More than just a rant--

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

I do not think nor do I feel that I'm superior. Go back and read what I wrote. I LITERALLY mistook you for someone else. I didn't realize that until I read about you on Spartacus. I find nothing inferior about you on there at all. Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps we just got started off on the wrong foot this time. One miscommunication or misinterpretation led to another and that was that.

"But, it never ceases to amaze me how much we are willing to accept as though we have no choice. Hopefully we can collectively bring this together while there remains something worth saving."

Those are your words. I don't accept the status quo and have been part of a small but enthusiastic bunch trying to mobilize an army of letter writers. Acting "collectively" to steal your phrase. I gave this effort a plug because of the words you wrote above and got nothing but grief because of some hair-brained notion you have that it was just a convoluted scheme to get you to sign up for facebook and twiitter (the latter of which I never even mentioned). Why? Apparently because facebook is where you can find out about those efforts and see the types of letters we are recommending be sent. Joining facebook is NOT a prerequisite to joining our efforts, and that has been explained a few times already! I don't know how to make it more comprehensible than that.

You may have "been there, done that" as far as writing letters. But that was a different era, and you were acting solo. You ain't gonna make it Hollywood if you stop knocking on doors.

But please - don't take this as me directing you. I'm just speaking to the wider group through you.

So who is this person you mistook me for, anyway? Now I'm curious. That bio is about 7 years out of date, btw.

To re-iterate, I am not joining Facebook or Twitter, but it is none of my business nor concern if others do so join. I have my reasons. I employed a poor choice of words when I used "pseudo" as its connotation was not my intended meaning. That I fail to appreciate its effectiveness is in no way indicative of the sincerity of one who chooses that method to get the word out. I don't think there is anything "fake or artificial" about your efforts there. My apologies if that's how it came across.

Well, let me also reiterate. I don't give a rats arse about facebook. My concerns about social media are substantial. JFK is the only reason I'm on there and I do NOT have a twitter account. Hell, I don't even own a cell phone and wouldn't know how to text if my life depended on it. Do you own a cell phone, Greg? I'm betting you do...

Thank you for the compliment at the end of your post, backhanded though it was, I appreciate it. We most likely have a lot more in common than not.

I like a lot of your writing when you warm to the subject, even when occasionally disagreeing with the content.

GO_SECURE

monk

Edited June 21, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Greg Burnham]

I think my ire was stirred initially when you told me to "Stop preaching to the choir and instead do it this other way"--when I had already identified my post as a "preaching to the choir rant" from the beginning. Sometimes I forget that the atmosphere on this forum is less like "family" than what we created on JFKresearch Forum. Not that we limited our efforts there to venting our spleen only, but we certainly allowed each other such latitude as it was understood that the process of effective action is often accompanied by a good deal of frustration and that the venting of same is actually quite healthy. It's also akin to pausing to reload your weapon and catch your breath. You could be the only soul in the research community who knows me so little that they would imagine that I would settle on complaining about something without doing more about it than merely posting a rant. I also confess to replying to your post when it was very late at night and I was exhausted from a long day. I interpreted your meaning much stronger than it was apparently intended. You simply offered a suggestion. I took it as a demand. My mistake.

Like I said, I think we had some relatively minor miscommunication and misinterpretation that unfortunately escalated on both sides. I'd agree to bury the hatchet except that there is probably no real hatchet here to begin with, IMO.

.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Pamela Brown]

It seems to me that from the moment LBJ coerced Jackie into standing beside him at his swearing-in on AF1 it was clear that only if the Kennedys toed the party line would their Camelot legacy be allowed to continue in any form. To me, the JFK Library is evidence of that. It is almost impossible to leave there believing that JFK is even actually dead, much less that he was assassinated.

Whatever does not fit in with the Camelot myth is eliminated. This is a completely unrealistic environment where everyone seems to be in denial. I did not even try to leave a copy of CAR CRASH CULTURE with them, as I realized my essay "SS-100-X" would not even make it to the shelves of the Library because it discusses his murder in the limousine rather than simply his life.

Nonetheless, they do have copious photographic documentation of each and every event of JFK's administration. And when any of us find ourselves missing the wit and wisdom of JFK, we do know where to go to enter into a blissfully unrealistic environment. And the half-hour movie on the Cuban Missile Crisis, narrated in JFK's words, is almost in itself worth the trip.

