James DiEugenio

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.

That is correct, as far as I know. But its interesting I think to take notice that the WR does not mention Kennedy's terrific rearward motion. Secondly, try and find mention of that in any of the reportes of the Clay Shaw trial e.g. in the LA Times etc. Or even in James Kirkwood's terrible book on the Shaw trial. So whenever someone says to me, "What do you think, the media in this country is completely controlled?" I always answer that, as far as the MSM goes, yes it is. Because when the public finally saw the Time Life Zapruder film, it shocked the hell out of them. This is why James Phelan was sent to New Orleans to coordinate coverage of the Shaw trial for the MSM. As I learned from the illustrious Art Kunkin, although Phelan was not covering the trial, he had a more sinister assignment and a more comprehensive one. He was there to coordinate the MSM message out of New Orleans. Because contrary to popular belief--including the likes of Paul Hoch, Tony Summers etc--Garrison did have some compelling evidence to put on. Phelan rented a house--most likely on the FBI's dime--and invited all the MSM "journalists" there each day. He would then spin the coverage for them. On the day the Z film was shown, everyone was shocked. The jury demanded it be shown about nine times, they couldn't believe it. Art thought, OMG, what is cover up artist Phelan going to do about this? Art could barely believe his eyes when he got to the house. Phelan wheeled out a mobile chalkboard. He then proceeded to draw on it something entirely new to Art: the jet effect. LOL Phelan must have made an emergency call to Hoover that day. But since Hoover knew what was on the film, he was prepared.

FYi, in thee tries,I have never voted for either HC or Obama. No one has to tell me how to be unconventional.

To my knowledge this is correct, except to add that the FBI got one of the SS copies.

Do you think it was deliberately ambiguous.?

Oh no, Barr McClellan. Hasn't he done enough damage. Ouch! That guy will not go away will he?

BTW, many Huffpost types like Sirota have ridiculed the questioning of Trump about JFK's death. They cannot see the relevance of it. This shows two important points: 1.) The failure of the MSM to understand any of the facets of the JFK case beyond the controversy over the WR, and 2.) The failure of the critical community to demonstrate what the killing of Kennedy was really about. One of the major reasons Kennedy was killed was that he was resisting the globalization plans of the Power Elite. Not only was he resisting them, he was turning them backwards. As I tried to demonstrate in Destiny Betrayed, JFK was a nationalist in regards to the rights of the Third World to forge their own destinies in the wake of decolonization e.g. Congo, Algeria, Indonesia, Dominican Republic etc. And he looked askance, as Don Gibson has shown, at American corporations relocating production and HQs abroad. His proposed tax plan tried to discourage this practice. This is one of the reasons that brought him into conflict with the CIA, Dulles, David Rockefeller, John Hay Whitney, and, of course, Clay Shaw who ran the ITM and the IH for the Eastern Establishment down in New Orleans. This whole globalization racket began with the CIA exerting imperial influence in the Third World. But then it became formalized with treaties dealing with certain geographic areas. Again, Kennedy resisted these treaties. But the EE kept at it and lo an behold, the guy who got them through was a favorite of the Huffpo crowd, Bill Clinton. The guy he put in charge of getting them through, Mack McClarty then went to work for Rockefeller agent Henry Kissinger. Kissinger schooled him well and then McClarty opened up his own version of Henry's lobbying shop. This is what I mean about keeping the case current.

I should qualify what I wrote. I read the third draft of the script about three years ago. That is what I am commenting on. In Hollywood, scripts go through many more drafts than that. Its not uncommon to go through 6-7 drafts, and then to have the thing rewritten during production. And bring in another writer to do it. (Good example: The Untouchables went through seven drafts. The talented David Mamet then said, that is it for me, and he left. The high point of the picture, the shootout at the train station, was written during production, after he left.) So I just want to make my vantage point clear. Who knows what has happened since.

