The Abuse of JFK Research by the far right and far left.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Chris, I LOVE Tucker's sarcasm, it is very much like Chael Sonnen and IMO is done to be a heel and be extra abrasive to leftists. I don't know wether to laugh or cry that people here like Bob and Simon are letting their bias and ego's  distract from the topic which is waking up or "red pilling" normies that the JFKA is the work of people in ABC agencies in their government. 

One can easily make the same case for Joy Reid, she's racist. But it doesn't have anything to do with her telling her audience about the JFK files so I think Conservatives are smart enough to get that.. I shared Richard Spencer a literal White Supremest and Neo fascist who helped organize Charlottesville earlier. That guy is saying the same thing as Simon, which is shut Tucker down. Personally I find it laughable hyperbole to compare Tucker to Mein Kompf when one of the biggest White Supremests hates Tucker. Tucker Carlson is Christian and not a fan of Pagan far rightists, and that nuance is something Bob and Simon like to act isn't there so they can justify their bad behavior towards people they hold bias towards. Rather humorous that Bob of all people is making excuses for Simon, especially that Simon is new, lol, when the whole time I've been posting he's used any diversion of topic to tell new people to quote "F/O" 

Watch Tuckers segment from last night, he mentions the 9/11 and JFK Files in passing in the first two minutes and you will see how it ties into the rest of his segments, and that talk of Tucker is just into this because he has nefarious purposes. Exposes the person for; arguing out of ignorance and alarmism IMHO.. 

 

 

He definitely gets the Razzle Award For Worst Actors when they fake laugh comes out. But, he is reaching millions and taking more swipes at the security establishment. Long may it continue. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Kirk Gallaway- Yeah- I knew to be wary of Matt Whitaker when I saw him in the green room so i went into reporter mode and asked him lots of questions about his tenure at DOJ. It was interesting conversation. 

[Matthew Koch]

Here is another example of Tucker Carlson's segment creating good echos from commentators of the right. JP covers Tucker Carlson and mixes in reporting of Jefferson Morley. 

 

[James Wilkinson]

4 hours ago, Simon Andrew said:

I like Douglass’ book - However he does tend to present things as being fact when in some cases there is only a probability his interpretation is correct.

I think that is why it’s a go to book for many. It confirms a certain view which is probably correct however not with the degree of confidence he portrays.

I put this down to frustration- knowing so much about a case without having the evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore filling in the gaps himself.

Unspeakable took enough liberties to give me pause in accepting any of its other conclusions at face value without regularly scrutinizing its endnotes. Newman's books, by contrast, are a much smoother read because he's never given me cause to routinely second-guess his sourcing, and he's transparent about his suppositions and interpretations.

But as others have noted, Unspeakable is priceless as a compendium of scores of other works. My class-traitor-JFK argument doesn't rely on Douglass's interpretations one iota, but I still felt compelled to credit him for compiling the primary sources upon which my previous post was based.

I don't see how you could dismiss as "laughable" Wall St's turn against JFK if you'd been familiar with Chapter 4 of Unspeakable in particular, let alone the '62-steel-crisis fallout in general. It's an inescapable fact, and debunking superficial assertions to the contrary isn't nitpicking over the Judean People's Front -- it's pursuing intellectual honesty regardless of who's arguing what.

I've already laid out my aversion to playing footsie with white nationalists like Carlson, in the thread dedicated to that debate. It's a separate issue, and disagreement on one issue doesn't imply disagreement on the other.

[Simon Andrew]

13 minutes ago, James Wilkinson said:

Unspeakable took enough liberties to give me pause in accepting any of its other conclusions at face value without regularly scrutinizing its endnotes. Newman's books, by contrast, are a much smoother read because he's never given me cause to routinely second-guess his sourcing, and he's transparent about his suppositions and interpretations.

But as others have noted, Unspeakable is priceless as a compendium of scores of other works. My class-traitor-JFK argument doesn't rely on Douglass's interpretations one iota, but I still felt compelled to credit him for compiling the primary sources upon which my previous post was based.

I don't see how you could dismiss as "laughable" Wall St's turn against JFK if you'd been familiar with Chapter 4 of Unspeakable in particular, let alone the '62-steel-crisis fallout in general. It's an inescapable fact, and debunking superficial assertions to the contrary isn't nitpicking over the Judean People's Front -- it's pursuing intellectual honesty regardless of who's arguing what.

I've already laid out my aversion to playing footsie with white nationalists like Carlson, in the thread dedicated to that debate. It's a separate issue, and disagreement on one issue doesn't imply disagreement on the other.

Thanks for the clarification.

