Myra Bronstein

So you don't think he was the third tramp Ron?

No, I think that all participants on Hunt's level were smart enough and planned well enough ahead not to get themselves arrested at the scene like common tramps.

Then, do you believe the third tramp was Chauncy Holt?

______________________

My-ra,

Instead of trying to put words in Ron's mouth, why don't you just ask him who he thinks the third tramp was? Hmm?

Yours,

--Thomas

______________________

Thomas,

Don't try to tell me how to word things.

You should be focusing on composing your own posts so the research community can continue to benefit from such gems as these:

"Bump" --May 1 2007

"Bump-a-ruskie" --May 1 2007

"bump-a roo...." May 1 2007

Ooo, I can hardly wait for your book.

In the mid 1990s, if memory serves, Ford's masters had him send inscribed copies of the WC to certain elected officials in the US.

It was also for sale to the public, for $500 or so. I remember seeing an ad for it, with a photo of Ford affixing his signature. It was the epitome of crassness, or like something out of The Onion or Mad Magazine.

As for the title of this thread, I think Ford takes this shot from further down than the grave.

You are so correct Ron. Excellent point.

So you don't think he was the third tramp Ron?

No, I think that all participants on Hunt's level were smart enough and planned well enough ahead not to get themselves arrested at the scene like common tramps.

Then, do you believe the third tramp was Chauncy Holt?

I tend to believe that Hunt is telling the truth except the part about him being invited to participate and turning it down. He was one of the assigned. He would be an understandable participant, working in the new and ominously named Domestic Operations Division, which was doing jobs, Hunt once claimed, that "no one else wanted." A perhaps wry choice of words, since in this case he was doing a job that seemingly everybody wanted. And there is some physical evidence of his participation, namely a photograph of whom I believe to be Hunt crossing Elm Street. And there are things that make little sense if he did not participate. Why did he have his kids lie and say he was home on 11/22/63? Why did he leave the whole year of 1963 out of his autobiography Undercover? How come not even the Rockefeller Commission could find out where he was on 11/22/63 (not that it may have tried really hard to find out)? And the man thought he was dying when he made this tape for his son. He just couldn't bring himself to say that he was more than a "benchwarmer."

I know the photo and the figure you mean. It's a suspicious figure to say the least.

So you don't think he was the third tramp Ron?

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/stori...30/daily35.html

Local publisher releases book by President Ford

Nashville Business Journal - 5:32 PM CDT Thursday, May 3, 2007

FlatSigned Press, a Nashville publishing house and rare books distributor, has released a new book by the late President Gerald R. Ford: "A Presidential Legacy and The Warren Commission."

In the publication, the former president speaks as the last surviving member of the legendary Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

President Ford addresses the lingering questions and conspiracy theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination. He also provides an account of his own life and historical significance, as well as his views on modern politics.

The book is available at bookstores nationwide. A limited number of leather-bound, numbered editions, autographed by President Ford, are available exclusively through the publisher.

(Link to video is here. I had to use explorer to view it.)

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=6468512

"Man captures President Kennedy on home movie

by Maria Downey

Thursday, May 4, 2007

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- The Alaska Moving Image Preservation Association or has rooms full of historic films about Alaska. For a fee, it also transfers film to video or DVDs for clients, normally working home videos of family gatherings, or events.

But recently those routine dubs turned extraordinary with the discovery of a film shot Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

Michael Walsh works at AMPIA, spending his hours transferring memories from film to DVDs and tape.

"98 Percent of that footage was of the family around Christmas trees out the front yard children's first steps," Walsh said.

His days were fairly routine until just over a week ago.

"It was remarkable and I can't imagine having another experience as an archivist," Walsh said.

As he was transferring the Yeargan family's memories, footage of John F. Kennedy from that dark day in Dallas 43 years ago materialized.

"Three minutes of it happens to be some of the Kennedy footage," Walsh said. I was thinking if I just saw what I think I saw; if it was actually real. I was sort of numb. And this running joke at AMPIA is every time I do a home movie transfer, "Did you get the grassy knoll? Did you get the Kennedy shot?'"

The footage came from Bob Yeargan, 87, who took a break from work in Dallas to go see the president a few blocks away.

