James Lateer's THE THREE BARONS: THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION

[Peter Lemkin]

Lateer's book is now out. A lengthy chapter and contents listing is readable when you click on the cover of the book at the Amazon link. Based on the contents my suspicion is that there will be some material and analysis of interest - a couple of his subjects seems fresh - and some areas that are obviously off target. I'll still have a browse at some point.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Barons-Orga...1634241428

Suggest people read the pages available online from the ebook. I'd agree that he has some good targets and some not so good ones. I do think in some ways many of the good JFK assassination research community has been misled into the belief that CIA had the lead role. They certainly had a part - not as an organization, but using some people within their structure, with their training then current or former. However, the MI side of things has been played down, if acknowledged. Remember what Prouty said about how those two organizations worked together and often MI would let CI do a lot of the details - as they had more assets in some areas [physical and expertise]. Throw in some ultra-Right guys, some Big-$, some Mafia that had all had a working relationship with intelligence, the FBI ignoring more than participating before their major role in the cover-up, some foreign intel guys, some big government guys, some SS, some communications experts like Collins and others, some specialists on guns like Werbel and others...and you have a plot...a very thick plot. The plot was made so thick so as to confuse everyone forever. I think IMO the impetus came from the Military and they asked their friends and connections to help out. Others just offered their help for their own reasons. His mention of Willoughby is good - he has been under-examined. Ditto Lemnitzer. The book seems worth the price of admission. I don't know if he has made any new connections or just gathered up a lot of interesting facts of foreknowledge and conspiracy from other researchers. That he thinks highly of the Nagell story is a sign of good taste IMHO. That is a MUCH under-valued skeleton key to the entire matter! Nagell was both MI and CI - and at times himself did not know who was running him. He got so confused and ethically challenged by what he saw in the offing, he pulled off the stunt 'bank robbery' to be on ice when the assassination date rolled around and having committed a crime that the FBI would be in charge of by statute. Nagell had sent a registered detailed warning letter to Hoover about what was about to happen to JFK. The FBI claims they never got it. Nagell was murdered himself, IMHO, after spilling some of the beans to Dick Russell. Nagell had also stored away proofs of who was involved with triggers for their release in the event of his death...but even he, a master tradecraftsman was outdone by others who removed the items and the trigger mechanisms.

[Dawn Meredith]

DYNASTY is the first proper volume of Walt's master chronology of the JFK assassination, and it's longer than Bugliosi's RECLAIMING HISTORY. It covers events from the early 20th century up to the night before the assassination. While assembling the book, Walt attempted to include data from as many JFK assassination volumes as possible, and included commentary as to whether he thought the 'facts' in each book were on target or pulling the readers leg. So, books like SONS AND BROTHERS, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE and others are referenced. Walt included Baker's book out of thoroughness ("On this date, Baker claims she met Oswald in a laundromat and the two of them began chatting in Russian"), and Baker's version of events is so ludicrous, convoluted and unbelievable that Walt spends a couple of hundred pages rubbishing her work. He thinks she's a terrible author, and that she's one of a few figures mentioned in his book who concocted fantasies after the event for profit. Walt's ebook is on Amazon.

In a laundromat? I have only seen her write "in the post office" And yes she claims they began speaking Russian. Fiction from the start.

[Anthony Thorne]

Though I suspect there may be some observations of interest in the volume, the (quite detailed) Amazon reviews now up for Lateer's book are poor. Both reviews also note Lateer's references to Baker's work as a negative. A shame. Trine Day has another JFK book or two listed in their 'coming soon' page that will hopefully be of more interest.

[Bill Fite]

he Three Barons presents the first use of statistical factor analysis to identify the plotters, using a database of 30 books and 1500 names and examines the military officers allegedly close to the plot, such as NATO Commander Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, General Lauris Norstad, and JFK's advisor, Gen. Maxwell Taylor. For the first time, the National Security Council, its structure and its members, are scrutinized for their obvious role in the JFK plot.

I bought the book to check out the use of factor analysis. I'm interested in any mathematical / statistical modeling of the JFK assassination (if anyone can point out some references, thanks).

I don't believe the author has 'identified the plotters' as described above.

Basically, factor analysis is used by the author to model the correlations the number of times people are mentioned in the same books and with other people based on a reduced sample of books.

I've skimmed the other chapters and found the Nazi backgrounds and connections of some of those mentioned interesting as I hadn't given it much thought or read about it before.

[Peter Lemkin]

James Lateer has just joined the Forum, and likely will be making his first post shortly. So, if any have questions (or comments) for/to him, you might want to start thinking about what they are.

