James DiEugenio

We forgot another one:

To my knowledge, they have not. More than one author has used them as evidence that Ruby was surveilling the station that morning, as part of his continuous three day stalking of Oswald.

Ok, so you say you do not know who he is. If that is true then that absolves you of the question, since you cannot answer it.

One last question Duncan, which I think is quite fair. If you expect your argument here to be accepted in good faith and respected on its own grounds, then I think its only fair to ask you to tell us a rather important fact about it. Namely, who is John Mytton? We know that is not his real name. We also know he pulled a real stunt with the Kennedy autopay evidence, which does not give him a credible track record. Based on that, I think its important that you tell us who he or she is. If you do not, then one has to ponder as to why not. Or if this person insists on having his name remain buried, then again, why is that so? It would naturally lead one to think there must be a reason for this refusal, and it is not likely benign. This is important for two reasons. First, people on your side of this issue--that is the Krazy Kid Oswald pack--have a history of disguising themselves. They do this so that they can deliver the same old arguments under a different name, therefore delivering the illusion of more than one person being there of this persuasion, e.g. Paul May. Second, if John Mytton is, say Tink Thompson--which is very hard to believe--, that is one thing. But if John Mytton is actually, say, Dave Reitzes, that is another kettle of fish altogether, since it brings into question now all the methodologies used. In the spirit of full disclosure, we await your answer.

Cliff: Seven Days in May is about taking out a president by military takeover, sort of like the attempted 34 coup against FDR. Close to an assassination. Z is a really good film that is based on an actual event. Wonderfully made in every way--acting, directing, and editing. Battle of Algiers, which I have seen four times, is about a long anti colonial struggle, in which all kind of terror tactics were used over a number of years.

Although I don't understand the relationship of the others to political assassination, the film Z is a really excellent film that can only be called a classic. Just the editing of that movie makes it worth seeing. And the performance by Jean Louis T, as the prosecutor is galvanizing. Sort of reminds me what the HSCA would have been if Sprague had stayed on.

Gary Mack came up with Badge Man. I, for one, never bought it.

Since we are on the subject of that era's assassination films, let us not ignore the best of them all, at least for me: The later remake was a disaster, and Streep did not approach Lansbury. This is probably Frankenheimer's best film, with the possible exception of Black Sunday. A book and film that was way ahead of its time. (I except Frankenheimer's The Iceman Cometh, since that is really a filmed play, not a film. But in my opinion, that is probably the best film of a great American play ever produced.)

Donovan ran the OSS during the war and Dulles worked for him. After the war both men campaigned hard to get the CIA established and both men wanted to be the Director. But Truman went with the military guys under the advice of Souers who was his guru on intelligence at the time. But then two things happened: 1.) Bedell Smith got sick, and 2.) Foster Dulles became Sec of State. Smith brought Dulles in as his Deputy when he read the Dulles-Correa-Jackson report on how to reorganize the CIA. When he got sick, Foster got Ike to give Allen his dream job as DCI. And with his brother to protect him, and Ike a Cold Warrior anyway, Allen turned the CIA into a nightmare for the Third World. CIA now became Corporate Interests of America. Donovan was all but forgotten.

That is interesting. I didn't know that Dulles was that close with Gehlen personally to the point of getting him into see big time baseball. Keep the nibbles coming Dave.

Burt Lancaster never got enough credit for all the films he starred in or produced that showed the danger of American hubris. Not just this one, but also Twilight's last Gleaming, Executive Action and Go Tell the Spartans. The last is a a disgracefully underrated film about early American involvement in Vietnam. In my opinion its one of the two or three best movies ever made on the subject. When the budget ran out, and the studio would not put any more bucks into the production, Lancaster took the money out of his salary to complete the film. If you ever get a chance to see it, please do.

Glad you brought that up Ken. The ones that I have seen were also round nosed.

I think what Blakey and Cornwell were talking about was just pointing the rifle toward a target and getting off the shots without using the scope.

The Lancer Conference looks pretty fine to me and I think, considering the logistical problems, the ROKC one looks good. (BTW, Petrer Morris is a valuable asset who does very good work on the ballistics.) As per New Orleans, that is a shame. Its such an important venue and subject. And there was so much disclosed in the new files about what really happened there. But why associate yourself with Baker?

Three questions, since Chris seems well versed on this subject: 1. Was there a clip found at the scene? Sylvia Meagher seemed to doubt it. 2. Does the clip automatically disengage when its empty? 3. As everyone knows here, Blakey and Cornwell tried to bring down the timing problem by" point aiming". Can you possibly get off an accurate shot with this kind of rifle--with that kind of kick--by that method?

