Steve Roe

18 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Vietnam is not my area of expertise, at all, but I’m having trouble understanding how Selverstone’s thesis is functionally any different from unconditional withdrawal. 

Granted I have not read the book, but I will watch the videos you provided and try to get up to speed later. Until then, these are the key points I’m reading from Michael: 

1. JFK was withdrawing American troops from Vietnam and transferring the war effort to the South Vietnamese. 

2. JFK was committed to not send combat troops to Vietnam under any circumstances. “…with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch.” 

3. The withdrawal plan was scheduled to be completed by the end of 1965, but 1500 troops would remain for supply purposes.

4. Training would end, but military aid to South Vietnam in the form of equipment, money, etc. would continue indefinitely. 

5. JFK “had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.” 

6. The withdrawal of military advisors/training personnel was contingent on the situation on the ground. 

In other words, the most aggressive possible scenario for American involvement in Vietnam under JFK’s policy was basically the scenario at the time of his death?

This is supposed to debunk the theory that JFK was killed because he was winding down American involvement in Vietnam and refused to wage the full scale American war sought by hawks in the Military Industrial Complex to make billions and billions of dollars “fighting Communism”. Do you see the problem here? 

For the benefit of those who don’t really see the point of pursuing Selverstone’s theory - which as described in this thread so far is functionally identical to Oliver Stone’s theory - it might be worth it for you or Michael to provide a better summary of Selverstone’s overall thesis. Telling busy people to read a book or watch a video that according to the summary adds nothing to the overall debate is not really an effective education strategy, IMO.

I will watch the videos when I get a chance, legitimately - but based on the comments in this thread I’m not the only one thinking this. 

Tom,

Kennedy's policy towards Vietnam is a very complex issue. To understand it does require reading and studying if you really want to grasp what Kennedy was faced with. Selverstone's book outlines the emerging policy changes in the Kennedy administration. I'm now reading the book, about 1/3 of the way through. What I can say so far is that Selverstone carefully outlines this meticulously. 

Your 6 points of Michael's comments look correct. Although he has read the book in full, I'm sure I would agree with him on his points once I have finished reading. 

There was a plan by McNamara in place. It was a plan contingent on current circumstances that could be changed or adjusted in the volatile situation in South Vietnam under Diem. 

Was Kennedy going to cut and run out of Vietnam? Absolutely not, he remained committed to supporting the stop of communist aggression in that country. 

Here's what Oliver Stone apologists will not show you. Kennedy approved the overthrow of Diem, a coup. It went badly of course, resulting in Diem's and Nhu's death. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A503eoKwLhY&t=191s

On 1/16/2023 at 7:41 AM, Michael Griffith said:

A lot of reaching and grasping and strident attacks here, and you haven't even read the book yet. "No responsible scholar" would so stridently attack a book that he hasn't even read yet. And for you to talk about responsible scholars and then cite a quack and fraud like Fletcher Prouty is sadly ironic.

Obviously, the subtitle of the thread was mine. I thought everybody would understand that, especially since I give the full title of the book in the very first sentence of the OP. 

So just because Selverstone worked at The Miller Center, you assume the worst about his politics (the worst in your eyes, that is). This says more about your politics than about his.

Michael, I have not read the Selverstone book. However, I did watch a couple of videos of him today explaining his research and findings in the book. 

Here's one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVZKe68bwTk

The key to his research is the actual Kennedy tapes. I believe Selverstone has merit in this case of Kennedy's handling of Vietnam. This is solid scholarship and not the Oliver Stone's bogus pop culture "JFK was killed because he was pulling out of Vietnam". 

Agreed on the phony Fletcher Prouty that was exposed in the ARRB findings. Don't get me started on the silly "Destiny Betrayed" film. 

There are other history scholars out there that make similar conclusions on Kennedy's management of Vietnam in the same vein. I think Mr. Selverstone puts it all into a clearer light based on solid grounding. 

Reading through some of the sophomoric comments directed at you regarding Selverstone, is just sad and unwarranted. Of course, this pulls the rug right out of Stone's nutty fantasy JFK films, and understandably there will be blowback from DiEugenio and his followers. 

FWIW, I agree with you and will buy the book, providing there is a Kindle version. Thank you for bringing this important body of work to our attention. 

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

 

I recall seeing what I thought was a  credible source - like a CIA memo or something - stating that Nagell had a list of names of CIA personnel in his trunk when he was arrested. Is this true? I did a quick browse through those links and didn’t see anything about it. 

EDIT: Double quoted by accident. 

