Saturday, July 19, 2014

Insane "reviews" on Reclaiming Parkland

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

David AdamsI 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 Oswsald did.  Brilliant.  

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 jell kid 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."

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..." 

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. 

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Kennedy family still under threat from whackos

CNN reports a man broke into the Kennedy compound and said he was looking for Katy Perry."

James Lacroix

(CNN) -- A man wearing a Captain America T-shirt and camouflage shorts broke into the Kennedy compound in Barnstable, Massachusetts, on Tuesday, police said. When officers asked him what he was doing there, he replied: "Looking for Katy Perry."

Officers went to the house in the village of Hyannis Port after receiving a call from Ted Kennedy Jr., who said he had phoned the property from his home in Connecticut to check on his teenage son and a stranger answered.

Police found a black car parked outside the home. Inside the home, they found 53-year-old James Lacroix in the kitchen, said police Officer John O'Hare. The teen was also in the kitchen; he was unharmed.

Lacroix told police he had been there for three hours and was looking for Perry, the pop singer.

He was booked on breaking and entering charges and and will be arraigned in Barnstable District Court on Wednesday morning.

Sunday, July 13, 2014

There are two upcoming JFK assassination conferences coming up in Sept

These conferences are scheduled to occur around the 50th anniversary of the Warren Commission Report being presented to Lyndon Baines Johnson.

One of them is by this new group calling itself "JFK Historical Group." Their conference will be the weekend starting Sept 26, 2014, a Friday, and it will conclude on Sunday the 28th.  It will be held at the Crown Plaza East Hotel in Alexandria, Virginia.  The guest list looks good

1.) Ed Tatro
2.) Doug Horne
3.) Phil Nelson
4.) Russ Baker
5.) Gary Powers, Jr, son of Gary Powers who was shot down while flying a U-2.
6.) James Wagenvoord, a former LIFE magazine editor
7.) Rick Russo, a Nigel Turner consultant
8.) Gerald McKnight -

Dr. Cyril Wecht will be the keynote speaker.

Costs - $115 if paid before August 1st.  The banquet dinner and keynote speech seems to be an extra cost of $53 dollars.

Hotel - $119 a night for single, $120 for double.

A registration form should be send along with a check or money order to

David Denton, JFK Historical Group
1305 Hall Street
Olney, Illinois 62450

More information at -

The other one is from the AARC, the Assassination Archive and Research Center.

It will be held at the Bethesda Hyatt in northwest Washington. Yes, at the same time as the one above. This one is being organized by Jerry Policoff. The guest list for this looks good too

1.) Jim Lesar
2.) Gary Aguilar
3.) Marie Fonzi, Gaeton Fonzi's widow
4.) Dan Hardway, who was a major contributor to what became known as The Lopez Report
5.) Joan Mellon
6.) Jefferson Morley
7.) John Newman
8.) Andrew Kreig, author of "Presidential Puppetry" who will talk about Operation Nothwoods
9.) Dr. Randy Robertson
10.) David Wrone
11.) Dr. Ernest Titovets

Other possible speakers are Josiah Thompson, Peter Dale Scott, Bill Simpich, Larry Hancock, Robert Groden.  I think Bill Kelly is promising too much but he thinks Sylvia Odio and Antonio Vecciana, Jim DiEugenio, Lisa Pease, Ed ASner, Oliver Stone, Jane Rusconi, Jesse Ventura, Dick Russell, Dan Alcorn, Pamela Brown, Walt Brown, Barry Earnest, Sherry Feister, Larry Happenen, Gail Nix Jackson, David Kaiser, Ed Lopez, Ben Rodgers from the Baylor Univ JFK collection, and others.

Dr. Grover Proctor who researched the phone call Oswald tried to make to a guy, John David Hurt in Raliegh, North Carolina who was a Counterintelligence Special Agent.  

Also invited Nina Rhodes-Hughes, a witness to the RFK assassination. 

Unbelievably, they are inviting John McAdams and Max Holland, and possibly Judge John Griffen who was an assistant counsel to the Warren Commission to present the other side.  

What a pathetic waste of time inviting these three.  And I'm not too sure folks have their priorities right.  Why pay any attention to the anniversary of the Warren Commission? This is the first time such a thing has ever been done.  Why do this? Why limit the discussion to the Warren Commission when there are millions of documents awaiting our attention at Archives II? 

Saturday, July 5, 2014

Interesting article in Washington Post on how the CIA attacked one of its one employees for trying to declassify CIA documents

This should tell you how much the CIA is going to fight to keep its secrets in 2017.

CIA's employee's quest to release information, "Destroyed My Entire Career."

