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?

Further why I believe the only end goal reasonable is to normalize the teaching of conspiracy as an option in schools. Otherwise, we are just writing books and articles to impress one another, which is a problem in every information-based hobby at some point. I guess it's a natural progression of having a hierarchy in information communities. That hierarchy ends up writing and presenting to impress one another more than they write and present to inform anyone from age 16-30, mainly to maintain their standing amongst the others in the hierarchy of said community. Once the hierarchy dies off, we end up in the same place where "foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor" is at today. It's interesting to some but its a small "some," and it's an old, irrelevant issue to most.

It's amazing to me that that means that 30% don't?!?! No matter what side of the debate you are on, what argument could one have for "No, I don't think the records should be released." ?!?! And 30% believe that? I don't get it.

I would note that if someone is paying an annual fee, then administrators would need a process for which you could kick them out. It couldn't just be one person deciding the member is "too much," or even multiple complaints. If so, they would need a prorated refund for the time in the year that they don't get, etc. If someone also left the forum voluntarily, there may need to be prorated refunds. There is a lot to subscriptions that maybe we haven't thought about yet. Just trying to think ahead.

The film is still unreleased. Joe has a finished copy, but it isn't in the public, to my knowledge.

And this is the conundrum of History Inc. as a field. You have two distinct viewpoints (let's use CT and LN in this case). Both sides have no lack of "experts" that will back them up. There are the "experts" that the mainstream academic historical field have dubbed experts. This, of course, just means that the very closed academic hierarchy has let them into their close-knit club and they now demand you genuflect to them if you're going to do any "accepted" work. Then, there are the viewpoint-specific "experts," which is what we usually have here from both the CT side and the LN side. These are the self (or viewpoint)-appointed experts that keep getting brought up in arguments. But, in reality, none of them are getting a sniff from the real academics and Barnes & Noble corporate buyers. Thurston Clarke, Michael Beschloss, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, David McCullough, and Doug Brinkley aren't going to the wall to defend Fred Litwin or Jim DiEugenio or anyone else. So, then, within both sides of these communities, we keep doing these "Oh yeah! Well have you read [guy that agrees with me]?" statements like they mean anything. But what does it mean? The expert you like is more credible than the expert I like because he agrees with you? But mine agrees with me! It's a historical carousel, and when the ride ends, where are you? Even worse, within the communities, there is the establishment of a pecking order, also self-appointed. Do you think that you can talk to Michael Beschloss about the Kennedy assassination and use the names Peter Dale Scott or Vince Salandria and they'll mean anything more to him than Judyth Vary Baker or James Files? Do you think Fred Litwin or Alecia Long would matter as names to them, either? They're all "JFK obsessives" to the true mainstream History Inc. So, inside the CT community, there is an issue with the aging hierarchy destroying anyone who doesn't agree with them as "discredited," the most tired word in the field. Of course, anyone who agrees with them has done "credible work." This doesn't happen as much in the LN field, but it does happen. So, when I read this... Person A: This is a credible source who has done careful, valuable work on this topic. Person B: No, you haven't read Author X's dismantling of them. Person A: Well, Author X is just a (insert name-call here) who was discredited by Author Y. Person B: Well, Author Y has no credibility because (blah blah blah blah). What are we really doing? At some point, it isn't really about hard evidence anymore, because that's been exhausted, for the most part. When it turns to "My expert is better than your expert," I think we are done. Both sides throwing out names of authors when they disagree on vague or contradictory witness testimony does what exactly? Are we supposed to weigh the acceptability of the authors like on a two-wing scale? Has any LN-er ever said "Well, I didn't believe it before now, but since you brought up Dick Russell to support your stance, I totally believe it now"? Has any CT-er said "I didn't believe it before, but since you threw Fred Litwin in as a defender of what you said, I'm totally on board now"? What's going on here? The perspective is that to mainstream academia, they're all obsessives. Now, how much respect do I have for mainstream academia? Not much. I don't let them choose my academics for me. But I also don't let the JFK community (CT or LN) choose them, either, as that's also rife with self-preservation and self-promotion (of ideology). I like seeing transcripts and docs and testimony. But just saying, "Yeah, well, [this guy agrees with it, so there!]"... what does that even mean? Forget the fact that we keep, as a field, bashing the work of the MSM as CIA-fueled and historically problematic and then saying "Look, ma! They mentioned us! They mentioned us!" with child-like excitement whenever they do rarely give you a blurb on page D-16. Nonsensical, as well. Sometimes, I'll read and read and think, "What is going on here?"

