Michael Griffith

4 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Discerning lurkers (are there any?) will note that not one respondent has attempted to address this conundrum. Instead, CTers go directly to "those aren't the basic facts" because because because.

IOW, if anyone challenges your assumptions, they are ducking the conundrum that you claim exists. If anyone argues that your alleged basic facts are not actually facts, they are merely avoiding your point. Such posturing only reveals your strong bias and failure to follow critical thinking principles.

Do you know who Jesse Curry was? He was the chief of the Dallas Police Department at the time of the assassination. Do you know what he said in 1969 about the evidence against Oswald? Let's take a look:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." (Dallas Morning News, 6 Nov 1969, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html)

Why do you suppose Chief Curry said that? Certainly nobody would accuse Curry of having been a conspiracy theorist. But, his statement suggests that he was aware of at least some of the gaping holes in the case against Oswald.

Over and over again in this thread, you have declined to explain evidence that Oswald was framed and/or that there was a conspiracy, even going so far as to admit that you "don't really care" about such a crucial piece of evidence as the paper bag in which the alleged murder weapon was supposedly wrapped and carried into the building. You posture as though anyone who presents facts that challenge your assumptions is being irrational and evasive, even though you seem unable to explain those facts.

10 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Yep, those dang conspirators - diabolical geniuses at those steps where being diabolical geniuses fits the conspiracy theory, fumbling fools where being fumbling fools fits it better. My personal theory is that they were so unbelievably clever they intentionally left 14,000 clues for subsequent generations of theorists to drool over, thereby spawning at least 38 diametrically opposed conspiracy theories and ensuring The Truth Will Never Be Known. I really can't picture who could've been that clever except - wait for it - yes, that's right, aliens. 

IOW, you won't accept clear evidence that Oswald was framed because you prefer to believe that a conspiracy would have done a better job of framing him, and because you cannot provide a reasonable explanation for that evidence. If police detectives adopted your approach toward crimes that resulted from conspiracies, few such crimes would ever be solved. 

If gun oil had been found on the paper bag and the blanket, you would logically cite that as evidence that the rifle had been inside those items, but you can't explain why no traces of oil were found on those items, and you refuse to accept the logical conclusion that no oil was found on those items because the rifle was never inside them. 

If a reenactment with the Carcano rifle had produced a shell that had fired a bullet and had emerged as dented as CE 543, you would argue that this proves the dented shell could have fired a bullet during the assassination, but you refuse to deal with the fact that no reenactment has ever produced such a dented shell, nor do you offer any explanation for the other problems with CE 543. CE 543 is hard physical evidence that the sixth-floor gunman could have only fired two shots, but the lone-gunman theory demands that he fired three shots.

You declined to address the fact that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit and began to reach toward his throat during the period when the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree. This pre-Z190 shot poses an enormous problem for the lone-gunman view because JFK is visibly knocked forward in Z226-232 in the second-most dramatic, obvious reaction in the film, clearly indicating a shot fired at Z224. Obviously, the pre-Z190 shot was the throat shot and the Z224 shot was the back shot, but lone-gunman theorists cannot accept this because it destroys their theory of the shooting.

And on and on we could go. The problem is that your anti-conspiracy bias is so strong that you will not logically and objectively analyze the evidence. When you are confronted with evidence that you cannot explain, you fall back on the argument that no conspiracy would have left behind credible evidence, much less obvious evidence, of a frame-up and a cover-up.

You make the strawman assumption of a gigantic conspiracy that included hundreds of obedient participants, even at the lower and intermediate levels, whereas most WC critics posit no such conspiracy. Much of the evidence of conspiracy resulted from the fact that most of the local and government personnel who handled evidence or took part in investigative activity were not part of the plot. 

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

You have launched into a complete "conspiratorial defense" that, after the first couple of paragraphs, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is a typical CTer tactic, but it is tedious and only serves to weaken the CT position.

When Oswald bought the rifle, I would imagine that assassinating anyone with it was not in the forefront of his mind, even if he did take a shot at Walker a month later. He was simply buying a cheap, mail-order rifle because he wanted one. On the day of the assassination, I doubt he much cared whether he'd left a paper trail of ownership.

A "well-oiled gun" doesn't mean "dripping with oil." It means well-maintained. My guns were exceedingly well-oiled because I'm almost a fanatic, but I made sure they weren't going to muck up the nifty cases in which I kept them. If the rifle had never been in the paper bag until the night of the assassination, which I feel sure it hadn't, there is no reason to suppose it would've been oil-stained.

The dented shell is an interesting problem. One theory is that only two shots were fired, and the dented shell was one Oswald had kept in the gun for dry-firing. It was ejected when he worked the bolt to load the first live bullet. Other tests have demonstrated that the Carcano ejector will, in fact, dent a percentage of shells in that manner. Hence, I don't see this as a problem.

If you've handled guns, you know that a properly oiled gun wrapped in a bag, disassembled no less, is going to leave some oil on the bag. Similarly, even a minimally oiled gun wrapped in a blanket for weeks is going to leave some trace of oil on the blanket. Let's get real. 

Your comments about the dented shell suggest you didn't read the link I provided. No, other tests have not proved that the Carcano rifle will dent some shells as much as CE 543 is dented--not even close. There's also the problem that the marks on the bottom of CE 543 were not found on the two other shells nor on any of the shells that were ejected from the rifle in the WC test firings. And there's also the problem that CE 543 does not have the alleged murder weapon’s characteristic chambering mark on its side but that the other shells do, which indicates that the shell was never chambered in the rifle. 

I notice you didn't comment on the implausible scenario of Oswald buying his gun via mail order vs. simply buying one in a gun store. Oswald was highly intelligent. The lone-gunman story about the rifle's purchase defies common sense and is too pat and convenient. 

A few other suspicious facts about the case against Oswald:

-- Not a single spare bullet for the Carcano was found on Oswald's person, at his rooming house, or among his belongings. Not one.

-- Only two stores in the Dallas area sold ammo suitable for the Carcano rifle, and both stores were certain they had never seen Oswald or sold ammo to him.

-- No fingerprints were found on the spent shells nor on the live round that was left in the rifle's chamber. 

-- No cleaning supplies or gun oil were found among Oswald's possessions or at his rooming house. None. 

-- The one and only Oswald print allegedly found on the rifle was not photographed before it was lifted, in violation of the most basic standard procedure. Lt. Day photographed the worthless trigger-guard prints but not the print on the barrel.

