W. Niederhut

One of the most striking things about Oliver Stone's film, JFK, for me, was the way it depicted the systematic government surveillance and harassment of Jim Garrison and his staff-- bugging offices, intimidating investigators, and even making threats against family members. (Not to mention the disappearing witnesses.) It also clearly portrayed the collusion of the mainstream U.S. media in the defamation of Garrison and his investigation. It's an observation about the "forest" rather than the trees. If Oswald had really been a "Lone Nut," why would the U.S. government have gone to such great lengths to harass and undermine Jim Garrison's investigation? It makes no sense at all.

Let me comment on this, as a graduate of Harvard Medical School, (1983) and a Board Certified psychiatrist. The autopsy evidence (above) clearly supports the conclusion that a ruptured cerebral aneurysm was the cause of David Ferrie's death. But that does not prove that he didn't commit suicide. For example, he may have taken pills that caused a hypertensive crisis, resulting in rupture of the aneurysm. An amphetamine overdose is one example. Less likely, in my opinion, but possible, would be a hypertensive crisis caused by an L-thyroxine overdose. Did they do a serum toxicology screen at autopsy?

What might they learn? Can you give us a few hints? As a newbie on this forum, my impression is that most of the members here are either, 1) experts who know almost everything there is to know about JFK's murder, or, 2) public relations guys who are trying, without success, to defend the badly-flawed Warren Commission Report. But, I have to hand it to you for being a good sport. Your reception here reminds me of those 18th and 19th century narratives written by white settlers captured by Native Americans. When they arrived at the Native American villages, these Caucasian captives often had to run a gauntlet between two lines of hostile Natives, who greeted them with blows and howls of execration.

I suspected that you were a masochist. No wonder you posted information about your new book on this forum. .. 😬 But, seriously, in a nutshell, as it were, aren't you, in fact, a "Lone Nutter?"

Ah, yes... The "post-truth" society... What am I afraid of? Disinformation. Mass ignorance. Mass delusions. I don't agree with Leo Strauss's Machiavellian notion that the ignorant masses must be manipulated by propaganda and false flag psy ops in order to achieve the ends of a particular government or group.

Michael, I understand your point, but the title and posted reviews clearly describe the thesis that "JFK conspiracy freaks" will embrace the accuracy of the Warren Commission "Lone Nut" narrative once they grow up. That is simply hogwash. The other truly galling thing about the "marketing" of this book, for me, is the absurdly erroneous criticism of Oliver Stone's film, JFK. I recently went back and watched the film JFK again, after spending the past two or three years studying a lot of the quality research, and I was astonished by the accuracy of the details-- including a number of things that I had missed the first two times I watched the film. In other words, my intellectual journey toward understanding 11/22/63 has been the diametric opposite of what Mr. Litwin is selling to the public.

What a pity to see someone publishing and marketing this kind of dishonest garbage in 2018. It's, frankly, depressing-- especially after Trump's April 2018 decision to block the Congressionally-mandated release of the government's long-suppressed JFK assassination archives. (We can all thank GHWB for that "executive privilege" boondoggle.) Anyone who believes, or pretends to believe, that a shift from doubting to believing the Warren Commission's "Lone Nut" narrative constitutes intellectual progress, or growth, is either an idiot or a snake oil salesman. Since Mr. Litwin is, apparently, an accomplished salesman, I'll assume that he is not an idiot. As for the book's catchy, absurdly misleading title, it is a good example of the problems caused in modern society by the CIA's old "conspiracy theory" propaganda meme.

Coincidentally, I was reading something about Greer today while researching Joseph McBride's comment about John Kerry being a relative of Michael Paine. (They were second cousins on the Forbes side of John Kerry's family.) This is probably old hat for forum researchers here-- especially for Mr. Palamara. Apparently, before joining the Secret Service, Greer had worked as a chauffeur for one of those old, arch-conservative Boston Brahmin families-- the Cabots or the Lodges-- who were political adversaries of the Kennedy family.

I could be having a "senior" moment, but I recall reading that story in The Devil's Chessboard. Fortunately, Dulles's younger sister was rescued, and did not drown-- no thanks to young Master Allen.