"I had this radio so I could keep up with him and basically, I knew where he was at the time, so I was ready when he came by," Yeargan said. "I was just taking a picture of Kennedy passing by and I got what I wanted and I left. And that was it until I got in my car and heard what happened," Yeargan said.

Back at his office, Yeargan was confronted by shock and confusion. He talked to one man who relayed his own account of the incident.

"And so he was standing across the street where Kennedy was shot and he saw a piece of Kennedy's head fly off right at land his own feet so he said the man was dead right then," Yeargan said.

Also on the video, the shot of the much talked about grassy knoll, where some say another shot may have been fired. But Yeargan's film was shot the day after.

"They were going back over what happened exactly, everything. People were in shock, the whole city was in shock," Yeargan said.

..."

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. I am posting the link here as I did not see it mentioned on this thread so far. I was struck by this letter from an aristocrat named Baron Dave Romm which claims to distill the essence of what BROTHERS is about:

QUOTE ON

The article is about RFK, not the JFK assassination

After reading all the letters posted so far, everyone seems to be grinding their own axe -- again -- and missing the point of "Brothers". For this story, it doesn't matter what actually happened on Nov. 22nd, 1963, only that Robert Kennedy was consumed with finding out more.

This is a case study in a brother's love at the highest political level. The assassination itself is peripheral to the story.

The only thing we really know about the assassination, 40 years later, is that the Warren Commission Report did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, and that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford became our first unelected president, further complicating matters to wring the truth out of government archives.

The only thing we know about Robert Kennedy is that he went to his grave unsatisfied with the answers to his brother's assassination. That's the story here. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

-- Baron Dave Romm

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

From what I've read so far,

I think David Talbot's book "Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" is the most important book to address the assassination of JFK in years, mainly because it provides the propert approach, perspective, synopsis, deep background and overall big picture to the assassination that is necessary before resolving the crime.

Discarding the Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nut debate that has dominated the media, Talbot cuts a path that allows a third, independent force to enter the discussion, and the game, and make the political and legal moves necessary to determine the total truth, in our lifetime.

Whether justice will follow is yet to be seen.

But the Great Game isn't up until everyone is dead.

...

BK

Even the death of everyone involved will not negate the need for the truth about President Kennedy's murder.

Determining and reporting the truth is a critical goal.

Seeking and obtaining justice is another worthy goal, but a very separate one.

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. I am posting the link here as I did not see it mentioned on this thread so far. I was struck by this letter from an aristocrat named Baron Dave Romm which claims to distill the essence of what BROTHERS is about:

QUOTE ON

The article is about RFK, not the JFK assassination

After reading all the letters posted so far, everyone seems to be grinding their own axe -- again -- and missing the point of "Brothers". For this story, it doesn't matter what actually happened on Nov. 22nd, 1963, only that Robert Kennedy was consumed with finding out more.

This is a case study in a brother's love at the highest political level. The assassination itself is peripheral to the story.

The only thing we really know about the assassination, 40 years later, is that the Warren Commission Report did not answer all the questions to everyone's satisfaction, and that Warren Commission member Gerald Ford became our first unelected president, further complicating matters to wring the truth out of government archives.

The only thing we know about Robert Kennedy is that he went to his grave unsatisfied with the answers to his brother's assassination. That's the story here. Why isn't anyone talking about that?

-- Baron Dave Romm

http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

From what I've read so far,

I think David Talbot's book "Brothers - The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years" is the most important book to address the assassination of JFK in years, mainly because it provides the propert approach, perspective, synopsis, deep background and overall big picture to the assassination that is necessary before resolving the crime.

Discarding the Conspiracy Theorists vs. Lone Nut debate that has dominated the media, Talbot cuts a path that allows a third, independent force to enter the discussion, and the game, and make the political and legal moves necessary to determine the total truth, in our lifetime.

Whether justice will follow is yet to be seen.

But the Great Game isn't up until everyone is dead.

And that hasn't happened yet.

Kiddoos to David Talbot for setting the stage for the next Act in the greatest political drama of our times.

The best is yet to come.

BK

This is fantastic. A big thumbs up. I can't wait to read it, don't have a copy yet.

BK, how much does Talbot focus on LBJ's complicity?

Does anyone else think its just a little strange that Hunt would be invited to join a

conspiract to kill the President, be told who was behind it and the names of several

key people organizing it - then back out and tell the guys no thanks....and not only

not meet with an accident ...but rather also be told the name of the shooter and where

the shooter was going to be recruited?

