Jim DiEugenio’s review of David Talbot’s book Brothers

[John Simkin]

"[The letter] specifically names Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and George H. W. Bush as co-conspirators, among others."

Which is why the letter was published: to support the claim by Bugliosi and others that "conspiracy buffs" know no limits when it comes to fantasizing about what really happened to JFK.

I'm afraid that this will amount to a significant net loss for the truth.

Charles

I suspect you are right. However, I suspose it depends how the names of Nixon, Johnson and Bush were used. For example, they all could be accused of being involved in the cover-up.

[Peter Janney]

"[The letter] specifically names Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and George H. W. Bush as co-conspirators, among others."

Which is why the letter was published: to support the claim by Bugliosi and others that "conspiracy buffs" know no limits when it comes to fantasizing about what really happened to JFK.

I'm afraid that this will amount to a significant net loss for the truth."

(Charles Drago)

Paul Kuntzler's letter is very well written and articulate; I doubt seriously whether it was published as a pro Buligosi effort.

You have to see this and read it to gain some of the impact I suspect this letter will generate. It will be highly controversial, no doubt. But the research has been done to support everything he states, and this is why I believe that it will stir up a hornet's nest, as it should!

[Jack White]

D.C. gay activist pushes JFK assassination theory

Kuntzler lobbies gay, straight media to rebuke gov’t account

By LOU CHIBBARO JR

Jun. 08, 2006

A D.C. gay activist who co-founded the Gay & Lesbian Activists Alliance and the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club in the 1970s has raised eyebrows by launching a self-financed campaign to promote his theory that U.S. government agencies were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Paul Kuntzler, president of the Miller Reporter Co., a transcription and court reporting firm that provides services for Congress and executive branch agencies, merged his gay activism with his Kennedy assassination efforts this week by purchasing four, full-page advertisements, on pages 37-40 in this week’s Washington Blade, to publicize his beliefs about the assassination.

“This is a story bigger than Watergate and bigger than the September 11 terrorist attacks,” Kuntzler said.

The ad consists of the text of an April 4, 2006, letter Kuntzler wrote to Donald Graham, publisher of the Washington Post. In the letter, Kuntzler outlines his belief that President Lyndon Johnson, former FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, the CIA, the Secret Service, and top U.S. military leaders participated in a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

Most of these assertions have been published before in books, articles, and television and film documentaries, including filmmaker Oliver Stone’s controversial film, JFK.

Surviving members of the Johnson administration have denounced as outrageous and unsubstantiated such claims that Johnson and U.S. government agencies were involved in the assassination.

Others who have studied the assassination have raised doubts about the findings of the Warren Commission, the official U.S. government account of the assassination, which found that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas. But no prominent historian or author has backed claims that Johnson or government agencies played a role in the assassination.

A call for action

Saying he has read more than a dozen books on the subject, Kuntzler said his aim is to convince the media, especially the Washington Post and the New York Times, to fully report the “true facts” about the assassination. He said a full disclosure of the facts, which he believes have been concealed by the government, would shock the nation and shake the political foundation of the U.S. political system.

“The American people deserve to get a full and complete account of what actually happened,” Kuntzler said. “What happened on Nov. 22, 1963, was an attack against our democracy. I truly believe there is nothing more important than to get to the bottom of this.”

A native of Michigan, Kuntzler said he first became involved in politics in 1960, at age 19, when he became a volunteer for the Kennedy presidential campaign in his home state.

He moved to D.C. a few years later and became a member of the Mattachine Society of Washington, the city’s first gay political group founded by veteran D.C. gay activist Frank Kameny.

Kuntzler and his now deceased domestic partner, Steven Miller, are among the handful of gay activists captured in photographs with Kameny as they formed a picket line in front of the White House in the early 1960s.

Miller, a professional stenographer and court reporter, went on to buy the court reporting company he worked for, which became Miller Reporting. Under Miller’s leadership, the firm grew to become one of the nation’s most prominent transcription companies, with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and several committees of the U.S. Senate and House among its clients.

Kuntzler inherited the company when Miller died in 2004. He has since used Miller Reporting letterhead to correspond with newspaper editors and reporters to promote his beliefs on the Kennedy assassination.

Earlier this year, Kuntzler startled some gay activist colleagues when he rented the ballroom at the city’s posh Willard Hotel and paid to fly in a half dozen authors and writers specializing in JFK assassination conspiracy theories for a panel discussion.

Kuntzler arranged for sophisticated audio-visual equipment to project the famous Zapruder 8-mm home movie, which recorded the assassination, on a large screen above the panelists. The film was shown repeatedly for more than an hour as the panelists discussed their views on the assassination.

Kuntzler distributed at the panel session a compendium of his correspondence with editors and reporters at the Post and New York Times, along with copies of newspaper articles on the assassination.

But so far, his efforts have generated only a single, small article in U.S. News & World Report. The Post and New York Times have not published stories on the Kennedy assassination since Kuntzler began contacting them about the subject.

