David Talbot's New Book Brothers

[Miles Scull]

I have now created several different threads on David’s book (see below). Please add general comments about the book, information on book reviews, interviews, etc. on this thread. However, if it is about a specific topic please either start a new thread or add it to one of the threads that I have started. If you start a new thread please include David Talbot’s name in the title. I am also listing these topics in the JFK Index. This will help researchers in the future if this material is divided into different topics.

I think what's needed here is some perspective. Brad Ayers identified a man at the Ambassador Hotel as someone he knew named Gordon Campbell. Whether or not that is army official Gordon Campbell or an alias is neither here nor there. Ayers said he knew him from operations out of Miami. That is the point.

Other folks (people who would know) positively identified Morales and Joannides. That should be taken seriously.

As for working off photographs, I also have seen many images of Morales (including from 1968) and from various other time frames and given the lack of detail in the Ambassador footage, that comparison alone means nothing.

That brings us back to the identifications from people who knew these men. We need to stay on track here.

James

Posting this query here in hopes Mr. Talbot will see it & respond. Thanks.

Hear, hear.

"I have not seen the photographs David mentions. Jefferson Morley has alleged photographs of George Joannides taken in Saigon in 1973 and provided by a CIA source but will not send me a copy."

David Talbot makes strong allegations. It would seem appropriate & useful that the foundation of these allegations comes to light.

Would Mr. Simkin please ask Mr. Talbot and, via Mr. Talbot, Mr. Morely if these photos which cast doubt on O'Sullivan's discoveries cannot be put forward?

After all, a question arises. Why not prove the case?

"So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera." - Talbot

This comment looks like a fillip on the nose. What's afoot?

Edited May 23, 2007 by Miles Scull

[Myra Bronstein]

Thanks guys,

Personally I think Kennedy did write for the most point his own words, ably assisted by Sorensen, though not to the detraction of what Kennedy wished to say.

I feel incomparably amongst US Presidents, I'm aware of, his oratory was his outstanding strength and as John says his ability to go off the cuff was remarkable.

Once again thank you for your efforts in enlightening me.

Gary

I would really like to know more about his speeches as well. What I know at this point is on this thread. And when I google the subject I see no name but Sorensen. But most presidents have many speech writers and he gave almost daily speeches, often multiple times per day, so I assume he had more.

What I do know from reading so many of his speeches is that his style was very consistent and distinctive. They contained words that are outside of the standard spoken vocabulary, and had regular literary references. At the same time they're very plain spoken and precise. When he spoke, seemingly, off the cuff (press conferences, meetings, journal, etc) he had much the same style and vocabulary and scope of cultural literacy. So it seems like the speech writer(s) and he were in synch.

He almost always had a strong opening line, relatively weak closing line, and a quote in the last 2/3 or so. I've read that he preferred short sentences. And probably his trademark was his use of chiasmus (a word I just learned--here in fact:

http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/kennedy.shtml, "chiasmus (ky-AZ-mus) n . a reversal in the order of words

in two otherwise parallel phrases). For example:

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

"Let us never negotiate out of fear; but let us never fear to negotiate."

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind."

"Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain."

"Each success brings with it the potential of failure and each failure brings with it the potential of success."

...

I wonder where that trademark originated.

[John Dolva]

Thanks guys,

Personally I think Kennedy did write for the most point his own words, ably assisted by Sorensen, though not to the detraction of what Kennedy wished to say.

I feel incomparably amongst US Presidents, I'm aware of, his oratory was his outstanding strength and as John says his ability to go off the cuff was remarkable.

Once again thank you for your efforts in enlightening me.

Gary

I would really like to know more about his speeches as well. What I know at this point is on this thread. And when I google the subject I see no name but Sorensen. But most presidents have many speech writers and he gave almost daily speeches, often multiple times per day, so I assume he had more.

What I do know from reading so many of his speeches is that his style was very consistent and distinctive. They contained words that are outside of the standard spoken vocabulary, and had regular literary references. At the same time they're very plain spoken and precise. When he spoke, seemingly, off the cuff (press conferences, meetings, journal, etc) he had much the same style and vocabulary and scope of cultural literacy. So it seems like the speech writer(s) and he were in synch.

He almost always had a strong opening line, relatively weak closing line, and a quote in the last 2/3 or so. I've read that he preferred short sentences. And probably his trademark was his use of chiasmus (a word I just learned--here in fact:

http://www.chiasmus.com/mastersofchiasmus/kennedy.shtml, "chiasmus (ky-AZ-mus) n . a reversal in the order of words

in two otherwise parallel phrases). For example:

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

"Let us never negotiate out of fear; but let us never fear to negotiate."

