James DiEugenio

That was a very good excerpt Steve. God they were really evil men. To reply to Ken: ​I think that what Nixon did in Vietnam was worse than what LBJ did. Because Nixon knew by 1969 the war could not be won. I think that would be a close call. While I agree that by 69 Nixon knew what you said, he was not the president up to that point. Yes he was Ken. He was inaugurated in January of that year. NSSM 1 was circulated shortly thereafter, in April. Every person, even the military said the war was not winnable. LBJ knew before it started that it could not and would not be won. According to everything I have read, this is not the case. LBJ felt from the beginning that Saigon could not win unless they were aided by US combat troops. Which is why he jumped on the Tonkin Gulf incident. He really thought that the combination of massive insertions of combat troops with American naval and air power would win the war. He was a sucker for Westmoreland's search and destroy strategy, a war of attrition. It was not until the Tet offensive that he finally saw he had been enclosed in a trap. Two things happened after that. At a meeting of the Wise Men that LBJ called--Acheson, McCloy, Lovett etc,--the Pentagon was giving a briefing. Suddenly Acheson got up and walked out. Rusk or Rostow called him and Acheson said he would not sit through any more canned and homogenized meetings with the Army spinning like mad. He then hung up. After this, LBJ sent Clifford over to the Pentagon to get the raw data. Clifford spent two weeks there. He asked them, "OK, if you cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail, will that stop the resupply? If you mine Haiphong, will that stop the resupply?" The answers he got were, "Yes, but only for awhile. Because there were other ways the VC could get supplies, like overland through China." After these two weeks, Clifford told LBJ, "You have to get out. Its a loser." That is when LBJ began to try to get a truce and treaty. Which Nixon sabotaged. Nixon spent his entire time reducing troop level. (troop level never increased under Nixon) As noted above, the difference is Nixon, at the time he was in office, knew it was a lost cause. Secondly, although he lowered troop level he increased bombing. He did this by reducing the sorties but increasing the pay loads. He used twice as many B 52's as LBJ did for example. And he expanded the bombing to Cambodia, and increased it over Laos. To the point he actually destroyed Cambodia. LBJ is the opposite: He fought it for four years to the point he could not run again. LBJ did run for re-election during the war and certainly did what he thought necessary to win re-election without regard for how many troops he was committing and getting killed. I don't know what this means. The war wrecked LBJ's presidency. By 1967 he could not visit any big American city without getting eggs thrown at him. So he only went to air bases and army bases. It also destroyed the Great Society, and his friendship with King. I do not see how this was "running on the war." It was losing on the war. Nixon actually did run on the war. Giving the illusion we were winning while arranging a camouflaged defeat. And saying we had to give a chance to Saigon so they would not go commie. When, in fact, he knew that would happen and arranged it that way. Heck, him and Henry laughed about it.

KD: I believe that this same article could have been written about almost all presidents. Certainly if a microscope were placed on LBJ, he would not smell like a rose. In fact, he would likely stink the place up more than most former presidents. I don't agree with this Ken. We do have extensive tapes of Kennedy for example. They are called the Presidential Transcripts. I think the most current version is three volumes. Kennedy does not remotely approach the depths of cynicism and amorality that Kissinger and Nixon are at in the declassified tapes. Even for someone who is used to this kind of thing, what Kissinger and Nixon did is shocking. And what makes it even worse, they were wrong! The Russians and the North Vietnamese never bought the Madman Concept. It never worked. The nuclear threat never worked. So when all that bluster failed, they went ahead and bombed Cambodia. And that turned out to be a disaster. BTW, LBJ never messed with Cambodia anywhere to the degree that Nixon and Kissinger did. For the simple reason that he did not think the risks justified the rewards. He was right. But Nixon and Kissinger dropped more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than the US dropped on Japan in WW 2. ​I think that what Nixon did in Vietnam was worse than what LBJ did. Because Nixon knew by 1969 the war could not be won. Yet he continued it for four years for one reason: to make sure he got reelected. LBJ is the opposite: He fought it for four years to the point he could not run again. ​And then Nixon deliberately disguised what he knew was a defeat just so he could blame it on congress. When in fact, he rigged it that way! He could have sustained a veto, and in fact did so once. But he wanted a scapegoat besides himself. His book on the subject, No More Vietnams, is one long provable lie about what he did. And he knew he could get away with it because he fought so hard to keep his papers sealed. But now with the tapes and papers largely open, Nixon is the emperor with no clothes.

