Anthony Thorne

Sylvia Hoke’s husband worked for USAID in South America, which was also used at various times as a CIA front. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/a-local-life-john-hoke-85-never-ran-out-of-inventive-ideas/2011/03/07/ABAUXDx_story.html

Bethell has a chapter on his experiences with the Garrison investigation in his book THE ELECTRIC WINDMILL, titled 'Was Sirhan Sirhan on the Grassy Knoll?'. His description of what he was doing in the area at the time, and how he was hired by Garrison, is very unconvincing. Bethell notes that he has a 'mental block' about the work he was doing in Baton Rouge so he won't say much about it, then describes a surprise meeting with Garrison where Bethell gets hired on the spot without Garrison asking him a single question.

Hope Greg is doing ok. I recall he had health issues a couple of years ago. It’s good to know he’s still researching.

I found Wolf’s fellow HSCA researcher Leslie Wizelman, but Wolf is hard to locate.

https://www.paela.info/about-us-officers-directors/leslie-wizelman/

Yep - in either Joe’s book or the other book on the case, it was noted that Spielberg really wanted to stay far away from the whole thing.

FWIW, Landis made his comments about Marshall and the Twilight Zone case when the cameras weren’t rolling. The guy had interviewed Landis a few times, they knew each other, and Landis spoke a little about what had happened. But it was a private conversation.

The lady who took on the case might have had better luck if she’d targeted Marshall or the studio. I’m not sure if Landis was the guy who hired the kids, approved them to illegally work late at night, or signed off on the safety requirements of the shot. Those all sound like the work of a producer, not a director, so I do wonder why they decided to prosecute just Landis. But then, it makes sense if they wanted to avoid prosecuting the high profile producers who were associates of Spielberg. Landis would then be the only guy left, so they went after him.

Back on topic with Vince’s book. Vince - I’m glad the Kindle version will be out soon. I look forward to reading it.

The Bugliosi book is by Gregory Donges and is linked here.

https://trineday.com/collections/upcoming-releases/products/reclaiming-reality
 

I’ve read one of the books on the Twilight Zone incident - Outrageous Conduct? I’ve also read and enjoyed Joe’s Spielberg biography. I’m curious to see what turns up in this new volume.

A friend of a friend interviewed Landis at length a few years back for some documentaries. Landis discussed the Twilight Zone incident a little. In those conversations, Landis pointed blame (some of it or all of it) to one of the producers - Frank Marshall? - but not Spielberg. And I’ve always figured that Spielberg was personally affected by the incident. The film he made right afterwards, TEMPLE OF DOOM, has a young Asian boy as the hero’s sidekick, and ends with dozens of young children being rescued.

Vince's book looks good, and I'll be buying it (probably on Kindle). Trine Day have a future volume from another author on the way attacking Vincent Bugliosi - fine with me - and FLY BY NIGHT, an unexpected, unrelated book coming on Steven Spielberg, Warner Bros and the Twilight Zone accident from the early 80's. There's already been a book on that event, so I have no idea if the new volume will have anything new.

Ulfkotte's book is $25 at Progressive Press. The same publisher has Donald Gibson's two JFK's books available at a decent price as well.

If you Google 'Progressive Press', btw, the publisher doesn't come up anywhere in the first five pages of links. Whereas if you use DuckDuckGo, they're right at the top. Another reason not to use Google.

Woolsey has been an asset of the military-industrial-big weapons sales complex since the early 1970's, when he was a counsel to the Armed Services Committee while they were approving the nominations of various arms manufacturer CEO's to bring them into government. Not surprised at all to see him pushing more disinformation on this subject.

Lobster magazine review.

https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster81/lob81-last-second-in-dallas.pdf

Funny quote.

Quote

What, nothing of the NAA or the conflicting head wound/s evidence?

Both of those topics have multiple entries in the index of LAST SECOND IN DALLAS, and are covered in detail in the book.

Sad news. His book was very good, and I was glad he wrote it. Rest In Peace Gerald.

Meyysan’s years of articles are archived over at the Voltaire site. Smart guy and he’s followed the twists and turns of the neocon movement since way back. I don’t agree with everything he says about JFK or 9/11, but that’s fine, and a lot of his historical articles are excellent.
 

https://www.voltairenet.org/auteur29.html?lang=en

On Gladio, Ganser’s NATO’S SECRET ARMIES is here. From memory, Lemnitzer pops up in the text.

https://libcom.org/files/NATOs_secret_armies.pdf

Ganser's NATO'S SECRET ARMIES, Willan's THE PUPPETMASTERS, and Rob Couteau's article at Kennedys and King are the three to read.

https://kennedysandking.com/articles/nato-s-secret-armies-operation-gladio-and-jfk

I wouldn’t think it would require Trump’s personal attention to release documents that should have been scheduled a couple of years ago. But I’m not holding my breath for anything to come out. Hopefully I’m wrong.