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind."

"Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain."

"Each success brings with it the potential of failure and each failure brings with it the potential of success."

...

I wonder where that trademark originated.

I understand his childhood in a large family was a free thinking wide ranging table talk. His dad didn't inhibit but encouraged it. It has some hallmarks of DeBono's lateral thinking in being provocative and 'mind opening'. It's a style that allows 'new' ideas where dogma may otherwise be dominant. It (DeBono) is also a style that involves wit, as well as 'thinking outside the box'.

There is also a touch Marx's dialectics*. IOW the interdependence of opposites. Thesis - Antithesis. In every act is a seed of it's opposite. Buddhist thinking is also evoked, as Pali, Buddhas language had a way of expressing the opposites as specific words rather than a collection of words. For example, 'there is no-god' doesn't mean 'there is no god', but that the idea of 'no-god' exists.

'Freethinking' has a history as well. I imagine Kennedy as the true scholar was well trained in open mindedness, and much of what he says provokes the listener to think differently than otherwise. A liberating experience that those who would allow it for themselves value immensely.

Kennedy just by being who he was was a threat to some.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gromyjfk.htm

"Kennedy received his secondary education in private schools. After finishing high school in 1935 he spent a semester studying in England in the London School of Economics*, then studied for some time at Princeton University /USA/, from which he transferred to Harvard University /USA/, which he completed with honors in 1940 with a degree in political science*. In 1940 Kennedy attended a course of lectures in the trade-and-commerce department of Stanford University.

Not long before the Second World War Kennedy visited a series of countries in Latin America, the Near East, and Europe, including the Soviet Union*."

ie He had first hand experiences of the countries he would deal with as President, including the USSR at around the age of 23. It's not unreasonable to assume he was well versed in dialectics*.

[William Kelly]

I have now created several different threads on David's book (see below). Please add general comments about the book, information on book reviews, interviews, etc. on this thread. However, if it is about a specific topic please either start a new thread or add it to one of the threads that I have started. If you start a new thread please include David Talbot's name in the title. I am also listing these topics in the JFK Index. This will help researchers in the future if this material is divided into different topics.

I WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO DISCUSS SORENSON OR JFK'S SPEECHES SHOULD USE THE THREAD WITH THAT TITLE AND LEAVE THIS ONE FOR A DIALOG WITH DAVID TALBOT. THANKS - BK

I think what's needed here is some perspective. Brad Ayers identified a man at the Ambassador Hotel as someone he knew named Gordon Campbell. Whether or not that is army official Gordon Campbell or an alias is neither here nor there. Ayers said he knew him from operations out of Miami. That is the point.

Other folks (people who would know) positively identified Morales and Joannides. That should be taken seriously.

As for working off photographs, I also have seen many images of Morales (including from 1968) and from various other time frames and given the lack of detail in the Ambassador footage, that comparison alone means nothing.

That brings us back to the identifications from people who knew these men. We need to stay on track here.

James

Posting this query here in hopes Mr. Talbot will see it & respond. Thanks.

Hear, hear.

"I have not seen the photographs David mentions. Jefferson Morley has alleged photographs of George Joannides taken in Saigon in 1973 and provided by a CIA source but will not send me a copy."

David Talbot makes strong allegations. It would seem appropriate & useful that the foundation of these allegations comes to light.

Would Mr. Simkin please ask Mr. Talbot and, via Mr. Talbot, Mr. Morely if these photos which cast doubt on O'Sullivan's discoveries cannot be put forward?

After all, a question arises. Why not prove the case?

"So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera." - Talbot

This comment looks like a fillip on the nose. What's afoot?

[Myra Bronstein]

I have now created several different threads on David's book (see below). Please add general comments about the book, information on book reviews, interviews, etc. on this thread. However, if it is about a specific topic please either start a new thread or add it to one of the threads that I have started. If you start a new thread please include David Talbot's name in the title. I am also listing these topics in the JFK Index. This will help researchers in the future if this material is divided into different topics.

I WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO DISCUSS SORENSON OR JFK'S SPEECHES SHOULD USE THE THREAD WITH THAT TITLE AND LEAVE THIS ONE FOR A DIALOG WITH DAVID TALBOT. THANKS - BK

I think what's needed here is some perspective. Brad Ayers identified a man at the Ambassador Hotel as someone he knew named Gordon Campbell. Whether or not that is army official Gordon Campbell or an alias is neither here nor there. Ayers said he knew him from operations out of Miami. That is the point.

Other folks (people who would know) positively identified Morales and Joannides. That should be taken seriously.

As for working off photographs, I also have seen many images of Morales (including from 1968) and from various other time frames and given the lack of detail in the Ambassador footage, that comparison alone means nothing.