Yes, Nagell had a list of CIA men upon his arrest for the El Paso Bank robbery. It came to the CIA's attention in 1964. The CIA denied Nagell ever worked for the CIA, they were concerned about cover on these operatives if it became public knowledge. Nagell was in Army Intel in Japan, after his plane crash which he suffered brain damage. Nagell was dismissed from that position. See Dave Reitzes Nagell link under Jonathan Cohen's post. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=103975#relPageId=83&search=Nagell

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m not sure I’m really following you here, but I’m not even really sure what the allegation is so bear with me. 

The Aussie girls said that Oswald showed them the passport he travelled with in Russia.

Oswald had that passport returned to him when he applied for a new one in New Orleans. 

So the deduction is that Oswald brought his cancelled passport with him to Mexico City?

That kind of makes sense if he’d want to show the Russians he used to live in the Soviet Union or something, but is there any evidence Oswald was really carrying two passports other than the claims of the Aussie girls? 

Tom you are absolutely correct and good analysis. The other evidence is Silvia Duran. I'm running out of time today, but here's a document stating Oswald showed her his passport about his time in Russia, among other documents proving he was in Russia.

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59595#relPageId=56&search=bus_manifest

On 1/8/2023 at 5:48 AM, David Josephs said:

The passport she talks about is the 1959 one not the one Harvey gets in June 1963 with no stamps whatsoever...  like she's been fed the info...

Reading through Mr. Josephs' denial statements that Oswald never went to Mexico City, here's one of his many huge blunders. 

Mr. Josephs implies that the Aussie girls, Mumford in particular, were fed false information regarding Oswald's passport. If you recall the Aussie girls said Oswald showed them his passport that he travelled in Russia. Mr. Josephs takes issue with that.

However, Oswald did show his 1959 passport, as well he had his 1963 new passport. Why/How? His original 1959 passport was cancelled and returned to him. This is nothing out of the ordinary. I have most of my cancelled passports over the years. 

Mr. Josephs has been debunked on this baseless claim trying to create another false mystery. 

Proof: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=197182#relPageId=14&search=Oswald_passport

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Steve,

Your remark, which is obviously directed at David Josephs, violates forum rules. Kindly remove it and report back here in a post stating you have done so. If you do not, I will report your post.

Although I don't agree this violates forum rules Sandy, I did delete the comment (in red).

Do you want further proof Oswald was in Mexico? 

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96924#relPageId=4&search="bus_ticket stub"

How about this Mexico City map found in Oswald's possessions? (5:00 minute mark)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJIpf6JWaw

Time to get back into reality, Oswald went to Mexico City. 

29 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

"My" Nagell claim?  Wow, when did I attain ownership..  

Why is it whenever the "contrary for contrary sake" crowd attacks something they automatically give ownership of general theories and ideas to a single person?

The tiny handful of posters who have self appointed themselves guardians of the truth as they imagine it will attack without having the first clue what they are doing...  Sun Tzu would be very displeased ....

The rest of us just see how sad a pathetic your little life must be that this is all you can offer, ad nauseum, without the sense to back away with even the smallest bit of grace.

A huge number of documents I've used over the years and a great many recently come from Malcolm.  You want to comment on the relationship of two other researchers who put your poor grasp of the events and evidence to shame?

Sad you don't know the first thing about civility and must resort to ad hominem to feel that rush of self-importance people like you thrive upon...  "LOOK AT ME" you might as well scream Roe while proudly showing off your emperor's new clothes... 

What a sad and pathetic little life you must lead that this is all you have to do with yourself...

Maybe if you weren't such an A$$ you wouldn't be such a joke here... 

As to the reality of Harvey and Lee...

AINT GONNA LEARN WHAT YOU DONT WANNA KNOW 

Well, shouldn't everyone here see the entire 4-page Nagell document or not? 

You said, "Maybe send this to (Dick) Russell to close the loop". No, send the entire document in full context to Dick Russell. It clearly states Nagell was mentally unstable. There's nothing conspiratorial about it. 

Harvey and Lee Reality? Are you kidding me? 

On 1/8/2023 at 6:39 AM, David Josephs said:

Thanks for the deep insight Lance...

One can only imagine how lost we would be without your input

Oh, Arizona... now I get it. 

Well congratulations David, your Nagell claim has been debunked. The document was found in the Malcolm Blunt archives. 

The Prayer-Blob theory is just a wishful fantasy. A researcher friend of mine asked Buell Frazier (who was just a few feet away from Prayer-Blob) and said he didn't see Oswald on the steps. No one else saw Oswald on the steps. 

