James DiEugenio

OMG, going from this interesting book to Bush pressuring Canada not to release Bloomfield documents? McLaren's book sounds like a fascinating expose of a whole school of government that arose in direct opposition to what had come about because of the Kennedy brothers--that is the idea that government can be a positive force in the public square. Believe me, I know the depth of this antipathy in the upper classes toward the Kennedys. Since I have been exposed to it and read about it. They really considered him the anti Christ. Her book exposes the Libertarian ruse that was used to counter Kennedy's appeal by cloaking it in a pseudo populist manner. And working in the field of education for decades I thoroughly understand how that conspiracy works--and that is what it is, make no mistake about it. When did real estate developer Eli Broad become an expert in education? The whole idea of charter schools, "choice" schools, breaking down teachers unions and privatizing education is backed by bundles of Broad money. Sort of like the Right to Work bills, which really are right to be poor and have no benefits acts. That is what this is about. Two opposed philosophies of government. And this board has to reduce it to Bush? Please. Let us see the big picture once in awhile.

Amazing how far afield this has gone. I guess no one can supply a credible answer to the original question.

Thanks for this. Always nice to have new evidence. I had never heard of this woman before.

In those days Harold was really a one man wrecking crew. I mean the guy completely destroyed the Warren Report many times over. I think his best two books were his first two, Whitewash and Whitewash 2. Let us also never forget what he says about Troy West here. That is crucial.

I am pretty sure Weisberg was the only first generation critic to begin to question Marrion Baker's story about the second floor lunch room encounter. He did so in his book Whitewash 2. In this interview he also talks about the dubious Howard Brennan. Those were the days when critics could easily get on Pacifica. No more. Harold was really outspoken and direct in these interviews. https://kennedysandking.com/videos-and-interviews/harold-weisberg-on-howard-brennan-and-marrion-baker

Let me repeat: As I wrote, he rather arbitrarily eliminated 3 possible sites. He then settled on the site that was behind the picket fence almost perpendicular to the car as it passes. As I noted this is not a smart choice. But it gave Gary the opportunity to say, no cannot be that since it would have hit Jackie. When he knew this was wrong........ And where does he then go? The sixth floor "sniper's nest" window. And where does the show end at? There. Images Ken, images.

The reason I asked that Ken is because in the review I trace how Gary walks around the plaza with his marksman trying to find a spot for a front shot. As I wrote, he rather arbitrarily eliminated 3 possible sites. He then settled on the site that was behind the picket fence almost perpendicular to the car as it passes. As I noted this is not a smart choice. But it gave Gary the opportunity to say, no cannot be that since it would have hit Jackie. When he knew this was wrong. And where does he then go? The sixth floor "sniper's nest" window. And where does the show end at? There. Do we have to connect the dots here? I don't think so.

One of the judges in the New Orleans circuit would not let the Commission be entered as evidence in court. In fact, he giggled when Shaw's lawyers tried to do so. No she is not a man, but that is not her real name. The HSCA data and raw information is much better than the Warren Commission. Which is why it was classified. The interviews by the HSCA, and by the ARRB under Jeremy Gunn and Doug Horne, the sum total of that evidence contains a quantum leap in this case. I could not have written what I did in The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today without that declassification and investigatory process. To me it was a continuation and extension in detail of what Finck said under oath at the Shaw trial.

Not really. He is saying that they did not happen at that certain time. Veciana has not replied yet. But that does that matter to Parnell? Heck no.

What the HSCA did with the Ida Dox drawings was a disgrace. BTW, I hope everyone knows, that is not her real name. Would you call this, "protecting the guilty"?

