<![CDATA[Reopen KENNEDY CASE! - Reopen Blog]]>Wed, 23 May 2012 13:22:32 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[George Brandis and the Art of Lying]]>Fri, 04 May 2012 00:29:12 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2012/05/george-brandis-and-the-art-of-lying.htmlSenator  Brandis was interviewed on LATELINE regarding a range of current issues, the most newsworthy touching on the Slipper scandal. 

Two of his answers to questions regarding the affair, stick out like dogs balls.

That part of the interview starts well for Brandis:

EMMA ALBERICI: Can we just move on to the week's other news focus, George Brandis, revelations that the leader of Opposition business was out drinking with James Ashby, the man who is has accused the former Speaker of sexual harassment. It's muddied the waters on that a bit, hasn't it?
GEORGE BRANDIS: Well, let me correct your question, if I may with respect, Emma. There have been no revelations to any such effect. What has been reported and is uncontroversial is that Mr Pyne, who in that capacity is a manager of business, deals with the Speaker's office on a daily and very often on an hourly basis to manage the business of the chamber as does Mr Albanese, his opposite number in the Government. 

He went to the Speaker's office in the course of that day to day housekeeping task, saw Mr Ashby. It was late in the evening and he shared a drink with a few members of Mr Slipper's staff including Mr Ashby. 

So please let's not have a slightly lurid characterisation of this as being out drinking with Mr Ashby. He called into somebody's office with whom he had to engage in a professional dealing, he wasn't there, so he had a drink with the staff while he was waiting for him to come back. 

It is as simple as that.

Points go to Brandis in that exchange. But the underlined part will soon be contradicted.

EMMA ALBERICI: What is somewhat controversial is after previously denying having ever requested a mobile phone number for James Ashby, we now understand that Christopher Pyne got his email details and presumably they've had some contact. 

Why doesn't Christopher Pyne release the emails to show that there was no "cover up" to use the words of Trade Minister Craig Emerson? 

GEORGE BRANDIS: I've lost count of the number of false assumptions in your question, Emma. He didn't deny seeking an email address. He has not ... you've said presumably there was an email exchange. There is no evidence that there was an email exchange and that's specifically ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Well normally when someone asks for an email address it is because they have the intention of sending an email.

GEORGE BRANDIS: Possibly he may have wanted to have the address so if he needed to send an email he could, but in fact he didn't. If you understand the physical geography of Parliament House, by the way, Mr Pyne's office is about 50 paces down the corridor from the Speaker's office. So the assumptions that you've built into this question are, with respect, all wrong.

EMMA ALBERICI: That he requested a mobile phone number and an email address, that's wrong?

GEORGE BRANDIS: He didn't request a mobile phone number, he requested an email address, and he has said he had no cause to use the email address and that he never telephoned Mr Ashby on his mobile phone because he didn't have it.

EMMA ALBERICI: So he now denies having requested a mobile phone number because there's been some to-ing and fro-ing on that issue.

GEORGE BRANDIS: I don't ... as I understand it there's been no, as you say to-ing and fro-ing. What is not controversial, is that Mr Pyne requested an email address. It was sent to him, a most commonplace piece of business, and he had never had occasion to use it.


As usual, the ABC reporter had the quarry on the ropes but was constitutionally incapable of delivering a knockout blow.

I mean, here we have Brandis saying firstly there was nothing unusual in Pyne going to Slippers office and having a drink with staff while waiting for Slipper to return. It was late at night (thus excusing the drinks) and Pyne practically lived in Slipper's office as it was part of his duty as "manager of business" and he was there "daily and very often on an hourly basis". 

But then when it comes to the requested email address, we get (to paraphrase) Pyne's office was a whole 50 paces away from Slipper's office so of course he needs email addresses of Slipper's staff. You can't expect him to be trudging up and down the hallway all day every day.

Well, apart from the already pointed-out contradiction, the latter statement also begs the question of why - if he NEEDED to deal with Slipper and his staff by email - did he not ALREADY have Ashby's email address? 

But the lies don't stop there. The next allegation brought up concerns Mal Brough's possible hand in the affair.

GEORGE BRANDIS: You've cast this innuendo about Mr Brough as well, so let me deal specifically with it. Mr Ashby, as I understand it, is a member of the Liberal National Party from the Sunshine Coast. So is Mr Brough. 

