Journalists and the Assassination of JFK

[Jim Hackett II]

Let me take a short moment to thank all for this thread and replies.

And Mike Hogan as I'll order that book as soon as affordable. In a few weeks.

It is Mr. John Simkins decision as to if "suicided" journalists deserves a new thread.

Could just be an oddity of chance. I was not aware Mr. Antony Lukas had taken his life.

Mr. Steve Kangas' death I find so damnably uninvestigated, to be meeting with the known right wing asset of empire R. M. Sciafe and turn up dead should have made some honest officer curious. There are "left" thinking officers that try to abide by our organic laws (Declaration of Independence and Constitution) as I have learned to shed my own characterization of all officers as always being less than honest officers of the court.

To not dig deeper into Mr. Kangas' murder? That is walking between raindrops to me. A thing mr. sciafe knows very well. Not that I suspect the jerk of the murder but it is too easy and comfortable for my ease of spirit about the events to see no "set-up" in the matter.

Again thanks for the pointer to the book and thanks to all for the discussion of the ideas above.

Sincerely

Jim

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Although the historians' plight is understandable, there is no forgiving the journalistic community's complete abdication of responsibility on THE greatest story of what has been dubbed the American Century. The media's failure was decidedly NOT their inability to break the case -- the Watergate experience here is the exception not the norm, and were it not for the fortitude of Judge Sirica and Mark Felt, Watergate too would be similarly shrouded in mystery. It was, instead, a complete lack of curiosity and follow through on an official account of the murder that flunked the simple test of common sense. Instead of pressing questions and demanding answers, the so-called mainstream media ignored the white elephant in the parlor -- and worse, from Cronkite in the 1960s through Jennings s few years ago, urged the American public to ignore it too.

Why? I'm not entirely sure. I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's because gray eminences in Washington counseled, "Don't go there. The truth is too ugly and the consequences of disclosure are potentially cataclysmic." To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "You can't handle the truth, and the american people certainly cannot handle it." What people may forget 43 years later is that this mission could be accomplished over a few lunches and with a few phone calls given the concentration of media power in 1963 -- 3 networks, a few news weeklies, and a handful of important newspapers.

But even if you endorse this most forgiving explanation -- e.g., if you accept "Ultimate Sacrifice's" thesis that the people who mattered were worried about blowing up the world if "the truth" emerged -- that justification had disappeared a little more than a decade later when the Government, spurred by CIA abuses, revisted the issue. Again, the media were lapdogs.

Perhaps this time it was professional pride: "We don't make mistakes ... We could never have whiffed on THE story of the century ..." But whatever the cause of the media's abysmal failure, it cannot be justified.

--------------------------------------

"Although the historians plight is undersatandable..." In not sure what this means. Does it mean they should be left off the hook for failing to investigate the death of a president at a critical moment of US foreign and domestic policy?

Does it mean they shouldn't dabble in the assassination for fear that David Corn will call them conspiracy buffs and they will be scorned over sherry at the faculty club?

Not trying to be glib here, I think its a crucial question: just how and why are most pro hisotrians (again thank you very much Mr. Mcnight for daring to differ) so scared of the assassination. This question could lead to more interesting ones about the function of our instirutions of moated ... I mean higher learning.

Also re the Watergate commments on this thread, what is new and different about the Luckas book? I have heard intriguing things about his other books.

Also I have picked up a copy of Silent Coup, but then got discouraged when I read Johns comment that they got something major wrong--can't remember what exactly. John do you think this book is still worth reading

in its focus on the JCS and CIA attempt to "get Nixon?" Are there any similarites between this book and Luckas'?

[Pat Speer]

Why do historians avoid the issue of conspiracy? Maybe because they get so richly rewarded when they distort history. I found this on the ABC website. I had NO idea Jennings was given a Murrow for his HORRIBLE documentary Beyond Conspiracy. This makes me sick.

"In "Peter Jennings Reporting," which debuted in 1990, Jennings covered challenging issues in depth during prime time. Millions watched the critically acclaimed "The Search for Jesus" in 2000 and "Jesus and Paul — the Word and the Witness" in 2004. "Peter Jennings Reporting" also focused extensively on international news, with specials on tense relations between India and Pakistan, the conflict in Bosnia, the crisis in Haiti, the war in Iraq, and the drug trade in Central and South America. The series also tackled important domestic issues such as gun control policy, the politics of abortion, the crisis in funding for the arts and a highly praised chronicle of the accused bombers of Oklahoma City. "Peter Jennings Reporting" earned numerous awards, including the 2004 Edward R. Murrow award for best documentary for "The Kennedy Assassination — Beyond Conspiracy."

Jennings had a particular interest in broadcasting for the next generation. He has done numerous live news specials for children on subjects ranging from growing up in the age of AIDS, to prejudice and its effects on our society. After the events of September 11, and again on the first anniversary, he anchored a town hall meeting for children and parents entitled, "Answering Children's Questions."

