Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Monday, August 18, 2014

Disgusting Ad Gaff on Huffington Post

I can't really blame the Huffington Post for this, it comes from "Promoted Links By Taboola," and was seen after a video of Dick Cavett charging The Daily News with Yellow Journalism.

If Only It Were So:


The ENTIRE police department of Ferguson, Missouri needs to be arrested


The Governor of Missouri and federal authorities need to arrest the entire police department of Ferguson, Missouri.  They need to do this immediately and seize all the computers and devices that can record, store, and play, any information.  All cellphones and personal devices of all of the cops need to be seized.  All cars of the police vehicles and all of the computer equipment in each and every one of them need to be seized.

I believe the Ferguson Police Department is very busy deleting and destroying documents and other evidence in a desperate attempt to control the story and present a false narrative of the events that led to the death of Michael Brown, who we now learn was shot "at least 6 times."

The police officer involved, who I think it's plain to see reacted EMOTIONALLY to whatever Michael Brown said or did.  I think it's quite clear he acted out of personal anger, and having a gun used it to in his mind maintain his delusion that as a cop I am superior to you.  Many, many, many police officers across America think likes this, and act like this.

This behavior has been accepted, encouraged and for many a long year covered up.

And in the years since the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001 the Department of Defense has been sending equipment the scale and scope of which together could probably conquer all of Western Europe.  The tiniest towns in America, with populations well under 10,000 have been getting just insane equipment some formerly used in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jon Oliver covers the topic well on his HBO show.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

JFK and LBJ and the stories about that deer hunt

The NYT has an interesting article on the disputed deer hunt on the LBJ ranch that then President-elect JFK and Vice President-elect LBJ had on Nov 17, 1960.  There's a fabulous photo with the article.


