James DiEugenio

This is from Robert Morrow. Almost comical. Richard Russell in 1968 or 1969 told a young Georgia political prodigy named Ellis Fielding Baxter that the Warren Report was “Bullshit… and I didn’t want to do it.” Robert Morrow 3-2-15 interview with Ellis Fielding Baxter, born in 1948, and later a political associate of Sen. Herman Talmadge of GA. In 1968 or 1969 Ellis Baxter, then age 20 or 21 and a political prodigy, asked Sen. Richard Russell “What do you think of the Warren Report?” Russell’s reply was “Bullshit…And I didn’t want to do it.” [Robert Morrow interview with Ellis Fielding Baxter on March 2, 2015] Ellis Fielding Baxter obituary https://obituaries.neptunesociety.com/obituaries/tempe-az/ellis-baxter-10547383 Ellis Fielding Baxter (Oct. 30, 1948 – January 24, 2022) Ellis Fielding Baxter, 74 - Scottsdale, AZ - Has Court or Arrest Records (mylife.com)

If Ben did not know about the Morley article, then what does it matter if it was from July? I don't think anyone else posted a link or an alert did they?

Roger: I did not know that. Whew. Then he did not even link to Substack? If that is true, then yes the decision should be explained. The evisceration of the JFK Act by Biden is the most important thing happening in this case right now and everyone should be talking about it for the 60th.

All of this seems to be to be of the greatest relevance to this forum. It goes to the very heart of what it is about. It is not political bickering about the upcoming election. Its about what really happened to President Kennedy. If Ben was banned for displaying a private column in a public forum, that is one thing. But even if that was it, I think 30 days was overdoing it. But putting these arguments, which he had not seen yet, out here is perfectly legitimate.

If anything, as many have said, the strictures of the JFK Act should be more applicable today than they were in 1992. For the simple matter that any claim for national security is weaker now than it was then. Plus the original Act stressed that very point. That the need for disclosure, 30 years on, clearly outweighed any claim to national security. That argument is even stronger today, 30 years past the act, than it was then. It is very clear today that the CIA faked out the ARRB about Joannides. Tunheim admitted this to Oliver Stone for his JFK Revisited film. And they did this in order to conceal something that might be worse than what we already know. Namely that Joannides was cleared for something called SI, special intelligence in the summer of 1963. Just what that was we cannot know in the state of affairs we have today. And with what Biden did, I do not think we will ever know.

In my opinion, there is little more important to this case than what Biden did in his Friday night news dump. Which successfully managed to dodge any MSM attention. Although Robert Kennedy did mention it. But we know what the MSM thinks of him. So did Oliver Stone, but same thing right? Biden has been president for the last almost three years. Trump was properly hammered by us for what he did. But Joe Biden is a Democrat, and Irish, and he voted for the JFK Act. Plus he has Bobby Kennedy's bust in his office and JFK's painting in his study. To me, that makes what he did even worse, EVEN WITHOUT his last rather disgusting executive order. Andrew Iler, a good lawyer, and an expert on the JFK Act, called what Biden did: taking a flame thrower to the JFK Records Collections Act. To those who do not understand what Biden did, its kind of simple in its brutality. He essentially stopped the process dead in its tracks. But further, all of the laws and strictures in the ARRB act were now going to be circumvented. In fact Biden created a whole new process suggested by the CIA. Now each executive agency would be allowed to plead its case to something called the National Declassification Centre. There is no mention of the NDC in the JFK Records Collection Act. But beyond that, Biden changed the standard of proof for classification. He actually created a standard that did not exist. Its called something like, "except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise." I wish I was kidding. I write about this travesty in the conclusion to an anthology I contributed to coming out for the 60th.

Mike wrote a good critique of this issue. He and Gil make some good points.

William: If we do not scream about what Biden did, who will? Have you seen one MSM story about Biden's executive order? I have not. The only stories I have seen were by Andrew Iler at K and K and Morley at Substack. I have several speaking engagements lined up for the anniversary, some live, some podcast. I will be addressing this issue and going after Biden.

If Eddie weighed that in 1978 then he lost a lot of weight after. I have met him on four occasions since and there is no way he is that weight. Secondly, about Nosenko saying Oswald was in Mexico City. In John Newman's book Uncovering Popov's Mole, he makes a good case that Nosenko was not a genuine defector. That he was in fact sent over by the KGB. As the KGB told Nagell, they needed to protect themselves from any suspicions about sinister connections with Oswald before the fact. If that thesis is true then this explains why those three KGB officers did what they did with their Chekovian Oswald tale. Nice one David, Peter did not have to wait for long.

