Christopher Hall

I enjoy the irony of the fact that a country which routinely spies on its citizens stands outraged when its own secrets are leaked.

Welcome to our world, guys.

This is the country's opportunity to go through airport security.

Nonetheless, I certainly wish that Wikileaks or some site like it could access and post the various files in US government possession relating to the JFK assassination.

Peter, can you quote the sentence in which Blaine uses the description "narcissistic"? I'd like to know what damn business of his this is.

Good point.

I thought that the job of the Secret Service was to protect the President, the Vice President, their families and certain others - not to make character and personality assessments.

I just watched the new Discovery channel program on The Kennedy Detail. It was fairly good, IMO. It really focused on the love these men felt for the Kennedy family, and how badly they were impacted by the assassination. It also allowed Clint Hill to say the first shot hit Kennedy without Gary Mack or some narrator saying he was wrong. It even allowed Win Lawson to claim the last two shots were much closer together than the first two...without Gary Mack or some narrator claiming he was wrong. This was kinda refreshing.

Unfortunately, it also had a number of flaws.

1. While cutting back and forth between Clint Hill's and Paul Landis' accounts of the shooting, they inserted Landis saying he heard a second report before Hill and Landis described the head shot. This hid from the viewer that BOTH Hill and Landis thought the head shot WAS the second report, and that NEITHER of them heard a shot between the one striking Kennedy in the back and the one striking Kennedy in the head.

2. There was no discussion of the late night drinking and carrying on by members of the detail the night before the shooting.

3. There was no discussion of agent Greer's slowing down the limo after the shooting began.

4. There was no discussion of Emory Roberts' ordering agent Ready back to the limo during the shooting.

5. There was no discussion of the Secret Service/FBI fight at the hospital.

6. There was no discussion of the clean-up of the limo at the hospital.

7. There was no discussion of the removal of the limo from Dallas, and agent Kinney's finding and removing evidence from the limo.

8. There was no discussion of agent Greer's having Kennedy's clothes at the autopsy, and failing to provide them to the autopsy doctors for inspection.

9. There WAS, however, some discussion of Oswald--some acceptable, with one agent claiming that with Oswald's murder we would never know what "really really" happened--and some not, with David Grant and Jerry Blaine basically calling Oswald a psycho who killed Kennedy for attention.

Some CTs no doubt will be tempted to shoot their TVs at that point.

Still, as I said, I thought it was pretty good overall. It was very emotional, and is likely to create interest in Kennedy and his assassination among younger viewers not already interested.

I concur with your observations, except that one of the agents referred to (at least I thought he did) the dispute between DPD and the Secret Service agents over the removal of JFK's corpse from Parkland.

The agents the show interviewed were still crushed (several of them cried) 47 years after the incident.

Jim and Dawn,

I don't think he has even watched the show. He says

Jesse didn't deal with the real issues, such as who

was behind the assassination. He seems to believe

that Judyth was a part of it, too. Here's a test of

his understanding. How many of these issues were in

the show, Bill? Who did Jesse suggest was responsible

for the assassination or the cover-up? How much time

was devoted to Len Osanic? to Jim Fetzer? to Jim Marrs?

to Judyth Vary Baker? to Fletcher Prouty? to Jimmy Di?

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice for the following:

CIA documents

Watergate

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Operation 40

Richard Nixon

Len Osanic

Fletcher Prouty

Oswald as the "patsy"

6th Floor Museum

Gary Mack

grassy knoll

Bill Newman

Warren Commission

Arlen Specter

the "magic bullet"

Gerald Ford

the back wound

"back and to the left"

marksman

Mannlicher-Carcano

Jim Fetzer

bolt throwing off target

11.74 seconds

8.84 seconds

8.70 seconds

George H.W. Bush

From TSBD to

rooming house

supposed route

witnesses

J.D. Tippit

shell casings

Jim Marrs

Texas Theater

Marina

backyard photos

Atsugi

defection

marriage

return

George DeMorenschild

HSCA investigation

letter to Bush

"suicide"

Russ Baker

Bush calls FBI

student Parrot

the third tramp

E. Howard Hunt

St. John Hunt

"back-bencher"

"The Big Event"

David Morales

Frank Sturgis

Cord Meyer

LBJ

Where was Judy Baker on the show?

I did not see her.

Jim-

This is a helpful distillation of the topics covered on Jessie's CT show.

I thought that it covered a very wide swath of important topics about as well as one could do on around 40 minutes of air time.

I wish that Jessie would do a 10 part series on the JFK assassination.

In this episode, the coverage was much more focused on the topic than on Jessie, his bluster, his bravado, etc.

He has covered some important topics (e.g. HAARP, Area 51) which need to see the light of day.

Not to make light, but I remembered today that I was deprived of that quintessential assassination trauma - being let out of school. I was in kindergarten, but had been kept home that Friday with a November sore throat. I saw the afternoon broadcasting (including the Cronkite death announcement) in my pajamas.