For myself, I'll admit to Mr. Lateer that while I've ordered his book, I have not yet received nor read it, and my comments were based on what one can gather from the TOC and cover. I don't quite understand why you thought the association of names on a page - or in proximity with one another over a wide range of JFK assassination books would provide valid answers to in-life associations or in-life significance. Many of the JFK assassination books go chasing after known false leads - developed either out of inexacting research or ones that were tossed in by the cover-up teams to confuse the matter. Also, the fact that two names appear on a page or even the same paragraph or sentence is no sure way of their having been associated. Ditto the frequency of a name turning up in many books/pages/etc. While such analysis can give a certain level of information and hints to possible associations as ascribed by a number of authors, that doesn't mean that this presumed or calculated 'association' is related to any true one. I personally have been down many blind 'rabbit holes' in my own research and often the most promising finds have never or hardly ever been touched/mentioned by anyone else before. Some names became 'popular', even 'fashionable' to mention over and over again. Some associations of individuals have been shown to be false or of no particular significance in the case. To me such an analysis would be a valid starting point, but then one would have to take these more frequently mentioned names or more frequent associations and do the hard and long kind of standard research to really validate that they were active participants and at what level. No good JFK researcher denies that, for example, DeMohrenschildt was closely connected into the manipulation/setting-up/'baby-sitting'/sheep-dipping' of Oswald - nor that he was later murdered for knowing a bit too much about his friend Lee and who might have directed him to befriend and puppeteer Lee. That said, I don't think, personally, he had a top level nor major [as opposed to prominent] role in the plot. Ditto the Paines - they were front and center in setting up Lee and likely knew it - but for them it was just another intelligence 'Op' someone else had designed, and they did not question their assigned tasks within. Again, I'm speaking here without having yet read your book. Perhaps I can ask/say more directed comments/questions after I get it. I'm in Europe and had to order from the US. You are welcome to jump in on this thread or start your own in the 'Books' section - as you prefer.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

A new volume out in November from Trine Day. For the moment, it seems worth a look. Hopefully the research is sincere and well-considered. Trine Day have a few JFK books out, and some are better than others.

Forthcoming volumes from the publisher include a new volume by Douglas Caddy, and Jim DeBrosse's SEE NO EVIL: THE JFK ASSASSINATION AND THE U.S. MEDIA.

The Three Barons proves that it is possible (with enough research), to reconstruct the organizational chart of the JFK plot. This book provides the first useful, in-depth analysis of the 120 phone calls by LBJ in the week following the assassination regarding such items as the Civil Rights Act, demands made by the military and similar political power plays. The Three Barons presents the first use of statistical factor analysis to identify the plotters, using a database of 30 books and 1500 names and examines the military officers allegedly close to the plot, such as NATO Commander Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer, General Lauris Norstad, and JFK's advisor, Gen. Maxwell Taylor. For the first time, the National Security Council, its structure and its members, are scrutinized for their obvious role in the JFK plot. More specifically, The Three Barons explains the role of Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon and his father, investment banker Clarence Dillon, who likely had fascist sympathies. This book identifies, for the first time, why there were three actual barons involved in the plot and why at least three members of the Warren Commission had powerful Nazi connections, beginning in WWII and continuing through November 22, 1963.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Barons-Orga...=trine+day

Trine Day? Really? You mean the publishing house that aided and abetted JVB et. al? Isn't the publisher/owner (i hear wim is part owner) also a 'senior member' of Ralph Cinque's OIC? Oh, my my.

[Peter Lemkin]

Trine Day has put out MANY very good books. Some have good reasons to be critical of some books they chose to print, but a book and the research behind it should and does IMO stand alone - and has very little to do in the end with who published it. One can play that same game of smear the book/author because of other books/authors a publisher has printed. I also find you last post an ad hom against a new member even before he makes his first post. Ad homs are not allowed here. Please be a little more courteous and a bit less acerbic - if not mean-spirited.

I do not think Dankbaar has anything do to with Trine Day - if you have any proof to the opposite present it and stop making unsupported accusations.

[Peter Lemkin]

Trine Day has put out MANY very good books. There are some good reasons to be critical of some books they chose to print, but a book and the research behind it should and does IMO stand alone - and has very little to do, in the end, with who published it. One can play that same game of smear the book/author because of other books/authors the same publisher has printed with MANY other publishers if not most. I can only think of a few who I'd rate as having a perfect 'score'.

I also find you are painting with much too wide a brush and it is not polite to our new member who wrote the book this thread is about to paint him with a 'dark brush' you try to paint of anything printed by Trine Day because you don't agree with some of their decisions on authors or books?! Please let Leteer and his book stand on their own feet and not be tarred with your grudges against other things Trine Day has published or authors they have published.

I do not think Dankbaar has anything do to with Trine Day - if you have any proof to the opposite present it and stop making such unsupported incendiary accusations.

[Mark A. O'Blazney]

Trine Day has put out MANY very good books. There are some good reasons to be critical of some books they chose to print, but a book and the research behind it should and does IMO stand alone - and has very little to do, in the end, with who published it. One can play that same game of smear the book/author because of other books/authors the same publisher has printed with MANY other publishers if not most. I can only think of a few who I'd rate as having a perfect 'score'.

I also find you are painting with much too wide a brush and it is not polite to our new member who wrote the book this thread is about to paint him with a 'dark brush' you try to paint of anything printed by Trine Day because you don't agree with some of their decisions on authors or books?! Please let Leteer and his book stand on their own feet and not be tarred with your grudges against other things Trine Day has published or authors they have published.

I do not think Dankbaar has anything do to with Trine Day - if you have any proof to the opposite present it and stop making such unsupported incendiary accusations.

Fair enough. I retract the statement, but still remember Dawn saying once "False in part, false in whole", a legal phrase. Correct, Dawn?

[Anthony Thorne]

Doug Valentine's THE STRENGTH OF THE PACK, Albarelli's A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, and Nick Bryant's THE FRANKLIN SCANDAL from Trine Day are all Grade-A research volumes that were well-reviewed. If pushed I could probably nominate another fifteen or so really good books from the publisher, and that number isn't higher as I haven't read half their output. Whoops - Gaffney's 9/11 volumes are also excellent. I share the negative thoughts about Baker's work but Trine Day's output is worth examination far more often than not.