Myra Bronstein

"Man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable -- and we believe they can do it again."

Bugliosi's piece of trash "Reclaiming History" is getting lots of positive reviews on Amazon, and it's overalll rating is 3 stars out of 5. I just posted a bad review. I suppose I am am a bit disingenuous, as I have not read the book, and have no intention of wasting my money on it, but I am familiar enough with the evidence, and the tired tactics used by defenders of the official story, to bet that this is just more of the same claptrap as we have seen over and over and over again throughout the years. I honestly don't know what Bugliosi could come up with that all the assassination researchers could have missed all these years. It's just another skewed prosecutorial brief. I'll bet my money on it.

Many would have you believe that super lawyer Vincent Bugliosi has closed the JFK case once and for all. Not so. Not even by a long shot. This is just another prosecutorial presentation. Bugliosi only presents what he wants you to see, within the carefully constrained context in which he wants you to see it. Forget about the fact that the single bullet theory is prima facie absurd, as no 6.5 mm copper jacketed bullet has ever been demonstrated to have caused the injuries ascribed to the so-called magic bullet (broken rib, shattered radius bone, seven wounds in two men) and come out looking nearly pristine; Forget the fact that the Warren Commission had bullets of the exact same caliber and make as the so-called "magic bullet" test fired at Edgewood Arsenal, and the only bullets that came out looking like CE 399 (magic bullet) were the ones fired into cotton wadding; forget the fact that the Zapruder film clearly and unambiguously shows Connally turning all the way around to look over his right shoulder long after Kennedy raises his hands to his throat in reaction to being hit, just as John and Nellie Connally both described; Forget the fact that almost every single witness to the head wound[s?] described a large exit wound in the rear of the head; Forget the fact that the nurse at Parkland Hospital (Diana Bowren) who cleaned Kennedy's body said that the wound at the rear of the head was so large that they placed gauze in it before the head was wrapped in a towel; Forget the fact that Gawlers Funeral Home assistant (Tom Robinson), who prepared the body for the casket, said the rear exit hole was so large that he had to place a rubber piece over it to cover it up; Forget the fact that the "magic bullet" could not possibly have gone through Kennedy's back and out his throat, as it is alleged to have done, without striking the transverse processes of the vertabrae as Dr. David Mantik has demonstrated; Forget the fact that the woman (Saundra Spencer) who developed the autopsy X-rays at the Naval Photographic Center in Anacostia, Maryland told the ARRB that the autopsy photos now in the National Archives are not the ones she developed in 1963, and that one of the photos she developed showed the large exit wound in the rear of the head; Forget the fact that the man who took the autopsy X-rays (John Stringer) also had trouble verifying the official autopsy photos, shown to him by the ARRB, as the ones he took in 1963, and that he also said that several of the photos he took are not present in the official record; Forget the fact that another examination of a different brain was performed on Dec. 2nd and 3rd 1963; Forget about E. Howard Hunt's recent taped "confession". Yes forget about all of this and much, much more, because the brilliant Vincent Bugliosi has "proven" once and for all that there was no conspiracy to murder John Kennedy. Didn't we hear that same claim trumpeted by defenders of the official faith when another much ballyhooed tome was purported to have closed the case back in the nineties? And don't we all now what a crock of ommissions, distortions, and out right lies that overrated piece of junk turned out to be? As the old saying goes - " History repeats itself." This book will be relegated to the scrapheap of history, just like Posner's much lauded (by the mainstream news media) boondoggle. And so it goes.

I'll post a review. I'll report back here when mission is accomplished.

As I recall the two big steps in intervention occured in March 1965 and early July 65. The second is the one usually despicted (with hindsight) as the Rubicon decision.

I think this second deployment took the number up around 250,000 troops.

A great book on this is Intervention by George Mct. Kahin. Kahin is rightly rebuked by Peter Dale Scott for shying away from Kennedys NSAM 263. But its still a good read, as I recall, although I might have different reactions to it now that I know much more about the Kennedy disinformation industries.

Kahin does his best to reconstrcuct, work for word, cabinet meeting of Johnson in June of 1965. He does this by piecing together clippings form a lot of different journal entries. He emphasises a wavering Johnson who really anguished over the decision.

