James DiEugenio

No I do not. I do know he worked with Werbell after though. He then rose up the ranks really fast. He was also involved in the Dominican operation.

Robert: Just to close off the point about the UN, and take it back to 1963. When you look back at what Kennedy did with the UN in Congo, its really a demarcation point. I am pretty sure that was the first UN armed mission. Kennedy decided to take over Hammarskjold's role there after the guy was murdered in that plane crash. The documentation on this coming out of the archives is really strong today. What he was doing was in tune with what the mission was according to Hammarskjold. That the UN should serve as a forum for the young and weak who really did not have a voice outside of it. And there was also something else in these documents. The UN had a resettlement plan for the displaced Palestinians, in which they would give them a choice of where they wanted to go. And the UN, plus the USA, would pay for the resettlement costs, and this included in Israel. JFK backed that plan. Today of course, Ben N would get on the horn, make all those threatening noises, and that would be it.

Shameful the way the USA bandies about its influence at the UN. Same thing for that silly presentation by Powell about Iraq' s mythical WMD. But let me say this, one of the things that the wonderful Malcolm Blunt has sent me is the 1963 correspondence between Kennedy and Israel. Fascinating stuff. I am going to try and put together an article for Consortium News about it.

Joe: Then what do you call Nixon?

Pat Speer has done some good work on this issue. It seems that other members of the Warren Commission began to realize early that there was a paucity of bullets in the case. That is, you had two shells and the magic bullet. But you had way too many wounds to account for. So I think Pat produced some evidence that Belin and Ball began to think that they were going to have to have one bullet do heavy duty work rather early. Although it was not as defined as Specter's radar guided flight path for CE 399. Bugliosi's idea that that he swallowed from Redlich--that they all came to the same conclusion at the same time-- is about as credible as Belin's "dream" .

Jim: Its true that Boxley was an infiltrator into Garrisons' office. But this particular interview with Rennar was done years later as I recall. Plus if you remember, Mary Ferrell was off on the far right politically, so Rennar probably was also. Therefore Boxley was probably being frank. For instance, in that interview Boxley was the first insider to actually expose the anti Garrison operation at CIA. Which included what he called a "Garrison desk". So I tend to think this is probably candid.

The reason Nixon and Kissinger hid the bombing of Cambodia was that it was illegal. There was no declaration of war against that country, as the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was supposed to be a declaration of war against Vietnam. If you recall, as Mr Bai does not, the secret bombing of Cambodia was one of the five proposed articles of impeachment against Nixon in the House. It was the exposure of that disastrous operation that led to the eventual repealing of the Tonkin Gulf resolution. And that eventually led to the congress shutting off the funding for all Indochina operations. As per the point of this story, Trump actually told Lesley Stahl that this was his strategy. He would negate the bad press by telling his public that the news media was full of crap.

Ron: That is an interesting link. Thanks for that one. And yes that would be a possibility. Makes more sense than Thompson's idea of the anterior neck wound being a deflection from the skull. BTW, I liked most of Bob's posts also. He really did know a lot of stuff about ballistics and he knew if firsthand.

Thanks for trying to get this back on track. But whenever DVP jumps in rooting his single bullet fantasy stuff, forget it.

There is some evidence that there was a bullet recovered e.g. the receipt for missile thing. And the late Robert Morrow said that he knew one of the doctors at the morgue and he told him that there was a bullet taken out of Kennedy's back. That is something that I think is explainable. But the no exit for the throat wound is a real puzzler to me.

This is how Jackie got there. Caro wrote about it in his last installment. https://www.irishcentral.com/news/lyndon-johnson-demanded-jackie-kennedy-be-present-for-famous-swearing-in-pic-after-her-husbands-assassination-144344305-237749941

Boy that is really fascinating about Smith visiting him in early 1964 at Walter Reed. Why didn't Armstrong write more about this in his book? He sure had some interesting raw materials.

Gees Joe, that is about the last thing I wanted to do. I really wanted this to be more than about Varnell's ego. But in your first reply, if it went into the chest, did it deflect off something? It must have, right? The other point I wanted to air is this: Is JFK's reaction with his hands going up, is that really an indication about his neck wound? Other people, like Don Thomas and Martin Hay, have argued its actually not.

Here is something that I think most of us have thought about before but have not debated openly I think in awhile. If the anterior neck wound is an entrance, where is the exit hole? IMO, this issue had driven some people to theorize its not an entrance.

I think this is from this book https://www.amazon.com/All-Way-LBJ-Presidential-Election/dp/0521737524/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1532372533&sr=8-15&keywords=LBJ+in+1964 Which actually looked like a pretty good book. That author probably discusses the tape there. Since the book boasts that the author listened to 800 tapes at the LBJ Library. It was alway odd to me that nothing ever came of the Reynolds inquiry. I think the charge was kickbacks.