-- This alleged print, a palmprint, was on a part of the rifle that would not have been handled while firing it--it was on a part of the barrel that could only be accessed by removing the wooden stock.

-- When the FBI got the rifle, Latona found no evidence that the rifle had even been processed for prints. He also saw no trace of a print on the barrel, even though Lt. Day claimed the print was still visible after he allegedly lifted it. 
 

21 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I find certain basic facts impossible to square with any plausible conspiracy theory. One of these is Oswald’s last-minute trip to Ruth Paine’s home to obtain his rifle.

Conspiracy enthusiasts, of course, thrive on complexity. If you insist Oswald never actually ordered or received the Carcano, or the conspirators somehow obtained it from Ruth’s garage and planted it in the TSBD without Oswald's knowledge, you’re already in the land of extreme implausibility.

[SNIP]

These two paragraphs alone contain several questionable or doubtful assumptions and suggest that you need to read some of the better crtiques of the lone-gunman theory. Here are a few--just a few--of the problems with the evidence against Oswald:

-- In the Texas of 1963 Oswald could have bought a rifle across the counter with few if any questions asked. He could have done so and risked only a future debatable identification by some gun shop worker. Instead, we are asked to believe that Oswald ordered the murder weapon by using the alias "A. Hidell," gave his own post office box number, committed his handwriting to paper, and then went out to assassinate JFK with this same "Hidell"-purchased rifle and while carrying a Hidell ID card in his wallet. This is an example of evidence that appears to be too pat and that defies common sense, since we know Oswald was highly intelligent.

-- The bag in which the alleged murder weapon was carried poses several problems. For starters, FBI expert James Cadigan reported that he was unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle.

-- More problematic is the fact that the Carcano rifle supposedly found in the sniper's nest was well oiled, yet no oil traces were found on the bag. It is difficult to understand how a well-oiled rifle, carried in separate parts in the bag no less (per the WC), would not have left traces of oil on the paper bag, easily detected in laboratory tests if not with the naked eye.

-- Even more incredibly, there were no oil stains or oil traces on the blanket in which the rifle allegedly had been stored--not for hours, but for months. The WC claimed that the Carcano rifle was wrapped in that blanket until the night before the assassination.

-- CE 543, the dented shell found in the sniper's nest, could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination. (LINK)

-- Even the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel admitted that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit by Z190, that he begins to visible react by Z200, and that this shot was fired at around Z186. However, the sixth-floor gunman's view of JFK would have been obstructed by the oak tree from Z166-210. 

-- As a number of medical experts have pointed out, the JFK autopsy skull x-rays and brain photos clearly prove there were two separate cavitation wounds in JFK's brain, one near the top of the brain and the other at least 2 inches lower (or one cortical and the other subcortical), with no connection between them, which proves that two bullets must have struck his head, since one bullet could not have caused both of the cavitation wounds.

One indication of fraud in the autopsy evidence is the astounding fact that the autopsy doctors said absolutely nothing about the very obvious damage to the cerebral cortex, i.e., the cortical damage. Humes said nothing about it in the autopsy report, and the three autopsy doctors, incredibly, said nothing about it in the supplemental autopsy report, even though the main purpose of the supplemental report was to describe the brain damage that they found after they sectioned and examined the brain,

No one can believe that they "missed" the obvious cortical damage to the brain. The HSCA medical panel noted and described this damage. Yet, although the autopsy doctors described the subcortical damage in great detail, they said nothing about the equally obvious cortical damage. To clarify, cortical damage is damage that is on or near the surface of the brain. Subcortical damage is damage that is deep inside the brain and can be several inches away from the cerebral cortex.

Now, why did the autopsy doctors say nothing about the cortical damage? For the same reason they said nothing about the high fragment trail associated with the cortical damage: they knew there was no way they could relate the cortical damage and the high fragment trail with the EOP entry wound.

The cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds (wound tunnels) are several inches apart and are not connected, so they could not have been made by the same bullet. As Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuroanatomist, notes, "This is not a matter of interpretation but of anatomical fact." When a bullet travels in/through a brain, it creates a wound tunnel in the brain tissue, a tunnel technically known as a "cylinder of disruption" or a "cavitation wound."

A single bullet cannot create two cavitation wounds separated by several inches unless it, or a fragment from it, travels from the first tunnel and creates the second tunnel, and if it does so, there will be a connecting tunnel. But, there is no connecting cavitation wound or fragment trail between the cortical and subcortical cavitation wounds. This can only mean that two bullets struck JFK's head. 

Another key fact about the subcortical damage is that, amazingly, there is no fragment trail associated with it on the extant autopsy skull x-rays! There is a fragment trail in and around the cortical damage but no fragment trail in/around the subcortical damage, which is several inches deeper into the brain than the cortical damage. This is an astounding contradiction.

To further thicken the plot, the autopsy report says there was a fragment trail going from the EOP to the right orbit; however, no such low fragment trail appears on the extant autopsy skull x-rays.

The HSCA medical panel noted both the cortical and subcortical damage, but did not explain the lack of any connecting damage between the two wounds and the lack of any fragments in/around the subcortical damage. (LINK) (LINK).

-- The autopsy skull x-rays show two small fragments on the back of the skull, but no FMJ bullet in the known history of forensic science has deposited two sheared-off fragments as it entered a skull, not to mention that the two fragments are in different layers of the skull and are 1 cm away from their alleged entry point. The alleged lone gunman supposedly used FMJ bullets. Even former HSCA wound ballistics expert Dr. Larry Sturdivan admitted in his 2005 book that FMJ bullets simply do not behave like this.

-- The 6.5 mm object seen on the AP skull x-ray has been proved to be an artifact, not a bullet fragment, via OD measurements. Dr. Sturdivan has acknowledged that the object cannot be a sheared-off fragment from an FMJ bullet. He speculates that the object is some kind of artifact, though he has no plausible theory for how it could have been accidentally created. Dr. David Mantik has duplicated how the object could have been added to the AP x-ray.

I think it would be worthwhile to quote JFK's entire statement against withdrawing and for staying the course in Vietnam in his 9/2/63 interview with Walter Cronkite, and then to quote what he said on the subject in his 9/9/63 interview with Chet Huntley. First, from his interview with Cronkite:

          All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear, but I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away.

          We took all this--made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia.

          Mr. Cronkite: Mr. President, have you made an assessment as to what President de Gaulle was up to in his statement on Viet-Nam last week?

