Jump to content
The Education Forum

RECLAIMING PARKLAND- NEW EDITION: BRILLIANT


Recommended Posts

There is a review from a certain Vincent (not Guinn, Bugliosi, Salandria, Drain, or DiMaio) about Jim DiEugenio's book:

https://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Parkland-Bugliosi-Assassination-Hollywood/dp/151070776X/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Geez, thanks a lot Vince for all the kind words.

I have to say, this paperback edition has the Oliver Stone foreword, plus one complete new chapter on Mexico City and Chicago, plus another half chapter on Bugliosi's life and career.

On Mexico City, I think I proved beyond any doubt that the tapes existed after the assassination, let alone after Oswald left Mexico City. The idea that they were gone before the assassination is just a CYA lie put out by the CIA and later adapted by the FBI. Phillips and Goodpasture realized how dangerous their existence was to the official story so they made them disappear. They indicated just how weak the evidence was that Oswald was in Mexico City, and also indicated that the CIA was manipulating him seven weeks before Kennedy's murder. I tried to show here what a brazen and repeated xxxx Anne Goodpasture was, in order to show why the HSCA wanted to indict her for perjury and actually wrote up the papers to do so, along with Phillips. In fact, one section of the chapter is entitled, "The Deceptions of Phillips and Goodpasture."

What alerted me to her role was my interview with Eddie Lopez at his home in Rochester NY. This was way back in the nineties after the Lopez Report had been first declassified. Before that time, very few people had even heard of Goodpasture. So I asked Eddie, "Who is Anne Goodpasture?"

I will never forget his reply: "Annie Goodpasture. She's a lying, conniving bitch. And if there was any justice in this world, she'd be in jail."

I then asked him, "But Eddie, who is she?"

He replied that, "Phillips was always flying around from Mexico to JM/WAVE to Langley. So when he was gone, she would take care of his operations."

That surprised me, to say the least. Because I thought she would be the assistant to Win Scott, which she was titularly. But if you read that chapter, you will see how she could not have served Phillips any better than she did. Because she had the first take on the Soviet Embassy surveillance. And when Phillips was absent, she did the same for the Cuban embassy! Both photographic and audio. She literally lied her head off about this matter. Thus diverting Eddie and Dan Hardaway for weeks. In a real inquiry she should have been indicted for both perjury and obstruction of justice. Because the obvious question she did not want to answer is this: If Oswald was there, why did you not send his photo to Langley at the time? But she compounded this by disguising her manipulations of the evidence to try and excuse her sending the mystery man photo instead, when she had to have at least suspected that 1.) This was not Oswald, and 2.) Who it actually was. When I read what she did in that case, even I was taken aback.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They indicated just how weak the evidence was that Oswald was in Mexico City...

From comment regarding the posted interview of Eugenio Martinez:

"By fingering Lawrence Howard, the contract killer, as the person who appeared at the Cuban and Russian Embasies in September 1963 [he mentions Sylvia Duran], Martinez drops a bombshell. Not Oswald, not some fat, bald-headed Polish sailor."

Jim,

Considering the description of a blonde Oswald in Mexico City what do you think of Martinez' statement that it was Lawrence Howard that impersonated Oswald?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They indicated just how weak the evidence was that Oswald was in Mexico City...

From comment regarding the posted interview of Eugenio Martinez:

"By fingering Lawrence Howard, the contract killer, as the person who appeared at the Cuban and Russian Embasies in September 1963 [he mentions Sylvia Duran], Martinez drops a bombshell. Not Oswald, not some fat, bald-headed Polish sailor."

Jim,

Considering the description of a blonde Oswald in Mexico City what do you think of Martinez' statement that it was Lawrence Howard that impersonated Oswald?

Could someone have simply dyed their hair? Is that a "thing" in spycraft?

Does RR McKeown's slip to Dan Rather about a "blonde Oswald" indicate an attempt by the same individual to "double" Oswald?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=23041&p=335153

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must buy and read.

Regarding Tom Hanks;

The guy and his JFK/Bugliosi agenda are just weird.

Here is a guy who stars in films ( The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons and now Inferno. ) for what...$20,000,000 each? And where his lead actor role is to step up to dig for the truth that the main stream media and clueless public is just not getting and under life and death risk to "save the world" and is looked upon as a conspiracy kook while doing so, but a hero in the end when the truth is finally revealed.

Yet, in real life he spends millions of his own money on a project that tried to portray conspiracy researchers of a much more real and society effecting important event as loons ?

In 2013 I just had to see Hank's film "Parkland."

I talked my wife into seeing this with me.

I kid you not, we were the only people in the audience except for one other person.

This other person was an extremely obese fellow ( had to be 400 lbs) who fell asleep in the first twenty minutes of the film and who then snored so loudly through the rest of the film we missed much of the dialogue.