Ken: Did you read the articles I posted carefully? I don't think you did. In the documentary ITTC, does Gary mention the acoustics? If so, I must have missed it. Now, he lined up his GK shot from a point behind the fence that is almost perpendicular to the car. The reason he did this is so he could say that "No. Could not come from there since it would have hit Jackie." Groden pointed out to him that this was wrong since he had falsely arranged the actors. But anyone can see in the Z film that this is wrong anyway. But Gary kept it in the show. That is not journalism, it is propaganda. Secondly, when you watch the program you will see that Gary bypasses the spot where most commentators think the actual assassin did fire from. This is further down the fence, where it juts out toward the street and you would be standing over a storm drain. I defy anyone to stand in that spot with a scoped rifle and say a professional assassin would miss. And that is the reason Gary passed it up. If you want to continue to defend Gary, and take cheap shots at me, go ahead. But I know both the programs pretty well. What's next Ken? Gary is right and Ruby had no help getting into the police station?

Let me put it this way, I have never been to Tyler to check on it myself. But the estimate was that there were something like 200 people there. If anyone would have said he was not there, I think that info would be out there by now.

My review of Baker's book is below: https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/baker-russ-family-of-secrets

The late Mike Ruppert had some rather unkind comments about Wheaton. To put it mildly, he did not trust him.

Joe: That was the point that Frank was trying to make at the end. See, the whole Power Elite arrangement today does not necessitate that kind of extreme measure. As its evolved, especially after the film JFK, the pattern is to simply marginalize any dissident voices. And once you have them off in the corner, then you caricature them and ridicule them and that has the impact of discouraging anyone from going there. We got a good example of this in 2013 during Cyril Wecht's 50th anniversary conference in Pittsburgh. Time Magazine sent a reporter there to cover it. Who did he focus his article on? John McAdams. There were some very good presentations there but this guy just happens to hook up with McAdams, and focuses his article on his feud with Lisa Pease. I simply do not buy that this was an accident. And Alec Baldwin confirmed this at the Houston mock trial dinner. He said that at the fiftieth he had proposed to NBC a documentary special on the JFK case. They said words to the effect that they had more or less reconciled themselves to the official story. And this is a big TV/ film star! I mean that is how compromised the Power Elite is on this case. Now if you link Baldwin's rejected proposal with what was happening in Dallas at the time through Mayor Mike Rawlings, you understand how and why that anniversary turned out to be a disgraceful spectacle. Gary Mack sent the email to City Hall a bit less than two years in advance, and the rest of the Power Elite fell into place.

I think that is pretty much accurate Steven. But it does tells us something about the society we live in, and more pointedly, the MSM that controls it. I mean if Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are still shoveling crap for the Power Elite in 2017, that says a lot does it not? And this is the allegedly liberal MSNBC.

Toward the end of Frank's review, he brings up a point that may be overlooked. In referring to Garrison's Playboy interview, he quotes him as saying he feared that America was becoming kind of a proto fascist state. Different in both cause and impact from the German and Italian models. And Frank brings in that fine comparison of Bertram Gross' book Friendly Fascism. Garrison continued that, with him, the real test of a democratic society was: What happens to the person who dissents? As did the DA, as did Oliver Stone, as does Groden. Unlike in Germany and Italy, they don't just liquidate you. At least most of the time. Instead they do something more insidious and more effective. They marginalize you, they ridicule you, they smear you, they harass you, they intimidate you. Until your name becomes synonymous with things like alien abductions. This is more effective for a simple reason: it sets you up as an example to others. See what we did to Oliver Stone, don't even think of going there. It works.

Robert Parry dwarfed Hersh in stature, honesty and range. And he was not a sell out on JFK.

This is an interesting incident. Which is kind of murky after all these years. Oswald wanted either Abt or an ACLU lawyer. According to Manchester, the ACLU had been turned away already. According to more than one witness, including Marrion Baker, Oswald was very loud and insistent about getting an attorney. (Armstrong, p. 893) Oswald first mentioned Abt on Friday at about 6 PM. He then asked for him again in the wee hours of Saturday morning. he then asked for him again on Saturday at about 11:30 AM. Later than afternoon, after taking to his brother Robert, he tried to call Abt, but it was not succesful. He then called Ruth Paine and gave her the info on Abt. Ruth said she was irritated by the request but did make one call to Abt. I do not think there are long distance records which show this. Has anyone seen any? According to Lou Nichols of the Dallas Bar, Oswald also wanted him to get Abt. Reportedly, Abt was out of town that weekend and therefore could not be contacted anyway. Oswald not having an attorney surely influenced what happened when he was in detention. And it might have helped prevent his shooting on Sunday.

