Plaza Man: Bob Groden vs the city of Dallas

[Joseph McBride]

Joe:

If Hill lives in Tiburon, he is swimming in bucks.

That is a really exclusive area that is simply gorgeous at night.

I guess those books he wrote did well.

****

It is a nice area. I saw him at an event in Santa Rosa
where Ruth Paine spoke to a community group. It was
later aired on C-SPAN. I asked him why he was there,
and he said he was curious to hear what Paine would say. I didn't
get the impression he knew her. Then the
camera operator shooed me away because I was in the foreground of the
shot just before the event began. It was eerie being
in the same room with the two of them.

[Peter Lemkin]

No I don't think so Lauren. If you read my linked piece, How Gary Mack became Dan Rather, he just fell into some unfortunate circumstances in his life. And they made him this offer and with the help of his new pal Dave Perry, he took it.

I agree with Jim here.....none of us likely will fully know or understand how he changed from a real researcher, freely advocating there was a conspiracy [and Mack even coming up with new photo information to bolster that], into a snake oil salesman for the Cover-Up at the 6th Floor Propaganda Musem. Even people who knew him well and I knew a few of them [Marrs, Groden, White, and several others] said they found the change very odd, rather sudden, and very hard to understand. I guess he was just the type that could change their convictions depending on which way the gravytrain was blowing. Sad. In his last decade or so I had so many battles with him on forums and in private emails...he'd always send me private emails to my posts, as he did to many other researchers - claiming as part of his contract with the 6th Floor he couldn't or shouldn't get involved in debates on forums - although he often posted bullshit for the Borg. It is a very sad story and an interesting one someone sometime might research and write up. We know the broad outlines, but not some of the life battles he may have been going through or what his personality was like. He, like Darth Vader, went from the good side to the Dark Side and seeming took it in stride.......never looking back much...although he never repudiated his badgeman work [which only proves his hypocrisy]. In the end, he was a tragic figure - but not the first this happened to. Others, such as Russo, were obviously 'sleepers', but I don't suspect 'Mack' was....just vulnerable in some way or ways. Yes, and Dave Perry was his guide into the Valley of Darkness. Perry I suspect of having ties to those who run the Valley of Darkness. I have heard Mack was offered $400.000 or more to start at a time he was needy for money.....and likely made more as time went on.....in exchange for his change of 'heart'.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Peter:

If you watch the film, they offered Groden 235 K to be the director. He turned it down.

Later on, to replace Conover Hunt, Mack was offered about 110 K. He took it.

But I always suspected that Mack had this supplemented by the films he worked on for Discovery Channel. Gary denied he was paid for those but I never bought that. He was the main talking head and a producer.

[Dawn Meredith]

No I don't think so Lauren. If you read my linked piece, How Gary Mack became Dan Rather, he just fell into some unfortunate circumstances in his life. And they made him this offer and with the help of his new pal Dave Perry, he took it.

I disagree. He was a rat from the start in my opinion. Many spooks begin as pretend researchers, like Epstein for example. Good way to get into the community.

[James Lateer]

In an earlier post, a video was referenced whereby Noam Chomsky was described as "denouncing JFK". I couldn't imagine why he would be saying anything about JFK. Does Chomsky have a history of being anti-JFK? If he does, that would be interesting to me and also a mystery.

After listening to the vidio this morning, I didn't hear Chomsky make any reference to JFK, much less "denounce JFK". Chomsky did, however, support some recent radical ideas which have been floating around. Is this the real complaint against Chomsky which has been related to or as "denouncing JFK"?

Or maybe I just didn't see the actual video but another one.

James Lateer

[Jim DiEugenio]

Noam Chomsky, when Oliver Stone's film came out, was one of its most vociferous critics.

He denounced the film in public, in private, in a magazine piece and he even wrote a book to counter it.

He denied that 1.) A plot to kill Kennedy, and 2.) JFK was withdrawing from Vietnam.

[Joseph McBride]

Noam Chomsky, when Oliver Stone's film came out, was one of its most vociferous critics.

He denounced the film in public, in private, in a magazine piece and he even wrote a book to counter it.

He denied that 1.) A plot to kill Kennedy, and 2.) JFK was withdrawing from Vietnam.

