James DiEugenio

It would save us all a lot of money would it not? Plus time.

Thanks Steve. I also like the way he made the point about QJ WIN also. One of the more disappointing aspects of the recent crop of literature on the JFK assassination itself, is the fact that it makes little or no use of the ARRB documents. I have said that before but since it continues, I have to say it again.

Robin is a decent guy, but he used to partner with someone named Steve Dorrill. Dorrill was one of the earliest writers to try and say that Permindex was a disinformation story that Jim Garrison fell for. If I recall, that story ran in their magazine, Lobster. And he blamed it on Pease Sera. In other words, this was a preview of what Helms would say, and then what Max Holland would reshuffle through all that ex KGB agent BS. It has all been proven to be utter baloney. And we have it sourced in so many ways now that its ridiculous: State Dept docs, Bloomfield archives, and this book. Permindex/CMC was just what Garrison thought it was many years ago. And that is why Clay Shaw was on the board and that is why he later tried to hide his association with that body.

One of our most valued contributors, Michael LeFlem, takes look at Major Ganis' The Skorzeny Papers. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/major-ralph-p-ganis-the-skorzeny-papers-evidence-for-the-plot-to-kill-jfk

Yes they should have. He talked to them once he infiltrated Garrison's investigation. In fact, he once said under oath that once he snookered Garrison, he would have about five of these guys waiting outside his apartment almost every night, pumping him for info. Since this was in early 1967, you then know that Hoover was really worried that Garrison was going to show what a joke the FBI inquiry was. Later on the FBI decided to just tap his phones.

Prouty I thought was quite insightful as an insider into what Kennedy was trying to do. Especially in Vietnam, since Krulak and he wrote the Taylor/McNamara report which backed up NSAM 263. Yes, Robert Sam Anson began the attack on Prouty, and then Chip Berlet picked it up and then it got into the MSM with that asset Ed Epstein. Prouty wrote for some men's magazines in the seventies as many other people did since they paid well and he could get mass circulation. He then wrote for some rightwing journals in the eighties and he did a paid speech for Liberty Lobby. And for this he i stabled an anti semite. Its pure guilt by association. Here is an expose of this crap and Epstein. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-abstract-reality-of-edward-epstein

I agree with you Bart. Sounds like nutty Alex Jones with the other ambushes in Dallas. And Oswald knew zilch about what was going to happen that day.

Thanks Mike. Is it not a travesty that we had to wait for Jamie Galbraith to open his mouth about this to tell us how important his father was? And that was only done on the occasion of Newman's book being published. I mean that is how bad our so called historians are. Halberstam set the mold, and everyone followed like lemmings. Somehow Vietnam was some kind of inevitable tragedy out of a Greek Homeric poem. Complete and utter baloney. And one of the reasons everyone fell for it was secrecy. It was the ARRB which finally put the kabosh on that. But the Pentagon Papers also shed some light on it. They have a section called Phased Withdrawal 1963-64. But very few people who read the PP picked up on this. But even with that, one can see that Johnson was not continuing JFK's policy in Indochina. Mike Morrisey once wrote that the biggest lie ever told in the second half of the 20th century was Oswald shot Kennedy. The second biggest lie was that Johnson continued Kennedy's policy in Vietnam.

I did not know it might have been that long. Hard to buy that he does not recall the exact time. That web site started some time in 2002. Hmm. Well that explains why I do not go there anymore. When I saw how they thought Halberstam's book was the be all and end all on Vietnam, that was it for me. That book is clearly a relic of the past with little if any use today. I am still trying to figure out if it was a deliberate put up job. And his complete misfire on JKG is a part of it.

If he did, they are not in the Parker biography. At least I did not see them, but I admit I did not read the whole book which is pretty long.

