Ron Bulman

2 hours ago, Don Jeffries said:

There is much more evidence that demonstrates the level of interest JFK, Jr. had in his father's death, which you can find in my book Hidden History and in my upcoming work American Memory Hole: How the Court Historians Promote Disinformation, which will be officially released August 27, but is available for presale. American Memory Hole by Donald Jeffries  He was basically reading the same books on the subject that we were. 

I published a new piece on the 25th year anniversary on the assassination of JFK, Jr. yesterday on Substack. I provided a few teasers to the new information I discovered on this subject. I was finally able to track down the elusive Coast Guard Petty Officer Todd Burgun, for example, who gave an interview about the now memory holed 9:39 pm phone call from JFK, Jr., reporting all was well, for WCVB-TV. Our exchange was eye-opening. You can read the article for free here: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Jr.  

Thank you, Don.  The Substack article is great.  I've been going to read Hidden History for quite some time now but never got around to it.  I think I'll start with it for now.

I think he's still a member here, you should be able to contact him if so.  Finding his site is tricky anymore.

Oops.  I thought for some reason he was affiliated with the History Matters website.  Looks like I was mistaken.

Not often anymore but I think he did a few months ago.

14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Of course one bullet passed through both -- at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra.  Too low to associate with the throat wound.

Naw Cliff, yew know better.  It did go in at T-3, then hit a bone turning upward then going out the incoming throat wound identified by the experienced Dr. Perry 3X on 11/22 obliterating it, as evidenced in the death stare photo.  Then, to coin a term (Ha!), it Magically turned downward to Connally's arm pit, broke a rib, punctured a lung went out near the right nipple and on to the right radius of tall, big boned Connally.  Which it smashed, embedding itself into JC's thigh.  Then falling out on his stretcher.  In pristine condition.  There we have CE399.  Arlen Specter, and Gerald Ford's Single Bullett Theory.

As opposed to CE856.  The exact same type of bullet, fired from "Oswald's" rifle into a human cadaver wrist by Our government.  It is severely distorted from this one wound alone.  Much less the bone in JFK''s back necessary for the deflection, or JBC's rib.  Pictures illustrate this, the difference in bullets.  Maybe I'll dig for them tomorrow, unless someone else wants to do so now.

In memory of Dr. Wecht, who inspected the coat and shirt and bullets at the National Archives.

Long as I'm on a musical roll from long ago, I would not give you false hope.  A song I never knew until tonight Paul Simon wrote about his first personal encounter with death, that of his dog being run over.  Which I can personally relate to recently.  How he got this out of that I'm not sure.

45 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Wait. When did Wecht speak to DeMohrenschildt? 

The phrasing makes it sound like 1964. Wecht was not a leading light of the research community at that time. I highly doubt he spoke to DeMohrenschildt in 1964, let alone about Dulles. 

1977.  The comma is the key Pat.  I should have put the quote in a greater context, I can see how it might look like Wecht was talking about 1964.  Which he was, about what George said, in 1977.

To summarize a little greater detail from what I just re read and I'm referring to as I type:

In early 1977 Wecht got a call out of the blue from Willem Oltmans whom he'd heard of but never spoken with.  Oltmans was staying at de Mohrenschildt's in Dallas audio recording George's story over the years for a planned autobiography.  Oltman's said George was fearful about his upcoming HSCA testimony, would Wecht be willing to talk to him about what he thought George might expect?  To quote Cyril "I wasn't going to turn down the opportunity to meet both these men, so I flew there and spent a long afternoon with them at de Mohrenschildt's home, which he designed." 

Wecht says his request to testify to the HSCA had not yet been granted so he couldn't speak from personal experience.  But from reading the WC report he knew GDM had testified for two full days.  Wecht was puzzled why he seemed so unnerved, GDM's responses to the Warren panel had been so assured.  "he was kicking himself now over answers to the WC which now seemed glib to him now".  He advised him to take an attorney he trusted and tell him his story beforehand.

He asked him if he was or ever had been a CIA agent he denied it but admitted he had encountered agents in his travels and been debriefed after foreign trips.  That (Dallas CIA head) J Walton Moore insisted Oswald was "a harmless lunatic" and encouraged them to stay in the ex-Marine's life.