Jennings has been honored with many awards for news reporting, including 16 Emmys, two George Foster Peabody Awards, several Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Awards and several Overseas Press Club Awards. Most recently, "World News Tonight" was recognized with two consecutive Edward R. Murrow awards for best newscast, based on field reporting done by Jennings on the California wildfires and the transfer of power in Iraq."

Edited April 28, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Bruce Cormier]

Nathaniel, many thanks for your reply. My brief reference to historians alluded to a point I made in a thread relating to them. I noted:

"The historians' avoidance of this quick sand is understandable. Those working in the area have been caricatured and marginalized. The task is daunting, with virtually every aspect of the case a lightning rod for controversy, often over the authenticity of evidence. Then consider the incompleteness of the historical record, with the CIA alone reportedly sitting on one million pages of yet to be disclosed documents pertaining to the murder. The cost/benefit here is not good, at least at this point, for the professional historian.

This is largely the fault of the US government, which has yet to conduct an adequate investigation, and the journalistic community, which whiffed on the story of the century. So it is not surprising that first rate historians like Beschloss have taken a pass."

I'm not urging giving them a pass, but merely attempting to explain why sensible people might want to devote their energies elsewhere. As just one example, "Ultimate Sacrifice" was what, 17 years in the making? Whatever you may think about its findings, there can be no doubt that the authors worked hard and devoted substantial portions of their lives to this undertaking -- and at professional great risk, if for no other reason than the fact the Gov't sits on millions of documents that bear on the issue.

[Bruce Cormier]

Pat, Jennings' "Beyond Conspiracy" makes me ill as well, and I can fathom no earthly reason why he would have so embarrassed himself in this, the last signature performance of his career.

For another Murrow? Perhaps, but it seems to me that he had accumulated baubles enough (though I suppose one can never underestimate the egos of these people).

To do the bidding of cover-up artists? It seems unlikely: that important spadework was assigned in the 1960s to Cronkite and others, and besides, it was unsuccessful -- the polling data on this question has remained quite consistent, with the vast of Americans consigning the WC Report to the fiction list.

Besides, if you are an aging, graying conspirator, why bother? It's not as if people are manning the barricades to get at the truth. Americans who remember and care long ago concluded that the official account is fantasy and that they probably will get the truth, if at all, only in an afterlife. On this issue, Americans view their Gov't as a cheating, lying spouse. Bottom line: why draw attention to this by attemtping to persuade people of something they will never accpet?

[Pat Speer]

Bruce, I agree. Jennings himself was not motivated by getting a Murrow. But the fact he got one for such a transparent whitewash willl make others step in line. As stated elsewhere, I believe there are many in the media who consider it their DUTY to shut down unwarranted speculation. The problem is that they've let themselves get seduced by the likes of Posner into believing that the speculation about Kennedy's death is unwarranted. It's easier for them that way. For some reason an LN theorist like Dale Myers or John Lattimer has more credibility with them than a CT theorist like Gary Aguilar or Cyril Wecht. Unfortunately, I bleieve it's in part because of the company they keep. When CT theorists drag in other issues, such as the CIA's purported spreading of AIDS and crack cocaine to the inner cities, or Clinton's drug-dealing, or fake 9/11 theories, or Bush' Nazi roots, the JFK conspiracy theorist community is marginalized in the eyes of those who pride themselves on being sensible, including the mainstream media. Whether or not there is truth to those theories.

[Len Colby]

How do you take into account non-Jews who don't think there was a conspiracy, is Alexander Cockburn a closet Zionist? What about McAdams are you going to tell us he is a Jewish Zionist too? We let's see he has an Irish last name and teaches at a Catholic university, yeah he's probably Jewish. Larry Surdivan, Gay Savage and Dale Myers must be too.

Well, I can't explain all these various anomalies.

Who, for instance, is John McAdams, what's his personal history and what really motivates him? Damned if I know. It would be interesting to find out.

The mystery of Cockburn's position on JFK has been discussed elsewhere – see for instance http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone...y97/worsham.htm

I think you do point to a serious objection to the case I'm generally trying to make. It's hard to believe that so many people are involved in the cover-up.

"I can't explain" is a great song* but a poor answer.

The linked article discusses Chomsky, Stone and Cockburn. There is nothing in it that applies to Cockburn that doesn't apply to Chomsky as well. Despite their rivalry their positions on most issues including the JFK assassination, 9/11 and Israel are remarkably similar. So we are still left with you concluding that the only explanation for a Jew (Chomsky) to reject JFK assassination conspiracy theories is that he must be covering for Israel despite being strongly anti-Israel but accepting another explanation for an Irishman (Cockburn) with very similar politics who reached the same conclusion for supposedly the same reasons.

