US and Non-US JFK Assassination Researchers

[John Simkin]

John wrote:

As they title suggests, Eddowes argues that JFK was killed by the KGB. I wonder why the CIA and the right-wing extremists were pushing this theory?

But John knows that Joseph Trento, far from a "right-wing extremist", and who, as pointed out above, published an early and seminal article about CIA influence on the media, also believes that the a group within the Politboro (not the KGB itself) orchestrated the assassination.

John has admitted that Trento is an astute investigative reporter. He just thinks that that wily James Angleton was somehow able to dupe him about Soviet involvement in the assassination.

Trento spent hundreds of hours with Angleton and other CIA officers and had unparalled access to documents. He was also able to observe the demeanor of those people who he interviewed.

John, of course, has never interviewed a single CIA officer in his entire lifetime.

Trento has "been there, done that". Not so John Simkin.

The above article is another confirmation of Trento's investigative astuteness and the fact that he has no political agenda, either left or right.

Trento is right. Simkin is wrong in his arm-chair analysis from thousands of miles away. It is that simple.

Over the last few weeks I have had to put up with Tim Gratz constantly questioning my ability as a historian. In my defence I would say that I have a degree in history (with two more research degrees), I have taught the subject for nearly 30 years, and have been the author of history books that have sold over 100,000 copies.

Tim Gratz on the other-hand have a degree in law and worked as a lawyer until he was disbarred from the profession. I don’t think it was because of his commitment to tell the truth.

Gratz’s main complaint about me seems to be that I hold left-wing political views and that I am based in the UK rather than the US. The claim about my political views is a non-issue as it is clearly true. However, the fact that you are left-wing or right-wing does not make you a bad historian. It all depends on if you allow your political opinions to influence the way you study the sources.

Gratz’s second-point is more interesting. Is it true that a researcher in the US is automatically better than one living outside the country. To someone like Gratz, this might be true. There are obviously disadvantages of doing research while living in another country. However, these problems are not difficult to overcome, especially with modern technology and the current low price of air travel.

I would argue that someone living in say, England or Australia, has certain important advantages over those from the United States. Tim Gratz is a perfect example of this problem. For people living in the US can be too influenced by their own political history. I don’t mean this in the sense of holding left-wing or right-wing political opinions. I am talking about a person’s involvement with a particular political party. Gratz’s constant support for Republican Party politicians is an obvious example of this. However, I think it is also a problem for those who are passionate supporters of the Democratic Party. This sometimes makes it difficult for them to be too critical of the Kennedys or Lyndon Johnson. People living outside the US do not have this problem.

[Tim Gratz]

John, as I have tried to explain on numerous occasions, I do not think my view of the assassination is influenced by my politics.

From a strictly partisan standpoint, would it not be better to try to pin the assassination on a Democrat (e.g. LBJ) than on Castro? What partisan advantage is there in asserting that Castro killed Kennedy? It is not even an anti-Communist perspective since it is my belief that if Castro "did it" he did so in "self-defense" to protect himself from continuing US efforts to kill him (which I condemn). To assert that Castro did it is really against the interests of my country because it emphasizes our illegal (in my opinion) efforts to kill Castro.

To say Castro may have acted in self-defense is not a "Republican" position or even an "anti-Communist" position. As I said above, all it does is emphasize the terrible assassination plots of the CIA and open the debate whether the plots were approved by Eisenhower and/or Kennedy.

However the point you make in your last paragraph is an interesting one worthy of some consideration.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Lynne Foster]

John, as I have tried to explain on numerous occasions, I do not think my view of the assassination is influenced by my politics.

From a strictly partisan standpoint, would it not be better to try to pin the assassination on a Democrat (e.g. LBJ) than on Castro? What partisan advantage is there in asserting that Castro killed Kennedy? It is not even an anti-Communist perspective since it is my belief that if Castro "did it" he did so in "self-defense" to protect himself from continuing US efforts to kill him (which I condemn). To assert that Castro did it is really against the interests of my country because it emphasizes our illegal (in my opinion) efforts to kill Castro.

