S.T. Patrick

I think many would assume Nixon would want to draw attention AWAY from it even potentially being "one of the right-wing nuts," as he called them. I guess this shows, at the very least, that things, as always, are a bit more nuanced than the simple caricatures some have wanted to be true. I've long been skeptical that Nixon knew, as some have claimed. Then again, some believe he still knew about the second Watergate burglary in June 1972. Some will say that the phone call to Hoover was an attempt to give himself plausible deniability, feigning some semblance of shock and a complete lack of knowledge about who it could have been. But they need Nixon to have known, because they decided long ago that their own theory needs him to know. I think this call, at its base, gives more evidence, however, to the idea that he did not have foreknowledge. I do believe, however, that this began a lifelong fascination for Nixon about the case. The "Bay of Pigs thing," as Haldeman called it. Between 11/22/63 and 1969, Nixon seems to have asked around quite a bit and held many conversations off the record about the case. He wasn't the only one.

[accidentally hit "submit" too many times. please delete this]

Thank you, Jim.

Robert, I respect that. I personally disagree with some conclusions of the writers - and I'm the one that edits it. But I never wanted it to be a mirror image of what I believe or what I like. The writers who have appeared are doing good, honest work, in my view, even when I do not agree with the conclusions. The important part to me is not that I agree with it; it's that it is challenging in some way to what is being taught in school textbooks and rote history classes. As a book buyer, I rarely buy something that I just feel is confirmation bias for what I already believe. I do want to be challenged in some way to expand what I might believe and to maybe change my mind on a few things. As long as it's challenging (or at least correcting) to the mainstream in some way that is smart, genuine, and knowledgeable, I'll use it. Thanks for the kind words. I do appreciate it.

https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews I realize this is not for everyone here and not everyone will appreciate or enjoy it. I get that there are differing opinions and interests. I'm not here to argue it. That said, some will, and may have an interest in this issue of the magazine. This is the description: 238 pages. Print and e-book available. Issue 015 of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics features articles done in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Edgar F. Tatro takes an extensive look at "Gerry Hemming's Swamp, the Dark Side of Madame Nhu, Gordon McLendon, and Other JFK Assassination Sponsors." Walt Brown assesses historically what the murder of JFK means today. Randolph Benson looks at JFK's Peace Speech at American University in context of what it meant to the late researcher John Judge. Larry Rivera continues his illustrative investigation into "The Twin Lee Oswald Cuban Consulate Visa Applications." Donald Jeffries takes a critical look at Secret Service Agent Paul Landis' recent revelation concerning the "magic bullet." Alan Kent goes deeply into Col. William Bishop and the sordid cast of characters surrounding him. Stan Weeber takes a look at "The Denton Connection," one Texas city's connection to 11/22/63. Australian researcher Gavan McMahon reassesses the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit and Helen Markham's role as the "innocent bystander." S.T. Patrick looks at the current state of the JFKA research community, its hierarchy, and the obsession of defending planted flags.

Just wanted to share the new episode on this anniversary. Rick Russo and I talk for over two hours about Rick's research re: what happened at Bethesda. As a forewarning, I am not knowledgeable enough about this angle to argue anything in the episode. However, if you have questions after listening, I'd be happy to ask Rick if you can have his contact info. Here is the link: https://midnightwriternews.com/unlocked-mwn-episode-181-rick-russo-on-the-jfk-assassination-myths-lies-and-deception-at-bethesda/

Congratulations, Michael. I wish you the best.

I'll believe this when I hear it. Maybe I'm shell-shocked by 30 years of History Channel documentaries where they spend 55 minutes laying out a wonderful case for conspiracy only to have the final five minutes be dedicated to "But here's why LHO acting alone is still the most plausible explanation." No matter how good Reiner's episodes are, the one that matters most is the final one of the series. That's it. That's the one. It's the final five minutes of the History Channel doc.