I do not think that this depiction of a somewhat undecided Johnson, in any way diminishes from the significance of the Kennedy assassination in terms of the impact on Vietnam war. Even if you agree that Johnson was wavering in June of 65-- which probably many will not-- he was wavering from a much more entrenched committed postion than Kennedy would have been. With the commitments and instituional ties he had to the military -industrial bureacracies, I think it was much more of a given than Kahin depicts.

I find LBJ's performance unconvincing. His 1964 Gulf of Tonkin lie had already achieved his objective of escalation. Now that he had everything he wanted perhaps he was trying to feign humanity for the sake of his image and legacy.

I don't know, however, when the additional troops were actually sent to Vietnam. Did LBJ wait 'til after the election to do that?

Interesting game simulation of the decisions facing President Johnson. The demo is free, and informative.

Welcome to Escalation! Escalation is a simulation of the Vietnam War where you can make decisions as President Johnson. The decisions you make at the beginning determine what decisions you will be confronted with later and what outcome you get. No two simulations are the same!

http://www.escalationsim.com/index.html

Ok, I'm sorry to be killjoy here. I realize it's a kewl website and a good find. But it's inherently dishonest because it starts at 1964 when everything was a done deal and facts were irrelevant 'cause LBJ had given the military industrial thugs their bloddy

reward for his promotion into the white house. So if it's trying to show the complex nature of decision making then it's missing the point because it wasn't complex and decisions were already made.

The bottom line is that President Kennedy and LBJ did exactly what they wanted to do under the exact same set of circumstances at almost the same time.

Kennedy collected the info and status he wanted from Vietnam in October of 1963, wrote it up with General Krulak's help (and Bobby's?), sent McNamara and Taylor to Vietnam to put on a fact-finding show. Then Kennedy sent his report to McNamara/Taylor for their perusal and signature so they'd be familiar with "their" report when they presented it to Kennedy in its nice leather binder. It concluded that things were going well enough in Vietnam for the South Vietnamese to take over, with the help of US advisers, so that US personnel could withdraw in the specified time frame. Oct 11 he issues NSAM#263 that points to the McNamarra-Taylor Report and says "make it so."

Shortly after, November 20, there's this weird meeting in Hawaii with additional discussion of Vietnam policy and strategy that may have conflicted with Kennedy's policy. Then the infamous November 21 draft of NSAM#273, then on November 26 LBJ issues NSAM#273 that tries to sound like it's a continuation of 263 but it isn't. It paves the way for Johnson to quickly change course. He sends McNamarra right back to Vietnam to come to a conclusion that backs up what he's going to do so he can, and does, claim that the Vietnam war is going horribly so we couldn't possibly pull out--the opposite of what Kennedy said.

That change of course happened well before 1964, so that by the time 1964 rolls around Johnson has committed to a hot war & issued supportive documentation based on the bogus fact-finding mission by the versatile McNamara. The facts are irrelevant. By 1964 Vietnam was a runaway train with the pentagon and war profiteers on board whooping it up.

From The Third Alternative--Survivor's Guilt by Vince Palamara, page 22:

Deadly Delay on Elm Street

Forty-nine witnesses (8 police officers, 6 Secret Service agents, 31 spectators, 2 Presidential aides, 1 Senator and Governor Connally) and 3 films (Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore) document Greer's deceleration of the Presidential limousine, as well as his two looks back at JFK (which he denied doing). This was an unbelievable breakdown of the President's vital security. In addition, Greer disobeyed his superior, ASAIC Roy Kellerman, who told him to "get out of line--we're hit" BEFORE the fatal third shot arrived. Both government investigations ignored these extremely negligent actions by the driver.

Candid comments about Greer's (in)actions:

1) SAIC Roy Kellerman: "Greer then looked in the back of the car. Maybe he didn't believe me." (Death of a President, p 160)

2) Personal Secretary to Jackie Kennedy, Mary Gallagher: Mrs Kennedy "mentioned one Secret Service man who had not acted during the crucial moment, and said bitterly to me, he might as well have been Miss Shaw!" (My Life with Jacqueline Kennedy, p 342)

3) Secret Service agent Marty Venker confirms that the agent Jackie was referring to above was Agent Greer: "If the agent had hit the gas before the third shot, she griped, Jack might still be alive." (Confessions of an Ex-Secret Service Agent, p 25)

4) Presidential aide Kenneth O'Donnell: "...if the driver had stepped on the gas before instead of after the fatal third shot was fired, would President Kennedy be alive today? (Quoted my Marrs, Crossfire, p 248) Dave Powers expressed the very same thoughts on CBS during the 25th anniversary of the assassination. If that wasn't enough, ARRB director Tom Samoluk told me in 1996 that Powers agrees with my take on the Secret Service, based on a lengthy interview he had with the gentleman during the process of obtaining his film from the JFK library!