Don't we usually talk about all this being compartmentalized...not to mention mystery

deaths for people that would only have known a tiny part of what Howard claims to

have known and just walked away ....being trusted to keep it to himself, not leverage it or

to spill the beans when he was out drinking or something (not unknown for Hunt).

-- Larry

Count me in Larry.

Ther word "incredible" springs to mind.

Yes, so I take it back when I theorized that he lied via omission rather than commission.

Saying he RSVP'd the assassination invitation with "unable to attend" is a whopper.

So did he tell that whopper so his kids wouldn't hate him, or so the world wouldn't hate his kids, or so the world wouldn't hate him, or what?

Talbot's book has provoked a lively discussion in the letters to Editor section of Salon's website. http://letters.salon.com/books/feature/200...iew/index1.html

I found this letter from Rob Anderson interesting:

A magazine called The Spotlight - what we'd now call an alternative newsweekly - published in 1964 an interview with an anonymous female "operative" who had one hell of a story to tell. Her claim was the she, two other men and E. Howard Hunt arrived in Dallas early on the morning of November 22, 1963. On the way Hunt had told them they were one of three "shooter teams" who were going to "take down someone very important." When the team arrived at their hotel in Dallas to prepare, Hunt dropped the bomb: It was going to be the President.

The woman freaked but showed no outward sign, lest she be killed. Not long afterwards she used her covert skills to slip away and into hiding.

Hunt sued the magazine for libel and defamation of character.

And he LOST, on both counts. Why this - absolute, incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy, in a court of law no less, three years before Garrison - has never been widely reported is simply mind-blowing.

And the cheap shot at Garrison was silly. Much of what Bobby Kennedy suspected Garrison later proved in court. So how was he a fraud?

This guy is mixed-up. This is a reference to Marita Lorenz and the lawsuit described in Plausible Denial. This lawsuit didn't heat up till many years after the shooting. The line about Garrison is also not quite right. Most everyone concluded Garrison was a bit of a fraud. He kept spouting about solving the crime and yet his description of the culprits kept changing.

If Garrison was in the midst of the first investigation into the murder of the President and gradually learning that the entire gov't was conspiring to destroy him and his case then I think it would be more accurate to say that his list of suspects was evolving and expanding, rather than to dismiss him as a fraud.

If you insist on labeling him a fraud then perhaps you could be specific about your charges.

What did he say that was fraudulent?

Ron,

The one man who could have revealled the facts regarding Sarti was murdered about 10 years ago. Nelson Gross was a former aide to Richard Nixon and a narcotics agent.

Amongst his papers was a complete dossier on Sarti including where he was on November 22, 1963. I submit it wasn't Dealey Plaza.

I also submit that there was indeed a Frenchman dispatched to Dallas that weekend but not as a shooter, instead this guy was skilled in explosives.

Just my opinion of course.

James

James, you didn't tell us his name. Even if he wasn't the shooter we need the name, man.

FWIW, I can't see how a US military sniper could be persuaded to kill his own President, regardless of which General or intelligence official told him to do it. It would need to be one who already harboured a pathological hatred for JFK.

Corsican snipers still seem the most likely candidates, imo.

Mark,

If you have a spare couple of years , I suggest you look into Marc Krausse and his connections to Robert Emmett Johnson and Montreal.

And Myra, the explosives aspect would have been a contingency plan. JFK was not going to survive that day come what may.

...

James

Thanks for the reply James.

Are you basing your theory on information for which you can share a source, or just general knowledge of contingency planning for "Executive Action" scenarios?

Ron,

The one man who could have revealled the facts regarding Sarti was murdered about 10 years ago. Nelson Gross was a former aide to Richard Nixon and a narcotics agent.

Amongst his papers was a complete dossier on Sarti including where he was on November 22, 1963. I submit it wasn't Dealey Plaza.

I also submit that there was indeed a Frenchman dispatched to Dallas that weekend but not as a shooter, instead this guy was skilled in explosives.

Just my opinion of course.

James

What would the French explosives expert have done James?

This article has lots of details that are new to me.