I don't think we need to agree. Unity in academic communities that are hopelessly dis-unified is an unrealistic dream. I don't need a unified theory of 11/22/63 when I have five minutes with someone at a gathering. I need my own five minutes. Having a unified theory only means that it's been rubber stamped by the self-appointed hierarchies, and I have very little to no regard for academic hierarchies who believe they control or have approval over a narrative. Meeting a farmer with interest at a conference is just as important to me as meeting Peter Dale Scott, and I mean that (and I do have PDS books). I just have zero "star struck" in me, a great lack of respect for hierarchy in any circle, and I always have an eye-roll for those to whom it matters. We will forever "be lost in the deep weeds," but many in the community prefer it that way. They'll always be interested in where David Morales did his grocery shopping in 1957 and whether he was third cousin once removed by three marriages, a family pet, and smoke rings to Fred Crisman. This is what they're interested in. Did Oswald do it? No! And we knew that before 1970. The case is resolved. The rest is hobbyism. It's fun hobbyism - in a way that only a murder mystery can be. It's fine hobbyism - I don't disparage anyone for spending a life in it. And I find it fascinating in so many ways, myself. I absolutely have a high interest in it. But the truth is that the case was resolved before 1970: it wasn't Oswald as a lone nut acting because he was a rabid Communist. I'm fine with that. And with that, my five-minute elevator pitch for those who ask (and people do actually ask because they know what "I'm into") won't be demands that they read this book and that book. It'll be five or six main factors and I'll explain that there is so much more. If they want, I can point them to books, but if not, I think your five minutes should be convincing. I'm not sure Z-Film frame numbers and audiology and chain of custody mistakes are going to do it. As Vince said, people with a casual interest want something sort of simple. Landis' story is pretty simple. But for many, it's "here are five facts that exonerate Oswald: A, B, C, D, E." Done. Not "Well, you NEED to read Sylvia Meager and Jim Douglass if you're EVER going to understand!!!" God, that's so.... ugh. That's when they tune us out. AND SHOULD. With those who are casually interested, KISS (keep it simple, stupid) is probably best.

I'm not sure what I think of Landis' story. Ask me again in five years. However, I think what Taibbi wrote is valid and it's illuminating. What I think it shows is that the JFKA community hasn't always been great at the "elevator pitch." We expect people to read a stack documents, multiple websites, and six books if they just have a passing interest in the case. The problem is, I think a vast majority of people only have a passing interest in the case. We are the outliers, the extreme outliers. Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are basic names to everyone here. They are deep, DEEP facts to most Americans who will go to their graves having no idea who they are. We lose sight of this a lot as a community. We are so dismissive of those who don't "care enough." I've actually heard researchers in the self-appointed hierarchy say things like "I'm not going to educate people who know nothing with basic facts." Really? Why not? Were we all not "people who knew nothing" at one point early in our search? There is one researcher/author who gets pissy with people for asking her simple questions about one of these cases: "Read my book!," she demands. But at that point, and with that attitude, she's already lost them and they may even have a sour taste in their mouth about "these Kennedy people." Why couldn't she just answer a simple question for someone casually interested? It would have taken her the same amount of time it took her to write the "Read my book!" response. Ever met a researcher at a conference who looked past you, trying to find someone else more important to talk to? The reality: the hotel staff (average people) has no idea who ANY of them are. They're only stars in their own very small bubbles. Could you pick out Ridley Scott if he walked past you in a mall? Many couldn't. I couldn't. Most people couldn't pick out Oliver Stone, either. Obviously, that's not the case with Stone and this very specialized audience. And he's the most recognizable person in this field to the mainstream. The point here is that Taibbi and others are almost forced to deal with their passive interest by reading small stories that break on an NBC News website, tweets, segments on 60 Minutes, and maybe a 45-minute History Channel doc, if they have the time. So when we exercise this bad habit of pointing them to books to make a point ("Really, Matt? You should read [this author] and [that author]..."), we're wasting time. It's a passing interest. But for most Americans, it's a passing interest. But passing interests are important. The majority forms lifelong opinions about things with passing interests. Whatever someone thinks about Rasputin or Anne Boleyn or William McKinley or John Wilkes Booth has been formed because they saw something short or heard something brief. It's the media's equivalent of an elevator pitch. We've always been bad at the elevator pitch, demanding people go deeper to be more serious about it - always a failure. There are important subjects in life that WE don't go deeper into because there is only a limited amount of time and resources that we all have. Does that make them unimportant? So, if Taibbi's mind has been even slightly changed by a story I'm still unconvinced is 100% true, then GREAT! That's something. Landis' elevator pitch moment has been successful, despite those who always reflexively scream "limited hangout!" about every single thing. And, yes, while I realize that most people here would have rather had James Douglass's book turned into a film, the Levinson film may create new groups of those interested in the case - and that's not bad (I'm sure that's a minority opinion, and I'm fine with that). As a community, we've had decades to create content and pass this all down in simpler forms to high school and college students. Some have done this well. As a large group, we failed. Some of our best researchers failed because they continue to care more about impressing their perceived peers in the community than passing it all down to newbies. So, in 25 years when many have passed on, this community becomes the Pearl Harbor community: many are casually interested, some books are sold, but eh, it is what it is. Shrug. It's good that Taibbi was slightly moved on the case by seeing some elevator pitch version of the Landis story. That's fantastic! Maybe we should all be better with people who are casually interested. Maybe?

