Jump to content
The Education Forum

S.T. Patrick

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by S.T. Patrick

  1. Robert Gettlin, the co-author of Silent Coup: The Removal of a President, joins S.T. Patrick to discuss the memory of friend Len Colodny, Watergate, and the writing of Silent Coup. There has long been a question about whether Gettlin disavowed Silent Coup when his name did not appear as an author on the book’s 25th anniversary paperback edition (Trine Day). That is answered in this episode. Gettlin also addresses the John Dean lawsuit, the origin of the friendship and co-authorship with Len Colodny, the books that should be Watergate canon, the importance of J. Anthony Lukas, the dangers to a presidency of the military-industrial complex, whether Watergate was a “golden age of journalism,” how Silent Coup was marketed, and much more. https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-158-robert-gettlin-on-watergate-silent-coup-and-len-colodny/
  2. It is, yes. I think it's a fascinating LP. There are parts of it that make you stop and think "wow" i.e. where they say the secret service were concerned about the open windows along the route. Even the conspiratorial-minded can listen to this and say "Wait, what?!?!" because they say some interesting things that go against what ends up being the mainstream version of events. Interesting all around.
  3. Wanted to let everyone know that on the most recent edition of the Midnight Writer News Show, we played the full LP of the "Four Days That Shocked the World (Nov. 22-25, 1963)." The album has a copyright year of 1963, which, considering the date, means they put this together in under a month. Reid Collins of WNEW Radio News narrates the events of those four days with news footage spliced in. If you have a conspiratorial view regarding the JFK assassination, you’ll find this fascinating. You’ll pick up small things throughout that are hair-raising. There are some "Did he just say that?!?!" moments, to be sure. If you just love history and are not conspiratorial, this is a deeply moving piece of work with great news footage of those four days. Run time is approx 45 mins. https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-157-jfk-oswald-four-days-that-shocked-the-world/
  4. Thanks for posting this, Paul. Joe McCarthy voted for it, huh? Wow. Interesting.
  5. I agree, but I'll see if I can find the vote somewhere so we can know.
  6. I think you'll like them. I also want to put in a big plug for board member Richard Booth's article on OKC's John Doe #2. It's great work.
  7. 232 pages. In the sixth issue of "garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics," we counted on our friends across the Atlantic to take us into the deep politics of the UK. We look at 17 of the most popular Jack the Ripper suspects (Richard Jones, Richard C. Cobb, Michael Hawley), as well as the theory that there is no one "Jack" at all (Simon Wood). JFK assassination historian Malcolm Blunt looks at LBJ and George H.W. Bush, Jonathan Cook looks at the dubious fall of Jeremy Corbyn, Robin Ramsay takes us inside Lobster magazine and looks at Carroll Quigley, Bill Beadle questions the hanging of Mahmood Mattan, and we have Allan Johnson on Richard III, Corinne Souza on Spook PR, Tom Easton on the Social Democrats, and Scott Reid on William McEwan Duff. Returning with U.S. coverage is Richard Booth (OKC Bombing/John Doe #2), Walt Brown (Oswald), Ed Curtin (Trump/Biden), James DiEugenio (Salandria Tribute), Don Jeffries (Trumpenstein), Caitlin Johnstone, Mark Crispin Miller (Masking), Phil Nelson (Harold Holt), Kevin Ryan (Gitmo), the late Vincent Salandria (Ruth & Michael Paine), and Ed Tatro (LBJ). https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews
  8. As someone who likes Caitlin very much personally and professionally, having corresponded with her some for garrison, my guess is that she hasn't said much about JFK, RFK, King, or X because she would - admittedly - tell you that she doesn't feel equipped to do so. She is very "right now" in her analysis. I think she's even a bit uncomfortable with topics as "old" (huge quotation marks) as 9/11 or Iran-Contra. What she does is what she does well. She takes something that happened today and she analyzes it right now from her perspective in the moment. I'm not even sure that she's a fan, per se, of history. I'm not saying she isn't, but she rarely discusses history beyond ten years or so. When I believe she's wrong, and I sometimes do, she still causes me to think about what she says. I think that's a good thing. But , as I said, I like her and she's always been kind to me and to garrison, so yes, I'm biased.