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

could someone post a link to Oswald’s notebook pics? 
leaving aside the important question of whether Oswald was in MC, and if so what did he do there, can we assume that CIA knows the answers? If they are lying about Oswald in MC surely they know where else he might have been. A question for those that think he was doing exactly what CIA and FBI says he was - why was he impersonated? Do the posters here who argue in favor of Oswald visiting Cuban and Soviet Consulates agree that he was also impersonated? 

Paul, if you are referring to Oswald writing Silvia Duran's name in his notebook while he was in Mexico City follow this link. He also wrote down the address of Cubana Airlines in MXC. He was there, absolutely no doubt. 

 https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth346819/m1/45/?q=Oswald's book

13 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

1. No

2. Copies of Oswald's notebook provided by FBI...  one does wonder, cause, like, the evidence is always authenticated in this case, right?  Especially when the FBI is the source.  

3. Not a matter of belief Mr. Roe

You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know....

 

 

1. No

Ok, where was Oswald, or Harvey or Lee during the Mexico City episode?

2. Copies of Oswald's notebook provided by FBI...  one does wonder, cause, like, the evidence is always authenticated in this case, right?  Especially when the FBI is the source.  

One doesn't have to wonder David, surely you don't believe the FBI planted or wrote Ms. Duran's name in his notebook, do you?

3. Not a matter of belief Mr. Roe

Ok, not a belief, but an undeniable fact in your mind, right?

You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know....

Pretty big assumption you make there. I'm giving you a chance to explain the alternative, and so far, it just doesn't add up. 

David Josephs, bottom line. Was Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City? 

If not, how do you explain Silvia Duran's name in Oswald's notebook? 

Are you still believer in Harvey and Lee?

16 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Please, launch into the predictable "Oh, yeah, what about, what about, what about?" I am done with the brain-weight issue.

Lance, once again we catch DiEugenio spinning whoppers and trying to get his dwindling followers to go after you and DVP. Playing the silly forum parlor game of "ignore" on you, DVP, Tracy and myself, is embarrassing as everyone knows here, he reads these posts. I have no idea why he keeps insulting all the forum member's intelligence with these childish games of pretend. 

As I have stated many times on this forum, DiEugenio is engaged in the "Conspiracy Story Telling" business. I have serious doubts he actually believes a lot of what he promotes on this forum and his conspiracy theory site, K&K. 

Again, we see DiEugenio referring to the old debunked "Back of the Head" wound. The autopsy photos show otherwise, and the big leap of fanatical faith is to believe they were faked. Furthermore, DiEugenio goes into the Stringer issue and the extremely laughable "Invasion of the Brain Snatchers" theory substituting another brain for Kennedy's. 

Here's what DiEugenio will never show his dwindling supporters. Dr. Randy Robertson, a certified radiologist and longtime conspiracy believer, viewed the actual autopsy photos and x-rays with permission of the Kennedy family in 2015. You can read his article here: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/robertson.htm

To highlight his conclusions: 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. Autopsy photographers Stringer and Riebe, intentionally misled official governmental investigators about the true forensic nature of the images contained on the roll of exposed 120 film. Their motivation, as well as that for Kellerman’s early attempt to destroy these duplicative images, remains unknown.

#2. Parkland physician Dr. Robert McClelland and many others were mistaken in their memories as to the exact size and nature of the wound to the back of the President’s head, as it appears in Dr. McClelland’s diagrammatic depiction. Both the original autopsy photographs and radiographs show the actual extent of the wounds.  This does not impugn the veracity of any other observations that Dr. McClelland has made.

#3.  Again, the original photographs and radiographs provide a degree of fidelity unchallengeable by any eyewitness attempts to describe the wounds to the President’s head in any manner. There are no internal discrepancies between the original and newly available photographs taken at the same time during the autopsy, or between any of the individual photographs or radiographs. Two cameras were simultaneously recording the true condition of the President’s body at the start of the autopsy. 

I can attest with absolute conviction that all these materials are authentic and unchanged since they were taken the night of the autopsy.

Randolph Robertson M.D. November 2015

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was absolutely NO back of the head wound. The photos, x-rays were all legit and not doctored, faked or whatever. 

Naturally this is important information, but as usual, DiEugenio who is aware of this, will not address it. In fact, Dr. Randy Robertson was in the Stone/DiEugenio Destiny Betrayed cartoon film series. Do you think Stone/DiEugenio wanted to include this? Of course not, because it destroys a big majority of the silly claims, they make in the cartoon about Dr. Malcolm Perry, etc. 

This is the kind of chicanery that Stone/DiEugenio engaged in with the "Conspiracy Story Telling" money making fraud of Destiny Betrayed. 

