theme and actually has McNamara crying on his desk in 1967 and burying his face in a curtain. He probably got this from John McNaughton, DOD deputy until he died in the summer of 1967. I have talked to Newman about his discussions with McNamara in the eighties and nineties, and its really like McNamara had PTSD over what he had done. He even mumbled to John, "When did I know?" It was that mental state that caused him to commission the Pentagon Papers and to keep them a secret from LBJ, who he knew would terminate them. I think that was his way of expiating his guilt. But both he and Bundy got it on the record before they died that Kennedy was not going to commit to Vietnam.

Thanks Jim. Spread it around if you can. But you know although this captures a lot of the story, there is still more out there. John Newman told me that McNamara gave him access to top secret debriefs about Vietnam that almost no one had ever seen before. They are in his revised book JFK and Vietnam and also in a talk he did at UT which I have not seen yet. But I will write about them later. Isn't it incredible how all this was covered up for three decades? I remember when Garrison used to talk about this or write about it and I used to think, c'mon Jim, isn't that stretching it? Well, not at all. It was Hallin's Spheres at work. And it took Oliver Stone and Fletcher Prouty and Newman to expose it.

What this shows is just how bad Baden is on this case and its why Bugliosi used him. In Gary Aguilar's essay in MIDP, which evidently DVP has not read (no surprise), he says that he confronted both Blakey and Baden with the over 20 HSCA statements saying that these Bethesda witnesses saw such a wound in the back of Kennedy's skull. Both men replied that they did not recall seeing those statements. (p. 200) Now, you can believe that or not. Personally, I have a hard time buying it. But also recall, there were two nurses at Parkland who were assigned to clean off the body and prepare it for transport. They were Bowron and HInchliffe. To put it mildly they are not good witnesses for the WC official story. Therefore, this argument collapses when the full story is told. Because of the two nurses, and the idea that somehow the 20 Bethesda witnesses could be confused after the body was cleaned. PS Only DVP would use a witness who instructed Ida Dox to embellish the very photo under discussion. That is Three Stooges stuff.