I now love Kevin Costner.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may20...conspirator.htm

" Son Of JFK Conspirator Drops New Bombshell Revelations

Costner was set to make documentary on Hunt's confession, before Miami mafia stepped in, E. Howard believed government had sabotaged his wife's plane

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, May 3, 2007

As the explosive revelation of E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, in which the former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator admits that he was part of a CIA conspiracy to assassinate JFK, continues to rage across the Internet, the establishment media remains almost mute on what is undoubtedly one of the biggest stories of the decade.

Saint John Hunt, E. Howard Hunt's oldest son, joined Alex Jones yesterday to drop new bombshells about his father's story. Click here to listen.

...

E. Howard Hunt names numerous individuals with both direct and indirect CIA connections as having played a role in the assassination of Kennedy, while describing himself as a "bench warmer" in the plot. Saint John Hunt agreed that the use of this term indicates that Hunt was willing to play a larger role in the murder conspiracy had he been required, but was primarily used in an oversight role.

Hunt alleges on the tape that then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the planning of the assassination and in the cover-up, stating that LBJ, "Had an almost maniacal urge to become president, he regarded JFK as an obstacle to achieving that."

In the Alex Jones Show interview, Hunt reveals how Kevin Costner, star of the JFK movie, had shared a mutual friend with E. Howard Hunt and had subsequently visited Hunt in Miami in the interests of producing a documentary film based on Hunt's knowledge of the plot.

"Kevin Costner flies down and is introduced to my father by this mutual friend and Kevin just blurted out, 'so who killed JFK'? My father's jaw dropped and he turned around and looked at his wife and said, 'what did he say'?"

"So the whole thing just kind of blew up in its face and that was the end of that," said Hunt.

Hunt said that Costner had become "somewhat of a conspiracy enthusiast" after having made the JFK movie and was very interested in starting a project based on E. Howard Hunt's revelations.

"What my father devised was a code and a key to give Mr. Costner the relevant information without naming the names," said Hunt, "He listed out a chain of command and a timeline series of events and things that took place along with the most important players in the plot."

Costner considered the information to be "dynamite stuff," but elements of the "Miami mafia" derailed the project and the documentary never got off the ground.

Saint John Hunt also revealed for the first time that E. Howard Hunt thought that the Chicago plane crash that killed his wife in 1972 was not an accident. Investigators discovered at least $10,000 dollars in Dorothy Hunt's luggage, money that Saint John Hunt alleges was Nixon campaign funds used to payoff the families of the Watergate burglars to keep them quiet about the involvement of the Nixon White House in the Watergate break-in and cover-up.

"Later on in his life at one of these bedside confessions....tears started welling up in his eyes and he said, 'you know Saint I was so deeply concerned that what they did to your mother they could have done to you children' and that caused the hair on my neck to stand up - that was the first disclosure from my father that he thought there was something else going on besides sheer pilot error," said Hunt.

Eyewitnesses reported that the plane exploded above treetop level before it had even hit the runway.

Hunt said that "at least 20-25 FBI members," as well as numerous DIA agents were at the scene of the crash within minutes before rescue personnel had even arrived, and that this fact was attested to in a letter sent by the head of the Chicago FBI to investigator Sherman Skolnick.

Hunt cited numerous coincidences surrounding the aftermath of the crash, including Nixon's appointment of his henchman, Egil Krough, to the National Transportation Safety Board which investigates plane crashes, the very day after the incident.

...

Asked why Hunt became a willing conspirator in the plot to murder JFK, Hunt responded,"Within intelligence circles, he felt that it was an imperative situation that President Kennedy not be allowed to serve in that office for any longer because there was a lot of crucial things coming down, there was the Vietnam war, there was also the anger and the threats Kennedy had made to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces."

Hunt also said that his father eventually desired to become the director of the CIA and Kennedy was a direct obstacle to that goal.

Hunt concluded by agreeing that his father's legacy was that of a patriotic American who was manipulated and twisted by people like LBJ and Nixon, later to be deserted and have his family torn apart by these same criminals.

E. Howard Hunt finally redeemed himself shortly before his death by blowing the whistle on the JFK murder plot, but now there is a fresh attempt to bury this information on behalf of the compromised and cowardly establishment media, who have afforded this bombshell story almost no attention at all while lavishly devoting coverage to the mindlessness of Britney Spears' comeback and radio host Don Imus' off-hand comments.

Once again the responsibility lies with alternative media and the Internet to make sure E. Howard Hunt's story is heard."