There is no conventional view of anyone these days in view of the declassified records. The declassifieid record has not been kind to Nixon. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/08/10/exposing-nixons-vietnam-lies/ If you want to argue that someone altered the tapes or memos, fine go ahead. But I think its clear now that Nixon did not want these papers and tapes declassified because he knew what was in them. And they would contradict the upholstered image he was trying to build. Which was utterly false, at least on Vietnam.

I agree that it is. Thanks so much.

WIlliam: Without giving away the book, is Jeff going to say Oswald shot at Walker?

PT: My question is about how anybody would organize a conspiracy of people to lie for the benefit of Edwin Walker -- using people who openly opposed Edwin Walker. By this logic, it is completely baffling then as to why Ruth Paine was in Nicaragua supporting the Contra cause. I mean if you ask me the Contras made Walker look kind of moderate. But she was there spying on the American Sandinista supporters for the State Department. And many, many people knew that. As far away as Costa Rica. I mean, how many decades, and how much evidence is it going to take to finally drop this whole Quaker, Good Samaritan veneer about the Paines? I mean Allen Dulles himself joked about it. Richard Russell saw through it after about three weeks on the Commission. So why are we--over fifty years later-- still suckers for it? ​For instance: Paul do you know that the Imperial Reflex Camera was not on the Dallas Police inventory of Oswald's effects after two days? It did not come into evidence until Ruth Paine gave it to Robert Oswald when he came to her house while Marina was staying with him. Bugliosi buries this fascinating fact in his end notes and then drops it like a hot potato.

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything. I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence. ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that. BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?) He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt. When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.

Thanks for the clarification. But I just wanted to convey that although the elites try to message that the JFK case is irrelevant today and that only some conspiracy nuts are interested in it, the Carter episode belies that. As does the fact that Obama made his latest speech at American University and mentioned JFK three times.