          THE PRESIDENT: NO. I guess it was an expression of his general view, but he doesn't have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so that while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there. But I think anything General de Gaulle says should be listened to, and we listened.

          What, of course, makes Americans somewhat impatient is that after carrying this load for 18 years, we are glad to get counsel, but we would like a little more assistance, real assistance. But we are going to meet our responsibility anyway.

          It doesn't do us any good to say, "Well, why don't we all just go home and leave the world to those who are our enemies."

JFK's comments on withdrawal and staying the course in his interview with Huntley:

          Mr. Huntley: Mr. President, in respect to our difficulties in South Viet-Nam, could it be that our Government tends occasionally to get locked into a policy or an attitude and then finds it difficult to alter or shift that policy?

          THE PRESIDENT. Yes, that is true. I think in the case of South Viet-Nam we have been dealing with a government which is in control, has been in control for 10 years. In addition, we have felt for the last 2 years that the struggle against the Communists was going better. Since June, however, the difficulties with the Buddhists, we have been concerned about a deterioration, particularly in the Saigon area, which hasn't been felt greatly in the outlying areas but may spread. So we are faced with the problem of wanting to protect the area against the Communists. On the other hand, we have to deal with the government there. That produces a kind of ambivalence in our efforts which exposes us to some criticism. We are using our influence to persuade the government there to take those steps which will win back support. That takes some time and we must be patient, we must persist.

          Mr. Huntley: Are we likely to reduce our aid to South Viet-Nam now?

          THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we think that would be helpful at this time. If you reduce your aid, it is possible you could have some effect upon the government structure there. On the other hand, you might have a situation which could bring about a collapse. Strongly in our mind is what happened in the case of China at the end of World War II, where China was lost, a weak government became increasingly unable to control events. We don't want that.

Selverstone makes a powerful case from internal documents and from White House tapes that these views were identical to the views that JFK expressed in meetings and conversations with his advisors and with cabinet officials. 

As most here know, Oliver Stone is an ardent environmentalist, but many may not know that he is also a strong advocate for nuclear power, as the article below explains. I totally agree with him. Green extremists have blocked the building of new nuclear power plants in the U.S. and in some other nations, an action that Stone correctly laments and condemns. Stone has produced a new documentary titled Nuclear Now that makes the case for nuclear power. Here's an excerpt from the article:

          “We had the solution [nuclear power] … and the environmental movement, to be honest, just derailed it. I think the environmental movement did a lot of good, a lot of good ... [I’m] not knocking it, but in this one major matter, it was wrong. It was wrong". . . .

          The International Energy Agency states that “nuclear power has historically been one of the largest contributors of carbon-free electricity globally.”

          It adds that “while it faces significant challenges in some countries, it has significant potential to contribute to power sector decarbonisation.”

Oliver Stone slams environmental movement over actions on nuclear (cnbc.com)

In his 1967 book Oswald: The Truth, I think German journalist Joachim Joesten made some good points about the Oswald impersonation at the Furniture Mart:

          Despite this stern, and unwarranted, slap at Dial R. Ryder, the Commission isn’t quite sure that this man is really a perjurer and forger, as the next item on its agenda shows: 

          "Possible corroboration for Ryder’s story is provided by two women, Mrs. Edith Whitworth, who operates the Furniture Mart, a furniture store located about one and a half blocks from the Irving Sports Shop, and Mrs. Gertrude Hunter, a friend of Mrs. Whitworth. They testified that in early November of 1963, a man who they later came to believe was Oswald drove up to the Furniture Mart in a two-tone blue and white 1937 Ford automobile, entered the store and asked about a part for a gun, presumably because of a sign that appeared in the building advertising a gunsmith shop that had formerly occupied part of the premises. When he found that he could not obtain the part, the man allegedly returned to his car and then came back into the store with a woman and two young children to look at furniture, remaining in the store for about thirty to forty minutes. 

          "Upon confronting Marina Oswald, both women identified her as the woman whom they had seen in the store on the occasion in question, although Mrs. Hunter could not identify a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and Mrs. Whitworth identified some pictures of Oswald but not others. Mrs. Hunter purported to identify Marina Oswald by her eyes, and did not observe the fact that Marina Oswald had a front tooth missing at the time she supposedly saw her. After a thorough inspection of the Furniture Mart, Marina Oswald testified that she had never been on the premises before."

          This story is extremely revealing of the elaborate arrangements that went into the frame-up of Lee Harvey Oswald. Not only does "Oswald" here again appear on the scene, but Marina and her two children also get into the act. Evidently, the plotters had at their disposal a young woman who looked even more like Marina than her "husband" looked like Lee Harvey. (History, since then, has tragically revealed the identity of this hapless woman, but this is a matter of such consequence that I propose to explore it in another book at a later date.) On no other assumption can it be explained that both these witnesses identified Marina as the woman they had seen while the Oswalds clearly were not involved. The fact that Lee Harvey at no time owned a car and couldn’t even drive, as well as Marina’s missing front tooth, which both women failed to see, affords sufficient proof of that. 

          Observe also the elaborate frame-up technique. A man goes into a furniture store to ask for a gun part on the flimsy pretext that there had once been a gunsmith shop in the same building. This action was clearly designed to fix this incident in the mind of the store owner who would not easily forget such a foolish query. When told that there were no gun parts for sale in this place, the customer comes back with a woman who strikingly resembles, but is not, Marina Oswald and with two young children who might easily be mistaken for Rachel and June. They stay in the store thirty to forty minutes without buying anything —much longer than ordinary customers normally would do, evidently for the purpose of creating a strong and lasting impression of a family not to be mistaken for another. To the recollection of a young man interested in guns thus is added, in the minds of the two witnesses, the picture of a family not yet in a position to buy furniture but which will soon be able to. Thus an instinctive association of ideas is created between shooting and monetary gain. 

          The Report goes on: "The circumstances surrounding the testimony of the two women are helpful in evaluating the weight to be given to their testimony, and the extent to which they lend support to Ryder’s evidence. [The implication: if Whitworth and Hunter aren’t to be believed, Ryder is finished for good - J. J.] The women previously told newspaper reporters that the part for which the man was looking was a 'plunger,' which the Commission has been advised is a colloquial term used to describe a firing pin. This work was completely different from the work covered by Ryder’s repair tag, and the firing pin of the assassination weapon does not appear to have been recently replaced. At the time of their depositions, neither woman was able to recall the type of work which the man wanted done." 