On Thursday, Nov. 17, 1960, before dawn, at the L.B.J. Ranch near Johnson City, Tex., Vice President-elect Lyndon Johnson had his houseguest, President-elect John F. Kennedy, woken up to go deer hunting.
It was nine days after the two men had won the national election. Neither a natural early riser nor a hunter (although as president he would shoot skeet with friends at Camp David), J.F.K. pulled on a checkered sport coat, white button-down oxford shirt and penny loafers; his hair remained unkempt.
Someone present thought the president-elect looked “like a football fan.” Another felt that in the rural Texas setting, Kennedy looked as if he were “on Mars.”
The clashing versions of the deer hunt later provided by Kennedy and Johnson, the Bostonian and the Texan, foreshadowed the sharply different attitudes held today — often regional in nature — by many Americans about hunting and other recreation involving firearms.
William Manchester began an early version of “The Death of a President,” his widely read 1967 book on Kennedy’s assassination, by describing the 1960 Kennedy-Johnson hunt. (Manchester moved the section to a place later in the volume after being advised that starting his narrative with it seemed to imply that a “boorish” L.B.J. was part of a violent Texas subculture that was a breeding ground for the president’s murder almost exactly three years later.)
Drawing largely on his interviews with Jacqueline Kennedy, who told him what her husband had told her after the deer hunt, Manchester wrote that the president-elect, despite his belief that “all killing was senseless,” had “looked into the face of the life he was about to take,” then “fired and quickly turned back to the car.”
Manchester wrote: “Yet he couldn’t rid himself of the recollection. The memory of the creature’s death had been haunting, and afterward he had relived” it with his wife, “to heal the inner scar.”
According to Manchester, after Kennedy’s inauguration, L.B.J. brought the mounted deer head and antlers to the White House and insisted that the new president put them up in the Oval Office. After Johnson’s repeated requests, followed by Kennedy’s demurrals, J.F.K. finally ordered the trophy to be displayed in the West Wing’s Fish Room (now called the Roosevelt Room).
“The president,” wrote Manchester, “had granted a favor — how great a favor only the first lady knew — and his vice president had been genuinely pleased.”
Before Manchester’s book was published, Johnson and his advisers were poised to perform damage control. They knew that the author was no Johnson fan. As Manchester himself later confessed, J.F.K.'s successor reminded him of “somebody in a Grade D movie on the late show.”
When Johnson heard about Manchester’s take on his deer hunt with Kennedy, he was outraged. “Forcing that poor man to go hunting?” L.B.J. told his aides, while taping himself on his secret White House recording system. “Hell, he not only killed one deer; he insisted on killing a second!” he said. “It took three hours and I finally gave up. I said, ‘Mr. President, we just can’t do it.'  
Johnson dismissed Manchester’s insistence that Kennedy had been horrified about having to shoot a deer. “Poor little deer — he saw it in his eye and he just could not shoot it? Well, hell, he wasn’t within 250 yards from it,” he said. “He shot it and he jumped up and hoorahed and put it right on the fender of the car so he could kill another one.”
As for asking J.F.K. to display the deer’s head, Johnson observed that Kennedy had already installed in the Fish Room a large, taxidermized sailfish, which he had caught during his wedding trip to Acapulco.
With sarcasm, Johnson scoffed: “Even if we had made the tragic mistake of forcing this poor man to put up a deer head along with his fish — I do not know who forced him to put up the fish in the Fish Room that he caught on his honeymoon, but I damned sure didn’t force him to put up anything. It is just a manufactured lie.”
Noting that Manchester’s book also reported that his power had been severely limited as Kennedy’s subaltern, L.B.J. bitterly added, “I think it is the greatest desecration of his memory that an ‘impotent’ vice president could force this strong man to do a goddamned thing.”
One reason Johnson was so indignant about Manchester’s rendition of the deer hunt was that he knew that Kennedy’s assassination had jaundiced many Americans against hunting and guns, and he did not want to suffer unpopularity by association.
Just as he avoided returning to Dallas, scene of the assassination, until February 1968, a month before he announced that he would not face the voters for re-election that year, Johnson respected this cultural shift by winding down his old custom of prodding L.B.J. Ranch houseguests to go deer hunting with him.
(There is no evidence that his strong support for firearms regulation, an important force in moving Congress to pass the Gun Control Act of 1968 — after the murders by gunfire of Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy — grew out of anything but conviction.)
Let President Kennedy have his own last word. As it happened, not only did he talk to the first lady about his trip to the L.B.J. Ranch, but he also described it to a friend, Senator George Smathers, a Democrat from Florida.
In 1988, I asked Smathers (who died in 2007) what Kennedy had related to him about his experience deer hunting with L.B.J.
Smathers replied, “Kennedy told me, ‘That will never be a sport until they give the deer a gun.'  

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Matthew Scheufele has another superficial article

Scheufele must not have graduated from High School.  Honestly, this second work from him is something that is just ridiculous.  You know you're dealing with someone who has the depth of knowledge of this case that is about equal to that of Ralph Cinque when they start spouting off about how great Ocam's Razor is, and how other people make things needlessly complex.  I see a punk who's not doing his homework.  And the glory of it is this idiot is going to war with THE IDIOT, Cinque.  So, get the popcorn.

And the over-the-top large font size for his first quote, with an even more obnoxious #1 for his first footnote tells you you're dealing with a schmuck.  I mean, look at this thing.  This is the original size. I didn't enlarge this to exaggerate it. I know you can't read all of it here. See for yourself how big it is right here.  This schmuck has 8 footnotes and 7 of which are the size of this first one.  And when you go to the bottom of this he doesn't even bother to give you the page number the reports are in, nor does he tell you to look in the Report and not the 26 volumes!


Scheufele then boasts of his great accomplishment in taking a "very simplistic approach."  You took a simplistic approach all right.  Scheufele claims he examined the statements of Lee Harvey Oswald during his interrogation of November 22 and November 23.  Did he examine ALL of them? No, is that simple enough for you?

Scheufele then "decided," and that's the word he uses, "decided," that's a clue for you folks.  Scheufele decided that he (meaning Lee Harvey Oswald) was telling the truth during these interrogations.