  9. Maybe we are too modernist when we think of "worst ever," which shows America's lack of historical knowledge (NOT this board). "Worst" usually belongs to James Buchanan and Warren Harding. That seems to be the consensus with historians across the political spectrum. I've been a longtime follower of presidential performance surveys, their methodologies, and their results. It's a fascinating little corner of the historical field. You can also see the rise and fall of certain figures also. U.S. Grant long held a position directly above Buchanan and Harding. He is "on the rise." Nixon has risen, as well. Eisenhower is still rising slightly, which is baffling to me since he is rising within the top ten. When looking at them, do remember that we are talking only about time in the White House. These aren't "people performance surveys." They are "presidential." So, no, Carter doesn't get points for a post-presidency ad Taft doesn't get points for getting nominated to the Supreme Court. But still, there are ebbs and flows. Like Jim, I also don't think Trump is the worst in history, not more so than Buchanan and Harding. Do I think Trump ends up in last place in the next major survey done (probably another C-SPAN survey)? Yes. I think the world is hyper-emotional now and can't get a grip on itself. Everyone wants to make a point and everything is about "how I feel right now." That's okay, but it lacks historical perspective. But I think in 20-30 years, Trump will have risen from the cellar and will float up slightly to what is called the "below average" range (below "average" and above "failure"). It's almost a mistake, I believe, for a president to be eligible for these polls for 10-20 years until history has played out. I wouldn't even include Obama yet. Again, this is what historians have said since Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. did the first poll in 1948, I believe it was. There is a good book about Buchanan called "Worst. President. Ever." which is largely about his perpetual position at the bottom of these surveys. My overall point is that when we only talk about the past 40 years as "failures" and we aren't even talking about the antebellum run of presidents, I'm not sure the starting line is even a good one.
  10. I'd also like to put in a plug for an interview I did with Doug a while back, "Douglas Caddy: Eyewitness to Watergate." As the title says, we focused mainly on Watergate, but I still listen to this one and find it fascinating. Thanks, Doug. https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-084-douglas-caddy-eyewitness-to-watergate/
  11. I think Don Jeffries had some very compelling takes on Chappaquiddick. It's worth a listen. https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-083-donald-jeffries-on-ted-kennedy-and-chappaquiddick/
  12. I couldn't agree more, Denny, and I say it often to those who will listen. As a former high school teacher, I can tell you that the interest in the JFK assassination is little-to-none beyond "So, who do you think did it? was it the mob or the CIA or what?" That was the typical question I fielded, and that was the extent of my students' interest. Mind you, I also had high-level Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate students in History, too. If any of the HS kids would have been interested, they would have. All that said, they had immense interest in "the 9/11 conspiracies," as I'll call them here (though the phrase bothers me a bit). The time periods of interest have shifted as the generations have come and gone. Sure, there are exceptions, but I think this is now the rule: For adults under 40 (and kids), 9/11 is *the* story and JFK is now what Pearl Harbor was to the kids going to high school in the 1980s. It's mildly interesting, but it's "an old people's story." They can get into the Charles Manson story because it's weird enough, and they can get into Sandy Hook and Columbine because they understand schools and such. But JFK, no, and RFK, even less. Chappaquiddick might as well be a word they can't spell in German class to them. i explain all of this to say that I think we could have done a better job with "the next generation," the new frontier of researchers and speakers and authors, but we didn't. We didn't suggest books because we spent too much time ripping them to shreds. The most elitist thing I hear about books is the simple line "There's nothing new in there." Really? There isn't? New to whom? Most everyone picking up a history book in the store has not read the breadth of the literature on the topic they are skimming from the shelves. To them, even when "there is nothing new here," 99.9% of the book is new to them. I understand the phrase. You're saying you are so well-versed in the field that there isn't anything in there