For your theory to be logically consistent you must either argue that Cockburn is also a deep cover Mossad agent or come up with a rational explanation for his rejection of JFK conspiracy theories that can not be equally applied to Chomsky.

As for McAdams my impression is that he truly believes (not necessarily that he's right) that LHO acted alone. So once again we have another non-Jewish intellectual and in this case one who is very familiar with the details of assassination (much more so than Chomsky) who doesn't believe their was a conspiracy.

Another "hole" in your theory is Edward Said's close friendship and collaboration with Chomsky. Final Judgment came out in 1994 and was widely publicized in anti-Israeli circles, it's hard to believe he didn't hear about the book. He died 9 years later and I've seen no indication be put any stock in that (or any other JFK assassination conspiracy) theory. Said also rejected 9/11 CT's as does Ward Churchill, you argued that Chomsky's rejection of these theories was evidence of him being a Mossad asset – so aaah do you believe that Said and Churchill were Mossad assets too? That makes sense! I.F. Stone, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Alexander Cockburn and Ward Churchill – Mossad assets!

Also even if Chomsky and Stone were gatekeepers covering for the assassination and other conspiracies it could just as logically concluded that they were CIA assets. People have leveled that accusation against Chomsky before and he did contract work for the Pentagon for which apparently still receives royalty checks.

I

do not claim to have every I dotted and every T crossed. I never had a phone tap on Stone or Chomsky. If I did claim to know every detail, you might reasonably consider me prone to exaggeration.

However, if that's to be the standard for investigative procedure in criminal cases – that a theory should only be explored if the investigator has 100% of the supporting information – then heaven help us in this brave new world.

I take this as a tact admission on your part that you have way overstated your case. If you want to restate your theory as "The possibility that Stone and Chomsky were Mossad assets covering for Israel should be explored", I'd still disagree but your logic wouldn't be so strained. But that is very different from saying that Chomsky's position only makes sense if the Mossad was involved and he was covering for them.

I never suggested that something needs to be proven before it should be investigated, that's a very stupid idea but a nice strawman on your part.

Following your logic authors who back theories that don't put the blame on Israel or at least go down the CIA/Clay Shaw route are suspect. Your ludicrous line of reasoning "makes sense only if" you're anti-Semitic

No, that's your parody of my logic.

Of course that was my parody of your "logic" it wasn't as illogical as your theory though. In a way it is a logical extension of your "theory", throwing suspicion on others would serve the Mossad's objectives just as much as convincing people it was LHO acting alone.

In case you haven't noticed it doesn't look like you've convinced anyone.

Motive wasn't established until some thirty years after the killing!

Lots of people had motive for killing JFK. Your theory is that Chomsky and Stone served as a Mossad gatekeepers to convince people that there was no conspiracy for 30 years before Israel was named as a suspect and its supposed motive revealed? Wouldn't this have been big risk to take? They would have brought in 2 more conspirators who one day could have talked, on the off chance that Israel came under suspicion. Since Chomsky didn't have the prominence among leftists back then that he acquired a few years later (and this was unforeseeable) it doesn't seem like the risk was worth it. Also let's not forget that even today in the grand scheme of things Chomsky isn't that important. He is a giant to the Left but I doubt more than 5 – 10 % of Americans know he is and of those even fewer are swayed by his position on the assassination.

Also how do you explain the fact that many of the key documents in Avram Cohen's book were released by the Israeli National Archive and many of the key interviewees were former and current Israeli officials. Doesn't sound like there was an active cover up.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/israel/documents/document.htm

I case you missed it Herr Piper showed up here and proffered his thesis but had few takers. I imagine at this point every one in the JFK research community has heard about Final Judgment but very few seem swayed by it's arguments. The few that do that I've seen have strong anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli biases. Indeed his book has gotten far more attention in anti-Semitic and anti Israel circles that among assassination researchers. . You find Piper thesis credible is because it fits with your extreme hostility to Israel, you are able to turn logic on it's head to fit your preconceived notions.

You might ask Piper himself for an account of his difficulties in finding a mainstream publisher and distribution channels for his book. I read this account

Please provide a link to this account.

Him not being able to find a "mainstream" publisher, if he even tried, is not a sign of censorship. Lots of writers can not get their works accepted my mainstream publishers, if I'm not mistaken the vast majority of manuscripts are rejected. Publishers wish to make a profit and only publish books they expect to sell enough copies to make it worth their while or if they are only marginally profitable have some merit. He was published by the publisher he has worked for his entire career, the same publisher who published his other books, the same publisher who also publishes 'Mein Kampf', admiring bios of Hitler and Holocaust denial books, the same publisher who has long made his hatred of Jews, African Americans and Latino immigrants clear. Even so the book went out of print leading me believe demand was that strong [http://www.americanfreepress.net/Final_Judgment.pdf ]

As for getting mainstream distribution, the book is available through Amazon via 3rd parties. More blatantly anti-Jewish books by David Duke and Edgar J Steele are available directly from Amazon which leads me to suspect he and his publishers withhold the book from mainstream channels as a marketing ploy. He gets to play the role of a free speech martyr, the book is actively marketed as "America's #1 banned book". [ibid]

You still haven't explained why if Piper's thesis has any logic why so few JFK researchers take it seriously. The publisher's 4 page spread for the book only managed to scrape together 4 positive reviews [ibid].