His CIA career included assignments in Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq, but the most perilous posting for Jeffrey Scudder turned out to be a two-year stint in a sleepy office that looks after the agency’s historical files.
It was there that Scudder discovered a stack of articles, hundreds of histories of long-dormant conflicts and operations that he concluded were still being stored in secret years after they should have been shared with the public.
To get them released, Scudder submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act — a step that any citizen can take, but one that is highly unusual for a CIA employee. Four years later, the CIA has released some of those articles and withheld others. It also has forced Scudder out.
His request set in motion a harrowing sequence. He was confronted by supervisors and accused of mishandling classified information while assembling his FOIA request. His house was raided by the FBI and his family’s computers seized. Stripped of his job and his security clearance, Scudder said he agreed to retire last year after being told that if he refused, he risked losing much of his pension.
In an interview, Scudder, 51, cast his ordeal as a struggle against “mindless” bureaucracy, but acknowledged that it was hard to see any winners in a case that derailed his CIA career, produced no criminal charges from the FBI, and ended with no guarantee that many of the articles he sought will be in the public domain anytime soon.
“I submitted a FOIA and it basically destroyed my entire career,” Scudder said. “What was this whole exercise for?”

The CIA declined to comment on Scudder’s case, citing privacy restrictions and litigation related to his FOIA request. CIA personnel files obtained by The Washington Post accuse Scudder of having classified materials on his home computer and “a history of difficulty in protecting classified information.”
“The CIA does not retaliate or take any personnel action against employees for submitting [FOIA] requests or pursuing them in litigation,” said CIA spokesman Dean Boyd. “Of course, officers at CIA must also exercise their rights consistent with their obligation to protect classified material.”
At a time of renewed debate over the proper balance between secrecy and accountability for U.S. spy agencies, Scudder’s case reveals the extent to which there can be intense disagreement even inside agencies over how much information they should be allowed to withhold from the public and for how long.
Scudder’s case also highlights the risks to workers who take on their powerful spy-agency employers. Senior U.S. intelligence officials have repeatedly argued that Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, should have done more to raise his concerns internally rather than exposing America’s espionage secrets to the world. Others who tried to do that have said they were punished.
Scudder’s actions appear to have posed no perceptible risk to national security, but he found himself in the cross hairs of the CIA and FBI.
Scudder’s attorney, Mark Zaid, described the case as an example of “aggressive retaliation against employees who seek to act in the public’s interest and challenge perceived poor managerial decisions. . . . The system is really broken.”

The documents sought by Scudder amount to a catalog of a bygone era of espionage. Among them are articles with the titles “Intelligence Lessons from Pearl Harbor” and “Soviet Television — a New Asset for Kremlin Watchers.”
Scudder said he discovered them after he took an assignment in 2007 as a project manager for the CIA’s Historical Collections Division, an office set up to comb the agency’s archives for materials — often decades old — that can be released without posing any security risk.
In recent years, the division has organized the release of records on subjects including the CIA’s rolein the publication of the novel “Doctor Zhivago” and the historicrole of women in the CIA workforce.
Scudder was hired by the CIA as a computer expert in the 1980s and rose through the ranks as a project manager in various departments. Colleagues described him as earnest and energetic, an effective troubleshooter who routinely volunteered for assignments in war zones. He also had a reputation for impatience with agency bureaucracy.
“He was excitable and was in almost constant motion,” said Charles A. Briggs, who served as the No. 3 official in the CIA during the Reagan administration and worked alongside Scudder as a contractor in the Historical Collections Division. “He can’t stand not doing what he thinks is proper.”
Scudder led efforts to upgrade the historical collection, converting thousands of documents to digital files that could be searched electronically. In the process, he said, he discovered about 1,600 articles that were listed as released to the public but could not be found at the National Archives. Further searching turned up hundreds more that seemed harmless but were stuck in various stages of declassification review.
Scudder said he made numerous attempts to get the trove released but was repeatedly blocked by the Information Review and Release Group, the office in charge of clearing materials for the public. In 2010, Scudder took a new assignment in the CIA’s Counterintelligence Center, but couldn’t forget his unfinished historical collections business. Filing a FOIA, he thought, might force the agency’s hand.
Explaining his decision four years later, Scudder acknowledged a stubborn streak that isn’t always aligned with his self-interest. “I am one of those guys who has to push that button,” he said.
Scudder’s FOIA submissions fell into two categories: one seeking new digital copies of articles already designated for release and another aimed at articles yet to be cleared. He made spreadsheets that listed the titles of all 1,987 articles he wanted, he said, then had them scanned for classified content and got permission to take them home so he could assemble his FOIA request on personal time.
Because of its mission, the CIA has been given broad exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act, which was enacted in the mid-1960s to make it harder for government agencies to hide internal records from the public. The CIA has fielded thousands of FOIA requests. Most applicants wait months if not years before getting a response — which is often an outright rejection.
Six months after submitting his request, Scudder was summoned to a meeting with Counterintelligence Center investigators and asked to surrender his personal computer. He was placed on administrative leave, instructed not to travel overseas and questioned by the FBI.