Mr Brough, as you pointed out, Mark, is running for pre-selection in that area. Mr Ashby would be one of the pre-selectors if he's a local member of the party. So it would be, if Mr Brough has met him, I don't know whether he has or not, the most natural thing in the world, just as natural Mark, as you meeting with one of or local party members.

EMMA ALBERICI: And simply coincidental that it happened in the days before these claims were made? 

GEORGE BRANDIS: Emma, the pre-selection for Fisher will be taking place in a few months time. If you can find a party member in Fisher that Mr Brough hasn't had a cup of coffee in the last couple of months I would be surprised.


So according to Brandis, the meeting between Brough and Ashby was probably instigated by one or the other to deal with pre-selection matters. 

But Brough himself has contradicted this by saying he never knew Ashby, having only met him once fleetingly, and as he worked for the person whose seat he was contesting, when Ashby contacted he suspected some type of set-up against him was in the works. He agreed to meet to see what he wanted, and the allegations against Slipper emerged over the course of three meetings. Brough claims he was the one who advised Ashby to take the allegations to police.

Following is a rough chronology of events (rough because I'm too stretched to go get all the citations and am going from memory).

  • A mayor of some fart-arse red-neck "city" in Queensland took Ashby (who then worked for the Coalition) to meet Slipper. Ashby tells Slipper he is gay (seriously, how many people tell strangers that about themselves at a first meeting???)
  • Slipper, apparently long known to chase young men, offers Ashby a job as media advisor (Ashby was a former radio DJ before being found guilty of harassing another DJ). Ashby plays hard-to-get before finally accepting the job.
  • Ashby allegedly sees or learns of fraudulent use of cabcharge dockets by his boss and is allegedly subject to ongoing sexual harassment by Slipper (it should be noted here that "sexual harassment" is most commonly confined to unwanted sexual advances, and is therefore a subjective claim to bring against another person, and will often come down to whether or not - and how forcefully given the particular circumstances - you informed the other party that the advances were unwelcome.
  • Ashby has drinks with Pyne. 
  • Ashby meets with political enemy of Slipper, namely Mal Brough 3 times.
  • Ashby goes to police and also lodges personal litigation claim against Slipper and leaves his employment.
Everyone in the Labour Party and the Media dance around what should be obvious. By merely claiming or hinting at a cover-up they divert attention from what is actually BEING covered up: in this case,  a good old fashioned "honey trap" to bring down the government. The reason they act this way is simple, illuminating  - and infuriating. No one in politics or the media likes to be seen to notice conspiracies. Cover ups are a different matter. It is acceptable - even expected to see them from time to time. It is quite remarkable to listen to discussions of "cover-ups" and never really have spelled out exactly what is being hidden, except in the most benign way e.g a meeting between two people, whether or not a phone number or email address was ever requested etc... that's bullshit. 

And that's no cover up - I can smell it from here...]]><![CDATA[LIST OF JFK ASSASSINATION RECORDS DESTROYED]]>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 04:20:28 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2012/03/list-of-jfk-assassination-records-destroyed.html
bkfile1.jpg
File Size: 1859 kb
File Type: jpg
Download File
bk_file2.jpg
File Size: 1459 kb
File Type: jpg
Download File
With thanks to Bill Kelly for providing them. I think some at least, and maybe many, can be traced to fairly specific aspects of the FBI investigation, but it would be much better if we did not have to make guesses - regardless of how educated. 
]]><![CDATA[Google and the NSA]]>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:23:40 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2012/03/google-and-the-nsa.html"The Electronic Privacy Information Center, or EPIC, is suing the United States
National Security Agency to find out the truth behind any partnership between
the NSA and Google, the Silicon Valley giants behind the Web’s most popular
search engine and a laundry list of other online applications and services. EPIC
has been asking for information on an alleged alliance since 2010, but with the
NSA refusing to submit to Freedom of Information Act requests, the US District
Court of Appeals will hear arguments later this month that the advocacy group
hopes will mean that they will soon learn the truth regarding whether or not the
two are in cahoots."
 
Full story

Recruitment blurb from the NSA website:

"Intelligence. It's the ability to think abstractly.  Challenge the unknown. Solve the impossible. And at NSA, it's about protecting the Nation. A career at NSA offers the opportunity to work with the best, shape the course of the world, [emphasis added] and secure your own future.  Isn't it time to put your  intelligence to work?"