I feel okay posting this here, as there are inevitable references to the JFK assassination and shared characters throughout the issue, linking the events in a way that Carl Oglesby did many years ago. This is the link for the issue: https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews This is the description: 172 Pages. Issue 010 of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics is a 50th anniversary retrospective of Watergate. In this issue, author Jim Hougan looks at Lou Russell and his involvement as "the sixth man;" James DiEugenio addresses the oddly silent death of James McCord and gives a belated, proper retrospective of his work with the CIA; Ray Locker looks back at the activities of Donald Segretti, focusing on their real impact on Watergate; Robert Gettlin describes obtaining the Welander Confession from John Ehrlichman; Geoff Shepard discusses the legal malfeasance of Cox, Sirica, and Jaworski; David Denton writes about the recent documents that describe E. Howard Hunt's deteriorating relationship with the CIA; Phil Stanford describes the White House Call Girl Ring and what its relative impact on the second Watergate break-in was; Edgar F. Tatro takes an important, critical look at the totality of Leon Jaworski's career; James Rosen eulogizes Len Colodny; and Mal Hyman addresses the CIA's impact on the media in the post-Watergate era. Thanks!

All good questions and comments, Joe. We can't specify their concern as they never stated that, but I believe the motivations of the Deans and Magruder to be in that desk. Was there evidence Mo was once part of it because Heidi, one of her best friends, was the central figure? No evidence, but is it highly unlikely? Guilt by association is far from proof, but it's some level of problematic for Mo. Was it that she wanted to extract the information about one of her best friends? I don't know. I never thought John was a... well... "john." I'm not sure I've ever seven seen speculation about that. My point was that she is tied to Rikan, so I don't believe her advocating to John to steer the cover-up admission away from the break-in and into the cover-up was completely a moral decision. That's what I was saying. I also never said she wasn't intelligent, nice, a good wife, or whatever else. I'm making no judgments on sex workers or friends of sex workers regarding intelligence, education, or occupational skills. While the ring was DNC-centric, I'm sure there were Republicans partaking, as well. That could have all been part of the motivation. Call girls and lobbyists are the only nonpartisans who still exist in the world, I think. (Yes, that's a joke.) As I said, I'm sure the motivations of all involved are multi-teared and multi-faceted. I still have my suspicions about McCord's failure. No, he was not bumbling. I tend to side with those who believe he sabotaged it purposely, again, for his own motivations or for those of Helms. Shoffler and Russell are suspicious in this branch of the Watergate tree. I also don't believe McCord and Hunt were on the same page. Jefferson Morley (on an episode of my show that will release soon) said he doesn't believe McCord sabotaged it at all. He believes he just failed. I disagree, but I just started Jeff's book, so we'll see. I'm open to it, as I'm open to anything. I'm not sure anyone was ever exposed as part of the call-girl ring except for the sources I mentioned. No one. Yet, Stanford has some good evidence, including pictures of Heidi's black books (names, numbers, etc). But when they didn't get into the desk, that was it for exposing anything publicly. Obviously, motivations are hard things to quantify unless there are statements. But we do have educated guesses as places to start, for now.

