Robert Harper

Gene, I thought of this passage when I came across a sentence recently that expressed the notion that there was a glorious week of hope between the March 31 announcement of LBJ not running and the murder of MLK. Watching Johnson give that speech is still vivid in my mind; I ran upstairs at our home in Monmouth County NJ yelling "Bobby Kennedy will be the next president! Bobby Kennedy will be the next president!" A week later, further violence and 8 weeks later, the end of hope.

I thought the same. A lovely synopsis of the intellectual JFK was.

The following was a recent post left by Mr. DiEugenio: (bold is my emphasis) "Rich, please read those articles. This is called the Education Forum for a reason. Over at Duncan McRae's all they do is share their own prejudices. Here, we actually try and surface information and debate it." This post stuck out for me since it was left a week or so after James decided to cut short any debate by not playing by the rules of debate. He offered a proposition: Farewell America equals a “tome of disinfo.” He did this on another thread and I took it to be a pejorative dismissal of something I recalled being other than a “tome of disinfo” and when I asked him to elaborate, he chose not to respond. Consequently, I started this thread in an attempt to debate the merits of that assertion. I actually was more engaged with reading and composing some thoughts on the continuation of a thread on witches and Salem, but I chose to rebut the assertion by returning to the book Farewell America and offered ten (10) examples of facts that defied the use of the word disinformation when applied to them.(listed in previous post). In the rules of debate, the affirmative makes a proposition and defines the terms of the debate. The negative rebuts, and defines the terms if not presented by the affirmative. The affirmative then rebuts the negative and the next rebuttal is from the negative. This is as far as the debate progressed on this thread. Since the affirmative – like the prosecutor – opens and closes the debate – the affirmative must rebut the last negative, while closing out the proposition. Mr. DiEugenio decided to pass on that final chore. Thus, the debate was unfinished and/or it was a victory for the negative as a sort of TKO. Mr DiEugenio’s original rebuttal struck me as strange to say the least. Declaiming that he has asked “for about the 9th time” whether anyone read his books doesn’t really answer any question, and mentioning an index in Joan Mellen’s book or the shoe leather worn down by Harold Weisberg’s search for the author, also skirts the issue at hand. The issue was, was this book a “tome of disinfo” or not? The issue isn’t who wrote it, but what it says. Frankly, it wouldn’t matter if Mickey Mouse and Allen Dulles wrote it. What matters for arguments sake is whether or not the book is intentionally deceptive. Saying that he puts “a lot of work into them and you will find information there you will not find anywhere else” seems out of place as well. Who is the “you” addressed here? And, how does his efforts – laborious or not – illuminate a defense of the proposition that A=B? In my first post on this Forum I quoted Aquinas’s formulation of a definition: " that by which, or in virtue of which, a thing is what it is" ( id quo aliquid est). Any research I’ve done on the word “disinformation” includes a deliberate attempt to deceive, to point one away from the truth. Begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it. Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. If one says A=B then one also asserts that the consequences of A will equal the consequences of B. Definitions are important. Recently I suffered through listening to a podcast from UVA about "microaggression" which managed to mangle any concept of free speech by suggesting that even joking about "ethnicity, gender etc" would be a form of aggression which should be halted. A student aptly asked if one had to be a member of a "marginalized group" to be a victim of "microaggression" since the slide presentation stated such. Amazingly, the speaker replied that such was just a "generalized definition" and that she extended it to "any" marginalized group (based on height, weight, regional birth) and that indeed one needn't be a member of a marginalized group to be microaggressed upon. As a response to this obvious contradiction, the student asked how do you define marginalized group, since it seemed "non-specific" and the answer offered was that it was "intentionally" non-specific" as if that was a value worth prioritizing when trying to define a term. A colleague of the lecturer then offered the anecdote that people would say "you don't sound like you're from West Virginia" or "oh you wear shoes" and she found that people looked down on those from a rural state, and that such was "hurtful" even if its intent was not. The student wondered how such was determined. If "hurt" isn't intended, how can one be "hurt?" The answer was a broad-based conglomeration of sensitivities that would be out of place even in a Freudian session on being sensitive to the unconscious. It went on like this for an hour. My guess is that Thomas Jefferson was turning rapidly in his grave a few yards from where this "class" was taking place. Perhaps the most aggressive act of all - and in my book a macro-aggressive act at that - was done by the University itself, whose leaders suspended the student asking the questions for being "aggressive" and for taping the discussion. One can't make this stuff up. Like the UVA student, I would like to have a definition of "disinformation" that is more than anecdotal and is specific. I offered such in my first rebuttal to the proposition that Farewell America = "a tome of disinfo." I suggested an intent to deceive was paramount in the definition. I specifically distinguished it from the limited hang-out form or the gray propaganda form. I agree with those who replied that the Warren Commission was a work of disinformation and I don’t disagree with Mr. Andrews’ assertion that the book had some purple writing in it. In a recent conversation with a JFK author, we both recalled reading years ago that Edward Kennedy and Danial Patrick Moynihan had assisted putting together a group to investigate the killing and their conclusion—a deep state killing using a CIA patsy with multiple shooters - couldn’t find a publisher in the USA and thus was printed first in Belgium. He agreed with me that “disinformation” was not an applicable term to describe Farewell America. “I understand there are so many crappy books out there that the market is glutted with baloney. But still, if you know me, I am not that kind of writer.” When I read this part of Mr DiEugenio’s rebuttal, I recalled Augustine’s phrase that “What we know, therefore, we owe to reason, what we believe, to authority.” It seems to me that Mr. DiEugenio is relying on his self proclaimed “authority,” rather than on reason, to defend his proposition that Farewell America = a “tome of disinfo.”