Allen Dulles was always an odd, psychopathic bird. One of the creepiest passages in David Talbot's biography, The Devil's Chessboard, was the story (told by a sister) about young Allen Dulles standing motionless on the shore of a lake in upstate New York while his younger sister was drowning.

It must be a Forbes thing, eh?

These Skull & Bones men have an uncanny knack for ascending to high political offices in the United States. Dubya Bush, in particular, is living proof of that old adage, "It's not what you know. It's who you know."

And now Alex Jones has been banned by Twitter. The problem of U.S. media ownership, plutocracy, and ideological propaganda is huge, Joe. You described it well. Does the U.S. need to restore the Fairness Act?

I read the Stern book review at Kennedys and King. I noticed that C.D. Jackson died of "natural causes" around the time that the Warren Commission Report was published in October of 1964, and wondered if he was considered a security risk by Dulles, et.al.

Speaking as a psychiatrist, the problem with Alex Jones's Mueller threat, if it was intended as humor, is that there are some people out there listening to Jones who might not get the "joke." The Jared Lee Loughner case comes to mind. I see a similar problem with Trump calling journalists "enemies of the people." On the flip side, I understand the concerns about censorship of alternative media. There is something disturbingly Orwellian about it.

Here's another interesting old archival Education Forum thread that I just discovered for the first time. (As usual, I'm several years behind the learning curve here on this forum.) I couldn't help noticing a few oddities about various Skull & Bones associates who were involved on some level in the JFK assassination. Whether these are merely coincidental, or evidence of a (CIA-related) conspiracy, I don't know. Certainly, the CIA looms large in the history of Skull & Bones. Everyone knows about Henry Luce's Life Magazine editor C.D. Jackson's involvement in hurriedly purchasing and locking up the Zapruder film. Jackson, the Chief of OSS Psy Ops during WWII had once worked with a Skull & Bonesman named Paine, (who founded Fortune magazine) but I can find no evidence that this gentleman was related to Michael Paine, the son of Ruth Forbes Paine, and stepson of Bell Helicopter founder Arthur Young. But Henry Luce was also friends with Michael Paine's mother, Ruth Forbes Paine, (who was, in turn, a close friend of Allen Dulles's friend, Mary Bancroft.) And, in the small, somewhat insular, world of JFK assassination intrigue, Ruth and Michael Paine knew Oswald and George De Mohrenschildt, (who, in turn, knew GHWB.) William F. Buckley was a close associate of E. Howard Hunt.

Sage advice, David. I should have searched the archives here before starting this redundant thread. (I'm, obviously, several years behind the JFK scholars on this forum.) Here's an entry from a thread on McGeorge Bundy started by Robert Morrow back in 2011. Guest Robert Morrow Guests Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) My current view (2/7/2013) is that McGeorge Bundy rapidly acceded to the coup of the JFK assassination. My previous view was that McGeorge Bundy was probably a part of the plotting of the JFK assassination. My current view is that McGeorge Bundy knew what had happened, knew who (CIA/military intelligence) did it, and then rapidly started covering up within hours, becoming an accessory after the fact to the murder of John Kennedy. And I think Bundy probably figured out that LBJ was involved, too. Edited February 7, 2013 by Robert Morrow

In reviewing the history of NSAM 273, I was reminded today that the original Honolulu NSAM 273 draft was dated 11/21/63, and signed by JFK's National Security advisor, McGeorge Bundy. Has anything been written about Bundy's possible involvement in the plot to kill JFK? Bundy was a Yale Skull and Bones man who had worked with Allen Dulles at the CFR after his work for U.S. military intelligence in WWII. He was a Republican from Groton and a family of blue bloods, (including Boston Brahmins like the Lowells) and one of the main architects of the escalation of the Vietnam War after 11/22/63. Seems like a prime suspect, especially in light of his relationship with Allen Dulles, and his strong support for maintaining (and escalating) the global Cold War.