5) Jackie Kennedy (December 1963): "You should get yourself a good driver...so that nothing ever happens to you." (This was said to Mary Gallagher, also in Dallas on 11/22/1963) (My Life with Jacqueline Kennedy, p 351)

There is much more about Greer and his strange actions that day in Palamara's book. Palamara does state that Greer was a prime suspect in "another cover-up of sorts." Palamara's final conclusion is that Greer was a "patsy."

Persuasive stuff.

I don't know of anyone who has researched the SS more thoroughly than Palamara.

Talbot even refers to Palamara's findings in "Brothers."

...

myself insane, irrational or unreasonable. She seemed to accept that

criticism, but stoically so with an accepting shrug. Bugliosi headed in

Priscilla's direction and thanked her profusely for her input. He told her

that he could not have written the book without her help.

...

SINCERELY, EDGAR F. TATRO

Well, I believe that makes it official.

Teamwork with Ms. Priscilla outs Mr. Bug as a CIA mouthpiece IMO.

...

Johnson was a caretaker president until properly elected.

There was NO significant US Vietnam escalation until AFTER he was elected in 1965.

...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here John.

The Gulf of Tonkin non-incident (i.e., lie) occurred August 2, 1964--before the 1964 November election.

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed on August 7, 1964 and is the official congressional authorization for escalation:

"It is of historical significance because it gave U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson authorization, without a formal declaration of war by Congress, for the use of military force in Southeast Asia. The Johnson administration subsequently cited the resolution as legal authority for its rapid escalation of U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam conflict."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

I don't know, however, when the additional troops were actually sent to Vietnam. Did LBJ wait 'til after the election to do that?

...

On second thought, I'm not ideologically opposed to a bit of vulgarity now and again.

I knew you'd come to your senses Nathaniel.

...

It was to keep him completely out of the way, like six other Cabinet members stranded together on an airplane over the Pacific Ocean, till "regime change" was successfully completed. All part of good planning.

Speaking of that unusual episode where the cabinet members were flown to two places, first Hawaii I think, then were en route to Japan when they got the news... Does anyone know how those meetings, necessitating flying long distances, originated? Who set up the meetings and/or told the cabinet members to attend?

I don't want to engage in a mudslinging debate with Joan – much of whose work on Garrison I respect. JFK debates too often descend into religious wars – particularly those around Garrison, who provokes such strong passions on both sides. But I would like to make some general points about our differences.

Clearly, the main ones seem to be this: Joan thinks I see RFK (and Sheridan) through rose-colored glasses, and I think she does the same with Garrison. I want to clarify, as much as I can in a short space, my views. My book acknowledges Bobby's flaws – his intemperate stance towards Castro (particularly in the early days of the administration), his arrogance, his absolutist tendencies (again, particularly early on), etc. And as for Sheridan, I make no effort to defend his investigative methods – except to say that in his and Bobby's minds, the evil of their organized crime targets merited this zealousness on their part. I think Sheridan's Irish-Catholic, ex-G man, pro-Kennedy intensity clearly carried over into his dealings with Garrison, which, as I write in the book, was tragic. Sheridan was unable to recognize Garrison's legitimate contributions to solving the case, once he concluded he was tainted. So I acknowledge all that – but I think Joan goes too far in her crusade against Sheridan (and Bobby). In doing that, she even accepts the corrupt opinions of notorious Kennedy haters like the CIA's Sam Halpern – who was the source for much of the poison in Sy Hersh's notorious book.

My own view of Garrison, as I've tried to make clear, is that he was a flawed hero. He was enormously brave to reopen the case and withstand the ferocious counterassault from the government and the media --and yes from RFK and Sheridan, who feared that he would expose Kennedy secrets and also contaminate the investigation, which they were intent on keeping under their control.