Edited June 24, 2011 by Pamela Brown

[Greg Burnham]

That's a very interesting interpretation of Camelot's vulnerability, Pamela. It's one that I find worth further consideration. Thanks for the post...very thought provoking indeed.

It seems to me that from the moment LBJ coerced Jackie into standing beside him at his swearing-in on AF1 it was clear that only if the Kennedys toed the party line would their Camelot legacy be allowed to continue in any form. To me, the JFK Library is evidence of that. It is almost impossible to leave there believing that JFK is even actually dead, much less that he was assassinated.

Whatever does not fit in with the Camelot myth is eliminated. This is a completely unrealistic environment where everyone seems to be in denial. I did not even try to leave a copy of CAR CRASH CULTURE with them, as I realized my essay "SS-100-X" would not even make it to the shelves of the Library because it discusses his murder in the limousine rather than simply his life.

Nonetheless, they do have copious photographic documentation of each and every event of JFK's administration. And when any of us find ourselves missing the wit and wisdom of JFK, we do know where to go to enter into a blissfully unrealistic environment. And the half-hour movie on the Cuban Missile Crisis, narrated in JFK's words, is almost in itself worth the trip.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Sorry, we do not even know who Jackie and RFK really were, and I, at least, am left to assume it is because they wanted it that way.

Perhaps, in my ignorance, I cannot grasp how widow and brother could willingly surround themselves with suspects or individuals once removed from suspects in the assassination of their loved one and or in the murder of the alleged assassin. I cannot fathom how RFK and his entire Justice Department failed to react to the appointment of Albert E. Jenner to "investigate" the background of the alleged assassin.

Please enlighten me, sans the excuses that both Jackie and RFK were just too intimidated to interfere with, or even explain, any of these contradictions.

.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/10/arts/10guinzburg.html

Thomas Guinzburg, Paris Review Co-Founder, Dies at 84

By BRUCE WEBER

Published: September 10, 2010

Thomas Guinzburg with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, whom he hired as an editor, at the Viking Press offices in 1975.

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol9/page282.php

Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. IX - Page 282

(Testimony of George S. De Mohrenschildt Resumed)

...Mr. Jenner.

In order that the correspondence be complete, Mr. De Mohrenschildt has produced for me the response he received to his letter of December 12, 1963, to Mrs. Auchincloss.

Mr. De Mohrenschildt, since it is a personal letter, I will ask you to read the letter in evidence. It has a longhand note on it. You might want to keep the original. So just read it. And just for the purpose of the record, and not because I suspicion you, I will watch you read it.

It is on letterhead, 3044 O Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C.

Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. That is correct.

"Dear George:

"Thank you for your letter and for your sympathy for Jacqueline. Please accept my deepest sympathy in the loss of your son. How tragic for you."

"It seems extraordinary to me that you knew Oswald and that you knew Jackie as a child. It is certainly a very strange world."

Mr. Jenner.

Hold it a minute. The second paragraph begins with the words "it seems."

Mr. DE MOHRENSCHILDT. "You did not say why you were in Haiti, so I imagine that you are in our Foreign Service. If you come to Washington again, I would like to talk with you, and I would very much like to meet your wife. When you next write to Dimitri, will you send him my warmest regards, and thank him for his sympathy."...

quote

State Alleges Fund Misuse By Dorfman

‎

Pay-Per-View - Chicago Tribune - Aug 7, 1959

The committee counsel, Robert F. Kennedy, was at- tacked by Dorfman's lawyer, Stanford Clinton, as a "little monster." S tate insurance officials charged ...far his own use $51461 in premiums collected over three years from members of local 1031 of the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers. /quote

Sorry, because it seems to me that first, Bobby, then Katzenbach, and then, when the other two, the media, and anyone in the establishment with a memory and a conscience failed to cry foul, after this,

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22warren+then+sAid+that+albert+jenner%22&btnG=Search+Books#q=ruby+dorfman&hl=en&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=hBDYTZOqMeTo0QH80sj8Aw&ved=0CBcQpwUoCg&fp=1&cad=b

Rhodes Returns To Washington

‎

Toledo Blade - Nov 25, 1963

Ruby also worked as a union organizer for Paul Dorfman, Chicago union boss and close buddy of James Hoffa, Teamsters

president. Dorfman headed the Waste and ..

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex1216/html/WcEx1216_0028a.htm

Chairman: (Earl Warren) We have been thinking of lawyer in Chicago by the name of Albert Jenner....