I don't know about anyone else, but the thought that a highly secretive intelligence agency that either interprets its role as - as has actually been given the task of - "shaping the course of the world" is something that should be of grave concern to every single person on this planet. As any "partnerdhip" with Google (which seems to thrive through the unchecked megolamania of those behind the scenes) is going to be tied to similar "world shaping".

Google should be boycotted until the facts are brought to light - and the NSA, should be law, be restricted to intelligence gathering and protection. Certainly, gathering and protecting information may alter world events. But it does not give shape to them. That has a whole other connotation.  The NSA has been in existence for 60 years. If it has been charting the course of the world during that time, it should be held to account for the mess we're in. ]]><![CDATA[A Storm in a (Mimi) Teacup]]>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:49:02 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2012/02/a-storm-in-a-mini-teapot.htmlLet me say right now, I have a few problems with the latest Kennedy scandal.

Problem One: the accusation that a bunch of clueless young things without any secretarial skills were hired as interns to be the play things of JFK and pals.

It simply isn't true. Or at least, it certainly was not what Barbara Gamarekian told Dallek. The mild Ms Gamarekian was incensed enough by what Dallek wrote that she sent a letter of complaint to the editor of the New York Times dated May 25, 2003 and which I will quote here in its entirety: 

To the Editor:

In my oral history for the Kennedy Library that Robert Dallek drew upon for his book ''An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963,'' I never used the term ''intern'' (which resonates so today) in speaking of Mimi Fahnestock, who worked for two summers in the White House press office.

During a recent conversation with a former co-worker in that office, I observed, ''We didn't even have an intern program back then, did we?''

My former colleague replied: ''But don't you remember? Nora Ephron worked for us one summer as an intern.''

Nora Ephron! Surely I would have remembered Nora Ephron!

So thank you, Ms. Ephron, for your delightful ''All the President's Girls'' (Op-Ed, May 18).

It brought back vivid memories of that happy, congested workspace where we all operated within arm's length of each other.

It is true. There was no extra desk.

Okay. There it is. There was NO INTERN PROGRAM. One intern hired by Pierre Sallinger... future script-writer, Nora Ephron.

And what did Ms Ephron have to say in "All the President's Girls"? She didn't remember ever meeting Mimi and laments being the only girl JFK had contact with that he didn't make a pass at.

Problem Two: the timing.
 
2003:the story breaks the year of the 40th anniversary of the assassination.

2012: the story breaks out again in the lead up to the 50th anniversary with the release of a tell-all book by Ms Whatevernamesheusesthesedays. 
 
Problem Three: relates to problem two. You see, here is what Ms Mimi said in 2003:

(excerpt from the Age, May 17, 2003)
Ms Lewinsky levered her fame into a tell-all book, a handbag business, and, most recently, a television job as host of a dating show, Mr Personality.

Mrs Fahnestock, now 60, revealed no such ambitions yesterday and issued a curt statement. "From June 1962 to November 1963, I was involved in a sexual relationship with President Kennedy. For the last 41 years, it is a subject that I have not discussed," she said.

"In view of the recent media coverage, I have now discussed the relationship with my children and my family, and they are completely supportive.

"I will have no further comment on this subject, period. I would request that the media respect my privacy and the privacy of my family in this matter."

Book launch anyone...?

Problem Four: The so-called "Bahamas Incident"

Here is how it was reported in 2003 - from the same Age story as above:

In the Bahamas, Mimi was spotted by aides after the Macmillan summit hiding in one of the cars waiting to take the president to the airport. According to the transcript, "they walked over and looked in the car and here seated on the floor was Mimi."

The aides said nothing and neither did the press, who knew all about JFK's girls. Mrs Gamarekian said at the time: "This is the sort of thing that legitimate newspaper people don't write about or don't even make any implications about. It was kind of a big  joke."

Okay. You got? "They" ALL knew about it because "they" ALL saw it. Or did they? I mean, you don't really forget things like that, do you? 

