James DiEugenio

Nice quote there by Tricky DIck. Tells the press that bombing is very effective. Then tells Kissinger that in ten years it has achieved zilch. Which confirms what Ken Hughes said about them knowing they could not win but inflicting terrible damage and casualties anyway.

BTW, I should add that Talbot's book was only officially released two days ago. But its selling pretty well considering, as he notes in his Democracy Now interview, he has been bumped by some of the MSM gatekeepers who at first were going to have him on. Its near the top 100 overall on Amazon. And its in the top 5-6 in the subcategories.

Well, not quite. He mentioned these documents at the AARC Conference last year.

Who the heck knew anything about Dulles in 1962? I mean if the public had known anything about him back then, the cry would have gone up against him being on the WC, just as it did when W tried to get Kisisinger as head of the 9-11 Commission.

In his Playboy interview, Garrison said that such was the case. When he first said that way back in 1967, very few people knew what the heck he was talking about. In fact, I would wager that 99 per cent or more of the public had no idea of it. But he also said that Ferrie had a treatise on cancer in his possession at his death. Since it did not turn up, everyone doubted it. Well, it did finally turn up, through the ARRB. And the efforts of Peter Vea, one of the very few researchers in DC who went through the Garrison files as released by the HSCA. The presence of that very advanced treatise coupled with what Nicky Chetta says his Dad saw in Ferrie's apartment, well, its provocative is it not? (See Haslam, p. 46) And what his Mom told Ed about the doctors at Tulane? (p. 49) That is all direct evidence. Now, do I buy the stuff about Judy Baker that Ed tacked on in this version? No I don't, and in some ways I like the earlier version of the book more. But I give Ed credit, I mean his efforts have gotten this case the attention it deserves. I mean, he even had the New Orleans press talking about it. And this is the NOTP, the sworn enemies of JG: Snyder, Rosemary James etc. That story would not have run without Ed's work.

I should add, I have Talbot's book. It is a well written, densely packed, sharp-edged volume of about 625 text pages. I am about half way through right now. And the book is so full of characters, episodes, personal touches, and insights, that I have decided to read it twice before I review it. That is the only way to do something like this justice. I will say this though, its the most complete appraisal of Dulles as CIA Director I have yet seen. What a very bad man.

BTW, Brinkley is also the official biographer of Dean Acheson, who again, JFK had clashes with in the White House over foreign policy. And, in fact, Acheson criticized young Kennedy over his great Algeria speech back in 1957. It was so bad that when Jackie saw him waiting for a train at Penn station, she started yelling at him in public. Nice source eh?

That article in The Daily Beast is really a half loaf type. The author consults with Doug Brinkley who says that JFK's views on foreign policy differed from what came before only as a matter of tactics. LOL ROTF Oh really Mr. Brinkley. You mean like in the Congo, where Ike and Dulles decided to kill Lumumba. Whereas JFK was going to completely reverse American policy there and back him? Or do you mean like in Indonesia? Where Dulles and Ike attempted to overthrow Sukarno. When JFK asked his intrepid CIA director for the report on this, Dulles gave him a redacted copy. But Kennedy still understood what happened and again he reversed policy and invited Sukarno to Washington for a state visit. Doug, maybe you mean with Egypt? Where the Dulles brothers decided to freeze out Nasser because he would not join the Baghdad Pact, and then reneged on Aswan. Which made Nasser go to the USSR for the funds for the Aswan Dam. So Kennedy decided to rebuild that relationship by backing Nasser's importation of troops into Yemen in order to defeat the Saudi influence there. And the Saudis were the ones Dulles now backed in the Middle East after Nasser was abandoned. This is tactical? What BS, these are reversals, plain and simple. Brinkley is the acolyte of the late Steve Ambrose. Who was the darling official historian for Hanks and Spielberg. Its from Ambrose that the (highly fictionalized) story for Saving Private Ryan emerged. (See Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 21-24) Ambrose of course blasted Stone for the NY Times for his film JFK. He then attacked Nixon on TV. Well Brinkley now runs Ambrose's WW 2 museum--which Hanks and Spielberg contributed mightily to-- and wrote a puff piece on Hanks for Time. ​Now any reviewer should know about these connections before consulting a supposed neutral historian for a review of an important book. But, we all know who edits The Daily Beast right?

