"It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
"Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
"They are in Love. Fuck the War." Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon
"Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta." The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Jim, regarding Chase Brandon: If you get a chance, read Jacques Vallee's book Revelations: Alien Contact and Human Deception. It goes into the intelligence community's and military's manipulation of the UFO research community, the planting of fake stories and documents (MJ-12), discrediting researchers and even driving them mad.
I have just finished Barry Ernest, The Girl on the Stairs, and how he persisted! And how she never relented!
Along the way the granite of Harold Weisberg and here's a note from sixteen years ago last Thursday:
To Phil Dragoo --
Thank you for your order for our books. We hope you will find them both interesting and informative. You will undoubtedly find a different conception of what has happened in both assassinations from what is usually found in books on either.
Sincerely
Lillian Weisberg
Jim, I found in Destiny Betrayed, second edition, the clear threat Jim Garrison posed to CIA and its clients, hence its unprecedented mobilization of resources to destroy him.
Such was the significance of Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust regarding the Warren Commission, and Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation, on the HSCA.
Your destruction in detail of Bugliosi's revisionism is what Harold Weisberg would have wished on Gerald Posner in Case Open, 1994.
Now we have Peter Dale Scott to explain a la Penn and Teller the trick of 9/11 and, in my view, the Arab Spring, as well.
We cannot do without the function of the true historians, named here in representation of a slightly larger number.
Tonight I had occasion to remark to a classmate from that day of fifty years ago how the principal's p.a. announcement led ultimately to a couple of bookcases and a dark but clear view of how the cow ate the cabbage.
When the last book on the JFK assassination is written I hope it has shown what Dulles and Hunt were collaborating on, whether there was a kinship connecting the Don Belin who was acting head of Treasury that day (and part of the DuPont tree to boot) and the Belin who so obscenely abetted the state murder with his forged deposition of Victoria Adams.
And as for Dulles and UFO mythology and, as Sibel Edmonds notes, Gladio's slouching toward Bethlehem. . . .
I am here to learn of and from the better historians of Deep Politics.
They need not be named, all know those here now still in the fight to truth.
Those no longer here that lit the torches on the way, heroic people, as well as those that continue to make torches today.
Jim DiEugenio included in the later.
We know more of the Narlins melting pot because of the last book.
The same for Parkland is to be expected of the new one too.
I endeavor to learn and if required change my views of the events of Deep Politics because of knowledge gained.
I too read Mr. Barry Earnest's book of late.
The man never gave up how can I?
Sunstein and Dulles and Helms and Angleton and Lansdale and Bohannon and Valeriano and Hunt and McCord and on and on,
Too much is known to be satisfied with only knowledge.
Or in the words of Neil Young
"How can you run when you know?"....
"Should've been done long ago...."
As Dallas and The Church Lady prepare a false stage production,
How can anything but active suppression of truth be anticipated before, during and after the choral musical play.
Oppression of citizens p*sses me off. Deletion of truth, Ignoring of that WHICH IS KNOWN p*sses me off more.
The idea of a U.S.A.F. (or Natl. Air Guard or any participation by DOD assets) flyover the CIRCUS OF LIES is way beyond p*ssing me off.
The things now proven about A**hole Le May makes this "honor" by USAF a farce and
A SLAP IN THE FACE OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND ALL HE STOOD FOR!!!!
And a SLAP in the face of us.
We that bothered to find out more reality.
Dunkle KNOWS and holds a hand at the other table,
that is another slap to Jack White and all of us too!
How could I stop giving a shit now?
OK, now how do I get past being so p*ssed off?
:plane:
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
I'll be glad to see how Reclaiming Parkland goes down, especially to see if VB decides to reply to it at all.
Like a lot of people outside the US I suppose, my first experience of VB was the Oswald trial held in London. I read his OJ book, Outrage, and thought of him as a sharp minded analyst and prosecutor.
When Reclaiming History came out, I wasn't surprised that he thought Oswald did it, given his "prosecution" of Oswald in London. I was, however, surprised by how he tries to argue his case. I haven't read the book, but I have read reviews at CTKA, and read snippets presented in Barry Kursch's series Impossible.
For example, to say "how you it be humanly possible to be not guilty when I've listed 53 items of evidence that prove his guilt?" Er, Vince, how about even one of those items being provably false, or even if there are multiple items proving innocence, or at least a reasonable doubt. Krusch's series seems, to me anyway, to do a great job demolishing the case.
I recently saw some YouTube clips of VB debating the OJ case and I was agog at his rhetoric. His answer to claims that the police fabricated evidence in that case seemed to boil down to "these poor cops, they serve for 20 years getting shot at - and now you have the gall to accuse them of falsifying evidence - well that's not very nice is it? How dare you?". How can an experienced lawyer resort to that sort of desperate tripe?
It makes me wonder if he really understands the evidence in his cases. Or if he believes what he shovels.
I'm also anxiously awaiting the appearance of Reclaiming Parkland. I have always found rather revealing the "interest" David Atlee Phillips had in Bugliosi. Any more on that, Jim?
I go into that in the book. That is, Vince's penchant for rhetorical bombast.
In regards to the Simpson case, I note a truly idiotic comment he made in an interview about that case. He said words to the effect that police don't actually alter evidence in LA against black suspects!
Now, how could he know that unless he examined scores of cases?
But, get this, two weeks before VB said that, the Rampart Division scandal started to break. THis got little play outside of LA, but it was the biggest police scandal in the history of the city. ANd it concerned the altering of evidence, some if it racially motivated. And the guy VB was trying to protect, Mark Fuhrman, his name surfaced in it. The whole thing was so bad that the feds had to come in and manage it. To this day, people think it was covered up because Fuhrman's name got mentioned.
Anyway, that is VB's track record. He also defended the DPD right before the whole Innocence Project and Watkins began to expose their whole horrendous record. And he used Harry Connick while the Supreme Court was reaching out from the bench to criticize his office in New Orleans.
In order to score cheap rhetorical points, Vince really does step in it a lot. That's something I go after him for in the book.
Phil Dragoo Wrote:Such was the significance of Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust regarding the Warren Commission, and Gaeton Fonzi, The Last Investigation, on the HSCA.
Your destruction in detail of Bugliosi's revisionism is what Harold Weisberg would have wished on Gerald Posner in Case Open, 1994.
I like to think of Breach of Trust as the book Harold wanted to write near the end of his life, especially since he mentored Gerald McKnight. It is the culmination of Weisberg's research without all the invective.
