W. Niederhut

Agreed. That truly dark chapter in American history -- the GOP Florida vote hack of 2000 -- has never received sufficient coverage in the mainstream U.S. media, nor has Kissinger's comment in December of 2000, after the infamous 5-4 Bush v. Gore ruling, "Nothing would increase George W. Bush's low approval rating more than a terrorist attack against the United States."

So, as I recall, Roger Stone said recently that his 2016 Email about dining "last night" with Julian Assange was only "a joke." Is it finally the CREEPy old dirty trickster's time to be in the barrel?

From what I can find, Anthony Lewis was one of NYT's best journalists at the time-- a two time Pulitzer Prize winner from Harvard, who was best known for his coverage of judicial issues. So, this Warren Commission Report article probably wasn't a case of shoddy journalism per se. I don't recall whether Carl Bernstein mentioned Anthony Lewis as a contract journalist for Operation Mockingbird (in Bernstein's Church Committee era article about the CIA and the U.S. media in Rolling Stone.) The fact that he panned Oliver Stone's movie, JFK, speaks volumes.

Michael, Nixon's Secrets was so bad that I gave the book away as a gag white elephant gift at a Christmas Party last year. There were two anecdotes in that book that I found intriguing, though. 1) Stone claimed that Nixon and LBJ had a three hour private meeting in Dallas on the afternoon of November 21, 1963. 2) Stone asked Nixon, shortly before his death, whether he and LBJ had been involved in any way in JFK's murder. Nixon, who was sloshed, paused for awhile then, allegedly, said, "Well, let's just say that Lyndon and I both wanted very much to be President."

Is Roger Stone's book, LBJ-- The Man Who Killed Kennedy, worth reading? I read Nixon's Secrets, and thought it was poorly written, and horribly edited-- with a lot of redundancy and very little new information -- but I noticed that Stone's LBJ book has received positive reviews on Amazon. (Couldn't find a review at Kennedys and King.) I also read both of Phillip Nelson's books about LBJ and the JFK assassination, and don't know if Roger Stone has presented much new information. Any opinions?

My advice is that you carefully study all of the well-documented, highly-detailed evidence in Mr. DiEugenio's latest opus on The JFK Assassination, which carefully critiques Bugliosi's big book of JFK assassination baloney. For a detailed critique of the Warren Commission Report, study Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact.

Frankly, from what I have read, I don't believe Oswald even fired a single shot on 11/22/63. He had no gun powder residue on his face, and his prints weren't on the Carcano (until after his murder.) He was also seen by multiple witnesses in areas of the lower TSBD floors inconsistent with being in the 6th floor "sniper's nest." I have NO doubt, whatsoever, that the fatal head shot was fired from the grassy knoll area, causing a right frontal entry wound, and an occipital exit wound. So, it wasn't fired from the TSBD. Oswald was a patsy, as he insisted, who had been an FBI informant posing as a pro-Castro Marxist in New Orleans and Dallas. His Dallas area contacts included CIA-affiliated assets like George De Mohrenschildt, David Atlee Phillips, (aka Maurice Bishop) and Ruth Paine (who got him the job at the TSBD in October of '63.) As nearly as I can tell, Oswald was a pawn in a much larger black op who thought he was going to be flown out of Red Bird Airport on 11/22/63.

Michael Wolff said, in Fire and Fury, that Trump has a tendency to agree with the last person he has spoken with. That is, no doubt, an exaggeration-- but he has, certainly, flipped 180 degrees in an apparent bait-and-switch on any number of his 2016 campaign positions-- promising a "terrific" healthcare plan for all, pledging that, "the forgotten Americans will be forgotten no more," criticizing Obama's military ops in the Middle East, etc. My take on Trump (in violation of my profession's "Goldwater Rule) is that he is a lifelong sociopath and bully, and, obviously, an extreme narcissistic personality. He is grandiose and self-aggrandizing, exploitative, manipulative, lacking in empathy, and, evidently, sadistic. He began his presidential campaign by consulting with the likes of Roger Stone and Sam Nunberg-- and searching for a sales pitch on the basis of "marketing" research by Nunberg and others. This seems to be how he initially latched onto the "white nationalist" strategy of bashing immigrants and minority groups (which was eerily in sync with the Russian-funded Facebook ads in 2016.) Anyway, I don't want to high-jack the thread. It was interesting to hear Mr. Caddy's comments here about Roger Stone's sociopathic personality the other day.

Well, sir, the "hard evidence" in those two massive works of fiction that you describe is, certainly, an illusion-- but I will not waste more time enumerating the well-documented critiques published by Sylvia Meagher, James DiEugenio, and the true experts. The "lone nut in the TSBD" narrative is easily debunked by the "hard evidence," and by basic Newtonian physics. The only thing that really interests me about the sham Warren Commission "investigation" is the light that it sheds on our Deep State history, and on the ability of our Deep State (and the affiliated mass media) to create and perpetuate public myths.

