15-10-2010, 03:05 PM
Then there was my Lancer presentation in which I suggested the creation of a "Fair Play for COPA Committee."
Tears ensued.
Tears ensued.
|
Russ Baker and Jim DiEugenio: most curious
|
15-10-2010, 04:02 PM
Peter Lemkin Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Jack White Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Can some one tell me what the divisions are within the research community. Peter GETS IT exactly. Some sincere people (including MOST of my friends) believe in the Camelot myth, and that JFK possibly was killed by a conspiracy, but it was an ANOMALY...a one time event. This is the Lancer model. The cannot bring themselves to believe that it is the NORM, not an anomaly. They DON'T get it. Jack 
15-10-2010, 04:44 PM
Jack White Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Jack White Wrote:I would not attempt to divine what motivates the main groups I suppose if one only researches the JFK assassination, one could come to that opinion. But to only examine what happened in Dallas in isolation, and treat it as an anomaly is to forget the rest of history, and, unfortunately, the sugar-coated view of history that is taught in school and a media that reinforces this view doesn't help. What sect does does Jim D belong to? John
16-10-2010, 12:11 AM
John Kowalski Wrote:Jack White Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:John Kowalski Wrote:Jack: I cannot speak for Jimmy Di, but he is superb on JFK and uninformed on 911 and Apollo IMO. Jack 
16-10-2010, 04:33 AM
Last night I read Jim DiEugenio's Part 10
http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_10_review.html Tom Hanks, Gary Goetzman, and Bugliosi's Bungle A Comprehensive Review of Reclaiming History Pt. 10: How the DA Acquitted Everybody but Oswald by James DiEugenio Seamus Coogan posted the link on Lancer and my reply appears below: #89812, "He's dead, Jim" In response to In response to 0 Fri Oct-15-10 09:08 AMby Phil Dragoo Jim DiEugenio Part 10 clearly fleshes out Bungliosi's Strawman on Steroids. By ignoring the record and the evidence, Vincent is free to simply scoop up large armfuls of straw and say, “Hah, no conspiracy here!” In a Facebook outline, Vince likes Priscilla Johnson, Ruth Paine, James Angleton, Edward Epstein, Joseph Trento; does NOT like Philip Melanson, John Newman, John Armstrong, Ed Lopez, Dan Hardway, Vince Palamara and a host of others. Jim DiEugenio presents Vince's Audacity of Solipsism, virtually ignoring Allen Dulles as the agent of change bringing on the violent CIA of the Eisenhower administration, and Dulle's ouster in a hostile takeover of covert operations by John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, NSAM 55, and the institution of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Vince conveniently ignores the established character of Oswald as Melanson's undercover intelligence operative. Ignores the conflict over the Bay of Pigs between JFK and CIA—thus conceals the meaning of LBJ appointing Dulles to investigate the assassination, namely that the latter is placed in a position to protect Angleton, Phillips, Hunt, Morales et al. Vince ignores the CIA trappings of Ruth Paine and Priscilla Johnson, the very real prospect of JFK dropping LBJ from the ticket, the “security stripping” and other suspicious activities of Moore, Boring, Roberts and others in the Secret Service. Ignores the Ruby connection to Joseph Civello, the Joseph Civello connection to Patrick Dean, the Patrick Dean connection to Ruby—rubadub-dub. And so it goes, if Vince says “beyond all doubt Oswald killed Kennedy” hey, why then waste 2700 pages per copy. If Vince says “Oswald is a Marxist” yes well every hunter this season going out in a stupid suit covered with imprints of leaves must be a tree. Jim DiEugenio says in sum that CIA and Cubans were the active elements of the deed, that the CIA called upon the Mob and Ruby to silence Oswald, and that LBJ was intimidated by the Mexico City line and used the WW III scenario to scare Warren into lending his credibility to the Commission so controlled by Hoover. As Jim DiEugenio says, the agencies do not each exist and operate in statutory vacuums but in concert as occasion warrants. It has seemed to me that Kennedy achieved a critical mass of enemies who had no difficulty cooperating in his removal and have been satisfied with their result for a half century. And they continue to use hacks like Bungliosi—who no doubt will have his pedestrian droppings exploded in computer-generated pixels by a Tom Hanks Toy Deposit Story cartoon, Strawswald's Tale. Phil's footnote: I have found the ten parts to be a thorough deconstruction of the facile faker Bugliosi whose main device combines ignoring the inconvenient and slandering the critic. I have found a school of Bush ex Machina to exhibit a mania, just as some insist on Johnson behind every bush, and Jews behind them—some place Marcello behind the Jew behind the bush behind the Johnson. I look forward to the newly-released Evica for the larger picture, contenting myself that the unscrupulous who rubbed their hands together cackling are still watching over us with machines of infinite concern. And if one stops short while cruising past the avacadoes, surely Todd Levanthal and Cass Sunstein will bump into him, without apology or shame.