that isn't known already. Okay, but again, most people picking the book up haven't heard any of it. To them, it may be the only book they read on that topic. As long as it's well-written, accessible, has a storyline that can be followed, and builds some drama, they'll follow it as "new." And when we did suggest books to kids, we suggested Sylvia Meagher. I mean, really? A dissection of the Warren Commission for an 18 year old in 2020? I understand the importance of that book, but it doesn't work for this generation as a starting line. The only book I'd suggest to an 18-year-old who knows nothing of the case is Crossfire by Marrs, and that's because it's a sort of textbook, a general survey with very short sections, clearly defined sub-sections that are only two or three pages, a few good illustrations, and a plainly written, accessible text that they can follow from square one. That's a book that they can pick up and read part of chapter 10 and then part of chapter 3 and then a few pages on chapter 8, and still not be lost, depending on what they want to read about. For many years, I've wanted to help wrote/publish a literal textbook that's an alternative to the McGraw Hills of the world, one written for average-to-smart high school kids and college students. Id want it to be hardcover like a textbook, have the textbook-ish thin paper, printed in color, organized like a textbook, full of graphic organizers, and something that can walk a non-partisan line through the last 120 years. We could really go into JFK/RFK/MLK/X/Hampton, Watergate, Pearl Harbor, October Surprise, 9/11, etc. Of course, we will have assignment and review materials that coincide with the text, as all textbooks have. That's always been a dream project. We needed to give back and pass this down, and we've done a poor job doing so as a community (and that goes for all of the alt communities). Ive gathered a team (so far) of about 50-75 history teachers (pre-COVID) who I send the PDF of garrison to in exchange for them using it in class at least once and then sending me the materials they created for it or just explaining to me what they did with it. That's the start of trying to get into schools. But the project continues. We have to get into schools. Maybe I'm in the minority I'm sure I am), but we have to stop caring whether mock juries hearing a mock case argued by mock prosecutors and mock defense attorneys on a mock day in a mock state give us a thumbs up or down. We aren't moving one iota toward public acceptance through mock trials that no one will ever cover and no one will ever see. You know there are too many attorneys and government workers in your field when they keep suggesting mock trials. If you want to gain public acceptance, we have to start in schools. Ideas are ingrained at young ages. Some then change (many here have changed over the years, but we are researchers). Most don't. So, let's grab their attention when they're young and let's make truth matter then. Just my two cents
  13. Thanks for the response, Paul. I'm not sure if it's too intellectually demanding. I just think it's a huge case with many shady characters hiding halfway into the shadows. It's not a difficult case because people aren't smart enough to grasp it. It's a difficult case because it's a difficult case. As I said, I also think there is this desire for every fact we find to fit neatly into our own predetermined narrative, like the perfect piece of a puzzle. Quite often, they just don't fit. That doesn't mean the big picture changes. It means that this is a difficult case with a large cast, a lot of activity, covert histories, lies, changing testimony, 1963 photography and the limits thereof, a government who has been largely unwilling to cooperate, a Kennedy family who itself has talked very little and has helped the case very little, Kennedy officials who have commented here and there but usually in vague ways, an MSM that refuses to come off its LBJ-era position no mater what has been found since, and mafiosos from every urban center in the south that have been trying to write themselves into the story since 1963 (some for factual reasons, some as braggadocio). Jackie Kennedy and Marina Oswald helped the case little to none after 1963, John Jr may have been preparing to help the case but the reality is that he wasn't there at the time he passed, Caroline has been mute, and many of the nieces, nephews, and extended family have done nothing to help (Yes, RFK Jr is excluded from this arrow). Throw in the Oswald kids who have been zero help. Imagine this: Dr. Samuel Mudd's family is still trying to proclaim his innocence since 1865! The people who should have been leading the pro-conspiracy researchers (the Kennedy and Oswald families) have been largely silent. You want to say they're