"Manages to weave together some of the key threads in a tapestry that many say is unique."

LA Times 1996.

I searched the paper's archive but couldn't find any reference to the book [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/advancedsearch.html ] and Googled the snippet and got zero returns.

"Impressive—Makes a pretty cogent case for Mossad involvement in the JFK conspiracy"

Barry Chamish Israeli journalist.

Chamish believes in UFOs and that John Lennon was an agent of the Illuminati. He is an ultra-rightwinger and liked the book because it fit with his theory that the Israeli left are members of a satanic cult. They left out the part where Chamish said the book was "far from conclusive".

"Brilliant"

David Icke.

Icke believes that lizard people/shape shifters/the Illuminati secretly control the World.

"The best book—and I've read many—on the JFK assassination conspiracy."

Jack Stockwell K-Talk radio Salt Lake City.

According to a fan of the station he is "He's a follower of the Lindon LaRouche movement" [http://www.militantlibertarian.blogspot.com/2004/03/k-talk-ktkk-am-630-radio.html ] and indeed he frequently interviews LaRouche and his followers [http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2001/010911stockwell.html ]

Why hasn't the New York Times done a serious review of Final Judgment? Why can't it be found in high street bookshops? Why does he never get a chance to present his theory on national TV?

Perhaps because the book is devoid of merit, I don't recall many books about UFO's, Nostradamous's revelations, perpetual energy machines or those supporting creationism or the Moon hoax theory getting the kind of attention you think Final Judgment deserves. Maybe if the JFK research community took the book more seriously the MSM would too. I am sure that there are lots of books about the assassination that don't get published by anyone let alone get reviewed in the Times or their authors get interviewed on national TV. Should a book get a rebiew in the Times just because it pushes a cotroversial thesis?

As for not being in bookshops see above.

I notice you refer to Mr Piper as 'Herr Piper'. Is that because you have inside information that Mr Piper has German ancestory? Or do you regard the German honorific as a term of abuse? If so, why?

Piper is Irish as he made clear on this forum but he enjoys the company of neo-Nazis: He has worked for one his entire career, he attends their events, he is a Holocaust denier and claimed that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was authentic, his articles appear in the same magazines as unrepentant SS generals. When I call him Herr Piper I am referencing Churchill who famously referred to the Fuehrer as "Herr Hitler". I have several German friends I'm sure they would find Piper as distasteful as I do and not object to my use of "the German honorific". So in the case of Piper, yes it is meant "a term of abuse".

You say that Piper showed up on this forum and "proffered his thesis but had few takers", making him sound like an aggressive hawker of unwanted goods.

Would it not be more accurate to say that he was invited to join, but even before he did, there was a sustained campaign against his participation by folk such as yourself? I recall wading through about 20 pages on one particular thread before he "showed up" at all. By that time, his name, character, associations, bona fides and all had been repeatedly besmirched. He was then treated to a number of unpleasant provocations until he lost patience with the quality of 'debate' he found here. A shame, in my opinion, but understandable. He's a busy guy. If other authors were similarly treated, there wouldn't be many here at all.

1) I defended Piper's right to join this forum, it was a long thread so maybe you got confused. Three members objected to his joining: John Dolva, Tim Gratz and Andy Walker (co-moderator of the Education Forum) none of them are Jewish.

2) As for his bona fides, he doesn't really have any: he had no previous track record in JFK research, no training as a journalist or historian and has only ever been published by Willis Carto one of America's most infamous ultra-rightwing/neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, racist, hate-mongering extremists – he's "the father" of Holocaust denial.

3) One could argue that if he was concerned about his name and reputation he wouldn't have gone to work for Carto and hung out with other Nazi/Klan types such as David Duke and Edgar J. Steele.

He also did a pretty good job of damaging his claim to credibility here by citing various conspiracy theories with Jewish culprits and attacking Jewish intellectual like Deborah Lipstadt instead of making his case. His attack on Lipstadt was most hypocritical. He claimed that she advocated against intermarriage by Jews (without providing a citation) and condemned that this was racism but he had no qualms about working for and with and associating with people who made their dislike of Blacks and inter-marriage clear. He claimed without any substantiation that Andy Warker didn't like him because of anti-Irish bigotry.

He provoked others as much as others provoked him. He also bragged about his intellectual dishonesty.