...Mark Lane could have started screaming "foul" long before there ever was a sham WCR progressed to the point of being printed, bound and distributed. These were recent enough happenings to have nearly been considered current events, but Bobby put his name on a rewrite that disappeared them, probably in his vendetta against Hoffa, the person, instead of against the looting of large union local treasuries.

Hoffa was involved in the looting of union locals through the vehicle of the Dorfmans, but it was M. Frank Darling, protected by lawyer, Jenner, who pioneered the operation, and protected the Dorfmans, and it was Jenner who served Allen Dorfman, at first indirectly, and then directly until Dorfman's death. Jenner could not, ethically, "investigate" Oswald, and everyone had to know it, and did nothing about his WC appointment.

I just learned in this passage from Bobby's 1961 hearings that Jenner's representation of M. Frank Darling lasted longer than I had realized, and I dug further.

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22unfortunately%2C+because+it+was+a+reflection+on+all+of+us%2C%22&btnG=Search+Books#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%221953+hearings+with+Teamster+money+in+his+pocket+and*%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=8e6b03c96c4826f6

The enemy within: the McClellan Committee's crusade against Jimmy ... - Page 49

Robert F. Kennedy - 1994 - 358 pages - Preview

While it was a former governor who came from the 1953 hearings with Teamster money in his pocket and a continuing connection with the Teamsters, when the 1954 hearings were abruptly cut off it was the chairman of the Committee who ..

http://www.google.com/search?q=%3A+%22If+Oswald+was+innocent%2C+Mr.+Wirin%2C+would+you+still+say%2C*%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=darling+by+counsel%2C+AE+Jenner+and+JA+Sprawl%2C+Chicago%2C+111+%2C+222+Dorfman%2C+Allen%2C+Chicago%2C+111.%2C+accompanied+by+counsel%2C&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=8e6b03c96c4826f6

Hearings United States. Congress. House. Committee on Education - 1953 - Snippet view

... Mich 122 Darling, M. Frank, Chicago, 111., accompanied by counsel, AE Jenner and JA Sprawl, Chicago, 111 , 222 Dorfman,

Allen, Chicago, 111., accompanied by counsel, Stanford Clinton, Chicago, 111 71 Dorfman, Paul, Chicago, 11

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22mr.+jenner.+do+you+have+the+income+tax+return%3F*%22&btnG=Search+Books#sclient=psy&hl=en&tbo=1&biw=811&bih=493&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Admiral+Corp.+paid+me+for+the+advertising+for+the+Music*%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=8e6b03c96c4826f6

Investigation of welfare funds and racketeering ... Hearings ... ...United States. Congress. House. Committee on education and labor - 1953

....Mr. JENNER. Do you have the income-tax return ?

Mr. MCKENNA. We have information about his income-tax returns.

Mr. DARLING. An auditor made it up ; I didn't, sir. I don't recall.

Mr. MCKENNA. You see, my difficulty now is in how it happens that the ball club was a corporation operating with its gate receipts and whatever other income it had, and yet when Admiral Corp. came about paying a commission for advertising it did not pay it to the corporation, but it paid it to you personally. Now, can you explain that to us?

Mr. DARLING. I can explain it only in the way I have, that Admiral Corp. paid me for the advertising for the Music Maids which belonged to me and which was later — the Music Maids was incorporated into a corporation.

Mr. Jenner. He incorporated them afterward.

Mr. Darling. Afterward.....

(Unfortunately, Bobby put his name on the entire 1961 book, and this description in the book just was not accurate, and it served to obscure the info in the second page in the article images that follow it, and in the findings of a later senate committee in which Bobby served as counsel for. This does not excuse Bobby, Katzenbach, or Mark Lane from bringing it up to stop the appointment of Jenner as WC counsel, or to discredit and delay the WC investigation if the appointment of Jenner had proceeded, anyway....

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3182/Sirhan-Bishara-Sirhan-Trial-1969-Murder-Plan.html

....The prosecution's opening statement, delivered by David Fitts on February 12, 1979, was packed with examples of Sirhan's devious and deliberate preparations for murder. Just two nights before the attack, he was seen at the Ambassador Hotel, apparently attempting to learn the building's layout, and he visited a gun range on June 4 to polish his already considerable skills with the pistol. However, the testimony of one prosecution eyewitness to the attack, author George Plimpton, backfired when he described Sirhan as looking, "… enormously composed. He seemed—purged," a statement which dovetailed neatly with the defense assertion that Sirhan had shot Kennedy while in some kind of trance....