But those who defend Garrison without conceding his significant shortcomings and blunders are guilty of blind hero worship. He did indeed have puzzling blinders on when it came to Carlos Marcello – he thought the godfather of New Orleans, a venomous enemy of the Kennedys, was a "respectable businessman." I don't think Marcello was the architect of the assassination -- I think it came out of U.S. intelligence. But I think Mafia bosses like him (and I would also include Trafficante and Rosselli) played a supporting role in the crime -- and in the Ruby hit on Oswald. And we can argue all day about Clay Shaw, and whether – after losing Banister and Ferrie as targets – Garrison should have built his whole case on him. But the bottom line is that a jury didn’t buy it, and the result – as Bobby and Sheridan feared – was to contaminate the case for many years to come. So JG's legacy, in my mind, is a decidedly mixed one. As is Sheridan's – a man who also failed to crack the case and apparently abandoned it altogether after Bobby's murder. This plagued him until the end of his life, as I write in the book.

To sum up, Garrison and Sheridan were both motivated by a deep and genuine desire to crack the case. But they were both doomed to clash, considering their polar-opposite personalities and agendas. This was a tragedy for the entire country.

You certainly do elevate discussions David, and have a real knack for retaining focus.

...

Which reminds me--have I asked in the past 45 seconds if your idea of a debate with Bugliosi seems like it could become a reality?

The prospect makes me a teensy bit (more) giddy.

Myra

I have always been of the opinion that the Kennedy family knows exactly what happened to JFK and RFK, but are in no position to do anything. As pointed out by David, look what happened to the King family- (and Judge Joe Brown)- when they tried to obtain justice. Reno became ....a disgrace to say the least.

At a COPA conference in Dallas on the 34th anniversary I met a Kennedy cousin and got to ask the question I have always wanted to ask: "Does the family read conspiracy books?" , and was told "Absolutely. Especially John. " (And look what happened to him).

I daresay the family is hesitant to discuss this matter not only out of fear of ridicule, but out fear for safety. And who could blame them? Poor Ted, this must weigh on him horribly.

Right after Clinton told aids to look into JFK strange things began to happen. This stuff is bigger than the president. These forces more powerful and still in control of the history that was not. We need more brave souls in the press like David Talbot and Jeff Morely...but what are THOSE chances?

Dawn

Oops, just now saw that you asked the same thing. Sorry Terry.

Dawn, Could you elaborate on "strange things began to happen.

Terry

...

Right after Clinton told aids to look into JFK strange things began to happen.

...

Dawn

Would you mind expanding on that Dawn?

I'm unclear on the timeline here.

*When, did Clinton ask aids to look into JFK and when did strange things begin to happen?

*("When" can be expressed in approximate dates, parallel events, relation to prior or later events, etc.

Just a rough idea of "when" would be great.)

Thanks.

...

DD: And I was struck by one fascinating detail you discovered, that Kenny O’Donnell, who was the special assistant to President Kennedy (who was actually played by Kevin Costner in the movie THIRTEEN DAYS), he was in the motorcade in Dallas, and felt strongly that President Kennedy took shots from in front, from the Grassy Knoll, not from behind where Oswald’s sniper’s perch was, but Bobby Kennedy instructed him to lie to the Warren Commission.

DT: Well, that’s what I suspect. It’s a very revealing story. As you say, Kenny O’Donnell is riding 10 feet behind the President’s limousine in Dallas with another White House aide named Dave Powers, who’s a part of the Kennedy’s so called ‘Irish Mafia’ - very loyal aides - and both of these men, Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers had been World War II veterans. They knew the sound of gunfire, and they distinctly heard gunfire, they later said, (and they told the FBI this, and they told Bobby Kennedy this), both from the Grassy Knoll area, as well as from behind, as you say the Texas Book depository. Well, of course, that immediately indicates there was a conspiracy if you have two sharpshooters. But, Kenny O’Donnell, I think, was prepared to tell the truth to the Warren Commission, as Dave Powers was, but I do believe it was not just the FBI who hold him that he didn’t want to go there – which they [the FBI] did – but it was probably Bobby, because I think Kenny O’Donnell was so loyal to Bobby that he would have taken orders only from him, and at this point Bobby Kennedy has determined he has no power, no official power, even though he’s still Attorney General, to pursue this crime.

...

If this is true it really bothers me.

In general I don't like to blame the victim, which Bobby certainly was.

But he was also a public official, and the American people were also victims, and we deserve to know the truth.