Utter nonsense. Allen Dulles opened the Warren Commission sham "investigation" by telling the Commissioners that all Presidential assassinations in American history had been committed by lone nuts. I think it was Hale Boggs who blurted out, "What about Lincoln's? Wasn't that a conspiracy?" Sylvia Meagher, and others, debunked the validity of the Warren Commission Report "investigation" decades ago. That much is quite obvious. The WCR systematically suppressed all of the evidence that refuted Dulles's "Lone Nut" narrative, and altered a great deal of evidence to support it. Vincent Bugliosi did the same thing, as Mr. DiEugenio has shown, in great detail, in his analyses of Reclaiming Parkland. The WCR is massive, as is Reclaiming Parkland. In both cases, the authors hoped that the public would equate mass with validity.

The Man Who Wasn't There? I never read the book, but I saw the Coen brother's movie. 👺

I think I read about this in Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact. As I recall, when the FBI ballistics experts tried to reproduce the "Lone Nut"/Oswald in the TSBD theory by shooting a cadaver in the right parietal-occipital skull, from the TSBD, (using a Mannlicher Carcano rifle) the bullet blew off the entire right half of the (cadaver's) face. (And, as I recall from reading Richard Belzer's Hit List, a number of FBI forensic team experts died, mysteriously, around the time that they were supposed to be questioned by the Church Committee.)

I'm, frankly, amazed by the obfuscation on this thread by those defending the Warren Commission narrative. Isn't it common knowledge in 2018 that numerous witnesses from Dealey Plaza (and Parkland) had their original testimony altered and/or omitted from the WCR? That many people who "knew too much" about what happened on 11/22/63 later feared for their lives, knowing that other witnesses were being offed? One example, among many that I have read about, is James Douglass's account (in JFK and the Unspeakable) of the commercial aviator at Red Bird Airport who prepped a plane for about 20 gentlemen who flew to Houston on the afternoon of 11/22/63 after JFK was assassinated. The Cuban pilot (who helped him prep the plane) told him, before the news of JFK's murder was heard on the radio, "They are going to kill your President." The Red Bird aviator was so afraid that he refused to mention anything about what he had heard for many years. Under the circumstances, it seems plausible to me that the medical personnel at Parkland were afraid to contradict the WCR after their initial descriptions of the pathology had been altered to conform to the "Lone Nut" in the TSBD narrative. As for the obvious right forehead entry wound, (and I have seen forehead entry wounds in my medical career) I believe it was Sylvia Meagher who reported that the FBI ballistics test shots using a Mannlicher Carcano in the TSBD blew off the right half of the (cadaver's) face.

I should defer to the true experts here, but, from what I have read, the Parkland ER physicians spoke openly to the media about the widely observed entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead --- and the missing right occipital-parietal skull fragment that was, obviously, an exit wound. It was only later, under duress, that the Parkland medical staff testimony was altered to, awkwardly, conform to the "lone nut" in the TSBD with the cheap Carcano government narrative. Secondly, there was ample witness testimony about a shot being fired from the "grassy knoll." The extant videos also show, quite clearly, that everyone ran to the grassy knoll in search of the assassin(s) immediately after the shooting. So, no, the Boston Globe sketch does NOT describe what was known about the assassination on 11/23. Instead, it describes a false narrative that was inconsistent with the reports from Parkland, and the witness testimony from Dealey Plaza. Where did the Globe get their false narrative?

I wonder why the Globe would have published such a wildly inaccurate, goofy sketch about such an utterly tragic event, (which was especially tragic for the people of Massachusetts.)

Hey, look, folks, it's an artist's sketch published in the Boston Globe, so it must be accurate! That pretty much nails it. The Parkland ER photos showing the entry wounds in JFK's throat and right forehead must have been fakes...👺

Thanks for posting this, Joe. Interesting commentary by Mr. A. If I ever need a pacemaker, I'll think twice-- just in case Education Forum members have ended up on an NSA watch list. Your post reminded me of the Church Committee report about a CIA "Heart Attack Gun" that fired some sort of cardio toxin in the form of a frozen dart, leaving no obvious trace other than a tiny entry wound.

Interesting that you mention the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings in the context of Republican reactions to the Kennedy's civil rights legacy. I vividly remember watching former Warren Commissioner Arlen Specter cross-examine Anita Hill on television during those hearings. It was almost as pathetic as Specter's shameless promotion of the Magic Bullet theory. And Clarence Thomas has, shamelessly, endorsed both recent SCOTUS rulings against proper enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (and Bush v. Gore.)

