James DiEugenio

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.

I agree. I am not sure if this is the show where I was almost wailing about how Trump is letting these guys break the law. But he is. See, the more I learn about what really happened with the ARRB, its really a shame. They had a good PR guy in Tom Samoluk, but the end result was kind of deceptive. I have come to the conclusion that they were not able to do their job in the defined length of time as a result of their being underfunded and understaffed. And also as Doug Horne wrote in his book, some people there were not as zealous as they should have been. I mean Earle Cabell as a CIA asset from 1959 and that info is NBR, not believed relevant? And it was held back for over 20 years? Please.

The thing about Stone is that he came to prominence in the wrong era. In the Afterword to The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I wrote about what had happened to the film industry of late. Back in the sixties and early seventies Stone would not have been exceptional in what he was doing. I mean when you had movies like Little Big Man, The Conversation, Medium Cool, Bonnie and Clyde, The Wild Bunch etc,. then Stone would not have seemed so much a dissenter. But Stone came to prominence in the eighties, the Age of Reagan. So to make movies like Salvador at that time? Plus, as Susan Sontag wrote in 1995, the American movie industry has become artistically irrelevant compared to what it was. So much so that she never wrote another essay after that on the subject. Though that piece created a mini controversy, I pretty much agreed with it. I mean when comic books and Star Wars make up the main staple of the menu, I mean please. Give me Easy Rider any day of the week. What makes that ironic is the Oscars now expanded to go up to ten nominees for Best Picture. Is that funny? So Oliver is pretty much out there on his own.

What a story WN. I mean really. And it is so much more believable than Litwin's. Plus its much more relevant to the real world. You really should write a book on it. A great subject. If you decide to do it, let me know. I will be glad to help and even see if I can get you a publisher.

You know Kirk I have CV on ignore so I only have to look at his stuff when someone else repeats it. Two others I had on ignore were Trejo and the Arizona lawyer who are both now gone. If you guys would ever say something that actually substantively replies to what I write, that is one thing, but to not even know what I am talking about---but to act as if you do--- tells me what you are about. I never said Bill and I killed the Mob did it theory. What I said was that we went after the whole "Garrison was tied up with the Mob" and therefore his inquiry was compromised Idea. That whole concept was quite prevalent within the community at the premiere of Stone's film. It had been propagated by the likes of John Davis and Walter Sheridan in their books. In fact Stone confronted Garrison with it when he met him. And Stone's chief researcher actually thought these accusations were real. In the first couple of public talks I did on Garrison, I would get questions about this. So I decided to get to work on it. And with help from the great archives researcher Peter Vea, who you two never heard of ,me and Bill Davy got the correct information on it. I addressed it at a COPA conference in Washington around 1995. What made that occasion appropriate was that Peter Scott was there and so was David Scheim, who had, respectively accused JG indirectly and directly of being so aligned. The late Bill Turner was also there. I took the charges up one by one and disposed of them. At the end of the talk, Scheim was backtracking, and Scott actually congratulated me. Turner, who worked for JG, shook my hand and said, "Garrison would be proud of you Jim!" Bill put it in his book and today it does not come up anymore. Is that in clear enough English for the Tag Team? Or should I draw it out in pictures frames? BTW, I don't recall either of you being there, or being invited to speak. Were you? As I used to say to Tommy Graves: if you don't have anything to say, then just don't say anything.

He was a pretty bad guy. Not quite as bad as Cheney, but pretty bad. What he did as CIA Director in shutting down the Church Committee is just one example. And its pretty clear that he lied in his interviews about that job since he had been associated with the Agency prior to accepting the position. What he did as VP down there in Central America is really pretty awful stuff. There is very little doubt he was involved with the whole Contra drugs for arms shipments out of Florida. Claiming he was out of the loop is contradicted by his own diaries. As VP he broke a tie in the senate and voted for the nutty MX missile. And let us not forget, he is the guy who pardoned everyone after Lawrence Walsh indicted them for Iran Contra. Which, as the late great Bob Parry discovered, was really an extension of the October Surprise. Bush was a part of that also. Carlier and DVP like this guy?

Here is a talk I did with Coast to Coast. This is only a small sample of the papers I have gone through. I still have many to survey. One of the most disappointing things about these new files is this: the more we find out about the ARRB, the worse they appear. When you listen to the show you will see what I mean. https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2017/11/18

Francois, Yes there are. But why should I share them with you? You and DVP and the Arizona lawyer (who, thank God, is not here anymore) are so invested in the WC at a metaphysical, psychological, and emotional level, that it really does not matter how much evidence I, or anyone else, produces. Which is why none of you would ever pass muster to be on a jury in this case, since normal terms of argument and ratiocination are foreign to your makeup. In fact, the other jurors would probably ask the judge to remove you. I have been on several radio shows since last October, besides BOR, and have talked about these discoveries which are in fact new. But i don't see any point in doing such a thing with you, DVP or similar types. It would be like arguing about the Third Reich with the Kenneth Mars character from the original film of The Producers.