That brings us back to the identifications from people who knew these men. We need to stay on track here.

James

Posting this query here in hopes Mr. Talbot will see it & respond. Thanks.

Hear, hear.

"I have not seen the photographs David mentions. Jefferson Morley has alleged photographs of George Joannides taken in Saigon in 1973 and provided by a CIA source but will not send me a copy."

David Talbot makes strong allegations. It would seem appropriate & useful that the foundation of these allegations comes to light.

Would Mr. Simkin please ask Mr. Talbot and, via Mr. Talbot, Mr. Morely if these photos which cast doubt on O'Sullivan's discoveries cannot be put forward?

After all, a question arises. Why not prove the case?

"So it wasn't complete lunacy for Shane O'Sullivan to assume that this might have been David Morales caught on camera." - Talbot

This comment looks like a fillip on the nose. What's afoot?

Oops, sorry.

Here's the new thread for discussion of President Kennedy's speaking and writing style:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10064

[William Kelly]

Although Terry Gross does not conduct the interview, David comes off very well, and touches on many good points.

In the end he brings it around Joannides and the Morley v. CIA court case and signs off on the issue of the still-sealed records. Touche, David. "This is American history and the American people have a right to their history and I hope these records are released."

David Talbot on the Kennedys' 'Hidden History'</H3>

Fresh Air from WHYY, May 24, 2007 · Writer and editor David Talbot founded the online journal Salon.com; he was editor-in-chief from 1995 to 2005, and still serves as board chairman of Salon Media Group. He's written a book about Robert and John F. Kennedy; it's called Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.

After talking with David Talbot the reporter, David Davies of the Philadelphia Daily News interviewd Kevin Costner, and talks about every movie he made except JFK.

BK

Edited May 25, 2007 by William Kelly

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Just checked latest Amazon ratings number. Brothers is up to #50 overall, this includes all books new old, paperback and hardback, fiction and non.

This means there is going to be a critical mass out there--for a book that challenges lone nutism. This certainly represents some kind of opportunity. I thought there would never be a pro-conspiracy viewpoint that was allowed to reach this many readers.

Clearly the first readers are creating a stir and letting people know.

[John Simkin]

Just checked latest Amazon ratings number. Brothers is up to #50 overall, this includes all books new old, paperback and hardback, fiction and non.

This means there is going to be a critical mass out there--for a book that challenges lone nutism. This certainly represents some kind of opportunity. I thought there would never be a pro-conspiracy viewpoint that was allowed to reach this many readers.

Clearly the first readers are creating a stir and letting people know.

It is currently in 38th position at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books...e=UTF8&pg=2

It is the highest ranking history book at Amazon. The next best is Michael R. Beschloss' Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989 (60th).

Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy is in 95th position.

[Dawn Meredith]

Just checked latest Amazon ratings number. Brothers is up to #50 overall, this includes all books new old, paperback and hardback, fiction and non.

This means there is going to be a critical mass out there--for a book that challenges lone nutism. This certainly represents some kind of opportunity. I thought there would never be a pro-conspiracy viewpoint that was allowed to reach this many readers.

Clearly the first readers are creating a stir and letting people know.

It is currently in 38th position at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books...e=UTF8&pg=2

It is the highest ranking history book at Amazon. The next best is Michael R. Beschloss' Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989 (60th).

Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy is in 95th position.

I won't be happy 'til it is number one and then I still want more. Like every citizen in the US to read it. Then at least people will be informed. But most people just don't care about this. It's ancient history. My friends always ask me " When are you going to let this go?". "Why does it matter today?" , To which I have one reply: "When the government was stolen in 63, do you really think it was later given back? " And I try to demonstrate the links to today's mess. Our Nazi government.

( I am seething about the cowards last night who voted to continue this war, without even timetables).

Dawn

[John Dolva]

Encouragingly, interestingly, a couple of days ago (in OZ) a high rating commercial early morning show had a segment on the assassination about the new Bullet fragement analysis with a live interview with the person concerned. This would have reached about 300,000 - 500,00 viewers. (oz total population is small compared to the US.) The commentators said they had received a lot of email expressing interest. They also said nothing disparaging about the conspiracy community and stated they would keep us up to date. Overall there seems to be a bigger perhaps more balanced interest in OZ than I would have thought.

These TV channels have online email input features and the particular program in question (Sunrise, channel Seven, read out emails as the program proceeds). Perhaps such features can be used to encuorage further prominence of the issues. Short and to the point, well written email input could help.

Also the more independent less commercial SBS often have Kennedy related documentaries and one of the more popular non-commercial TV personalities (Andrew Denton) has a company he calls Zapruder's Other Films Pty Ltd. So there is a prominence that exposes the OZ viewing audience to the issues one way or the other continuously.