The recent four episode "Bobby Kennedy for President" series focused significantly on RFK's involvement with the American black community from 1960 to '68 -- including detailed personal narratives by Harry Belafonte and Congressman John Lewis. As they tell the story, after initially arranging to get MLK out of jail, Bobby seemed to make a conscious decision to risk alienating the Dixiecrat base-- political suicide, in a sense -- on moral grounds. He was, genuinely, outraged as he began to better understand the predicament of African Americans. In direct contrast, Nixon later, cynically, resorted to the "Southern strategy," as you mentioned. GHWB did the same thing in 1988 (e.g., with Lee Atwater's sleazy Willie Horton ads.) But Trump has taken this racial (and xenophobic) demagoguery to a new level, in a way that would have seemed inconceivable to me a few years ago. And, not surprisingly, this regressive devolution in U.S. politics has been aggressively promoted by many of the same talking heads and pseudo-historians (e.g., Bill O'Reilly) who have misrepresented and disparaged the legacy of the Kennedy brothers. It's Orwellian-- "controlling" the past in order to control the present and future.

One of the greatest abominations in modern American history was, surely, the systematic violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments in the former Confederacy after the collapse of Radical Reconstruction in 1877 (in a pre-inaugural deal brokered by Rutherford Hayes and a Southern bloc in Congress.) The statistics about black voter suppression in Columbia University historian Eric Foner's book, Reconstruction, are mind-boggling. The number of registered black voters in states like Louisiana and South Carolina had plunged to zero by 1900. And, of course, nothing substantive was done about these systematic civil rights violations for nearly a century, until the JFK administration, (and LBJ's surprising advocacy of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act after 11/22/63.) But now we have seen Neil Gorsuch and the new Trump SCOTUS vote 5-4 to uphold racial gerrymandering in Texas and North Carolina- a shocker!

The COBAD Syndrome is an acronym that I coined in my 2005 clinical monograph of that title. "COBAD" stands for "Childhood-Onset Bipolar Attention Deficit" syndrome. At the time, there were only three peer-reviewed papers in the world psychiatric literature about this subject, but we now know that it has a population prevalence of about 1 percent in adults-- which is what I had estimated in 2005, extrapolating from the peer-reviewed child psychiatric research at the Massachusetts General Hospital.

Thanks for the references. I did read Hit List, Destiny Betrayed, (and Mary's Mosaic.) Peter Janney points directly to the CIA (including Angleton and Ben Bradlee) having foreknowledge of Mary Pinchot Meyer's murder in 1964. But, do we know any inside details about a domestic assassination op/ "program" behind these carefully conducted serial murders of JFK witnesses from 1963 through the 70s? For example, was it Angleton or Helms tapping phones and calling Hoover, Mafia hit men, etc., as needed?

Yes, I realized last night that Michael was using "in my book" as a figure of speech. There are a number of authors on this forum, and I initially thought he was referring to a book that he had written about Hunter's murder. (The only thing I could find at Amazon, before reading his post above, was a crime novel written by a gentleman named Michael Clark.)

Thank you, sir. Two questions. What is the name of your book? Any clues about who Bill Hunter's killer was working for? As I recall reading (possibly in Richard Belzer's pop history book, Hit List) the LA shooting of Hunter was ruled "accidental." I understand your point about various contractors/hit men being deployed for these witness assassinations, but it seems obvious that someone (or many) must have been "riding herd" on such a massive, decades-long, cover-up operation-- someone who knew precisely what was going on, (as in Hunter's case) and who was going to spill the beans.

I'm a newcomer here at the Education Forum, but I have studied a lot of books about JFK's assassination in recent years, including the writings of Col. Fletcher Prouty, John Newman, James DiEugenio, James Douglass, Phillip Nelson, and others. Here's my question. It seems quite obvious that the perpetrators of the JFK assassination conducted systematic surveillance and skillful assassinations of key witnesses for many years, even decades. In a few of these cases-- e.g., Mary Pinchot Meyer, Dorothy Kilgallen, and Sam Giancana-- suspected assassins have been named. (One was the alleged U.S. Navy-affiliated witness on the tow path in the Mary Meyer murder case.) But, has there been much written (and uncovered) about the nature of such a gruesome, multi-decade, domestic assassinations op in the U.S.? It is difficult to imagine anything less than a carefully managed, highly skilled organization like the CIA overseeing these systematic assassinations of American citizens who knew too much. And the targets were carefully selected for "termination," usually at times when they were, apparently, on the verge of talking-- e.g., David Ferie, Mary Meyer, Kilgallen, William Sullivan, Pritzker, Giancana, De Mohrenschildt, etc.-- as if their phones and mail were under surveillance.