Reviews of Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy"

[spooked911]

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-History-Assassination-President-Kennedy/dp/0393045250/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1307194454&sr=1-1-catcorr

The reviews at Amazon are pretty telling. This one is fairly even-handed, and fairly damning:

"Does this book blow away JFK conspiracy theories as advertised, and put a nail on their coffin? Is this book the answer for the overwhelming majority who question the facts of the case nearly 50 years later, does this book tie up loose ends and finally end the debate? Absolutely not, and don't let anyone tell you it does without your own research. I recommend this book for dedicated researchers who want to include this with the "Warren Commission Report" and "Case Closed" as the leading pro-Oswald did it alone resources.

However, "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi (VB) is essentially a beefed-up lawyers brief that contains no original research, and just props up the same official line by rehashing old evidence and dismissing all alternative theories. Keep in mind that VB, while a great lawyer and sound debater, is not familiar with scientific evidence, and his book is over a 21 year project that suffers from a lack of clarity, and extensive length, 1,300 pages of small type plus hundreds of pages of endnotes.
The book is not exactly a hit job, since VB even slams fellow lawyer Gerald Posner for his treatment of the Rose Cheramie incident, the Slvia Odo problem, and his handling of the Bethesda patholigists. In astonishing fairness and balance, VB calls it "strange" that the HSCA would state there was no witnesses at Bethesda who say gaping right rear head wound, when in fact there were dozens. And VB calls the Rose Cheramie and Slyvia Odo incidents "troubling." But VB commits the same sins he laments others. He omits contrary information, misleads readers, and attacks the opposition. Plus the tone of the writing is tiresome, very condescending and arrogant.

1) VB mentions that Malcolm Kirduff announced the president's death at Parkland Hospital. He leaves out the fact that he did while pointing to the right temple as a bullet wound, and tells a reporter that the bullet entered the right temple.

2) VB leaves out the testimony of the Parkland nurses, who ALL said the JFK had a gaping wound in the right rear of the head and that the throat wound was a CLEAR entrance wound.

3) VB tends to include witness testimony located in the WC and HSCA, but leaves out testimony made with private investigators. For example Kenny O'Donnel and Dave Powers. And Bulgiosi fails to mention the ARRB depositions from credible witnesses like Sandra K. Spencer. This is not acceptable.

4) VB's whole case is built on his strongly stated assumption that the state would not cover-up crimes, nor evidence of a crime, and that official reports cannot be censored. Nor would state powers help plant evidence. IF you belief VB and trust power that much, then this book if for you. But if you look at the world today, you should know better and this book rings hollow, because an EDUCATED person would know that national leaders can be removed by the CIA (Iran 1953, Iraq 2003), crimes and evidence can be planted or made up (Iraq WMD, Florida boot camp case, Pat Tillman).

Link for Proof that VB LIED:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers

It is divided into sections, the first part is Four Days in November a timeline of events, the middle section goes over the life of Oswald, then a response to the various conspiracy theories, then the investigations, a comparison of the incredible coincidences between Abe Lincoln and JK, the conclusion is a collection of quotes on JFK's legacy and an interview with Marina Oswald that just seems out of place. VB refused to include the autopsy photos, and endnotes are on a CD.

It is apparent that there is physical evidence against Oswald. But VB keeps driving that point home again and again, dismissing contrary evidence or opinion simply because of that and thus he KNOWS Oswald is guilty. But this is no ordinary murder, it a presidential assassination and VB does not factor in the potential for planted evidence to frame Oswald in a political assassination. Altough in VB's credit, he comes to the personal conclusion that President Kennedy would not have expanded the war in Vietnam.

Why is it that all the leading investigations in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the WC, HSCA, and work of Gerald Posner, were done by lawyers? Lawyers can argue a case either way, and are not always drawn to facts and truth (as in the OJ case, the Bush v. Gore decision, and many other cases prove). Bulgliosi should know better. Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter anyone?
There remains strong evidence for conspiracy in the public and private investigations of the assassination, and thus this case remains OPEN."

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

Tap Dancing around Improbabilities and Plausible Deniability, January 21, 2011

This review is from: Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Hardcover)
Former DA Vince Bugliosi wrote his opinion of the circumstances surrounding President Kennedy's murder. Big deal.

Why state this? Because the quantity of pages does not substitute for the quality of prose or the cogency of the ideas expressed. A preponderance of end notes and foot notes does not equate to outstanding research. Tearing down is not a substitute for proper rhetorical argument and persuasion, i.e., concession to the viewpoints of the opposition. Bugliosi's ruminating on the merits of various other writer's conspiracy viewpoints. The mere fact that the former DA is writing his own opinion about President Kennedy's assassination while ignoring the everlasting fact that Lee Harvey Oswald will always go down in history as the alleged assassin of President Kennedy and nothing more. Seeming hard evidence melts when it is scrutinized. Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry is on the record as stating, paraphrased, We never had anything putting Oswald in that 6th floor window or that he had fired that rifle at anyone. There are no fingerprints, nothing, tying him to it at that time. Presumably, Curry gave this statement on the return of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from the Washington, DC FBI Crime Lab to the Dallas Crime Lab by Agent Vincent Drain with the statement by Agent Sebastian Latona that "no usable latent prints were recovered from the rifle." FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had issued an accompanying statement of his own to the effect that all the Dallas recovered evidence contained no forensic traces linking any of it (Hoover was referring to the rifle, cartridge cases, clip in the rifle, the disassembled parts of the rifle, and the revolver) to Lee Harvey Oswald, the captured suspect.