The relationship Galbraith had with Kennedy was really something. I mean I cannot think offhand of anyone in the Administration, except for RFK, who had this kind of rapport with the president. I think it must go back to the fact that he was his tutor at such a young age. Is that something about that crazy firebombing. Sixteen square miles means they incinerated 1600 blocks. Subdivide that by say, minimum, twenty homes per block--excluding ones with apartment houses-- and you are talking about mass devastation. I actually think in one of the cities the effect of the firebombing was worse than the atomic bomb. Rostow was a dedicated Cold Warrior. Harriman was a different case. He negotiated the Laos neutrality deal, and later on the Test Ban Treaty. But something was really up with him about Vietnam. As I said, the biggest regret is what would have been possible if Galbraith had taken the job as ambassador to Russia and Kennedy had lived. If that had happened, I think Khrushchev may have survived. And you really would have had a chance at detente. Remember, when Kennedy died, Khrushchev was one of the first to sign his condolences at the US embassy and he was choking back tears.

Galbraith was a truly underrated character in the Kennedy White House. This began with that misleading and pernicious book by David Halberstam, The Best and the Brightest. The fact that the morons at Daily Kos idealized that book is one of the reasons I left the so called liberal blogosphere. In his book, Halberstam says that Galbraith was on the periphery of Kennedy's thinking on Vietnam policy. What utter BS. It turns out that Galbraith was at at the center of the story. And in 1962 he offered two alternatives to get out. One may or may not have worked but was stymied by Harriman. But the second one did work. And its what Kennedy was using when he was killed. Not even John Newman told the whole story about this amazing figure. Thanks to Richard Parker we now have it. https://kennedysandking.com/articles/john-kenneth-galbraith-a-hero-in-our-time

How do we know its him if there is no photo comparison of Roy H.? Or Vidal? Can we see some work from someone elite Robin Unger or Groden?

Parnell is so funny on this and he doesn't even know it. The presentation was not to Morley, it was to Paramount and they accepted it. Even without Morley. And guess what, you are not going to like it Tracy. It might even give Davey a stroke, so I should warn him in advance: get on some meds.

With that last piece of fruitiness by Payette, with "conspiracy loons" and all, I gladly sign off of this thread. He doesn't want to talk about the evidence, Bugliosi like, he wants to denigrate the process and the people. Bye Bye Lancie.

OMG. I love this one. TP: I would refer you to Bugliosi's comments on the chain of custody and admissibility of evidence. I believe it was a good argument made by someone who would know. As I know something about RH, Vince argued he could win out over all the chain of custody evidence arguments the defense could argue. I said good. But why would you want to? What prosecutor would want to argue the evidence below: 1. Like CE 399? That projectile that never hit anything in Dealey Plaza and which the FBI had to prevaricate about so many times that not even Hoover could keep his story straight? Like saying Odum showed it to the witnesses, when he did not. 2. Like CE 139? Which turned out to be the wrong rifle, which even going on their evidence was not the one the defendant ordered? 3. Like the shells at the scene which Fritz had to rearrange because they looked so close to each other that they were clearly planted? And when the FBI tested the ejection mechanism on the wrong rifle, they proved that was the case. 4. Like the three shells that were found at the scene; or was it only two? Because the photos and evidence reports say only two went to the FBI? And then the BS story the DPD came up with was that Fritz kept one of the shells in Dallas for "testing" purposes. Except the one he kept there was the miraculously dented one. The one which TInk Thompson tried all day to dent in that manner and could not. And Chris Mills found out it could only be dented that way by dry loading and then only very rarely. 5. Like the hole that disappeared from the back of JFK's head, which the HSCA lied about by saying that only the witnesses at Parkland saw it? When in fact forty witnesses saw it at both Parkland and Bethesda. 6. Or that raised rear skull wound that the Fisher panel had to elevate since Thompson's book disturbed Ramsey Clark so much? Except now you have two Magic Bullets in six seconds. Because that bullet now leaves its center part at the rear of the skull while the head and tail fly forward to the front of the car. Something which your guy Sturdivan says is not possible. 7. Or the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail? Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there. 8. Or the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives? Which the man who took them, Mr. Stringer, when examined by Gunn said, no he did not take them. Because he never used that type of film, and he never used the Press Pack technique they were taken with. When you witnesses on the stand, like Stringer, who are going to say that he never took the pictures that the official story has him taking, and Humes saying the x rays do not match what is in his report, and 42 witnesses saying that heck yes there was hole in the back of JFK's skull. I mean what kind of case is that? What self respecting prosecutor would bring such evidence into court in the first place?