          What does it matter? If, as every circumstance of this episode suggests, this was merely another item in a well-planned frame-up campaign, the purpose of that man's visit to the Furniture Mart was simply to have a few more witnesses attest to Oswald’s concern with guns and to his financial prospects about to improve substantially. Now comes a most revealing item: 

          "Mrs. Whitworth related to the FBI that the man told her that the younger child with him was born on October 20, 1963, which was in fact Rachel Oswald’s birthday. In her testimony before the Commission, however, Mrs. Whitworth could not state that the man had told her the child’s birthdate was October 20, 1963, and in fact expressed uncertainty about the birthday of her own grandchild, which she had previously used as a guide to remembering the birthdate of the younger child in the shop." 

          This paragraph again demonstrates the deep-rooted bias of the Commission and its total unwillingness to pursue any clues pointing toward conspiracy or frame-up. For it would indeed be too much to assume that mere coincidence was at stake here. The mention of that birthdate, on that occasion, is cogent evidence that the man in question either was Lee Harvey Oswald, or somebody exceptionally familiar with Oswald’s circumstances. If it was not Oswald-and the Commission arrived at the firm conclusion that it was not - then this incident is hard evidence of frame-up. 

          On the other hand, note how the Commission, again most unfairly, tries to create the impression that Mrs. Whitworth is a poor old soul who just doesn’t know what she is talking about. Why, in her testimony before the Commission "she could not state" what she had previously told the FBI. Why couldn’t she? Obviously because, in the meantime, she, too, had been subjected to some of that pressure and harassment which practically all witnesses whose testimony in some way ran counter to the official version have experenced. Or she was simply overawed by the Commission and got bewildered. Who could blame her? But she did tell the FBI and that’s in the record. 

          What the Commission has to say about the circumstances that preclude the couple in question having been the Oswalds makes more sense: 

          "Mrs. Hunter thought that the man she and Mrs. Whitworth believed was Oswald drove the car to and from the store:  however, Lee Harvey Oswald apparently was not able to drive an automobile by himself and does not appear to have had access to a car. 

          "The two women claimed that Oswald was in the Furniture Mart on a weekday, and in midafternoon. However, Oswald had reported to work at the Texas School Book Depository on the dates referred to by the women and there is no evidence that he left his job during business hours. In addition, Ruth Paine has stated that she always accompanied Marina Oswald whenever Marina left the house with her children and that they never went to the Furniture Mart, either with or without Lee Harvey Oswald, at any time during October or November of 1963. There is nothing to indicate that in November the Oswalds were interested in buying furniture."

          In spite of the somewhat cagey wording used by the Commission--as though it wanted to leave a possible way out for itself in another seemingly inexplicable incident--the incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the visitors to the Furniture Mart on that day cannot have been Oswald and family, for the records of the Book Depository prove that Lee Harvey was on the job every weekday during the period in question. Inevitably, then, somebody else, or rather two other persons, had been impersonating Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald on this occasion--unless Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter, dreaming in unison in broad daylight, just had imagined the whole thing. And so the Commission, in sheer desperation, snatches at this straw and clings to it for dear life: 

          "Finally, investigation has produced reason to question the credibility of Mrs. Hunter as a witness. Mrs. Hunter stated that one of the reasons she remembers the description of the car in which Oswald supposedly drove to the furniture store was that she was awaiting the arrival of a friend from Houston, who drove a similar automobile. However, the friend in Houston has advised that in November 1963, she never visited or planned to visit Dallas, and that she told no one that she intended to make such a trip. Moreover, the friend added, according to the FBI interview report, that Mrs. Hunter has 'a strange obsession for attempting to inject herself into any big event which comes to her attention' and that she 'is likely to claim some personal knowledge of any major crime which receives much publicity.' She concluded that 'the entire family is aware of these tall tales Mrs. Hunter tells and they normally pay no attention to her.'"

          Here the Warren Commission really goes the limit in unfair treatment of a witness that cannot even be described as hostile but who merely wants to tell the truth as she experienced it. On the say-so of an unidentified "friend" in another city, without at least confronting Mrs. Hunter with these disparaging remarks, without even remembering the corroborating evidence of Mrs. Whitworth, the Commission concludes that this witness is given to spinning tall tales and that, therefore, the whole episode related above presumably did not take place. And, in the process, poor Ryder is also relegated to limbo. (pp. 78-83)

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution

http://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450

In this new article I propose to establish that witnesses' claims to have seen the Lee Harvey Oswald family visiting the Furniture Mart store in Irving, Texas on an unknown date in early November 1963 were a genuine sighting of Lee and Marina and their child and newborn baby and the date and circumstances that occurred.

When you dismiss the most obvious explanation--impersonation--because you find it unacceptable, it's downhill from there.

The fact that Oswald was impersonated on other occasions has been established beyond any credible doubt. 

Ruth Paine was hardly an innocent, reliable witness. 

What would have been so hard, so impossible, about finding a woman who at least bore a resemblance to Marina? What? Or, why is it so hard to believe that Marina accompanied the Oswald imposter and then denied it later? Recall that Marina claimed that she saw Oswald cleaning and practicing with "his" rifle in January 1963, which was two months before he allegedly bought the weapon.

Yes, Oswald's timecard puts him at work at the time of the visit to the furniture store. His timecard also puts him at work at the same time he supposedly bought the money order to buy the rifle, leaving aside the fact that he bought the money order with money that could not have come from his paycheck. Obviously, if the Oswald at the furniture store was an imposter, then the real Oswald's timecard poses no problem. 

This is sad but not surprising. Remember the CIA's infamous 1997 animation of TWA Flight 800's explosion and crash, which tried to explain away the 200-plus eyewitness accounts of a missile streaking toward and hitting the airliner? One would be hard pressed to find another accident animation packed with so many errors, distortions, and omissions. 

Wiesak's odd puzzlement over why JFK agreed to greatly increase the number of U.S. military advisors and the amount of U.S. military aid to South Vietnam is revealing. It is an unfortunate example of how extreme bias can make one miss the forest for the trees, can make one miss the obvious because they find the obvious unacceptable. She says,

          Nevertheless, JFK agreed to expand the number of military advisors in South Vietnam and supply general military aid to support the South Vietnamese against the North Vietnamese Communist infiltration. Why JFK decided to do this, we may never fully know. (p. 160)

"We may never fully know"? Actually, we have known why JFK did this since the time he did it. JFK himself made his reasons for doing this very clear: First and foremost, he wanted to prevent a Communist takeover of South Vietnam. He also wanted to bolster South Vietnamese morale and demonstrate that we were serious about helping them remain free. The evidence on this point is so abundant and clear that it is hard to comprehend how anyone could be confused about why JFK approved NSAM 111 and why he continued to increase economic and military aid to South Vietnam. 