scared? The MLK family has been quite outspoken on James Earl Ray's innocence. It matters that much to them. Sirhan's brother has been outspoken for him. The point is that this case is hard in part because the people who should have been leading it publicly have either been silent in the corner, or they have been too busy planning their own political careers so they could do nothing about this case in those, as well. That has left this case to Americans (and others, globally) who just care about truth because historical truth matters and because seeing our government the way it really is matters. The point of my comment on debates is that we can also be so focused that we discard /ignore the facts or testimony or documents of this case that don't agree with what we are trying to say. And we shouldn't. Neither the LNers or the CTers should. It's okay, historically, to say "Yes, I have a problem explaining away those two witnesses or that set of documents or that piece of evidence. Yet, I still believe the preponderance of evidence points to my overall view." Writing off every problematic (to your own thesis) witness as a "discredited witness" is hack research. Who discredited them? People who agree with you and need them discredited? Because their story changed? But you were willing to accept the witness whose story changed to fall in line further with what you believe - so how does that work, this discrediting? You're 100% correct about the MSM, Paul. They're supposed to be better investigators than what they have been on this case. Worse, they've been propagandists. I also fault the historical establishment and the mass of social studies educators who just teach the textbook (and I can say that as a former social studies educator who wrote ALL of his own notes, assignments, and tests for the class). I cannot fault the average American for not having read Sylvia Meagher or a bunch of ARRB documents. When a two-parent family still has to work full-time to supports three kids, what are they supposed to do? The 9/11 community scolds them for not "caring enough" because they haven't read all the 9/11 books. The political parties scold them for not being involved enough. That goes on and on. But yes, I think the MSM is at the top of the list of blame since 1963, but it's a long list. Good points, all, Paul.
  14. I will add that Randy Benson's answer in the article (regarding why he has no LN theorists in The Searchers) is my answer when I'm asked why I don't have them on my show: "You've got the entirety of the mainstream media who will have you on and will promote you and/or your views ad nauseum. I'll pass and let you seek them." And yes, Quillette's JFK assassination articles all seem to be LN-ish. Colgan scold-questions Randy about not being open to LNers, but he has no problem with Quillette not being more open to both sides? Or the NY Times.... or NBC... or The Nation.... or Random House.... or....? Sort of off-topic, but in the spirit of what I see as a crucial debate problem: I've said this before, so this isn't new, but I do think both sides of the debate have a hard time dealing with problematic evidence and witnesses. The tendency to either ignore them or just wash them away with the "discredited" label isn't dealing with them. When a witness tells two very different stories, we accept the one we like (confirmation bias). If we like the one they told first and we don't like the one they told second, then "someone must have gotten to them and scared them into changing their story." If we like the second one and dislike the first one, then "they're a brave witness who is risking it all to come out and tell the truth." The lone nutters do this as well. This is why every public debate on the case I've ever seen or heard is a bad one. One side brings up a witness, the other side says that witness has long been discredited, and then they give an example of a witness that confirms their bias. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. Got it. The entire debate is really just an exercise in telling the other that their witnesses have been discredited. Most on neither side can say "Yes, there is that piece of information that I can't just explain away... and it looks very bad for my side... but 95% of the rest of the evidence looks exactly like what I believe. People are complex, long histories are complex, a shady person's shady biography is complex, and I have to conceded at least that piece of evidence to you. I can't explain it away. But here's why I don't think that one piece of evidence is indicative of either a pattern in this case or of a conclusion. Because, if you look, these ten other events (or witnesses or documents) do contradict that one being the prevailing pattern of behavior." Seems like that would be more honest.