Scheufele, have you ever been informed about the concept called "the passive voice?"  You should look it up soon, preferably before you burden us with another deliberately dishonest article backed up by your tissue thin knowledge and love of simplicity.

It's a battle royal, the love of simplicity vs. the love of stupidity.  Wait a moment, there's some disturbance before we begin.  Mr. Cinque is refusing to enter the boxing ring saying a ring should be round, he knows a ring when he sees it and that's a square!  And Mr. Scheufele has his hands outstretched, and there seems to be a commotion over there too! Mr. Scheufele doesn't seem to understand that you can't put boxing gloves on over clenched fists.  We'll return to this non-event should anything actually occur.

Scheufele then lists of the names of some (but not all) of the people who wrote up reports on the Oswald interrogations of November 22 and November 23, 1963.

Scheufele lists:

1.) Captain Will Fritz, chief of the Dallas Police Homicide and Robbery Bureau.
2.) FBI Special Agent James Hosty
3.) FBI Special Agent Bookeout. - I don't know who that is.  In other words he misspelled the name.
It's Bookhout, with an "h" in there, no "e."

4.) Secret Service Agent Thomas Kelley

And that's it.  So, did he examine them all? Nope

1.) The Warren Commission Report p. 599 - 611  Fritz's report. Did you notice that this Fritz report is not on any Dallas Police Department stationary of any kind? Did you notice that it is neither signed nor dated? There's no clue who wrote this or even who typed it up. Did that bother you? It bothers me.

2.) The Warren Commission Report p. 612 - 613 Hosty and Bookhout's report. Dated November 23, 1963.  It's on FBI stationary.  So, there's that.  This report details the questioning of Oswald done by Fritz on November 22, 1963.

3.) The Warren Commission Report p. 614 - 618 FBI Special Agent Manning C. Clements wrote a report about Oswald while under interrogation.

But, he mustn't have been special enough for Scheufele.

4.) The Warren Commission Report p. 619 - 620 FBI Special Agent Bookhout writes a separate report all by himself.  And this one is dated November 25, 1963.  Exactly which interrogation of Oswald and on what day are not known because of the deliberately vague language, "Lee Harvey Oswald was interviewed at the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas Police Department, by Captain J. W. Fritz, in the presence of Special Agent James W. Bookhout, Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Were you and your razor sharp enough to catch that one?

This report gives us the great fictional story of DPD officer Marion Baker, with gun drawn, stopping Oswald, who had a coke in his hand, on the second floor of the TSBD.  Isn't that interesting, because according to page 5 of the Warren Commission Report Oswald was empty-handed when Baker encountered him.

Are we going to fast for you Scheufele? Did you catch these little nuances, or is it all "over-complex?" 

5.) The Warren Commission Report p. 621 - 624 FBI Special Agent Bookhout writes yet another report all by himself.  This concerns another interrogation of Oswald where we don't know exactly when it took place.  But, boy it must have been something because now all kinds of people were there, T. J. Kelly of the Secret Service, David B. Grant of the Secret Service, Robert Nash from the U.S. Marshall's Office, and Dallas Police Detectives Billy L Senkel and Fay M. Turner.

6.) The Warren Commission Report p. 625 FBI Special Agent Bookhout writes a third report, all by himself, 

7.) The Warren Commission Report p. 626 - 632.  Thomas Kelley's report.  But it's not on any Secret Service or United States Treasury Office stationary.

8.) The Warren Commission Report p. 633 - 636 U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes.  Oh now, Scheufele, how could you neglect to mention him?  Again, another report not on any official stationary from the government office the person supposedly works for.  And it's dated Dec 12, 1963.

Now does Scheufele compare and contrast these reports? Nope. He can't be bothered. Why bother to read all of that, and compare and contrast them against each other, and the conclusions of the Report, and the known testimonies of people involved? Why do all that work when you can just "decide" that Oswald was telling the truth? You can just "decide" that Oswald told one story, without changing anything, or adding anything, or deleting anything, nope it was all one honest story nicely recorded by some of the men Scheufele could sort of remember but not enough to spell their names right.