The comes the "During the period when de Mohrenschildt gave testimony to the Warren Commission,  he told me that on more than one occasion he would Privately eat lunch with Allen Dulles."  

Since I started a Lennon thread, I guess I should post this.  I bought the album when it came out, still have it.  I disagree with one point, there is an afterlife.  But I've always found it peaceful, uplifting.

First, has anyone else here read this?  I'm just finishing it, 10 pages to go, many flagged/highlighted passages.  Three from the latter part I thought I'd share for now.

One.  "During the period when de Mohrenschildt gave testimony to the Warren Commision, he told me that on more than one occasion he would privately eat lunch with Allen Dulles, I was stunned to hear the former CIA director would extend an invitation for an off the record meeting with any witness."  Page 241.

I was stunned too reading this, but maybe I shouldn't have been. GDM met Allen in about 1917 at about 10-12 years old in Russia/Belarius where his dad managed an oil field during the Russian revolution which Allen was seeking an interest in on behalf of Sullivan and Cromwell/the Rockefellers of Wall Street.  From memory, correct me, Devil's Chessboard, Talbot.

Two.  My lunch with Marina, beginning page 260.  I thought this had been put to rest in discussions on the forum, in the opposite direction, apparently, I was wrong.  To summarize, Wecht surprisingly got a call from Marina in 1991, he had never talked to her.  But she had read and seen his work.  She had agreed to an interview she didn't want to do and asked him to do it for her, which he did.  They agreed to speak again in more detail in the future.  That happened in November 1992 in a "quiet corner" of a restaurant Marina chose over a leisurely meal with Wecht's wife Sigrid also present.  A very interesting lunch, as Dr. Wecht says, she was a very astute scholar of the assassination.

"As she had said over the phone, Oswald was never a verry good husband, but now she added more details.  He beat her, including while she was pregnant, and would force himself on her . . .

I thought that was dispelled.  But she seems very credible, down to earth and knowledgeable and open in this lunch with the esteemed Dr. Wecht.

Three.  Page 279.  President Nixon seemed star stuck by Connally, the handsome Texan with the bigger-than-life personality.  Despite the latter's decades long obeisance to the Democratic party, Nixon offered to appoint Connally as U.S. secretary of the treasury.  But Connally would only take the job if Nixon could find a nice gig for George H. W, Bush . . .  a one term congressman who had lost two senatorial bids.  Nixon appointed him Ambassador to the United Nations, kicking his political profile into high gear."  Onwards and backwards to the CIA?

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

Newsmax, citing sources in the Pennsylvania State Police, says Trump was not struck in the ear by a bullet but by a glass shard or fragments from a Teleprompter shattered by a bullet. The FBI SAC heading the investigation, when asked if a bullet hit Trump, declined to answer. The medical staff at the hospital have not publicly discussed his injury but have been told to defer questions to the campaign. Trump was not wearing a bandage on his ear while playing golf Sunday but conspicuously wore one at the convention Monday.

That's interesting.  No patch for golf but a large one for the convention the next day.  The FBI declined to answer?  The medical staff told to defer questions to the campaign?  This was an assassination attempt on a former president protected by the Secret Service.  We the People have a right to know.  Of course, the Press won't press the issue.

Isn't this what JFK was ultimately all about?

A point for consideration.  A large part of academia is funded by grants from the government, both state and national.  Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

He did have a large gauze bandage on the ear at the convention.

Trump chooses a vice president who would do what Mike Pence wouldn’t (msn.com)

Mark has been back a couple of times now since I locked this thread and not unlocked it.  Maybe it's time to move it and open up a space at the top of the first page.

4 hours ago, Frederic Galle said:

In fact, in the interview, Hunt only talks about a French shooter, it is his interlocutor ( Marrs I think ), who evokes the Corsican track. Personally, I think that Hunt knew who the French shooter was and that he even frequented him when he was creating the Mexico City station. It has since been shown that Sarti was incarcerated in Bordeaux during the events.

If not Sarti, Soutre?

41 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

What part of the ear was Trump shot in? This pic was taken today. 

Thanks, I've been wondering about this.  There was a good bit of blood.  I wondered, going to the convention would he have a band aid on it or maybe a little gauze. 

On 7/14/2024 at 8:19 AM, W. Niederhut said:

Hopefully, Ben Cole won't also misconstrue this Sachs essay as "hijacking" this thread about the Neocons.