[Michael Hogan]

Sorry, we do not even know who Jackie and RFK really were, and I, at least, am left to assume it is because they wanted it that way.

Perhaps, in my ignorance, I cannot grasp how widow and brother could willingly surround themselves with suspects or individuals once removed from suspects in the assassination of their loved one and or in the murder of the alleged assassin. I cannot fathom how RFK and his entire Justice Department failed to react to the appointment of Albert E. Jenner to "investigate" the background of the alleged assassin.

Please enlighten me, sans the excuses that both Jackie and RFK were just too intimidated to interfere with, or even explain, any of these contradictions.

I'm not sure how applicable this is to what Tom wrote, but it just appeared on the internet and I had to put it somewhere.

From dissidentvoice.org:

Tell Me Again Why We’re Supposed to Admire Bobby Kennedy

by David Macaray

June 27th, 2011

It’s a mystery why John F. Kennedy is still regarded as the family moderate—cautious, pragmatic, shrewd and calculating—while brother Bobby gets to be portrayed as the impetuous, left-leaning, idealistic humanitarian. It’s a mystery because even a cursory examination of history reveals that that wasn’t Bobby.

For openers, Bobby Kennedy was about as “leftist” as Douglas MacArthur. In truth, he, like his brother John, was a shrieking anti-Communist. The Kennedys were not only rock-ribbed Cold Warriors, they were fairly paranoid about it—confusing progressivism with Bolshevism—which is why they believed, ludicrously, that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Communist, and is why they (John as president and Bobby as Attorney General) had King’s telephone tapped.

How much of an anti-Communist was Bobby Kennedy? Consider: During the early 1950s Bobby served as an aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy. Yes, that Joseph McCarthy. His witch-hunting senate committee ruined the careers of scores of Americans through the use of smears and innuendo. It’s a fact. Bobby (“Don’t get mad….get even”) Kennedy was Joe McCarthy’s boy.

It was only after family patriarch, Joe Kennedy, advised his son to jump off the McCarthy bandwagon (alas, “Tail-Gunner Joe” had become an embarrassment, having degenerated into a clownish, alcoholic demagogue) that Bobby sought a new vocation. It was only after Papa Joe urged him to abandon Commie-hunting and focus on another boogie man that Bobby Kennedy decided to make America’s labor unions his next victim.

Obviously, there were many corruption targets to choose from. He could have gone after Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, defense fraud, payola in the record industry, etc., but because Joe Kennedy had no ties, no loyalties, no connections of any kind to the working class—indeed, he held the common working man in contempt—organized labor became Bobby’s new whipping boy. Best to leave those slender, well-groomed gentlemen in the three-piece suits alone, and go after the stocky guys in the watchmen’s caps and mackinaws.

As for Bobby’s celebrated social conscience, that’s another… well, exaggeration. In his award-winning history of the CIA (Legacy of Ashes), Tim Weiner reports that it was Bobby himself who spearheaded the plan to murder Fidel Castro. It was Bobby Kennedy who not only initiated the assassination plot, but who—following one ignominious failure after another—flogged the hare-brained operation to keep it going. After all, he was the president’s brother. Who was going to tell him to back off?

All those bizarre reports that we’ve heard about—the exploding cigars, the LSD-laced coffee, the chemical additives to cause Fidel’s beard to fall out (!), bribing trusted Castro associates to poison him, hiring out-of-town Mafia hit men to murder him outright—those were all sanctioned by Bobby.

Based on documents released via FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), as well as material gleaned from numerous first-person interviews (Legacy of Ashes has a staggering 150 pages of notes), Weiner made the case that Bobby Kennedy was obsessed with killing Fidel Castro, that he ate, drank and breathed Castro assassination fantasies.

It’s also been documented that Bobby Kennedy bullied Lyndon Johnson into continuing the Vietnam war. According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin (in Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream), Bobby insisted to LBJ that President Kennedy would have done everything in his power to keep Southeast Asia from falling to the Communists, and that it was therefore incumbent upon Johnson to honor his dead brother’s legacy by not abandoning the war. He pressured LBJ to remain in Vietnam, arguing that pulling out would be the act of a coward and traitor.