You must be a year younger than me, because my school (a public school in St. Louis) sent us home early.

I was in first grade.

I remember watching the LHO assassination a couple of days later on my great grandparents black and white television.

It was all quite surreal.

Thanks, Jim.

I am happy that you started a thread on this.

I was going to do so if no one else did.

I need to watch the show again a few times to pick up on leads that it started to develop.

I believe (along with Bill Kelly, I believe) that resolving this matter fully and finaly will require access to information currently being held confidential by the government.

It's nice to see this type of show appearing in the media, because the overwhelming majority of inroads on the assassination has come from the research community.

I thought that the Ventura show on the JFK assassination was great.

Most of his shows give shallow coverage of some fairly important topics, with an emphasis more on Jessie and less on the subject matter.

I want to see this one again.

Why does he say "his close friend Frank Costello" like it's some kind of bad thing?

Seriously, though, I was hoping California would legalize pot for the sole purpose of precipitating a state vs. Federal government showdown and hopefully moving the lost concept of Federalim forward.

I don't think that legalizing pot is a good thing, but I strongly believe that it should be the right of the California General Assembly and Governor to make that determination.

I was quite surprised to learn that it failed.

I think that our Federal government should end the war on drugs and let the states decide what to do in their jurisdictions.

Does anyone really think that the DEA's efforts affect anything relating to illegal drugs other than their price?

I would like to close this agency down, along with the BATF and the Department of Education, and deploy these ninjas to our southern and northern borders.

'The biggest white-collar crime in history'

Saturday, October 16, 2010 By Mat Ward

When US director Danny Schechter's 2006 film In Debt We Trust predicted a huge financial crisis was coming, he was laughed at. It turned out he was right.

His latest film, Plunder: The Crime of Our Time shows how the crisis was created by Wall Street bankers breaking the law to manipulate the markets — and suggests a bigger crisis is on the way.

Green Left Weekly is organising screenings of Plunder around the country. It is screening in Sydney on September 23, at 6.30pm in the Resistance Centre, 23 Abercrombie Street, Chippendale. Watch the calendar on page 23 for details of other screenings.

GLW's Mat Ward spoke to Schechter.

* * *

Your new film, Plunder, calls the global financial crisis the biggest white-collar crime in history. How interested are people in this story?

Most countries, including Australia, have felt some pain in this era of globalisation and international financial markets. The movie theatres are filling up with white-collar crime stories. There is even a TV series called White Collar.

I don't think that would be the case if the market researchers didn't detect lots of interest. Crime as a genre is far more popular than business news, so this angle connects with the anger of people who feel they have been robbed of their jobs, homes and hope.

The stories in the film about [convicted Ponzi scheme fraudster Bernie] Madoff and similar tales of greed and theft touched a nerve. The left — green and otherwise — prefer to have theoretical debates about the complexities of derivatives and credit default swaps.

That's what loses the audience and leads to the "MEGO" effect — "My Eyes Glaze Over". Let's reframe these issues not just in terms of right and left, but right and wrong.

Crime introduces the moral dimension, and sparks anger and disgust. We need a crime narrative to connect with ordinary people who see it that way.

There is a wonderful scene in Plunder in which a TV news reporter tries to get people protesting on Wall Street to talk to her about losing their homes and they refuse. You used to work for CNN and ABC, yet — like the protesters — you hold the mainstream media partly responsible for the financial crisis. What message should alternative media be spreading?

The "lamestream" media were complicit, as I argue in my film and companion book The Crime Of Our Time. They didn't warn us, didn't investigate and, in fact, are owned by financial firms.

Between 2002 and 2007, dodgy lenders, credit card companies and financial institutions pumped US$3 billion in advertising into big media in the US, pumping up the bubble.

Alternative media — at least in the US — seems to prefer [criticising] Barack Obama and Fox News rather than mounting their own investigations, interesting their readers in understanding what happened and discussing strategies for fighting back.

Many commentators have compared the predicted demise of the US to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Could it, in fact, be more dramatic than that?

It could be. Powerful economic interests in this age of financialisation can collapse. Only 15 out of 15,000 professional economists here even predicted the crisis.

At the same time, the people in power can't always manage the contradictions and cleavages they create. You can't predict what will happen next.

The geniuses in power are not such geniuses. Look at what's happening in Afghanistan — a big outbreak of a bank robbing itself, similar to what BCCI [the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which was closed in 1991 for committing widespread fraud] did years ago.

How do you see the world in five or 10 years from now?

It's beyond my ability to see. I am a reporter, not a prophet. But it doesn't look good, does it?

The people in power don't have the political will to crack down on the predatory elite. Food prices are up in poor countries. Folks in Mozambique are rioting and that will just be the beginning.

When I made In Debt We Trust and warned of a meltdown, I was called an alarmist. I went from being thought of as a zero to praised as a hero. I was neither!