Any attempt to define the culprits of the assassination has to include Bethesda. The military is usually involved in a coup and they were most definitely needed. When I first read Finck's testimony that there were "admirals and generals" in the autopsy theater, giving instructions to the Lt Col who was performing the job, I felt revulsion and then anger. It hasn't stopped.

from an essay linked by Steve Thomas in the strategy of tension thread: "...throughout my time in Swiss high schools we never learned anything about secret warfare; our history teachers never broached the subject. Even when I pursued my University degrees, the subject never came up. It was only at the end of my studies, while doing my Master’s, that I had my first glimpse into secret warfare: that secret services exist; that the United Nations, and its Security Council, and governments lie to each other. I was baffled. I was twenty-five years old at the time,... Epistemology, referenced in the thread, is the philosophy of knowledge - (or how we know what we know) - especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.

Just left a post on the USS Liberty and this thread and quote apply.

In an ADL statement paper, which uses the term "anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist" at least 50 times in its 32 page screech, the following apropos: Conspiracy-oriented material also pointed to previous "treacherous" acts allegedly carried out by Israel as proof that the country has a history of clandestine terrorist operations against the U.S., and that its alleged actions on 9/11 were nothing new. The example cited most often is the 1967 attack on the U.S.S. Liberty, an American naval vessel that Israel mistakenly targeted in the Six Days War. Over 30 American servicemen stationed on the ship were killed in what official inquiries determined was a tragic accident. Couple of thoughts came to mind. Why not the exact number killed? You can bet you a-- that an "attack" by the Palestinians under occupation would get the number of Israelis killed, "right" since "every life counts", right? And, what "official inquiries " do they mean? I hope the oft repeated reference to the "Elders of Zions" in this tax-deductible funded "study" finds its resting place because it gets boring; and I'm not even convinced it wasn't "disinfo" in the first place.

There is a passage in Augustine’s Confessions when he says: ..'What we know, therefore, we owe to reason, what we believe, to authority.' Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1500 years later, replied:“…. it remains true that in the proper acceptation of the term we know only what we owe to firm reasoning of the mind….When a true belief is justified by sense perception or trustworthy testimony, the plain man calls it knowledge, the philosopher belief. For I take it that the important difference between knowledge and understanding is that knowledge can be piecemeal, can grasp isolated truths one by one, whereas understanding always involves seeing connections and relations between the items known.” For myself, Augustine's way of "knowing" was prevalent at the time of JFK's murder. Authority provided what I wanted/needed/chose, so the Warren Report sufficed. As years went by, and revelations about corruption and abuse and mendacity in the people and organizations I had trusted came into focus, I reasoned my way to belief; I couldn't accept it on any "authority." Also, FWIW, I think the term "conspiracy theorist" is meaningless. There are theories of many things both seen and unseen; there are conspiracies involving many things on a daily basis. Without individuation--and a clear sense of meaning - it serves no communicable need. it reminds me of the use of the word "buff" used pejoratively.

