Craig Zirbel's new book The Final Chapter On the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

[Kenneth Kapel]

Obviously, Zirbel didn't know what he was talking about with his first book. He just wanted an LBJ angle, no matter how he got it.

Now he completely shifts who the accessories are to the Mob.

If I recall correctly, Zirbel self published his book right in advance of Stone's film. He then got a front page tie in with National Enquirer. So he made some bucks.

Now he comes back with a major revision in how the conspiracy happened. What do we do with his first book now?

Toss it out into the trash ? I actually sold it to a local second hand bookstore with a bunch of other worthless books. Maybe at I made some money, so I guess that they weren't totally worthless

[Dawn Meredith]

Obviously, Zirbel didn't know what he was talking about with his first book. He just wanted an LBJ angle, no matter how he got it.

Now he completely shifts who the accessories are to the Mob.

If I recall correctly, Zirbel self published his book right in advance of Stone's film. He then got a front page tie in with National Enquirer. So he made some bucks.

Now he comes back with a major revision in how the conspiracy happened. What do we do with his first book now?

Toss it out into the trash ? I actually sold it to a local second hand bookstore with a bunch of other worthless books. Maybe at I made some money, so I guess that they weren't totally worthless

Ya that is how I discvered this book. In the grocery store. So I bought the Nat'l Enguirer and called the bar and got his phone number and ordered mine directly from him over the phone. It was a disappointment. Mine is inscribed by him Dec. 91, which coincided with the release of JFK. Why write a second one, I wonder.
Dawn

[John Kowalski]

"David Rockefeller/Averell Harriman did it" The sponsorship of the cover-up continues ad nauseum.

CIA
LBJ
Texas Oil
Mafia
Those nasty hate-filled Cubans
The Military Industrial Complex
Renegade Intell Officers

And, maybe that's what the play is 'really' about...

Stan,

We're close on all this.

I'd rephrase:

The FALSE Sponsorship continues.

Rockefeller and Harriman may inhabit the actual Sponsorship level -- although I'm less sold on the latter.

And the play, I'm sure we agree, is indeed the thing.

Charles:

What is the evidence against Rockefeller as a possible sponsor? Who do you think are the sponsors?

John

[Charles Drago]

John,

I'm not even close to being confident enough to make a definitive public statement regarding the identities of the Sponsors of the JFK assassination.

On the other hand, the process of elimination has been of inestimable importance to my understanding of the case -- especially the formulation of a working conspiracy model (the Sponsors/Facilitators/Mechanics hypothesis).

For the likelihood of Rockefeller complicity (and if not at the Sponsor level, then where?), begin with Thy Will be Done. Pay close attention to J.C. King, and research his CIA career as well as his relationship to the Rockefellers.

Read Donald Gibson.

Hope this helps.

Charles

[Jim DiEugenio]

Don Gibson's book Battling Wall Street is an overlooked gem.

[LR Trotter]

If LBJ was guilty of being the mastermind of an assassination of the President, and then becomes President himself, what power would he have to avoid being assassinated in the same manner? I mean, if he can remove the boss on his own, what prevents others from disposing of him in a similiar manner? I have no doubt that he was aware, at some point, of the truth. And for whatever reason, did not relate publicly what he knew. But, not the mastermind, and please note, this student is asking the teacher(s) a question.

[Charles Drago]

LR,

You are earning high marks.

CD

[Albert Doyle]

LBJ had no chance of being overthrown because he was serving the direct interests of those who killed Kennedy. He was as protected as you could possibly be.


However any theory that suggests Johnson was any kind of controlling "Mastermind" is wack.

[Seamus Coogan]

Well lads as I'm set to do a review of Farrells 'LBJ and the Conspiracy to Kill Kennedy' hence my not being in touch with you CD (aka our sponsors conversation-we'll sort out an interview or three when I get time).

Farrell's book owes it's existence to Craig Zirbel yes the 'Zirbelmeister' himself.