Yet here is what TIME reported on May 26. 2003:
Mimi surfaced in a roundabout way. At the Kennedy Library, author Robert Dallek, when writing his new J.F.K. biography, An Unfinished Life, came across an oral history done in 1964 by one of the gentlest, most ardent Kennedy supporters in existence, Barbara Gamarekian. In it Gamarekian, who had worked in the White House press office and later became a reporter for the New York Times, talks about Mimi; but she had embargoed that section of her reminiscences. Dallek persuaded her to release it.

At first, the old White House reporters had a hard time recalling Mimi. But at a monthly luncheon last week, we pieced together sightings of her slipping out of Air Force One and confirmed Gamarekian's account of the top of a female head being seen in one of the limousines in Kennedy's motorcade at the 1962 Bermuda summit with British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. When staff and reporters looked in, Mimi was sitting on the floor of the car like a child playing hide-and-seek.

So... at a Press piss up... they "pieced" it together after initially NOT RECALLING HER AT ALL? Well, that's certainly solid evidence for it!  I can just imagine how that conversation went...

Problem five: The church
 
Her former employer was The Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church which has a long association with Republican Big Wigs including Bush II advisors such as Glenn Hubbard back to Charles D Hiller, Sr. chairman of  the GOP National Committee from 1912 to 1916, and national committeeman from New York from 1920-1937. 

Problem Six: Mimi's alleged lack of qualifications to work with WH press gang... 

She had been editor of her college newspaper. In any case, apparently there was nothing to type on in her work area.

Did Kennedy have a fling with Mimi? Who knows? Probably? Maybe? What is certain is that the story has been beaten up to within an inch of it's life. There was no intern program (real or pretend) and ergo, no gaggle of gigglers at JFK's disposal. The only intern there at the time laments that she was not seduced by Kennedy. The two times the story has hit the headlines have been just prior to major anniversaries regarding the assassination - with such stories cutting away at the public's ability to care about the fact that Kennedy was taken out by a coup d'etat. Despite reports that "everyone" remembered her and her liaisons with Kennedy - the Times exposed that as a lie in 2003 when it revealed no one recalled her that really should have - until they all got together  for a "luncheon" and "pieced" it together.  

A tour of the web tells me that there is little or no skepticism about this story at all. It is being accepted by just about everyone as the Gospel Truth. 

A two-fingered salute to the Power of the Big Lie.
Picture
UPDATE

Just as I suspected. Barbara Gamarekian had no personal knowledge of any sexual relationship between JFK and Mimi Beardsley. 

From her Oral History interview:
 
"There were some cute young attractive girls who worked with us in the White House and who went swimming with Dave Powers and the President and went on trips and Mimi turned up the following year when she was back in school on a trip to Nassau when the President and McMillan [M. Harold McMillan] and she also showed up at Palm Springs. Obviously she was flown out on one of the Air Force planes. 

I don't know what the relationship was. It was one of those areas where I'm not anxious to know and I hadn't many opportunities to inquire. Most of these stories were told to me all second hand, and I think there are people who are no doubt going to be interviewed who can be a good deal more candid about this area of the President's life than I can be. 

It is enough to say that the White House Press Corp and the people working in the White House were very much aware that there were lots of fun and games going on. 

Later in the interview, there is also this comment:   

But of course, the Press Corp--I don't think saw Mimi in Nassau... 

So what are we left with? Barbara Gamarekian had no personal knowledge. It was all hearsay and innuendo. 

Now we also know that TIME was right in 2003 when it stated that no one in the old Press Corp remembered Mimi - and therefore also had no memory of any liaisons with the Commander-in-Chief in Nassau. Gamarekian herself had said in the oral history interview that they did not see Mimi during that trip. But then, in 2003, this group of old scribes convinced themselves over a few drinks that they did in fact, remember her.

Another part of the oral history interview - together with the alleged Nassau incident may paint a very different picture: one of a spoilt rich kid used to getting what she wants and aggressively pursuing it.

It seems - despite claims that Mimi went on ALL the trips - she somehow missed one to Ireland. She was left to work with an "older woman" who refused Mimi's request to have a Friday off. Mimi's reaction is very telling. She phoned Kennedy in Ireland to complain and apparently had wanted the woman fired!  

As for Nassau: Gamarekian stated in the interview that she presumed Mimi had been "hiding in the car for several days" after being flown there by the Air Force.  The problem is that at the time, Mimi was not even working in the White House. If she turned up in Nassau, it is more likely she got there under her own steam on the day she was allegedly seen, and somehow managed to get access into the car. Pursuit of what she wanted. 