There is no such thing as a conspiracy mindset in the JFK case. I did not enter the JFK case looking for a plot. I read both sides for awhile. And I simply came to the conclusion that the WR was not a very convincing document. For the simple matters--among others-- that: 1.) It left too much important information out. Like some very interesting stuff going on in New Orleans. 2.) It relied on some questionable witness accounts e.g. Marina and Brennan. 3.) It seemed too biased in its presentation. A prime example being the medical evidence. It does not take some kind of mystical "mindset" to determine those matters. Anyone with any objectivity or insight could determine that. But what Payette wants to do is say that somehow these matters do not exist and therefore people who harp on them are somehow of a mystical "mindset." What crud. They do exist. And anyone who says they do not is in denial. And as time has gone on, especially with the discoveries of the ARRB, the matters I listed above have gotten even more serious. If Payette wants to ignore them and personally attack people who do not, then I suggest he resembles the Bryan character so memorably played by the late Fredric March in the film Inherit the Wind. And that comparison might be more apt than I thought considering the exchange above about religion. But I consider that to be his problem, which unfortunately he is playing out on this forum. And let me reply to Parnell's recurrent complaint above. About people like me not doing something to take our info to the masses. There are two multi installment projects being planned right now for broadcast. I was invited to be aboard on both of them. Because of certain unforeseeable circumstances, I will only be aligned with one of them. And those two are not the only times certain producers have approached me. Morley--who you seem to think is the be all and end all of outlets--was not invited to be on either. Which shows us the level of your insight into this.

One good thing about this thread is Payette urged these guys to show just how bereft of a case they really do have. As you can see, first Carlier comes on and says, well see, Kirk Coleman really was not a good witness. This is based on an interview he did with French cops. Really? Did they talk to Kirk? Did Carlier talk to Kirk? But see, Carlier wants to get rid of Coleman any way he can. Sort of like the WC, who never talked to him. Then, Parnell comes on and says well see, "the documented physical evidence in this case supports the lone gunman theory." Oh really? 1. You mean like CE 399? That projectile that never hit anything in Dealey Plaza and which the FBI had to prevaricate about so many times that not even Hoover could keep his story straight? Like saying Odum showed it to the witnesses, when he did not. 2. You mean like CE 139? Which turned out to be the wrong rifle, which even going on their evidence was not the one the defendant ordered? 3. You mean like the shells at the scene which Fritz had to rearrange because they looked so close to each other that they were clearly planted? And when the FBI tested the ejection mechanism on the wrong rifle, they proved that was the case. 4. You mean like the three shells that were found at the scene; or was it only two? Because the photos and evidence reports say only two went to the FBI? And then the BS story the DPD came up with was that Fritz kept one of the shells in Dallas for "testing" purposes. Except the one he kept there was the miraculously dented one. The one which TInk Thompson tried all day to dent in that manner and could not. And Chris Mills found out it could only be dented that way by dry loading and then only very rarely. 5. Do you mean like the hole that disappeared from the back of JFK's head, which the HSCA lied about by saying that only the witnesses at Parkland saw it? When in fact forty witnesses saw it at both Parkland and Bethesda. 6. Do you mean that raised rear skull wound that the Fisher panel had to elevate since Thompson's book disturbed Ramsey Clark so much? Except now you have two Magic Bullets in six seconds. Because that bullet now leaves its center part at the rear of the skull while the head and tail fly forward to the front of the car. Something which your guy Sturdivan says is not possible. 7. Do you mean the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail? Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there. 8. Do you mean the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives? Which the man who took them, Mr. Stringer, when examined by Gunn said, no he did not take them. Because he never used that type of film, and he never used the Press Pack technique they were taken with. Today, in every element of the case, if there is one thing your side should not argue, it is the so called "Documented physical evidence". The last thing it does is support the Warren Commission. Today it proves that Sylvia Meagher was correct. The WC was not just a disgrace. They were accessories after the fact.