While we are waiting, her is Dave's reply to a past Speer critique, this time about the Harper fragment: SPEER’S COMMENTS. Thanks, Jim. It appears that Mantik is sticking to his guns. Cairns said the Harper fragment appeared to be low occipital. Mantik places it several inches higher, in the middle of the back of the skull. Mantik's location for the bone is thus at odds with both Cairns, and the Parkland witnesses. Now, he may be right, but citing Cairns and the Parkland witnesses as evidence for his conclusions, or even suggesting they are supportive, is incredibly misleading, IMO. As stated, very few people supporting Mantik's conclusions even know what they are. Jim Douglass and Jim Fetzer, for example, both made much of Mantik's white patch on the x-rays, and claimed it suggested there'd been a gaping hole on the back of the head from which the Harper fragment had exploded, that was then covered by a white patch on the x-rays. As acknowledged by Mantik in our joint discussion of the fragment at Duquesne, however, he actually believes the fragment derived from a location on the very back of the head, inches away from the white patch on the side of the head. ----------------------------- Jim, My response here includes quotes (in red) from my Harper essay. 1. Speer cites Cairns as describing the Harper Fragment (HF) as deriving from the “low occipital” area. I addressed this issue in the essay, as follows. In 1977 (see Appendix A) Andy Purdy interviewed Dr. A. B. Cairns, who recalled that the “…fragment came from an area approximately 2 ½ to 3 inches above the spine area. (See Figures 2A and 2B.) He said it had the markings of a “…skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull.” He also recalled what he had said before, namely that HF derived from an area close to an entry site. My reconstruction is consistent with Cairns. In a footnote I had added: Of course, we don’t really know if Cairns had actually said “lower occipital.” This is, after all, a quote prepared by the FBI. Cairns may well have said “lower skull, occipital,” which the FBI then mangled. 2. As to upper vs. lower occiput, Billy Harper has recently appeared online: . Particularly note his indication of the HF discovery site (he seems to point east of the site identified on his map, although the camera does not track this), but also note his verbal description of HF as from the upper rear of the skull.Furthermore, anyone can refer to the numerous depictions of witnesses (e.g., Groden’s photos) or their actual diagrams (e.g., for the HSCA) to decide for themselves whether they meant upper or lower occiput. They don’t need Speer’s interpretation (or mine either, for that matter) to reach a conclusion. 3. What also must not be overlooked is the rest of Cairns’s comment: He said it had the markings of a “…skull fragment from the lower occipital area, specifically: suture and inner markings where blood vessels run around the base of the skull. From an expert who actually held this bone in his hands (and apparently even secretly kept photographs of it—see footnote 25), this is very powerful stuff. A bone fragment from the parietal area (as espoused by Speer, Robertson, Riley, et al.) would not meet this requirement. 4. Regarding the White Patch vs the hole for the missing HF, that is discussed in some detail in my HF essay: Another clue (photographic in this case) that missing occipital bone might be difficult to detect on a lateral X-ray can be appreciated in Figure 2. In particular, notice how very far posterior HF lies on this lateral photographic image. This impression is confirmed by X-ray images provided by Dr. Gary Aguilar (Figures 15A and 15B). Aguilar placed a metal object (red arrow) on the back of the skull; notice how far posterior this lies on a lateral X-ray. In particular, the metal object overlies the far posterior occipital bone, including the inner table of the skull. Coincidentally, I had performed a similar experiment (with similar results) some years before Aguilar, by using my own skull (i.e., the one I purchased), but with lead wires outlining the HF site. (I had also used lead wires to outline bone islands C and D on my model skull—see Figures 7A, B, C.) I did this under fluoroscopic control, so that I could correctly position C and D on the skull surface. On my lateral X-ray, the lateral edge of HF appeared just inside the posterior skull surface (i.e., just anterior to the inner table). We can conclude therefore that absent HF would be virtually impossible to detect with the naked eye on a lateral X-ray film. By contrast, Paul Seaton had speculated (incorrectly) about my placement of HF. Seaton had extended this supposed area for HF far forward (on the lateral X-ray) into the White Patch. Unhappily for him, his entire argument was quite wrong. In fact, of course, no significant missing bone is apparent on JFK’s lateral X-ray in the area that I labeled as the White Patch—certainly not large enough to be due to HF. Figures 15A and 15B. These X-ray images are from a simple experiment performed by Gary Aguilar (December 1997), which I had actually anticipated (in February-March 1993). In my case, I had used lead wires to outline HF on the occiput. The red arrow identifies the metal object that Aguilar placed at the back of the skull. Another point should be obvious from Aguilar’s experiment (and from mine, too): actually, the White Patch has nothing to do with missing occipital bone (Figure 14). That Patch lies far anterior to the missing occipital bone (where HF originated). This point has often been misunderstood by researchers, who think that the White Patch was superimposed in order to cover up the missing HF, but of course they are wrong. In fact, the darker areas on the JFK skull X-rays often represent missing brain rather than missing bone—a point I have often made, but which still tends to be overlooked. On the lateral X-ray, the HF defect is not apparent to the naked eye (nor should it be, because it is too far posterior)—so there was nothing for forgers to cover-up at that site. So why was the White Patch added? We can only guess, but most likely the forgers wanted to draw attention away from the rear of the skull (where some brain was actually missing), so that viewers would instead focus on the anterior skull, where lots of brain is missing (on both lateral X-rays). The resulting visual impression would, of course, suggest that a bullet exited from the front, but not from the rear—thus further implicating Oswald. Had I altered the skull X-rays, I would have omitted the White Patch—it just seems like overkill. It would have been enough just to add the 6.5 mm object. But when someone gets a clever idea, such as altering X-ray films in the darkroom, it is easy to get carried away with one’s own ingenuity.

Can I ask a question: How much bigger would the 6.5 mm fragment be than any other fragment recovered?

