Joseph McBride

I tried buying it early on Kindle, but it wouldn't download.

He had a 59% approval rating at the time of his death. His highest approval rating, ironically, was after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.

The report of the dead Secret Service agent remains a mystery. I write about it in my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE.

David must get awfully tired of spewing his baseless 1964-vintage clichés about the case but probably closes his eyes and thinks of his regular checks.

Because he didn't own a gun. Because he admired John F. Kennedy. Because he was infiltrating the plot for the FBI (so he thought). Next question?

The Washington Post (mirabile dictu) did run an excellent, fair, and respectful article on the Lisa Pease book and her arguments in it.

In addition to the FBI documents, there is this from Anthony Summers: "Officer J. B. Hicks was on duty in the relevant office until after 2:00 A.M. [November 23] and is certain Oswald was not arraigned at 1:35." According to Tippit researcher Larry Ray Harris, when Oswald was arraigned at 7:10 p.m. on November 22 on the charge of murdering Tippit, he angrily exclaimed, "That's ridiculous!" And I write in INTO THE NIGHTMARE, When I asked [Detective James] Leavelle why the Tippit killing seemed to take precedence over the presidential assassination in terms of early arraignment, and when I told Leavelle about the FBI report saying that Oswald was never arraigned for the shooting of the President, the detective made a revealing admission: "Now, the thing was, the Captain [Will Fritz, the head of Homicide, who was running the interrogation of Oswald] asked me if I had enough to make a case on him for the Tippit killing. And I said, 'Oh, yeah, I got plenty on that.' . . . I had him identified by about three or four people. And so Cap said, 'Well, go ahead and make a tight case on him in case we have trouble making this one on the presidential shooting.' So that was one reason he was arraigned early on the Tippit shooting. But I was thinking that we also arraigned him somewhere down the line on the shooting of the President. But I wouldn’t swear to that offhand.”

And Oswald was never arraigned on the charge of killing Kennedy, only on the charge of killing Tippit.

Detective James Leavelle confirmed to me that Oswald was telling the truth when he said during his midnight press conference that he had not been told by the police that he had been charged with murdering the president. From my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: . . . So we can see that the “proof” Oswald shot Tippit was indeed crucial to the federal and local authorities in shoring up their dubious case that he shot Kennedy. And the uncertainty over whether they could pin the assassination on Oswald would help explain his otherwise baffling behavior at his midnight press showing when he was asked if he had killed the president. As has previously been mentioned, Oswald made this key statement in response: “No. I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall [voice quavering], uh, axed [sic] me that question.” Some have argued that Oswald did not make a full stop after “No,” when asked if he had killed the president, but instead said, “No, I have not been charged with that.” The evidence on the television tape is ambiguous. If he made a full stop (as the transcript in the Warren Report, for what it’s worth, has him doing), he was denying killing Kennedy from this very prominent public podium, which was consistent with his other statements to reporters as he was being hustled through the hall (which had also been heard on television, including his assertions “I didn’t shoot anyone!” and “I’m just a patsy!”) and his reported statements behind closed doors to the police. If Oswald was only denying being “charged with that,” he might have been expressing genuine bafflement about why not. Another possibility is that this could have been very real shock on his part about hearing about that charge first from reporters at the midnight press conference -- even though that contradicts everything we have been told by the Dallas police about his interrogation sessions. I asked Detective Leavelle what Oswald had been told, by the time of that midnight press conference, about the charges that were to be filed against him in the murder of the president. Leavelle replied, "He’d been told it, but see, he hadn’t been charged with it, so he answered it truthfully. He knew he was a suspect, but he hadn’t been charged with it. Now, that was the difference in the Tippit deal. Because we went ahead that evening and we had [Deputy District Attorney] Bill Alexander there, who accepted the case for the district attorney’s office. And once the district attorney’s office accept the charges, then he’s officially charged, see? So he was answering the question truthfully -- he hadn’t been charged with it [the presidential assassination]. We had charged him with the Tippit thing." But since Oswald’s interrogation sessions were not recorded, we have only the word of the DPD to go on for what was said by Oswald in them, which means that their reports are dubious at best. Oswald’s statement at the press conference about having just heard the charge -- a sentence uttered with what seems like authentic shock -- may reveal something more about why the Tippit killing was being treated as such a key charge to pin on Oswald, and why Belin considered it “the Rosetta Stone.” Wade told me the midnight event was not intended to be a press conference but only a showing to demonstrate that Oswald, despite having a cut on his face from the arrest and shouting at the theater about “police brutality,” was not being mistreated by the police. Wade said Police Chief Jesse E. Curry asked his advice, and “I said let ‘em look at him, but there wasn’t any questioning of him.” In fact, the press naturally asked some questions, and the anxiety of the police to get Oswald out of there when he started giving answers that did not seem to fit the emerging official story is telling. If the authorities were uncertain about whether they could pin the Kennedy killing on Oswald, as well they should have been given the paucity of actual evidence, were they trying to do an end-run by nailing him first as a cop-killer and then expanding the case from that unproven supposition, as Bugliosi, a respected prosecutor, would be found doing many years later in his book, long after Oswald was supposedly convicted by the Warren Commission in the court of history as the lone-nut killer of Kennedy? If Bugliosi, like many others, was grasping at the Tippit killing to help buttress the widely disbelieved and discredited case against Oswald as Kennedy’s killer, that would be another key indicator of how flimsy the “so-called evidence” against Oswald actually seems to the beleaguered and blinkered, if not actively dishonest, defenders of the official line.