Ditto. The inclusion of the BDS laws clip was for two reasons: 1) "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" is often attributed to Voltaire and the idea applies here because there is a "special alliance" - formed by whomever - that restricted an inquiry into this awful attack. Why? 2) Dulles said that the American people don't read; now I think it might be said they don't care to read. How could 26 States have passed such a law? Why? Is it "unspeakable" and not reported; is it reported but no one cares? The very thought of this law turns my stomach. Why the free pass with the USS Liberty? Why this first amendment attack as law?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dOfQYBXJOI Why has it taken so long to even hear of this latest snow job

I have the book from 1979 - Assault on the Liberty by James Ennes Jr. and the 2009 book, Attack on the Liberty by James Scott, and wonder if Joan Mellon's book offers more information than was covered in these. It is an outrage to read about of course and I intend to secure and read Ms. Mellon's book , but I am curious to know if she uncovered new information.

Fellow Forumites, I join with others in wishing all a Merry Christmas (LNs &CTs in DVP's formulation). Biggest demonstration in Holland this year was over Zwarte Pete--"Black Pete" - a chimney sweep and companion to St Nicholas for centuries. Image 1 is of protesters on the great Erasmus Bridge yelling that Black Pete is racist. Meanwhile, down below, kids gather around various versions of black Pete--male and female, black or white with black marks. They give out cookies to kids and take pics with them. Peace on Earth. Goodwill to Mankind.

Thank you to the members who posted a link to the online version of the book. Thus one can more easily read and come to their own conclusion. I don't have the time or the inclination to cut and paste large segments of the book, but I post the following segments as a sampling and then the reader can decide for him or her self, whether this book is "crappy" or a "disinfo tome" or whether it gives information at odds with what the CIA was telling people to say or what the Warren Report actually said. Recall that it was written and published less than 5 years after the killing. I remember when the Hoover memo surfaced about someone using Oswald's birth certificate, and thinking to myself 'I thought they said he was a loner and no one ever heard of him'. Farewell America was published before the trial of Clay Shaw. The oil industry and Hunt are mentioned in the book, but they are far from the only culprits suggested. Indeed, the author describes a "committee" of people involved and has a diagram showing at least 4 assassins. So, since "disinformation" by definition implies an intentional fabrication to steer one away from the truth, consider the following few samples from the book and see if you find it "disinfo": "In August 1962 Oswald took out a subscription to The Worker and offered his services as a photographer.(21) In October and November, he also contacted the Socialist Labor Party and subscribed to its publication The Militant.Throughout the winter of 1962-63, Oswald corresponded with these leftist groups, helping them out from time to time. In October 1962 the CIA, frightened by the Cuban missile crisis, called back those of its agents who were in training or on vacation. Oswald made several trips to New Orleans, ..It is highly probable that he was working simultaneously for the CIA and the FBI. He tried to join subversive groups like the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC), which was violently critical of American policy towards Castro. Oswald distributed Communist literature in the streets of New Orleans to win the approval of the FPCC and make contact with the pro-Castro groups in Louisiana. Actually, he was working for the opposition group, the anti-Castro Cuban Democratic Revolutionary Front, which was controlled by the CIA. Oswald worked out of an office located at 544 Camp Street ructions, changed his occupational disguise, and rented a post office box (POB 2915). In April 1963, Oswald was told to move to New Orleans, where he continued to infiltrate These motives, nevertheless, were strong enough to persuade Chief Justice Earl Warren to place "the good of the country " ahead of justice. "The good of the country" is always invoked with regard to an act contrary to the laws and justice of the nation. The report to which Mr. Warren lent his name may represent a political necessity designed to preserve the national unity, but was it the place of the Chief Justice to accept a responsibility so inconsistent with his vocation? Was it his place to disclose the testimony of witnesses before they had even appeared?(1) Was it his place, when Jack Ruby begged to be brought to Washington to testify, to reply, "Many things are at stake in this affair, Mr. Ruby," and let him meet his fate without ever having heard him? The plotters were correct when they guessed that their crime would be concealed by shadows and silences, that it would be blamed on a "madman" and negligence History has often made use of a "madman" to shift the blame for a perfectly rational act. A "mad" assassin, captured immediately, would act as a magnet for public resentment. He would absorb the embarrassing questions and serve as a cover for the obvious accomplices. Quickly removed from the scene, he would leave behind him only the hatred inspired by solitary killers and the respect of the public for famous men now dead. But the madman was only a detail. The Committee knew from its legal counselors that the assassination of a President is not a federal crime, and that the local authorities are legally competent to conduct an investigation. They would make sure it went wide of its mark. ... the Committee was dependent, and the cooperation of those who did nothing to stop it, turned the assassination into a national conspiracy in which not only the local police and certain judicial officers, but also the FBI through its negligence and the CIA through its double agents and its operational units, the Army with its dissident generals, Congress and its corruption, and the entire economic system through its ideals and certain members of the Committee were implicated. t was time to make plans. It isn't enough to want to kill the President. There is also the Secret Service to think about. .. Several members of the White House detail were not qualified for their jobs. Their average age was 40, and as in the Senate the highest positions were awarded on the basis of seniority. Bill Greer, the driver of the Presidential Lincoln, was 54 and had 35 years' experience, enough to lull anybody's reflexes. After O'Donnell and perhaps Kellerman (the agent who rode in the front of the President's car in Dallas), Greer bears a heavy responsibility for the success of the assassination. We shall explain why a little later. A representative of the Committee followed the President's trips at the end of September through Wisconsin, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Utah, Oregon, Nevada and California. Apparently the Committee planned to assassinate Kennedy, first in Chicago and then in Florida the week before his trip to Texas, but both times the Secret Service was alerted. The Chicago trip was canceled, and special precautions were taken in Miami (the President used a helicopter). The Committee would have preferred to act in Florida, but it had its doubts about the reliability of the Florida state police and the Tampa and Miami police departments, and the operation was postponed until Dallas on November 22."