1512 pages and all Bugliosi succeeds in accomplishing is delivering a Bronx cheer to Oliver Stone and various conspiracy writers. A better use of time is spent reading John Newman's book about Oswald's ties and contacts to the CIA.

Despite the writer's fame as an experienced prosecutor, this book is not objective, breaks down in parts, and much too long by more than half.

[spooked911]

1. I point these reviews out, not just to show why the book is a waste of time, but

to show the typical way in which conspiracy theories are argued against-- selective presentation of the evidence.

[apocalypsehow]

13. Total projection - that is actually the modus operandi of CT'ers everwhere: "selective presentation

of the evidence." The reason you don't want expend the time reading Bugliosi's masterpiece - and a thousand years from now, scholars will still be consulting his seminal work while all the volumes of CT'er nonsense will have long vanished from the publisher's list - is because it very thoroughly documents facts which you don't want to hear. That's the gist of it, in a nutshell. No pun intended.

[zappaman]

2. shocker

CTers don't like books telling them how silly they are.
Impressive, Spooked.

[KDLarsen]

3. There's a surprise...

It's either a 5-star or a 1-star book, depending on how you view the JFK conspiracy. :eyes:

[AntiFascist]

4. The very first JFK conspiracy theory book is...

"Farewell America: The Plot to Kill JFK" which, it claims, contains material from an investigation by RFK and Sen. Moynihan, and was written to help RFK's run for president. It even claims, in the introduction, that RFK felt that the only way to conduct a proper investigation of his brother's death was for him to become president, eventhough publically the Kennedys would only acknowledge the validity of the Warren Commission findings. After RFK's assassination, the book was only published in France and banned from the US, only recently published in the US in 2002.

The high level theory put forth in the book sounds like a counter-myth written to implicate the ruling powers-that-be that opposed JFK, but never really directly implicating Richard Nixon or his mob and CIA contacts. The low-level evidence, however, is very interesting providing specific details about Oswald's career with the CIA, and his CIA and Minutemen, etc. associates.

On this, the anniversary of RFK's assassination, I think it is important to consider one of RFK's last personal initiatives, which has been kept secret all these years.

[defendandprotect]

7. The rightwing is responsible for the half century of political violence in America ....

Elsewhere it is said that RFK immediately sent a CIA member the family had

contacts with to investigate in the first 24 hours after the assassination --

Word came back after three days or so that this was a very powerful conspiracy

and that he had already faced attacks on his life -- a hot war.

Think that Richard Sprague who wrote "The Taking of America 1-2-3" did an excellent

job on making clear the threats overall to the Kennedy family --

Would we have believed them had they told us their entire family -- and all of the

children -- were under threat? Think I would have --

Easy for someone not involved in such threatening situation to wonder what we might

do but in the end how many Kennedy's were lost -- and friends of Kennedy's -- ?

Ted was handicapped early on by a crash in a private plane --

and later I am more and more inclinced to believe by a frame up at Chappaquidick --

to ensure that he could not run for president.

John was dead -- Bobby was dead -- Ted reigned in -- and perhaps it still didn't end

until they killed JFK, Jr?

So did silence pay off -- or was it really all they could do?

Would any of us have done it differently?

What of David Kennedy -- was the name of the RFK son who allegedly lost his life to drug

overdose? How many drug overdoses have we had among celebrities?


What we do know is that the only way the rightwing can rise is through political violence --

intimidation, lies -- stolen elections --


Don't know when LBJ began to worry about RFK running for president -- did it not occur to

them before the coup? Obviously, RFK would have won -- but rw violence intervened once more!

[AntiFascist]

9. In addition to threats to the family...

there were also threats to national security, in that exposing some of the programs surrounding Oswald could have clued in Castro to the efforts to have him assassinated, etc. The fact that Castro stayed in power so long may be one reason why the Kennedys, publically, had to continue supporting the Warren Commission's findings. It probably also explains why certain avenues were simply not explored by investigators, and why so many other witnesses had to be liquidated, particularly the mobsters who talked too much.

[defendandprotect]

16. Well . . .

No doubt Castro knew --

what they were trying to protect against was the public finding out what the CIA

was doing --

and actually, they tried in many ways to move some of their horrors onto RFK suggesting

HE was going after Castro -- and you might recall that E. Howard Hunt as a "plumber" in

the White House was very busy actively trying to FORGE CABLES to suggest that it was

JFK who ordered the coup on the Diem Bros. which is another lie.

Had the public come to understand what the CIA was doing earlier with killing democratic

leaders all over the world, we'd be a healthier nation now.

The other threat to the hidden government and CIA was the revelations which made clear

their connections with and use of Mafia figures.

But only a few authors explored the complications and depths of that relationship --

i.e., how they used prisons to pull up people they needed.

How they intimidated, blackmailed and brainwashed their way to find "Manchurian candidates" --


Keep in mind the Ray family -- James Earl Ray and his brother -- the entire family.