  15. A quick search didn't find this posted here before, but if it has been, I apologize. This was at the bottom of Posner's review of Litwin. It's from 2017, so not new. I have a lot of issues with this one, mainly with the premise that the public popularity (acceptance?) of a theory makes it more right or more wrong. https://quillette.com/2017/11/25/jfk-conspiracies-slowly-dying/
  16. Those who would like to hear Doug explain it for three hours and 26 minutes, it's here: https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-107-douglas-horne-on-the-zapruder-film-alteration-debate/ You have to scroll down past the pictures, but take a look at them first.
  17. I wonder what Leo Ryan thought... do we have any quotes or papers stating his view? You know, this would be a good book for someone to do... a Quotes for Conspiracy or something... some kind of large-scale gathering of quotes about the case from other politicians, celebs, etc.
  18. Didn't Sorenson and Salinger also highly suggest conspiracy? They're certainly not tin foil hat types.
  19. Mal Hyman was published under Trine Day, and that's a fine work. The Franklin Scandal by Nick Bryant is valuable. Whitney Webb's newest book, her only book, is Trine Day. Bullyocracy by Donald Jeffries is the best work Ive seen of its kind. Of course Palamara's work is worthy - the books on the Secret Service in my view. Doug Caddy's book is one I enjoyed thoroughly. Daniel Estulin is a good read, even if you aren't with him on everything. Whatever you think of Phil Nelson (I know opinions here differ), his book on the USS Liberty attack is solid. New World Order by Sean Stone is good. Hubert Clark and William Matson Law both did some good stuff for TD. Len Colodny has done two Watergate books, both now with Trine Day... I think both are Watergate canon. Fernando Faura's RFK book is with Trine Day. The McVeigh book is fascinating in a "make you think" way. The Great Heroin Coup by Kruger is really good. John Potash's book about the CIA, Drugs, and pop culture is amazing. I think both of St. John Hunt's works have some good info in them about his family, even if I dont buy some of his conclusions personally. The Peter Levenda trilogy is great, in my opinion, but it's a lot of occult stuff. But if you like that, great, great works. The Skull & Bones works are good. I have a lot of Trine Day stuff, and I'd like to get some more. Publishing is hard... believe me. The good, by far, outweighs the questionable. I would say the same about Skyhorse. If I like 3/4 of what Trine Day does, I'd say I like maybe 50-60% of what Skyhorse does. But again, publishing is hard and I think both companies do the best they can do. I really do believe that.
  20. It was never on the roster, Steve (and "everyone here"). Rob offered me the show and I passed. As I said, I'm not really trying to give the mainstream more coverage. Rob is a great host. He hosts or co-hosts two of the best podcasts around. He's kind enough to do a quarterly guest host spot on MWN. He offered me the Litwin episode, I passed, and he gave MWN another one instead. I explained the reasons above. I assure you that it was never on the roster at all. Rob can attest to this. I like to give time to the alternatives. I respect everyone's right to a belief, whether I agree or not, but I am pretty adamant about airing the alternative to the mainstream on the show. Thank you.
  21. Thank you for acknowledging that, Steve. I have never pulled an interview from the website. Once it's posted, it's there. I had one guest who shall remain nameless who was incredibly rude to me off-air. I still have their episode posted. I don't have a personal vendetta against the "Oswald-Acted-Alone" people, though I believe they are wrong. I just usually don't have them on the show because it seems like they have the entire mainstream media as their outlet already. I can't see conceding the independent/alternative media to them also. I also haven't had anyone on who believes John Dean is the hero of Watergate, that 9/11 was totally and completely executed by OBL from a cave, and that FDR was taken completely by surprise at Pearl Harbor. Again, I respect a person's right to belief. But they have the mainstream media and the big publishing houses willing to promote those beliefs excitedly. We have a very small corner of the world in the alt/indy media. I like to keep the alternative to the mainstream as the alternative to the mainstream. As I analogized earlier in the thread, no reason to feature someone who thinks the Beatles are the greatest band of all time. That's the mainstream. I'd be more interested in featuring someone who thinks they aren't and it isn't even close. Thanks, Steve.
  • Create New...