Paul Landis credibility MAY have taken a couple hits here- 1983 and ("NEW") 2010 statements

[Vince Palamara]

As DVP previously wrote: "So, in 1983, Mr. Landis was saying it was merely a "bullet fragment" that he picked up in the limo, which he "gave to somebody". But now, forty years later in 2023, it's a whole bullet (not just a fragment) which he didn't give to anyone but which he himself carried into the hospital and placed on JFK's stretcher."

Right under our noses- from Gerald Blaine's best-selling book THE KENNEDY DETAIL (Landis was interviewed for the book and participated in the television documentary in on screen interviews and in the scrapped Hollywood movie) [page 225]:

 

[Vince Palamara]

I am just going to say it: did Landis see/hear this and...you know...

 

[Vince Palamara]

I can't help it [you all probably think I will just run with what Landis is saying]- I am skeptical.

[Vince Palamara]

@Bill Brown

@James DiEugenio

@David Von Pein

@Larry Hancock

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2023/06/paul-landis.html

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by David Von Pein

[K K Lane]

1 hour ago, Vince Palamara said:

I am just going to say it: did Landis see/hear this and...

 

Except the 1983 newspaper interview that DVP found pre-dates the alleged 1986 talk between Kinney and Loucks.

That said, I thought the same thing until seeing the 1983 article.

[James DiEugenio]

Can i ask a question here about consistency?

How about Givens?  

How about Brennan?

How about Tatum?

See, that is OK for the Commission zealots right? Why is that OK?

Pretty obvious right?  

I am surprised Vince did not point this out.  He knows that Brennan absolutely refused to testify for the HSCA under any circumstances.

Let me add, in addition to using that pile of crapola from VIncent Guinn about CE 399 in his article, Posner uses all three of these BSers in his book.

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can i ask a question here about consistency?

How about Givens?  

How about Brennan?

How about Tatum?

See, that is OK for the Commission zealots right? Why is that OK?

Pretty obvious right?  

I am surprised Vince did not point this out.  He knows that Brennan absolutely refused to testify for the HSCA under any circumstances.

Let’s not forget about Ruth, Ford moving the location of the entrance, people being warned not to talk, skull pieces being taped together and re-scanned by x-Ray, memos directing the policy of the wc being that the public must believe Oswald alone did it, lies about connections between Ferrie and Oswald, and of course we could go on.   Credibility of a witness should be examined but when it is one sided then the court is filled with kangaroos.  

Edited September 12, 2023 by Cory Santos

[Sandy Larsen]

It's looking more and more like a limited hangout to me. Or maybe a zero hangout. Just something to make CTers look like fools.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

The reason this is creating such a hub bub and the reason that Posner is up in arms is simple:  both Vanity Fair and the New York Times wrote favorable articles on Landis.

Can you recall the latter ever doing anything like that?

So are they going to be fools also?

The guy has not even appeared to talk about his book has he?

DId he not say that Hill tried to discourage him?

[Kirk Gallaway]

I tend to be skeptical. I'd like to be present  at a good cross examining.   heh heh

But it's true, the real story might be Peter Baker and the NYT and Vanity Fair.

So now instead of ignoring, they are going to more critically examine the WC findings?

Is this a sea change?   Time will tell

It's actually a pretty hot story, though 60 years old, Tried and true to a lot of people.

There was a post Watergate period where political expose on early evening Entertainment/Tabloid shows were very popular.

I hope he and his story don't blow it!

 

[Joe Bauer]

I posted weeks ago wondering if we would see some distracting new JFK/JFKA story pop up that would garner national news media coverage during the 60th anniversary time period.

Sure enough we get this Landis one.

With shocking yet hard to prove claims regards the provenance of the Magic Bullet and suggestions of multiple gunmen.

However, it just looks and sounds to me like another societal consciousness misdirection ploy to keep the public more confused as ever regarding more important, relevant and hard evidence research JFKA questions that the main-stream media should be re-reporting and asking.

Well, at least we aren't seeing a new "JFK had sex with me" story to demean JFK's character and downplay the importance of his death and who planned it.

And the big brouhaha of Tucker Carlson's big insider source JFK truth reveal national news story many months ago just faded away as I predicted.

I thought Oliver Stone's great and very profitable 1994 film "JFK" might be popping up on national movie selection channels during this major milestone year anniversary ... but so far not a peep.

No "60 Minutes" coverage either I would assume.

The passion for the JFKA truth as well as the RFK and MLK ones is fading out with the generational passage of time and lost interest. As expected.

Us old timer JFKA truth and justice seeking crusaders made a good run of it though...didn't we?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Benjamin Cole]

There was tremendous, really overwhelming, pressure on everybody, especially security state officers, to toe the official line in 1963-4.  

Did Landis say "bullet fragment" before to make his mistake seem smaller? As a law enforcement officer, he did not treat key evidence properly, in the biggest murder of the 20th century. When the bullet he found became "the magic bullet," he decided to keep quiet, or minimize what he did. 

Is he coming clean now? 

Or just trying to boost book sales? 

My guess is, Landis is coming clean. Besides, he says the bullet popped out of JFK's back. Why would fragment pop out? No bullets were found in JFK. At least in the gong-show "autopsy" that was performed. 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy:

The reason this is creating such a hub bub and the reason that Posner is up in arms is simple:  both Vanity Fair and the New York Times wrote favorable articles on Landis.

Can you recall the latter ever doing anything like that?

So are they going to be fools also?

The guy has not even appeared to talk about his book has he?

DId he not say that Hill tried to discourage him?

 

Thanks for pointing that out, Jim. I'm feeling a bit less glum now.

If something happens that allows researchers from our side to speak regarding the Landis story -- with the New York Times for example -- hopefully they will be prepared to steer the discussion to related problems with the magic bullet theory that are more solid. And in the discussion, treat the Landis story as interesting, but unnecessary to prove conspiracy. Because there are already numerous problem with the SBT.

 

[Larry Hancock]

I think I have to chime in here with what I think would be a critical point - that is the reality that within one to two hours of the attack on JFK there was no "pressure" at all on any law enforcement officer to "toe the line" media wise.  At that point it was a totally open criminal investigation and many officers were collecting possible evidence of all types and documenting it - many very poorly - but I see no evidence of any innocent explanation for something as obvious as a bullet fragment or bullet not to being reported to a senior agent or officer, shown to a fellow officer, marked in place or officially collected as evidence and taken into custody.

It is true that the Secret Service seems to have been very casual about handling evidence and you can explain that with poor training, bad supervision, or the chaos of the moment.   In other words if you want to give Landis a pass  you can treat him as incompetent  or derelict in his duties but mishandling evidence so dramatically that early would not be a sign of pressure, or fear of rocking the boat since there was no official story and no  LN artifice in place at that time. 

I would also encourage a through photo study  to see if Landis ever shows up in the Parkland photos in the vicinity of the car or if any of his movements were documented in the news photography that afternoon.