On 1/2/2023 at 7:46 AM, Mart Hall said:

Lopez said it was not Oswald and he dealt with the applicant on each occasion. 

Lopez? Who are you referring to? Azcue, Duran?

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well what's your explanation for the brain weighing more than average after having a large chunk of it blown out?

 

Read Fred Litwin's article on the brain in Lance's post. That explains it in a logical and reasonable manner. 

But more importantly, as Lance as pointed out......what's the deal with Bethesda embedded cover up conspirators with a mundane brain weight? This gets to the heart and soul of just how far does this crazy conspiracy go? Do you really think there were secret cover-up artists at Bethesda? 

If you do believe that, then you have the biggest well-oiled conspiracy known to man. I don't think Cecil B. DeMille could imagine a "Cast of Thousands" like Stone/DiEugenio do. There must have been a Pre-Assassination meeting somewhere to get everyone in sync. Perhaps they held it at the Orange Bowl. 

31 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Some people like me and JFK just have really large brains?

Since I'm not really into this sort of stuff, I'll defer to Fred Litwin: "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain (onthetrailofdelusion.com).

Lance, DiEugenio is fixated on this goofy brain business. He repeats it ad nauseam. It's all part of his "Conspiracy Story Telling" side-hustle business to promote conspiracy theories. Sadly, there are folks on this forum who actually believe him. If you go to his K&K website, he has a lot of "Harvey & Lee" authors, including one of his latest on Paul Gregory, James Norwood. 

Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" book is pure crackpottery. No wonder Malcolm Blount split the sheets with Armstrong when he went off into this complete nonsensical fantasy. 
 

23 hours ago, Mart Hall said:

I’m only a five year newbie to all this but it’s very difficult to accept that there were at least 4 security services involved in this and yet none of them are able to provide incontrovertible evidence that LHO who was killed on 11-24-63 was in attendance at either embassy.

His Cuban Visa application. Mirabal (Cuban Consulate in MXC) testified to the HSCA that he saw the application and it was legit. It was Oswald, no doubt. 

8 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

I have never seen any credible evidence that Oswald

went to Mexico City. Even J. Edgar Hoover

doubted it, as he told LBJ on the morning of November 23, 1963.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/html/LBJ-Nov-1963_0030a.htm

Joe I'm surprised by your statement of not seeing credible evidence that Oswald went to Mexico City. I'm not sure where you were researching, but it's JFK 101 that everyone knows Silvia Duran's name is in Oswald's notebook. He was most certainly there in Mexico City, and there's other physical items of proof. 

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth346819/m1/45/?q="Oswald book"

It is true that outgoing Cuban Consulate Azcue said he believed it wasn't Oswald, however incoming Cuban Consulate Mirabal said it was Oswald, in HSCA testimony. 

1 hour ago, Matthew Koch said:

And if you and Litwin are taking this route you are enemies for free speech and gatekeepers for the beginning of authoritarianism which always begins with restricting speech. This is basically 2+2=5 and Winston Smith in 1984 realized that the ability to say 2+2=4 is the freedom to tell objective truth. This goes for the Kennedy Assassination you and Litwin and the other LN'ers are holding the bag for Big Brother and no matter how many times you try 2+2 does not equal 5 like you want us to believe not even if you call 4 a Homophobic QAnon believer.

Oh boy......here comes the Big Brother stuff again. Gatekeepers, enemies for free speech, authoritarianism restricting free speech? Wow! Just wow! 

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The story in the W post that Jeff refers to is by LSU professor Alecia Long.

And he is correct, she endorsed homophobia over forensic science in the JFK case.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/alecia-long-lays-an-egg-part-2

DiEugenio, you really embarrassed yourself again with that comment. I know you are super busy spreading conspiracy nonsense all over the Education Forum, but at least read and understand her article. It sailed right over your head. If Ms. Long laid an egg, you took it and smashed it all over your face with your inability to comprehend what she said. 

15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, Oswald went to Mexico. 

No, he wasn't photographed. 

The photographs they thought were of him were of someone else, quite possibly someone impersonating him. 

Why? 

Because some muckety-mucks thought there was a mole and they were actively hiding from where certain information had been received. When they received intelligence from spies within the embassy, they would pretend they got the info from a wiretap, etc. They would have someone pretending to be that person make a phone call and leave a message revealing the nature of the info obtained from the spy. "Hi, my name is Oswald, and I like Russia and I thought I would come into the embassy and reveal national secrets", whatever. 

To admit this to the WC would have been both embarrassing and problematic, perhaps even damaging to national security. 