But the deeper one digs into this story, the more you have to doubt it. 

Here's a quick run down. 

1964, Gamarekian gave an oral history interview in which she hinted at - but did not spell out - a sexual relationship between Mimi and JFK - based solely on hearsay and rumors she had heard.

2003: Robert Dallek talked Gamerekian into opening the file on this part of her interview for his Kennedy bio. He refers to Mimi as an "intern". Gamerekian complains to a major newspaper claiming she never used the word "intern" and hinting that Dallek was only using it because of the Lewinski affair. Moreover, she states that there was no intern program and is reminded by a former colleague that the only intern there at the time was Nora Ephron. Ephron, meanwhile writes an Op-Ed piece stating that she has no memory of Mimi and that Kennedy never made any moves on her personally (much to her chagrin!). Mimi is located and gives a statement  confirming she had a sexual relationship with Kennedy and that she had no more to say on the matter - ever. TIME reports that the Press Corp has a hard time remembering Mimi - until they start discussing her during a regular luncheon get-together. Then (no doubt with the drinks flowing), they "piece it [the Bahamas incident] together" - despite this being impossible if Gamerekian's 1964 interview is correct - that they had not seen her in the Bahamas at all. 

2012: Mimi has an upcoming tell-all book on her alleged affair with Kennedy. It, by all accounts, has much that is so outlandish, it is hard to imagine anyone but those with an agenda would swallow it. This includes  such gems as JFK telling her he would rather his kids be "red than dead" and him spending time with her during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Other tidbits are a direct rip-off of other "tell-all" Kennedy books, including allegations of drugs  and other forms of abuse. In short, it has the hall-marks of conservative / intelligence propaganda - all just in time to turn people away from giving a damn about the upcoming 50th anniversary of the assassination.

It is time people stopped swallowing this stuff without at least a cursory examination of the evidence.
]]><![CDATA[Who Forecast the Rise of Occupy Wall Street?]]>Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:00:10 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2011/10/who-forecast-the-rise-of-occupy-wall-street.htmlI did. Back in 2004.

Over the next four years I think we'll see a return to 60s style riots in the streets of blue states as the war on "terror" lurches its way from one trouble spot to another, the wealth gap becomes a canyon, business and government continue to find ways to dissemble on the environmental impact they have, and as freedoms and rights continue to be incrementally "disappeared".

Okay. I was a little out on the time-frame, but the issues are all there.

What happens next? Watch the dirty tricks play out. And question everything. ]]><![CDATA[Response to Bob Huffaker]]>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:31:23 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2011/10/response-to-bob-huffacker.htmlWhile looking for particular information for a piece I'm working on, I stumbled upon a quote I recognized as mine.

It was posted to a blog by Bob Huffaker, in part, to complain that I had assumed he worked with Army Intelligence in 1963.

http://www.blogofages.net/2010_11_01_archive.html

Here is what Bob wrote -- his comments in italics. My comments are interspersed in bold:
----------------------------------
It's even worse that this idiocy's theme is that we made our careers by keeping our mouths shut about "the conspiracy." And made ourselves rich. What a colossal joke.

There were two or three people who wrote this little exchange of silliness, which I copied and pasted from the Mack White blog.  

Bob, what you copied was not from the Mack White blog. It was from this discussion, which included a quote from the White blog:
 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9086

Here is the Mack White blog : 
http://www.mackwhite.com/archive42.html

The one who assumes that I was a clandestine intelligence officer is addressing someone named Bill (probably the William Kelly). 

It is incorrect that I assumed you were with Army intel. I stated your profile fits that of an intelligence officer. A job in the media hardly runs counter to that. 

You were also stationed at Ft Hood - the original source of weapons stolen from the Terrell Armory. Army intelligence was involved in a multi-agency investigation of that.

You may or may not know it, but in the 1950s and 60s, there was a shortfall in army intelligence ranks, so a lot of recruitment was done from the Reserves.

If your comments can be taken as a denial, I happily accept you had nothing to do with intelligence.