What's shocking is how few saw what was just around the corner. I am not so smart — I just try to pay attention.

In what ways should people be preparing to rebuild society?

In every way and every day. We need alternatives to the madness.

What are your thoughts on the Australian economy?

It seemed to be working and expensive when I was in Sydney a few years back. But I know there have been real estate meltdowns, Ponzi schemes, sub-crime mortgages and sleazy greedheads profiting off the misery of working people.

I don't want to claim more knowledge than I have, but Australia has not escaped the global financial crisis. Your big banks are squeezing the public the same way ours are.

Do you have anything to add?

Check out www.PlunderTheCrimeofOurTime.com . The film is on iTunes, DVD and available from us. Help us get the word out and organise screenings on campuses and communities. I need help in getting the word out and the film seen.

• 

From GLW issue 857

Thanks a lot for posting this, John.

It is facinating information.

This man was quite prescient in his assessment and predictions.

I may try to buy his book.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--OSWALD-AND-by-Bill-Simpich-100315-5.html

Thanks, David.

This looks interesting.

I will try to read it (and the essay linked to in it, The Agency Which Spies on Its Spies) shortly.

Who determines if a candidate is "qualified" or not? Let's be honest, except for a handful of notable exceptions, the vast majority of our elected leaders come from, and have always come from, the same kinds of backgrounds. Disproportionately Ivy League grads. Virtually all lawyers. Most of them with a claim to have been "successful" in the corporate world.

Oddly, most of the exceptions to this rule are ex-athletes, like Jim Bunning, J.C. Watts, Steve Largent, etc. or ex-actors, such as Fred Grandy and the guy from "Dukes of Hazard." So, I guess you have to be a lawyer to be "qualified," unless you played professional sports (or, in the case of Watts, high profile college football) or played a character on a television show. Frankly, it's ridiculous that average, working class citizens aren't considered "qualified" for public office. Until Congress gets some true working class people as representatives, who have experienced the kind of real problems the vast majority of the public faces, then public policy will never change. Our representatives are all wealthy, and they will continue to look after their interests.

My point about Caroline was that the media stressed her lack of articulation, which probably was the result of plain nervousness, in an interview. We all know that lots of less articulate candidates have given interviews just as awkward, or more awkward, than this, but the media doesn't usually see fit to publish a transcript with all those ugly errors intact, for all the world to notice. The same thing happened to Ted Kennedy, when Roger Mudd's interview was used as a real hatchet piece by CBS, in what turned out to be a successful effort to undermine his campaign.

The powers that be fear any Kennedy who runs for public office. I don't think it's an accident that when Joe Kennedy III was rumored to be running for Governor of Mass. some years ago, the story of his marriage annulment, which had happened years before, became a big issue. Robert Kennedy, Jr. was rumored to be running for Lt. Governor a few years back, and the day after the story about him running broke, another one appeared that he'd decided not to. The mainstream media (except Fox News) normally has a bias in favor of "liberal" Democrats, unless they're truly progressive, like a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich, or....unless they're a member of the Kennedy family.

I agree with a lot of what you say, Don.

But I also think that dealing with the media is part of running for office.

A case in point is the consideration that Harold Ford, Jr., also a second generation beneficiary of a strong family political name, gave to running against Kirsten Gillibrand a few months ago.

And he was fairly well respected in Tn when he came close to beating Bob Corker for the US Senate in Tn in 2006.

But the NY press absolutely brutalized him earlier this year.

Ironically, Newsweek (RIP) had run a campaign freebie with him on the cover 10 days before the 2006 election with the title "Not Your Daddy's Democrat".

And issues like marital infidelity more often than not come back to haunt politicians.

Word on the street is that John Boehner has a paramour (a lobbyist, of course) and that the NYT is sitting on the story until closer to the November 2 elections.

Time will tell.

The above by Colby and Hall is almost funny. And it says that you didn't click through all the way. Its a three part article.

As per Colby's saying that Caroline had no political experince, well I wonder why? Quoitng my article:

Let me also try and answer the query as to why people choose to do the things they do in life. It's true that Caroline and her late brother, John Jr., did not enter the public square as far as political office went. But I think you overlook a rather important detail. If I was a young child who stood by and had to watch my father's brains being blown out -- and had to relive that moment every time someone showed the Zapruder film--I think I would have qualms about entering the public arena. But, as many know, after John Kennedy's murder, Bobby Kennedy then became a surrogate father to John and Caroline. And he ran for the presidency five years later. Something that Jackie Kennedy was not all that excited about. To then have your surrogate father have his brains also blown out in public ... Well, that might swear me off from political life also.

But further, the fact that Caroline had not held political office before is something that did not hold Hamsher back when she backed Ned Lamont. In fact, she never mentioned it. And it was held by some to be an attribute. Which, in some cases, it can be. The Senate is not an executive body. It is a deliberative one. And from her past history, we can see that her voting record would have been pretty solidly in the progressive camp.