I have to agree with this. When newcomers, college kids, whoever, ask me what book to start with or what the one book is to buy, I always suggest Crossfire by Jim Marrs. When someone has a casual interest in a topic enough to read a book on it, they don't want you to give them something that has 300 pages of document numbers and cryptonyms that read like a foreign language. As much as the hobbyists love that, the first-timer wants the story, the characters, the mystery, and the case. This is where Marrs excels. I've heard people suggest Meagher as a first choice and I think this is a mistake. For a first-timer, I also think "One witness said THIS to Warren," but in an interview with such-and-such researcher, they said they really said THIS. Again, incredibly valuable if you have 30 books or 100 books, but for the one and only book they may ever read on the case... no. And because so many researchers have now gone down their own rabbit holes to solve the case, 95% of the books are too focused on one thread of the case to be a great first-timer overview. Sure, Marrs was written before the ARRB but the case was resolved before 1970. It wasn't Oswald. Period. Marrs does the best job at writing a large survey that I believe shows this pretty clearly and in a way that reads like a good true crime book. Not to be under-stated, the way Marrs parses his sections into short subsections is also incredibly valuable to a first-timer or someone who is buying one book. It makes the story much easier to follow. Even the way he clearly explains the chapter topic in the table of contents. Too many researchers/writers want to get too clever in their tables of contents and they want to use partial quotes or something that tell the reader nothing about what's in the chapters. (Pet peeve.) Marrs (and my favorite mainstream history writer, AJ Langguth) organize their TOC clearly, which is a godsend for someone who wants to find a chapter quickly. If someone were going to read one book on the case due to a casual interest, or if someone were starting, Marrs is the way to go, and I don't even think it's close.

Agreed, Anthony. If we're just talking about the books, he had some great work.

I like much of Hopsicker's work. But he went on Opperman and said he thought Q was Dr. Jerome Corsi. He'd do weird things like that every now and then. He also picked a fight with Whitney Webb once, accusing her of all kinds of bizarre stuff - and then had to walk it all back when she responded publicly. Again, I like much of what he wrote in book form. But he seemed like a bit of an A.J. Weberman type in some ways. Sorry to hear that he passed.

Wait, this has RFK wondering if there is any way to "sink the Maine again"? I just looked it up at the JFK Library site. He did say it. Those do seem to be his words in the transcript. And if so, then he's suggesting a false flag be done - as Northwoods did (and to which the apologists always say the Kennedys opposed vehemently). I'm wondering what the apologetic spin will be on this. I do think "rabid" as a word is so subjective that Morley can't prove that it wasn't and Litwin can't prove that it was. It's hard to prove adjectives that completely depend on the user's view and extent of the word. One man's "rabid" is another man's "interested in," "curious about," "obsessed with," or "hell-bent on." But adjectives don't have hard and fast parameters. You're then back to Clinton's "what the word 'is' is" nonsense about semantics. So, I think the argument over one adjective as a descriptor is fruitless. The argument here - and, oh, there will be one to follow - is what RFK meant and what that says about RFK and Cuba and how both sides of the debate are sure to spin this. But this was said by RFK and he and JFK are different people. One's words shouldn't automatically represent the other directly, even if it did often. Looking forward to seeing how this progresses in the thread and whether the Kennedy apologetics crowd and the RFK-as-war-monger crowd can find some reasonable explanation together. I have my guess that, 200 posts later, both sides minds will remained unchanged. Yet, it's an interesting transcript.

Were the docs Jeff Morley was asking for out or were they withheld further?