Nice way to open up a debate on solving the case. Which neither the WC nor the Blakey HSCA had any intention of doing. IMO, the best short treatment of this subject was a wonderfully cogent letter by Jim Garrison to Jon Blackmer back in 1977. Blackmer was an HSCA lawyer who was presiding over the New Orleans aspect of the case. This had been reopened by Bob Tanenbaum after Sprague had been sent packing and Bob was the interim chief. Bob then appointed Blackmer as the region chief lawyer in New Orleans. After meeting with Garrison, Garrison wrote him a 3-4 page letter telling him how best to approach the JFK case. He said, the worst thing to try and do is to approach it as a normal crime. He said, you cannot rely on the normal crime detection procedures like fingerprints and ballistics evidence. They will lead you up a cul de sac. Because this crime was not a normal homicide. It was a complex, multi layered, clandestine operation, one planned and done by professionals. Therefore, they had factored in all these circumstances and found ways to obfuscate them and lead the investigation down the primrose path. He then said, the way you solve something like the JFK case is not in a regular inductive way. At least not at the start. In this case, you had to find a paradigm from the outside which fit the parameters of the crime. And then you had to keep on refining that paradigm until you had all the bizarre tangents touched upon or covered. I think one thing he was talking about was this: Oswald=CIA Jack Ruby= Mafia, CIA, DPD Which is why the WC had to cover up who these two really were and Willens brought in two recent law school graduates to write their biographies.

DVP: : the Zapruder Film as well, which also does not agree--at all--with those many "BOH" witnesses. This is simply not true. Ask Sydney Wilkinson.

How can you possibly make a blanket statement like that? Especially when the bulk of Garrison's files are gone forever, thanks to Harry Connick.

The USA had already bombed Laos and Cambodia back to the Stone Age. And we invaded both countries. Those invasions caused domestic havoc and several deaths in the USA, Kent State and Jackson State. Which Nixon ended up blaming on the people who were killed. In my review of Last Days in Vietnam, I praised those who tried to help those civilians escape. But again, this was done in the face of a FUBAR of giant proportions.

Yes, I agree with that Dave.

Arlen Specter was not a ballistics expert when he stood at the window of the Texas School Book Depository with Earl Warren and "invented" the single bullet theory. Specter could not point to any team of experts and explain how a consensus was formed that begat the theory he was presenting. It was an invention with one purpose and "justice" was far from that purpose. ​Arlen Specter understood from Warren just what he wanted. And Russ Baker has some more documentation on this that will be in his new book. We also know this from Sylvia Odio's interview with Fonzi for the Church Committee. Which backs up the Eisenberg memo.

I have come to believe today that the choices of Humes, Boswell and Finck were planned. It might have been short range, but they wanted three guys who they could control and who were not at all at the top of their game. If they really wanted a good autiopsy they could have gotten a practicing pathologist from AFIP. If they wanted a great autopsy, they could have flown in Milton Helpern from NYC on a MATS shuttle flight. Helpern was the gold standard at that time in private autopsies. (See Tommy Thompson's non fiction classic Blood and Money.) Why didn't they do either? And, of course, if you read the WC and its files, it does not seem that anyone was curious about this point. And, of course, Mr. Cover up Arlen Specter never asked why so many of the standard autopsy protocols were violated, something like 90 of them, as Charles Wilber noted in his book. So, if you ask me, stuff like that does not happen by accident. The military guys there wanted a horrendous autopsy. (And, as Finck revealed at the Shaw trial, they actual interfered to make it so.) One so bad, that to this day, no one can say for certain what really happened to President Kennedy. That is about as bad as it gets.

Chris, I am familiar with that case, at least a bit. Its the basis for the Elia Kazan movie called Boomerang. Which I think was his first or second picture.