In any case, as mentioned above, his theories sparked very little interest on this forum which has very few Jewish members and a good number of JFK researchers who are not very sympathetic to Israel. Only 2 or 3 members seemed to "buy" his thesis all of whom were very hostile to Israel.

I read the 2 chapters he made available the first was little more than a naked attempt to connect half the Jews in New Orleans and Dallas to the assassination. They were based on a small number of secondary sources.

All they amounted to was linking one person to another to another etc etc: Author 1 said that 'A' was friends with 'B' and 'B' once worked for the same company as 'C', Author 2 said 'C' had Mossad ties and had once worked with 'D', Garrison believed 'A' was involved. If you looked at all the books and articles ever written about the assassination and all the books and articles about the CIA, Mossad, organized crime, DeGaulle, the OAS, FBI etc you could tie just about anybody to the assassination.

Often he seemed to be straining to make the evidence fit his thesis and often he didn't source the information like when he suggested that Fredrick Forsyth was hinting at Jewish participation in the OAS's attempts on DeGaulle when he named the assassin "the Jackal" because he claims "active in Europe during the period of the joint plots against JFK and Charles DeGaulle was a Jewish terrorist group known as the Jewish Anti-Communist League—or JACL. This JACL in fact, collaborated with the OAS." Like several of the claims in the supposedly well researched book he didn't provide any evidence. I did Internet searches with Google, Yahoo, MSN, Dogpile, Ask Jeeves, Find Articles and Altavista I only found 4 references to the group:

1) "In his tirade he included such people as Anna Rosenberg and Felix Frankfurter. He picked out one Jew for credit and that was Rabbi Schultz, the director of the Jewish Anti Communist League." Southwestern Jewish Press, March 21, 1952 www.jewishsightseeing.com/louis_rose_historical/ honorees/hutler_al_articles/1952-03-21-community_currents.htm

2) During the heyday of McCarthyism in the 1950's, [benjamin] Baruch secretly enlisted as a financial backer of the right-wing American Jewish Anti-Communist League.. "The Leading Jew in America", Commentary, December 1980. www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V70I6P57-1.htm

3) "The following is a list of various organizations with which WRJ [William Richard Johnson] corresponded between 1950-1966:" The list includes about 50 mostly rightwing groups including the "Jewish Anti Communist League", JBS, YAF and Piper's employer the Liberty Lobby. Interestingly he also corresponded with a certain "C.K. Shaw, principal of the Nanchang Academy" does anyone know if he was related to Clay Shaw? http://webtext.library.yale.edu/xml2html/divinity.006.con.html

4) The fourth was from a Swedish CT site that seemed to be quoting Piper www.politiken.biz/registerA-L.htm

There are no indications that the group was active in Europe, was a terrorist organization or was around at the time of "the plots" or had any ties to the OAS or was know by its acronym (which would be AJACL according to the 2nd source). I doubt that Forsyth had even heard of such an obscure group.

Similarly his claims that Christian David who some tired to the assassination was "a chief suspect in the Ben-Barka murder" and that the Guerini bothers crime family were tied to Meyer Lansky are made without any attribution. [Lots of sites on the Net tie David to the Barka assassination but as far as I can tell only Salvador Astucia claims that Lansky was tied to the Corsican mobsters]

Piper claims that "DeGaulle clearly discovered that elements of French intelligence and/or agents of his sworn enemies in the OAS had been brought into the JFK assassination conspiracy by the Mossad." But once again offers no evidence.

[All references to Final Judgement refer to chapter 12 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...pe=post&id=4703]

According to namebase.org "As it turns out, the Mossad links presented by Piper are circumstantial rather than conclusive" [http://www.namebase.org/sources/VG.html ] after reading those two chapters I'm inclined to agree.

[Jim Hackett II]

... I had NO idea Jennings was given a Murrow for his HORRIBLE documentary Beyond Conspiracy. This makes me sick."

Neither did I Mr. Speer. Thanks.

Talk about the loonies running the asylum.

I feel that the 40th Anniversary redux of the WCReport and the HSCA Reports by ABC and Mr. Jennings is simply more media effort to deceive the young folks unknowing of the weakness of the Reports.

Sadly so effective in that the "special" was supplemented by a Disney Cartoonist's deceptions of realities and even in the face of provable refutations of both official reports. PROVABLE being the operative word, provably false for decades. Provably supported by manufactured X-Rays, provably supported by manufactured junk standing as "evidence" for decades even though contradicted by "best evidence". [not the book, but the principle of evidence]

To me this award for a known xxxx is proof positive of the continued life of Op Mockingbird (or the current equivalent) that produced the evidence for a bogus WMD war in Iraq. CondiSLEEZA Rice's mushroom clouds moved to Iran now by effort of the same mechanisms. Gimme Shelter, right?

Lets just slap the memory of and today's real journalists in the face again.