Edited May 25, 2007 by John Dolva

[William Kelly]

PBS Fresh Air interview program reaches millions of people in the USA over the non-commercial Public Broadcasting Network.

You can listen in to the whole show for awhile. I don't know how long they keep the most current show on line.

Although Terry Gross does not conduct the interview, David comes off very well, and touches on many good points.

In the end he brings it around Joannides and the Morley v. CIA court case and signs off on the issue of the still-sealed records. Touche, David. "This is American history and the American people have a right to their history and I hope these records are released."

David Talbot on the Kennedys' 'Hidden History'</H3>

Fresh Air from WHYY, May 24, 2007 · Writer and editor David Talbot founded the online journal Salon.com; he was editor-in-chief from 1995 to 2005, and still serves as board chairman of Salon Media Group. He's written a book about Robert and John F. Kennedy; it's called Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years.

After talking with David Talbot the reporter, David Davies of the Philadelphia Daily News interviewd Kevin Costner, and talks about every movie he made except JFK.

BK

[Charles Drago]

Before we grow hoarse from the shouting of HUZZAHS, let's remember that the attacks of Bugliosi and Posner are targeted on history -- future generations of victims who will be encouraged to believe that the conspiracy/LN debate is honorable, that the playing field is level, that legitimate arguments for the latter position have been posited.

Nothing less than the exposure of the Poseur and the Bug as enemy agents -- willful deceivers in service to the vilest political agendas; accessories after the fact to mass murder -- will suffice if we are to define, let alone attain, justice in the case of the conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald kennedy.

Charles

[William O'Neil]

Just checked latest Amazon ratings number. Brothers is up to #50 overall, this includes all books new old, paperback and hardback, fiction and non.

This means there is going to be a critical mass out there--for a book that challenges lone nutism. This certainly represents some kind of opportunity. I thought there would never be a pro-conspiracy viewpoint that was allowed to reach this many readers.

Clearly the first readers are creating a stir and letting people know.

It is currently in 38th position at Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books...e=UTF8&pg=2

It is the highest ranking history book at Amazon. The next best is Michael R. Beschloss' Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America 1789-1989 (60th).

Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy is in 95th position.

This just confirms my experience, that this there is still a good deal of interest in this case. On our recent trip to DC, to The Library of Congress, when people found out what subject we were researching, they inevitably expressed a great deal of interest in what we were finding, and what new evidence there was in the case. Even the young people from Europe and Austraila that we met, were eager about any news. T'was a pleasant suprise.!

[Dawn Meredith]

Encouragingly, interestingly, a couple of days ago (in OZ) a high rating commercial early morning show had a segment on the assassination about the new Bullet fragement analysis with a live interview with the person concerned. This would have reached about 300,000 - 500,00 viewers. (oz total population is small compared to the US.) The commentators said they had received a lot of email expressing interest. They also said nothing disparaging about the conspiracy community and stated they would keep us up to date. Overall there seems to be a bigger perhaps more balanced interest in OZ than I would have thought.

These TV channels have online email input features and the particular program in question (Sunrise, channel Seven, read out emails as the program proceeds). Perhaps such features can be used to encuorage further prominence of the issues. Short and to the point, well written email input could help.

Also the more independent less commercial SBS often have Kennedy related documentaries and one of the more popular non-commercial TV personalities (Andrew Denton) has a company he calls Zapruder's Other Films Pty Ltd. So there is a prominence that exposes the OZ viewing audience to the issues one way or the other continuously.

I caught a cable station report on this about 3 days ago. (CNN perhaps? Don't remember, as I was working at the same time). VERY disappointing. It gave about 30 seconds to this new study then had on the dastardly Robert Dallek for about 3-4 minutes to tell the viewers why there was no conspiracy. Made me want to smash the tv. Yes people do want to know. But how do we force the media to tell them?

Dawn

[Myra Bronstein]

Before we grow hoarse from the shouting of HUZZAHS, let's remember that the attacks of Bugliosi and Posner are targeted on history -- future generations of victims who will be encouraged to believe that the conspiracy/LN debate is honorable, that the playing field is level, that legitimate arguments for the latter position have been posited.

Nothing less than the exposure of the Poseur and the Bug as enemy agents -- willful deceivers in service to the vilest political agendas; accessories after the fact to mass murder -- will suffice if we are to define, let alone attain, justice in the case of the conspiratorial murder of John Fitzgerald kennedy.

Charles

I don't disagree.

But let's celebrate the few little victories we have en route to the big victory, if nothing else for the sake of mental health.

Congratulations on your very successful book David.