Thanks Larry, good observations. I still intend to reread from the beginning. Have a happy holidays.

I was gathering from Larry’s comments - and I might have misread him, maybe not - that the initial conspiracy was intended to have multiple shooters as part of the ‘official’ story, presumably as the story of multiple shooters killing Kennedy would point somewhere else, possibly outside the US. Potentially, this is the ‘blame it on Castro’ thesis. And if the intention was to have multiple shooters as part of the story, a film of their handiwork would come in handy. 
 

Then, after Oswald survived his arrest, the plan changed, the lone nut thesis was quickly decided upon as the expedient alternative story, the Z. film’s depiction of multiple shooters was no longer useful at all, and everyone would have to twist themselves into knots to prove the lone nut thesis instead.

You don’t need Zapruder involved when you’re trying to pull off an assassination, but you could use him - or someone like him - if you wanted to have a film showing that multiple shooters had killedKennedy. And if the goal was to present an official story of multiple gunmen killing the President, a film showing that happening would help, rather than hinder, that process.

I admit it’s a reach. And I’d never even considered the possibility until today. But - correct me if I’m wrong - Larry seems to have stated just above that, by his analysis. no one had originally planned to hide the fact that there were multiple shooters. If they weren’t planning on hiding that fact, then I’m assuming they were planning on promoting it for some reason. And if they wanted to promote that story, having something to promote it with would have been useful, unless they just wanted to rely on word of mouth.

Again, I might have misread what Larry has said above, and the thesis is a new one to me, but he appears to be stating that an ‘official story’ featuring multiple gunmen was part of the original plan - they made no attempt to hide the fact, etc - and if the plan was to present that as the official story, having Zapruder serve as Johnny-on-the-spot would be a useful thing.

i concede that there were plenty of people with cameras there on the day already, and Zapruder may have just accidentally captured footage that reinforced that first, planned official story, and which then later had to be hidden or altered or suppressed to help reinforce the second official story.

Any thoughts on why Zapruder was there in the first place? There were lots of spectators in Dealey Plaza, and also - clearly - a number of people with ulterior motives. I’m just wondering if you view his presence in the necessary spot with a movie camera as a lucky accident, or as something perhaps not unknown or unwanted by the original plotters. I’m sure arguments have been made both ways.

UK establishment folk speaking to the media have often referred to confirmed conspiracies as ‘a stitch up’ as it gives the newspaper headlines a phrase to print that avoids confirming the existence of a single conspiracy. “Oh, that wasn’t a conspiracy, that was a stitch up” has sometimes been said, with the difference between the two presumably being that folks who perform a stitch up are having a good chuckle while they do it - I’m in stiches, ho ho ho - while folks who carry out a conspiracy are more grimly serious. And since folks looking serious while they carry out a conspiracy is the sort of thing you might see in the movies, it surely can’t occur in real life, whereas every prankster with an accomplice buddy has performed many stitch ups, so since that’s a joke we can all acknowledge it exists. I’m still waiting to hear how the massive UK Aestablishment and media cover up of Jimmy Saville’s crimes was a stitch up, but I’m sure the BBC or Guardian will let me know eventually.

On 12/23/2020 at 1:55 PM, Rob Couteau said:

I have it, and when I scan it I will send you a copy of the scans.

Rob, that’s fantastic, thank you.

8 hours ago, Rob Couteau said:

Thanks Anthony! I was just thinking of you while I was thumbing through his book on Reagan, because the research you're doing would dovetail with so much of it.

It definitely looks that way. I'd love to read that book someday but a cursory search suggests that volume is hard to find, just like some of his other books. But I'm sure Stanley would have some interesting things to say about the folks from that era.

It's great Marks is coming back into print after all this time.

Larry, thanks for your comments and I’ll add a couple of longer thoughts when I’m not typing on my phone.

Footnote 292, fourth paragraph, calls the Griggs book No Case to Offer. The other references you make to the book have the correct title, No Case to Answer.

That’s going above and beyond, Rob, but is characteristic of the thoroughness and dedication you bring to the field. Great work and I’m looking forward to getting them all.

Larry, excellent work. Time for me to re-read from part one again.

One of your footnotes alters the name of Ian Griggs’ book, and two other footnotes get it right. I forget which footnote it was, on the next reading when I see it again I’ll note it if you haven’t caught it. Through all of Tipping Point I noticed maybe four typos at most, so great work in putting this together. I’ll still be buying the book when it appears.

I’m now wondering which particular figures high up were most keen on starting a war with Cuba and using events in Dealey Plaza to move them towards that goal. A knee jerk response says the Joint Chiefs, but I’m mindful that they had their own advisers and didn’t make decisions in a vacuum.