F. Wisner's mightly Wurlitzer is tuned well and rewarded for more of same kinds of LIES, today and in the future.

Jim

[Len Colby]

There is only one 'unforgivable sin' in American culture and that is to be labeled 'anti-Semitic.'

Untrue. In 1984 Jesse Jackson infamously referred to Jews and New York City as “Hymies” and “Hymietown” but he continued as a player in the Democratic Party and enjoyed widespread support from liberals of all races and etnicities. His Minnesota campaign manager was Paul Wellstone was Jewish. He was a presidential advisor during the Clinton Administration.

Imagine if a politician had used derogatory words like “spic” or “n” I’m sure he (or she) would have justifiably become an instant pariah.

If anything anti-semitism is "the acceptable racism" out there on the streets. The number of blatantly anti-semetic things people will say before hundreds of people is growing more an more pronounced daily. Much of this stuff derives from simplistic federal reservist pap doled out by Republicans in the Midwest during the Great Depression to take the heat of Wall Street. Whenever one of these anti-semitic speakers gets up, the crowds immediately quadruple.

In the world of publishing, on the other hand I would probably agree with Robert. The fear of being labelled anti-semitic is definitely used to cow critics of the fascist Israeli regime.

What accounts for this huge difference between the street and the academy? Sure its always been there, but never to this extent, in my opinion. One thing that has been pointed out is the lack of middle-brow leftists who can have an impact outside of the academy. In the void of street-level left analysis, anti-semititic websites offer a quick fix of understanding, metabolizing fast like sugar into blood.

Are you talking about mainstream or academic publishers? There is no shortage of academics in the US who are stidently anti-Israel

[Mark Stapleton]

There is only one 'unforgivable sin' in American culture and that is to be labeled 'anti-Semitic.'

Untrue. In 1984 Jesse Jackson infamously referred to Jews and New York City as “Hymies” and “Hymietown” but he continued as a player in the Democratic Party and enjoyed widespread support from liberals of all races and etnicities. His Minnesota campaign manager was Paul Wellstone was Jewish. He was a presidential advisor during the Clinton Administration.

Imagine if a politician had used derogatory words like “spic” or “n” I’m sure he (or she) would have justifiably become an instant pariah.

If anything anti-semitism is "the acceptable racism" out there on the streets. The number of blatantly anti-semetic things people will say before hundreds of people is growing more an more pronounced daily. Much of this stuff derives from simplistic federal reservist pap doled out by Republicans in the Midwest during the Great Depression to take the heat of Wall Street. Whenever one of these anti-semitic speakers gets up, the crowds immediately quadruple.

In the world of publishing, on the other hand I would probably agree with Robert. The fear of being labelled anti-semitic is definitely used to cow critics of the fascist Israeli regime.

What accounts for this huge difference between the street and the academy? Sure its always been there, but never to this extent, in my opinion. One thing that has been pointed out is the lack of middle-brow leftists who can have an impact outside of the academy. In the void of street-level left analysis, anti-semititic websites offer a quick fix of understanding, metabolizing fast like sugar into blood.

Are you talking about mainstream or academic publishers? There is no shortage of academics in the US who are stidently anti-Israel

Len,

You're getting a bee in your bonnet, here. Are you going to meticulously examine all posts for this stuff? As far as I'm concerned, Israel and Mossad are suspects in the assassination and they'll be getting a few mentions-especially in my posts. But that's not the subject of the thread. It's an interesting debate about bent journalists. Don't change the subject.

[Bruce Cormier]

Bruce, I agree. Jennings himself was not motivated by getting a Murrow. But the fact he got one for such a transparent whitewash willl make others step in line. As stated elsewhere, I believe there are many in the media who consider it their DUTY to shut down unwarranted speculation. The problem is that they've let themselves get seduced by the likes of Posner into believing that the speculation about Kennedy's death is unwarranted. It's easier for them that way. For some reason an LN theorist like Dale Myers or John Lattimer has more credibility with them than a CT theorist like Gary Aguilar or Cyril Wecht. Unfortunately, I bleieve it's in part because of the company they keep. When CT theorists drag in other issues, such as the CIA's purported spreading of AIDS and crack cocaine to the inner cities, or Clinton's drug-dealing, or fake 9/11 theories, or Bush' Nazi roots, the JFK conspiracy theorist community is marginalized in the eyes of those who pride themselves on being sensible, including the mainstream media. Whether or not there is truth to those theories.

I wholeheartedly agree Pat. Meanwhile, call me paranoid if you wish, but I'm becoming concerned about the delay in the broadcast of the NBC produced documentary based on "Ultimate Sacrifice". As described by one Liz Smith:

"Now we can tell you that NBC has completed an hour-long documentary focusing on the information in "Ultimate Sacrifice" and this top-secret project will air soon on the Discovery Channel. It is to be titled "Conspiracy Files: JFK" and will include material withheld from the Warren Commission and from congressional investigations as well. Such material has never been seen on TV before.