The building has undergone substantial renovation over the years - but does anyone know what was behind the decorative facade on the street level? Was that a parking garage? Basement? Or was it just decoration in front of a brick wall? Thanks.

I'm guessing the Sixth Floor Museum is behind the first floor facade.

...

Even the floor is a lie.

Some random thoughts:

Perhaps one reason Howard Hunt was confident that Nixon would come up with the Watergate “hush” money after the arrests was because he knew that Nixon was aware of Hunt’s involvement in another Presidential historical event: the assassination of JFK. Nixon in his Oval Office tapes spoke of the danger of lifting the “scab” that covered Hunt’s past activities.

As Saint John Hunt, his son, revealed in his coasttocoastam interview Monday night, Hunt continued to file reports with the top officials at the CIA even after he ostensibly left its employment and began working for the Mullen Company and subsequently at the White House in the “plumber’s unit.”

So what was the best way to send a signal to Hunt that he should under all circumstances – even when facing a criminal trial and imprisonment – remain silent on what he knew about the Kennedy assassination?

The best way was to kill his wife, Dorothy, who had also been a CIA agent and who undoubtedly knew of the truth about JFK’s murder. Dorothy was killed in a plane crash in Chicago in December 1972, on the eve of the first Watergate trial. Hunt subsequently pleaded guilty at that trial, rather than be forced to answer questions if he chose to testify in his own behalf. One never knows what twists a criminal case might take.

What was Dorothy carrying besides the $10,000 recovered? (Saint John Hunt says it was more than that amount.) Could she have been carrying documentation as to the Kennedy assassination to be entrusted to a relative or close friend as a form of protection to be utilized depending how the Watergate scandal played out? Was this documentation seized by a designated member of the horde of 50-plus FBI and DIA agents that arrived upon the scene within minutes after the plane crash?

Dorothy, probably knowing that she and her husband were in imminent danger, had the foresight to purchase a $250,000 life insurance policy at the air port just prior to departure.

Did Hunt get the intended message that was sent by the mysterious death of his wife? My guess is that he did. He was then weighed down with the worry of raising four children who would be captives of fortune if he were also killed.

So he kept his mouth shut about the Kennedy assassination and went to prison and later even testified falsely before congressional committees about it and went so far as to file a notarized sworn affidavit with the Rockefeller Commission, which was filled with falsehoods. This served to appease those who might be tempted to silence him forever.

And like the intelligence agent that he was, he bided his time and made arrangements for the truth to come out after he died. Hence, his sending a tell-all tape recording to Saint John, which millions of radio listeners have heard in recent days.

A fuse has been lit post-mortem by Hunt. Brace yourself. Before it is all over we may yet have the full story of the assassination and also what might have been on the 18 ½ minutes erased from a key Nixon Oval Office tape.

This is because both Nixon and Hunt knew the full story of the Kennedy assassination.

As I wrote at the beginning, these are merely some random thoughts by me.

I'd love to brace myself Douglas. Do you really think Hunt's quasi-confession is that significant?

Especially given that he still denied his own involvement, which is not credible.

Why would he deny his own involvement from the grave? To protect his kids?

E. Howard Hunt's "confession" via his son includes the info that a Corsican gunman fired the fatal shot from the grassy knoll. So we're back to the Lucien Sarti story. Does this impugn the credibility of Hunt's confession, or does it lend credibility to the Sarti tale?

I have come to doubt that the fatal shot came from the grassy knoll (given the angle, and the better head-on shot from the south), and if Hunt had told of a south-knoll gunman, instead of the Corsican behind the fence, that would have settled it for me.

As it is, I thought that the French connection story had been more or less discredited. Would anyone familiar with it (and anyone else) care to comment?

I typically don't believe anything a CIA type says since they're professional murderers and liars.

But if I make an exception and believe anything Hunt said I'd believe that he made lies of omission rather than commission,

and gave genuine names but withheld other guilty names like Dulles, Cabell, etc.

"In 1967, Sheridan went to New Orleans to check into the Jim Garrison investigation, to see whether the flamboyant prosecutor really had cracked the JFK case. (Sheridan was working as an NBC news producer at the time, but he reported back to RFK, telling him that Garrison was a fraud.)"

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05...ers/index1.html

Well that explains why Bobby and Sheridan wouldn't cooperate with Garrison.