Anti-war liberals frequently quote JFK's comment in his September 1963 interview with Walter Cronkite that the war was South Vietnam's war and that the South Vietnamese were the ones who had to win or lose it:

          In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it, the people of Vietnam, against the Communists.

But moments later, JFK said that he disagreed with those who called for withdrawal, that withdrawal would be a "great mistake," and that whether we liked it or not we had to participate in the defense of Asia:

          But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . . [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia.

Another thing that impresses me about Selverstone's book is that he includes some of the important new information we have learned from North Vietnamese sources. He notes that Communist archives confirm that the war effort was going well in 1962:

          But optimism continued to dominate official thinking about Vietnam. Military operations against the Communists seemed increasingly effective, and the Strategic Hamlet program was accelerating and apparently resilient. Indeed, Communist archives have attested to that perceived early success. (pp. 88-89) 

The footnote for this observation cites Pierre Asselin's book Hanoi's Road to the Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (University of California Press, 2013), Mark Moyar's book Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965 (Cambridge University Press, 2006), and Peter Busch's book All the Way with JFK? Britain, the US, and the Vietnam War (Oxford University Press, 2003). As I've noted before, liberal anti-war scholars have ignored the trove of new information from North Vietnamese sources because that information destroys their portrayal of the war.

Selverstone also notes that even British counterinsurgency expert Robert Thompson agreed that the war effort was going well in 1962:

          BRIAM [British Advisory Mission] chief Robert Thompson was particularly encouraged and conveyed his sense of progress over the previous six months, especially in the Strategic Hamlet program. (p. 89)

Thompson's assessment is significant because Thompson was not only opposed to a large-scale U.S. presence in South Vietnam but was one of the most honest, objective observers on the ground.

These facts, and others, refute the view held by most of my fellow conspiracy theorists that U.S. military officials in South Vietnam were deliberately giving JFK false/overly optimistic assessments of the war effort. If anyone was giving JFK inaccurate assessments of the war effort, it was liberal officials who refused to acknowledge progress in the war because they were trying to persuade JFK to adopt a Laos-style neutralization solution in Vietnam. 

On 1/10/2023 at 2:31 PM, Matthew Koch said:

It's ludicrous to claim 911 wasn't an inside job...

I did research for this documentary maybe watch it and stop wallowing in ignorance..

 

That video is absurd. You must be kidding. You are apparently unaware of the massive body of scientific scholarship that has refuted the 9/11 Truther nonsense. 

So here we are again with the far-left bias seen far too often in this forum. You scream about citing Alex Jones, and I agree, but you turn around and post obscenely absurd 9/11 Truther trash. 

In other words, far-right extremists are to be shunned but far-left extremists are welcome.

Just imagine what new visitors see when they browse this forum: They see talk of UFOs, and claims that JFK was killed because he was gonna blow the lid on UFOs. They see Trump called a N-A-Z-I (never mind that he's an ardent lifelong supporter of Israel and that part of his immediate family is Jewish). They see claims that the entire CIA is a criminal outfit. They see Communist brutality and oppression whitewashed and even denied. They see 9/11 Truth craziness peddled, years after that nutty stuff has been demolished by reputable scientists from all across the political spectrum. 

On 2/7/2022 at 5:46 PM, W. Niederhut said:

     As an aside, his 1943 textbook also contains a truly spellbinding contemporaraneous analysis of Adolph Hitler's use of stage hypnosis techniques to manipulate N-A-Z-I crowds.

     The parallels with what Donald Trump has been doing in the U.S. are eerie.   

      

I think this is an obscene, baseless comment. Where do you get such trash? To even hint at a comparison between the N-A-Z-Is and Donald Trump is baseless and slanderous. Trump is a longtime friend of Israel and was the most pro-Israeli president in our history, the only one who had the courage and fairness to move our embassy to Israel's true capital, Jerusalem. FYI, Trump's daughter Ivanka is an Orthodox Jew, and Trump, as a result, has three Jewish grandchild. 

I have voiced many criticisms of Trump's conduct, personal and professional, and of his apparent refusal to immediately call on the rioters to stand down on 1/6. I have also said publicly that I hope he does not get the 2024 GOP nomination. But to compare Trump to N-A-Z-Is or to label his policies as N-A-Z-I is vile and reckless, not to mention that it has nothing to do with the JFK case.

On 1/14/2023 at 4:57 PM, Matthew Koch said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzvgCLtCG8

Every one of the arguments made by Paul Jay in that video is answered in the links I've provided. Every single one of them. And he ignores a large body of evidence that contradicts his anti-Israeli narrative. I'm guessing you have not bothered to read any of the linked sources I've provided, right?

Are any of you Israel bashers who are repeating these timeworn arguments about the USS Liberty incident going to read any of the scholarly sources that I've provided in my replies? Any of you? Or are you just so determined to believe the worst about the only genuine, pluralistic democracy in the Middle East that you won't read anything that defends the Israeli position on the subject (and the position of every single U.S. Government investigation into the incident, including the U.S. Nany Court of Inquiry investigation)?

Here again we see JFK assassination research hijacked by a far-left agenda. As I've noted, if Wiesak had not gone beyond what JFK said about Israel, there could be no complaints about her chapter on Israel, but she went well beyond what JFK said on the matter. 

She did the same thing in her chapter on Laos/Vietnam. She mentions American "atrocities" in the war, but JFK never said one word about American "atrocities" in Vietnam. For the record, there was one small-sized American atrocity during the entire the war, i.e., the My Lai Massacre in early 1968, whereas there were dozens of Communist atrocities, including the Hue Massacre, which dwarfed My Lai in size and scope. None other than Adlai Stevenson set the record straight on who were the good guys and the bad guys in the war:

Adlai Stevenson and the Vietnam War: A Stirring Reminder

Wiesak quotes every hearsay claim from anti-war liberals who knew JFK regarding his alleged intention to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the '64 election, but she does not quote a single anecdote that contradicts this belated hearsay. If you look at her notes for the chapter, you see that she relied on only a handful of sources, mostly Newman's book and Douglass's book.