It was only after the Vietnam war had become toxically unpopular and been deemed unwinnable that Bobby, who was now seeking the 1968 presidential nomination, reversed his position and declared himself America’s “peace candidate,” harshly criticizing Johnson for his hawkishness. So much for Bobby’s principles… and so much for Brother John’s “legacy.”

While Bobby Kennedy obviously had some good qualities, it’s a mistake to regard him as heroic—as a combination of Mahatma Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, and Che Guevara. Bobby was no hero. He was a hardboiled player. If we insist on making comparisons, he was a combination of Lee Atwater, John Gotti, and Henry Kissinger.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/06/tell-me-again-why-we%E2%80%99re-supposed-to-admire-bobby-kennedy/

Edited June 27, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Guest Tom Scully]

Michael, if I had known this David Macaray "piece" was coming, I would have delayed my last post.

Jackie certainly cannot be tarred with the same brush Macaray uses on RFK. I'm looking for a different sort of discussion. I believe RFK mpved, independent of his father, away from McCarthy after nearly exchanging punches in the Senate cloak room with Roy Cohn.

Drew Pearson wrote to himself, around that time,

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22kind+of+people+take+the+trouble*%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers

Some Of The More Scandalous Entries .

‎

Times-Union - Feb 16, 1974

January 1953 Lunched with Jack Kennedy, the new Senator from Massachusetts. He has the makings of a first-class Senator or a first-class fascist probably depending on whether the right kind of people take the trouble to surround him ...

Pearson never became an enthusiastic backer of JFK, probably because he was to the left of him, but his opinion of both Kennedy brothers changed over time. My reading of the October 1962 crisis is that the brinksmanship and JFK's, "you're out of your minds," reaction to his ex-comm hawks, converted Bobby, almost overnight. Jack sat in the big chair, and he was adamant that he was not going to give the orders leading to the nuclear annihilation of possibly millions, based on the hawkish, anti-communist ideology of most of the experts in the room.-

I am struck by the capacities of JFK and RFK to learn, and to change course. I am shocked at how corrupt Truman and Tom Clark were, and what that had to say about the democratic party generally. Unions were co-opted, but the problem was at least as much one of greedy right wing business owners assigning thugs posing as union leaders to squeeze the work force and avoid a union structure as intended in labor reform legislation.

The blaming of Vietnam on RFK is right wing propaganda.

What I am after is a discussion of why JFK, RFK, and Jackie were seemingly surrounded by the likes of Bradlee, Bartlett, DeMohrenschidt-Plimpton-Guinzburg-Train-Devine, and Gladys Byfield Tartiere-Ernest Byfield, Jr., and RFK sold out by Katzenbach, and did not seem to recognize it, or care?

Were all of these people spooks who happened to be friends, or "minders", or conducting surveillance, or a combination of all three? Friends don't accept assignments from intelligence agencies to monitor friends. Jackie is working for Guinzburg in 1975. It seems the surveillance never let up, and was never noticed? McNamara did shut up after he married Byfield's widow. Maybe I seem nuts with all this, but it sure is thorough surveillance, isn't it? From GLen Ora in 1960, to to Bradlee and Bartlett in the "kitchen cabinet", and a parade of these people, (including Jackie and her mother), in contact with Oswald or DeMohrenschildt, Plimpton wrestling the pistol from Sirhan, Jackie working for Guinzburg, and McNamara shutting up, right after opening up. The common tie, everybody I named is tied to CIA, OSS, or classmates of intel agents from the two Exeter Prep schools, and or Harvard and Yale.

A U.S. president, his accused assassin, the president's Senator brother, were all murdered, and none of the names above were talking or writing nearly enough from the perspectives of their inside vantage points, to account fairly to the American people. None of them bothered.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Just a tangent to the misunderstanding. The Government is winning because they alone BROADcast. There is tons of great reasearch but it is nearly always NARROWcast, i.e. to those already interested in the case. In today's media environment-- on in which the Bugs are the only ones ever allowed when JFK goes mass media-- the only way we can make progress is to get more people offering ACCESS to the new research In a BROADcast way: i.e. ramps from the mass media to sites like this one, CTKA, BlackOpRadio, and Deep Politics Forum, where new interests can be fostered.

We need more BROADcasters. The lack of attention here is the number one thing limiting our momentum right now. All the research favors conspiracy. The problem is that only the choir reads it.