There are two interesting books on that -- one by James Earl Ray and one fairly recently

by his brother. Information the public hasn't as yet come to fully understand, imo.


Same with Charles Manson who seems to have been used to attack the Youth Revolution/Hippies.

Here's an interesting link -- down a little way to where Brussel begins to talk about

Manson, specifically --

http://maebrussell.com/Transcriptions/16.html



:)







In addition to threats to the family...

there were also threats to national security, in that exposing some of the programs surrounding Oswald could have clued in Castro to the efforts to have him assassinated, etc. The fact that Castro stayed in power so long may be one reason why the Kennedys, publically, had to continue supporting the Warren Commission's findings. It probably also explains why certain avenues were simply not explored by investigators, and why so many other witnesses had to be liquidated, particularly the mobsters who talked too much.

[zappaman]

17. yes, everyone was in on it

forget all the physical evidence that points to a miscreant named LHO with a rifle.
a vast conspiracy consisting of dozens, if not hundreds of people, makes infinitely more sense!

[AntiFascist]

23. What makes more sense...

is that Oswald was a patsy. Why did he, himself, get assassinated along with so many others? Then, Jack Ruby died shortly thereafter of lung cancer. Very clean.

[zappaman]

25. "Jack Ruby died shortly thereafter of lung cancer"

Yes, shortly thereafter...over 3 years later.
And not a word in that time saying he was told to kill LHO.
"shortly thereafter"... :rofl:

[AntiFascist]

27. People did start talking...

around the time of the Church Committee in 1975. Short is relative.

[defendandprotect]

29. Everybody tried to talk and many died -- and many like Jean Hill and Roger Craig....

and others lived decades under threat of violence --

They say that the evening of the assassination, in DC the names of those

involved were already being spoken. Supposedly more than 100 lawyers in

DC lost their lives, presumably trying to represent people who had info

and wanted to protect it or have it reported to government.


If the public hadn't already been deprived of so much of the truth about

our own nation we would all have figured it out very quickly.

Our schools pushed nonsense on us about this being the greatest country in

the world -- capitalism being synonymous with democracy -- imagine that!!


Many Americans, of course, suspected the worst, but how could we believe that

our entire government had already been taken over? Many suspected LBJ and that

ws without even knowing the truth of his background and wealth and how involved

he was with the oil industry and organized crime. That he was receiving cash

pay-offs even in the Oval Office.


We noticed the reluctance of show hosts -- except perhaps those very, very late

at night to discuss the assassination in any truthful way -- but how could Americans

at that have imagined a CIA manned by Allen Dulles' NAZI's --

or that there was actually an active program called OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD which took

over our "free press" and move CIA "journalists" into media and ensured that anything

that threatened those involved was shut down.

Even Walter Cronkite claimed that on a show he hosted which was exploring the head wounds

with doctors from Parkland that the "cards" he was reading from were completely changed

from what he expected them to be saying. And the conclusions were changed.


In 1977, Carl Bernstein's article in ROLLING STONE began to report on the infiltration of

our media by CIA agents posing as journalists.

At the time, I think he reported 400 -- very quickly over a year or two he was reporting

the numbers were exceeding a thousand -- !! What are the numbers today?

And, Congress has still never yet put a stop to it.


Operation Mockingbird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History|See also|Further reading|ReferencesOther journalists alleged by Rolling Stone Magazine to have ... As well as reporting CIA funding ... Carl Bernstein's 1977 article for Rolling Stone "The Cia and the Media"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird?reup=yes - Cached.


Undoubtedly, we've had stronger and stronger CIA influences on the White House and government.

Presumably, Poppy Bush was our first CIA president?


Bless those who have tried to talk -- and sacrificed so much --

and bless the private investigators who have told us the truths we need to know.

[apocalypsehow]

32. "Supposedly more than 100 lawyers in DC lost their lives" - Just when I think I've seen the limit

of made-up, fact-free CT'er nonsense, I'm reminded there is no limit.

[AntiFascist]

36. I don't know about the "100 lawyers"...

but I do know that Sam Giancana was executed "shortly before he was scheduled to appear before a U. S. Senate committee investigating supposed CIA and Cosa Nostra collusion in plots to assassinate President John F. Kennedy"

And there's Johnny Roselli: "Some believed that boss Trafficante ordered Roselli's death. According to this theory, Trafficante believed that Roselli had revealed too much about the Kennedy assassination and Castro murder plots during his Senate testimony, violating the strict Mafia code of omertà (silence)." At that point, Roselli had been missing when recalled to appear before the Committee investigating Kennedy's assassination.

Jimmy Hoffa? He also disappeared in 1975, before he could testify before the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

[apocalypsehow]

38. You don't know very much, even about the two you name:

Sam Giancana was killed because he was cooperating with the FBI about mob activity in Chicago. Even if we take the most generous interpretation of CT'er fairy tales, it bodes no good for a "conspiracy" to kill JFK but, rather, an opportunity for Giancana to dish dirt on his outfit's involvement in the Kennedy brother's plot to assassinate Fidel Castro. Therefore, according to CT'er logic, it's just as likely that the Kennedy family was behind Giancana's demise as someone trying to "silence" him about his knowledge of the events of Nov. 22, 1963. Which is, of course, horseshit, but when you follow CT'er logic to it's natural conclusion you always run into some of the goofiest conclusions based upon deeply flawed premises.