She says that although JFK publicly opposed a withdrawal of all military advisers from South Vietnam, privately he was "making moves in that direction." No, he most certainly was not. This was clear even before Selverstone's book came out. Even John K. Galbraith admitted in a 2013 article that the JFK withdrawal plan would have left behind over 1,000 support troops and that economic and military aid to South Vietnam would have continued. If even Galbraith can admit this, the fact that Wiesak does not reflects poorly on her research for the chapter and on her bias on the subject. 

On 1/14/2023 at 4:42 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Selverstone worked at the Miller Center, home of Zelikow, former home of Max Holland, and current home of Sabato.

That should tell you something.

This should tell you something else.

After the Commission volumes were published, and the  MSM  could now inspect whether the facts, testimony and exhibits in them matched the 888 page report, not one MSM outlet did so.  And the attempts to do so were crushed at Life magazine and at the Ny Times.  Something else happened though.  Three months after this, Johnson shipped the first detachment of combat troops to Vietnam.  He also had camera equipment on board to record the historic moment when these combat troops landed at Da Nang.

This was just the beginning.  For Johnson had been planning for this moment for months on end. He had literally set up a secret task force to do so. The first leader was Sullivan, who opposed JFK's withdrawal.  The second titular leader was Bill Bundy who wrote the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. It was drafted two months before the incident.

The MSM and most of academia missed this whole secret operation that LBJ had created. And how soon it followed on the issuance of the final verdict of the Warren Commission. Consequently no one I know of said one word about the connection between the two at that time.  In fact, the first book I know of that tried to broach the topic was by a conservative author Joe Goulden, in 1969, Truth is the First Casualty. Goulden was the first writer in book form who tried to expose Johnson's secret plan to consciously reverse what Kennedy was doing in extricating the USA from that ill advised, ghastly, and illegal war.  Illegal in the sense that the USA broke the Geneva Accords in order to cut the country in half and install a fiat government in the south.

When John Newman's book minutely destroyed the paradigm that had arisen--that Johnson was continuing JFK's policy in Indochina--and Oliver Stone adapted his and Fletcher Prouty's insights about that phony paradigm, the MSM and academia arose like a roaring MGM lion. Neither liked the fact that they had missed the story on JFK's murder and the fact that Johnson then lied about his continuity with JFK on Indochina. In fact, he consciously broke with what he knew Kennedy was doing.  And we have that on tape in Stone's film JFK Revisited. 

But here is the problem. Other scholars that followed, agreed with Prouty and Newman. Should I name some?  How about Howard Jones, Death of a Generation. Jones said: the last thing I expected to discover was that Prouty and Newman were right, but they were.  His great discovery was an oral history by McNamara's deputy Gilpatric in which he said that McNamara told him that Kennedy had given him instructions to wind this thing down.

Two, Gordon Goldstein with Lessons in Disaster.  Chronicles JFK's refusal to entertain any attempt at sending combat troops into theater.  And how LBJ methodically reversed that.

Three, David Kaiser, American Tragedy. Broader in scope, includes Laos and Vietnam.  Very good on the origins of the withdrawal plan and Bobby Kennedy's role in it. Also good on how Johnson was intent on reversing Kennedy.

Number Four: James Blight, Virtual JFK.  This features an oral debate down in Georgia amid two dozen academics. Selverstone lost that debate. One of the stupidest things anyone said at that affair was by him. He said words to the effect that Kennedy did not know about his own withdrawal plan. (p. 129) 😜.   How can anyone take a guy like this seriously? This is not stupidity, this is having an agenda in hand. Both Kaiser and Newman trace this plan, as did Jamie Galbraith.

Number Five: John Newman's revised version of JFK and Vietnam. I reviewed this and I think its even better than the first one.  An  important meeting he describes is for November 27, 1961.  JFK was very upset about how he and his brother had to fight for the whole NSAM 111 resolution. Kennedy then said if you oppose policy once made, then you get out. He then asked, who is going to carry out my Vietnam policy?  McNamara raised his hand.  Duh Marc, I think that kinds of tell you who implemented JFK's policy.

No responsible scholar could ignore the above.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/john-newman-s-jfk-and-vietnam-2017-version

Finally, that sub title that Mike put on this thread is not the sub title of the book.  And anyone can see that by just looking at the book cover.  That is his editorializing,

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 works 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.

FYI, Selverstone is no conservative. Also FYI, some of the best research and some of the most important witness interviews on the JFK case have been done by Anthony Summers, who is quite conservative in his politics. Jim Marrs was a huge Trump supporter, yet he wrote one of the best-selling and most influential books ever published on the case. You need to stop making the erroneous assumption that only liberals can produce valuable research on the case. But, again, Selverstone is no conservative. 

I guess you missed the part in my OP where I mention that Selverstone cites Newman's book and article a number of times. Why don't you read the evidence that Selverstone presents before you go on a crusade to discredit his book?

If you ever bother to read the book, you'll discover that Selverstone does not argue that JFK "did not know about his own withdrawal plan." That is a rather gross oversimplification of what Selverstone says in his book. Are you ever going to read his book, or are you going to refuse to read the other side and just continue to repeat your arguments as you have done with the Vietnam War?

It is sad that you are still making the fraudulent argument that we "violated the Geneva Accords." As our own State Department noted in 1961, and as JFK himself noted, North Vietnam rendered the Geneva Accords null and void by their egregious violations of the Accords, especially their aggression against South Vietnam. 

If you will read Selverstone's book, you will discover, as he notes in the book's introduction, that his findings come down in the middle between the Camelot view (total disengagement after the '64 election) and the Cold Warrior view (large-scale escalation would have occurred even if JFK had lived).

If you will read Selverstone's book, you will find much that you will like, especially the evidence he presents that JFK was ardently determined to avoid sending regular combat troops to South Vietnam. But, what you will not like is the evidence he marshals to show that JFK did not intend to abandon South Vietnam but was determined to prevent a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch. He understood that a Communist conquest of South Vietnam would be a terrible human tragedy.

Here we go again with this false choice and strawman assumption that withdrawal/pullout equaled abandonment/total engagement. "I'm gonna get the boys out of Vietnam" did not mean abandoning South Vietnam, and the record is undeniably clear that the withdrawal plan (1) would not be completed until late 1965, (2) was conditional/dependent upon the situation on the ground, (3) would not withdraw all troops but would leave just over 1,000 support troops, and (4) economic and military aid to South Vietnam would continue.