Parkland's laughable movie ticket sales disaster ( I read that it was one of the biggest money losing bombs in recent film industry times ) and our personal viewing experience in our local theater complex epitomized to me the ludicrous absurdity of the film and it's message to a head shaking ( how could someone green-light a film this bad ) degree.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe,

I laughed out loud at your theater experience while viewing "Parkland". It reminds me so much of when I saw "Ruby" in 1992. "Basic Instinct" totally overshadowed it and, with "JFK" still showing in the cheapies, "Ruby" died the death. I was there by myself with two other people, one of which was (get this) some huge guy who kept on turning around at certain points of the movie, as if to gauge the reaction of myself and the other person there LOL! After seeing "JFK" and the massive success it achieved, "Ruby" was a total dud. "Parkland"? I saw it once on television and was bored to death.

"JFK" will ALWAYS be the most successful and BEST assassination film ever. This has to kill DVP LOL!! All his propaganda has had 0.0 effect on people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its valid.

It does not fit the description by Duran, or the other witnesses.

From all that I have seen, and from what I have heard, Howard was a big, burly, dark guy.

Martinez starts his interview at 00:52 secs stating that Castro assassinated JFK, so it doesn't seem that anything but CIA propaganda will emerge from his interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weak spot in Reclaiming Parkland (2013) is the revival by James DiEugenio of the stale 1990's attacks on Ruth Paine. The book would have been much better without those useless arguments.

The fact that Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later became the mistress of Allen Dulles -- this useless information is presented as important? C'mon.

Another weak spot is failing to give the Lopez-Hardway Report (2003) its due. C'mon.

In many ways, the data in Reclaiming Parkland is obviated by Bill Simpich's landmark 21st century work: State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014).

While Tom Hank's defense of the LN theory is sad, a revival of 20th century CT's is just as sad, IMHO.

Sincerely,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend who later became the mistress of Allen Dulles -- this useless information is presented as important? C'mon.

I don't wish to revive the "Ruth Paine" arguments because we've been down that road before but I feel compelled to point out, (once again), that Ruth and Michael Paines' connections to the east coast elite do not stop at the "useless information" that Paul has pointed out. Scratch below the surface and all you coincidence theorists will have a field day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To show you just how irresponsible Trejo is, take a look at page 286 of this paperback edition and then look what I wrote above in post number two.

In post number two you will see that i note that this version of the book--which Vince P. wrote about-- includes my chapter on Mexico City, which was cut from the hardcover. Understand that Paul?

So how could I mention the Lopez Report there if the chapter on MC was not included?

Now if you turn to page 286 of this new edition, you will see listed in the chapter on Mexico City the four main sources I used for that section of the book. Number one is the declassified version of the Lopez Report.

I don't expect any apology from Paul. In fact, I do not even expect him to acknowledge that he made a schoolboy howler, one that anyone who was careful about what he wrote would avoid.

Because by now, this is sort of SOP for Trejo. He is that solipsistic. He is that agenda driven.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw, Joe:

That was my experience the night I saw Parkland.

There were maybe four people in the entire theater and this was not a matinee but a night showing during the week.

It really was a horrendous bomb. Which is why I think Hanks decided to spread the risk by bringing in producing partners at the last minute.

Chris, its not just a matter of hair dying with Larry Howard. On page 293 of Reclaiming Parkland I summarize the testimony of Duran, Azcue and Contreras. They all say that the Oswald they saw was short and slight.

Howard, by all accounts, was a big guy, like six foot, and over 200 pounds. This is description I got from investigators like LJ Delsa who talked to him in person.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, its not just a matter of hair dying with Larry Howard. On page 293 of Reclaiming Parkland I summarize the testimony of Duran, Azcue and Contreras. They all say that the Oswald they saw was short and slight.

I agree that Lawrence Howard was much bigger than Oswald and could never pulled off being a physical imposter.

And, I was really just wondering, based on those two accounts, if someone (not Howard) with "blondish" hair could have been trying to build an Oswald "legend".

My comment about hair dying was me simply trying to remind folks that intel folks really did (and still do) use disguises.

P.S. Every Cuban in Miami still parrots the same line about JFK and the BOP air cover, proving that if the CIA repeats a lie long enough it'll eventually become fact.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CN: P.S. Every Cuban in Miami still parrots the same line about JFK and the BOP air cover, proving that if the CIA repeats a lie long enough it'll eventually become fact.

That was my experience also.

Eventually I just stopped interviewing them. Because I knew what I was going to hear.

​So that is why I devoted a chapter to the subject in the second edition of Destiny Betrayed. That all started with Howard Hunt and Allen Dulles putting together their excuse during the Taylor Board hearings to transfer the blame from CIA to Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...