Are you a patriot? When it comes to understanding the Kennedy assassination, I think there are 3 political parties: Democrats, Republicans and Patriots.

I don't think you can blame the Democrats or the Rebublicans, in this particular case.

The Patriots? --maybe.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

John wrote:

As they title suggests, Eddowes argues that JFK was killed by the KGB. I wonder why the CIA and the right-wing extremists were pushing this theory?

But John knows that Joseph Trento, far from a "right-wing extremist", and who, as pointed out above, published an early and seminal article about CIA influence on the media, also believes that the a group within the Politboro (not the KGB itself) orchestrated the assassination.

John has admitted that Trento is an astute investigative reporter. He just thinks that that wily James Angleton was somehow able to dupe him about Soviet involvement in the assassination.

Trento spent hundreds of hours with Angleton and other CIA officers and had unparalled access to documents. He was also able to observe the demeanor of those people who he interviewed.

John, of course, has never interviewed a single CIA officer in his entire lifetime.

Trento has "been there, done that". Not so John Simkin.

The above article is another confirmation of Trento's investigative astuteness and the fact that he has no political agenda, either left or right.

Trento is right. Simkin is wrong in his arm-chair analysis from thousands of miles away. It is that simple.

Over the last few weeks I have had to put up with Tim Gratz constantly questioning my ability as a historian. In my defence I would say that I have a degree in history (with two more research degrees), I have taught the subject for nearly 30 years, and have been the author of history books that have sold over 100,000 copies.

Tim Gratz on the other-hand have a degree in law and worked as a lawyer until he was disbarred from the profession. I don’t think it was because of his commitment to tell the truth.

Gratz’s main complaint about me seems to be that I hold left-wing political views and that I am based in the UK rather than the US. The claim about my political views is a non-issue as it is clearly true. However, the fact that you are left-wing or right-wing does not make you a bad historian. It all depends on if you allow your political opinions to influence the way you study the sources.

Gratz’s second-point is more interesting. Is it true that a researcher in the US is automatically better than one living outside the country. To someone like Gratz, this might be true. There are obviously disadvantages of doing research while living in another country. However, these problems are not difficult to overcome, especially with modern technology and the current low price of air travel.

I would argue that someone living in say, England or Australia, has certain important advantages over those from the United States. Tim Gratz is a perfect example of this problem. For people living in the US can be too influenced by their own political history. I don’t mean this in the sense of holding left-wing or right-wing political opinions. I am talking about a person’s involvement with a particular political party. Gratz’s constant support for Republican Party politicians is an obvious example of this. However, I think it is also a problem for those who are passionate supporters of the Democratic Party. This sometimes makes it difficult for them to be too critical of the Kennedys or Lyndon Johnson. People living outside the US do not have this problem.

John;

As you are of course aware, a degree in history from a university in England, as opposed to a degee in history from a university in the US, carries a significance difference in exactly how much history one must study.

The "History" as presented to americans, beginning in early schooling, is, was, and continues to be the somewhat "one-sided" presentation.

This one-sidedness is prevelant, whether the subject matter is State History; US History; or World History.

And, in many ways favors a somewhat subtle form of communist propoganda.

Most states have within their educational system what is referred to as "Textbook Committee's", which of course review and approve the books which will be utilized to educate in the schools.

Such committee's are frequently a "political apointee" position, which should be adequately self-explanative by the "political".

The "history" which we are taught is of course not the history as "actually was". However, since it is the only history which we receive (without additional individual effort), then it is the "History" which we know.

The everyday american is as uneducated in world affairs; events; histories; and politics; as they are in there on countries similar fields.

Somewhat like obtaining and having an education without actually becoming educated.

Such a system of course has it's advantage in that the political parties can expouse how "educated" their electorate is, without having to divulge that these are the same parties which "sold" the likes of LBJ and RMN.

Even when the general public has "had enough" as they did with RMN and Gerald Ford, and thereafter vote in a relatively honest and caring person such as Jimmy Carter, such a person has little chance of survival if he does not go along with the economic agenda of those who are responsible for financing his successful bid for power.

"To the victor goes the spoils" continues to thrive in the american political arena, even if it no longer holds true in war and conquest.