I think Voshinin is reliant on DeM. And they are not actually defending Walker. They are saying Oswald was in on it.

As Carol Hewett pointed out, after first meeting Marina through George DeM, Ruth arranged to have dinner with both the Oswalds and her "estranged husband" Michael. When Michael was asked what night this happened, he told the WC without hesitation that it was on April 10th. (RP, p. 80) The problem with this is that it exonerates Oswald in the Walker case, since it gives him an alibi. Therefore, later the WC amended his testimony to April 2nd, the date given by Ruth. Yet, as Carol pointed out, April 2 is a Tuesday. And Oswald had his typing class scheduled that night. Now, Ruth relied on her notorious and wacky calendar for this Tuesday 4/2 date. Yet, on that same month in her calendar it says on April 10th, in the Cyrillic alphabet, the word Marina. And an arrow then points to April 11th. Does this not suggest, the two were going to converse in Russian over two nights? If so, how could Marina have seen the things she said she saw incriminating Oswald in the Walker shooting? And why did she not tell Ruth at the time? Bt further, the WC never asked Ruth if these entries were made before or after the fact. For instance, April 24th was marked also, this time with both Marina and Lee's name on it. For this occasion, Ruth just happened to go to Marina's on the day the couple was leaving for New Orleans. Which means, this was probably placed there after the fact. There also remained a question about Ruth's "finding" of the Walker note. This meant, of course that Marina had kept it and placed it in a book. One she used all the time. So why did she not give it back to her husband? Marina said that Lee forgot about it and never asked. (RP, p. 81) The DeMohresnchildts' did about everything they could to incriminate Oswald before the WC. They told two stories about George kidding Oswald about taking a shot at Walker. In one version, Jeanne saw a rifle. In another they did not. But the point is, this visit took place on 4/13. According to Marina, the rifle was not found until April 14, Easter Sunday night. Lee had allegedly buried it until then. This was the last time the DeMs saw the Oswalds. George allegedly also mentioned Oswald and the Walker incident to White Russian Natasha Voshinin. The couple then left for Haiti shortly thereafter. In a 1993 TV special with Dan Rather, Michael Paine told Rather that when he went to pick up Oswald for the dinner engagement a this house on April 2nd, Oswald proudly showed him a photo of himself holding up a rifle with a newspaper: the infamous BYP. This would mean that he knew Oswald had a rifle a week before the Walker shooting. Yet, good ole Mike never said that in any interview opportunity he had for the WC, and he had more than one in 1963 and 64. But further, if this was the case, why did he say he thought Oswald had camping equipment under a blanket in his garage, instead of a rifle? As I said, Marina is the chief witness against Oswald in the Walker case. In an FBI interview of December 11th, she said Oswald had been at the Walker home prior to 4/10, but had not shot at Walker. Why? Because he knew there was a gathering scheduled at the church near his home a week later and "..he wanted more people around when he attempted the assassination." (RP. p. 84) One could not make up such stuff if they tried. But Marina also said that when Oswald returned the night of the shooting he did not have a rifle. He said he buried it in the ground near a RR track. Did he do so using his bare hands? And if he had nothing with him, what did he cover the rifle with? And how could it have no traces of dirt on it when the FBI examined it? Since there was no cleaning solution found in his belongings after. (What Bugliosi does with this is rich. He says Oswald really buried it in a pile of leaves.) From all of the above, and more, I think the Walker shooting was fabricated after the Kennedy assassination. Why? Because there was simply no history of violence with Oswald, especially with firearms. If they could pin this on him, it would make the Kennedy murder easier to swallow as the act of a sociopath. Just like the aborted Clinton/Jackson episode would have made it easier to do so by saying he stayed a few days in a mental hospital. As many have noted, it was the interview with the West Geman rightwing paper which first introduced the aspect of Bobby Kennedy intervening to prevent Oswald from being arrested for the Walker shooting. Since, as I said, I do not think Oswald shot at Walker, then this is likely bogus. But its important for what it implies. Either Walker or the reporter was going to use this newly claimed crime to both frame Oswald and smear the Kennedys. This became the first in a series of incidents in which the Kennedys were now blamed for the death of JFK. I think Walker was a willing/unwilling partner in that effort.