Trump took many hits when he was president. And we did some in Oliver Stone's film. But this ultimate conversion of the law, this is from Biden's White House. And its recent. It literally spells the end of the JFK Act. And to me, that is not political. It has everything to do with this case.

I don't know why this was moved here. Morley is describing the White House's latest move which is very important in regards to the last of the JFK documents and the legacy of the JFK Act. Therefore its not political. It is a direct connection to the assassination. William tries to equate this with Trump, but Trump is not president anymore. Biden is. And has been for going on three years. And he is the guy who is actually trying to revise the JFK Act of 1992 into something it was not and should not be.

According to John Newman, Oswald had no passport type photos. He left and came back in about an hour with them. (Oswald and the CIA, pp. 356-57) BTW, this is one of the things that made her suspicious about him. That he was so unprepared to do what he said he wanted to do. Which was to get an in transit visa through Cuba. "Duran, however was suspicious because Oswald had not been sent by the American Communist Party, which had a deal with the Cuban Communist Party allowing approved Americans to get visas immediately." (ibid)

As the illustrious Robert Charles Dunne noted about that Nechiporenko additive with Oswald at the Soviet embassy, it was as if the Russians were recalling their great playwright Anton Chekov and decided to throw in a scene out of Uncle Vanya. Does anyone really buy that story? He has bandying about a handgun since he felt he was being pursued by the FBI? If I recall correctly, these guys were set up with a deal from an American producer living in Russia.

Ben: We have the actual photo check by the CIA today. It was declassified by the ARRB. No picture of Oswald. And there is no way LHO could have avoided every camera at the Cuban embassy. The whole first part of the Lopez Report is devoted to the camera coverage. That was the part that was so heavily censored by the CIA. Because it was so convincing that if LHO has been at the Cuban embassy, the CIA could not have missed photographing him. BTW, you know how sensitive CIA was about this? They would not give out the names of the camera operators. So when Lopez served as a translator for a meeting with Castro, he told Fidel about this problem. Castro said, "Oh we know who those guys are. " And he turned Eddie over to the intel guy with him and he gave him their names.

Are you sure about that Joe? I know he was happy to let Frankenheimer use the White House as a backdrop. I did not know that he asked him to make the film. I also know that the Lancaster character is based on Lemay.

Also, the FBI checked every passport photo shop in about a three mile radius No one recalled Oswald.

From what I know, there is not a current book that does a comprehensive overview of Mexico CIty with all the latest information. The ARRB declassified a lot of material on this subject, in addition to the Lopez Report. I agree with David Josephs and John Armstrong that Danny and Eddie were wrong to accept the WC case about Oswald going down there and returning. Because it does not stand up and I think Greg Parker will say the same thing. IMO, what is needed today is a small book on this subject.

John buys into that book Passport to Assassination. This is why he thinks LHO was at the Soviet Embassy. IMO, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the KGB saw the writing on the wall. And there began to be a continual conveyor belt of these guys going from Moscow to London to NYC to sign their deals giving MI 6 and the CIA what they wished for. As Amy Wright once wrote, in some cases it was ludicrous: an archivist could not find a copying machine in several years? My personal favorite is that Mark Lane was somehow Soviet sponsored and did not know it.

David: Please address Pam's issue with the visa, as you have done before.

I much appreciate Tom's contributions to this thread. It seems he had not forgotten about the record of Mr. Single Bullet Fact. Example: after not being able to find him for decades, 10 days after he buys McBride's book he declares Tippit's father incompetent.

Who is Westwood? I think you mean Westbrook. Oh, and Charles don't you know what Mervyn does know? That was Marcello. Just like Marcello organized the Chicago Plot also. Even though that would have been way out of his territory, and would have put Accardo and Giancana in danger.

LOL, 😀

If you can prove that I reported anything you have written to the mods, please do. Because I have not. That is a distraction by you to avoid the question.

Ok Mervyn: Did Marcello arrange the Chicago Plot also? And he did that without Commission approval either?

This is what I thought you meant. I just said that comment my Becker has been discredited. And a guy is writing a book about it. He would not go on BOR because of that. So what is the rest of your case?