David Andrews

I am dubious about the analysis portions of Jim Douglass's book because the author seems to lack objectivity because of his thinking and approach to his JFK research are so overwhelmingly flavored by his Roman Catholic beliefs and thus give JFK a benefit of the doubt to the point of removing all doubt as to JFK's true motives and competence. Indeed. Speaking as a non-denominational Christian who was raised Catholic - the religiosity is the flaw in Douglass's approach, though it seems to have fueled his drive to say much and accomplish much, too. We need something pitched between Douglass and Seymour Hersh to get at the man, Jack Kennedy.

To Jim DiEugenio: A short answer in lieu of more. I have no problem separating JFK politically and philosophically from the machine that got him elected. I will be happy to research the books you recommend, and improve my discrimination. But it was the point when the powers that got him elected decided to differentiate the man from the machine that caused his death. Heck - they trusted that machine because it was corrupt. It put Frank Sinatra to work getting mob backing for the West Virginia and Illinois vote. JFK had to play within a corrupt system as much as necessary. Check the Grant Stockdale thread for JFK bemusedly throwing Stockdale's bribe-filled suitcase into a closet full of such suitcases - as reported by Stockdale himself, who "committed suicide" within days of the assassination. JFK deserves a book that will accurately assess his vitures, compromises, and sins, and also the places where the actions of the Kennedy machine threaten the political legacy. Until then, we face the twin and erroneous extremes of hagiography and villainization, when neither will do. I'm glad for what you posted and referred to in response to my post and Terry's (though we're not a team on this) - it helps reassess a legacy that has been obscured by coverup and the lies of conspirators.

Multiple patsies equals probable conflicting stories. Nobody likes to go to work and find out they're the patsy... Makes you talk against the bosses.

The same interests that groomed the Kennedy family, cleaned them up and presented them as this liberal wonderkin were also the very same people that pulled the plug. That engineered the assassination(s). I'd call this essentially correct. It worked in small with Old Joe in the Roosevelt administration. I've suggested elsewhere that Old Joe's amenable corruption was the guarantor that his sons would be no serious obstruction to the mob, the Fed, the defense industry, and the biggest of big oil. Bobby's campaign may have been an optimistic bucking of the system, or he may have gotten tidbits of false approval. But either way, Nixon was the logical successor to a crumbling LBJ. The escalated number of Rockefeller associates in Nixon's second admin. is one tip-off

What is puzzling here, is how did LHO know that John Abt would not be available until after 6:00 PM? [Mr. JENNER] - In the meantime, had you sought to reach John Abt? Mrs. PAINE - I had, after 6 o'clock, thank you. I had dialed both numbers and neither answered. Calling both Abt's office and home line? Suspicion or knowledge of phone tap on Abt? What sort of pre-briefing, and by whom, would lead public leftist LHO to call John Abt - at the same time that he was appparently trying to get John Hurt to vouch for his intel credentials? He seems to have been staying in Lefty Lee character to rope in Abt, while trying to get Army intel to square him with DPD and Wade. As if it were the Bringuier incident again, and he was calling the FBI again (or Hurt as its situational equivalent) to bail him out.

I said it first, on this forum. Soon, we'll see this headline: PHYSICS PROVES KENNEDY GUILTY! 'Martyred' 35th President ' Was just asking for it,' says joint NTSB-Secret Service Report. Please - stop me from writing the whole article parody...

I wonder why the nukes recommendation, when Vietnam, like Korea, seemed to be about milking money out of a protracted land-air war? I wonder if Fletcher Prouty ever commented on Nelson's nukes. Anybody recall this in Prouty?

And I've cracked a lot of windshields (one with my forehead)...

I thought that too - but in these frames we don't see them on the car, in the air, over people's faces...just on that glass. True, witnesses reported a "hole," and not great sunburst cracks - and the extant photos of the damage show much less. But this looks awfully funny, and should be researched on multiple copies of the film. Since the occupants of the limo cited no windshield damage, nothing was revealed either way by their statements.