16-10-2010, 07:11 PM
I cannot speak for Jimmy Di, but he is superb on JFK and uninformed
on 911 and Apollo IMO. Jack I agree, I listen to him on Black Ops radio, and his depth of knowledge about the events in Dallas is exceptional. John
16-10-2010, 08:46 PM
To all on this thread:
Phil Dragoo made me aware of this this morning. I do not recall getting any e mail from Dawn about my review of Baker’s book. If I had I would have replied post haste since I have always been appreciative of her efforts in the field. Since I also respect the work and people on DPF I will try and reply to most of the criticisms of me made here. Let us begin with Baker’s book, the mistitled Family of Secrets. I disagree with the term “trashed”. If you read the review, you will see that I began with Baker’s discussion of George W. Bush and the Texas Air National Guard issue. I was fair and scrupulous and accurate about his work there. And I gave him credit for what he achieved. This part of the book was logically driven, had a lot of evidence, and was cogently argued, in the sense that the alternatives arrived at were done by the weight of the evidence adduced. Now after this part, I clearly demarcate that with the other major parts of the book, this paradigm is not followed i.e. Bush’s alleged part in the JFK murder, Bush’s relationship with George DeMohrenschildt, and Bush’s alleged part in the Watergate scandal. Why should we drop these standards when an alleged big-time alternative media writer or as Dawn calls him, an MSM writer, bends to address the JFK case? I don’t and will not do such a thing. I wouldn’t do it for people like John Davis or Richard Billings, and I won’t do it for Baker. The bottom line is, and should always be: 1.) What is the sum total of your evidence? 2.) How is that sum total arrived at? With Baker’s work on these three areas I thought the sum total was negligible, and the way he arrived at it was dubious. I was clear in the review as to why I thought this. In fact, rereading the review and listening to what I said on Black Op Radio, I actually believe most of the evidence Baker adduced in the three areas was not just negligible but silly. And further, some of it was arrived at by less than honest means e.g. his discussion of the Parrot episode. And I was very clear as to why I questioned his methodology there. I mean did Baker really think that 1.) DeMohrenschildt was going to tell his pre Haiti briefers that he was the designated Patsy’s escort? Or that he was sent to Haiti to take part in the coup attempt? In my view, the Baron did not even know at the time that this was his role in the JFK matter. 2.) Are we really to believe that Barbara Bush was somehow in on the JFK hit or the cover up just because she did not print her note about when she learned JFK was dead in her previously published children’s book? 3.) If you were a candidate for the Senate in Texas, would you stay in Dallas the night of the 22nd knowing that nobody is going to be attuned to that campaign there since they were slightly preoccupied by the events of the day? Yet this is the kind of stuff that Baker uses in is argument. Sorry if I don’t take it seriously. But in my view it does not amount to very much in comparison to what the likes of say John Newman, Tony Summers or Jim Douglass has achieved. Now does the fact that I reject Baker’s book mean that I am somehow “protecting” the elder George Bush? Well, anyone who knows me will tell you that this is dead wrong. I consider the Bush clan—the entire clan, not just the abbreviated version Baker deals with—as a criminal enterprise. I personally believe that VP Bush should have been prosecuted for his role in Iran/Contra and possibly for the October Surprise. I believe Jeb Bush should have been prosecuted for his role in the former and for his stealing of the 2000 election for his brother. Oddly, you will not see these sentiments expressed or the reasons spelled out in Baker’s book. Which is quite weird. Maybe Baker thinks Bush the elder could be prosecuted for not staying in Dallas the night of the 22nd? And this is a real problem I had with the book. Its the same problem I had with Tony Summers’ book on Marilyn Monroe. At the end of the day it’s a sensationalistic piece of work. It tries to make an impact by making these huge charges with what I consider pitiful back up. I for one, have had enough of this in this field. This trend goes all the way back to the pretentious and misleading books Farewell America and Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal. I for one , have had enough of it. Baker’s work on Watergate was even worse. And I also explained why in the review. Here, he actually knowingly misrepresented his two paltry pieces of evidence to involved Bush in the scandal: the Town House slush fund, and the phone call to Nixon about John Dean. Why? Because he needed them to fulfill his