If he actually helped conceal the truth by influencing testimony to the WC then I'm seriously disappointed in him.

He had no right to decide for us what we should know.

Something that both Bobby and Al Gore failed to realize is that when there is a coup, the best opportunity they'll have to fight

it is right then when it's the center of attention and the plotters haven't yet solidified power. In each case they were no doubt

concerned about blood in the streets. But there will be more blood and suffering, long term, when the inevitable war for profit is waged. Bobby and Al seemed to think that they'd be able to work within the system to restore a legit government, when the

system was already corrupted by the plotters. Once the plotters have power they won't willingly give it back just because it's an election year. People don't steal elections to do nice things or to preserve democracy.

They made the exact same mistake.

...

Jeff Morley and I want to debate Bugliosi and the partner of his choice onstage somewhere. (I guess it won't be Posner.) Stay tuned.

...

Oh David, I was thinking of asking you precisely that--if there is any chance of a debate with Bugliosi.

I SO hope that happens.

I can just see it on youtube now...

Dawn,

I'm afraid that, for all the nobility and courage Olbermann brings to his nighly broadcasts' commentaries on Bush and his war criminal masters, he fails miserably when it comes to the subject of the Kennedy assassination.

Gerald Posner remains one of Olbermann's favorite "experts," one whom he treats with nauseating deference each and every time he appears on "Countdown."

I know. It hurts.

Charles

Damn! I was afraid of that. I've never heard him cover conspiracy and love him on the war and Bush.

So maybe it's time he is educated. Though I fear that anyone on tv has an unspoken agreement to stick with the party line on all things conspiracy. So much for our "free press". Beyond disgusted.

Dawn

As much as I adore Olberman, this info does make me wonder if he's an establishment lefty like Chomsky, The Nation, and Sir Seymour of Langley.

Someone's view on President Kennedy's assassination is the most important litmus test.

David's interview from FRESH AIR was a good one, and I'd imagine that most people who heard it would have been made quite curious to read the book and learn more. The transcript is below.

As a note, Bugliosi's book is currently at #33 on the Amazon nonfiction bestseller list (though we all know it should be in the fiction category alongside Harry Potter). David's book is in the top 10.

...

Oh my, David's book is stable but Bug's dropped to #34...

http://tinyurl.com/29yldk

As an aside, while I was gloating over the success of Brothers, I came across this:

http://tinyurl.com/2bw9vd

"Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army (Hardcover) by Jeremy Scahill"

If anyone read it, please feel free to create a separate thread to discuss it 'cause I sure am interested...

Before we grow hoarse from the shouting of HUZZAHS, let's remember that the attacks of Bugliosi and Posner are targeted on history -- future generations of victims who will be encouraged to believe that the conspiracy/LN debate is honorable, that the playing field is level, that legitimate arguments for the latter position have been posited.

Nothing less than the exposure of the Poseur and the Bug as enemy agents -- willful deceivers in service to the vilest political agendas; accessories after the fact to mass murder -- will suffice if we are to define, let alone attain, justice in the case of the conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald kennedy.

Charles

I don't disagree.

But let's celebrate the few little victories we have en route to the big victory, if nothing else for the sake of mental health.

Congratulations on your very successful book David.

The Defense of Christian Culture...

One thing I learned from attending a Jesuit college:

"You people have a mission in this world. And that mission is to kill commies for Christ!"

-- An actual quote from a Jesuit. Need I say more?

Kathy

Ohmygod that is hilarious.

And something I could imagine coming from the lovely and charming HL Hunt.

Well I've learned enough to about Hunt's espionage network to allow me to learn something about Hunt's espionage network, specifically the keywords "Paul Rothermel." He was an FBI guy who headed up Hunt's culture rich gang, which apparently

had other ex-FBIers as well as the ubiquitous "rouge CIA agents."

And a private army--the American Volunteer Group (AVG). He bought Walker his own army! Then he could preach to them

about the John Birch Society all he wanted.

It would have been better if he just got him a GI Joe doll.

fruitcakes with massive amts of money are frightening not funny

I got my MA from a Jesuit University and had an advisor pitch me for "an intelligence agency"

Well that sure is interesting Evan.

I keep reading little blurbs about various religious sects being involved with espionage agencies,

including the Catholic church, but this is the first reliable piece of info I've received on the subject.

the major ones, including mine-The Mormons-all have intell gathering efforts-actually I'm of the opinion the Jesuits probably put the Agency to shame in some parts of the world.