Alright Paul. My thoughts on Walker and the JFK case. I wrote about ten pages on this in Reclaiming Parkland. Let me begin by saying two things which color all that follows. 1.) I do not think Oswald shot at Walker. 2.) I think--actually I know--that Oswald was a low level intelligence operative. Not a communist. I believe he was a CIA agent provocateur and an FBI informant. I wrote two chapters in the reissue of Destiny Betrayed on that subject. Many have said its one of the highlights of the book. Since LHO was a not a communist, this removes a motive for him shooting at Walker. But beyond that, the direct evidence, and the circumstantial evidence do not support the WC case. And let us never forget, Oswald was not a suspect of the DPD for something like over seven months in the Walker case. It was not until the FBI became the investigatory arm for the WC that suddenly, like magic, Oswald shot at Walker. For the following reasons I don't buy it: 1.) The transformation of the bullet by the FBI into a different color and caliber. 2.) The fact that, as John Armstrong and David Josephs have shown, the weight of the evidence does not support Oswald ordering or picking up the MC rifle. 3.) As Randich and Grant have shown, the elemental trace values of the so called Walker bullet is wildly at odds with those in the JFK case. Even the FBI admitted this was the case. 4.) The testimony of Kirk Coleman, probably the best witness, suggests two men were involved. And they left in separate cars. Neither Coleman nor Robert Surrey identified Oswald as one of two men they saw. 5.) As per the stuff like notebooks which Marina said she saw, and the photos in the motherlode, aka as the Paine garage; as Wesley Liebeler once said in a very rare case of a WC Lawyer asking a sensible question: If Oswald was guilty in the Walker shooting, why would he keep the photos and note around for nearly eight months? Which brings us to the role of the Paines and the Baron in the Walker shooting. Carol Hewett was one of the finest researchers the JFK case ever had. She was a UT law school grad who practiced in Florida: she never lost a jury trial. No one ever did the work on the Paines that she did. Luckily, she let us publish it in Probe. I was stunned that no author made use of her work--along with that of her cohorts Steve Jones and Barbara La Monica--so I said, fine. I will use it. And I did in both of my books. One of the most astonishing things Carol dug up was the following. Most researchers think that the association of Oswald with the Walker shooting came from the back to back surfacing of the West German newspaper interview with Walker, and the smuggling of the so called Walker note by Ruth to Marina. Those events happened on 11/29 and 11/30. One week after JFK was killed. Peter Scot used to always say this, for example. Not true. The first association of Oswald with the Walker shooting came the day after the assassination! That is almost a week before, and when no one, but no one, had put the incident together with Oswald. Who did that first, within 24 hours of the murder? Michael Paine. For the 11/23 issue of the Houston Post. There, he said "that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker affair." (RP, p. 83) How on earth could Mike Paine make such an outlandish assumption considering the state of the evidence at that time? And then, a week later, Ruth sends Marina the so called Walker note. Which did not have either Lee or Marina's prints on it. Few people know that the Secret Service returned the note to Ruth Paine. Why? For the simple reason they thought it was from her! (Destiny Betrayed,p.203) As VInce Bugliosi noted, the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting rises or falls on Marina's credibility. He found her credible in this aspect and her WC appearances. I do not. For myriad reasons. Therefore, I think the Walker case against Oswald was manufactured after the fact. I will get to why, and the role of Marina and the Baron later.

MK: Glenn, I agree that today's politics has next-to-nothing to do with the JFK assassination, Mark, did you read my essay on Nixon vs JFK? Please note below: Before leaving the subject, it’s interesting to speculate on another possible aspect of the pressure campaign brought to bear on Carter to let the Shah into the United States. Everyone knows that John McCloy served on the Warren Commission. In May of 1979, Carter was visiting Los Angeles to make a speech at the Civic Center. He had still not allowed the Shah into the country. The police apprehended a man with a starter’s pistol in the crowd. When they questioned the suspect, he told the authorities he was part of a four-man assassination team. His function was to fire a diversionary shot into the ground while the other members shot at Carter from a nearby hotel. Although the police were skeptical, they later found that a room at the hotel was rented by a man the suspect had named as part of the plot. In that room was a shotgun case and three spent rounds of ammunition. Further, the occupants had checked out the day of the assassination attempt. The apprehended suspect’s name was Raymond Lee Harvey. One of the men he named as a co-conspirator was Oswaldo Espinoza Ortiz. (Time, 5/21/79) About four months later, Carter admitted the Shah.