The Times did not respond to a request for comment. The Post declined to comment.

[Jack White]

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Conspiracy Theory -- Believe or Not!

Civilization is a conspiracy. … Modern life is the silent compact of comfortable folk to keep up pretences.

John Buchan (1875–1940), author

There is an interesting two-page advertisement in the New York Times. I can’t find it online, just in the actual paper. It’s a letter from Paul Kuntzler, president, Court Reporters Transcribers, asking for his materials back from the Washington Post, specifically a video titled “The Men Who Killed Kennedy, the Final Chapter, Volumes 1 and 2.” According to the letter/advertisement the Post has been very slow in returning his materials and it still has not returned Volume 1.

He goes on through the two pages to detail the conspiracy to kill President John F. Kennedy. He says that Lyndon Johnson was involved, Richard Nixon was involved, George H. W. Bush, who then headed the CIA, was involved; Gerald Ford, who headed the Warren Commission, was involved, and Arlen Specter, who was a lawyer on the Warren Commission, was involved.

It is quite an interesting advertisement and makes one think twice about the entire conspiracy theory. What makes me think there may be more credibility to it than I had ever assumed is the recent political events that have led to George W. Bush’s election and many of the surrounding events.

The 2000 election snafu where the Supreme Court jumped in too soon, the 2004 Ohio voting snafu, President George W. Bush’s blatant high-handedness in doling out favors and political appointments to unqualified friends, the entire unnecessary war in Iraq, and the fact that Bush is just a front for Dick Cheney’s agenda.

I am not so ready to dismiss the conspiracy theory as I once was.

[Myra Bronstein]

In today’s New York Times (July 31, 2007) a remarkable two page letter (section A 16-17) appears from Paul Kuntzler to Chairman of the Board Donald Graham of The Washington Post demanding to know why the Washington Post never returned the evidence he submitted that supported the conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy at the highest levels of government.

...

I don't suppose anyone has a copy of this letter to scan and/or quote for us...?

I've tried all day to find a copy locally. Even the libraries don't have it. They just get the Sunday Times.

So frustrating...

[William Kelly]

In today's New York Times (July 31, 2007) a remarkable two page letter (section A 16-17) appears from Paul Kuntzler to Chairman of the Board Donald Graham of The Washington Post demanding to know why the Washington Post never returned the evidence he submitted that supported the conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy at the highest levels of government.

...

I don't suppose anyone has a copy of this letter to scan and/or quote for us...?

I've tried all day to find a copy locally. Even the libraries don't have it. They just get the Sunday Times.

So frustrating...

And when someone finds a complete text of this Two Page Ad in Today (July 31, 2007) NYT, please post it on a new and separate thread so this one can get back to discussing Jimmy D and DT's Brothers.

Thanks,

BK

[Myra Bronstein]

In today's New York Times (July 31, 2007) a remarkable two page letter (section A 16-17) appears from Paul Kuntzler to Chairman of the Board Donald Graham of The Washington Post demanding to know why the Washington Post never returned the evidence he submitted that supported the conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy at the highest levels of government.

...

I don't suppose anyone has a copy of this letter to scan and/or quote for us...?

I've tried all day to find a copy locally. Even the libraries don't have it. They just get the Sunday Times.

So frustrating...

And when someone finds a complete text of this Two Page Ad in Today (July 31, 2007) NYT, please post it on a new and separate thread so this one can get back to discussing Jimmy D and DT's Brothers.

Thanks,

BK

Discussion of 7/31/07 Paul Kuntzler New York Times ad continues here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10609

[Don Jeffries]

I haven't seen any posts from David Talbot recently. Is he still coming to the forum?

[William Kelly]

I haven't seen any posts from David Talbot recently. Is he still coming to the forum?

Yea Don,

I'd like to know what David Talbot thinks about Kuntzler's quoting from his book.

BK

[Greg Parker]

James [DiEugenio] suggests that he is in danger of being smeared by me for his criticism of the Mary Pinchot story. The reason for this hostility is that I included passages from books by Dale Myers and Gus Russo that were critical of him on the page I created on James DiEugenio. The reason that I include different views on the people that I write about is because of the British educational system. In history we have to teach different interpretations of the past. We encourage students to be critical of the sources. All the people I write about are treated in this way. However, James took offence at this approach to education and insisted I removed these critical comments. It seems that James only likes me to encourage educational debate about establishment figures. For example, I have posted James’ comments about me on my page and the one on Mary Meyer. I have also added some of his harshest criticisms of David Talbot to his page.

I have in fact removed the comments made by Dale Myers and Gus Russo as it seems that James DiEugenio cannot take criticism. I don’t expect David Talbot to make demands that I remove James’ comments about him.

Fair enough John,

Did David Lifton likewise ask you to remove critical material about him, or could you just not find any?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKlifton.htm

If the latter, I'd be happy to help you out with some source material.

