James DiEugenio

Who was that from Anthony? A Lifton researcher for 25 years?

Oswald did not act alone? uh oh.

I have Kirk on ignore but I have to read this stuff when someone else quotes him. DId I say this? Jim: The Brazil coup took place in the spring of 1964. That should be enough to cause anyone to hesitate assigning blame to JFK. Anyone who can leave out David Rockefeller in what happened in 1964 in Brazil is simply not being honest. You might also want to look up Lincoln Gordon and the Ramey Clark panel. You might also want to refer as revelatory as what happened when Bobby Kennedy visited Brazil the next year. Hold your breath for Kirk to mention those two.

This was kind of average I thought, although he did interview several people. He was supposed to talk to me, but he never called. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jfk-assassination-documents-national-archives.html

And let us not forget, the one door that was unlocked because it was broken. That whole episode is really kind of smelly to me. As was his HSCA interview. And the Shields revelations. Finally, is there not a debate as to where he was after the shooting?

Anthony, can you link to that piece from 1985? I would like to read it before I invest a lot of time and money in this one

I think that Doug Horne is in this. They added him to the original one I saw.

With this piece of comedy noire, I am beginning to think that might be the case.

Joe, this is for sale on Amazon Prime? And they do not tell you what the trick is?

1.) Kennedy makes one reference to South Vietnam in the Trade Mart speech, and that is about assistance and training. In the Fort Worth speech, that is much more general, about SEATO and CENTO and NATO. No rational person can interpret these as being contra to the Newman/Scott/Prouty conclusions. 2.) I read the exchange between Chomsky and Galbraith. And anyone can find it via Google. If you can show me any reference in Chomsky's reply to the declassified documents by the ARRB in 1997, please do because I could not locate a thing. What Chomsky does in large part is to rely on his same old arguments from 1992-93, and to isolate Galbraith as some kind of fringe author. As if it was 1992 all over. Yet, at this time you had David Kaiser's book American Tragedy, and McNamara's book In Retrospect. You also had Vietnam: The Early Decisions, an anthology in which Newman talked about the McNamara debriefs. Later you had Gordon Goldstein, Jim Douglass, Howard Jones and James Blight. In other words, Newman's book had been effective in altering academia. And you also had the scholarly debate in VIrtual JFK which James Blight won. This whole argument about a skeleton crew left behind is a non sequitir that I have already dealt with. The idea that somehow this would hold off an assault from Hanoi and the Viet Cong after 15,000 advisors had been moved out is utterly ridiculous. Howard Jones, for example, does not even consider it. This is why I have Mike blocked. I think he just likes to argue.

Whew, I have Mike Griffith, blocked. But man, he is quoting Chomsky now? Chomsky has done next to nothing on this issue since way back when the feature film came out. Which means, the 800 pages of documents that the ARRB declassified in 1997 are somehow not important. He may have said that the withdrawal was McNamara's idea. Which, I noted above, Howard Jones proved was false. Ros Gilpatric said the withdrawal was Kennedy's idea transmitted to McNamara through Galbraith. The next step was the withdrawal schedules being requested. As Jim Douglass wrote, McNamara said to Harkins, we are going to turn the war over to the ARVN. And that was it. He then got the withdrawal schedules in May 1963 at the Sec/Def meeting. Once they were all on his desk he turned around and said to everyone, this is too slow. No mention of getting back in if defeat is on the horizon. In fact, Wheeler actual noted that any kind of response like that would result in a presidential disapproval. The memoranda from this meeting had been classified. When it was declassified in 1997, both the NY Times and Philadelphia Inquirer ran feature stories on how JFK was getting out of Vietnam at the time of his death. That is how convincing this evidence was, the MSM now revised their verdict contra Stone. If one then goes to the debates over NSAM 263, best described by Newman, its pretty clear that its Kennedy pushing that wagon up the hill. Some people, like Sullivan, wanted NSAM 263 taken out of the report. Kennedy insisted it be placed back in. In those debates, as described by John, there is no mention of putting back the withdrawn troops in case ARVN is losing. And as Gordon Goldstein noted in his book, there is no speech in which Kennedy said anything like that after NSAM 263 was signed. As Newman noted, the only question about it was how fast the withdrawal could proceed. Since JFK was worried that Saigon would fall before the election. The clincher of course was John listening to the McNamara debriefs. There he said that it did not matter if our side was winning or losing in 1964-65. Ours was only an advisory and training role. He and Kennedy had agreed that America could not fight the war for Saigon. America was getting out of Vietnam at Kennedy's death. Johnson knew that was the policy and he disagreed with it. He started to alter that policy within 48 hours of Kennedy's murder.