Newman has made some impressive findings over the years. I was disappointed with the last book of his I read where he described the Bagley encounter with Malcolm Blunt and said the chains moved down the track that day. I just thought…really, is that it. A conversation with nothing to back it up in writing and one of the parties dead to confirm or deny. I dare say it did occur however the book was underwhelming.

The new book (Poppov’s mole) sounds interesting however so I may read that in the New Year. If Malcolm Blunt is impressed, that’s a good start.

The problem with JFK from a historical perspective is that there is often evidence for both sides. He was sometimes playing both sides and flip flopping. I remember watching a documentary on his early years and marriage to Jackie. It was very well to do. His Dad had aspirations for one of his kids to be president for a long time…almost as a birth right.

As much as their is evidence for JFK being a class traitor I’m sure he did plenty of other things that don’t fall within this category.

He certainly made many enemies- however as these goons were slightly to the right of gengis khan - it was not difficult.

[James Wilkinson]

Bagley's "He had to be witting!" admission is similar to Jane Roman's "keen operational interest" inference, in that both are notable pieces of evidence that fall short of proof. My reading of Newman in this regard allows me to evaluate the same underlying agency docs upon which these expert, insider interpretations are based. Newman's see-for-yourself argument means he's not relying on a trust-me or trust-him argument as it might seem at first blush.

Into the Storm's Sam Halpern sections alone left me sufficiently whelmed, and I can't wait to see how Armageddon ties together various threads in all the previous volumes, including the conclusion in Popov that Oswald's defection was a false molehunt. It seems premature to fully evaluate the current volumes until that conclusion's imminent drop.

Back to the topic, you're right about the pitfalls of cherry-picking when it comes to politicians. Unless you can cite specific examples of JFK selling out his working-class constituents after March '62, however, it's unacceptable to simply posit a vague certainty that this occurred. I'm told this forum runs on receipts, not unfounded opinions.

Anyway, I accept your admission that JFK came to be viewed as a class traitor, which makes it reasonable to view him as favoring the demands of American workers over the demands of the top 10% in the second half of his abbreviated term.

Defining oneself primarily as a centrist is intellectually bankrupt in the sense that it's a position based on splitting the difference between aggregated public opinion as corralled by the ever-shifting Overton window. To wade into an ill-advised analogy, a centrist in National Socialist Germany would still have been a National Socialist. An over-reliance on labeling and categorization is no substitute for fearlessly following the best evidence wherever it leads regardless of what others think.

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by James Wilkinson

[James DiEugenio]

To clarify for the two experts above:

What Malcolm showed Bagley was the same thing he mailed to me.

This was the declassified information that was uncovered about the CIA routing of the Oswald file in 1959.

This information--usually attributed to Newman--was actually first uncovered by a woman named Betsy Wolf.  Wolf worked for the HSCA and one of her functions was to examine the Oswald file at CIA.  Betsy asked for every charter of each division in the CIA.  She then read through each one.  Taking what she knew about Oswald, she then drew an imaginary graph as to where his files should have gone. She then asked for the actual file.

Upon examination of the file, she was quite surprised.  Because Oswald's file did not do anything like what she expected it to.  Every document went to the OS, not the Soviet Russia division and no 201 file was set up.  Betsy started calling in veterans from the CIA and contemporary employees.  They told her that Oswald should have had a 201 file, no ifs ands or buts on at least two grounds, the number of documents, and the veiled threat about secrets.

So why on earth did Oswald's file go to the OS--which does not set up 201 files--and why did it not go to the SR division which did?

In November of 1978, about two months before the HSCA would go on hiatus, Betsy had her Eureka moment.  She interviewed  Bob Gambino, the guy who was running OS at that time.  He told her that it did not matter how many documents came in or if they were pre stamped.  If the client had gone to the office of Mail Logistics in advance, they would only send them to that client.  

Betsy's discoveries were so powerful that they were not typed into memoranda form.  They were handwritten, and I have never seen them typed up by anyone. They are not in the HSCA volumes.

Why?  Because this was a line Blakey would not cross: someone had rigged Oswald's file in advance.  And this is what Bagley was responding to.  

I am sure SImon Pure knew all this right?  I don't see how anyone could demand any more proof than that: two CIA guys figuring out the Oswald file? 

Anyway sorry to interrupt the two "experts" with real data.

Edited December 24, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

4 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Here is another example of Tucker Carlson's segment creating good echos from commentators of the right. JP covers Tucker Carlson and mixes in reporting of Jefferson Morley. 

 

Who is this guy Matt?  I kind of like this.

Edited December 24, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Who is this guy Matt?  I kind of like this.

What? You haven’t seen Awaken with JP? Comedian who uses humour to highlight issues/corruption. 