Anyone who argues otherwise needs to deal with the information in Dr. Marc Selverstone's new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. I would also note, again, that even James K. Galbraith admits that under the withdrawal plan we were going to leave 1,500 troops for supply purposes and would continue to aid South Vietnam:

        Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch. (JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation (thenation.com)

We need to come to grips with the fact that Oliver Stone got it very wrong when he claimed that NSAM 263 called for total disengagement from South Vietnam, and that JFK was killed because he was going to abandon South Vietnam. 

2 hours ago, Simon Andrew said:

Sorry but didn’t you have exactly the same argument a few weeks ago in a different thread.

Is it necessary to have another jumbo sized thread on the same topic with the same people making the same points.

It feels that the only reason is to start a fire. Certainly the arguments you make only hold water when filtered through a conservative lens, so they are not going to sway anyone one way or the other.

First of all, Selverstone is not a conservative, and I am not a conservative in the commonly understood sense of the word (I am an eclectic, a centrist Independent, with liberal views on some issues, moderate views on other issues, and conservative views on other issues). Second, Selverstone's book only came out barely two months ago, and I only finished reading it last week, which is why 95% of the info in my opening post is new. Third, we are talking about facts, not just "arguments." You'd know that if you'd bother to read his book. 

My intent in discussing Selverstone's book was not to "start a fire," and it says a lot about your objectivity that you would make such an accusation. To use this standard, anytime anyone presents evidence that doesn't fit your narrative, they are merely trying to "start a fire." Perhaps you should try to be more dispassionate and objective and engage in more critical thinking, instead of reacting to new information that you find troubling by making accusations about the motive behind the posting of that information. 

20 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Stone and this claim are just designed to impugn the CIA because they feel the CIA is an impediment to their desire for an apartheid-type dictatorship in the U.S. These are bad, evil people, and should not be given a platform.

Oh my goodness, you don't really believe this, do you? I can't imagine what facts could lead you to even remotely suspect, much less believe, that these people want an "apartheid-type dictatorship." You accuse them of being "ring-wing nut jobs," but your rhetoric sounds extreme and nutty. 

As I've indicated, I pulled a lot of punches in my review of Wiesak's book, because, again, I believe that its valid content outweighs its problematic content. I could have cited several more problems with her chapter on Israel. Moreover, I did not even discuss a single errant claim in her chapter on Laos/Vietnam, of which there are many. I simply noted that the research behind the chapter was lopsided and that she apparently had not read any serious studies that challenge the liberal view on Laos/Vietnam.

For example, she makes the astoundingly erroneous claim that "By the late 1960s, the South Vietnamese no longer wanted the Americans in South Vietnam, but the U.S. remained there because it wanted to be there" (pp. 160-161). Where in the world does she get this ridiculous claim?

The vast majority of South Vietnamese in the late 1960s, certainly from the time of the January-February 1968 Tet Offensive onward, not only wanted us there but were glad we were there, because the North Vietnamese launched three major offensives in the late 1960s, and those offensives would have succeeded if we had not been there. The South Vietnamese were acutely aware that the Communists murdered thousands of South Vietnamese civilians during those offensives, and this was a major reason that support for the Saigon regime among the people rose dramatically after the Tet Offensive. I defy anyone to cite a non-communist period source that says otherwise, or any non-communist post-war South Vietnamese memoirs or articles that say otherwise.

Finally, regarding the replies to my comments about her chapter on Israel, all the arguments and claims that have been made/repeated are answered in the links I provided in my two previous replies. 

14 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

JFK Had Ordered Full Withdrawal from Vietnam: Solid Evidence - WhoWhatWhy

by James K. Galbraith

September 26, 2017

One, Selverstone's book contains information that Galbraith did not know about in 2017.

Two, even Galbraith admits that even under the withdrawal plan we were going to leave 1,500 troops for supply purposes and would continue to aid South Vietnam:

        Training would end. Support for South Vietnam would continue. They had an army of over 200,000. The end of the war was not in sight. After the end of 1965, even under the withdrawal plan, 1,500 US troops were slated to remain, for supply purposes. But the war would then be Vietnamese only, with no possibility of it becoming an American war on Kennedy's watch. (JFK’s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation (thenation.com)

Debate on this subject has been marred by Oliver Stone's false assumption that withdrawal meant abandonment. In Stone's narrative, JFK was killed because he was going to abandon South Vietnam to the Communists. But JFK had no such intention. He wanted to get as many U.S. military personnel out of South Vietnam as quickly as feasible, i.e., depending on the situation on the ground, but, as Selverstone shows, he had no intention of allowing a Communist takeover of South Vietnam on his watch.

Here are more sources on the evidence that the attack on the USS Liberty was an accident. Some of the sources were written by Dr. Marvin Nowicki, who was the U.S. Navy supervisor on the EC-121 aircraft who heard the actual Israel Air Force radio transmissions, in Hebrew, on 8 June 1967, and thereafter listened to the tapes in Hebrew (Nowicki was an NSA/Navy-trained Hebrew linguist). 

The Liberty Incident: Nowicki Documents

The Liberty Incident: The Totality of the Evidence Says "Mistake"

The Liberty Incident: N. Trulock Review

CourtOfInquiry.pdf (libertyincident.com)

Why You Shouldn't Pay Attention to the Claims that Israel Attacked the USS Liberty Deliberately | History News Network (hnn.us)

Myths & Facts Online - The 1967 Six-Day War (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

"The USS Liberty: Case Closed" (jewishvirtuallibrary.org)

Iranian social media exploit US-based conspiracies regarding USS Liberty incident | by @DFRLab | DFRLab | Medium

It's important that we understand the definition of "combat troops" as it was (and still is) commonly understood in the military and as JFK and his advisors (correctly) used it. I discuss this as a 21-year veteran of the U.S. Army. In one statement, JFK said that he had not sent "combat troops in the generally understood sense of the word." 

"Combat troops" referred to infantry troops or infantry marines. There are "regular" and "irregular" combat troops. "Irregulars" included combat troops with specialized training who belonged to elite units, such as the Special Forces/Green Berets and Force Recon (Marine Corps), etc. They also included combat-trained troops who did not belong to infantry units. This is why I have tried to make the meaning clear by using the term "regular combat troops." 

Around 3,300 of the 17,000 "military advisors" that JFK sent to South Vietnam were combat-trained personnel but were not "combat troops" as the military understood and used the term. These combat-trained advisors, some of whom were Special Forces/Green Berets, trained ARVN soldiers in weapons and combat tactics, accompanied them on missions, and often took part in battles. They were military personnel who were trained to engage in combat, but they were not classified or defined as "combat troops."