What does tho shave to do with the JFK case, at all? How is it educational?

Jon: Who did what Nixon did? When you read part 2 of my article, you will see that he knew the war was lost in 1969. LBJ did not understand that until 1968, something I quote from the book The Wise Men in the first edition of Destiny Betrayed. And when he realized that, he tried to get a peace agreement. Which was scuttled by Nixon, as I note at the end of the article. And as I also note, there is evidence that Nixon attempted to expand the war in 1964 also, combining with LBJ to turn around JFK's withdrawal plan. Further, as i note in the article, Nixon wanted to bomb the north and commit American combat troops in 1954! Once in power, he then expanded the war into Cambodia, which LBJ deliberately did not do. He then dropped more bombs on Cambodia and Laos than the USA dropped on Japan. This caused the overthrow of Sihanouk, the rise of General Lon Nol, and the eventual takeover of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge. And the death of at least 750.000 people--probably many more--under Pol Pot. He did all of this when in fact, there was no important national security interest at stake. Which is why Kennedy wanted to get out instead of making something worse than it already was. In my opinion,with the exception of Truman's use of atomic weapons, I can think of no other American president since World War 2 who caused as much senseless destruction as Nixon and Kissinger did in Indochina. All of this, even though they knew they could not win. As we shall see in part 2, after 1969 it was all about a Decent Interval to make sure Nixon won in 1972. Which Nixon lied about in his book. As he lied about everything else dealing with this subject. But not just that, he also wanted to make sure McGovern was destroyed in a landslide, along with his followers i.e. the liberals and radicals would go off the cliff with him. And by the way, as you will see, Nixon and Kissinger actually SAY THIS JUST ABOUT VERBATIM! Nixon did not want anyone to know just how craven he really was. Which is why he fought to keep the papers and tapes sealed. If you can show me where Kennedy ever talked like this on his tapes, please do. Kennedy did not even want to bomb the missile silos in Cuba--and that really was a threat, since it constituted s a first strike capability. He asked Taylor how many civilians could die if it was not precision bombing. When he got an answer of hundreds, and maybe even thousands, he went to the blockade. But wait until part 2 comes out. Nixon and Kissinger even seriously thought of bombing the dikes and using tactical nukes. Over a third world country that was no threat to the USA, let alone its neighbors. In fact, it was Vietnam which finally got rid of Pol Pot in 1979. Nixon was a really bad guy. As I noted in part 1, he worked hard to give himself a good PR front. It stuck until the tapes were declassified.

Steve: Glad you cleared that up, it was not me. But who is this guy you quoted? I did not see a name on his blog.

Paul: I will respond to this later. For sure. Don't have the time right now.

This is a really good book. In fact its in my top ten at CTKA for the best JFK books. http://www.ctka.net/reviews/top_ten.html

THere's nothing informative or educational in that statement? Evidently, you have never read William Greider's wonderful expose of how political parties work today. Its called Who Will Tell the People. That book is a real education in and of itself. In that book he interviewed the big polling and lobbying companies. And they told him what they did and how much they charge. That is where the word "astroturf "comes from in political terms. In other words, those guys use it when talking about their name lists and phone efforts. And there are all kinds of sources on how the Tea Party movement began. If you want to read them, fine. If not, then that is cool also. But DIck Armey was a key figure, the following is from Wikipedia: In 2003, Dick Armey became the chairman of CSE after retiring from Congress.[77] In 2004, Citizens for a Sound Economy split into FreedomWorks, for 501c4 advocacy activity, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. Dick Armey stayed as chairman of FreedomWorks, while David Koch stayed as Chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. The two organizations would become key players in the Tea Party movement from 2009 onward.[78][79] Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks were "probably the leading partners" in the September, 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington, also known as the "9/12 Tea Party," according to The Guardian.[80] As per being a Patriot, take a look at Glenn Greenwald's How Would a Patriot Act?