Merriam’s dictionary defines disinformation as: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth. In 1939, a writer describing Nazi intelligence activities noted, "The mood of national suspicion prevalent during the last decade ... is well illustrated by General Krivitsky's account of the German 'Disinformation Service,' engaged in manufacturing fake military plans for the express purpose of having them stolen by foreign governments. Although the Nazis were accused of using disinformation back in the 1930s, the noun and the practice are most often associated with the Soviet KGB. Many people think "disinformation" is a literal translation of the Russian "dezinformatsiya," which means "misinformation," a term the KGB allegedly used in the 1950s to name a department created to dispense propaganda. A recent usage appeared in The New York Times when it reported this year that members of the Myanmar military organized systematic disinformation campaign to demonize the country's Muslim Rohingya minority group. The words initial usage – and what seems to be considered its present usage – involves an element of deception. It is different than say, the “gray propaganda” Bill Simpich wrote about, or the “limited hang-out” from CIA Watergate days. The following passage I encountered in a book from 1968, Farewell America: President Kennedy's assassination was the work of magicians. It was a stage trick, complete with accessories and false mirrors, and when the curtain fell the actors, and even the scenery, disappeared. Now I didn’t understand that thought until many years later. It took me many books to read and re-read to get to the point of seeing the panorama that someone like Salandria – or Castro - understood right away. The context presented by Talbot and Douglass in their books also helped me see the canvas on which the murder was done. Researcher Michael Chambers stated that James Hepburn in the book Farewell America cited the following information concerning HUNT: HUNT had been in his 7th Floor office in the Mercantile Building and watched JFK ride by his window. After shots range out, HUNT fled Dallas with 6 men and 2 cars. HUNT fled to Mexico. HUNT stayed in Mexico for about a month at a hideout location. Author Laurent Guyenot writes: ... arrangements were made for two French Intelligence operatives to conduct, over a three-year period, a quiet investigation that involved hundreds of interviews in the United States. Their report, replete with innuendo about Lyndon Johnson and right-wing Texas oil barons, was delivered to Bobby Kennedy only months before his own assassination in June of 1968. After Bobby’s death, the last surviving brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, showed no interest in the material. The investigators then hired a French writer by the name of Hervé Lamarr to fashion the material into a book, under the pseudonym of James Hepburn. The book was first published in French under the title L’Amérique brûle, and was translated under the title Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK. In a recent thread, James DiEugenio dismissed this book saying: Vosjoli was the main author of the disinfo tome Farewell America.  In that thread, I asked Mr DiEugenio: .. this is, I think, the second time you have referred to this book as "disinformation." I didn't understand your first usage, nor this one. I have the book, published in Belgium in 1968, and it says on the jacket that the author - James Hepburn - is a PhD in Economics, who met RFK, and put this book together "with the assistance of various European and American specialists." The book is well written, and in sync with other non-Warren Commission authors like Lane, Meagher, Salandria, Jones, Joetsen etc. He mentions attempts in Chicago and Miami; He quotes Dwight MacDonald and the need for scepticism about reported facts. He frequently quotes JFK's speeches on moderation and peace. (A footnote on one page enlightened the reader that the FBI could only arrest a suspect if it was thought a conspiracy had taken place; otherwise, it was Texas law enforcers in charge. Such was changed later when they made killing a President, a Federal crime) He has a diagram of Dealey Plaza suggesting multiple shooters and covers incompetence and/or corruption, all over the place. The author also wrote one of my favorite sentences on the case: "A secretary whose married boss is planning an amorous weekend in Miami takes more precautions than Ken O'Donnell did for John Kennedy in Dallas." This book looks at Oil money, the Secret service, Texas justice and military interests opposed to JFK. I found few errors of fact. So how - and why - is this called "disinformation?" Now James is a busy guy and has posted almost 5000 times; I used to think one just had to think a thought and James would reply. However, in this case, he didn’t. So, I wanted to know what other members might understand by the word disinformation and, whether or not Farewell America qualifies as such. Since an element of deception is implied in the word, I could understand how, say, Epstein’s first book might be considered such since his source was Angelton and he wanted to divert attention to Russia. The book Double Cross, stressing the primacy of the mob, might be another example. Any thoughts or comments appreciated.