That was a futile hope.  He's taken Kirks comments about Sachs to he brought us Putin to this:

"I hope Trump and Vance come to the conclusion that Putin must be blocked somehow." 

That is a current politics statement.  That and his other posts are in essence spamming, hijacking the thread.  A repeated theme. 

I don't believe in censorship.  I do believe this thread is interesting and informative.  I'm not going to move it to Political Discussions because of this.  I want to read more about JFK and the Neocons.  I have deleted one post since becoming a Moderator, a distasteful insult of one member by another.  I'm seriously considering Hiding 3-4 posts at the moment to get the thread back on track.  While I seek a second or third opinion there is a short-term solution.  

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

In the third or fourth part of my essay, I will put forth the concept that the Neocon movement was first named as such back in the seventies by Michael Harrington.

At the time he was referring to Democrats who had jumped ship on things like the War on Poverty and the Great Society.

This was really kind of prophetic, since that was just the beginning.  Almost all of Henry Jackson's foreign policy team would later jump to Reagan.

So, its an incredible irony, that the Neocon movement was in reality started by former Democrats. As I will argue, I doubt this would have happened if JFK had lived.

Yes, it is ironic.  I thought it started with Chenny and Rumsfeld under Nixon.  But thinking deeper now LBJ and Connally were conservative democrats, funded by oil money.  Does it all link back past JFK to what Ike called the Military Industrial Complex and in turn then on to his assassination?

Gee.  I thought the whole Mount Rushmore aspect was about Trumps desire to be on it.  I mean Kristi Noem had a 4' replica made of it with him added to it and presented it to him.

Yes, of course Donald Trump wants his face added to Mount Rushmore | CNN Politics

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree Paul.

Can you imagine working on that speech for about a year, and having his wife translate articles from the French and Spanish?  Going all the way back to Roosevelt and his thoughts on the Middle East?

What is remarkable about that speech is thinking back to the time frame it was made in: The hotbed of the Cold War and Foster Dulles condemning the whole idea of neutrality in the Third World.

Kennedy got pilloried for making it.

Yet he wondered about his efforts as a result of the criticism afterwards and called dad.  Who said you will be proven right, which he was.  Made the cover of Time Magazine for it.

Seriously, named Crooks?  An AR15 for a for a 145 yard shot, not a good choice.  (Attempted) Assassin nailed by SS/FBI/CIA, after the fact.

If Oswald had been so lucky.  As it was Wade and Fritz by this time of night, they had they had him pretty well convicted.

7 hours ago, Greg Burnham said:

Jones Harris has died. Another first generation WR critic is no longer with us, but his contributions will remain.

Greg, the name is familiar to me, but I can't remember why, could you point me to some of his work or maybe an obituary?

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Thanks Cliff.

Lock him up, lock him up!

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am going to get to what a neocon is in this essay.

It will be complete and accurate.

And I will show how they disavowed and buried Kennedy's foreign policy until today it might as well be in a museum.

The first two articles are great.  I'm not well read on the beginnings of the Cold War and find that period interesting as it relates to US involvement in the Vietnam war.  Vietnam was so much a part of my coming of age, in the news, the protests, turning 18 in October 1974 I still have a draft card.  The backstory of how we got there is fascinating, that it really started with the death of Roosevelt.

In that vein, I think I probably first heard the term Domino Theory somewhere in the early to mid 1970's.  I thought I'd read somewhere in the last 30 or so years that Eisenhower had first used it.

I was surprised to find this while reading The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer.

"Eisenhower wished to crush Ho-to keep him from power at all costs, destroy his popularity - without using military force.  "In certain areas at least, we cannot afford to let Moscow gain another bit of territory," Eisenhower told one National Security Council meeting.  "Dien Bien Phu may be just such a critical point."

"Foster and Allen decided to try the same brotherly combination that had succeeded in Iran and Guatemala.  One would orchestrate political and diplomatic pressure on Ho while the other launched a covert war."

"Foster launched his part of the campaign with a speech to the Overseas Press Club in New York on March 29, 1954.  His central challenge was to explain to Americans why they must resist Ho.  The answer was what he called the "domino theory."   

Don't go to Vegas right now if you don't have to.  High yesterday was 118.  5th day in a row over 115.  I think the article I read said the low last night was 93.