As his trouble deepened, Scudder and Zaid filed a FOIA lawsuit seeking to prove the materials he had taken weren’t classified.
On Nov. 27, 2012, a stream of black cars pulled up in front of Scudder’s home in Ashburn, Va., at 6 a.m. FBI agents seized every computer in the house, including a laptop his daughter had brought home from college for Thanksgiving. They took cellphones, storage devices, DVDs, a Nintendo Game Boy and a journal kept by his wife, a physical therapist in the Loudoun County Schools.
The search lasted nearly four hours, Scudder said. FBI agents followed his wife and daughters into their bedrooms as they got dressed, asking probing questions. “It was classic elicitation,” Scudder said. “How has Jeff been? Have you noticed any unexplained income? Cash? Mood changes?”
It was 14 months later, this January, when Scudder was told he wouldn’t face criminal charges. By then, his CIA career was over. The agency had mounted an internal investigation that determined that Scudder’s FOIA request “contained classified titles” of CIA articles and that he had deleted a “TOP SECRET” label from one document, according to a memo from an agency personnel board.
The agency also found photographs of CIA installations overseas. Scudder had taken the pictures in Iraq and elsewhere while on assignment as “an official photographer for the CIA,” according to the memo. But “there is no record of you being authorized to use your personal camera or to remove any of the photos you took . . . from a secure, CIA-controlled environment.”

Finally, the board unearthed infractions from an assignment in Africa in 1993 including unauthorized foreign travel and “making personal calls using [U.S. government] telephones.” The issues hadn’t impeded his career, but were now viewed as part of “a history of difficulty.”
Two supervisors submitted character references. One cited Scudder’s record of volunteering for duty in war zones and described him as “extremely patriotic” and “one of the best project managers” in his field. Another allowed that he might be guilty of misjudgment, but said terminating such “a bright, dedicated and honest officer would be a tragedy.”
Last summer, the board recommended that Scudder be fired. Around the same time, he was shown a spreadsheet outlining his possible pension packages with two figures — one large and one small — underlined. He agreed to retire.
His FOIA requests have succeeded, at least in part. Last year, the CIA delivered to the National Archives more than 1,400 articles that Scudder had identified as missing despite being cleared for release. The remaining records listed in Scudder’s FOIA submissions are still being withheld, he and Zaid said, although the CIA has agreed to begin reviewing those records and placing sanitized versions of at least some of them on its Web site.
But other developments are seen as setbacks. The CIAdisbanded the Historical Collections Division last year, citing budget cuts, although officials said its declassification work is now being handled by another office.

Despite losing his security clearance, Scudder landed a job as a manager at a consulting firm that pays him a six-figure salary equivalent to what he earned at the end of his agency career. He and Zaid have written dozens of e-mails and letters seeking to recover the devices seized by the FBI. The bureau returned his daughter’s laptop last year, and several USB drives last week, but has not given back two computers that Scudder said hold personal information, including tax returns and family photos.
Scudder described moments of his ordeal that seemed surreal. In one instance, he said, FBI agents pointed to an article he was seeking titled “Sad Song of Norway” and insisted, against his claims to the contrary, that its title alone remained classified “Secret NOFORN,” meaning not to be shared even with allied intelligence services.
“As I reflect,” Scudder said, “I am hit again by the absurdity of it all.” 

Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

No, the Carlyle Group did not buy the JFK Library

Shame on Russel Baker, he's lying to get attention.  CarlyleGroup's latest Acquisition: The JFK Library!

This is not true. You cannot buy a presidential library. 

This is sensationalistic garbage from Russell Baker who should know better. This kind of crap does not enhance his credibility. Frankly, the man's been laughed at at JFK conferences. 

The Carlyle group is merely donating funds as many corporations have done and continue to do to the JFK library. 

Sunday, June 29, 2014

While we wait for 2017...

Bill Kelly is trying to get something going with a petition to Archives II.  I don't think that will work at all.  He wrote to Archives complaining about the JFK online database which has not been updated as much as it could be.  He wrote me an email about it and I'm going to respond here. 

No.  I don't think they are updating this at all.  My friend Malcolm Blunt says the main problem, and this has been going on for years is what they call "interfiling," meaning you go and copy on site everything in box Super Secret, from the Super Secret agency.  And then the very next day, next week, month, year, they've gone and put new stuff into a box in which you think you already have everything in it.  

