James DiEugenio

WN: How did that happen? For example, who did Hewitt take his marching orders from at CBS? Its in that article I linked to. Based on the Fienman documents. The top management--Paley, Stanton, Salant, and inexplicably Sig Mickelson, who was not part of CBS at the time, decided to halt the drive by the lower level guys to put the Warren Commission on trial. To the point that John McCloy ended up being a consultant to the show, something that both he and CBS lied about. This was convenient for Salant, since McCloy's daughter worked for him. Roger Feinman paid a high price for protesting what CBS did. He ended up getting terminated. But not before he spirited out these documents that proved their perfidy.

The evidence would certainly indicate that such was the case. In Hewitt's case since he was producing the news hour in 1964 he had to have been involved with the 1964 special in some way. On the later 1967 special I am not so sure. As per his rather nebulous comments about Nixon etc, it reminds me of Ben Bradlee and Talbot. Bradlee pleaded that he was just a young reporter in 1963. Talbot did not ask him, "But Ben, when you were at the peak of your power in 1976, after Watergate, you did all you could to smear the HSCA, including colluding with David Phillips to knock down the Bishop/Phillips Veciana story." In both cases, when Hewitt and Bradlee were in a position to do something positive, they utterly failed.It matters little what they said decades later in retirement.

Hewitt is not being honest in this interview. I find it hard to believe that he does not know about the massive cover up that took place at CBS for the 1967 4 part series. Hewitt was quite close to Rather and Cronkite, since he produced the CBS Evening News and was in charge of the JFK assassination coverage in 1963. As the late Roger Feinman, who worked at CBS, wrote about it, that 1967 series began with pretty good intentions. People like Dan Schorr really wanted to do an investigative series that would actually try and find the true facts of the case. And it was not just Schorr, but a coterie of about four or five employees and reporters who had read some of the books on the case and understood how phony the WC and FBI inquiries were. But as that proposal went up the ladder, it was eventually crushed by the top management at CBS which had formed a secret committee, the CNEC, in the wake of all the uproar that Murrow had created there. They then brought in two west coast lawyers to advise that CBS should actually take on the critics, not the Commission, and even recommended "experts" like Luis Alvarez for the show. One of those lawyers, Bayless Manning, was then named by David Rockefeller as the first president of the CFR in 1971. Pretty tough to expose any kind of conspiracy with that kind of resistance from the top. Read all the details below. https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/22/how-cbs-news-aided-the-jfk-cover-up/ Here is a slightly longer version: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-cbs-covered-up-the-jfk-assassination Funny that the interviewer did not ask Hewitt how CBS could put on a show endorsing the WC report in 1964, on the day that it was released. It happened. How was that possible? Mark Lane and Emile DeAntonio later found out that CBS not only knew what the report was going to say, but CBS rehearsed the report's witnesses when they said something that contradicted the official story for that one. In fact, they were so tied into the WC that they changed their 1964 film scenario to include Brennan after the WC decided to feature him as their witness for the window. (Mark Lane, A Citizen's Dissent, pp. 75-79) As WN notes, Hewitt wants to have it both ways. He wants to play the curious fellow about the WR, but he does not want to give away any of the deliberate corporate skullduggery that management forced them to do. Because that then reduces him to another compromised shill. Thanks for Feinman and Lane, we know what really happened there.

Don: Can you please ask John where the files will be uploaded to? Did he go ahead and take out a URL for this purpose? I for one would be interested in reading them.

The other place he could send them to would be Baylor. They have done a really good job with making the Armstrong collection available online.

Where is he going to release them to? Will he give them to MFF, or set up his own web site? I thought John got these from Jim Garrison.

Well, I think that is accurate. Quillette is part of the Libertarian movement which is Koch inspired. They like to say they are about science and truth and technical matters. But in looking at their work on the JFK case, that is simply not the case. They did no examination, Claire Lehmann did no proofreading, or fact checking. What she wanted was a pro WC slant and she got it. Its a bit different than Jennings, because in his case, essentially Casey swooped down and got his buddies at Cap Cities to purchase ABC in retaliation for that ABC report about the CIA hiring an assassin to squelch the exposure of Bishop Baldwin begin a CIA front. I was alway surprised that hardly anyone paid any attention to what Casey had done. It was a blatant attempt to control the media. BTW, if i recall, ABC had also done The Day After mini series. After Casey took over they did that horrible series Amerika. Again, no one noticed. But you are right, the ends are the same.

That is an accurate quote about Dulles WN. But some people actually did read it the 26 volumes. And they concluded that the report's conclusions did not match up to the evidence in the volumes. In fact, it often contradicted it. And that is what most people do not understand. In my article about Quillette that I just posted, I talk about this book that the late Maggie Fields was writing back in the sixties. She actually cut out the conclusions of the WR and pasted them to the top of a poster, and then she cut out the evidence in the volumes that either neutered it or contradicted it. And she made these big poster boards and put them in her basement. She insisted that this is the way she wanted her book published. But back in those days, the production cost would have been too high so it was not. What a devastating book that would have been.