Black's book IBM AND THE HOLOCAUST: THE STRATEGIC ALLIANCE BETWEEN NAZI GERMANY AND AMERICA'S MOST POWERFUL CORPORATION is startling, an eye-opening and thoroughly documented look at a little-known and shameful aspect of Holocaust history.

I don't agree with the idea of banning anybody from posting. Particularly on a forum such as this one, we should take great care to support the First Amendment. There are legal limitations to free speech (such as libel), but unpopular opinions or ones most people consider wrong-headed or offensive (such as some of James Fetzer's) should not be considered cause for banning. Sometimes we can learn from opinions we do not agree with; sometimes people can be wrong-headed much of the time but still have some valuable views at other times (as Fetzer, for example, has). Personal insults and ad hominem attacks should be discouraged, in my view, but otherwise unpopular views should be welcomed. "New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths." -- George Bernard Shaw Much madness is divinest Sense- To a discerning Eye- Much Sense- the starkest Madness- 'Tis the Majority- In this, as All, prevail- Assent-and you are sane- Demur-you're straightway dangerous--- And handled with a Chain- -Emily Dickinson (poem 435), c. 1862

I found the link on the other thread -- thanks.

Hi, Gary, I would like to order or download Vol. 1. How does one do so?

From my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE: THE WADE REVELATION The FBI’s jeopardy over its relationship with Oswald could have been even worse if Henry Wade had told the media in 1963 what he told me three decades later. The former Dallas County district attorney revealed a piece of information that, if true, would be an indication of an deeper relationship between Oswald and the FBI than has ever been acknowledged. A former FBI agent himself, Wade told me in 1993 that Oswald may have given information to the FBI only a day or two before the assassination. “We weren’t getting much -- full cooperation from some of the federal authorities,” Wade said. “You know Jack Revill said when he walked into the jail up there, an agent of the FBI said, ‘We know Oswald well. I talked with him yesterday.’ Or something similar to that. And then it got into a big fuss with the FBI and the Dallas police, [over] who was telling the truth. Hosty’s the agent.” I asked Wade to clarify if Hosty indeed said he talked with Oswald the day before the assassination, and the former DA replied, “Within a day or two, I don’t know exactly.” Wade then recounted the story about Oswald going to the FBI office to tell them to leave his wife alone. Wade seemed uncertain whether or not Oswald had left a note or how that story came out; Wade said, “I don’t know who said he went there. The only one I could think of was his wife.” Whether or not Wade was mixing up the timeline of Oswald’s visit to the FBI office with a subsequent encounter with the FBI was unclear. But a report from a well-placed source such as Henry Wade about possible contact between Oswald and the FBI a day or two before the assassination would (if accurate) seriously contradict even the belated official version, revealed twelve years after the assassination, of the latest date on which Oswald had contact with the FBI (November 12, the approximate date Hosty said Oswald left the note) as well as the virtually forgotten newspaper report of the Bureau’s interview with Oswald on November 16. Wade’s revelation, especially when added to those other reports, would make it even more likely that Oswald had an informant relationship with the FBI, and would make the destruction of the note (with its contents that remain uncertain) a matter of even more critical importance to maintaining the coverup. Of course, it is possible that in our interview, the seventy-eight-year-old Wade, who had retired as DA in 1987 but was still practicing law, misremembered the date of Oswald’s last contact with the FBI, placing it closer to the time of the assassination than earlier reported. Nevertheless, Wade still appeared sharp-witted, and he seemed emphatic about the close proximity of Oswald’s contact with the FBI and the assassination, although uncertain whether the contact came on November 20 or 21. It is also conceivable that Wade might have been consciously or subconsciously exaggerating the proximity of the acknowledged and unacknowledged contact(s) with Oswald in order to spite the FBI. This could have been a further sign of the resentment felt by the Dallas law enforcement community over its fraught relationship with the FBI. . . .

