Alex Cox takes out after Ron Rosenbaum and Errol Morris

[Anthony Thorne]

A really great, thoughtful review Joseph, thank you. The way you've described the book, it seems like both a valuable addition to the literature, and a good read. I'll order it this week.

[Joseph McBride]

Thanks, Anthony. So what did the great Penn Jones Jr. have
to say about Ron Rosenbaum?

Edgar Tatro wrote a passionate attack on Rosenbaum
and defense of Penn (entitled "WHO ----- IS RON ROSENBAUM?) after Rosenbaum mocked
Penn in his 1983 Texas Monthly article on researchers, "Oswald's Ghost."

Penn published Tatro's article in his newsletter The Continuing Inquiry
for January 22, 1984 (as Casey Stengel used to say, "You
could look it up"; it's in Penn's papers at http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm...es/id/1618), adding this comment:

"We are proud to count Edgar Tatro as a friend, and grateful to him
for his answer to Ron Rosenbaum. We have long known this is an
impossible fight. Tatro knows it too. But we loved this democracy; we
hated to see it die. We continue to try to tell the truth as we see it -- and
as the evidence indicates. There has never been a shortage of prostitutes -- both
those who use beds, and the more deadly ones who use typewriters.

"The first ones can be avoided, but if you publish off the chosen line, you must
expect to encounter the second kind. And it is the second kind who are most deadly
to a democracy. I think it is safe to say Ron Rosenbaum falls in this category.

"In this fast falling lost world nowadays -- the bravest people are the ones who
choose to tell the truth. Our decadent society must surely reach its peak soon,
and we owe it all to [the] likes of sold-out traitors to democracy such as
Ron Rosenbaum.

"So we thank you, Edgar Tatro, for the fine factual article. In this country
now built on lies -- we are happy to present some truth."

That's the eloquent Penn I knew and loved.

I have to add, though, that some admiration for Penn (grudging, perhaps) seems
to seep through Rosenbaum's article, as how could it not for anyone
who met him. And Rosenbaum elicited from Penn my favorite
and the wisest of all his quotes.

Rosenbaum asked Penn why he thought the military had killed
Kennedy, "Because they thought he'd withdraw from Vietnam? Or --"

And Penn replied, "Shit, no. So they could take over."

[Dawn Meredith]

I can't emphasize enough how for many liberals, the JFK assassination is a conspiracy too far. It means, first of all, hurting Earl Warren's reputation (a hero to most of them, including myself when I was much younger). That stops most of them right there. You can try to explain that Warren only thought he was preventing WWIII and a new Red Scare at home, but it doesn't help.

Also, many liberals still want to have faith in federal government institutions, and this case doesn't make any of them look good. So it's an ideological mindset that they can't change, a new paradigm they can't accept.

That is exactly why it was so important to have the fake commission headed by Earl Warren. He was a respected jurist. (In spite of what he did to the Japanese). It had to be someone like him to get people to have faith in it. The story goes that LBJ convinced him by terrifying him about a potential nuclear war with Russia, that he left the room in tears. I have never believed this tale. I believe they had something on him and it was blackmail. Personal opinion only with no evidence to back it up. Just that the tale they gave sounded totally phony. Did Warren ever express any doubts later in life about the dubious Commission that bore his name? That Commission is his legacy, in spite of all the advancements made for defendant's rights during his tenure at head of the Supreme court.

Dawn

[Tracy Riddle]

Dawn, Warren himself told people that story about LBJ's fear of nuclear war. It was based on Oswald's alleged trip to Mexico City, meeting with the Soviet assassination expert Kostikov. I think he later showed some dismay as the plots to kill Castro started coming to light in the late 1960s, but it didn't shake his faith in the Commission's conclusions.

[Richard Coleman]

I can't emphasize enough how for many liberals, the JFK assassination is a conspiracy too far. It means, first of all, hurting Earl Warren's reputation (a hero to most of them, including myself when I was much younger). That stops most of them right there. You can try to explain that Warren only thought he was preventing WWIII and a new Red Scare at home, but it doesn't help.

Also, many liberals still want to have faith in federal government institutions, and this case doesn't make any of them look good. So it's an ideological mindset that they can't change, a new paradigm they can't accept.

That is exactly why it was so important to have the fake commission headed by Earl Warren. He was a respected jurist. (In spite of what he did to the Japanese). It had to be someone like him to get people to have faith in it. The story goes that LBJ convinced him by terrifying him about a potential nuclear war with Russia, that he left the room in tears. I have never believed this tale. I believe they had something on him and it was blackmail. Personal opinion only with no evidence to back it up. Just that the tale they gave sounded totally phony. Did Warren ever express any doubts later in life about the dubious Commission that bore his name? That Commission is his legacy, in spite of all the advancements made for defendant's rights during his tenure at head of the Supreme court.