From what I understand the release date for the Talbot book is in October. I don't see anything else on the horizon right now. So, he should have the airwaves and print waves pretty much to himself in November. And without Mack, Vince, and McAdams, I don't know who else they have to bring out against him. Maybe Willens or Slawson, but they would both be in wheelchairs. The point is that none of them knew anything about Dulles. Except what he wanted them to know. It looks like Talbot has done some real work on the subject. And its a very tough subject. As Corbett said above, there really is not a satisfactory biography on the man. The Grose book is more or less an official biography. Kinzer--who wrote about the brothers Dulles-- worked for the NY Times. (Enough said.) The Mosley book came out too early, was about all three siblings, and did not have access to a lot of declassified documents. So this should be the first real biography about Dulles. And boy do we need it. I have always maintained that the four people who did the most work for the WC on Kennedy's death were four of the worst people in 20th century America: Dulles, McCloy, Hoover and Ford. We finally did get exposes on Hoover, and to a lesser extent on McCloy with Kai Bird. But there had not been any real exposes on Dulles and Ford. Well, it finally looks like we will get one on Dulles at least. Maybe Ford, will follow. And people will see that the WC never had a snowball's chance in Hades of succeeding, not with those four leading the (non) inquiry. I mean those four made someone like Richard Russell look like a combination of Sherlock Holmes and Joan of Arc.

BTW, here is more on Jean Davison http://www.ctka.net/2014/Davison%20update.html For the record, in addition to the Russian test, and also Quinn saying Oswald spoke fluent Russian while in the USA, I talked to Ernest Titovets in Washington last year. Titovets was one of Oswald's best friends in Minsk. He told me that when he met Oswald, he spoke Russian quite well. I asked him about how long this was after LHO arrived there, he said about 11 months. So in addition to the positive evidence of Quinn, and the Russian test, and the WC report about Monterrey, there is now Titovets. The idea that somehow Oswald could have learned Russian while in the USSR, without any formal instruction is what I call a Davisonism. For what that means, see my review.

No to the first. As per the second, it greatly minimizes all of that. To the point that it is only scenic decor. When I read it, Darren A was supposed to direct it since he and she did Black Swan. Evidently, he backed out of that and is now producing it only. Wise choice on his part. Its a TV movie all the way.

"Keeping the hands of all of Kennedy's enemies clean." Ok. In the summer of 1963, Oswald was at Guy Bannister's office doing leafleting on his phony Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of which he was the only member in all of New Orleans. When Banister, who hated Kennedy, found out about Oswald printing his address on this leafleting material, he was aghast. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 111) That summer, James Arthus, the custodian at the Camp Street address who covered up for Bannister, suggested to Guy that they send a dead rat to the White House. (ibid, p. 116) David Ferrie, who Oswald was also seen with that summer, made speeches against Kennedy for his alleged mishandling of the Bay of Pigs. Bannister tried to cover this up for his pal Dave. (ibid, p. 115) Clay Shaw, also seen with Oswald that summer, offered to pay a gubernatorial candidate to harangue JFK in order for him to visit New Orleans. (ibid, p. 217) The anti-FPCC campaign run out of the CIA was co helmed by David Phillips, a man who made several anti-Kennedy remarks, and then was seen with Oswald in Dallas. (ibid, p. 158) Phillips then told numerous lies about Oswald being in Mexico City before confessing later that there would be no evidence linking Oswald with the Soviet Embassy. Before he died, Phillips weepingly admitted to his brother he had been in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. (ibid, pgs. 354, 363, 364) Allen Dulles used to joke about how his good friend Mary Bancroft was the best friend of Michael Paine's mother, where Oswald stayed in Dallas when he returned from New Orleans. (ibid, pgs. 197-98) Dulles, while on the WC, then conspired with the FBI on how to keep secret any Oswald ties to the intelligence community. This was fairly easy to do. Why? Because the man who ended up the main liaison to the WC for the CIA was James Angleton, who actually carried Dulles' cremated ashes at his funeral. But beyond that, it was Angleton who had control of the Oswald files at the CIA. When news of Oswald's defection came in from Russia, it was filed properly at FBI and ONI but not at CIA. At CIA it did not go to Soviet Russia division, it went to CI SIG, Angleton's mole hunting group. (ibid, pgs. 141-42) Further, no 201 file was opened by Angleton until a year after the defection, a fact that no on in the CIA, including Helms could explain. But yet Angleton did have Oswald on the very small HT LINGUAL mail intercept program. Let's see, tens of thousands of people had 201 files opened up on them, but yet only 300 were in the mail intercept program. (ibid, pgs. 142-44) Kind of weird status for Oswald with Angleton, eh? Now, you will not see one word about any of this in the WR. Not a word about Guy Bannister, Ferrie, or Shaw. Not a word about the associations of Ruth and Michael Paine with anyone at all. Incredibly, in 19,000 pages the name of David Phillips does not appear. Even though the indications are Phillips was tracking Oswald from New Orleans, to MC to Dallas that summer and fall. Not a word about the CIA's anti FPCC program is in the WR. And finally there is not a word about the CIA directing George DeMohrenschildt to befriend Oswald when he returned from Russia. (ibid, p. 194) As the late Sen. Richard Schweiker once said, Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him. And these prints should have set an iinvestigatory trail to a conspiracy. It was the function of the WC to erase that trail. And with Allen Dulles on board, they did. See what happens to you when you take Jean Davison seriously? http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html Today, the life and character of Oswald are an absolute loser for the other side. They should not touch it at all.