But why on earth would they think he was a fraud?

I hope Talbot explains that in his book.

They were flat out wrong.

I wonder what Talbot thinks of Garrison and his investigation...

Myra:

I totally agree. I have the book on order but it now won't arrive til next week. Seems to me Bobby and Garrison were both on the same trail. Of course I also think the LBJ stuff is true, that he was in on it.

Dawn

Definitely Dawn. LBJ's legal problems dictated the timing of the assassination. Without a doubt.

And why would the Atlantic Monthly enlist a lone nutter to review a lone nutter book? Just to add insult to injury? To ensure that none of Bugliosi's bad faith argumentation would be questioned or exposed?

And to think that I actually subscribed to that rag for a year. It's hard to know where to look for any honor nowadays in the media.

And the rag is giving as much space as possible to the subject, actually interviewing the reviewer of Bugliosi's tome:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705u/kennedy-assassination

"...

Q>Leaving aside one’s ultimate reading of the assassination, it seems to me that there are a lot of coincidences and strange factors at play, a perfect storm of politics, crime, socioeconomics and psychology, both group and individual. What do you think about this?

A>There are coincidences in the assassination for the same reason that there are coincidences in life. The vast, vast, vast majority of what may look like contradictions, ironies, mysteries—the vast majority of them are explicable. I think that is a real strength of Bugliosi’s book. Whatever you think of the scale of it, he does set out to provide factual explanations of things. You can’t explain everything, and if you could, something would be wrong. It would be too neat.

But one of the things that I think is true about the real and conspiratorial mind is that when somebody’s really got it bad, and is a really heavy-duty conspiracy theorist, they tend to believe that the plot was hatched farther and farther back and farther and farther away from Dallas. They think you have to go all the way back to the 1940s, or that it has its real roots in something that took place over in Europe. And I think that’s a mark of the conspiracist inclination, to go ever farther away geographically and temporally."

Is he on message or what?

Well, as the resident killjoy, I'd call his the limited hangout's last hurrah.

A CIA-Mafia plot fails to explain many things... notably the mass media-assisted cover-up.

I shall keep an open mind pending more information, but what I've read so far on this thread does not impress.

Solved the mystery? I don't think so.

It was essentially solved more than ten years ago, IMO...

Does Talbot refer to Piper's hypothesis, I wonder - or just ignore it like most best-selling JFK authors?

I am curious about how much attention LBJ's role gets.

It just can't, credibly, be denied.

Oh yeah, definitely check out Salon.

Media/Author events here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/events.html

Monday May 7

CBS Early Show

Leonard Lopate Show, WNYC AM/FM in New York

Charlie Rose Show, PBS/TV -- check listings for local airtimes.

Tuesday May 8

Fresh Air With Terry Gross, NPR -- check listings for local airtimes.

Howie Carr Show, WRKO/AM in Boston, 4 to 5 p.m.

Author appearance: Brookline Booksmith, 279 Harvard St., Brookline, Mass., 7 p.m.

Wednesday May 9

Author appearance: Books & Books, 265 Aragon Ave., Coral Gables, Fla., 6:30 p.m.

Thursday May 10

South Florida Today, NBC 6, WTVJ-TV in Miami, 10 to 10:30 a.m.

Author appearance: Olsson's Books, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Arlington Va., 7 p.m.

Monday May 14

Author appearance: Borders Books & Music, 10720 Preston Rd., Dallas, Texas, 7 p.m.

Tuesday May 15

Extension 720 With Milt Rosenberg, WGN Radio 720 in Chicago, 9 to 11 p.m.

Monday May 21

Tavis Smiley Show, PBS/TV -- check listings for local airtimes.

Tuesday May 22

The Pete Wilson Show, KGO/AM 810, 3 to 4 p.m.

Author appearance: Book Passage, 1 Ferry Building, San Francisco, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 23

Author appearance: Cody's Books, 1730 Fourth Street, Berkeley, Calif., 7 p.m.

Wednesday, May 30

Author appearance: Powell's Books, Cedar Hills Crossing, Beaverton, Ore., 7 p.m.

Thursday, May 31

Author appearance: Elliott Bay Book Co., 101 S. Main St., Seattle, Wash., 7:30 p.m.

Excerpt here:

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/about/excerpt.html

From Chapter 1.