Ron: To be fair to the late Gary Mack. In my article, which is Part 3 of my review of the show ITTC, I try and explain what I think happened to Gary. IMO, it was a confluence of events that caused him to go over to the Sixth Floor. He first marriage broke up, and he was forced to sell his nice home in a divorce sale, he lost his job, and he now became friendly with Dave Perry who was introduced to him by Gus Russo. So, although I do not condone what he did, I think those conditions at least put it in some perspective. We should also recall this: in the original series The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Gary was one of the two main talking heads, along with Groden. And I have to say, I thought Gary was pretty effective in that role, probably due to his prior radio experience. This is what I think gives Plaza Man its depth, contrast and also its sense of pathos and isolation. Groden refused the offer and he stayed true to that pledge he made at Arlington over Kennedy's grave. And we see the price he paid for that. Since the whole Power Structure of Dallas is arrayed against him. Again, as Frank Cassano wrote, quoting Garrison, "What happens to the individual who dissents?" Well, this film shows what happens. You get thrown in jail, you get ticketed 82 times, and on the anniversary, you get sidelined and marginalized by 200 cops as part of a Potemkin Village display. As I said, there is a longer version of the film that may come out later. I hope it shows more of that utterly sickening power play at the Fiftieth.

One last point vs Parnell. The idea that Gary Mack was only a "consultant" on those two Discovery Channel programs really defies all logic. Gary was not just the main talking head on both of them, he was really the controlling talking head, the dominant talking head. To the point that he was really more like the host. Secondly, not only was he given a producer creditor on ITTC, but if you look at the IMDB cast and crew roster, there is no writer listed for either show. I leave everyone to draw their own conclusions about that. Especially since it was Gary who did the online Q and A after.

1.) Tracy, those articles were written while he was alive! Gary had ample opportunity to reply to them point by point. To my knowledge, he never did. He only replied to ingenue types in an online Q and A. 2.) Why does one need a stage name when one is not on stage anymore? 3.) Disagree with his beliefs? ITTC's spurious point about Jackie being in the line of fire is even worse than I wrote above. How could fit be worse you may ask? As stated, Groden pointed out the falsity of the arrangement of the actors in the car during production. In other words before the thing was edited and broadcast. Yet, when it was broadcast, Mack still said Jackie would have been in the line of fire. He was then confronted with this false statement online. He now admitted it was wrong. Two comments. He was alerted to this during the production by Groden. Second, the audience in those online forums was much smaller than those who watched the film. Because of this, I did not give him the benefit of the doubt when he "erred" and said Oswald left a note for Marina the morning of the assassination.

Oh please Tracy. Give us a break will you? https://kennedysandking.com/content/jfk-inside-the-target-car-part-one https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-the-ruby-connection-gary-mack-s-follies-part-one Those two above programs said that 1.) Ruby killed Oswald with no help, by himself and they did not know each other and 2.) No shot at Kennedy came anywhere except from the so called Sniper's Nest. The HSCA disagreed with both. How about this one? https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/gary-mack-strikes-again Gary somehow "misremembered" and told the public Oswald left a note for Marina the morning of the assassination. And here is Gary Mack, Parnell's "outstanding person", who is right in the middle of that whole disgraceful movement to deprive people of their first amendment rights and also practice prior restraint by not letting them even say something in the first place. And then arranging with City Hall that Homeland Security cleared event. https://kennedysandking.com/news-items/the-power-elite-in-dallas-takes-charge That whole Duncan McRae meme, that Gary was really open minded on the case, is completely demolished by his being, not just the host of those 2 programs, but a producer on them. And then participating in that whole deception in ITTC: about a shot from the knoll would have hit Jackie Kennedy. What a pile of baloney. And he tried to arrange the actors in the car to make it look like that, but thankfully Groden was there so he could not get away with that one. But prior to that, he deliberately eliminated the most logical place for a sniper from the front: where the picket fence juts out toward the street and has a storm drain right underneath. Do you condone these tactics in a documentary? After all the end justifies the means right? Mack was clever at keeping up the whole story about "oh, if we had a couple of drinks I might consider otherwise" concept, while he then participated in these horrendous programs with Robert Erickson which were pure propaganda pieces all the way. When I heard he and Erickson were doing the Ruby show I wrote Erickson a letter asking to meet with him to discuss the subject. I lived a half hour from his office. Gave him my phone, email, address. Like a Gus Russo production, I got nothing back. As per his honest advice to visitors? How about telling Steven King that the key to the assassination was to follow the rifle. Yeah Gary. The WC's wrong rifle that Oswald did not order. If you portray the facts accurately, that is not a hit piece sir. As Harry Truman said about the Republicans in 1948, "I'm going to tell the truth, and they'll think its Hades."