John: We are not talking about the JFK case. At least not me. The reason that info interested me was because of the possible associations between Stephenson, the Rockefellers and Sarnoffs and Bloomfield.

Do you want to explain what you think this all means Steve?

Ted Kennedy ran that year because he made astute observations about both Reagan and Carter. As he told Bob Shrum, he thought that Reagan, off his performance in 1976, would be the GOP candidate. This was correct, as Reagan steamrolled Bush I in the Republican primaries. He also thought that Carter was in such a weak position that, not only was there a distinct possibility he could lose, but he would not be able to motivate the Democratic Base the way Reagan would motivate the GOP Base. Which could lead to a wave election. It might be accurate to say that Carter was closest of all Democrats to JFK in foreign policy since 1963. But Carter was simply an incompetent, non charismatic and rudderless president on domestic policy. If you recall, there was the rising gas prices, the economic stagflation, that stupid malaise speech, Carter's idiot brother, and Carter wearing his sweater in front of fireplace etc etc. Carter was so non inspirational that John Anderson ran in the general. Did that make a difference? From the final results I have looked at, not likely. Arthur Schlesinger wrote a long essay for The New Republic where he just lambasted the Carter administration for being so weak kneed that he pointed out that it was the first Democratic administration since FDR that did not even have a nickname e.g. The New Deal, the Fair Deal, The New Frontier, The Great Society and then ? I make good peanuts? On top of that there was the renewed Cold War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan--which Carter's NSA predicted to him would happen and which they planned on--and then John McCloy cinching the decision to let the Shah into the country at David Rockefeller's behest. But the final twist was the October Surprise, or actually the second October Surprise--after Nixon and Thieu in 1968. It has always puzzled me to no end that the media did not pick up immediately on the fact that the hostages were being released right after the bell tolled on Reagan's inauguration. If you recall, the idea this was prearranged and was done with Reagan's campaign involvement did not really pick up any steam until something like 1991. And then Gary Sick wrote a book about it in 1992 and Bob Parry did a couple of TV specials for PBS around this time. I will never forget my puzzlement as to the timing of that release. I recall scratching my head and wondering, "When did Khomeini turn into a good guy and why does he like Reagan?" As Bob Parry later put the pieces of the puzzle together, Iran/Contra was not in and of itself. It was a continuation of what happened in the fall of 1980. That is how determined Bill Casey was to be sure he finished off the wounded Carter.

This is really interesting now. Good find Steve. I thought the stuff about NSA intercepts was an assumption by Garrison. But now it appears it had a firm basis in the guy's work record. Again, this is one of those things that Garrison surfaced, investigated but did not have the resources to follow through to fruition. The HSCA should have done that. But alas, we know what happened there.

I thought this turned out pretty well. The sound quality is really clear. As I said, I later discovered this trashy show was from Discovery Channel, which explained their not so hidden agenda. David Giglio is doing some really good work at Our Hidden History. If you are not aware of his site or You Tube Channel you should be.

Let me say something else. When congress locked up the files of the HSCA, they sure as heck knew what they were doing. Because the stuff that was classified was about ten times more interesting and relevant than what is in the HSCA volumes.

I don't think I have seen a phenomenon like this since Watergate for saturation coverage.

William Bishop is also a witness to seeing an exile training film with Oswald in it. Gene, the guy I think you are referring to who get beat up to the point he could not testify is Clyde Johnson. Not Hicks. As per the radio addition I think that was done by Dick Sprague the photo analyst who found a pic that resembled Hicks from the rear and what did look like an electronic gadget in his back pocket. Personally, I never knew what to make of this guy.

From what I have, there is not a formal interview with Gambino. What I have is Betsy's notes on the interview. Let me say this. It is really too bad what happened to the HSCA. That is the fall of Sprague. Because there were some good people investigating for them. Betsy Wolf was like a bulldog on this issue.

Jeff: If you read Josh Marshall's lengthy analysis of the IG report you will see that something did force Comey's hand. It was the fear that the info would leak out of the NY FBI office which was anti HRC. This is something that he feels was not made the focus of the report. But it should have been. Jeff: I agree that this has become almost McCarthyite by the MSM. The thing is that everything that Mueller had done so far is kind of questionable. On two grounds. First, it does not directly relate to the original charge. I mean operating as a foreign representative without registering is a very common offense. As many in that business have said, it is almost never enforced. Second, the Democratic hack charge has been criticized by some very smart and technically minded people. No less than Bill Binney. Third, where is the evidence of collusion and conspiracy? Nothing that has come out so far comes near to what Bill Clinton did in Russia in 1996. And hardly anyone ever mentions that double standard.