Some of the protagonists are Mafia kingpin Johnny Rosselli and other godfathers telling how they tried to kill the president first in Chicago, then in Tampa and later in Dallas, where they ultimately succeeded.

This documentary will offer the only TV interview in more than 40 years with Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent assigned to the White House. Framed by Rosselli's gang, he was arrested on the day he went to appear before the Warren Commission. He has fought for a very long time to clear his name.

Discovery will offer us a few startling realities about how the Secret Service destroyed crucial files covering the Tampa and Chicago attempts. And how there are still "well over 1 million CIA records" about the assassination that remain secret even to this day."

If it comes as advertised, this documentary would be significant in 3 respects --

First, the source: this would be THE first so-called "mainstream media" production that takes seriously the notion that there may have been a conspiracy, that the WC Report was erroneous.

Second, the Waldron-Hartmann conclusion that there were thwarted attempts on JFK's life in Chicago, then Tampa -- standing alone -- blows up the WC Report, if substantiated. All but the most ardent LN'ers would be forced to reject the notion this too is "coincidental".

Third, a sympathetic person -- Agent Bolden -- apparently lends living, breathing support to this startling conclusion.

I'm wondering right now what is ending up on the cutting room floor -- and what's being added -- in search of editorial "balance."

[Bruce Cormier]

Bruce, I agree. Jennings himself was not motivated by getting a Murrow. But the fact he got one for such a transparent whitewash willl make others step in line. As stated elsewhere, I believe there are many in the media who consider it their DUTY to shut down unwarranted speculation. The problem is that they've let themselves get seduced by the likes of Posner into believing that the speculation about Kennedy's death is unwarranted. It's easier for them that way. For some reason an LN theorist like Dale Myers or John Lattimer has more credibility with them than a CT theorist like Gary Aguilar or Cyril Wecht. Unfortunately, I bleieve it's in part because of the company they keep. When CT theorists drag in other issues, such as the CIA's purported spreading of AIDS and crack cocaine to the inner cities, or Clinton's drug-dealing, or fake 9/11 theories, or Bush' Nazi roots, the JFK conspiracy theorist community is marginalized in the eyes of those who pride themselves on being sensible, including the mainstream media. Whether or not there is truth to those theories.

I wholeheartedly agree Pat. Meanwhile, call me paranoid if you wish, but I'm becoming concerned about the delay in the broadcast of the NBC produced documentary based on "Ultimate Sacrifice". As described by one Liz Smith:

"Now we can tell you that NBC has completed an hour-long documentary focusing on the information in "Ultimate Sacrifice" and this top-secret project will air soon on the Discovery Channel. It is to be titled "Conspiracy Files: JFK" and will include material withheld from the Warren Commission and from congressional investigations as well. Such material has never been seen on TV before.

Some of the protagonists are Mafia kingpin Johnny Rosselli and other godfathers telling how they tried to kill the president first in Chicago, then in Tampa and later in Dallas, where they ultimately succeeded.

This documentary will offer the only TV interview in more than 40 years with Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent assigned to the White House. Framed by Rosselli's gang, he was arrested on the day he went to appear before the Warren Commission. He has fought for a very long time to clear his name.

Discovery will offer us a few startling realities about how the Secret Service destroyed crucial files covering the Tampa and Chicago attempts. And how there are still "well over 1 million CIA records" about the assassination that remain secret even to this day."

If it comes as advertised, this documentary would be significant in 3 respects --

First, the source: this would be THE first so-called "mainstream media" production that takes seriously the notion that there may have been a conspiracy, that the WC Report was erroneous.

Second, the Waldron-Hartmann conclusion that there were thwarted attempts on JFK's life in Chicago, then Tampa -- standing alone -- blows up the WC Report, if substantiated. All but the most ardent LN'ers would be forced to reject the notion this too is "coincidental".

Third, a sympathetic person -- Agent Bolden -- apparently lends living, breathing support to this startling conclusion.

I'm wondering right now what is ending up on the cutting room floor -- and what's being added -- in search of editorial "balance."

[John Simkin]

Running on memory here but didn't Muldea promise to crack the case in a year? I feel that with his deadline approaching he plumped for the easy option, ie Sirhan did it...

That's consistent with my recollection that Moldea pretty well proved in his book that Sirhan couldn't have done it, then on the last page he concluded that Sirhan did it. What an intellectual feat!

Dan E. Moldea’s, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy (1995), is indeed an amazing book. The first 29 chapters provide a comprehensive, logical account of the assassination. However, in the last chapter he completely changes his mind and accepts the official version of events. He even admits that this might surprise his readers as he first entered the case in 1987 with an article arguing that RFK had been the victim of a conspiracy.