[Greg Parker]

James [DiEugenio] suggests that he is in danger of being smeared by me for his criticism of the Mary Pinchot story. The reason for this hostility is that I included passages from books by Dale Myers and Gus Russo that were critical of him on the page I created on James DiEugenio. The reason that I include different views on the people that I write about is because of the British educational system. In history we have to teach different interpretations of the past. We encourage students to be critical of the sources. All the people I write about are treated in this way. However, James took offence at this approach to education and insisted I removed these critical comments. It seems that James only likes me to encourage educational debate about establishment figures. For example, I have posted James’ comments about me on my page and the one on Mary Meyer. I have also added some of his harshest criticisms of David Talbot to his page.

I have in fact removed the comments made by Dale Myers and Gus Russo as it seems that James DiEugenio cannot take criticism. I don’t expect David Talbot to make demands that I remove James’ comments about him.

Fair enough John,

Did David Lifton likewise ask you to remove critical material about him, or could you just not find any?

http://www.spartacus...k/JFKlifton.htm

If the latter, I'd be happy to help you out with some source material.

John,

I'm trying to get some idea of the processes followed with these biographies. You say above "The reason that I include different views on the people that I write about is because of the British educational system. In history we have to teach different interpretations of the past. We encourage students to be critical of the sources. All the people I write about are treated in this way"

David Lifton and his various theories are neither non-controversial nor universally accepted - but the casual reader/student would hardly know this from your profile of this author. There is nothing -- not a hint that his theories are hotly disputed; that the man himself has a history of alleged slippery dealings with both witnesses and other authors/researchers.

Since you haven't responded to my original question, I've looked at a few random bios to see if any pattern emerged which might put some light on it.

Larry Hancock, who no one could describe as controversial, has some (albeit mildly) negative material in it per a Jim DiEugenio review of Someone Would Have Talked.

Doug Horne - gets the clean bill of health treatment similar to Mr Lifton. Not as controversial a figure.

Joachim Joesten - has negative material included.

C David Heymann - I didn't think it was possible, but this one surprised me more than Mr Lifton's did. Again, no negative material at all. Anyone reading this might get the impression that Heymann enjoyed a very high standing in critical circles. Not a mention that one book had to be recalled because of the multitude of errors. Not a word about the use of single (and usually agenda-driven) sources. Not a word about his self-confessed ties to a foreign intelligence service.

I won't draw any conclusions from such a small sample... but it is not a good look when, on the one hand, you say everyone you write about gets the same treatment (that is, a range of sources and differing viewpoints are used as required by the British Education system) while on the other hand, people whom you support appear in their bios as shining examples of scholarship and professionalism - despite many many critics you could have used, disputing those qualities.

I read yours, too btw... and I still think your suite f8 theory has potential.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

The reason that I include different views on the people that I write about is because of the British educational system. In history we have to teach different interpretations of the past. We encourage students to be critical of the sources.

John,

I'm sorry you feel you can't respond. You may think this is fueled by your suggestion that I owed an apology to Mr Lifton. Who knows, if that is what you think, you may be right. I do believe your call for that was ill-considered and based on what was said in a single post by someone who is a habitual confabulator. I didn't deliberately go looking for something to "get" you on. By the same token, I can't help noticing -- even zeroing in on things that are not quite right. And this isn't right, John.

Regardless of what you believe my motives to be, you really do need to include "different views" when that is what you say you do - and that applies ESPECIALLY when writing about controversial figures like DSL and Heymann. I don't understand why you didn't.

This will be the last time I will attempt to draw your attention to this. I do apologize for my initial post on the matter which probably did deserve to get ignored.

[Mike Rago]

. By the same token, I can't help noticing -- even zeroing in on things that are not quite right.

There is something that is not quite right in the "research" community. I am still trying to decide if their purpose is to discover the truth or to make sure the truth is not discovered. It has been 50 years you know.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Guest Tom Scully]

I would like to file a formal complaint that Mike Rago has - five times, stepped on my Valkyrie thread posts - without good reason, and if he continues to do so, after I have politely requested him to stop - I would like to have him placed on moderation so that his posts will be read by moderators before they can be seen to prevent him from engaging further in this childish behavior.

I agree this is a problem with this Forum. Steven Gaal also does this. If you remember, Tim Gratz used to do this. It is a difficult one to deal with. Is it bad enough to put them on moderation? I would be interested in what other members think about this.

. By the same token, I can't help noticing -- even zeroing in on things that are not quite right.

There is something that is not quite right in the "research" community. I am still trying to decide if their purpose is to discover the truth or to make sure the truth is not discovered. It has been 50 years you know.

Mike, consider that you are replying frequently enough to posts best left awhile to be replied to by the intended recipient or to be just left on display (vs. stepping on posts), as Bill Kelly had wished, for your conduct to become a concern. It isn't a matter that will be remedied by you believing you don't need to make any corrective adjustments. Members who are on moderation put themselves in that status by failing to agree to moderate their own posting .