It is not "silliness" to say that your name was on a police list of people who had information about a Ruby - Oswald connection. That is a fact. Your name is right there along with Pixie Lynn, Gaston Powell, Wilburn Lichfield, Chloe Stansell, Linda Jackson and Lt George Butler. The ONLY person whose interview is missing from the files is YOURS. All that I have found is a report stating you had already been interviewed regarding this, and that the report from that interview had been filed.   It now appears to have been lost, destroyed, or withheld.  Do you deny being interviewing on this subject? Any idea why your name would appear on such a list?  What discussions preceded your Warren Commission testimony which delineated the scope of your testimony to ensue no questions would be asked about your (alleged) knowledge of a Ruby - Oswald connection?

It appears that the Mack White fellow wrote the initial post. I don't know who the Tony is who is congratulated upon his "good work."

And I do not know who "Mack White" is. His comments were simply copied and pasted, same as you did with it. "Tony" was the person who initiated the discussion (which was  about George Senator - not you.  But that's what can  happen in such discussions - subject matter can move on).

Sheesh,
Bob

"Sheesh", indeed. Let's be fair about this. I'll buy your book and read it with an open mind since, in a different post, you invited those on the conspiracy side to do so.  Would you care to reciprocate by reading one small essay with an open mind?
http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/parker5.html   ]]><![CDATA[AN HISTORICAL CARR WRECK]]>Tue, 31 May 2011 07:14:24 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2011/05/an-historical-carr-wreck.htmlI was recently pointed to former NSW Premiere Bob Carr's blog, Thoughtlines due to Bob giving his considered opinion on the JFK assassination.

Apart from being a former Premiere, Bob is best known for never having had a driver's licence, and for his fascination with American history - referring to himself in one blog entry as an "obsessive". All well and good to paint yourself (albeit in a self-effacing way) as some type of dedicated, eccentric purist, but when it comes to those of us who are obsessive not just about history, but about historical accuracy and in correcting historical injustices, he manages to use the term "research community" in a pejorative fashion.

But it is not the only example of Bob's double standards when it comes to the Kennedy case.

In commenting on recent US history books, Carr wrote,  "In Borders on Park Avenue I survey all the books on American history and buy none. I can’t find anything that meets a test of serious scholarship matched with engaging writing. Most books just re-work secondary sources."

So what books does he find believable on the Kennedy assassination? Those by the plagiarist Posner and the habitual prosecutor, Bugliosi.

In briefly scanning the "America" section of his blog, another thing that struck me was his favorable reviews of "The Kennedys" miniseries and of a recent bio on Kissinger. The miniseries has such outlandish scenes as Oswald eating lunch in the alleged sniper's nest awaiting the motorcade - a scene taken directly from comments made by Henry Wade to the media very early in the investigation. Henry added that eating lunch so nonchalantly was the mark of a professional, and that the ambush had to have been weeks or even months in the planning. But that was when "conspiracy" was still very much on the table. In any event, the Dallas cops and the Warren Commission got another employee to admit the lunch remnants were his and,  more importantly, any in depth analysis of all the relevant data proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the shots. His alibi stood up despite the efforts of the police and FBI to alter it enough  to cast some doubt. And it worked because few - very few want to bother themselves with the truly obsessive task of trawling through the minutia and detritus of such a godawful investigation.

The miniseries also throws in every rumor and innuendo about the Kennedys ever invented - and adds some new ones to the list. Bob seems to believe most of it - including the claims made by Judith Campbell Exner. What Bob neglects to mention is that the person she named as organising the JFK liaisons was Kenny Powers - and Powers denied it. Also denying the allegations was the daughter of  Sam Giancana; Sam being the other player in the alleged triangle. Her most outlandish claims came out in People. $60,000 worth of outlandishness, in fact.

On the book, Kissinger, 1973, Carr writes that "The canards aimed at Kissinger are strident because they are so weak, especially the allegation he engineered the 1973 coup in Chile.  'Apart from everything else we were too busy with other things', the Secretary of State says. 'Historians sometimes think you only have one thing to deal with at a time'. His position on Chile is cogently supported in the just-published Kissinger 1973by Alistair Horne. The author has some authority. He was writing in and about Chile as the Allende government was tottering."

I shouldn't have been shocked by this love of Kissinger and of a Kennedy miniseries put together by militant conservatives. The right wing of the Australian Labor party has much in common with neocons.