Jimmy Hoffa was never scheduled to appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations for the simple fact that it did not exist at the time of his disappearance: it wasn't even established until 1976; Hoffa disappeared in July, 1975.

This is why CT'ers have absolutely no credibility among those capable of even the most rudimentary cognitive skills: few of them can get even elementary facts straight, and even when they do they so twist & distort the facts as they actually are to fit deluded little narratives of gremlins hiding out on grassy knolls and goblins squatting in the basement of the Twin Towers experimenting with "controlled demolitions."

It's sad and laughable, all at the same time.

[AntiFascist]

40. Interesting, you failed to mention Johnny Rosselli...

Others can present the facts much better than I:

http://www.legacyofsecrecy.com/

details:

"...How the three Mafia chiefs had a dozen mob associates infiltrate John and Robert Kennedy’s top-secret "Plan for a Coup in Cuba," set for December 1, 1963—and used parts of the coup plan to kill JFK in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

• Why Robert Kennedy and top U.S. officials withheld crucial information to prevent a confrontation with the Soviets and protect JFK’s ally high in the Cuban government: Commander Juan Almeida, who is still listed as Cuba’s #3 official today."

...

You want to know why EMK publically supported the Warren Commission, this is likely the reason.

[apocalypsehow]

41. Interesting, you were proven wrong on the facts and are now trying to change the subject.

Well, not really interesting, but typical of CT'er tactics. Go peddle it elsewhere.

[AntiFascist]

42. Not changing the subject at all...

the website I linked to prsents hard, new evidence supporting the gist of what I am trying to get across.

[apocalypsehow]

43. Yes, you are. You posted two factually incorrect narratives of two men above. You were corrected.

Now you peddle some goofy CT'er website talking about a subject meant to deflect from your erroneous post above. It's again part & parcel of why CT'ers have zero credibility in the real world.

[AntiFascist]

45. I don't suppose you believe Sen. Gary Hart either...

In September, 1975, a sub-committee made up of Hart and Richard Schweiker was asked to review the performance of the intelligence agencies in the original John F. Kennedy assassination investigation. Hart and Schweiker became very concerned about what they found. On 1st May, 1976, Hart said: "I don't think you can see the things I have seen and sit on it."

When the Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations was published in 1976, Hart joined Walter Mondale and Philip Hart to publish an appendix to the report. The three men pointed out that "important portions of the Report had been excised or security grounds". However, they believed that the CIA had "used the classification stamp not for security, but to censor material that would be embarrassing, inconvenient, or likely to provoke an adverse public reaction to CIA activities."

Hart called for a new Senate Committee to look into the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. He said it was necessary to take a closer look at Lee Harvey Oswald and his relationship with the FBI and the CIA. In an interview he gave to the Denver Post Hart said the questions that needed answering included: "Who Oswald really was - who did he know? What affiliation did he have in the Cuban network? Was his public identification with the left-wing a cover for a connection with the anti-Castro right-wing?"

In the interview Hart went on to state that he believed Oswald was probably operating as a double-agent. He thought this was one of the reasons why the FBI and CIA had made "a conscious decision to withhold evidence from the Warren Commission."

[apocalypsehow]

47. Another dodge; another attempt to deflect attention away from your factual errors; yet again, a

laughable attempt to change the subject. Typical.

[AntiFascist]

55. Please see my posts below...

The Schweiker/Hart subcommittee of the Church Committee predated the HSCA, and they were already investigating the JFK assassination and the Warren Commission findings. What witnesses were being called or considered seems a bit murky, perhaps classified, but informed people were raising questions at the time.

[apocalypsehow]

60. Your "posts below" are nothing more than an attempt to continue to dodge & obfuscate the fact that

you have been proven wrong on the facts - repeatedly.

[AntiFascist]

63. Hold on, back up a minute...

you "repeatedly" tried to show that I was wrong on one small point: that Giancana was executed a full year before the start of the HSCA. If you'd bother to read my posts, you'd see that I was referring, also, to the Church committee, which had a sub-committee investigating the assassination around the earlier timeframe, in 1975. This also helped lead to the formation of the HSCA. I also linked to an article by a respected journalist who reported that Giancana was boasting to his relatives about his involvement in carrying out the assassination. The article also demonstrates numerous connections between the mob members involved, the CIA and Nixon.

[apocalypsehow]

67. No, you hold on and back up a minute: you were proven wrong on three separate points, and have done

nothing since save attempt to obfuscate, dodge, and cloud the issue. Of course, since the posts are available for all to see, no one is the slightest bit fooled. You're basically just talking to yourself, trying to pretend that having the "last word" amounts to "winning." Laughable stuff.

[AntiFascist]

70. I may as well be talking to myself....

you don't seem to comprehend the distinction between the Church Committee and the HSCA.