[Mark Stapleton]

John, as I have tried to explain on numerous occasions, I do not think my view of the assassination is influenced by my politics.

From a strictly partisan standpoint, would it not be better to try to pin the assassination on a Democrat (e.g. LBJ) than on Castro? What partisan advantage is there in asserting that Castro killed Kennedy? It is not even an anti-Communist perspective since it is my belief that if Castro "did it" he did so in "self-defense" to protect himself from continuing US efforts to kill him (which I condemn). To assert that Castro did it is really against the interests of my country because it emphasizes our illegal (in my opinion) efforts to kill Castro.

To say Castro may have acted in self-defense is not a "Republican" position or even an "anti-Communist" position. As I said above, all it does is emphasize the terrible assassination plots of the CIA and open the debate whether the plots were approved by Eisenhower and/or Kennedy.

However the point you make in your last paragraph is an interesting one worthy of some consideration.

Tim,

Sadly, I must disagree once again.

You claim that a Castro plot, if proved, is against the interests of your country and thus illustrates your investigative sincerity. That's wrong.

Exposure of a plot implicating the US Government, military, CIA, LBJ and/or other prominent politicians (from either side) would be far more devastating for your country. That's an internal plot. Castro is an external plot. John's point is right--you're a patriot and arguing the case for Castro is the most patriotic thing to do. The other options are much worse.

I'm not arguing that patriotism is a bad thing. I've often wondered how your country will reconcile itself if the truth ever outs. Mathematically, I rate the chances of an internal plot at about 99%. In fairness, I don't know how I'd react if a thing like this ever occured here. I might be in denial like some Americans. I don't think I'm that patriotic, though.

I think your attack on John was a bit strong, too, although you've copped plenty yourself from many on the Forum including me.

[Ron Ecker]

Exposure of a plot implicating the US Government, military, CIA, LBJ and/or other prominent politicians (from either side) would be far more devastating for your country. That's an internal plot. Castro is an external plot. John's point is right--you're a patriot and arguing the case for Castro is the most patriotic thing to do. The other options are much worse.

Bingo! I was going to post, before I read this, that IMO Tim's position is a manifestation of the old patriotic idea or illusion that "it can't happen here." Other countries may have coup d'etats and/or assassinate their own, but such things are not done in the good old United States of America. Thus the JFK assassination could only be the work of a foreign entity or else a lone nut. While the U.S. seems to be in plentiful supply of lone nuts, Tim, to his credit, unlike so many on the right, acknowledges that the lone-nut scenario in the JFK case is ridiculous. That leaves him stuck with Castro as the most likely culprit.

[Pat Speer]

Bingo! I was going to post, before I read this, that IMO Tim's position is a manifestation of the old patriotic idea or illusion that "it can't happen here." Other countries may have coup d'etats and/or assassinate their own, but such things are not done in the good old United States of America. Thus the JFK assassination could only be the work of a foreign entity or else a lone nut. While the U.S. seems to be in plentiful supply of lone nuts, Tim, to his credit, unlike so many on the right, acknowledges that the lone-nut scenario in the JFK case is ridiculous. That leaves him stuck with Castro as the most likely culprit.

McCloy's comment that we needed to show the world we're not a banana republic is a key to understanding the Warren Commission. The irony, of course, is that, by its very nature, a banana republic is a country corrupted by American corporations, the same corporations that were staunchly defended and promoted by men like McCloy and Dulles ALL their lives. As a result, McCloy should correctly have commented that the U.S. is the ORIGINAL banana republic, and that we must show the world we're not a second-rate imitation.

[Dawn Meredith]

Diddo, Pat, Ron, Mark and John.

Tim: You've gott a face the truth about your own country dude.

Your government killed the president. And your blind "love it or leave it"

patriotism has you deluded. (Or else you are actually lying).

I guess we here in cyberspace can never really know can we?

I often believe you are sincere (but deluded), but then when you

stick so stubbornly to this CIA- planted nonsense about Castro, I begin to think you're

pushing this crap on purpose, to mislead and confuse new comers to the case.

Dawn