 

Agree that Oswald was in Mexico City. There's lots of evidence to support that he did. For example, Oswald had Silvia Duran's name and number is his notebook. But let's remember, Oswald went to the Cuban Consulate first. It was this phony story Oswald made up about going back to Russia via Cuba he told the Cubans. Oswald had no intention of going back to Russia, PERIOD! Oswald wanted to go to Cuba. It was then the Cubans told him that he needed a Transit Visa from Russia so he could make the stop in Cuba. Then you know the rest of the story, the Russians would not grant him a quick transit visa back to the place Oswald grew tired of. All of this crazy stuff that Oswald was an Intelligence operative and witting defector is complete fantasy.   

59 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

This is becoming slightly bizarre.

Jim insisted Edwin Lopez - "Eddy" to those in the know - was shocked and dismayed to discover "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" was not included when the Mexico City Report was released.

Jim was saying this in 1996. Yet I linked to a 1996 article by Eddy himself in the AARC Quarterly that was entirely different in tone and content. He was pleased by the rfelease of the report notwitstanding the redactions and twice warned researchers there was no smoking gun.

I've been unable to find anything where, in subsequent years, Eddy expressed concern because "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" had not surfaced. Concerns about lots of other things, yes, but not this.

Fred Litwin has linked to 1979 internal CIA correspondence referring to a conversation with Blakey in which Blakey referenced a draft of "Was Oswald An Agent (of CIA)?" The correspondence says the report concludes Oswald was not an agent. Blakey thought the report "could be sanitized more easily for release."

Fred also linked to a 1979 letter from the CIA to Blakey with extensive comments under the heading ""Oswald, Was He or Was He Not, a CIA Agent?" The letters states, "It is understood this [the report on whether Oswald was an agent] is intended for unclassified publication ..."

Fred has also linked to an actual report on the possibility of Oswald being a CIA agent that corresponds to the comments in the 1979 letter from the CIA to Blakey.

Jim nlow says his good buddies Danny and Eddy say they didn't write the report Fred has produced.

OK, fine.

What did Danny and Eddy write?

Is Eddy adamant that there is some bombshell document called "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" that should be in the CIA files and should have been released?

Does Eddy have an explanation as to why other HSCA staff would have produced a different report under essentially the same title at the same time?

Does Eddy have an explanation for his 1996 article in the AARC Quarterly and why it is so startlingly different from what he supposedly told Jim the same year?

Does Eddy have an explanation for his apparent silence about "Was Oswld An Agent of the CIA?" since 1996?

Does Eddy have a reasction to the discssion I found which suggested "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" never got past the work=product stage and may been properly dsetroyed?

Or is this simply one more instance of Jim being caught with his pants down?

This is why this forum is so tedious. Authoritative-sounding blather is the order of the day, but anyone who actually follows througvh - which no one but the Lone Nutters ever does - it all goes poof. When are you folks going to wake up?

Where's the beef?

 

Lance, is this the Ed Lopez article you were referring to in the AARC Quarterly? 

Page 6 of PDF

Item 01.pdf (hood.edu)

45 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

People still use Twitter? I can only ~shrug~ and wonder why?

I gave up on that awful platform years ago.

And Facebook is nearly as useless/worthless.

 

DiEugenio is doing his usual ego boasting with 2,000 impressions on Twitter, yet only 1 person has responded, they wanted clarification on what he was referring to in the Lopez Report. DiEugenio is conflating his importance again. 

You might be curious about what does impressions mean on Twitter that's why you stumbled on this article. In the simplest terms, your Twitter impressions indicate how many times your tweet has been seen. To put it another way, 500 impressions mean your tweet was seen 500 times.

Notably, your Twitter impressions figure does not account for how many people saw your tweet using third-party services (such as Hootsuite or Sprout Social) or how many people saw your tweet embedded on a website. But there's always a but! - This does not imply that your tweet has been seen by 500 people.

On 12/17/2022 at 7:08 AM, Lance Payette said:

Exploring these little factoids of conspiracy gospel has become practically a secondary hobby of mine. Again and again, one finds some "fact" stated by some conspiracy author with a reference or citation that simply doesn't check out. That "fact" is then repeated, again and again, by subsequent generations of conspiracy authors, even some of the most respected, with the original author cited as the source.

A perfect example of this is Mr. DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed" 2nd edition book. I had the misfortune to suffer reading through that book. Countless citations to other conspiracy book authors as if it were fact. Then all the sinister mysteries such as Rose Cheramie, the Cuban Doctor in Pennsylvania, on and on.... that Mr. DiEugenio never tries to relate to each other to make sense. 

Enough of Mr. DiEugenio today. I believe most reasonable people see the conspiracy story telling charade that he's engaged in.