agenda of George Bush being involved in Watergate and also being a top rank hidden CIA officer. I take a back seat to no one in addressing the true crime of Bush the Elder. But the list of crimes he is involved in, as mentioned above, is plentiful. Why should we have to make stuff up because Baker wants to write a best selling sensationalist book? As per Jack White and 9-11: I will not ever buy into the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear. For the reasons I stated previously I think they are meant to mislead and confound a movement that was once dedicated to fact finding and honest investigation. As per Peter Lemkin, all that I wrote about him in piece on “Gregory Douglas” and Mary Meyer was right out of Cyril Wecht’s book. If I got anything wrong, his dispute is with Cyril, not me. As per Len Osanic’s idea of holding a conference in Hawaii, that was not my idea. But I actually like it. Len wanted to make the conference a real vacation in addition to a learning and organizing experience. One where you could actually bring your partner to, even your kids. It’s a hell of a lot more attractive venue than Dallas. Therefore, many people would not mind paying the extra money. Disagreeing with Charles, I don’t think people would pay the extra money to visit Harlem or Appalachia. But Hawaii, yes. As per JFK being an “oligarch” who was changing at the time of his death, I have to say, when I read something like that, I really believe that everything I have done up to this time has been, as they say, “pissing in the wind”. If you have not read Mahoney’s JFK: Ordeal in Africa or my essay based largely on it, “Dodd and Dulles vs. Kennedy in Africa”, that is no fault of mine. If JFK was an oligarch or imperialist, please explain his 1952 speeches against French involvement in Vietnam, his railing against Nixon and Dulles over contemplated intervention at Dien Bien Phu, and his 1957 condemnation of the Algerian civil war. Then explain why the foreign policy establishment, including Dean Acheson, attacked him for the latter. Finally, if he was an “oligarch” and part of the establishment, this was news to CIA Director Allen Dulles. He knew JFK was not. This is why he speeded up the assassination plot against Lumumba so it occurred before Kennedy was inaugurated. Since he knew Kennedy would not OK it. For the evidence of that, just look at the picture on the cover of the Mahoney book. Jim DiEugenio 
17-10-2010, 04:14 AM
Phil Dragoo Wrote:Disagreeing with Charles, I don’t think people would pay the extra money to visit Harlem or Appalachia. But Hawaii, yes. Three points for Jim -- but first I must engage in a "full disclosure" moment: In years gone by I have been critical of Jim's work on many levels. And said criticism has not always been offered with the requisite respect and specificity. Let the record show that, for whatever it's worth, I do indeed honor much of what he has accomplished in our common quests to reveal truth and bring about justice in the case of JFK's murder and related matters. In a word, I am a fan. 1. In re the conference: Jim, it is not about attracting people with the lure of an edenic locale. It is about empowering people with the overarching theme of unification in service to the aformentioned shared quests. The choice of venue in this instance amounts to a tacit admission that truth and justice alone are insufficient to serve as rallying cries for those we wish to unite. I for one have yet to reach that conclusion. We should not be about tempting the recalcitrant with a trip to Diamond Head, but rather firing a diamond bullet into the foreheads of the unenlightened. Or as Fidel might put it: Revolutions are not staged in Aspen, but in the Sierra Maestra. 2. Everything I know about the human condition compels me to reject as absurd the notion that JFK -- or, for that matter, any human being -- came into this world fully formed. My respect and indeed reverence for John Fitzgerald Kennedy exist in direct proportion to my understanding of his heroic -- in the Homeric sense -- spiritual growth and emotional and intellectual maturation in the face of forces dedicated to stunting such growth and maturation. While Jim significantly points to evidence of nascent transcendence at a relatively early stage of JFK's life, he by no means demonstrates that which cannot be demonstrated -- even in the lives of the saints. As the poet reminds us: It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. It is the journey, not the arrival, that compels reverence. 3. Jim, why not join us here? Respectfully, Charles
17-10-2010, 04:22 AM
As per Jack White and 9-11: I will not ever buy into the work of Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and John Lear. For the reasons I stated previously I think they are meant to mislead and confound a movement that was once dedicated to fact finding and honest investigation.