I repeat what I just wrote. Its almost like some people do not want to have anything about RFK Jr, the JFK files, and the assassinations of the sixties tied in at all to the campaign, so they purposefully make this political and hot historical. Even after a specific warning not to do it.

Well, thanks for that Miles. Very much appreciated.

I have three interviews coming up on this book. RIchard Syrett out of Toronto who is pretty good on Thursday. Then on Friday I have Aaron Good first and then Peter Holley, formerly of W. Post. He now works for Texas Monthly. Told Paul, they are pretty poor on JFK. He said but Holley did some decent stuff at the Post on Lisa Pease and RFK. Ok Paul.

The coup in Brazil took place in 1964. It was instigated by the Rockefeller clan, specifically David. His group was called Business Group for Latin America. Kennedy was pretty cold to this group since Rockefeller was opposed to the Alliance for Progress. Johnson did see them and he then put their ultimatum into action, with John McCloy as the point man who first tried to negotiate with Goulart. But for whatever reason that attempt fell apart. LBJ and the CIA then activated Operation Brother Sam, which was backed also by the Brazilian military. There are two good books on this, A J Langguth's Hidden Terrors and Kai Bird's The Chairman. (pp. 96-117 in the former and pp. 550-53 in the latter.) Kennedy was getting some horrible advice from his ambassador Lincoln Gordon, who he should have never appointed. Since Gordon was more in the Thomas Mann group than the Alliance for Progress group. Gordon even went as far as saying that under Goulart, Brazil would go communist and it would be the biggest loss since China. So JFK sent Bobby down to talk to Goulart. But as Latin American specialist Wayne Smith told me, Goulart was very difficult to deal with. RFK thought he would keep their agreements but it was not a satisfactory result, as it would then repeat itself with McCloy. So the CIA prepared some contingency plans for JFK. We do not know if Kennedy would have enacted them. We do know that Rockefeller had a much warmer relationship with Johnson than he did with Kennedy. And that was the deciding factor in what happened in April of 1964.

Thanks Ben, but I think Oliver Stone and Rob Wilson were more important than I was in getting the film made. It was really Rob who sold the project after several months of trying. That credit "producer" has been so badly corrupted in the film business that it really does not mean very much today. But Rob really was the producer on this in that he sold the project, and he had everything there and ready to go on every day of the shooting schedule.

Its subtitled in Japan and he thinks it will be also in the other two countries. But there are probably a lot of English speakers in those two areas. They actually had a couple of speakers familiar with the case come on that Tokyo FIlm Festival. https://twitter.com/yakumox/status/1718631832353456272/photo/1

I think I talked about this Pete on BOR last week. See, Blackmer was one of the lawyers who was hired by Sprague and Tanenbaum. (His father was the actor Sydney Blackmer) He was the lead lawyer on New Orleans, overseeing the inquiry begun by Tanenbaum. Tanenbaum was interested in that whole scene down there. The first team sent there was Blackmer, L. J. Delsa and Bob Buras. And man did they get a lot of results. The first time that Delphine Roberts began to talk was in her second interview with Buras. She would not with either Garrison or in the first interview with Bob. And they also began to try and pinpoint the timing of the Clinton/Jackson incident. When Sprague and Tanenbaum left, that was it for that team in New Orleans. They were all shifted out or even suspended. Blackmer would not even talk bout this experience later in his life..

Let me ask Rob.

I just talked to Rob Wilson, the producer of the film. JFK Revisited has recently sold, like in the last 45 days or so, in Hong Kong, Macao, and Japan. It played the Tokyo Film Festival. And its playing in theaters. The long version JFK: Destiny Betrayed will be on TV. This is amazing since the film was at Cannes for sale two years ago. He also told me that the 1991 feature JFK is being redone by DVD producer Shout Factory. They are doing a 4 K scan from the negative. Such a transfer had not been done with the film since like 1999. Since it will be Blue Ray he thinks it will be a 4 disc special. And they got interviews with Oliver and Robert Richardson to go along with it. I think the success of JFK Revisited on DVD may have had something to do with this. And to think they were not sure about even doing one for JFK Revisited.