Thank you for your work and updates.

Publicizing any work is part of the process of education, and this Forum openly embraces and discusses new works. I have made it a habit for the past 20 years to purchase and read many books on the assassination(they now number between 2 and 3 hundred ) and consider the money spent to be part of supporting researchers. I've bought the big and expensive and the small and out of print; I even purchased the collected works of Bruce Adamson on DeMohhenschildt which will never get an award for best editing, but which provided a lot of useful information. The Metta book was heavily promoted on this site, with at least 4 or 5 postings of the You Tube video and numerous comments on the comments followed. One result, however, has been dismissal or disdain for anything approaching a critical attitude towards the book by the author's friend, Paz.I found such dismissals distressing, particularly since the Forum is by definition a place of opinion. I did find some of the information helpful and informative, and tried to be positive about my own experience, but found the editing sloppy, no table of contents or an index a hinder, proofreading faults, misguided authorial assumptions about what the reader would or would not know, and a narrative voice more akin to Huck Finn finding a box of relevant papers and announcing "I solved it! I solved it! It's all in this box!" So, at the risk of having my knowledge of European history, or my professional relationships with artists speaking other languages questioned, I will venture to comment further on this book only because I failed to mention an individual named in the acknowledgements by the author who is relevant to the issues, but likely unknown to many readers: Albino Luciani, - who served for 33 days as Pope John Paul. Two books about his papacy and his death - In God's Name by David Yallop and Murder in the Vatican by Lucian Gregoire are well written, eye-opening accounts of the cesspool in Italy in the post war period, but particularly in the 1970's when the bank scandals and the strategy of tension converged and deaths followed. Richard Cottrell's book, Gladio - NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe covers much of the relevant material in the Metta book, as do the mentioned books on Pope John Paul. I have always found Tony Judt's massive book Postwar - Europe Since 1945 very valuable for context. Also relevant are Francis Coppola's film Godfather 3 and the Italian film Il Divo, directed by Paolo Sorrentino. (Metta also acknowledges filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini and Telford Taylor, author of the terrific book, Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials.). I suspect that Peter Hebblethwaite's huge biography of Pope Paul VI -- who favored Luciani - will also cover similar ground and I have just recently started reading it.(btw: Luciani's death may remind readers of the likely murder of Dorothy Kilgallen). As Bishop and Cardinal in Venice, Luciani also wrote a charming book of letters to people from the past which captures his innate humanity, called Illustrissimi. Permit me to say to other Forum members with whom I have exchanged private messages: I will not disclose any private communication whether or not it would be useful in any argument or posting; I thought such was a given, but I guess not.

