RECLAIMING PARKLAND- NEW EDITION: BRILLIANT

[Vince Palamara]

Jim, time for some humor: do you remember when we spoke by phone about 20 years ago and I mentioned to you that (the now late) Harry Livingstone was convinced there were "two Jim DiEugenios" hahaha? He thought it was part of a doubling intelligence project a la what happened to Oswald--!! I still remember your laugh. Harry did some good work but he had some utterly demented ideas This was around the time he was coming out against everyone- Harold Weisberg, David Lifton, Robert Groden, etc. etc. etc.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Vince Palamara

[James DiEugenio]

Man, Harry could really be far out there couldn't he?

I actually saw one of his meltdowns in Dallas once.

I think that is when he started his own association to rival COPA.

It did not get very far.

I was actually much more charitable to Harry than most people were. And I use some of his work in Reclaiming Parkland. Specifically, I used Killing Kennedy and The Hoax of the Century from 1995 in my chapter on the autopsy. Another one I think came out pretty well.

[Gary Murr]

"Far out there..." is very apt! I spent about 20 minutes in conversation with Harry in a reading room at NARA in 1995, at which time he was trying to convince me that "the" truth would be known once his next book was published. One of the most bizarre contacts I have ever had in my 50+ years dealing with this subject matter. It ended with Harry inviting me to stay at his place while I was in Washington, an offer which I kindly refused. I often used to indicate to a fellow researcher that Harry's next book should have been titled, "Killing The English Language."

[Larry Hancock]

Talking with Harry was always entertaining, whatever else the man displayed an immense amount of energy - focus, not so much. Harry was one of those folks who sometimes seemed convincing simply because he was so convinced of whatever he might be talking about at the time.

[David G. Healy]

My time with Harry is to say the least, memorable. Harry's interviews with Roland Zavada, classic. And, Roland knew, Harry was sure Roland was not delivering the entire story regarding the Zapruder film and told him so.

And congrat's Jim, I'll pick up the PB edition.

Edited October 24, 2016 by David G. Healy

[Pat Speer]

As I grew more familiar with the research community, I discovered something which made me wary of Livingstone. Groden and Lifton--who agreed on very little--were in total agreement on Livingstone. They both thought he was nuts and not to be trusted.

Sadly, I've come to believe he's not the only one. There's enough self-delusion and cognitive dissonance in the research community--on both sides of the fence--to fuel a trip to Mars.

[Tom Neal]

Tom:

Martinez says that Castro killed JFK?

Wow, he must still be working for the Agency.

Hi Jim:

Here's the quote:

00:52 "The assassination of Kennedy, was directed, organized and... with the cooperation of the government of Cuba of Fidel Castro."

Including the word "cooperation" is interesting and of course, what was he going to append to the phrase "organized and.."??? Performed? Carried out?

Sounds like the same TIRED old CIA line to me...

Tom

[James DiEugenio]

A long time ago, I learned not to trust these Cuban exiles.

I interviewed several of them when I was doing Probe Magazine.

I discovered two things fairly quickly: first, they were obsessed with what Castro had done to Cuba. I understood this part way. I mean he did seem to fake out a lot of people about his Marxist leanings. But, under Batista, Cuba was a real mess. To me it was a coin flip as to who was worse.

Secondly, they all thought Kennedy had blown the Zapata operation. This is how good a job the CIA, mainly Hunt and Phillips, had done in that regard.

So after awhile I just decided it wasn't worth it. And from the Martinez interview, it sounds like that song will never end.

Edited October 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I was really disappointed that the publisher completely cut out my chapter on Mexico City from the hardcover edition. I worked very hard on it.

One of the best parts of that chapter is the section subtitled Goodpasture and the Mystery Man. As we know, CIA never sent any audio tapes of Oswald to Langley. But further, they never sent any photo either. To me, this is one of the key discoveries of the Lopez Report. And Eddie and Dan set this up very methodically and formally at the start of the report. To many people, this is boring to read since it deals with technical photographic coverage matters. But what the authors are doing is demonstrating how hard it is to believe that CIA could not have a photo of Oswald if he did the things the WC and CIA said he did there.

What next happened is that Phillips tried to explain to Tanenbaum first, and then Eddie and Dan second, well, the camera was out that day. As the report shows, and I quote, this was a lie. But even if it were true, it would not explain the lack of any and all pictures. Since there were too many cameras in place.

Edited October 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Martin Blank]

i've only read his books and thought they were poorly written and edited. most of all the lack of documentation gave me pause. it's like he pulled things out of thin air

[James DiEugenio]

As we all know, since CIA could send up nothing about Oswald, Anne Goodpasture tried to paper over the problem by suggesting the Mystery Man might be Oswald. And she linked this photo to an alleged call by Oswald the first week of October. And this photo was actually sent to the WC. Even though the guy looks to be about 6' 1" 210 lbs.

Danny and Eddie naturally asked her why she sent this photo up in the first place. She said that it was the only photo of a non-Latin taken the day of the call, October 1st. She also added, they would check for a few days in advance of the call in case there was another possibility.

What is fascinating about this excuse is that Phillips rendered the same one to his pal Bugliosi for Reclaiming History. Coincidence? I don't think so. For the following reason: It's wrong.

Danny and Eddie found out that there was another non-Latin male who called on the 27th, a few days in advance, as Goodpasture said they always checked. And he was not identified at that time. So why was he not sent up? What makes this even more incriminating is that Dan and Eddie found out the following: Goodpasture tried to change this man's name to a Latin sounding one to conceal this fact from the investigators.

What makes it even worse for Goodpasture is that the photo of the Mystery Man wasn't taken on October 1st, but on October 2nd--the day after the call.

This is crucial from an evidentiary standpoint. Because if the photo was taken on the first, Goodpasture could conceivably say it might be LHO. But on October 2nd, its much less plausible since Oswald allegedly left Mexico City that morning.

Edited October 27, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Caught in a rather incriminating corner composed of her own deceptions, Goodpasture now offered another excuse.

None of this was in any way malignant, she said, it was a simple misreading of the log.

But Danny and Eddie found the log sheet. It is typed in black with each day set off with red percentage marks. When they saw this, the investigators found her final excuse simply not credible. And they also found not credible the idea that Goodpasture would not realize her error at any time thereafter.

The clincher in this regard is that CIA sent a cable to MC on 11/23. The cable said that the Mystery Man was not Oswald. HQ then sent a request for recheck of the photos. It turned out that the Mystery Man was photographed two other times outside the Russian Embassy, and both times were in October. And the CIA in all probability knew who he was: KGB officer Yuri Moskalev.

After collating and analyzing all the evidence, Dan and Eddie concluded that Goodpasture knew by, at least, October 11th that the Mystery Man was not Oswald. But she did it anyway. Why? Maybe because there was no CIA phone transcript of Oswald to link the photo to on October 2nd. Therefore she had to push the photo forward one day to match in with a phone call. This made her "error" more tenable. As long as one did no digging.

The WC never got within a mile of Goodpasture or of piercing her deceptions. But in my opinion, this is why she told Dan and Eddie so many lies about her not having control of the take from either embassy. She knew that if she told the truth, they would expose all of the skullduggery she did in aid of the cover up, which she and Phillips cooperated on. (Reclaiming Parkland, Paperback Edition, pgs. 294-95)

Edited October 27, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[David Andrews]

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 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.

Seems like the perfect cover for a disinfo agent to me. A*** J***s has been using it for years.

Edited October 27, 2016 by David Andrews

[Joe Bauer]

A*** J*** ???

Is this a reference to Alex Jones?

[Joe Bauer]

Moving this posting to it's own thread.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Joe Bauer