Jim...such a statement reveals you are entirely unfamiliar with the most basic evidence, and have no reason to make such a judgment. You have done and continue to do very excellent work on JFK, at which you are such a master. You should stick to subjects like this on which you are an authority. On 911 you should resist expressing opinions until you study the abundant evidence. By doing so, you emulate those like Bugliosi whom you deflate so deftly...by ignoring evidence and making judgments based on personalities. Jack 
04-11-2010, 08:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-11-2010, 08:24 AM by Peter Lemkin.)
Quote: As per Peter Lemkin, all that I wrote about him in piece on “Gregory Douglas” and Mary Meyer was right out of Cyril Wecht’s book. If I got anything wrong, his dispute is with Cyril, not me. Two points Jim.....perhaps three, but two to the above. My sense of JFK as a man and politician is similar to how J. Judge portrays him here and Douglass explains his changing and relative enlightenment, awakening and response to the desires of the People [American and worldwide] when compared the the Neaderthals that hated and killed him and still are our overlords. Perhaps I overstated it in a brief sentence. A radical I think he and his brother not. Moving in the right direction and increasingly so, they were - compared to those against them - they were a breath of fresh air and would have meant a sea change in direction of America - which was not to be allowed and so they had to die. Point two, yes, you took the information about me in that article from Cyril's book, but it is not completely accurate, but I think it served your purpose to not check with me or anyone else, as from the moment you and I forget-his-name met me [to my great surprise] when I was changing planes in L.A. on my way to Dallas and was accused [falsely and cruelly - based on little and wrong rumors and paranoia] that I was an agent infiltrating your new group of which I was a founding member from its inception at the Rose Cafe [with no apology to this day] informs me you are quick to form a judgment/bias about someone and hold on to that grudge. Sadly. I was on my way to Dallas to set up a march along the motorcade route and speakers podium with parade and demonstration permits for our group - after your accusation and de facto removal of me from your group and inner circle, I got it in my own name. Penn Jones spoke, as did many others. Your group ignored it and me ever since, for the most part. I still respect 99% of your work on JFK, but I think you sometimes jump to conclusions about people - as you did about me. I notice you now post on the EF - where I was once the #3 poster and a moderator; but was removed without cause and without process or explanation; my IP banned [all apparently] for my beliefs on 911 [only approved conspiracies are allowed there!] and for calling attention that one [now dismissed] administrator was hostile to me and others; any who challenged the 'official mythology' on history and deep political events - and after this Administrators rash actions when Simkin was away, was not supported by Simkin, who I once considered a friend, but who found it convenient to let me be sacrificed to look strong and in command - while the likes of LC and other disruptors carry on and on. Oh, and I was accused of sexual harassment - proven false and perhaps an entrapment operation, but it was never withdrawn nor the truth acknowledged...so just know about where you now post; as all about what happened to me and all my posts were expunged - and anyone there who mentions it or posts for me or on my behalf will be removed. Things are not always as they appear to be. Many of us here, not all, are voluntary exiles from or were expelled from that EF.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn "If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
| Possibly Related Threads… | |||||
| Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
| Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease' PROBE CD | Jim Hackett II | 2 | 3,769 |
13-05-2013, 02:07 PM Last Post: Jim Hackett II |
|
| Me and Lee Judyth Baker | Dawn Meredith | 6 | 6,134 |
24-10-2011, 04:30 PM Last Post: Linda Minor |
|
| FTR #730 Interview with Russ Baker | Ed Jewett | 4 | 9,242 |
18-01-2011, 08:08 PM Last Post: Ed Jewett |
|
| Virtual JFK: film review by Jim DiEugenio | Dawn Meredith | 1 | 3,795 |
03-06-2009, 09:45 PM Last Post: Dawn Meredith |
|
| In Discussion with Russ Baker | Charles Drago | 21 | 14,444 |
24-05-2009, 12:04 PM Last Post: Peter Lemkin |
|
| Family Of Secrets :The Bush Family Dynasty by Russ Baker | Peter Lemkin | 13 | 12,881 |
14-01-2009, 04:01 AM Last Post: Myra Bronstein |
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)