Francois; I guess you have not read my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today. In that book I prove the actual factual basis of those accusations I made about the evidence in the Kennedy case. For the information about CE 399 being the wrong bullet, see pgs. 88-92. For the wrong rifle being in evidence today, see pgs.80-87. For the brain not being Kennedy's, see pgs 160-65. So unless you can prove that those arguments about the evidence are wrong or false, then I see no point in debating you and I will dismiss your threats about destroying me as utter bombast, which is what your side specializes in, see Vincent Bugliosi. Concerning Bush, as CIA Director, he did help crush the Church and Pike Committees as I have sourced here before. He also helped assemble Team B to run to the right of the CIA on the estimates of the Soviet threat. Which turned out to be wrong. I sourced that also. Bush also lied about not being associated with the CIA prior to his service as Director. Again, if you want to honor a guy like that, be my guest. It fits your personal profile.

You can say that again. This guy took up where Litwin left off.

Steve, There was a guy on this forum a year or so ago who said that every time he read an article by me he learned about ten new words. But I hope you learned more than that. Especially why Jenning became such a sell out.

Fred Litwin sure is an eager beaver. He got himself printed in this online journal. Which, as I discovered, has an interesting pedigree, with the whole "Google Memo" episode. They then got someone on their staff to do a parallel story to Fred's. Which turned out to be almost funny. In this case, the illusion disappeared once he watched the whole Peter Jennings roll of crapola in 2003. You know Dale Myer's and that junk. Wow. How stupid do they think we are. Anyway, some new info here that I don't think I ever have written about. Interesting destination for Tom Bethell when he fled New Orleans, among other nuggets, like how and why Jenning became such a sellout. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-crimes-of-quillette

I really did not like that either Joe. In fact, I was a bit surprised that Vince took that path. That is why I decided to reply at length and as fast as I could. I thought the critical community reply to Posner was not strong enough. Or immediate enough. So after actually reading the whole thing, and taking copious notes, I determined his book was really an argument made by length, and by invective. I was really surprised at how little there was that was new. The other thing is, I could detect no evidence that Vince actually left his office the whole time he worked on it. And that is bad in my view. Its always better when you talk to people in their own environment, and sometimes that leads you to others who are nearby. On the up side, if Bugliosi's cinder block was their last gasp, then its like Chaplin and his cannon. Big build up, and the cannonball rolls out of the barrel and hits the ground right below.

More on a what a rat Bush was. God Bob Parry's death was a blow to us all. What a good journalist he was. Unlike Amy Goodman, he really was not afraid to go anywhere. After reading these two articles I posted, he sure does make a good circumstantial case. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/03/bush-41s-october-surprise-denials-2/

IMO, Robin Unger would not put a photo shopped picture in his collection. According to his collection its not GHWB. Robin is the best guy on the pics you can get online and he is open to the public. We all owe him a great debt.

Bush did not arrive there at 1:40. The following info is taken from Baker's book and has been out there for a long time: "...a man named Aubrey Irby-was with Bush at the time of Kennedy's murder. Along with about a hundred other people. For Bush was about to give a luncheon speech at the Blackstone Hotel. He had just started when Irby told him what had happened. Bush called off the speech." (Baker, p. 54) The picture is taken at this point. It was the call to the Bureau that was then made at 1:40. Carlier, for you to then jump in and say that the critics are always going beyond the parameters of the evidence is so unfounded that its silly. Sometimes they might do that in relation to trying to determine who actually killed JFK. But as far as the overall forensic facts of the case, its been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy to kill the president. And that plot did not include Oswald as one of the assassins. Its the wrong rifle, its the wrong bullet and its the wrong brain. Case closed. Get over it FC.

No there is not. Someone asked me that question on a show once and I discovered that there is no such a report. Its just something someone said at a dinner.

Look, Roy and Ron, That is not GHWB in Dealey Plaza. Its that simple. Robin Unger has the best photo collection there is. And unless you find another photo that is not him. Second, Chuck Ochelli has a picture of Bush at the dias in Tyler at the time of the assassination. It is on Facebook. I don't really understand all this hubbub to somehow put Bush in Dallas. I really don't. Bush did plenty of really bad things that we can document and prove. And I have mentioned some of the them above. So why is it necessary to stretch things beyond which the parameters of evidence will not support?

I am adding the following story for two reasons. First, it shows again that Bob Parry was probably the premiere journalist of the last 25 years. Second, it strongly suggests that Bush was part of the October Surprise of 1980. Without that maneuver its an open question as to if Reagan would have become president. Bob came to think that the October Surprise was directly connected to Iran/Contra. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/12/01/taking-a-bush-secret-to-the-grave-2/

Thanks Denny. Syliva Meagher really liked the Sylvan Fox book. Fox was actually an MSM reporter when he wrote it. Your comments on the Tippit case are really insightful. As time goes on, the TIppit case has become more and more problematic. The work done on that case by people like Simpich, Armstrong, and most of all, Joe McBride, have really magnified all the problems inherent in it. Add in the huge problem of the wallet at the scene with Oswald's ID--plus that wallet is on film and the WC never found the film? Today, in light of all this new work, when you read the section in the Warren Report on the Tippit case, it is so bad and incomplete that its hard to keep from laughing. And BTW, let us never forget another directly related Tippit mystery that I do not think has never been solved: Carl Mather. To my knowledge, during the WC proceedings, the FBI never talked to him. This is a guy who had his license plate on a car with an Oswald double in it a few blocks from the Tippit murder. Then, that afternoon, went to visit Tippit's wife. Plus, he worked 21 years for a CIA proprietary. Fishy? Its a whole aquarium.