[apocalypsehow]

44. And, of course, a cursory examination of that goofy website reveals no "hard, new evidence" of any

kind, just peddling a CT'er book which, from the looks of it, is simply full of the same old rehashed and repeatedly debunked conspiracy theory nonsense about how the mob assassinated JFK with the FBI's collusion. That story's been told again and again and again in slightly different versions since the 1960s, but it's all the same 'ole fairy tale when it comes down to it. And never once with a shred of credible facts or data to back those fairy tales up - just oodles & gobs of speculations, innuendo, slander, and non-stop brooding about supposed "coincidences."

Weak stuff, per usual.

[AntiFascist]

46. This book was published not too long ago (Nov. 2009)...

and I haven't read it yet. I'll read it and get back to you on a future thread.

The problem I've found with theories that focus too much on mob involvement is that they tend not to cover enough material that had been investigated by the HSCA. This book may be different.

[apocalypsehow]

48. Don't bother "getting back to me" on what amounts to a pile of fairy tales - not interested.

"The problem I've found with theories that focus too much on mob involvement is that they ignore the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and with malice aforethought, was the sole assassin in the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy."

There - I fixed if for yah. Because there is not a credible fact in the universe that disputes otherwise.

[AntiFascist]

52. I've provided plenty of credible statements from numerous sources...

all you can do is repeat the same things over and over a la Bugliosi.

[apocalypsehow]

59. You've provided nary a one - and all the rest is projection. Please try again. n/t.

[AntiFascist]

75. Here's a recent fact, reported circa 2003....

The CIA witheld evidence:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/interviews/blakey.html#addendum

I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

[apocalypsehow]

49. "that had been investigated by the HSCA" - BTW, have you managed yet to figure which year the HSCA

was formed? Before I invested too much time in reviewing that "material" I'd at least make sure I knew the timeline of that body's activities...

[AntiFascist]

50. From an advisor to Richard A. Sprague, HSCA counsel....

...in the Church Committee investigation, the Schweiker/Hart subcommittee
on the JFK case was very limited and controlled in what they could
do.
But in the new situation, in Richard A. Sprague and his
professionals with so much knowledge of the CIA's role in the
murder and the cover-up, they faced a crisis. They knew they had
to do several things to turn it around and to continue to keep the
American public from realizing what was happening. Here is what
they had to do:


1. Get rid of Richard A. Sprague.

2. Get rid of Henry Gonzalez.

3. Get rid of Sprague's key men or keep them away from CIA
evidence or keep them quiet.

4. Install their own chief counsel to control the
investigation.

5. Elect a new HSCA chairman who would go along, or who
could be fooled.

6. Cut off all Sprague's investigations of CIA people.
Make sure none of the people were found or bury any
testimony that had already been found, or murder CIA
people who might talk.

7. Keep the committee members from knowing what was
happening and segregate the investigation from them.

8. Create a new investigative environment whose purpose
would be to confirm all of the findings of the Warren
Commission and divert attention away from the who-did-
it-and-why approach.

9. Control the committee staff in such a way as to keep
any of them from revealing what they already knew about
CIA involvement.

10. Control committee consultants in the same way, and
staff members who might leave or who might be fired.

11. Continue to control the media in such a way as to
reinforce all of the above.

12. Continue to murder witnesses or assassins in emergency
situations if necessary.

The CIA successfully did all twelve of these things. The
techniques they used were much more subtle and devious than those
they had used before, although they did continue with murders of
potential HSCA witnesses and with media control.

[zappaman]

51. you forgot to post the link

you cut and pasted this from.

[AntiFascist]

53. Richard Sprague, "The Taking of America"

[zappaman]

54. oh, THAT guy

"Sprague holds that there were six shots towards Kennedy, but he was hit only by four."
And what planet does he say this occurred on?

ETA this woo!
:rofl:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

The possibility that a very rare and special secret weapon system, developed by the CIA at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was used to immobilize JFK, and thus ensure the success of "the turkey shoot" carried out in Dealey Plaza is explored in great detail below.
Consider also that until the day of the JFK assassination in 1963, there was no place that anybody outside of the very small CIA and Special Forces group (perhaps as many as twenty people) could get access to that flechette-launching weapon system or anything like it.
To arrive at a solution to a murder as enigmatic and convoluted as that of JFK, we must confront the existence of the netherworld of secret operations carried out by covert agencies within our own government: "We have to start thinking like the CIA, people. . . . Black is white, and white is black."

[AntiFascist]

56. Talk about deflection!

what does this have to do with Congressional investigations of mobsters? I'm not Sprague and I'm not going to attempt to defend everything he puts forth in his books. I'm mainly concerned with the history surrounding the Church Committee and the HSCA. Certainly there are dozens of theories about Dealey Plaza, but as I've said already I'm not really too concerned with that. I believe that Sprague happens to be an insider when it comes to the HSCA. Everything else he writes about is probably intended to sell his book and make it more interesting.

[apocalypsehow]

61. Non-responsive & irrelevant: you said Jimmy Hoffa was due to be called before the HCSA in 1975, and

yet it wasn't even formed until 1976. All the rest of this jazz is just trying to cover up your manifest fail above - but the old credibility meter is still pegging zero.

[AntiFascist]

65. My statement is factual and it still makes sense, please don't misquote me...

I said that Hoffa disappeared before he could be called as a witness. The Church committee was investigating both mob involvement and the assassination in 1975. Jimmy Hoffa disappeared in 1975 around the time that certain Senator who sat on the intelligence committee was starting to piece it all together. They then went on to form the HSCA the following year, but by then could not call Hoffa as a witness.