Thank you very much, Gary. That means a lot coming from you. You did groundbreaking work that still holds up today.

Gary, I greatly appreciate and admire your pioneering work on the Tippit case, which was done at a time when almost no one cared to look into it. Those of us who have written on Tippit since then owe you a great debt. I look forward to reading your work on Connally. Congratulations on finishing this magnum opus!

That Nov. 16 meeting between Oswald and the FBI was largely ignored until I dug it out of the Dallas Morning News, where it was hiding in plain sight. I am surprised more notice has not been given to Wade's revelation. It is quite startling. It jibes with what Hosty reportedly told the DPD's Jack Revill, which caused such an uproar, and Wade is a good corroborating source for this. Wade (a former FBI agent himself) was evasive to some extent in my interview with him but surprisingly revealing on certain questions. Differing dates have been given for the delivery of the note that Oswald reportedly left at the FBI office (the note that was destroyed on Nov. 24). I would have to check further, but I think Nov. 6 is the earliest date, and around Nov. 12 is the latest.

Oswald was an FBI informant. The FBI admitted he spoke to them in their office around Nov. 12 (at which time he was variously reported as making a threat or leaving the note for Agent James Hosty; but the FBI is unreliable, and the note, if it existed, was destroyed on Nov. 24, later in the day Oswald was killed). The Dallas Morning News on the morning he died (an issue that hit the streets before that shooting) said he had met with the FBI on Nov. 16. Former Dallas DA Henry Wade told me Oswald had met with Hosty a day before the assassination. I questioned Wade on that, and he said, ""Within a day or two, I don't know exactly." I believe the evidence (there are other indications as well) indicates Oswald was monitoring the plot and did not know he was being set up as the patsy.

Eisenhower certainly did not treat Patton badly. If anything, he could be criticized for overindulging Patton when he went off the handle, or should I say off the rails. Ike did so because Patton was such a successful general and the Allies needed his talents. Eisenhower admired his generalship and daring, which historians have praised. But Ike hated having to keep him on after such episodes as the slapping of the shellshocked soldier and various forms of insubordination. Patton's admiration for the Nazis was so scandalous that Eisenhower had to warn him in August 1945 to "get off your bloody ass and carry out the denazification program instead of mollycoddling the goddamn Nazis." Patton's death in a car accident in Heidelberg that December after his car was hit by a slow-moving Army truck is seen by some as suspicious.

https://deadline.com/2019/02/robert-kennedy-family-green-book-response-hear-audio-don-shirley-tony-lip-confirm-film-storyline-1202558236/

It's clear this discovery has caused major consternation among the paid disinformation experts since they are out in force flooding the forum about it to distract attention from it. We should keep out focus on the discovery itself.

Let's not enable paid pro-government trolls such as DVP by responding to them. That plays into their hands. They keep trying to tie up forums with their false claims in order to distract from real discussions and evidence, and they are successful.

I wrote an email message of thanks yesterday to Tom Jackman for his article on the Lisa Pease book and his other work: Dear Mr. Jackman,Thanks for your evenhanded and respectfulcoverage of Lisa Pease’s new book and the RFKassassination. This and your other recent coverageof related topics have been a breath of fresh airto this observer who has followed for decadeshow the Post has tried to mock and marginalizepeople who dissent from the official mythsabout political assassinations in this country.It seems things may be changing. and the papermay have more of an open mind.Keep up the good work,Joseph McBrideAuthor, INTO THE NIGHTMARE: MY SEARCH FOR THEKILLERS OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY AND OFFICERJ. D. TIPPIT

You can tell when an important new piece of information comes out -- all the trolls paid to spread disinformation pop up and try to flood the forum, while genuine scholars respond to their bait, and the trolls achieve their purpose in obscuring the new evidence.

One part of the story I don't find credible is RFK supposedly giving Michael Wayne his own PT-109 tie clasp at another event a couple of weeks before RFK was shot. Why would RFK give his own tie clasp to some stranger? I received one of those tie clasps for being a volunteer on the 1960 Wisconsin primary campaign (they became a totemic item of shared experience and comradeship among people who worked for the Kennedys), but JFK or RFK did not take off his pin and hand it to me. My mother, who was active in the Wisconsin Democratic Party, got one for me when we both worked in the campaign, on which RFK was campaign manager.