Thank you. At last I find some people who know another side to the Jesuits and Clerics of all kinds. There was a Jesuit, Malachy Martin, who wrote scathing books about the Jesuits, including their devil worship and Jesuit assassins. I have to research his books. Back when I was in that college, he was spreading fear throughout the S.J.s

And also there was always this story that the Jesuits and the Vatican knew Kennedy was going to be hit. Cardinal Spellman knew it, allegedly. The Catholic Church did not want it known how much they hated Kennedy's politics. I guess President Kennedy wasn't killing enough commies for them.

Kathy

Well Kathy, one can never kill enough commies.

At least if one is a patriot of a certain vintage.

I posted the link on Bugliosi's wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi

Brilliant.

Just a theory -- hope no one is offended.

A man who has reached the height of power - as US President - is then given the stunning news that he won't live much longer. His bodily systems have been ravaged by decades of prescription drug use and by incurable disease.

Being an intellectual, practical person with a keen eye toward history, he comes to the realization that he cannot achieve any of his goals, nor can he create historical change, if news of his condition leaks to the press, which it almost certainly will, and soon. He'll be worse than a lame duck - he'll be a dead man walking - with no hope of influencing the public debate. His Presidency will be seen as a failure and his legacy will be damaged. His personal life will be opened up to rigorous scrutiny.

His life has been defined by courage in the face of danger. His favorite poem - I Have a Rendezvous With Death. Despite ravaging illnesses, the deaths of loved ones, he fought in a world war and punished himself with a grueling political campaign. He is no coward. He faces every challenge dispassionately, with calm assurance.

And so he does the unthinkable - he sets into motion a series of events which will result in his own assassination.

Knowing history as he does, he understands that this is his best - perhaps his only hope of making a difference. When the shock of his death fades, history will allow his replacement to push through historic legislation.

The truth is leaked to only a few - not even his brother or wife knows. But his Vice President, his personal physician, and just a handful of others are privy to the events which are to transpire.

In the days preceding the assassination, he almost can't stop talking about it. "Tonight would have been a great night to kill a President," "Imagine if a shooter was firing from a building," "We're heading into nut country now," etc.

Once the deed is done, several key steps are taken to ensure completely secrecy. Records are sealed. Evidence is removed. A commission is established to point the finger of guilt in only one direction.

And true to prediction, JFK's presidency is cast in almost holy terms. The next few years see the passage of legislation that would have been impossible just a few years before.

And as the truth leaks out, drop by drop, no one ever considers that JFK may have been behind his own death. Having considered an enormous menu of other possible solutions, I find this one most outrageous, of course, but ever so slightly plausible.

Ask what you can do for your country.

As much as I appreciate the concept of brainstorming, how would you account for his brother's murder?

Not to mention MLK, Malcolm X...

I linked to your site:

http://www.jfktimeline.com/links.html

Hope that's ok.

Feel free to let me know if I should reword the lead in blurb.

(Dang, nice CSS too.)

Myra,

Thanks for the link - looks fine. I would kindly ask you to fix the spelling of Mary Ferrell (with two e's, very common mistake). Also if you have an inclination to include my humble History Matters offering (www.history-matters.com) I wouldn't complain. Great list of links you have.

Rex

Eww, bad typo. Mary FErrell. Good to have some other eyes. It's fixed, thanks Rex.

And I added History Matters of course.

Hey in google, SEO links are king.

Am actually running through Bugliosi's Reclaiming History backwards.

I looked up a dozen or so references from the index and am quite surprised at how much new information he has in there. I knew he couldn't rehash Posner and he actually characterizes most people pretty accurately.

Other than his wrong conclusions, blatant misscharacterazing of all conspiracy theorists into one big happy "community," ...

We aren't one big happy community?

...

Oh wow.

I have launched a new blog devoted to commentary on Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History:

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org

It will feature short pieces, as well as excerpts and links to lengthier essays and reviews of the book.

I'm looking for experts to take a particular part of the case and address Bugliosi's treatment of it, as well as discuss the book as a whole in a critical but not-too-diatribey way. If you have written something you'd like to submit, you can contact me at info@maryferrell.org.

Rex Bradford

Oh, nice job Rex!