That is actually a fairly good show on Allen Dulles by Corbett. The stuff on the Dulles brothers dealing with Nazis is especially interesting.

I read the script for this. A big nothing burger. What else is new after Hanks and Parkland.

Don, although I generally agree with your statement, there is an exception. In the 1992 election, after JFK came out, Al Gore said in a televised interview that he thought the case was a conspiracy. To my knowledge, unlike Clinton, he never took that back. Clinton in his usual, "I didn't inhale" way, said he had some serious questions about the case. (After he was elected, he asked the number three guy in the Justice Department to find out Who KIlled JFK?") But Gore knew what he was talking about. Why? When he first came to Washington as a congressman, his father knew Bud Fensterwald. Both of the families were upper class Tennessee crust. Bud called up young Al and asked him to come by his office. He told him he wanted him to stop by every Friday before he flew back to Tennessee. He just wanted him to look at a few documents he would have laid out on a table for him to read. He would not comment on them himself beyond telling him, if he needed to, where the document came from and when it originated. Gore did this for a year. After one year, Gore told Bud, that was enough: "You are correct. It was a conspiracy." That was in the seventies. In the nineties, when he was in the White House, I know someone who visited there at the time who had worked for the HSCA. This person told me that Gore was still very keen on the subject and wanted to talk about it more in public. But he was muzzled by his handlers.

Ken: Please read the whole series since I think you may be missing the main point of Jeff's argument. Jeff is, I think, deliberately minimizing the whole "pictures are fake" line which people like Fetzer and Marrs have taken about as far as one can go. What Jeff is really arguing is the provenance of the camera and the photos. In other words, was that really Lee's camera and did Marina take the photos? No one, to my knowledge, has ever taken this argument as far as he has. This is why its so original and unique. So please read it. BTW, Jeff told me that what got him started on this was a very close reading of the HSCA report which was authored by Kirk. Kirk minimized or sidestepped the provenance question in a lawyerly way. This is what got him suspicious. It always amazes me, with all these people doing work in this field, how a new angle or a new piece of evidence can surface fifty years later.

Jon: Thanks, but don't give me credit for this. CTKA is a platform for many good writers. in this case it was Jeff Carter. Jeff did the "Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years" series with Len Osanic, which also turned out well.

BTW, this is now the number one rated article at CTKA. And the series, parts 1-3, is number two. The appeal of these photos as a subject for debate and controversy never fails to amaze me. It is eternal. And since Jeff took a different track toward the material, I think that sealed the deal.

Ron: Although the other side--like for example DVP and McAdams--likes to label me as a congenital conspiracy believer, just short of an illuminati buff, I do not think like that. When I think the state of the evidence merits saying that something was up, then yes, I will do so e.g. CE 399, Oswald at 544 Camp Street etc. In this case, I am not willing to go that far. I will only say that there is certainly a suggestion there. So although I think that Fritz was negligent in what he did, I will not go as far as to say it was planned to get Oswald killed.

Dole did run and win the GOP nomination in 1996 and lost to Clinton in the fall election. As per Trump, I think the Oswald statement shows just how much he has curtailed and altered his persona to get a lead. I don't think he actually believes that, just like I don't think he actually believes the whole "round them up and send them back" about illegals. See, as many have noted, back when he was thinking of saving the Reform party, he was much more of a Ross Perot type. The problem with his new candidacy, as a few have pointed out, is that it has a definite ceiling. Trump cannot get very much further than where he is with it. Which is one reason Roger Stone left.