[Michael Hogan]

Michael, if I had known this David Macaray "piece" was coming, I would have delayed my last post.

Jackie certainly cannot be tarred with the same brush Macaray uses on RFK. I'm looking for a different sort of discussion. I believe RFK moved, independent of his father, away from McCarthy after nearly exchanging punches in the Senate cloak room with Roy Cohn.

........I am struck by the capacities of JFK and RFK to learn, and to change course. I am shocked at how corrupt Truman and Tom Clark were, and what that had to say about the democratic party generally. Unions were co-opted, but the problem was at least as much one of greedy right wing business owners assigning thugs posing as union leaders to squeeze the work force and avoid a union structure as intended in labor reform legislation.

The blaming of Vietnam on RFK is right wing propaganda.

Oddly enough, Macaray is certainly a pro-union guy. He wrote a book called It's Never Been Easy - Essays on Modern Labor. From the book's website:

"This book is dedicated to working men and women everywhere, but particularly to the members of America’s labor unions — those individuals who

carry out the work, solve the problems, make it happen, but who, alas, rarely share in the treasure or glory."

From his bio:

"David Macaray is a playwright, writer, and former union representative with Local 672 of the AWPPW (Association of Western Pulp & Paper Workers).

He served nine terms as president, delegate and chief contract negotiator for the Local, as well as editor of the union newspaper."

http://www.itsneverbeeneasy.com/Home_Page.html

And had I known that Doug Caddy was going to start a thread on Macaray's "piece" I would have delayed (permanently) my post. Especially in light of what Jim DiEugenio wrote at the outset of his post there. I didn't feel it necessary to issue a disclaimer with my post, but I do now. My post in no way was meant as an endorsement of Macaray's article. I just didn't feel like offering my opinion at the time I posted it.

I suspected you and Jim and maybe others would comment. I'm glad Jim wrote the letter to the author, he nailed Macaray pretty good. And Macaray had it coming. Sort of how Jim replies to Carroll and Von Pein and others that haven't done enough homework. I'm sort of surprised Jim didn't mention Mahoney's book by name.

Tom, hopefully, the discussion will get back more to what you are looking for.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Kathleen Collins]

Greg Burnham -- Greg Parker is the one who uncovered the truth about the Oxnard Call. Penn Jones said Karyn Kupcinet made the call, had foreknowledge. And the names of the people there are different than the ones John McAdams uses.

In case anyone's interested I have a copy of The Making of the President 1960 on sale on Amazon. The name of my "store" is

Paper and Pen.

Kathy C

[Michael Hogan]

Just a tangent to the misunderstanding. The Government is winning because they alone BROADcast. There is tons of great reasearch but it is nearly always NARROWcast, i.e. to those already interested in the case. In today's media environment-- on in which the Bugs are the only ones ever allowed when JFK goes mass media-- the only way we can make progress is to get more people offering ACCESS to the new research In a BROADcast way: i.e. ramps from the mass media to sites like this one, CTKA, BlackOpRadio, and Deep Politics Forum, where new interests can be fostered.

We need more BROADcasters. The lack of attention here is the number one thing limiting our momentum right now. All the research favors conspiracy. The problem is that only the choir reads it.

The choir has always displayed a distinct lack of harmony. The result is general cacophony. Not the best way to save souls or convert non-believers.

I don't think the government is winning -- they won. It pretty much became official as soon as The Last Investigation was over. Sure there was Stone's film and the ARRB

and the new research and books, but little has really changed since Garrison wrote Heritage of Stone.

I was looking up some stuff on Gerald McKnight and found myself at the Weisberg Archives at Hood. I began reading the Meagher collection which was largely a collection of news clippings about the Garrison investigation. It was just about the time many Americans were beginning to realize they'd been hoodwinked by the Warren Commission. It struck me if Americans didn't demand the truth then, when stories about conspiracy were appearing daily, they're not going to demand it in 2011, or 2013, or ever really.

I'm reminded of what Gerald McKnight concluded: "Short of uncovering the proverbial 'smoking gun,' no seamless explanation as to the 'who' and 'why' of Dallas is possible. Ideally, the time for uncovering those answers was forty years ago......" (Now forty-six years ago going on fifty.)

I agree.

We need more activists to get out links to the spots with really good info.

See, the Douglass book is the only thing on our side that has made any dent in the national consciousness of late.

Jim credits my review for that, but I actually think it was Oliver going on Bill Maher and Huffpo that did it. (He may have seen my review first.)