From my understanding, Simkin originally opened up this forum for the purpose of authors trading ideas about their books. Or at least one of the reasons was for that purpose. If Greg, or anyone else, has a book out, then he should try and promote it. I mean we all know how hard it is to get a book on the JFK case out there so people can see it and maybe read it. BTW, who was the Stone aficionado who was trying to trash your book Greg? That's interesting. Because as I just wrote over at DPF, I am beginning to outline an article about this phenomenon of the "LBJ did it cycle".

It would be nice if people commenting on Jeff's work would 1.) Read the series 2.) Make some acknowledgement to having read it 3.) Understood what Jeff is trying to say. For the second time, Jeff is not arguing about symptoms of fakery in the photos. He is talking about the genesis of the camera and who took the pics.

Here is Part 5: http://www.ctka.net/2015/JeffCarterBYP5.html It looks like Jeff agrees with Greg about the participation of the Paines. But also, it appears the first person that Mike Paine told that BS story about Oswald showing him the BYP was, drum roll please, Gus Russo! Boy Russo is so bad. Nice to see that other writers have come to see that, as Carol Hewitt said so long ago, Ruth and Michael are not at all what they appear to be. He also makes the case that the intercepted phone call on the 22nd was likely a tap, for Marina. And Liebeler cover this all up.

I mean did Russo just make that stuff up?

Bob: What about what Jeff Morley tried to do with PM! I am glad you called him on that one. Soemtimes, between Jean Davison and Bob Clarke etc, I really wonder about that site.

Good one Ramon.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up Jeff's exposure of Gus Russo again. I guess not enough people read the footnotes. Consider: Gus Russo would claim in his book Live By The Sword that interviews he conducted in 1993 with former employees from The Militant confirmed that a backyard photo was sent to the paper and caused consternation. “After the assassination, Farrell Dobbs directed that the photograph, together with ‘every scrap of paper’ mentioning Oswald, including his subscription plate, be swept from the files and given to William Kunstler ... ” (Live By The Sword, endnotes p. 537). In fact, Dobbs, the National Secretary of the Socialist Worker’s Party, publisher of The Militant, brought all existing communications to and from Lee Oswald with him to his Warren Commission testimony, whereby they became Commission Exhibits. Dobbs approached his Commission testimony carefully, appearing with legal counsel. It is hard to imagine a backyard photo, or any other artifact from Oswald, being deliberately withheld from the Commission as the potential repercussions would be great, and there would be reason to suspect an informant might already have reported the receipt of such a photo. No legal counsel for Dobbs would have advised anything but full disclosure. An informant had reported details of a “closed membership meeting” of the SWP held November 27, 1963 during which responses to Oswald’s connections to The Militant and the SWP were discussed with concern, and no photo was mentioned (CE2213).

This tape is as old as the hills. It goes back at least as far as 2007. And I actually think its goes back further than that. The fact of its date, robs it of its context. And the fact that is essentially a stream of conscious diary, robs it of any analytical value. Kennedy refers here to the badly drafted cable which was sent out over the late August weekend, and he says it should have never been sent. In fact, if Taylor had called him when he saw it--as he should have--it would not have been sent. Because according to his book, he understood it for what it was--an end run around the president planned and executed at the optimal moment of weakness. Kennedy was enraged when he got back and realized he had been lied to in order to hatch the plot against Diem. He then tried to cancel the cable, but since Lodge had taken complete power in Saigon--by getting CIA station chief Patterson out--that did not work. So then it became a matter of when and how. When Kennedy realized what had happened, the murders of Diem and his brother, he then decided to recall Lodge and fire him. And he told Forrestal, there would be a compete review of Vietnam policy, including how we got there. But he was murdered first. LBJ did not fire Lodge. He let him stay on. There was no review of Vietnam policy from the start. We all know what happened after.

Between watching the Z film, which clearly indicated a shot from the front, and looking at that ridiculous CE 399, I mean those guys must have been absolutely flummoxed. "We're supposed to think Oswald did this?" According to Pat Speer, the SBT actually was mentioned earlier than anyone thought. If I recall correctly, it was by Joe Ball and Belin in late January. So, very early in the game, these guys knew they needed to start embroidering things not to fit the facts, but to avoid the evidence. I mean the vignette that Don Adams tells about in his book is priceless. He was transferred to Dallas in 1964 to work on the JFK case. He went to a screening room to watch the Z film with a couple of other agents. When they came out, he said words to the effect: Its obvious he was hit from two directions. The agents said something like: We know that. But that's not what Hoover wants us to say. That is how power works in America.

In the CA primary I voted for Edwards. In both elections, since California is a safe state, I voted for the Green candidate. I liked voting for Cynthia McKInney since in the Green party debate, she mentioned the book The Assassinations, which I co edited.