I hope he won't mind me mentioning the problem as he experienced it.

" you may know there has been a massive interfiling in the Warren Commission collection (RG272), unfortunately with no index  or finding aid provided, when I went back through the WC Office Files of Staff I found the boxes absolutely stuffed full....for instance Slawsons rough handwritten notes are there in quantity...the irritating bit is the new copy paper is off white

[ actually they are a pale blue color and you cannot increase or decrease the contrast level to suit the purpose of getting a good copy from badly handled and faded documents.  The solution is what I mention below, getting a small computer, a laptop, a modern one, and a scanner, or digital camera, and then go crazy coping.]  

and does not pick up very well pencil writing, which is what Slawson used in his notes..   this is a pain........I was there for a couple of weeks last August and had a blow up with one of the staff there over NARA not providing an index or finding aid for the Warren Commisssion interfiles; NARA have previous form on this, 7 or 8 years ago I managed to get them (NARA) to print the RIFs for the brought forward from 2010 releases by CIA which were interfiled into the CIA Seg collection printed from Micro takes up a whole trolley, but it's better than nothing ;otherwise we would have had nothing to help us find those previously redacted documents. Of course the cry there is lack of resources and reductions in staff."

The thing to do is to get a small computer, just one with a good USB port, I hear there's USB2, and USB3, doesn't matter, then get a scanner that will work with your computer.  Scan everything in color and .jpg  When you use your own equipment you can copy for free.  If you use their equipment, even to save a photocopier scan to a USB flash drive, in other words, not producing a hard copy, not using any paper or the thing's carbon, they still charge you 25 cents a page.  If you write to them and ask them to copy for you it's 80 cents a page.

I brought my old iMac computer, a G4 model, like this one, to Archives II with a flatbed scanner.

And when I got there the damn thing wouldn't even turn on.  Of course it had to go through a scanner like they have for your carry-on luggage at the airport, and I thought that damage it.  So, I copy the old fashioned way and got everything I wanted.  And when I got back home and plugged the old computer back in it worked fine.  Grrr! 

So, I need to get a laptop and a scanner, and get a good amount of time off from work, say a week and scan, scan, scan. 

People are antsy for something, they want to do something to speed up the process and get what they are withholding from us. A petition won't work.  

And Morley's idea that there are only 1,100 documents still being withheld and only the CIA is withholding JFK assassination documents is way the f off the mark, though I know and see why he thinks this.  It's so off the mark, it's like going to the beach and finding only one grain of sand.

I'm going through the notices in the Federal Register.  And I got the numbers that they didn't put into the Federal Register.  In the last few months of the ARRB's life, this is around April of 1998 they only placed summaries, a few thousand from this agency, and a few thousand from this other agency, etc into the Federal Register, like this:

I got the numbers, the decisions, document by document.  It's going to take me most of the summer, at least to go through this stuff, but I have all the data.  I have the RIF numbers.  

I got a stack of legal sized paper copies that are about 6 inches high beside me for the RIF numbers that they didn't put into the Federal Register. 

I haven't heard ANYONE mentioning the U.S. Army records.  There are LOTS of them.

And the quiet fiasco of the ONI basically saying to the ARRB, "Yo, Fuck You we do not have to obey this law."  And they got away with it.  I didn't hear a peep about this all the time I was trying to learn everything about what they were doing.  And, they court martialed a woman who did want to help and cooperate with the ARRB.   None of the ARRB members ever talked about this, during their time as members, or after.  

I think it was Bill Kelly's blog where I first heard about this.  

So, I don't know what to tell you.  Don't wait for me, make some noise, go ahead.  There are two new podcasts that are interesting, on this site called, "The Dallas Action," and "The Lone Gunman."  And, of course, there's good ol Len Osanic.  

I don't know where the research community will go with the loss of John Judge, and Debra Conway's health making her less active.  She's done a great job for years.  But, we are all mortal.

Maybe new leadership will happen, or a new conference, or some new technology will help us get documents and gives us a new and better way to share them.  

We're still here, and we're still reading documents and books.  2017 is the next big thing.  So, stay healthy everybody, and start saving money because I honestly don't think they are just going to cave in and release all these documents on some magical day in 2017.  I really don't think they are going to go, "alright, here's everything, yes we killed him, well, not we, as most of us were born long after the assassination, but yes, the agency I'm working for now, they had people who did this, and more importantly there is still an active thing to lie about it all."

So, who knows, maybe they do release a great deal of stuff, or maybe they fight like hell to keep it secret for many more years to come.  Who knows? 

I'm reminded of something Bruce Springsteen once said to Pete Seeger, "Sometimes you just have to outlive the bastards!"