Davey, you never answered my question. Why did Kirk Coleman never appear to testify before the Warren Commission?

Oh Arizona, maybe that explains it, its the heat. And BTW, Payette keeps on talking about a "conspiracy mindset". What does this mean? If the facts simply do not add up to a case--and the MSM covers up all those facts all the time--last example being Tracking Oswald, yet in 2013 a very distinguished public opinion company did in depth and careful interviews and 75 per cent of the public said they do not buy the LHO did it meme, then what on earth is he spouting? And before Running Suit says, well hey same in UFOs, no its not. There has never been anything like what happened at the fiftieth in the history of UFOlogy. That is when the entire might of the MSM and the local Dallas authorities put a clamp on almost all info to the contrary. Plus there has never been anything like the constant flow of cable company specials doing the same. Finally the former is a criminal case, which should have been tried in court but both men involved died before they got their day. So its not even close Payette. (Few people in the public know that the Ruby verdict was reversed and he was going to get a new trial.)

Davey, you cannot be serious about the DPD and the Walker shooting. You know they had a witness, right? Kirk Coleman. And the reason you want to dismiss him is that he said there were two people in on the attack. And they both left in two separate cars, one was a Ford and one a Chevy. He then described the color of the cars. Right there, since you are stuck with the WR, that eliminates LHO. He did not have a car and did not drive. Later, when the FBI entered the case, they showed him pics of Oswald and he said no it was not him. But further, he said he had never seen someone who looked like LHO in the area. Robert Surrey said he had seen two men casing Walker's home two nights before and they left in a Ford. The suspect the DPD focused on was Duff. BTW, the FBI was really impressed with Coleman. They wanted to pursue the case with him because of his detailed memory. But since it led away from Oswald Hoover nixed it. Now if its the wrong bullet and the eyewitness says no it isn't him, and the suspects both drive in cars that Oswald never was seen in, then yes there were genuine leads. But they did not go toward LHO. IMO, the Walker case could have been solved and the two agents working it thought they could do it. They just met a brick wall since the powers that be did not like what they were doing. BTW, Coleman was not called before the WC. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, 56-58) Do you think you and Payette can figure out why he was not called? You should be able to figure it out from the info above. Think really hard.

But I will go further. I do not even think the WC acknowledged that whole TUM and DPM. At least I have never seen any evidence they did. And that is pretty awful since their activities are so apparent and obvious if yo study the photos. Actually its kind of incredible that they missed it. BTW DVP I hope you noticed my complaint above. When you make like you are quoting me, then quote me. Don't alter my words with your injections.

Are you allowed to alter someone's quote when you act as if you are quoting that person? DVP did that to me twice above.

For the record, John Lear was a hoaxer on the UFO scene. I know this from someone who dealt with him personally. Cooper was on both scenes. Surprising that our Colorado lawyer did not smoke them out.

Joe: To me, that is the point that everyone seems to avoid. Its not so much what they do individually, but the fact that they seem to have found each other in that place and at that time. And they both act oddly, unlike anyone else. Especially after the shooting. I mean everyone springs into a panic mode and starts running around, most of them to the picket fence. But not those two. And that is weird. If we jump to a speculative conclusion, its almost like they knew what was going to occur so they were not at all surprised. Now, if you add in the cock and bull story Witt told the HSCA about how he got there in the first place, I mean give me a break. And then why he raised the umbrella? The fact that the WC never explored this angle at all, at least as far as I know, tells you what they were doing. Not much.