[apocalypsehow]

66. Your statement was not factual and I quoted you precisely - a point you're now desperately trying to

hand-wave away.

[AntiFascist]

71. Precisely? Really?

and where exactly did I say that Hoffa was "due to be called"?

[AntiFascist]

57. I don't suppose you would believe former UPI journalist Don Fulsom either...

he covered the Nixon White House for UPI, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, etc.

There's a nice timeline in this article together with a lot of background info on Giancana and his dealings with Nixon, CIA and Jack Ruby:

http://crimemagazine.com/richard-nixons-greatest-cover-his-ties-assassination-president-kennedy

[apocalypsehow]

62. I don't suppose that instead of continuing to change the subject, you could just deal with the issue

at hand and your erroneous presentation of clearly debunked facts? So far, survey says: No.

[AntiFascist]

64. How many facts do I have cite?

See my post 58 at the bottom, it seems that even Bugliosi himself may be interested in this one:

"Later, the House panel’s top investigator, Robert Blakey, flatly concluded that organized crime bosses orchestrated the JFK assassination. Blakey identified the key plotters as Mob godfathers Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante and Sam Giancana—as well as Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa.

Early in this century, Blakey was astonished to learn that his committee’s work was compromised by the official who served as its chief CIA go-between. That particular spook—George Joannides (a.k.a. Walter Newby)—violated the CIA’s pledge that no operational officer from the time of the JFK assassination would work with House investigators.

Yet newly declassified documents show that, in 1963, Joannides was involved with a CIA-funded Cuban exile group known as the DRE, which had various interactions with Lee Harvey Oswald—Kennedy’s alleged assassin."

[apocalypsehow]

68. You have not cited any "facts," other than ones that have proven to have been erroneous. You didn't

didn't even know which year the House committee you've expended so much energy talking about was formed, let alone any of the issues surrounding both that committee and the subsequent revelations that debunked several of its core findings. You just really haven't educated yourself very much on the actual facts surrounding the Kennedy assassination, and it shows.

[AntiFascist]

72. As I've stated in many of the posts you haven't bothered to read thoroughly...

the HSCA was formed in 1976 and the Church Committee (along with its sub-committee) in 1975. I never referred to specifically a "House Committee" but a Congressional Committee, Church being Senate and HSCA being House.

[apocalypsehow]

78. Except, you stated it was in operation in 1975, and Jimmy Hoffa never got the chance to get there...

More factual FAIL.

[AntiFascist]

80. "It" was the Church Committee which ultimately led to the HSCA....

more FAIL on your part.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

73. Instead of insulting me and calling me wrong....

I wish he/she could ask some productive questions, like: "Where is the list of witnesses that were called, or were to be called before these committees? Is this just based on hearsay?" I think a lot of Fulsom's reporting may be based on hearsay from relatives. Or worse, perhaps someone like Joannides was feeding evidence against the mafia deflecting attention away from the CIA?

The fact that people claim that the HSCA conclusions are false simply because the audio evidence doesn't hold up... I don't buy into that. I think there was a lot more driving their conclusions and investigations that lies below the surface, but hasn't been made public. (probably in an effort to protect the character of Richard Nixon as much as possible).

[Kingofalldems]

74. Use the alert function.

[apocalypsehow]

79. Except, you were never "insulted" - you were, on the other hand, called "wrong." Factually, you were

Repeatedly.

[AntiFascist]

81. Repeatedly calling me wrong does not make it true...

instead, why don't you address my response? There seems to be avoidance of the discussion of the Church Committee's sub-committee questioning Oswald's relationship to the CIA. "Farewell America", Jim Garrison, and even possibly Gary Hart allude to CIA's involvement, as later discovered together the mafia, in anti-Castro operations, yet Blakey, of the HSCA, doesn't even know about this until 2003 because information was witheld by Joannides. Key mob witnesses, some of whom were talking, either were executed or disappeared around the time Nixon was being investigated by the Church Committeee (the CHURCH COMMITTEE, not the HSCA!!!) Why can't you guys address the issues?

[AntiFascist]

24. I wouldn't doubt...

certain operatives were passing out LSD to hippies, just to pacify them.

[zappaman]

26. seems like there are a lot of things

you wouldn't doubt.
except, of course the large amount of physical evidence tying Oswald to the assassination.
that you have no problem doubting!

[AntiFascist]

28. seems like you haven't read my posts very carefully...

I believe Oswald was directy tied to the assassination, but he wasn't alone.

[defendandprotect]

31. How do you mean that ... as someone employed by CIA/FBI infiltrating right wing

groups -- or do you mean directly involved in trying to assassinate JFK?

[AntiFascist]

34. The evidence points to the former, after all, he claimed to be a Marxist ...

but I think it may also be the case that Oswald may have been motivated by money, and political affiliations, be they right-wing or left-wing were secondary. To me, the 'magic bullet theory debate' is secondary to the actual connections Oswald had with right-wing entities. He did as he was told, and if that meant acting the role of a patsy, he may not have understood the consequences.

[defendandprotect]

35. When you say "former" ... you mean FBI/CIA?

The evidence points to the former, after all, he claimed to be a Marxist ...