"In 1967, Sheridan went to New Orleans to check into the Jim Garrison investigation, to see whether the flamboyant prosecutor really had cracked the JFK case. (Sheridan was working as an NBC news producer at the time, but he reported back to RFK, telling him that Garrison was a fraud.)"

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05...ers/index1.html

Well that explains why Bobby and Sheridan wouldn't cooperate with Garrison.

But why on earth would they think he was a fraud?

I hope Talbot explains that in his book.

They were flat out wrong.

I wonder what Talbot thinks of Garrison and his investigation...

New York Daily Post

http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2007/05/...plotboiler.html

President John F. Kennedy was almost certainly the victim of a CIA-Mafia plot, according to a new book that reveals Robert Kennedy's secret efforts to expose such a scheme.

RFK's contacts in Florida's Cuban exile community actually may have told him of Lee Harvey Oswald's existence months before Dallas, David Talbot writes in "Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years." Thus, on the afternoon of his brother's assassination, RFK stunned one anti-Castro leader by telling him,"One of your guys did it."

"Bobby was our first conspiracy theorist," Talbot tells us. "The CIA and FBI were trying to portray Oswald as a Communist. Bobby rejected that immediately."

Besides confiscating autopsy evidence (including JFK's brain), RFK visited Mexico City in 1964 to find out more about Oswald, who'd traveled south of the border before the assassination. While there, RFK was put under surveillance by Mexican intelligence and the CIA.

Within hours of Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald, RFK learned that Ruby was a Mafia "errand boy" paid by associates of Teamster leader Jimmy Hoffa, according to the riveting book. RFK later met with longtime nemesis Hoffa to try to learn more.

Talbot believes Bobby was on the right trail. Among the evidence of CIA involvement was a deathbed confession by Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt to attending a 1963 meeting at a "CIA safe house" in Miami where other operatives tried to recruit him for "the big event," namely killing Kennedy.

"The Kennedy administration was a government at war with itself," the Salon.com founder tells us. JFK was so concerned about assassination or a military coup that he convinced Hollywood pals like Frank Sinatra and director John Frankenheimer to make "The Manchurian Candidate" and "Seven Days in May" as a warning to the American people.

Among the more amusing revelations from Talbot:

William Walton, a closeted gay friend of Jack and Jackie, "shared sexual confidences" with the couple. "Jack was comfortable enough to ask Walton to squire his mistresses to White House events," writes Talbot. Jackie adored Walton's "bohemian style, with his fondness for wearing tight blue jeans and work shirts … and his love of gossip." Walton recalled before his death that Jackie once "caught [JFK and I] on his bedroom floor. He was supposed to be taking a nap, meaning he just had on his underpants … I'd been let in [to show him an architectural model] … [Jackie] took pictures."

J. Edgar Hoover "snooped on the Kennedys with more relish than he did on organized crime bosses." Retaliating, Bobby and wife Ethel "sometimes set loose their high-spirited brood on the prim director's office, where the kids would go toppling into his giant flower pots." RFK daughter Kathleen Kennedy Townsend recalls bringing their Newfie, Brumus, who would come "romping in and slobbering all over his office."

I knew Talbot wouldn't let us down.

And between this, a major book by a high profile author, and Howard Hunt's "confessions" (in spite of the fact that he was a professional xxxx) there is quite a bit of material for Establishment boy Bugliosi to refute. Of course he'll get the red carpet media tour and all the sound bites on the "news."

On edit:

Ya all may want to stroll over to Salon to see Talbot's companion article and blog...

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05...ource=whitelist

http://www.salon.com/books/authors/talbot/index.html

Salon is a damn good site to have on board.

They have a lot of credibility.

...

Some of the witnesses claimed that the head shot sounded like it came from "inside the car".

...

I wouldn't rule that out with the likes of Greer and Kellerman.

...

The question would be, how reliable is the Zapruder film ? Why does it not show an exit wound in the back of the President's head ? Why does it not show the back of the President's head coming off, as the eyewitnesses described ? And if the head wound we see in this video is not representative of the true head wound that Kennedy received, what else is misrepresented in this video ?

FWIW I consider the Z-film totally unreliable. I think Time-Life had it for too long to trust it, and trying to make forensic sense of it can only cause confusion. Plus, as you noted Gil, it does not show the right rear of the head exploding as everyone at Parkland described, it shows the right front opening up like a trap door. I assume there were many alterations made for many reasons, and altering the head wound to match the altered autopsy photo is one reason.