Dawn

I agree. Warren went above and beyond if his fear was WW3 or some such. Why hide everything for 75 years? After 5, 10 years he would have been able to see that Fidel/Russians had nothing to do with it and could have at least started leaking stuff or even calling for declassification. I think it goes something like this: Warren was no doubt on Hoover's hate list, probably in the top four (after the K's and King). He therefore would have surveilled the crap out of Warren, including his family, relatives, friends, associates, perhaps teachers, etc. etc. For YEARS. SOMEBODY had something they wouldn't want made public, an arrest, possible homosexuality (!!!) , an affair from long ago, who knows? And who was Hoover's close friend and neighbor? Voila! (In baseball it was Tinker to Evers to Chance. Here it was Hoover to Johnson to Warren.) So LBJ makes Warren an offer he can't refuse and the truth gets buried. No wonder Warren was crying when he left that meeting. He realized he was going to have to commit treason to save himself or someone close to him. I'd cry too.

[Richard Coleman]

I can't emphasize enough how for many liberals, the JFK assassination is a conspiracy too far. It means, first of all, hurting Earl Warren's reputation (a hero to most of them, including myself when I was much younger). That stops most of them right there. You can try to explain that Warren only thought he was preventing WWIII and a new Red Scare at home, but it doesn't help.

Also, many liberals still want to have faith in federal government institutions, and this case doesn't make any of them look good. So it's an ideological mindset that they can't change, a new paradigm they can't accept.

That is exactly why it was so important to have the fake commission headed by Earl Warren. He was a respected jurist. (In spite of what he did to the Japanese). It had to be someone like him to get people to have faith in it. The story goes that LBJ convinced him by terrifying him about a potential nuclear war with Russia, that he left the room in tears. I have never believed this tale. I believe they had something on him and it was blackmail. Personal opinion only with no evidence to back it up. Just that the tale they gave sounded totally phony. Did Warren ever express any doubts later in life about the dubious Commission that bore his name? That Commission is his legacy, in spite of all the advancements made for defendant's rights during his tenure at head of the Supreme court.

Dawn

I agree. Warren went above and beyond if his fear was WW3 or some such. Why hide everything for 75 years? After 5, 10 years he would have been able to see that Fidel/Russians had nothing to do with it and could have at least started leaking stuff or even calling for declassification. I think it goes something like this: Warren was no doubt on Hoover's hate list, probably in the top four (after the K's and King). He therefore would have surveilled the crap out of Warren, including his family, relatives, friends, associates, perhaps teachers, etc. etc. For YEARS. SOMEBODY had something they wouldn't want made public, an arrest, possible homosexuality (!!!) , an affair from long ago, who knows? And who was Hoover's close friend and neighbor? Voila! (In baseball it was Tinker to Evers to Chance. Here it was Hoover to Johnson to Warren.) So LBJ makes Warren an offer he can't refuse and the truth gets buried. No wonder Warren was crying when he left that meeting. He realized he was going to have to commit treason to save himself or someone close to him. I'd cry too.

Exactly what was there to cry about? If I was in a position to prevent WW3 and save millions of lives, I might be excited, possibly scared. But cry? WTF?

[Alex Cox]

Have you come across any other books on the case yourself in recent weeks that you thought were worthwhile? There are a bunch of new ones out on the case (and reprints of some old ones) but the quality thereof is all over the shop. Also since you have the floor can you tell us a bit about your book rather than me bugging Joseph to give his impressions of it?

Since Joe Macbride has written such a great review of my book I must say I think his Into the Nighmare is very impressive! Though it deals mainly with the Tippit story it talks about many other things as well and is a really valuable addition to the literature. Rather mysteriously he writes about a "Mr X" involved on the periphery of these things but doesn't identify him; however he mentions an unnamed associate of X who sounds like General Walker's right-hand man (and James Hosty's bridge partner) Robert Surrey, author of the "Wanted for Treason" poster. Which brings us back to Turtle Creek and the Minutemen... It's a big book, a very good read, and the most complete discussion of Tippit that there is, I think.

Right now I'm reading Harvey and Lee, an even bigger book! And a very rewarding one. Survivor's Guilt has finally made it into print after being available as samizat and on the internet; that, too, will surely prove very valuable. And if you haven't read it, Michael Kurtz' The JFK Assassination Debates (a few years old, admittedly) is really interesting since Kurtz makes some fascinating assertions, names an alleged paymaster for Oswald, who he calls a "CIA courier" and reports that he personally saw Guy Banister and Oswald together in New Orleans on two occasions.

Probably most readers of this forum know this, but Jerry Rose's publication, The Third Decade and The Fourth Decade, are excellent resources. On the internet you can find them at the Mary Ferrell site.

[R.K. Locke]

I'm buying The President and the Provocateur this weekend and I'm really looking forward to reading it.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Alex just got some help:

http://www.ctka.net/2013/rosenbaum_shutup.html

every person can now see who Ron R. is and what he is up to.

In a real inquiry the Umbrella Man and the Latin looking man would have been hunted down and questioned immediately.

But see, this is JFK, so that does not matter. Not even to Tink Thompson for God's sake. Is he shell shocked?

[Alex Cox]

But see, this is JFK, so that does not matter.

Joe MacBride in his book Into the Nighmare quotes a comedian of the day, I think it was Mort Sahl, remarking that President Kennedy was "shot like a dog on the streets of Dallas and all of a sudden he had no friends at all." It is amazing that not one member of the Kennedy clan, other than Jackie, who wore that bloodstained dress, stuck up for the murdered president. What did they hope to gain by silence? And how did they end up, as a result?