Ernie: First of all, I don' know what you use as an inflator index, but the one I used came out with a figure of about 15,000, 000 today. Which, when you compare to what the parties spend in a presidential year, is not really a lot of money. I mean today, that would be barely enough to run a contested senatorial campaign in a big state. As far as the luminaries you have listed there who liked or contributed to the JBS, then the obvious question is why did they not have further reach or more power or last longer? I mean after Fred Koch pulled out and after Otis Chandler launched that three day expose of them in the LA Times, they were more or less gone. People like the Hunts organized their own groups, and radio networks. The JBS made a big mistake in staying with the Vietnam War as long as they did. It really spelled their doom.

GN: I'm trying very hard to respect your contributions to this subject as objective and responsible and effortful. your continuing leftist agenda is making it difficult. before you rebut: doesn't matter whether what you're saying is accurate or not. the way you're putting it reeks of agenda, which is not necessary and in fact, not constructive in seeking an otherwise common goal. I cannot think that the Tea Party today can have a remote connection to the assassination of JFK, even IF JBS did it. which they didn't. i know for a fact that my passionate conservative world-views have NOTHING to do with my desire to find and punish someone who may still be held culpable in this thing. I'd like to think political opinions can be left out of this, just because there's a chance to take a shot at some Republicans. do not for a second think that there are not plenty more opportunities to take some shots at some Democrats. I just let em go. if i misunderstood that last comment, then i apologize. but i don't think i misunderstood the spirit with which it was made. I don' know what this means at all. What on earth could the Tea Party have to do with the JFK case? And BTW I don't think the JBS had anything to do with it either. All I was doing was comparing the relative power and potency of the two movements, and also their origins. And I do not consider myself a leftist. I consider myself a Kennedy Democrat-- a species that is just about extinct today. And BTW, bringing in perceived political biases is always a dangerous thing to do, since it can easily be turned around on you e.g. How could a conservative Republican give anything about JFK?

GN: seeing Barr speak on one of those films, i felt that he carries a good degree of plausibility and respectability. Until you read his book. I mean what a pile of trash. ​Ernie: the Tea Party is not just a reincarnation of the JBS. The Birch Society was really a small scale grass roots movement. I mean they actually had local bookstores to raise funds. ​The Tea Party was founded with big money from above. With allies in the media at Fox. The modern GOP knows how to create astroturf movements, that is fake grass roots.

Glenn: What I meant was that Reagan was perceived as being the most conservative president since Hoover. Yet, he was ready to deal with Gorbachev since he thought he was a real reformer, which he was. Nixon did no think so. He and Kissinger were so blinded by their Cold War thinking about the Commie monolith, they were not able to see a once in a century opportunity. Yet Mr. Conservative, Reagan understood that. Which underlines what an overrated foreign policy thinker Nixon really was. He was a myth created by his own PR machine.

GN: If I may, Jim - we HAVE the Mafia killed JFK... and there still IS LBJ killed... and, again with respect, the author of this thread regained some credibility (with me at least), by clarifying that Walker Did It isn't the mainline. I think you misunderstood what I said. After the HSCA, there was a wave of Mob did it books: Blakey, Scheim, and then Davis. Starting with Barr McClellan and his "I know Lyndon Johnson Killed John Kennedy" spiel on TV, there was a wave of LBJ did it books, including his own, Nelson's and Stone's. Now, the title of this book is General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive new evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy. Which recalls the title of a book by Livingstone. Now, with that title I don't know how else you can classify this book except by saying that Walker and the rightwing nuts in Texas and their associated groups killed Kennedy. If that is not the case then the title is a misnomer. It is always off-putting when it takes a Waldronesque 900 pages to describe a plot to kill Kennedy.