Jim, Your link (above) is the Prouty text about NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 that I was thinking of, and here is the Peter Dale Scott analysis that I mentioned. https://www.history-matters.com/essays/vietnam/KennedyVietnam1971/KennedyVietnam1971.htm

Joe, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I used to tutor undergraduates in physics when I was in college. Anyone with a basic grasp of Newtonian physics can easily deduce that JFK was killed by a fatal bullet fired from the front (and right) of the limo. The Lone Nut in the TSBD Warren Commission "theory" isn't the least bit "scientific," as you know. Among its many fatal flaws, the Warren Commission Lone Nut "theory" violates Newton's Laws of Motion-- which is why CIA asset C.D. Jackson bought the Zapruder film and locked it up for years.

I'll take your word for it on this NSAM 273 issue. I recall reading some sort of analysis (by Peter Dale Scott?) describing a slight change in the 273 wording, to emphasize the over-arching objective of stopping communism in Vietnam. (Whereas, JFK had said something along the lines of the war, ultimately, being "South Vietnam's war to win or lose," as I recall.) I was surprised to read about Hilsman's optimism in 1963 about the "strategic hamlet" program, because Col. Fletcher Prouty described it as a grossly immoral, operational disaster (in his 1992 book about JFK and Vietnam.)

So, in this Paul Rigby interview, Hilsman doesn't mention anything about LBJ signing NSAM 273 on 11/25/63-- which, if I understand the analyses of Peter Dale Scott and Prouty correctly, essentially reversed JFK's NSAM 263, by emphasizing the military objective of defeating communism in Vietnam, at any cost. Apparently, the Honolulu conference draft of NSAM 273 was dated 11/21/63 as I recall. Doesn't this hint that LBJ was involved in some sort of pre-assassination plan with the "hawks" to reverse NSAM 263? And, if not, why did LBJ and the "hawks" go to such great lengths to conceal their NSAM 273 Vietnam policy reversal?

Hilsman's account of JFK's position on Vietnam in this interview also dovetails with L. Fletcher Prouty's firsthand narrative about the history of NSAM 263 and NSAM 273, in Prouty's 1992 book on The CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK Assassination. It appears that several LBJ administration staffers must have colluded in suppressing the true history of LBJ's reversal of JFK's NSAM 263 Vietnam policy-- including Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, Maxwell Taylor, Walter Rostow, and even Bill Moyers(?)

Michael, The problem, as I see it, is that the use of the pejorative term, "conspiracy theory," tends to throw all theories that differ from mainstream paradigms into the same waste basket. Yet, in reality, "conspiracy theories" exist on a broad spectrum of accuracy and validity. For example, Jim Garrison accurately theorized that Clay Shaw was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Conversely, Donald Trump "theorized" that climate change is a Chinese hoax. So, what are we supposed to make of a neuroscientist claiming in a peer reviewed journal that "Creationists are more likely to believe in 'conspiracy theories?'" What "conspiracy theories" is he referring to-- Jim Garrison's Clay Shaw conspiracy theory? Donald Trump's Chinese hoax conspiracy theory about climate change?

Is there are more misleading, misused term in the modern English language than the CIA's pejorative term, "conspiracy theory?" I think it was the Swiss historian, Daniele Ganser, (who has written about the CIA/NATO Operation Gladio during the Cold War) who said a few years ago that, "All theories about 9/11 are 'conspiracy theories,'" including the official U.S. government narrative about the 19 alleged Muslim "Al Qaeda" hijackers whose names were found on a suspiciously convenient list in a rental car at Logan Airport on 9/11. Modern journalists (and scientists, like this neuroscientist* from the University of Fribourg) are doing a disservice to the public, IMO, by continually using the term "conspiracy theory" to describe any and all theories about historical events that diverge from mainstream media narratives. It's a shame that journalists and commentators don't simply use the term "theory" to describe theories about historical events-- without the pejorative adjective, "conspiracy." As an example, Charles Beard's landmark "economic" interpretation of the U.S. Constitution was never denigrated as a "conspiracy" theory. * Scientists Identify a Key Cognitive Error that Could Explain Why People Believe in Creationism and Conspiracy Theories https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/scientists-identify-key-cognitive-error-could-explain-why-people-believe