Certainly if you were being sent to Russia to spy for the US, you would claim to be

a "Marxist" wouldn't you?

but I think it may also be the case that Oswald may have been motivated by money, and political affiliations, be they right-wing or left-wing were secondary. To me, the 'magic bullet theory debate' is secondary to the actual connections Oswald had with right-wing entities. He did as he was told, and if that meant acting the role of a patsy, he may not have understood the consequences.

If Oswald was motivated by money, he wouldn't have been working in the Texas Book Depository

UNLESS he had income from CIA or FBI -- imo. And, even at that time, I don't think anyone

got wealthy on CIA or FBI salaries.

Oswald and his family were basically living on that salary from TSBD --


And how do you mean that he was "motivated" by political affiliations?

Basically, he was in contact with the right wing -- that pretty much was all of his contacts.

True, Marina said that Oswald "admired" JFK -- but he was living the life occasioned by his

24/7 contacts with rightwingers. From his earliest years, under influence of David Ferrie.

And even up to the time of the assassination, David Ferrie is still involved in his life as

they both presumably work for the CIA on other rightwing issues -- like finding a way to

create cancer in a human .... so the CIA would have a new weapon!!

Presume you're familiar with the history of that -- if not see the Judyth Bakker info on

internet and her interviews on YouTube --

And, of course, eventually the CIA did get their cancer weapon -- one just the reverse of

what the rest of the world was looking for ... i.e., a cure for cancer!

[AntiFascist]

37. I think we are in agreement...

Oswald was struggling to get by, not motivated by money in the same way as a mobster, but motivated by the need to survive.

[AntiFascist]

76. I've always felt there was much truth to be found in this Playboy interview of Jim Garrison...

http://www.maebrussell.com/Garrison/Garrison%20Playboy%20Intvw%202.html

where he states that right-wing paramilitary groups were responsible for the conspiracy and that Oswald had a lot of contact with these groups. Although there was much overlap with the mafia, factions of the CIA, FBI, anti-Castro Cubans, etc, none of those groups in and of themselves would have been held responsible, as was confirmed by the HSCA.

Note also that Garrison even mentions the cancer causing weapon that was to be used against Castro, this from his interview back in 1967. Oswald may have been used to attempt to deliver this virus to Cuba, using his cover as a pro-Marxist. Who knows what plans the right-wing had been making for the virus, certainly Reagan did little to stop the spread in the 80s...

[apocalypsehow]

33. There is not a speck of evidence that Oswald was anything but "alone" in carrying out his crimes.

He was the sole assassin of President Kennedy, and the murderer of Officer Tippit. Not a single credible fact says otherwise, period.

[defendandprotect]

30. Brussel says ... "they were being given bad acid by agent provocateurs" ....

I had a friend I met who worked at the Diggers, and they were being handed bad acid by disguised agent provocateurs, to begin to burn their bellies out and rob their minds. the Diggers were up there. This can be documented. I know that the federal government were throwing things out at pop festivals. They allowed people like Melvin Belli—who worked with Jack Ruby—was the man in on the Altamont thing. That brings the pressure. We'll go on to that some other day; on pop festivals and music, and what happened to the music scene, and the musicians at the Monterey Pop Festival.

[apocalypsehow]

39. "This can be documented" - Then do so. I won't be holding my breath.... n/t.

[defendandprotect]

19. You might also be interested ....

in my "aside" to Spooked also on this thread ... ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=316240&mesg_id=316305

[SDuderstadt]

5. Dude...

Bugliosi's book has 107 5-star reviews. Yet you picked this review out as being typical?

You should be ashamed of yourself, Spooked.

[OnTheOtherHand]

8. whoa, spooked omitted contrary information?

Of course, one tends to do that when one honestly believes that it is irrelevant -- which spooked, somehow, probably did. Bugliosi, after all, is Wrong. The rest is commentary.

[spooked911]

10. where did I say "typical"????

I said it was balanced and even-handed.

And it made good points.

It was a three star review (the first one).

So, you're wrong.

What a surprise.

[SDuderstadt]

20. I'M wrong???

Dude. Your words:

"The reviews at Amazon are pretty telling. This one is fairly even-handed, and fairly damning"

Your phrasing gives the reader the impression that you are presenting the "fairly even-handed" review as representative of the rest of them. As usual, you left out relevant information the reader deserves to know. From the Amazon review page:

204 Reviews
5 star: (107)
4 star: (18)
3 star: (15)
2 star: (10)
1 star: (54)

Facts (that you omitted):

Out of 204 reviews, more than half of them gave Bugliosi's book the highest rating possible. The number of reviews rating it only one star was just about half of the 5 star reviews. Five star reviews comprise as many as 1-4 stars put together.

As I said before, dude, you should be ashamed of yourself for a blatantly misleading post.

[defendandprotect]

6. Thanks for this response to the nonsense of Bugliosi --

I usually try to read what the other side has to say --

but very quickly gave up on this book it's such garbage --

But, think these reviews provide a good record for those who may be wondering!!

[spooked911]

11. yeah, I think the reviews are good enough to give an idea what the book is like

without spending time going through 1600 pages

[zappaman]

12. yes, cuz it's too many pages to read.

some "truthseeker" you are.

