David Giglio Interviews Jim DIEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I think the day of the interview was the 27th.

 

But don't hold me to that date since I throw out my Day Runner once the month is over.

[Michael Clark]

U

16 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

This thread should be renamed The Kennedy  Assassination  A Primer and pinned to the top of this forum. Not only does JD cover the case well but Giglio has some outstanding links to other resources.

Yet, only 300 odd views of it. Meanwhile, the craziness and zaniness on this forum continues with, for example, Chris carrying on with the ridiculous Towner Frame Split thread - 13,000 views and counting.

That's  why it's  even more important  to pin this to the  top so there's  some kind of  balance before visitors start wading  through  the  muck.

Mike, your comparing the view count of a ten day-old thread to a 10 year-old thread. Are you going to stand by that comparison?

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 11:44 AM, James DiEugenio said:

David Giglio's site, Our Hidden History is a really undervalued gem for our cause.  Everyone should be familiar with it since he transcribes and make audios out of primary documents.

He asked to do an interview with me on the subject of the obstruction of the JFK case over the years, which most of the public is not aware of.  Because the MSM avoids these issues deliberately.  It turned out to be kind of like a concise untold history of the case through the decades. You will never see this kind of info in the MSM. So let us hope this gets out.

http://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/james-dieugenio-the-jfk-assassination-in-the-press-the-public-eye

I hope to get John Barbour for David next.

Just read the text of the interview.  I'm enlightened further.  Thank you.  I recommend reading or listening to the full interview to anyone interested in learning about our history.

In terms of "not very honorable reporters" Sheridan is discussed.  In one of your books I believe you detail his renting a house to provide food, booze and a daily breakdown of that day's testimony as well as a brief on the next day's, both skewed to his viewpoint, for other out of town reporters.  His assistance by man on the spot on 11/22/63 Hugh Aynesworth is neglected for brevity I'd guess.

I've never read of JFK's evacuation plan for Vietnam over worries Hanoi would take over before late 1965.  Interesting.

Any idea where one might actually see the New York Times ad regarding Case Closed that defames Marrs, Stone, Garrison, Groden and Lifton as "guilty of misleading the American public"?  That's a interesting sounding historical visual, one that might stimulate readership here and at K & K.

Here's a relevant 10 year old thread I found on Sheridan, thanks Mr. Simkin and others.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

That was not Sheridan who rented the house during the Shaw trial.  It was Jim Phelan.

What makes that interesting is that Phelan did not cover the trial. He was there to spin each days' events for the press corps.

I don't have that Harry Evans designed ad in the NYT anymore.  But it was right on the eve of the publication of Case Closed. 

David Lifton might have it since he was one of the writers named.

[Ron Bulman]

Thanks for the correction and lead.  Phelan was with the Saturday Evening Post magazine (unfamiliar to readers since the (?) 70's), a tool of Operation Mockingbird, so I've read.

[David Von Pein]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I think the day of the interview was the 27th.

But don't hold me to that date since I throw out my Day Runner once the month is over.

Do you remember that you did the interview on a Tuesday? (June 27 was a Tuesday.)

Thanks.

[Joe Bauer]

I just read all the postings under the "David Talbot: Walter Sheridan And Jim Garrison" thread Ron B provided at the end of his post.

Whew!

Reading those, I feel spent as if I just witnessed an epic, 12 round, heavy blows, top contender heavyweight boxing match!

Going back to many of these classic forum debate threads like that one just reminds me why this JFK website has always been in another league compared to so many others.

I am going to add a few comments regards my views on some of the main debate points in that thread even though I know they do not hold one ounce of the 100 lbs research weight of the esteemed writer's postings in the original thread.

Then why even post these?  

Sorry, but the original thread was so deeply effecting in it's knock down-drag out, gut wrenching battle over RFK and Jim Garrison and W. Sheridan, I am worked up myself enough to shout out my own feelings regards some of the thread points no matter how weakly informed they may be. It's a visceral thing.

The flaws of Jim Garrison. Who do we compare Jim Garrison to in even considering such things about him relative to how this validates or invalidates his work in the JFK assassination investigation?

LBJ? Richard Nixon? Allan Dulles? J.Edgar Hoover? Ed Lansdale?

Compared to the flaws of those men and those who worked for them or served them blindly, Garrison is an Eagle Scout and they are twisted with greed and arrogance, sadistic, unethical dangerous power mongers.

Garrison's and his work was under sabotaging seige from day one by powers so much wealthier and powerful and connected, it truly was like the Gilligan's Island "S.S. Minnow" up against the "Bismark."

When someone takes on a battle like that for years I don't know if any of us can truly understand the toll it would take on your entire life.  Garrison could have just cracked at some point ( especially under pressure from his wife to do so ) and said..."The Hell With It." I think 99.999% of average people would have.

And I don't think he willingly sacrificed as much as he did ( don't tell me it didn't hurt him to see the pressure on his marriage ) just because he loved the national celebrity limelight or his automatic publisher accepted book writing status.

There is a press video on You Tube where a reporter asked Garrison "if he had to do it all over again...would he? Garrison hesitates for several seconds and stares away from the reporters as if in deep, self questioning thought and then responds..."yes, but... and paraphrasing here...under different circumstances or approaches?  Something that to me revealed an exhausted weariness as one would expect from daily battles with forces that out-manned him 1,000 to one.

RFK Flaws?  Of course he had flaws. But again, who are we comparing him to in this regards? That same devious group...that won out over both the Kennedy's and Jim Garrison too?

I think he was thrust into circumstances that were frankly much more sinister and cut throat that he even imagined at his young age regards who he would be battling himself his whole adult life in Government.  He leaned on his wiser and more street smart brother to guide him and when JFK was taken out...I think he went into a self-protection withdrawal of sorts. Probably confused as to what he should do and what direction to take...and remember he had a large family to protect and nurture.

Sheridan?  RFK's pitbull? I agree with Joan Mellon regards Sheridan. How many times have we seen loyalist to high status icons take that loyalty too far? To the point of violating the very principles their idols stood for?

Nixon had his loyalists do things that landed them all in prison! Hoover had his. LBJ had his.

Loyalty is a mind-set that can lead someone to self-destruction if not tempered with philosophical and rational common sense restraint.

Like a pitbull becoming blind with fight blood chemistry in the brain and they can't restrain themselves once they feel enraged enough...that analogy is a valid one.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Walter Sheridan was not RFK's pit bull on that show.

I did a lot of work on researching that NBC special.  I mean a lot of work.  I then summarized it in ten pages of Chapter 11 of Destiny Betrayed, second edition. (But I know no one but Sandy reads my books here.)

I did not find one single communication between Sheridan and RFK during the time of the production.  

That special was a product of Sheridan as producer; his communications with the CIA, which included the CIA running money to him clandestinely through the local law firm of Monroe and Lemann;  Rick Townley who was the local NBC reporter, and NBC in New York, i.e. David and Robert Sarnoff. In fact, Robert Sarnoff actually was in communication on the ground in New Orleans.

The CIA was running money to him for two reasons.  There were things done that could not be put in any official budget, and secondly, it was originally planned as a two part show. But it was met with so much controversy that the plan got cancelled.

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by James DiEugenio