The attempts to nullify or subdue Dulle's probable role in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy is one of the most obvious things I have seen in recent times. Most researchers place Dulles there or there about's in the nexus. Farrell does give Dulles some air time. But he then has Hoover and Johnson creating the Warren Commission (Gerald McKnight and Don Gibson where are you?) and so on.

According to Farrell Johnson was talking into a CB throughout his entire journey through Dealey Plaza. This is complete and utter BS Jim D and I nailed Jones on!

Only the most basic of intellects could put Johnson anywhere near Dulles probable level of involvement. I think how the disinfo plan is panning out is that below average researchers are being manipulated by others to write and or promote the topic. Very few of the authors themselves seem to be 'plants' but CD as Jim and I have encountered with Hankey, it's the well meaning but deluded Paul Kangas like 'Conspiracy nuts' that are our greatest enemies.

I don't think Kangas who led Hankey down the path of doom is particularly 'well meaning' nor Bug or McAdams. I put them all in the same boat. With the latter being more preferable because at least from time to time they get stuff right! Paul Kangas ain't on my team.

In Farrell's chapter on mysterious deaths. He makes no mention of George DeM. There's no index and there's no mention what so ever of the Paines in the entire book. That's the quality of the latest wash of Johnson did it bollocks! Well no! However, Farrell doesn't quite buy into the body alteration angle and seems a bit less keen on entertaining every banal suspicion of the case than other authors who advocate Johnson rubbish. He also questions Browns famous party story. Which is also another one out of the box. Most Johnson devotees salivate all over her.

It'll make for an interesting review.

But it's also a worthy and fascinating discussion. As for sponsors and so fourth I feel extremely unconfident going above Dulles generally and that's with people like you and Jim heading in similar directions. Not because he was the most powerful man in the world but he seems like a good conduit for it all as Prouty and others have written.

Dulles childhood and family are an extremely mysterious bunch. Who with no real wealth in comparison to others of the time they commanded important positions within the US hierarchy since the Civil War (well before Rockefeller made his mark) knowledge is power and underneath his families 'missionary' status I have suspected they were amongst the United States early spy efforts (evidence is scant in this regard hence I won't go to the bank completely on what I say here least of all Jim and I have decided to call Dulles family something of a black hole).

There's something holding myself back from this Rockefeller chief sponsor kind of thing. Tacit support from some quarter I can definitely see! But for myself I think people like Dulles and Helms and others in the agency were ideologically driven Zealots. I don't think they needed the Rockefeller okay but I certainly don't think they would have shunned their support. I just think the lads were on go anyhow. Irregardless of Wall Street of which they were the servants of yet not slaves too.

[James H. Fetzer]

Jim,

Don't write like an idiot. Nigel LEARNED MORE about the case as he went
along. By your theory, none of us should ever CHANGE OUR MIND about
anything--because then we are not being "consistent". But consistency is
only important in relation to a specific set of beliefs at a particular time. If
we learn more on the basis of new evidence at a later time, the fact that we
no longer believe the same thing at time t2 that we believed at time t1 does
not mean we are "inconsistent". We have simply revised our beliefs based
upon new information (evidence), which is a rational response to acquiring
data we didn't possess before. You are smarter than this. Use your brain!

Jim

CD:

You didn't notice something interesting about the New Zirbel?

In his first LBJ did it book, back there in 1991, he was all for a Texas Conspiracy.

Now, a generation later, from the Contents, he has changed it to a Johnson/Mafia conspiracy.

You know, I don't think consistency is too much to ask in a writer.

This reminds me of that goofball Nigel Turner. In the first go round, he posits Steve Rivele's fruity Corsican Connection via Christian David.

Then, over a decade later, in 2003, he comes up with the whole Barr McClellan/Murchison/LBJ thing.

And no one is supposed to notice? Or ask questions?

Its this kind of thing that gets us marginalized into the tin foil hat crowd.