You have to remember that simplicity principle and not read all of those reports.


Matthew Scheufele

What a schmuck.


Thursday, August 7, 2014

Another JFK Auction


Relics from dinner in Austin, Texas cancelled after JFK's assassination up for auction.

These relics from the fateful night in 1963 after President John F. Kennedy was killed are a haunting reminder of one of the most notorious crimes in history.

Almost 51 years ago, the aftermath of the assassination left the world in a state of shock, making this collection even more poignant at the thought of what could have been.
The people of Texas were welcoming Kennedy when the deafening sound of a firing rifle shattered the party mood along Dealey Plaza in Dallas.

The assassination meant the Texas Welcome Dinner at the Municipal Auditorium in Austin on the evening of November 22, 1963, was canceled.

The exclusive 'optional dress' event was to be held for President Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson and their wives at 7:30 p.m. - but JFK was pronounced dead at 1 p.m.


The most expensive items include a collection of 26 staff badges for the dinner and an invitation to the dinner is expected to sell for $500.

It reads: "In honor of John F. Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson.

"The State Democratic Executive Committee requests the pleasure of your company at the Texas Welcome Dinner."

Another lot is an unused press ticket for the dinner, which orders reporters to 'keep this portion of the ticket at all times,' for the balcony in the auditorium.

One of the most prized in the collection is a booklet entitled, 'The Unspoken Speech of John F. Kennedy at Dallas November 22, 1963'.

The eight-page manuscript was the speech that JFK never spoke because he was shot dead by Lee Harvey Oswald as he sat in his limousine and waved to admirers.

It was privately printed in 1964 for Stanley Marcus, the chairman of the board of luxury Dallas-based retailer Neiman Marcus, who died in 2002.

Two Dallas Morning News editions bearing the headline 'Kennedy Slain on Dallas Street' and an account of his funeral and Oswald's killing are also going under the hammer.

But perhaps the most macabre item is a piece of leather from the back seat of the Lincoln Continental JFK was a passenger in when he was shot.

The piece of ragged dark blue leather was kept by F. Vaughn Ferguson, the Technical Service Representative at the White House responsible for the presidential automobiles.

After the assassination, Ferguson was told to prepare the bloody presidential limousine for the new president Lyndon B. Johnson.

But he found the car dismantled by the FBI, who were searching for bullet fragments and evidence, and it was never used by Johnson.

The leather was later acquired Dr. John K. Lattimer, the ballistics expert consulted by the Kennedy family independently who confirmed the fatal shots were fired by Oswald.

Kennedy was the 35th President of the United States and held office from 1961 until his death.

During his brief presidency, he oversaw some key historical events like the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban Missile Crisis and Project Apollo, which led to the moon landings.

His death has caused many conspiracy theorists to speculate that he was murdered by the Mafia and even the government.


Lee Harvey Oswald, who remains the prime suspect in the assassination, was shot dead by nightclub owner Jack Ruby as he was being escorted by police days after the murder.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

West Virginians Still Mourn for JFK

This is a very moving video.

See - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/27/jfk-west-virginia-coalfields/3235311/

Thursday, July 24, 2014

President Ford had a motorcade through Dealey Plaza.

I did not know of this, nor had I seen it before. Notice the Hertz Rent-A-Car has "Ford" on their billboard.


Saturday, July 19, 2014

Insane Amazon.com "reviews" on Reclaiming Parkland

David Adams - "I don't understand the anger toward Hollywood the author brings." 

Jeffrey Herman- (from the no matter what anyone says or writes Oswald-did-it school) 
      "If I am to understanding the good Gentleman DiEugenio, he is saying that Oswald did not have anything to do with the assassination, was definitely not on the 6Th floor, did not shot at Walker, did not have any guns, did not shot officer Tippet, and was not in the photo in question.

     DiEugenio indicates that based on the paraffin test Oswald did not shot a rifle, but when the test indicated that he had shot a pistol, DiEugenio simply negates those results to fit his scheme. I would like to ask Mr. DiEugenio, if Oswald could not have possibly gotten down from the 6Th floor without being seen, how did the real shooter or shooters get down?"