Also, we need to avoid the confusing false choice of withdrawal or involvement. "Withdrawal" did not mean total disengagement. It did not mean abandoning South Vietnam to Communist brutality. Period sources make it clear that everyone in the White House and the Pentagon understood this. JFK never, ever, ever--in any firsthand statement that he himself made--equated withdrawal with total disengagement. Thus, JFK would not have been breaking any promises by continuing to provide economic and military aid to South Vietnam if he had withdrawn all U.S. military personnel. 

As Selverstone documents, JFK had no intention of allowing South Vietnam to fall to the Communists on his watch. 

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

It sounds like this book should be read in conjunction with John Newman's book "JFK And Vietnam" so one can make up their own mind.

JFK did set the date of 1965 for the withdrawal. It would seem somewhat that he would be breaking that promise if he was still giving economic and military aid beyond that date but he could maybe argue that the continuance of military and economic aid was a different thing. Much like the U.S. is giving military and economic aid to Ukraine, though not technically involved in that war.

Selverstone's book has a lot of information that is not in Newman's book.

Continuing economic and military aid after the withdrawal would not have broken any promises. When JFK talked about "withdrawal," he never said or implied a total disengagement. 

JFK did not want to see 18 million people fall under Communist tyranny.

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No Mike, you criticized both Vietnam and Israel.

What??? I did not say otherwise. I said that most of my review focuses on her chapter on Israel. Most is not all.

I see that the crowd here accepts the most anti-Israeli take on the attack on the USS Liberty, with the inclusion of the truly nutty implication that some of the suspects in the JFK assassination were involved in the incident. And, yes, this view mirrors the venom spewed by Muslim extremists about Israel. Sorry, but it does. Maybe that should make you rethink your position and perhaps do a bit more reading on the issue.

Why did Wiesak even mention the USS Liberty in a chapter on JFK and Israel? Why? The incident happened nearly four years after JFK's death. So why mention it? Because she appears to be among those radical liberals who have become anti-Israeli, whereas until relatively recently virtually all liberals were staunchly pro-Israeli (most still are). If she had just stuck with what JFK said regarding Israel, there could be no objection to the chapter, but in several cases she goes well beyond what JFK said, such as her irresponsible comments about the USS Liberty incident.

Her chapter on Israel is a perfect example of the problems that come with inserting far-left views into JFK assassination research (one of which is that JFK held a range of views, some of which were centrist or conservative). It seems that some of you folks just can't help yourselves. Some of you seem to think that pushing your far-left views is more important than presenting the facts about JFK's death. Some of you even seem to use the JFK case mostly as a vehicle to push your political views. And you folks wonder why the case for conspiracy has not been well received among journalists and scholars.

You folks need to understand that the substantial majority of Americans do not agree with your far-left politics. They just don't. For that matter, the majority of average Democrats don't agree with your far-left views either. But you folks act like most people agree with your politics, and you make that faulty assumption when you write your books and articles.

Now, getting back to the USS Liberty incident, I can tell that those of you who are bashing Israel over the matter have not read the other side of the story. In case any of you are interested in doing so, you could start by reading the following sources:

USS Liberty: Israel Did Not Intend to Bomb the Ship | History News Network (hnn.us) EXCERPT:

          Bamford: "Israel fighters and torpedo boats assaulted the ship for more than an hour."

          Fact: The air attack lasted about 12 minutes and was terminated as soon as the Israel Air Force determined the ship was not an Arab ship. While the Air Force was initiating rescue operations, the torpedo boats approached, stopped, and began signaling to the Liberty. The response of the Liberty was to begin shooting at the torpedo boats which thereupon began the torpedo attack. It lasted less than 15 minutes during which time the navy torpedo boats believed they were facing an enemy who initiated the shooting at them.

          Bamford: "Throughout the attack, according to survivors, the Liberty was flying a large American flag,"

          Fact: Immediately prior to the air attack, the Liberty had a 5 by 8-foot American flag hoisted but because of the light wind conditions it probably was not extended. This is the Finding of Fact number 2. of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry of June 18, 1967. As a matter of fact, a reference to the formula for visual acuity reveals that a flag that size, if fully extended in good light would not be identifiable beyond 1323 feet and the attacking aircraft never came that close. It is also the undisputed testimony of the Commanding Officer of the Liberty that the 5 by 8-foot flag was shot away on the first strafing run. A second, larger, 7 by 13-foot flag was hoisted after the air attack and prior to the torpedo attack but it was engulfed in smoke and thus was not an identification factor during the attacks. The first actual sighting of an American flag on the Liberty was made by an Israeli helicopter pilot more than 30 minutes after both air and sea attacks were over.

USS Liberty (sixdaywar.org)

Cryptologic History SRH-256: "Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty." (navy.mil)

False Flag Attack? The USS Liberty (skeptoid.com) EXCERPT:

          Israel had absolutely nothing to gain by attacking the Liberty. They were completely dominating in the Six Day War, largely thanks to heavy support from the United States. Conspiracy theorists have offered a number of frail explanations. One of these is that Israel believed the Liberty was spying on them, not on Egypt — perhaps to learn of Israel's plan to invade the Golan Heights. Well, guaranteed it was spying on them in addition to the Soviet-backed forces, no secret there; but that's the price they paid for having so much support — no way would they ever risk losing it. If, on the other hand, Israel was trying to bring the US into the conflict on their side, they would have staged the attack using Egyptian forces, not their own — this is a shockingly irrational hypothesis. Other potential justifications only get weaker from there. Any number of historians and policy analysts have found no rational reason the Israelis would have done it intentionally.

          And of course, the way the attack was done was completely inconsistent with an intentional attack. They would have gone all-in and stayed until the job was done, and leave no witnesses; they wouldn't have stopped after hitting it with only one torpedo, identifying it, and then staying around to render assistance — which is exactly what they did.

31 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Overall is this book slightly at odds with John Newmans thesis? John Newman is saying that JFK was withdrawing completely, but Selverstone is saying JFK was withdrawing BUT was going to keep on economic and military aid?

In the run up to his assassination JFK was already providing economic and military aid so JFK was simply planning on carrying on this indefinitely? 

Yes, Selverstone definitely rejects--and refutes--the idea that JFK was determined to totally disengage from South Vietnam no matter what. He makes a compelling case that JFK wanted to withdraw all U.S. military personnel as soon as was feasible, but that JFK had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam to a Communist takeover on his watch. And, yes, JFK was prepared to continue economic and military aid for many years.