That is one fine site.

Great framing there yourself: "Reclaiming History? Or Re-Framing Oswald?"

You know your framing.

So Bugliosi's sponsors were to cheap or stupid to buy reclaiminghistory.ORG!

And you pounced on it.

Sweet.

I linked to your site:

http://www.jfktimeline.com/links.html

Hope that's ok.

Feel free to let me know if I should reword the lead in blurb.

(Dang, nice CSS too.)

Rather than taking Bugliosi on and start a debate over each item of evidence and issues he brings up, why not just take David Talbot's perspective, that whatever happened in Dallas, even if one lone assassin killed JFK, it was still a conspiracy.

The evidence is overwhelming, if the lone-assassin is Lee Harvey Oswald, then it wasn't just a conspiracy but a more specific covert operation, and coup.

If all the evidence Bugliosi gathers points to Oswald, then that points to conspiracy too.

In addition, whenever there is a real head - on debate over the assassination, instead of allowing them to frame the debate between LN vs. CT, we must refocus the primary issue to the withholding of crucial JFK assassination records by the government, despite the JFK Act. If Oswald did it alone because he was psycho, then why are the JMWAVE records still being withheld?

All of the media attention given the debates Bugliosi is fueling should be funnelled into the overall theme that the Kennedy assassination remains unresolved, and it should be wrapped up while it still can be.

The resulting publicity of all this media attention will help generate Congressional Hearings on the JFK Act as well as opening other legal avenues that can generate new evidence and witnesses in the case.

Arguing over the details of Dallas will help increase the generation of noise and media buzz, and maybe set some people straight about the facts, but we should not lose sight of the overall and attainable short range goals of obtaining new evidence and new witness testimony.

We don't want to win an argument with Bugliosi, like brownie points in a school forensic debate, we want to solve the crime in our lifetime.

BK

excellent, Bill Kelly....

You know, it is an excellent post.

The sheer size of Bug's book (and disc) are almost custom made to bog down researchers for years refuting his nonsense and name-calling. But some debunking should be done, it's just a balancing act.

Other's have suggested that we post reviews on Amazon et al, and I think that's a reasonable doable step.

I really like what this person has done in just four short essays:

http://tinyurl.com/2coajv

A concerted effort, individual or organized, to post calm informative debunking (or supportive) reviews of various books on

the major websites would yield a lot of bank for the buck. Especially since it'd be free.

I have now created several different threads on David's book (see below). Please add general comments about the book, information on book reviews, interviews, etc. on this thread. However, if it is about a specific topic please either start a new thread or add it to one of the threads that I have started. If you start a new thread please include David Talbot's name in the title. I am also listing these topics in the JFK Index. This will help researchers in the future if this material is divided into different topics.

I WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO DISCUSS SORENSON OR JFK'S SPEECHES SHOULD USE THE THREAD WITH THAT TITLE AND LEAVE THIS ONE FOR A DIALOG WITH DAVID TALBOT. THANKS - BK

I think what's needed here is some perspective. Brad Ayers identified a man at the Ambassador Hotel as someone he knew named Gordon Campbell. Whether or not that is army official Gordon Campbell or an alias is neither here nor there. Ayers said he knew him from operations out of Miami. That is the point.

Other folks (people who would know) positively identified Morales and Joannides. That should be taken seriously.

As for working off photographs, I also have seen many images of Morales (including from 1968) and from various other time frames and given the lack of detail in the Ambassador footage, that comparison alone means nothing.

That brings us back to the identifications from people who knew these men. We need to stay on track here.

James

Posting this query here in hopes Mr. Talbot will see it & respond. Thanks.

Hear, hear.

"I have not seen the photographs David mentions. Jefferson Morley has alleged photographs of George Joannides taken in Saigon in 1973 and provided by a CIA source but will not send me a copy."

David Talbot makes strong allegations. It would seem appropriate & useful that the foundation of these allegations comes to light.

Would Mr. Simkin please ask Mr. Talbot and, via Mr. Talbot, Mr. Morely if these photos which cast doubt on O'Sullivan's discoveries cannot be put forward?

After all, a question arises. Why not prove the case?

"So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera." - Talbot

This comment looks like a fillip on the nose. What's afoot?

Oops, sorry.

Here's the new thread for discussion of President Kennedy's speaking and writing style:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10064