So people like Nathaniel are important here. As is Anthony Hunt on Facebook who tries to make links to CTKA and BOR.

For sure, I'm thankful for the Douglass book, but others from Armstrong, McKnight, and Russell weren't even a blip on the radar. Jim, you know I'm appreciative of your efforts and

those of others too, but I think the time has long passed to know the truth as we want to know it. And just having most people believe there was some kind of a conspiracy without

the ability to nail it down is no victory for history, in my opinion.

The internet has made it facile for conspiracists to believe whatever they want. Torbitt, Judyth Baker, Zionists, Mafia, LBJ, you name it and somebody swears by it.

A little more than a year ago, John Simkin started a thread where he wrote this: "I have come to the conclusion that we will never discover the truth about the people behind the assassination of JFK." Up until that time, John had invested considerable time and energy in seeking the truth. I know he continues to do so, but his words ring true to me

Edited June 28, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Greg Burnham]

The guy that they put on Jackie was not GInzburg.

It was Maurice Templesman.

Maurice had ties to the CIA from his dealings with South Africa and the diamond industry.

According to John Newman, the one Kennedy they were always worried about was her. RFK being a close second.

The fact that she visited Sihanouk to protest the secret bombing, and her near hysterical outburst with McNamara as depicted in his book, shows why.

Great catch, Jim. Templesman was in fact assigned to Jackie, and Ginzburg, as you noted, was not. The South African diamond industry is rarely mentioned relative to CIA activity and interest, but that is a grossly neglected subject.

Alex Constantine has a fairly descent account on his website:

Maurice According to Constantine

Edited June 29, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Guest Tom Scully]

Greg, you and Jim, "know what you know"....

.......

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22kerr+was+one+of+two+men*%22&btnG=Search+Books#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22long-term+interests+of+US+book*%22&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=b0d8e11a30ccd6f1&biw=797&bih=476

Books as weapons: propaganda, publishing, and the battle for ... - Page 60

John B. Hench - 2010 - 333 pages

....Two Bookmen of OWI: Chester Kerr and Harold Guinzburg

Kerr was one of two men — Guinzburg being the other — who played particularly significant roles in the book programs of OWI. A man with feet planted squarely in both worlds of trade book publishing and wartime government service, Kerr was largely responsible for linking the strategic aims of post D-Day US propaganda with the long-term interests of US book publishers....

Take another look at Harold's son, Tom Guinzburg's NY Times obit pic...who is that sitting next to him? It doesn't strike you as odd?

At Yale, Tom Guinzburg's superior at Yale Daily News was, William Buckley of CIA, his roommate was Peter Mathiessen of....CIA, his Paris Review was funded by CIA. with the knowledge of George Plimpton, the Paris Review's business manager was John Train, partner of Thomas Devine of the CIA, and published by Prince Sadruddin, linked to CIA. Plimpton's father served on the Met. Museum of Art board with CIA project financier, Houghton of Steuben Glass, and Francis Plimpton's brother was appointed president of Amherst by John McCloy, and Plimpton's law partner Eli Whitney Debevoise was McCloy's HICOG counsel, and then his deputy HICOG.

George Lindsay became lead partner at the Plimpton Debevoise firm, Lindsay's twin brothers were ushers in Nancy Bush's wedding. Best man, William Macomber was also best man at Thomas Devine's wedding, and became president of Houghton's Met. Museum with no prior experience.

None of these coincidences elicit even a glimmer of interest from you or Jim, but the reliable sage, Alex Constantine publishes single source "details" on Templesman, and you guys take it to the bank.

I am not saying that Templesman is not a person of interest in this investigation of coverup, but I am observing that it is predictable that neither you or Jim would exhibit the slightest interest in well documented details related to Guinzburg, father and son, or in McCloy's ties to the Plimptons and Debevoise, who happens to be the son of Rockefeller, Jr's lawyer, Thomas Debevoise.

[Greg Burnham]

Tom,

I don't deny those you mentioned are persons of interest to say the least. I just don't agree with your conclusion regarding Ginzburg's role.

[Kathleen Collins]

This is the first time I ever heard this. Maurice Templesman was CIA and assigned to Jackie Kennedy sometime after Onassis' death? I thought she had a true companion in him. She forgot the catechism and lived for years with a Jewish married man. I was happy for her and he was just a spy.