Here is a link to Matt's shows. They are really well done, and he has a lot of good info in them. The guy really works hard. https://www.solvingjfkpodcast.com/

The official release date I think is November 14th. You can pre order the e book now, but it will be shipped on that day, and you can order a trade paper then also. I think there will be a hardcover too. Don't know about an audible. I also think there will be a French version since Paul Bleau lives in Quebec. We wanted to do a Spanish version but I think that fell through. Andrew Eiler is setting up a book page, and I think there will be one on Facebook also. Again, I only wrote about 15-20 per cent of the book. The two major contributors are Paul and Matt Crumpton. They did about 65 per cent of the writing. Matt has a really good site I think its called Solving JFK. I will try and put a link up later, he does interesting podcasts.

What many people do not know about Dale Myers--and his comrade Gus Russo--is that they were both in the Commission critic camp for years on end. Here is an example by the estimable John Kelin. https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/i-don-t-think-lee-harvey-oswald-pulled-the-trigger-an-interview-with-dale-myers Geez, does Dale mention anything about communists pushing this angle in this interview? When I first wrote about this in my book long critique of Bugliosi's crappy Reclaiming History, I also revealed that Myers was a ghostwriter on that book. But I also said that one would never know about his critical past from reading that rather voluminous volume. Bugliosi used all kinds of insults and invective that were spat out with vigor against the critical community. But somehow Myers' St Paul type conversion went unacknowledged and unscathed. Very convenient for Vince was it not? Myers replied to this issue by using four words, "you grow, you know." The problem with this is simple: the mass of evidence that has been declassified in the last nearly three decades does not support what he and Bugliosi were attempting to state. This is why I was able to write a rather long and detailed book assailing that effort. In many ways its rather sickening to examine. For example what Vince did with the Ruby polygraph would get him thrown out of any law school class, and he would be up for discipline hearings if he had done it in court. It was an utter disgrace what he did to Doug Horne and his work on whatever happened to JFK's brain. That was just pure camouflage to hide the real issues on that point. And since then the evidence has just gotten stronger on the issue. Did Kennedy's brain really end up at the AFIP? https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-mystery-of-kennedy-s-brain-deepens But yet Myers still thinks he achieved something with his cooperation on that book. Even though he and Vince had a falling out over how he would be accredited. To the point his name was taken off the thing completely. Vince does credit his writing help in the acknowledgements. (p. 1515) My overall point is this: when I wrote about this phenomenon, the switch of Russo and Myers--I pointed out a parallel. That was David Horowitz. Horowitz was a former editor of the late, great Ramparts magazine. But he and Peter Collier later decided to drop out and write American biographies of famous families like the Fords. They then came out in support of Reagan. Horowitz then got rich by being an attack dog on the left. And I mean a vicious one. This reminds me of what Myers is doing. Forgetting his past with a completeness that is astonishing--"you grow, you know"-- he now says this was all part of a fifth column type movement. Hmm, was Jim Garrison part of that? Was Sylvia Meagher part of that ? Was Epstein? Was Weisberg? Was Saturday Evening Post when they put Thompson's book on the cover? Was Warren Hinckle? Ramparts did at least three cover stories on the JFK case. They had a circulation of about 250,000 and were sold on every major newstand in America. But this is the kind of hack work Myers--Mr. Single Bullet Fact-- does today. Like the late Gary Mack, one can only guess that it is fueled by a hatred of what he once was.

Its an interesting story about how that order came about. Kennedy picked up a newspaper in, I think, the spring of 1963--don't hold me to that--and saw that some general was going to visit Saigon. He called up the undersecretary for that area, Roger Hilsman. He said why are you allowing these guys to visit Saigon? Hilsman said that he had no authority to stop them. Kennedy said, "oh" and hung up. That afternoon, he issued an order to that effect.

I agree, that is really interesting Pat. Thanks for that. It probably is a parallel since Kennedy had to sign an executive order stopping the generals from visiting Saigon. This is in Monica Wiesak's fine America's Last President.