It's entirely possible that the three white lines we see on the windshield may be radiating cracks from the bullet that penetrated Greer's side of the windshield, appearing one after another in the sunlight. At the end of the clip above (post # 55), simultaneous with the windshield penetration, Connally's left shoulder begins to rise as part of his extreme reaction to the windshield penetrating slug. Again, you can see Connally's and Kellerman's reactions best in this framing below (just turn off the soundtrack on the clip): Viewing the clip posted by Martin at # 55 above, I suspect that Kennedy is hit in the right upper back just before he emerges from behind the sign, which makes his right fist ball up. Immediately after, the throat shot makes both fists clench and rise to throat level. He may not have felt the low velocity, limited-penetrating back projectile as much as he did the choking throat shot. Perhaps it was not a metal bullet, as such. Before reacting to the windshield/throat bullet passing between him and Nellie, Connally looks puzzled as he emerges from behind the sign, as if he has heard the back wound shot or even heard its impact in JFK's shoulder. One thing we must remember is that the president and governor are on parade, and being not only respected officials but former servicemen, their reactions are going to be tempered by concerns of image and dignity - at least until that throat shot, when Connally begins to lose it. Kennedy, however, refuses to duck or flail for help after the throat shot, though he next seems to be losing consciousness as he sags toward Jackie. Looking at those possible windshield cracks, we ought to try to match them to other windshield photos, and to round up for comparison those photos that don't match - and ask why they don't.

I advise that people read around on the internet and elsewhere about Ted Gunderson and his associations. Go back to the 1980s and early 1990s.

Oh, naturally. If you didn't die, you must have lied. Right, David Andrews? Hilarious. Come, my dear man - in this our world, there are many who require far less persuading.

But what about the potential bullets and fragments in John Connally's body? Connally didn't die, and therefore could not be subjected to any kind of "rigged" or phony autopsy (which is what CTers think happened with JFK's autopsy). He didn't die - so he could lie! Nobody had possession of Big John's body. Imagine the scene with the Secret Service hustling two coffins out of town, though.

Why fake the stretcher bullet? 1) To tie one weapon exclusively to the shots. 2) Because it was planned to remove all bullets and identifiable fragments from the wounds before the official autopsy. So, forget Ruby at Parkland - CE399 was likely dropped by a Secret Service agent.

Richard C. Nagell pegged CE399 as having been fired into water.

FBI black bag job, as described by William Turner in other contexts (Red Scare through Cointelpro, bracketing Oswald)?

I read it recently for the first time (after reading other Prouty and listening to many lectures on film) - and it's probably one of the most important books on Vietnam. I hate to say it, but had Prouty avoided his surmises on the mechanics of the assassination, the book would have gotten a lot more recognition. (Paradoxically, though, it's the Kennedy/Oliver Stone associations that got it published as prominently as it was. But that didn't buy it many favorable reviews in the mainstream press.) And there's the dichotomy: I have an older friend who's a Vietnam vet, and I'd love to get him a copy because I think he'd like it based on his other reading. But the assassination conspiracy would turn him off. Dear Abby...

I've often felt that the "How many kids?" chant was a reaction to having Kennedy replaced by LBJ, thus escalating the war. It was a reproach for several levels of immoderation, and for old men's return to power.

With all respect to American farming - isn't the Thresher named for a thresher shark?

I, for one, care. When we look for persons who would have greenlighted JFK's assassination, we ought to be looking at his opposition at the Fed, in big oil, and among those who wanted a Southeast Asia war. These oppositions coalesce among the creators of the CFR. When we look at the history of undermining investigation into the assassination and its perpetrators, we ought to be consider the Rockefeller Commission, again a place where interests coalesce.

Thanks for the answer, Jim.

I think that LBJ's "revelation" that we were "running a damned Murder Incorporated in the Caribbean" has to be carefully studied in the context of the interview source, and the political times, to determine to whom it would be most damaging to at the time: Nixon? The JFK/RFK legacy? The Eastern Establishment? (Rockefeller-Harriman) Note that Nixon lived to regret bringing up essentially the same topic to Dick Helms.

What I find striking is that the two pictures below were taken a month apart. One in New Orleans in August, one in Mexico in September. Are we looking at Harvey and Lee? Steve Thomas Important, I think, to compare each photo to the Russian pictures of defecting and repatriating Oswald.

I think it's either the second-floor or third-floor window behind the Dal-Tex fire escape. The guy who's sitting on the fire escape between both floors is a shill, paid to guard the fire escape and act unfazed by any firing.

Douglas, I'd hit him up again - you have the Estes case work behind you, and a lot of other cred. He's been the best on LBJ - somebody like Robert Dallek would hide under the bed at the mention of Wallace. Plus, Oliver Stone's JFK has been out since you last met Caro, and that modified the playing field for research and publication. (I would, though, save this last argument for the last extremity of Caro's refusal.) I love those Caro LBJ volumes, and I hope you do it. Offer him some DC knowledge of your own, not necessarily aimed at LBJ's worst reputation. Don't remind him of your original meeting - as Churchill did not mention their unrewarding 1918 introduction when first meeting FDR as president. Above all, do it for the best possible historical-literary outcome. Forget about reporting the details to a congeries of rubberneckers like us. We'll all benefit enough if it works on the final volume, or on a new edit of the series.