One of the points of the article was that the newly minted blogosphere shockingly went along with the MSM on this issue, especiallly the NY TImes--which has always been anti Kennedy. To the point that they appear to have cooperated in a hoax letter the Times printed. Joshua Micah Marshall of TPM went out and hired an MSM hack journalist Matt Cooper, and Cooper went and wrote a couple of the stupidest columns for Josh, ones that could have appeared in TIme or Newsweek.

I also addressed the whole goofy argument about "dynasties" that Markos Moulitsas--Mr.Former CIA intern-brought up. Well yeah, there are some dynasties, like the Bushes, that are just unsupportable. But to throw the Kennedys in there is being undiscriminating and ahistorical. I mean some dynasties have done good things--like the Roosevelts, some have not. The Kennedys have not only done a ton of good things, they have probably set a standard for 1.) Doing good deeds over a period of time, and 2.) Being so extreme in that regard they get their heads blown off. This is why I then wrote:

It's strange, I think, that a member of the family that fought what turned out to be a fatal battle against the forces of conservatism and regression is now being persecuted by the new Liberal Establishment. It almost makes me think that you don't really wish to replace the MSM. But just to tweak it a bit.

Which,of course, looks like what is happening. I mean Huffpo just hired another hack MSM journalist, Howard FIneman.

The whole fiasco hoisted Moulitsas and Hamsher on their own petard ultimately. Drunk on their own newly found power, they and the bumbling Paterson brought us KIrsten Gilibrand, a Blue Dog. Just the kind of Democrat that the blogosphere had been railing against for years. So instead of a real progressive, they brought us a Rahm Emanuel type. And they were so blind about this that they covered up for the other true villian in the saga, Paterson, who manipulated and stretched out the process for his own political ends. Which ended up also backfiring on him.

In Part 2, be sure to click through to the New York Magazine piece, which was by far and away the best, and only, real piece of investigative journalism in the whole tawdry affair.

If Caroline wants to be the Senator from NY like her uncle, she can run for office.

Mr. Hall, it was an open seat when HC left for State. Jim, I am well aware of the circumstances leading to the appointment of an interim Senator from NY in 2008. It was by necessity an appointed office. Several people let Paterson know they were interested. It's an open seat this year and Caroline was free to run against the incumbent Gillibrand. Her uncle Teddy had no problems with running agains incumbent President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

What did the media say about her 2 years ago that was untrue?

I guess you didn't read my New Media v. Old Media article. It began like this:

"Readers of this site will recall that in 2008, around this time, I wrote a three part series entitled "An Open Letter to Jane Hamsher and Markos Moulitsas." In that article I lamented the criticisms of those two bloggers about Caroline Kennedy placing her name in nomination to replace Hillary Clinton as senator from New York. I wrote that their rather shallow, melodramatic and unfounded broadsides actually said more about them than it did her. (Click here to read that piece.) Kennedy eventually withdrew from consideration. Governor David Paterson then appointed the upstate Blue Dog Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand to fill the post. I pointed out that the two bloggers goofy outrage had resulted in the appointment of just the kind of GOP-Lite Democrat they were supposed to be opposed to.

Later, some sordid revelations surfaced about what the governor had done in the wake of Kennedy's withdrawal. Paterson told Judy Smith, a political hack on his staff, to start selectively leaking confidential material in order to smear Kennedy. Why? To make it appear that she withdrew because Paterson would not pick her because of ethical problems. When this happened, Hamsher actually used these manufactured smears to attack Kennedy and protect herself against my column! As more objective observers have written, Kennedy dropped out because she felt Paterson was using her to garner media attention for his re-election bid. Smith, a former GOP enforcer, was later forced to resign. Paterson became the subject of an ethics inquiry over the Kennedy smears. Which was later accused of covering up for him. (Click here for that story )

Paterson's handling of this episode was so bad that even Republican Mayor Bloomberg questioned why it had happened. In its aftermath a decline in Paterson's ratings began. It soon became a shocking downward spiral. Less than three months after Kennedy dropped out, Paterson's rating had dipped from 51% to 19% positive. His negatives soared to 78%. (New York Daily News, 3/23/09) Things have gotten so bad that the White House has tried to talk him out of running again. Not just because they think he will lose, but because they think he will bring Gillibrand down with him. And since the Blue Dog Gillibrand has been scarred, the White house has also tried to talk the more liberal Carolyn Maloney out of running against her in the primary. (ibid, 7/3/09) Which tells us that Rahm Emanuel is in charge.

Funny how the New Media's Hamsher and Moulitsas have been hesitant to detail the mess they did so much to cause. They sure flunked that test – all the way down to covering up for Paterson. (For the best article on the Caroline Kennedy affair, click here.)"