I don't know Maureen Dean. But I do know that one of her closest confidants was Heidi Rikan, who was at the center of the DNC call girl ring. Mo uses Heidi's name in her own memoir, and Phil Stanford nails down the documentation of Heidi as the central Call Girl in his book "White House Call Girl." If information on the ring was what was inside Ida Maxey Welles' desk (and Eugenio Martinez did have the key to the Welles desk), then there were a LOT of reasons, personal ones, for John (and Mo!) to get inside that specific desk. There has always been pretty good speculation that Mo was involved in the ring (pre-John). Green Bay Packer Paul Hornug's ex-wife was involved, as well. I cannot recommend Phil Stanford's book enough on this topic. But I figured the series would be some sort of heroic portrayal of the Deans. That's the mainstream myth that we keep returning to. Now, that said, and once again, I'm not at all saying the Call Girl Ring was everyone's motivation for the break-in. I still believe there were several competing motivations - making it impossible to answer the "why" question because the why question depends on which character you're talking about. But the reasons the Deans and Magruder (tied to call girl "Candy Barr" of the same ring)had were not the reasons McCord had or the reasons Hunt had or the motivations for Liddy. The Cubans were fed other reasons to pique their motivations. Asking why they went in the second time is too simplistic without defining who "they" is in the question. therefore, please don'e interpret this as me saying it was all about the Call Girl Ring. For the Deans and Magruder, I think that was the chief motivation, whereas, for the others, I do not.

To be clear, it's not that I don't think the CIA-Military establishment had a vital, maybe leading role. They are at the top of my JFK pyramid of fault. Neither of my posts were about the "Who." My contention is that it's been an awful (long) trend by some to try to destroy the reputations of those who think otherwise solely to protect the work, ego, and, for some, careers of those who believe in CIA Primacy. And it's done as I described above (through essays or speeches tagging them with "disinformationist" or the dreaded "discredited" when they aren't discredited - they just don't agree with the writer of the essay). The thing about a group project is that you try to take the best ideas and work of everyone in the group and then the process combines it all. In a group project, you don't try to destroy everyone else in the group just so the teacher or supervisor sees that you're the vital entity, the all-star. I've said it until it's tired, the "bad guys" here are the textbook conglomerates and the mainstream media, not the people with whom you disagree inside the tent. [By the way, my comments on this thread were not aimed at the EduForum. They were commentaries on the community at-large.]

Agree that Vince is a good guy, a good writer, and I believe his motivations are good ones. Just to be clear, I'm 100% in the conspiracy camp on the case. It's just that I don't have a flag to plant. If someone updated Michael Benson's "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination," I'm not sure you could fit all the names and events discussed in one 1,000-page volume. The more docs, the more complex the case becomes with all the tentacles. And sure, insert argument about how "they" want to keep it complex because that keeps everyone away from answers... insert that here. But, the point is, I'm interested in people, the way they think, what they've found, and what they have in mind. At conference, when someone comes up to me and says, "Hey, Ive been thinking about something...", my tendency is not to do what has actually happened to me with someone in this group: to look around the room for someone more "important" to talk to. I may not always agree, I may agree very little, or I may disagree completely. But one thing I'm against is berating them as discredited disinformationists while lauding everyone who agrees with me as a valuable, trusted researcher. Some of these same people claim some form of empathy with leftist/socialist/liberal ideology, yet when information and theory are the commodities, they are monopolistic capitalists. They want to control the value of the information, they want to control the suppliers, and they want to control what items are allowed to hit the shelves of the stores, so to speak. You could even say they are monarchical. Why should they control it? Because they've been in the family the longest. They knew the founding kings and queens. They'll never see the result of it all, and that's okay with them. The result is that the JFK assassination field dies with them. It's the church whose attendance has dwindled from 300 to 25 because the elders refuse youthful change because it's not the way that it used to work and it's not how they've always done it. It's the formerly great basketball team you suddenly realize looks old. Yet, they do it their way and that's what they prefer, and that's the way it will be throughout the remainder of their lives. My problem with it is that it's also a guarantee the field is over when they're over. And, as much as the Lincoln assassination is one of my favorite topics, JFK will be Lincoln or Pearl Harbor one day. And that'll be a sad thing to see because it's one of the five most vital stories of our nation's history and it deserves our better angels.