****

Chomsky has said the two topics he won't touch are the JFK
assassination and 9/11. Yet he wrote a book about 9/11 (comprised
of essays and interviews and published shortly after those events), and
his JFK book is an obvious if somewhat oblique attack
on Stone's film and clearly designed to counter it. So I guess
he means he won't address the ongoing issues in either case. Chomsky
once "joked" that his salary since 1955 has been paid
by the military-industrial complex (he apparently was
referring to working for MIT, where he is now emeritus, but . . .)
If you haven't seen the Ali G interview with "Norman" Chomsky, check
it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOIM1_xOSro

[Jim DiEugenio]

The thing is Chomsky is being 1.) less than candid and 2.) hypocritical on the subject of the JFK case.

As Probe magazine revealed many years ago, Chomsky was very interested in the JFK case around the mid sixties and was very skeptical about the official story. He had originally granted Ray Marcus an hour in his office to discuss the issue. That hour morphed into three hours and Chomsky cleared his schedule and would not take any calls. He then seriously thought about what Ray asked him to do, that is become part of the JFK critical movement. Through one of his colleagues, Ray got the message that Chomsky was going to decline for the simple reason that the opposing forces looked to powerful.

Instead he joined the anti-war movement. But in the mid seventies, he signed a petition to form the HSCA.

It was not until a bit after that, when that idiot David Barsamian made Chomsky the titular elder spokesman for Pacifica radio, when Pacifica still had some torque--before Amy Goodman coopted the whole apparatus--that he now changed his tune. And he never explained why.

What he and Alex Cockburn did when Stone's film came out was simply inexcusable. It resembled a three ring circus. The fact that Chomsky retitled and reconsecrated a whole book he had scheduled in order to knock Stone's main thesis in the film--namely that Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam at the time of his murder--shows you just how manic he got on this. But I thought the worst part was when Cockburn actually interviewed Wesley Liebeler in the pages of The Nation in order to defend the Single Bullet Fantasy. That was just a travesty, going back to the treatment of Mark Lane and Fred Cook at The Nation from the sixties. What spinelessness that showed.

The thing is, with what later was released by the ARRB on this issue, the data is so clear now that even the NY Times has to admit that JFK had a plan to withdraw from Vietnam. Kennedy even put together an evacuation plan that was delivered in November of 1963. We now even have tapes of Johnson revealing to McNamara that 1.) He had to grit his teeth when those two talked about getting out when they were losing and 2.) In 1965, people in the White House suspected Johnson was disguising his escalation plan by saying there was no difference between what he did versus what Kennedy did. That first point vitiates Chomsky's main argument of course. Kennedy knew Saigon could not win the war on its own. This is why he wanted Halberstam shipped out of Saigon. Because Halberstam, in his hawkish phase then, knew that also. But Halberstam and Sheehan wanted direct US involvement.

Which JFK was not going to do.

[Peter Lemkin]

Chomsky is a strange bird. On the control of the press, on almost any/every US attack on other nations by any means, on civil rights, on the oligarchy sucking up all the power and money in society and the world, on militarism and burgeoning police state and so much more he is on the mark......BUT....when it comes to false-flag operations such as Dallas or 911 he fails totally. I know many think he is some kind National Security agent and I wouldn't vigorously try to convince someone he was not; however, I get the feeling there is something else going on. I listened recently to Chomsky have a discussion with Belafonte - and of the things they spoke about [important things one would have to categorize as a radical view on society] they agreed. They avoided those things Chomsky won't touch in a progressive manner. I personally can not explain why Chomsky acts as he does with the most important covert ops / false-flag ops. Personally, I find it hard to believe he'd be allowed to be so radical and critical on everything else as long as he led the public and progressives astray on those other few issues. It is possible, and I don't dismiss it as a possibility, but I find it unlikely. I think something strange is going on in his thinking process that simply doesn't allow him to imagine such complex false-flag events. Maybe he will yet change his mind on these matters or we may someday learn what is behind this apparent dichotomy. Yes, Amy Goodman is analogous. She too is generally progressive, but won't touch Dallas, the other major political assassinations, nor 911 in any meaningful way.

[Phil Dagosto]

Yes, Amy Goodman is analogous. She too is generally progressive, but won't touch Dallas, the other major political assassinations, nor 911 in any meaningful way.

I do remember Goodman interviewing Oliver Stone on Democracy Now a few years back and when the subject of JFK came up she did ask " ... and who killed him?". I don't remember how Stone answered. So there's that.

But yeah, the phenomenon of people like Cokburn and Chomsky who write and say a lot of things I agree with but won't touch JFK/RFK/MLK or 9/11 - I just don't get it. And they have plenty of disciples on the Inter-tubes as I see in the comments sections of many of my favorite web sites.