In addition to those Gene, Groden gave a private screening of the Z film to congressman Tom Downing in 1976. This was done at the request of Downing's son. The other person in the room was Andy Purdy, who was a friend of the son and who knew Groden. At that time, Purdy worked with Mark Lane's Citizen Commission of Inquiry. Downing was so upset by the film, that he decided to sponsor a bill to reopen the investigation into the JFK case. He then gave a series of really good speeches on the floor of the House to push it through. He was the first chair of the HSCA. But we know what happened after. Downing decided to resign from congress. And then Gonzalez, the new chair, and Sprague got into that feud. First Gonzalez resigned and then Sprague resigned. And we ended up with Stokes and Blakey. People like Purdy and Baden saw the handwriting on the wall and they now switched their positions. Groden stuck it out as a consultant from beginning to end. And while he was there, he gave one of the photographic presentations to the committee and its staff. That was one of the highlights to Sprague's short lived reign. Sprague arranged for three presentations of the photographic evidence--all in one day. All thirteen lawyers were there, with about 40 staffers. The three presentations were by Cutler, Groden and the other Dick Sprague. It took all day. According to attorney Al Lewis, when it was over, of the 13 lawyers, only one still backed the Warren Report. It was the beginning of the end of the Krazy Kid Oswald mythology. And that is a hint of what the HSCA could have been.

The more I look back at that fiftieth anniversary, the more I see it as perhaps one of the most serious deprivations of the first amendment along with some of the purest broadcast propaganda in recent history. As the article notes it began with an email from the late Gary Mack to city hall. And if you can believe it, that email was almost two years in advance of the anniversary. When it first came to light, i took it seriously. But others did not. In retrospect that was a mistake. Because I do not think that what they did could have stood up to a court challenge. In my opinion it was clearly a violation of freedom of assembly, speech and the right to petition. And it was all done in violation of the concept of prior restraint. That is, the people who's rights were being violated did not even get the opportunity to speak in the first place. Which is what the Pentagon Papers case was all about. You cannot do that stuff. Looking back, we should have started a drive back then and got it on the web and started collecting funds and choosing a legal team. I really do think we would have won. I mean we already had some lawyers on our side like Lesar, Alcorn and Wecht. (Wecht has a law degree from University of Maryland.) And if we could have raised the case profile I think we could have gotten some big name lawyer pro bono. I will never forget that day as long as I live. After watching about twenty or thirty cops at one intersection, backed up by a cop on horseback, screaming back and forth with Alex Jones on his bullhorn, I decided, along with many others, to retreat to a coffee shop that was probably about four block from Dealey Plaza. There must have been literally dozens of people there, too many for the inside so they scattered outside. And we watched those completely uninspiring, soporific speeches by Pizza Hut guy Rawlings and MSM historian McCullough. It was a naked assault on both democracy and the first amendment. And it was an adulteration of the memory of JFK. It was, without qualification, a disgrace. But that is how much the Power Elite fears this issue.