Further the whole up state New York trop was reported wrongly, if you read the Smith article. It was never her idea. Plus, Paterson then lied about whose idea it was to drop out of consideration. ANd the New Media accepted his lies. THat is in the Smith article also. So a couple of bloggers jumped on her and you think the NYT article was a hit piece? Do you expect to not have to contend with the media when someone runs for office? I read the NYT article when it came out, but I don't remember any incorrect assertions. Maybe I missed them.

I don't like political dynasties (and the presumption of entitlement which frequently accompanies the landed gentry), irrespective of which side of the aisle they line up on.

Ok, dump the Roosevelts, the Gores, and hey, why not the Grachi brothers. Jim- You obviously like wealthy political dynasties. I don't.

I didn't say that you don't sometimes get quality second generation politicos - I said they make me weary.

Good let us get a Blue Dog then.

I like seeing candidates who have made their own reputations - not ones who have inherited them.

Caroline Kennedy has done some good things on her own. Like graduated with a law degree from Columbia, written two books on the Constitution, and raised tens of millions for New York CIty pubic schools.

She has had the opportunities that her family's vast wealth affords to write books and do charitable work.

I admire a lot of qualities that JFK and RFK exhibited, but I certainly don't buy into the inherent nobility that some of you seem to see in all things Kennedy.

It wasn't "inherent", if Caroline Kennedy had not done a solitary thing with her life except party in Monaco, and take trips to Hawaii in her yacht then, yep, forget it. But she did not. No doubt that she stands in vivid contrast to several of her cousins in this regard. So she did not deserve the mugging she got from both the NYT, and the so called New Media, which turned out to be not so new.

As a matter of disclosure, Caroline and I are the same age and she was the object of my first crush at a very young age. I have always admired her quite a bit. I also liked her brother a lot, including his self-deprecating humor.

I respectfully disagree with those who seem to think that a family's gene pool gives rise to political entitlement.

The above by Colby and Hall is almost funny. And it says that you didn't click through all the way. Its a three part article.

As per Colby's saying that Caroline had no political experince, well I wonder why? Quoitng my article:

Let me also try and answer the query as to why people choose to do the things they do in life. It's true that Caroline and her late brother, John Jr., did not enter the public square as far as political office went. But I think you overlook a rather important detail. If I was a young child who stood by and had to watch my father's brains being blown out -- and had to relive that moment every time someone showed the Zapruder film--I think I would have qualms about entering the public arena. But, as many know, after John Kennedy's murder, Bobby Kennedy then became a surrogate father to John and Caroline. And he ran for the presidency five years later. Something that Jackie Kennedy was not all that excited about. To then have your surrogate father have his brains also blown out in public ... Well, that might swear me off from political life also.

But further, the fact that Caroline had not held political office before is something that did not hold Hamsher back when she backed Ned Lamont. In fact, she never mentioned it. And it was held by some to be an attribute. Which, in some cases, it can be. The Senate is not an executive body. It is a deliberative one. And from her past history, we can see that her voting record would have been pretty solidly in the progressive camp.

One of the points of the article was that the newly minted blogosphere shockingly went along with the MSM on this issue, especiallly the NY TImes--which has always been anti Kennedy. To the point that they appear to have cooperated in a hoax letter the Times printed. Joshua Micah Marshall of TPM went out and hired an MSM hack journalist Matt Cooper, and Cooper went and wrote a couple of the stupidest columns for Josh, ones that could have appeared in TIme or Newsweek.

I also addressed the whole goofy argument about "dynasties" that Markos Moulitsas--Mr.Former CIA intern-brought up. Well yeah, there are some dynasties, like the Bushes, that are just unsupportable. But to throw the Kennedys in there is being undiscriminating and ahistorical. I mean some dynasties have done good things--like the Roosevelts, some have not. The Kennedys have not only done a ton of good things, they have probably set a standard for 1.) Doing good deeds over a period of time, and 2.) Being so extreme in that regard they get their heads blown off. This is why I then wrote:

It's strange, I think, that a member of the family that fought what turned out to be a fatal battle against the forces of conservatism and regression is now being persecuted by the new Liberal Establishment. It almost makes me think that you don't really wish to replace the MSM. But just to tweak it a bit.

Which,of course, looks like what is happening. I mean Huffpo just hired another hack MSM journalist, Howard FIneman.

The whole fiasco hoisted Moulitsas and Hamsher on their own petard ultimately. Drunk on their own newly found power, they and the bumbling Paterson brought us KIrsten Gilibrand, a Blue Dog. Just the kind of Democrat that the blogosphere had been railing against for years. So instead of a real progressive, they brought us a Rahm Emanuel type. And they were so blind about this that they covered up for the other true villian in the saga, Paterson, who manipulated and stretched out the process for his own political ends. Which ended up also backfiring on him.

In Part 2, be sure to click through to the New York Magazine piece, which was by far and away the best, and only, real piece of investigative journalism in the whole tawdry affair.

