James DiEugenio

Oh really? Did they ever find out who was at Sylvia Odio's door?

Cory: Yes we have the story at Kennedys and King from a French newspaper. The story of Connally saying he always thought it was BS is in Joe McBride's book Into the Nightmare.

Davey: Unlike WN, i am actually kind enough to give you the time of day. The Single Bullet Fantasy never happened. Its that simple. When that obviously planted bullet was found, the WC was stuck with it. Because if they did not use it, then they would have to admit that 1.) not only was there a conspiracy, but 2.) the cover up was working in hand with the plot; or why else plant the bullet--albeit on the wrong stretcher. In every single forensic element, the SBF is simply and completely indefensible. That is why the story changed three times within two months of the shooting. If Larry Schnapf ever gets the money to complete his real computer simulation, he is going to utterly humiliate Dale Myers and his cartoon. (Although Bob Harris already has) Now your side has fallen back to the stance that, well see, its more coherent than anything you guys have. What shamelessness. As Bob Tanenbaum once said, this is like the prosecution saying to the defense, "What have you got?" See, it does not work like that in the real world. The defense is not mandated to prove its case. The prosecution has to do that and you cannot. But even with that, I have tried to put together a scenario in Destiny Betrayed, which I think is pretty solid. But the thing is, the WC screwed up the evidence so badly when the trail was warm, that it makes it that much harder to find out what really happened. Especially today, after the ARRB did not fulfill its mandate properly and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA. So please, that ignorant and smart aleck bluster might make you fell good, (fore hat reason I do not know). And it may help you score points with the likes of FC, Reitzes and McAdams. But as far as a real world inquiry into the facts, its just junior high school smart alecky stuff.

To FC. As I said, you wrote that I said the following: At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents. I am now asking you: Is the italicized phrase above what you quoted me as saying at that conference yesterday?

Then, in addition to your other (ahem) qualities, you have a peculiar sense of humor.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question from FC: Did you quote me at that December 10th conference as saying that I have been through the declassified files and concluded that there was nothing of substance in them?

PB: But, I am a sentient human being with a functioning analytical brain,and am able to be persuaded otherwise. LOL This from the guy who was still trying to confuse the process of NAA with CBLA in order to keep the NAA alive as a way of imputing Oswald's guilt. And then he says he is not hanging onto anything! I mean please Baker. Do you ever go back and read some of the things you place on this forum to see how silly and hypocritical you sound? PS Thanks Paz.

No FC. As I said, you wrote that I said the following: At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents. I am now asking you: Is the italicized phrase above what you quoted me as saying at that conference yesterday?

This is what FC said that I said: This is not what I said on any shows. I was asked several times to mention some of the new revelations in the declassified documents from October 2017. I mentioned several new documents that had new information in them that were of substance to the case. These dealt with the CIA's reporting on Mexico City, the relationship between Ruby and Oswald, that the CIA destroyed Clay Shaw's 201 file, and the ultimate revealing in 2017 that Earle Cabell was a CIA asset since 1959. And those are just some of the important documents. I have not been through all of them as of now. Each one of those are of impact to the case. No one who understands the JFK assassination to any wide degree would say that they were not. The only way one could dismiss those revelations is if one had an MSM type agenda and was being paid to do so. Or if one had such an emotional attachment to the WC that they had to do so. Now this all started when FC asked me for some information on what was in the files. When I was reluctant to do so, he continued to ask me. I referred him to a show I did. He then quoted me as to the above. I am still trying to locate where I said that, because I do not recall doing so. Did FC ask me this question so that he could deliberately misconstrue what I said at that conference yesterday and then attribute the wrong quote to me and not to him?

Twelve hours ago I asked FC to please show me where I said that there was nothing of substance that was released in the new documents from October. This is what he says I said in an interview. I am still waiting for his reply to that query.

PB:The single bullet (or 'magic bullet' as conspiracy theorists tend to describe it) theory remains the most coherent interpretation of the established facts. It is not coherent at all. And I showed why in those pages I referenced for FC. Those pages are full of facts, pure and simple. Every step of the way the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny. Its a matter of data, not opinion. The reason people like Baker hang on to it is because without it, you have a conspiracy. Even the WC admitted this. And they realized that quite early in the proceedings. According to Pat Speer it was in January.

I did not mean that Pat. I meant to the observations of Matt Douhit on the book.

I will be checking back in here about every hour or so to await FC's reply to my question. So far, none.

Can you provide a link to that Pat? Thanks.

Can you please show me where I said what you write that I did say? That is there was nothing of any substance in the new documents. I would like to hear someone ask me the question and I replied as you just said I did. Because I do not recall saying that. I did say that many should not have been withheld, and many are still redacted. But when asked if there was anything substantial in there, I do not recall saying there was nothing there. Now, if you listened to everything I said on this subject since last October, can you please show me where I said that?

1.) I suspect that Dulles was also an advisor to the program. There is evidence to that effect, but I am not at liberty to reveal it right now. It was part of the declassified docs. You know the stuff that the MSM says has nothing of value in it. 2.) Very good point Ron. CBS had to have been tied in to the WC before that day of the report's release. As Mark Lane wrote, when he and DeAntonio looked at the outtakes from the 1964 program they were taken aback. Because whenever a witness would say something that did not jibe with the WR, they would cut and start over and repeat it until they got the answer they wanted. No one can read over 800 pages in a day, or in this case, just a few hours. And then put together a two hour documentary. It is flatly impossible. CBS had either the report of a summary in advance, and they working on this from that summary weeks in advance. And their intent was to back up that report and to place the imprimatur of CBS on it. But we now know that the CBS imprimatur in this case was worthless. Since it was not an independent inquiry at all. 3.) To reply to Pamela, from my understanding, CBS ended up rejecting Baker due to the work of attorney Carol Hewett, no relation to Don since name is spelled differently. Carol, one of the best researchers I knew, spent months on the Baker case. She did a very through investigation since she was a practicing lawyer and had access to many databases. She ended up thinking that Baker was delusional.

This is a pretty decent overview of Bush considering its The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/george-h-w-bush-icon-of-the-wasp-establishment-and-of-brutal-us-repression-in-the-third-world/

I don't know the answer to the first. But in 1964, he was the producer of the nightly news. Roger Feinman wrote that this made him the top line producer at CBS at the time. They gave that job to Les Midgley in 1967 as Hewitt transitioned to Sixty Minutes. From the information that Roger left behind, in 1964, Hewitt would have only been responsible to Salant and the CNEC.

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.