Moldea claims that the reason for this change of mind was Gene Cesar’s polygraph test. According to the test, Cesar was telling the truth and therefore Sirhan was the lone gunman. Moldea explains the ballistic evidence by suggesting that the witnesses were mistaken and that Sirhan must have been pushed into RFK allowing his to fire at point-blank range.

If one reads between the lines of the last chapter you can work out why Moldea appears to change his mind about the case. He admits that for many years he believed passionately that there had been a conspiracy. However, he argues he could not afford to spend as much time as he liked researching and writing the book because of financial constraints. He was unable to persuade a publisher to fund this book. It was not until he “received the backing of a major publisher, W. W. Norton & Company” that he could complete the book. In other words, write the last chapter.

Now we know from the testimony of people like Cord Meyer, Tom Braden and William Sullivan that both the CIA and the FBI could arrange with certain companies to get certain books published. They could also make sure other books were not published by major publishers. E. Howard Hunt has also testified that the CIA was able to arrange the “right” reviews for books about certain subjects. (See also Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial for how this system worked).

Another example of this process at work concerns the author Michael Eddowes. He gained a reputation for investigative research in the UK with the publication in 1955 of The Man on Your Conscience, an investigation into the murder trial and execution of Timothy Evans. The book caused renewed interest in the case and eventually Evans received a posthumous pardon by the Queen. This case played an important role in the subsequent abolition of capital punishment in Britain.

In his book, Khrushchev Killed Kennedy (1975), Eddowes argued that President John F. Kennedy was killed by a Soviet agent impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald. It was later revealed that the book had been financed by the Texas oil billionaire, Haroldson L. Hunt. I wonder why Hunt wanted to blame the Soviets for the assassination?

Put yourself in the position of the agency under attack for covering up a conspiracy. What is your ideal scenario? My one would be for a leading conspiracy theorist, with a reputation for integrity, to publish a book where he admits that after studying all the evidence he comes to the conclusion that the official version of the case was right. That is not difficult to achieve as long as you have the means to pay them a lot of money (a generous publisher's advance) and can guarantee them good reviews from the subservient press. I think this explains the work of both Gus Russo and Dan Moldea.

[John Simkin]

There is a very good article by Jerry Policoff on the way the media dealt with the JFK assassination (New Times, 8th August, 1975). Policoff points out that the early reports in the press suggested that shots were fired from in front as well as behind JFK. However, after pressure from the authorities, the press stopped printing these stories that often included eyewitness views of the assassination.

By the time that Oswald was murdered by Ruby the whole of the American media was in line. The headline in the New York Times was the “President’s Assassin Shot”. The other newspapers and magazines had similar headlines.

The media also faithfully published the leaks from the Warren Commission and the FBI investigation into Oswald and Ruby. By the time the WC was published the American public had been got ready for the cover-up.

Things began to change in 1966 when Rush to Judgment climbed to the top of the best-seller list. Other publishers tried to cash in on the popularity of Mark Lane’s book by bringing out their own “conspiracy” books. (However, it was not too difficult to “turn” people like Epstein with the use of CIA disinformation agents).

Former JFK aides and friends, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Goodwin, Cardinal Cushing and Walter Lippmann, called for the case to be reopened.

Newspapers and magazines also got into the act. On 22nd November, 1966, Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times began an investigation into the assassination. The same thing happened at Life Magazine where Dick Billings began an investigation in Life on 25th November. Then something strange happened. In both cases it was supposed to be the start of a series of articles on the case. That never happened. In fact, both the New York Times and Life Magazine quickly returned to the “lone-gunman theory”. Quadrangle (a company owned by the New York Times) published a defence of the Warren Commission by David W. Belin. The book came with a laudatory introduction by Harrison Salisbury. The book was reviewed in the New York Times Book Review by CIA asset, Priscilla McMillan. Operation Mockingbird had won again.

[Len Colby]

Very interesting John but I have two questions (ok 3)

There is a very good article by Jerry Policoff on the way the media dealt with the JFK assassination (New Times, 8th August, 1975). Policoff points out that the early reports in the press suggested that shots were fired from in front as well as behind JFK. However, after pressure from the authorities, the press stopped printing these stories that often included eyewitness views of the assassination.

1) Are you sure about the date I found a 1972 article by Policoff very similar to the one you described

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PA-NYT.html

If that's not the same article do you know where we could find it?

Newspapers and magazines also got into the act. On 22nd November, 1966, Harrison Salisbury of the New York Times began an investigation into the assassination.

The same thing happened at Life Magazine where Dick Billings began an investigation in Life on 25th November. Then something strange happened. In both cases it was supposed to be the start of a series of articles on the case. That never happened. In fact, both the New York Times and Life Magazine quickly returned to the "lone-gunman theory". Quadrangle (a company owned by the New York Times) published a defence of the Warren Commission by David W. Belin. The book came with a laudatory introduction by Harrison Salisbury.

2) Did Salisbury ever explain his "change of tune"?

Len