If Caroline wants to be the Senator from NY like her uncle, she can run for office.

What did the media say about her 2 years ago that was untrue?

People win elective office all the time even though the media uses its vast power of influence (which is presently decreasing, though) to oppose them.

I don't like political dynasties (and the presumption of entitlement which frequently accompanies the landed gentry), irrespective of which side of the aisle they line up on.

I didn't say that you don't sometimes get quality second generation politicos - I said they make me weary.

I like seeing candidates who have made their own reputations - not ones who have inherited them.

I admire a lot of qualities that JFK and RFK exhibited, but I certainly don't buy into the inherent nobility that some of you seem to see in all things Kennedy.

If you want to understand how much the media hates the notion of any Kennedy being elected to public office again, consider that, when Caroline was a shoo-in to be named Senator from New York a few years back, the powers that be rose up against her in a solid front. How else do you explain the articles which appeared everywhere, following her awkward interview, in which the transcript was published, complete with all her "uhs" and "you knows" intact? Kind of like when CBS aired that hit piece on Ted Kennedy back in 1980, after he decided to challenge Carter, and made certain to air all his "ers" and "uhs" for the audience to enjoy.

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html

Perhaps it was the fact she had absolutely no qualifications other than her pedigree.

I agree with you, Len.

I have grown weary of political dynasties like the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Rockefellers and the Clintons.

Their progeny aren't entitled to elective office as a matter of birthright - or at least they shouldn't be.

The Dark Side of LBJ implies that there was another side to him.

The lesson of this international incident is that one shouldn't drink and e-mail.

I fail to see what this case has to do with the JFK assassination. It seems more about smearing the Kennedy family than anything to do with the assassination.

John, this article is in the Political Conspiracies section - not the JFK assassination.

So we are therefore talking about the Kennedy conspiracy?

John, the forum has given a remakable amount of lattitude in the topics initiated on this part of the forum.

Sometimes they resemble the titles (and, for that matter, the content) of National Enquirer articles.

If this article was about Sarah Palin's brother or child, it would be unquestionably newsworth.

I feel badly for the Auchincloss family and I hope that this guy gets help.

Nonetheless, it is the truth - not a slur.

It is simply the facts of what happened.

From a legal perspective, the truth (however unseemly it may be) is a defense to a claim of defamation.

I fail to see what this case has to do with the JFK assassination. It seems more about smearing the Kennedy family than anything to do with the assassination.

John, this article is in the Political Conspiracies section - not the JFK assassination.

I like the way that one of the interviewers refers to CC, by Gerald Posner, as being dispositive of the accuracy of the LN theory.

One book, by an author who had to step down from his most recent journalistic foray as a result of charges of plaigerism, lays to rest 48 years of analysis and evidence of a successful conspiracy to assassinate JFK.

But these television journalists are usually interviewing authors of diet books.

Ventura is a clown and his show is awful.

It gives CT'ers a bad name.

My book is now available for purchase, either hardback, paperback or ebook, at the following site:

http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/

The website provides some insight into the construct of the book; suffice it to say that, in its 729 pages (679 of narrative) the context of the background in all its dimensions is well developed. It tells the story of how I believe the assassination plan originated nearly five years before on Johnson's part, before it was joined by others, most importantly James Jesus Angleton by the end of 1962, and Bill Harvey, early in 1963, followed by David Morales, David Ferrie and the other New Orleans gang after that. If five years seems a bit much, you need to read the book to understand why I've staked out such a seemingly impossible claim.

Thanks for your hard work and research and writing, Phil.

I plan to purchase and read your new book soon.

Chris

How are they necessary to any assassination scenario?

That remains to be determined, like so much in this case.

On this page from Weberman's site, about 3/4ths of the way down

http://ajweberman.com/images_other/index.htm

this caption appears: "A sketch of the assassin of Martin Luther King and the CHRIST tramp." (BTW I am not persuaded that Christ is Frenchy)

I am unable to post the images, but I think anyone who checks it out will be struck by the resemblance between "Frenchy" and the guy in the King sketch. So these "tramp" photos may be important not only in the JFK case, but also in solving the King assassination. And I have no doubt that the guy in the King sketch is NOT Harold Doyle.

But the man of the moment is Howard Hunt. I am 99.9% certain that Hunt is the oldman tramp, and Hunt's eldest son is similarly convinced. To my aging eyes, the La Fontaine candidate for oldman tramp has big cauliflower ears, unlike the ears on the oldman tramp and unlike the ears of Howard Hunt.

Jim Di Eugenio suggests that researchers risk being ridiculed if we pursue this issue. Jim is undoubtedly correct if he is referring to outfits like the New York Times, but his concern appears to be unwarranted if we are talking about Rolling Stone Magazine.

Well said, Raymond.

It's hard to believe that the older man isn't Hunt, who has admitted he was in DP on 11-22-63.