That is how incredibly awful even the so called "trendy" part of the MSM is on this issue. I mean Talbot got a lot of MSM exposure in Brothers, I mean he even debated Bugliosi about the assassination on TV and in Time. But that was before that insane barrage of WC tripe hit the box for the 50th. That had to take the cake for a collective explosion of societal neurosis.

I think its that because I cannot find anything like the other spelling. But that means either, they spelled it wrong in the program, or the guy changed his name a bit.

Here is a more current interview with Clark. http://www.northfulton.com/stories/Local-resident-recalls-being-pallbearer-at-JFK-funeral,32768 Anyone know who Barthelho is? I cannot seem to find him anywhere.

Great place to start, in Brooklyn. Hope its the first of many.

I REST MY CASE !!! I understand that part Ramon. ​But my stance on this has always been that it will take a very, very long time to get the general public to understand what Z film alteration is about, let alone to prove it to them. This is one of the reasons why I am not so enamored of it. But the autopsy evidence in this case, concerning almost every aspect of it, is something that most people can understand if its presented to them in a simple, visual way. For the rather plain fact that there has never ever been an autopsy like this before. And this is one of the things that Arlen Specter tried to cover up to the ninth degree as his main mission for the WC. ​Consider this fact: Specter never asked the pathologists why they did not dissect the neck wound, or track the skull wound. That is shocking. Since its SOP for bullet wounds in a homicide. But I think we know the reason he did not ask. Because when Jim Garrison asked FInck that question about not dissecting the back wound at the Shaw trial, we all know what happened. ​Finck would not answer the question. He was asked it something like 8 times. Finally the judge had to order him to reply. We know what he said. Because Humes was ordered not to by the military brass. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 302) ​Well, similar thing with the lack of brain tracking. The brain was not weighed that night. And when it was, it came in at a ridiculous 1500 grams. Which is the size of an intact brain. Yet too many witnesses who saw JFK after he was hit say no way, the brain was severely damaged. ​These kinds of things are easy to make a layman understand. But the American public doesn't know any of it.

Thanks Doug. I think I was wrong about Barthelho. That is not the way the Marine Corps pal of Oswald spelled his name. And I don't think they would get it wrong in the program. So does anyone know who this guy is?

CV :Ramon? You've leveled a serious charge. I think its you who have leveled the serious charge. You are telling Ramon that his project is pointless, even before he starts it! And you do this for no other reason except to accent your own agenda. Which you have been preaching for years, decades, generations? If Ramon wants to try and do something new with the head wounds, fine, more power to him. There are many new pieces of evidence in this regard, and Riley did some very good work on this that was overlooked. As many have pointed out, Martin Hay for instance, if the low in rear of the skull wound is the real entry, then ipso facto you have a conspiracy, because the particle path at the top of the skull does not connect. Yet you want to discourage this kind of new and original work before it even gets off the ground. That seems weird to many people Cliff. Most of us want to expand the horizons of the JFK case based on new material and evidence and technology. You want to keep us studying JFK's dress shirts. I don't think that is the proper approach to a very complex case.

Thanks for that tip. BTW Clark was a pall bearer for JFK. So we are now down to Wells, if I am right on Barthelho.

FYI, if you do not know who Fernando Faura is, I am confused myself as to why he is there. Faura was a local LA reporter who did some great stories on the RFK case, particularly the Girl in the Polka Dot dress angle. He was more or less eased out, and got into private business. Why he is at this conference, I don't know. Is Barthelo who I think he is? The guy in the service with Oswald? Andrew Kreig is a Washington lawyer who helped promote the ( very disappointing) AARC Conference last year. I do not know who John Wells or John Delane Williams or Hubert Clark are. Does anyone? Wow, not only Scott but Bill Kelly? And also Mantik, Law and Groden? Geez. And an LBJ panel? With Barr McClellan of all people? Him and Baker at the same conference!! I just wonder if Scott's presence encouraged the others. If so, shame on him. If not, shame on them. BTW, where is Fetzer?