Mike: As I said, Butler is an interesting character who very few people have honed in on. But if you examine New Orleans, the guy shows up in quite a few places at the most opportune times. And as I said, the alacrity with which he went to Washington after Kennedy's murder is notable. Also, I think he was involved with Bringuier's broadsheet publication assembled about 24 hours after the assassination. Howard may be Joannides. Would not be surprised.

Hargrove brings up a good point, the whole ring thing was not a first day discovery, it was later. The money left was an accumulating amount, not a dump. As per why did he get his handgun, I think that Oswald now began to realize--with him being in that building, the motorcade passing, and the shooting, and considering who he really was--that uh oh, something may be up. And let us not forget, there is no evidentiary trail for the handgun in evidence today being ever picked up by Oswald at REA. Just take a look at what Hill and Westbrook did with that weapon.

The whole Bush clan was like a bad dream. And it took the almost beyond imagining reign of W to prove that fact. To say that hey, "look what the MSM is saying" meme is just ridiculous. The MSM does this for the passing of every president. In virtually every instance they do the opposite of Antony's speech. They surface whatever is good, and they bury all the evil. The one exception being Kennedy. With him, they surface the bad, even when its wrong or false, and they do not even go near all the good. You will only find out the real facts about this former president by looking at the writers who have really studied the man's record. People who really do the digging. George H W Bush began his rise to power as an appendage to Richard Nixon at the UN. And the more we find out about RMN, the more he looks like Doctor Doom. He then rose up further under Ford with the China spot and CIA chief. What is important about that step is twofold, First, when you trace the rise of the neocon movement, most commentators say that it began under Ford, what with Rumsfeld and Cheney, and the formation of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) by Nitze. (NItze is one of the unsung awful people on the post war scene.) The importance of the formation of the CPD is that, you now had the beginning of an extra legal body that was to the right of the CIA. As CIA Director, Bush did two key things. Working with the likes of Ford, Cheney and David Phillips, he helped kill off the Church Committee and squelch the Pike Committee. Secondly, he welcomed the arrival of the CPD and was all for them overruling the estimates of Soviet military strength of the CIA. This last one was a completely bogus and ersatz judgment done for political purposes, which is what Nitze was famous for. (He did it with NSC 68 also) It later was one of the main means by which Reagan authorized his peacetime military build up, which was going to include the bonkers MX missile, which, as I said, Bush cast the deciding vote for. This estimating group, that was later to be called Team B, was made up of people like future neocons and Reagan/Bush employees Richard Pipes and Paul Wolfowitz. (To show you how close the circles are, Pipes' son, Daniel, endorsed LItwin's first book.) It was Bush who had final approval over who was on Team B. There are two books on these subjects, Challenging the Secret Government on Bush vs Church and Pike, and Peddlers of Crisis about the the CPD.

OMG, I don't listen well? Who screwed up the whole thing about Garrison and the Mafia? I don't preach to anyone. My post was not about Litwin's book; Litwin's was about his book. My post was about his chapter on Jim Garrison. Since that is something I know a lot about and I know just how badly he distorted the subject and was appealing to ignorance, not declassified information. While saying there was not any info in the declassified docs. Utterly false and I proved it false in my article. Did you read that info? Did you understand how it undermined his chapter? Some people are not aware of this declassified information which contradicts his chapter. They don't have the time to go through the documents. And they don't have the access to them. I am in a situation where I do have the time and the access. That is what the ARRB was all about. New information. Now if you want to listen to Rachel Maddow or Phil Shenon say to millions that there is no new info, fine. If you want to listen to Litwin say that Garrison had nothing about New Orleans and there was nothing for Shaw to hide. Fine, that is your choice. There are many threads here I do not comment on. But I don't know why you have to take the time to do that here on this thread and then make it personal. I have none of the problems I have with you and CV with anyone else here or at DPF. Most people appreciate the new info I provide. And I am always approachable via email or PM, which people send me and I reply with more info if I have it. That is not preaching, that is replying to requests for information. And I do that on Black Op Radio also and have been doing it for a number of years. I never run out of emails to answer on that program. I must have answered literally hundreds of questions for Len Osanic. And its not preaching to the choir. That show has greatly expanded its listenership in the last few years. I really wish he would go on the satellite. That is what I see as my function, providing new information. And many, many others see it that way also. Why anyone would object to such a thing escapes me.

VInce, yeah the whole thing with Noriega was really something. Bush did not know about drug dealing in Central America and Noriega being in on it? The thing about the Neil Bush dinner the night before is, well, what can one call it? Ironic, interesting, a wild coincidence? I don't understand the photo of the TSBD.