After Mr. McBride discovered in 1988 that Hoover had written to "George Bush of the CIA"the game should have been called. When Bush was called to head the Agency--right after the exposure of all the wrongs - he supervised the destruction of records. Agency people decried the appointment of James Schesinger as a "political" appointee when he was named, but what was Bush? An envoy appointed to China and one appointed to the UN; a Party Chair, and a 2 time loser for Senate along with his 2 terms in the House. He only was Director for a year and yet they name the building after him? How did he earn such an honor? When, at Ford's funeral, he smiled when addressing Ford's participation in the Warren Group by saying his word was solid and therefore truthful; we'd learn that Gerald Ford became a coroner-for-a-day when he made the JFK gunshot wound move from the back to the neck, but that didn't bother Bush.

Just have to say that this thread has been among the most engaging I have read on the Forum. John Armstrong's work and that of others have shown how what seems to be, is not always so. It is painful to recall that the sign placed on 10th and Patton for the 50th anniversary says that Tippet was killed by Oswald. No "alleged"about it.

A similar description could be given for literally millions of young people at the time. I applaud your introspection and your pursuit of your questions. I think your journey has also been experienced by...if not millions, at least, thousands.. of people who grew up accepting the word of official USA. It took 99 years for people to learn that the SS Lusitania was actually loaded with armaments and a fiction that it was merely a passenger vessel. It took less time, but a similar result, to find that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (supported by a unanimous Senate and all but 2 Representatives) was based on a lie. It took much less time to learn that the invasion of Iraq was based on a lie or that the government could be involved in an end run around the law with the Iran-Contra shenanigans. If I am surprised by anything now, it is the lack of urgency one senses in the public for a confrontation over the 9/11 deception. Similar to the intent of the Warren Commission, it clouded the truth. As I mentioned in another thread, at least after 17 years with JFK, we had books, investigations by Garrison, the House Report and the Church report that helped establish an understanding of a deep - or secret - government at work. It is almost as if it is considered useless to try and understand. The work of Griffen and Wood and Marshall and Bollyn have helped, but so little discussion, it is depressing.

James, this is, I think, the second time you have referred to this book as "disinformation." I didn't understand your first usage, nor this one. I have the book, published in Belgium in 1968, and it says on the jacket that the author - James Hepburn - is a PhD in Economic,s who met RFK, and put this book together "with the assistance of various European and American specialists." The book is well written, and in sync with other non-Warren Commission authors like Lane, Meagher, Salandria, Jones, Joetsen etc. He mentions attempts in Chicago and Miami;. He quotes Dwight MacDonald and the need for skepticism about reported facts. He frequently quotes JFK's speeches on moderation and peace. (A footnote on one page enlightened the reader that the the FBI could only arrest a suspect if it was thought a conspiracy had taken place; otherwise, it was Texas law enforcers in charge. Such was changed later when they made killing a President, a Federal crime) He has a diagram of Dealey Plaza suggesting multiple shooters and covers incompetence and/or corruption, all over the place. The author also wrote one of my favorite sentences on the case: "A secretary whose married boss is planning an amorous weekend in Miami takes more precautions than Ken O'Donnell did for John Kennedy in Dallas." This book looks at Oil money, the Secret service, Texas justice and military interests opposed to JFK. I found few errors of fact. So how - and why - is this called "disinformation?"

I was saddened to read this as I have been equally stunned by images from California. I lived for a decade in the Hollywood Hills, so I am familiar with the constancy of the fire issue there and the excellence of those who fight them. I join others in wishing you and family members well. Hope you have backgammon games. In 1996, I worked on the telefilm Ruby Ridge, drawn from transcripts and documents and the reporting of a local journalist. Northern California around Chico served as the Idaho forests needed for the shoot. During our time there, I visited Paradise and didn't feel that they had exaggerated the appeal of the place by naming it such. It was wonderful to see the almond trees growing up there and seeing the area I "almost" attended - UC, Davis - where I was heading for graduate school, before shifting to the professional stage. I enjoyed visiting the campus at Cal State ,Chico and also recall telling friends back East - who stop and pay tolls on a continual basis, that when I drove back home from filming, I drove 495 miles without stopping once. That day I understood the meaning of a "freeway." If the feelings I sense from 7000 miles away are real, the country is looking and praying and offering condolences. This Thanksgiving your kin have special reason to be grateful; they are living to recall the horror around them.