[James Wilkinson]

Thanks for the background, Jim. If I came across as a self-appointed expert, it wasn't my intention. I have too much respect for the actual experts to mistake myself for one.

[James DiEugenio]

James,   there are three standards of proof:

1. By preponderance of the evidence

2. The clear and convincing standard

3. Beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In my view, the Douglass book major tenets were that Oswald did not kill JFK and Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam.  In my view Jim proved those by standard number two.

HIs overall thesis, about Kennedy being a shock to the system, I think he cleared that by standard number one.  And if he had had Monika Wiesak's book, America's Last President, it would be by number two.

[James Wilkinson]

41 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

James,   there are three standards of proof:

1. By preponderance of the evidence

2. The clear and convincing standard

3. Beyond reasonable doubt.

 

In my view, the Douglass book major tenets were that Oswald did not kill JFK and Kennedy was getting out of Vietnam.  In my view Jim proved those by standard number two.

His overall thesis, about Kennedy being a shock to the system, I think he cleared that by standard number one.

Yeah. Unspeakable actually sources enough credible evidence for me to be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that JFK was pulling out of Vietnam and that Oswald was a patsy.

Much of that evidence had already persuaded me beyond the preponderance or clear and convincing standards when portions of it had been reported in other books. For me, Douglass's book is one of the best out there for its sweep as well as its (pacifist) soul.

I just personally find about five percent of it a bit of a reach, which is just another way of saying I think 95 percent is solid. To be so right about something of so much import and controversy is still such a stunning achievement.

I was acknowledging that once I come across any source I find shaky in any book's footnotes or endnotes, it slows down the rest of my read as I feel compelled to see it that's just another inconsequential outlier. For what it's worth, I've never found myself falling into that pattern with your books, nor Newman's, nor with Lisa Pease's Lie Too Big.

I think maybe it's easier to get just a little swept away here or there when aiming for as massive a sweep as Douglass did.

Edited December 24, 2022 by James Wilkinson

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much for that compliment James.

See, I have always thought--and I got this from Harold Weisberg--that the JFK case is beyond the reach of any one person, unless that person is a polymath.  Of which there are very few.

So if someone reaches a bit beyond their grasp that is something I can understand and make allowances for.

I mean look at Harold himself--he was not a very good writer was he?  The only book I ever picked up that I could not read was Post Mortem.

Jim I thought wrote a  well composed book.

[James Wilkinson]

Douglass's prose felt almost lyrical, infused with the passion of a lifelong activist. You don't get that with most well-researched tomes on the topic, to be sure. Some neurotic part of me will always be triggered from the threat of a "Medill-F" grade in any NU j-school class for even a single error, however trivial. This predisposes me toward Weisberg's admonition about avoiding any unsourced conclusions that could undercut a researcher's credibility.

His beautiful "bowery bum" line notwithstanding, Weisberg was def more of a what-he-says than how-he-says-it guy. To put it gently.

I try to come down on the side of letting a thousand flowers bloom. We're never gonna be able to control one another anyway. Diversity of tactics and all that too.

At the same time, I draw my own line at common cause with white nationalists in 2022. (There are more than a thousand flowers, after all.) That's a bedrock, principled stand for me, and Carlson's replacement theory rhetoric is as undeniable as it is beyond the pale.

We'll see what happens! If any tangible, lasting good does come out of Carlson's segment(s), I suppose I could look no more askance at that than Weisberg could at the ARRB doc dumps that never would've happened had it not been for the Stone film he himself had fought against with every fiber of his being.

Edited December 25, 2022 by James Wilkinson

[Benjamin Cole]

37 minutes ago, James Wilkinson said:

Yeah. Unspeakable actually sources enough credible evidence for me to be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that JFK was pulling out of Vietnam and that Oswald was a patsy.

Much of that evidence had already persuaded me beyond the preponderance or clear and convincing standards when portions of it had been reported in other books. For me, Douglass's book is one of the best out there for its sweep as well as its (pacifist) soul.

I just personally find about five percent of it a bit of a reach, which is just another way of saying I think 95 percent is solid. To be so right about something of so much import and controversy is still such a stunning achievement.

I was acknowledging that once I come across any source I find shaky in any book's footnotes or endnotes, it slows down the rest of my read as I feel compelled to see it that's just another inconsequential outlier. For what it's worth, I've never found myself falling into that pattern with your books, nor Newman's, nor with Lisa Pease's Lie Too Big.

I think maybe it's easier to get just a little swept away here or there when aiming for as massive a sweep as Douglass did.

My two cents is I largely agree with you on Unspeakable vs. Newman's more serious research.