[defendandprotect]

18. Side issue: I've just been re-reading again ....

Jim Marrs "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" -- and it's a good reminder re the

overall involvement of the Rockefellers in so much of our evil history.

On page 138 -- he begins to recite how it was Nelson Rockefeller who finally

had to be "persuaded" -- i.e., blackmailed -- to release UN votes to give

consent for state of Israel --

And it's shocking to be reminded of what power Nelson and the Rockefellers

actually had -- for instance over South America and many parts of US --

Tennessee, for instance. James Earl Ray's book is interesting on that issue

in US/prisons -- as well as his brother's book written not so long ago.


Quote --

"Rockefeller had been able to deflect several investigations into his family's

prewar and wartime dealings with the Nazis, but according to Loftus and Aarons,

"Then the Jews arrived with their dossier. They had his Swiss Bank records with

the Nazis, his signature on correspondence setting up the German Cartel in South

America, transcripts of his conversations with Nazi agents during the war - and

finally, evidence of his complicity in helping Allen Dulles smuggle Nazi war

criminals and money from the Vatican to Argentina."


What Marrs is actually repeating is information from a fantastic book by Lotus

and Aarons called "The Secret War Against the Jews" -- a misnomer if there ever was

one because it is about so much more!

Marrs reminds us of the very strong connections between Nelson/Rockefellers and

Allen Dulles -- fellow conspirators in smuggling Nazi money back to safety!

And, not least of which is the Rockefeller control over our medicine/drugs --


Anyway, just wanted to say :hi: and ask if you were reading these books cause I think

so much of this needs more reporting here -- especially re the intertwining of the

Rockefellers in almost every issue.


???

:)

[SDuderstadt]

21. Half of which rate the book...

5 stars. You left that part out, dude.

Why are you afraid for people to read Bugliosi's book?

[apocalypsehow]

15. Ted Kennedy, JFK's brother, agreed with Bugliosi. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

14. Ted Kennedy, JFK's brother, agreed with Bugliosi. n/t.

[SDuderstadt]

22. Dude....

more of your blatantly misleading nonsense.

Kilduff told no reporter that JFK was shot in the front of the head.

Here's the video clip:

http://www.videosurf.com/video/kilduff-indicates-frontal-shot-to-jfk-head-1270993658

Kilduff's exact words while pointing to his head:

"Dr. Burke told me it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head."

What can we tell from Kilduff's statement? 1st of all, he got his information secondhand from Dr. Burke. Secondly, he says nothing about where the shot entered and points to his head when he is saying, "...a bullet right through the head". Nothing more, dude.

[AntiFascist]

58. Bwahahaha....I didn't know about this!

http://crimemagazine.com/ongoing-cover-jfk-assassination-0

A group of two-dozen experts of differing opinions about the President’s murder has called on the CIA to stop it’s “stonewalling” on the Joannides files. This group describes the agency’s position as “spurious and untenable.”

In a 2005 letter published in the New York Review of Books, the group maintains, “(The CIA’s) continuing non-compliance with the JFK Records Act does no service to the public. It defies the will of Congress. It obscures the public record on a subject of enduring national interest. It encourages conspiracy mongering. And it undermines public confidence in the intelligence community at a time when collective security requires the opposite.”

The group—which includes Blakey, Oliver Stone and Vincent Bugliosi—adds: “We insist the CIA observe the spirit of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Act by immediately releasing all relevant records on the activities of George Joannides and any records at all that include his name or relate in any way to the assassination story—as prescribed by the JFK Records Act. The law and common sense require it.”

[AntiFascist]

77. What Bugliosi didn't cover...

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKjoannides.htm

Jefferson Morley, The Man Who Did Not Talk (November, 2007)

Perhaps the single most intriguing story to emerge from the JFK files concerns a career CIA officer named George Joannides. He died in 1990 at age 67, taking his JFK secrets to the grave in suburban Washington. His role in the events leading up to Kennedy's death and its confused investigatory aftermath goes utterly unmentioned in the vast literature of JFK's assassination. Vincent Bugliosi's otherwise impressive 1,600 page book debunking every JFK conspiracy theory known to man mentions him only in an inaccurate footnote. In 1998, the Agency declassified a handful of annual personnel evaluations that revealed Joannides was involved in the JFK assassination story, both before and after the event.

In November 1963, Joannides was serving as the chief of psychological warfare operations in the CIA's Miami station. The purpose of psychological warfare, as authorized by U.S. policymakers, was to confuse and confound the government of Fidel Castro, so to hasten its replacement by a government more congenial to Washington. The first revelation was that Joannides had agents in a leading Cuban student exile group, an operation code-named AMSPELL in CIA files. These agents had a series of close encounters with Oswald three months before JFK was killed.

The second revelation was that the CIA's Miami assets helped shape the public's understanding of Kennedy's assassination by identifying the suspected assassin as a Castro supporter right from the start.

The third revelation, the one that is most shocking, is that when Congress reopened the JFK probe in 1978, Joannides served as the CIA's liaison to the investigators. His job was to provide files and information to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. But far from being a helpful source and conduit, Joannides stonewalled. He did not disclose his role in the events of 1963, even when asked direct questions about the AMSPELL operation he handled...