Generally good advice about anything. I too own a number of books published by Trine and am grateful for any publisher that makes an effort to reach people with informed opinions.

Thanks. I feel like an idiot. These Brits I keep getting mixed up.

That was also an impression I had reading the book - especially the mention of Dulles sending DeMohrenschildt on a mission (and never mentioning it in the Warren testimony). The info on Skorzeny was informative; there is a wealth of information in the short book, but for the first 60 pages I couldn't zoom in on a coherent thesis. The second 60 pages or so - the rest of the book - brings in characters and situations more familiar. That Gladio and P-2 and CMC and Permindex were related is an important linkage. That the right wing in Italy managed to get rid of the politicos who were willing to embrace a variety of political viewpoints is also illuminating. That Angleton spent so much time there and that Harvey was placed there is not meaningless in the murder, but not specific enough to grab onto. I get confused about the Freemasonry - mostly because I think of it as a version of Ralph Kramden's Raccoon club. I wish there was more on Mossad and Bloomfield but there is enough to contribute to the overall understanding. I'd like to read more of the Greek's bearing gifts to Nixon, and the Gehlen/Nazi usage by the US is still disturbing to read. Some of the issues of confusion arise from the translation, some of the long Italian names add distance to the reading through their unfamiliarity. But the focus on Italy and the neo-fascist movement and the Gladio project and its relationship to intelligence services of the US and israel is engrossing and important. I can't connect any of it to Bethesda medical Center and the autopsy, but, one never knows what connections will appear.

Great. Image made my day That such disputes are prolonged for centuries, is not a bad perspective to have for the world today. The head of the Roman Catholic Church is the Pope. The head of the Anglican Church is the Queen of England. In the 5th century Augustine of Hippo wrote: What we know, therefore, we owe to reason, what we believe, to authority. It took a thousand years before Luther successfully challenged the authority of the Pope. During the years Cromwell was overthrowing the monarchy, authority was fragmented and then restored. Certain key individuals displayed a moral sense of "the end justifies the means "- Luther, Calvin. Zwingli etc belong here. The alternative, "the means justify the end" - was proposed by Erasmus and Thomas More. The latter was asked to stress "the end', refused, and lost his head. At the time of Henry VIII's death, there was a painting hanging in Hampton Court of the 4 Evangelists stoning the pope to death. Remember the passage where Jesus asks that the one without sin cast the first stone? 500 years after that, the philosopher Wittgenstein wrote that “…. it remains true that in the proper acceptation of the term we know only what we owe to firm reasoning of the mind….When a true belief is justified by sense perception or trustworthy testimony, the plain man calls it knowledge, the philosopher belief. My very first post here started with a quote from Richard Sennet's book Authority. Published more than 30 years ago, I thought it articulated thoughts relevant to the JFK murder. His thoughts of what authority is - who wants it, needs it, abuses it is as relevant as ever. The Pope recently gave the Chinese government veto power over the Bishops sent there. The Russian patriarch has acknowledged a Ukranian head of church. The ironic thing is that the early Christians - until Constantine - were against association with the State. Good or bad. During the papacy of JP II, Fr Drinan a Jesuit priest who was also a member of Congress from Massachusetts, was asked to step aside from politics. In San Salvador in 1980, Oscar Romero was assassinated while he was saying Mass for speaking out against the military oppression. There is current activity involving the exit of the UK from the EU. There may not be a better chance for Northern Island to join the Republic on the land they share. The schism in religion produced the two Irelands; the same produced the split between Belgium and the Netherlands; to even bring up the current Middle East disputes is simply saying that religion, organized religion, has been, and still is, a powerful force in the world. Was it chance that produced a Polish Pope, the first non-Italian in 500 years, when the Poles and Eastern Europe got swallowed up like the fish in the cartoon? Or was it a politics of the unspeakable at work?