The bottom line is that fingerprint evidence is sold, hard evidence of a single person at a crime scene.

The boxes in question contained many fingerprints, some of them belonged to Oswald, others to the floor laying crew who also worked at TSBD, and some belonged to cops and crime scene investigators, the latter having violated some basic rules of crime scene investigion techniques.

The TSBD super Truly, would not allow the FBI to fingerprint any other employees besides the floor laying crew.

In the official scenario of the crime, the Sixth Floor Sniper Lee Harvey Oswald immediately leaves the Sniper's Lair, hides the rifle, and descends the stairs to the second floor where he encounters Baker and Truly at 12:31.30.

Meanwhile, back on at the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest, Mrs. Mooneyham, a court clerk across the street, looks to the Sixth floor and through the open window sees the trouser legs of a man at 12:34-5. (Gary Mack discounts this report saying that she mistook the sixth floor window for the fifth floor, but there shouldn't have been anyone in the fifth floor corner window either, since the three black guys had moved to the West End of the fifth floor and began descending down by this time). I believe she saw either the sniper in the window or a spotter who stayed behind to tidy up the crime scene, which wasn't to be officially discovered for another half hour. Whoever this person was, it is probably his fingerprints on the boxes, and he knew that he had all the time in the world to get out of there. How did he know that?

Outside, Dillard and Powell take their photos of the Sixth Floor widnows, and Brennan, when shown the Dillard photo, confirms that the boxes in the photo do NOT represent the way they were position when he saw the Sixth Floor Sniper shooting the third shot.

The HSCA photo analysis team, that had said the backyard photos were not faked, also confirms that their analysis of the Dillard-Powell photos taken twenty seconds apart indicate the boxes in the window were re-arranged between the twenty seconds those photos were taken.

So the fingerprints on the boxes at the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest window are significant and should have and still can be checked to see who they belong to, whether it be Oswald, the floor crew, other TSBD employees, the cops or Wallace.

And chances are, if it is a Wallace print, it was a plant, though it had to be planted by someone with access to the crime scene, before the cops apparently intentionally contaminated it.

Bill Kelly

Why do you say it was a plant, Bill?

I discounted the alleged Wallace print because it was contained in Barr McClellan's ridiculous book.

Why do you think it was a plant, if it existed at all?

Chris

Bill-

The road block occurred after Kane and his son shot 2 Arkansas cops with an AK-47 like they were rabid dogs.

The dash camera in the cruiser which pulled them over tells a vastly different story than the 16 year old perp's mother.

They were shot up at the Walmart parking lot after they had left 2 law enforcement officers dead on the pavement. These were needless killings.

I followed this incident in real time online (via the Memphis Commercial Appeal) as it unfolded.

After the slaying of the 2 polices officers (including the son of the West Memphis Police Chief), every law enforcement officer in the State of Arkansas was looking for these 2 guys.

An Arkansas Wildlife Agency officer bravely slammed into their vehicle in the Walmart parking lot after they had killed the 2 cops.

This didn't look like a Waco or Ruby Ridge incident by any means.

On the other topic, I cannot confirm or attest to the efficacy and reliability of the Russian intelligence report.

You mean Obama didn't order them assassinated? I certainly don't think so.

And the Director of the Director of National Intelligence didn't resign because Obama ordered him to assassinate Americans? I don't know why he resigned, but that may well be the reason. It wouldn't surprise me.

Then I guess that report about the UN troops invading Williamsport Pa. didn't happen either. I don't know anything about this, but I would feel like a 12 point buck in the rut during deer season if I wore a blue helmet in this country.

Thanks,

BK

Bill-

The following is what the older Kane's brother said about the shooting:

Tom Kane, Jerry's brother, watched the dash-cam videos and said he was shocked and outraged at seeing what his brother and nephew did. He called it a "horrible and senseless crime" that Jerry and Joe were completely responsible for.

"The actions of the police at the Walmart shooting were completely justified.

"It was obvious from the Walmart security video that Jerry and Joe made no attempt to surrender and had to shoot it out to the death.

"I can't find any words that can even begin to express the pain that my family and I feel for the officers who were killed and their family, friends and fellow officers who have to live with their loss. The city of West Memphis, Ark., truly lost two of their very best."

I am not going to defend Federal government attacks on citizens (e.g. Waco and Ruby Ridge). They seem to follow a familiar pattern (i.e. allege that children are being abused, then send in the tanks and then feed info to the media, which dutifully "reports" it to the public, that the people are crazy, cultists, etc.).

The Waco attacks and cover-up constitute a disgraceful event on the part of the ATF and the FBI (with Chuck Schumer playing an instrumental role in the cover-up). The investigation (in which the FBI somehow lost the front door to the compound, which would have determined whether the fire was incoming or outgoing) represents a tremendous embarassment to the FBI, as does the April 19 assault which was orchestrated (i.e. micro-managed) by Janet Reno.