This film would never be admissible in court what with the fractured chain of possession. Almost nothing we have to work with would be admissible for the same reason.

One thing that does confuse me about the Z-film though is that I've heard that Robert Groden got a first generation copy. Is that true? If so: why didn't we see it before Time-Life released it? And why don't we see different versions (one altered and one not)?

When Groden showed it for the first time on TV on Geraldo, was it supposedly his own first generation copy or a Time-Life copy?

Myra,

On Groden's "Assassination Films II" DVD, there is a copy of the Z film with no splices, which Groden says was made before Time/Life damaged it.

The difference is the 2 splices.

chris

Thank you Chris.

...

Some of the witnesses claimed that the head shot sounded like it came from "inside the car".

...

I wouldn't rule that out with the likes of Greer and Kellerman.

...

The question would be, how reliable is the Zapruder film ? Why does it not show an exit wound in the back of the President's head ? Why does it not show the back of the President's head coming off, as the eyewitnesses described ? And if the head wound we see in this video is not representative of the true head wound that Kennedy received, what else is misrepresented in this video ?

FWIW I consider the Z-film totally unreliable. I think Time-Life had it for too long to trust it, and trying to make forensic sense of it can only cause confusion. Plus, as you noted Gil, it does not show the right rear of the head exploding as everyone at Parkland described, it shows the right front opening up like a trap door. I assume there were many alterations made for many reasons, and altering the head wound to match the altered autopsy photo is one reason.

This film would never be admissible in court what with the fractured chain of possession. Almost nothing we have to work with would be admissible for the same reason.

One thing that does confuse me about the Z-film though is that I've heard that Robert Groden got a first generation copy. Is that true? If so: why didn't we see it before Time-Life released it? And why don't we see different versions (one altered and one not)?

When Groden showed it for the first time on TV on Geraldo, was it supposedly his own first generation copy or a Time-Life copy?

Tom, you raise a real good question here about the head shot.

First let me say that I am convinced that the first shot was fired from the sewer on the south side of Elm, went through the windshield, nicked JFK's tie and entered his throat. I believe that it did not exit and that Kennedy's actions in Z221-237 indicate a reaction to an airway obstruction, not Thorburn's.

With regard to this first shot also, it is my opinion that what the witnesses described as a "firecracker" was in fact the sound of the the bullet piercing the windshield. The sound waves from that piercing travelled back to the buildings on Houston St and created an echo which had some of the earwitnesses (even some of the Secret Service) believing that the sound had originated at the intersection of Houston and Elm.

Again, this is only my opinion.

Next, let me say that there's something that bothers me about the position of Kennedy's head in Z-312 and its relation to an entry wound that was described by the Dallas doctors at the front-right corner of the President's head "at the hairline", a wound that was covered over on the autopsy photographs. It was a shot that probably also made the large rear exit wound. When I draw a straight line though these alleged wound locations, this is what I get:

From that position, I find it difficult to locate a possible source for these wounds without the bullet hitting Mrs. Kennedy in the head. It would seem that if this shot was fired at Z313, it would have to have been fired at point blank range, that is, close enough NOT to hit Mrs. Kennedy, but to hit the President.

Some of the witnesses claimed that the head shot sounded like it came from "inside the car".

The question would be, how reliable is the Zapruder film ? Why does it not show an exit wound in the back of the President's head ? Why does it not show the back of the President's head coming off, as the eyewitnesses described ? And if the head wound we see in this video is not representative of the true head wound that Kennedy received, what else is misrepresented in this video ?

The trajectory of the head shot has never made sense to me either. It seems like an entry point at the right temple should result in an exit point at the left rear ("occipital" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_s...28bones%29.svg) instead of the right rear. This would be true even if President Kennedy was faced straight ahead, but at that point I think he was facing slightly to the left.

I suppose the path thru the head could have been altered by another bullet colliding within the skull at the same time. There's been a lot of discussion about this possibility.

Could the fact that it was a frangible/exploding bullet mean that there was insufficient mass for it to pass all the way through the head and instead disintegrated part way thru and blew out the right rear instead of the left rear?

It's hard to discuss this without a map & diagram.