Because the real shooter could only be on the 6th floor of the TSBD. And can only be firing from the 6th floor's southeastern window, right where we were told Oswald was.  So, if you remove Oswald from being an assassin something creates "an Oswald" assassin doing exactly what the WC said Oswald did.  Wow, Jeffrey, your mommy help you to write that?

"On page 101 DiEugenio indicates that Benavides refused to name Oswald as Officer Tippets killer, and that he was then threatened and HIS BROTHER WAS THEN SHOT. DiEugenio goes on to indicate that Benavides then changed his mind and did identify Oswald.

"Really, that very day they went out and found his brother and shot him, just to get Benavides to change his mind, when they already had many other people who had identified Oswald.
This is the kind of mindless nonsense that brings into question anything this guy has to say.
What Herman neglects to mention is that Domingo Benevides' brother, Edward, strongly resembled him.  So, leaving that detail out brings into question Mr. Herman's motives. "


Then we get the "it would take an enormous amount of people" meme.  


But, how many people actually wrote "Reclaiming History?" The correct answer is more than one.

W. Bell "wumhenry" (whatever the hell kind of a name that is) - "In contrast, when reading Bugliosi's book I occasionally found one of his arguments unconvincing, but never did I see any reason to suspect that he was deliberately trying to deceive readers about the evidence."


That's laughable.  

Jeremy ( I'm ashamed of my last name that's why I don't use it ) - This book, from cover to cover, is an attack piece on other authors and other theories. DiEugenio enumerates why other authors/historians are wrong, and he, and he alone, has got it all figured out.

"But there's one big problem: DiEugenio has clearly NOT read the books he so viciously tears apart! Whether you agree with theories other than your own or not, you should at least try to understand where others are coming from.

"DiEugenio assumes that we haven't read the works of Hartman/Waldron... He summarizes their extensively researched books are "pretzel logic." DiEugenio erroneously claims that Waldron and Hartman theorize that the "mob killed JFK to stop him from invading Cuba." WHAT!!? Where did Waldron and Hartman mention this in their books?"

That last name? It must be Cinque - Because we really don't have to look beyond the inside of the dust jacket.  Here's the one from "Ultimate Sacrifice."

Here's a selection from the negative review to Jim DiEugenio's book "Reclaiming Parkland."




And the one from "Legacy of Secrecy."


I just adore the faux outrage people, with their question, "what" all in capital letter, and their inability to read, and comprehend what they've read, when they didn't have to get beyond the dust jacket!

C. E. Angleberger[ See if you can spot the fault in this author's point, if not entire methodology in reading any book. ] 


I have never read anything like this where an author just slams and picks apart another book/author like this. If you are a fan of DiEugenio and agree with his views, well heck, you will love this book. But for someone like me who is interested in different takes on the Assassination, it was hard to get through it. I have a few opinions on the events, and haven't even read Reclaiming History nor care what Bugliosi has to say, but DiEugenio's constant ruthless attacks throughout the book just turned me off and made himself sound like a sterotype conspiracy theorist to me. And the writing was frustrating; often specific events are mentioned in passing but not explained. Most readers don't know every little associated event. Dozens of names were thrown about in the sentences to the point where I didn't care and started skipping paragraphs.


An Anonymous Kindle customer  -  Could not get half way through before I was tired of hearing about Bugliosi's faults (I get it). Enough.


The book was entitled "Reclaiming Parkland: Tom Hanks, Vincent Bugliosi, and the JFK Assassination in the New Hollywood," what did you think the book was going to be about, how they made the monkey fly in The Wizzard of Oz?

Michael - "All he does is complain about Bugliosi's book and rebut everything in it..." 


That was what Jim set out to do, idiot.



Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me considering that Jim's book is 496 pages, with no CD enclosed while Bugliosi's is 1,648 page with a CD with at least 1,000 more pages.