I met Randy Weaver a couple of years ago at a gun show, and I have read about the Federal government's unwarranted attacks on him and on his family. People tend to forget outcomes after the media posse leaves, but he was acquitted of owning or selling a sawed off shotgun, but convicted for missing a hearing (for which he served 6 months in a Federal prison). The Federal government, which swears that it did nothing wrong in this matter, for some reason felt the need to pay Weaver's family $3 million or so (actually a little more, I think) to settle his wrongful death and related claims against it.

I respectfully don't think that the Kane shootings, which occurred after they had slain 2 officers (watch the video), resemble Waco, Ruby Ridge, or any similar Federal government attacks on citizens.

Chris,

I agree with your analysis completely. I just thought that the sequence of release of the news articles was intentional and ment to deceive. Good point, I didn't put the 2 incidents together. I also think the eronious Russian Report was a black propaganda operation that reminds me of what Gregory Douglas said about Soviet reports on the assassination.

I'm kind of disapointed that Obama didn't order their assassination as I think we need a really good bad guy like LBJ or Nixon and Obama just doesn't want to play the role. If the Federal government would be kind enough to put a bounty on these guys, someone would bring them in bagged and tagged. Call it private sector outsourcing. No Miranda rights, dash cams, etc. It may become more popular than hunting bambi in a treestand on a cold winter morning and even more popular than Lotto (since it has a sporting quality to it). And think of the irony that the only American who took up the FBI on trying to collect its $25 million bounty on Osama (RIP) was apprehended and returned to the US by American authorities.

BK

Bill-

The road block occurred after Kane and his son shot 2 Arkansas cops with an AK-47 like they were rabid dogs.

The dash camera in the cruiser which pulled them over tells a vastly different story than the 16 year old perp's mother.

They were shot up at the Walmart parking lot after they had left 2 law enforcement officers dead on the pavement. These were needless killings.

I followed this incident in real time online (via the Memphis Commercial Appeal) as it unfolded.

After the slaying of the 2 polices officers (including the son of the West Memphis Police Chief), every law enforcement officer in the State of Arkansas was looking for these 2 guys.

An Arkansas Wildlife Agency officer bravely slammed into their vehicle in the Walmart parking lot after they had killed the 2 cops.

This didn't look like a Waco or Ruby Ridge incident by any means.

On the other topic, I cannot confirm or attest to the efficacy and reliability of the Russian intelligence report.

You mean Obama didn't order them assassinated? I certainly don't think so.

And the Director of the Director of National Intelligence didn't resign because Obama ordered him to assassinate Americans? I don't know why he resigned, but that may well be the reason. It wouldn't surprise me.

Then I guess that report about the UN troops invading Williamsport Pa. didn't happen either. I don't know anything about this, but I would feel like a 12 point buck in the rut during deer season if I wore a blue helmet in this country.

Thanks,

BK

Bill-

The following is what the older Kane's brother said about the shooting:

Tom Kane, Jerry's brother, watched the dash-cam videos and said he was shocked and outraged at seeing what his brother and nephew did. He called it a "horrible and senseless crime" that Jerry and Joe were completely responsible for.

"The actions of the police at the Walmart shooting were completely justified.

"It was obvious from the Walmart security video that Jerry and Joe made no attempt to surrender and had to shoot it out to the death.

"I can't find any words that can even begin to express the pain that my family and I feel for the officers who were killed and their family, friends and fellow officers who have to live with their loss. The city of West Memphis, Ark., truly lost two of their very best."

I am not going to defend Federal government attacks on citizens (e.g. Waco and Ruby Ridge). They seem to follow a familiar pattern (i.e. allege that children are being abused, then send in the tanks and then feed info to the media, which dutifully "reports" it to the public, that the people are crazy, cultists, etc.).

The Waco attacks and cover-up constitute a disgraceful event on the part of the ATF and the FBI (with Chuck Schumer playing an instrumental role in the cover-up). The investigation (in which the FBI somehow lost the front door to the compound, which would have determined whether the fire was incoming or outgoing) represents a tremendous embarassment to the FBI, as does the April 19 assault which was orchestrated (i.e. micro-managed) by Janet Reno.

I met Randy Weaver a couple of years ago at a gun show, and I have read about the Federal government's unwarranted attacks on him and on his family. People tend to forget outcomes after the media posse leaves, but he was acquitted of owning or selling a sawed off shotgun, but convicted for missing a hearing (for which he served 6 months in a Federal prison). The Federal government, which swears that it did nothing wrong in this matter, for some reason felt the need to pay Weaver's family $3 million or so (actually a little more, I think) to settle his wrongful death and related claims against it.

I respectfully don't think that the Kane shootings, which occurred after they had slain 2 officers (watch the video), resemble Waco, Ruby Ridge, or any similar Federal government attacks on citizens.