This Amazon review seems much closer to the mark:

Though Mr Horne is an accomplished historian, he trolled too close to the trees to see the Kissinger forest. Interesting anecdotes aside, his accounting of a pivotal year in the career of the refugee from Hitlerite Germany seems too starry eyed about the dubious achievements of his subject. Way too dismissive of Kissinger's role in the Allende tragedy (if not outright fascist in his treatment of the Chilean), he glosses over most of Kissinger's other crimes because those would diminish the profile Horne wishes to paint. Fine for hagiography, but one expects more from an unbiased historian of international repute. But Horne makes it obvious he will only allow reactionary, right wing perspectives; not for him any leftist skew of the world. Next time, Mr Horne, spend less time being wined and charmed at your subject's home and more on scrutiny, skepticism and objectivity.

Back to JFK.

Carr tells his readers that the CASE [IS] CLOSED: JFK WAS MURDERED BY A VULGAR NONENTITY. I REVIEW THE EVIDENCE IN MY ARTICLE “WHO KILLED KENNEDY?"

The above is not just a stretch, it's risible. Bob doesn't touch the evidence and judging from his reaction to reader's comments, he does not want to. And he gets simple facts wrong, including the cost of the alleged assassination weapon before trying to persuade his readers that the weapon was accurate and that it was an easy shot for a Marksman like Oswald. I'm not a gun type person, so I couldn't do any more than produce the words of others to argue those points. But the fact is, I don't have to argue them at all. Since  Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor, all of those arguments about the MC and his shooting ability are immaterial. Before disallowing further comments, this was a typical Carr reply:

Who did it if not Oswald ? Where is the evidence ?

Oswald’s flight from the scene and his rushed behavior tells us a lot.
Remember Norman Mailer – there is everything you need to know in LHO to explain the deed.

If not, who ?

But what Bob will never know, because Bob does not want to bother himself with anything not endorsed by Posner or Bugliosi, is that the whole "escape" scenario was a fraud.  

The evidence for this version of history was a bus transfer allegedly found in Oswald's shirt pocket hours after he already been thoroughly searched — and it was in even more pristine condition that the so-called magic bullet.
Picture
This totally creaseless ticket survived in Oswald’s pocket and remained in that mint condition DESPITE his being dived on by half a dozen cops, wrestled with among theater seats, and then manhandled to the patrol car. During all this, his shirt was torn and buttons ripped off. The bus transfer was only produced after the police had held the bus driver for several hours… with his bus just outside, complete with a book of transfers. Can you add 2 and 2 and get the the only logical answer explaining the late arrival and pristine condition of such evidence?

The bus driver point blank refused to ID Oswald, so the only other evidence the authorities had to rely on was the account of an elderly lady who had notes written with the help of the Secret Service so she wouldn’t forget what to say during her testimony – which was mainly steered by her own lawyer – who just happened to be an LBJ acolyte.

That's it. That'e the entire case for the bus getaway. There is no more. A planted bus transfer and a coached witness. 

Oswald wasn’t on any “getaway” bus. He was seen by multiple witnesses, including  a law enforcement officer, getting into a Rambler.  But that story had to be nixed because it reeked of the dreaded “C” word.

I had started out giving the benefit of the doubt to Mr Carr, but the more I read, the more McAdamsian he seemed in both his insulting language toward Warren Commission critics, and in his skirting of evidentiary issues.

I hope history proves I'm wrong, and Bob Carr at least and at last can show an open mind. 

In the meantime, if Mr Carr would like the opportunity to show how ignorant we in the "research community" are, I would be pleased to afford him that opportunity. It does not even have to be restricted to the Kennedy assassination. I'm happy to debate any and all aspects of the Cold War. 

How about it Bob?
]]><![CDATA[News World Order]]>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 02:42:33 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2010/12/news-world-order.html
]]><![CDATA[JFK FACEBOOK PAGE]]>Fri, 26 Nov 2010 14:10:16 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2010/11/recommended-new-facebook-research-group.htmlMy good friend Jim Olmstead is in the process of organising and preparing to share his years of invaluable JFK research material through his facebook account. The process of getting it up will probably stretch over a 4 months period. If you are interested in joining Jim's group, please contact him through his Facebook page @
Sharing JFK research]]><![CDATA[Edgycashun time]]>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 03:29:01 -0800http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/1/post/2010/07/edgycashun-time.html
Picture
A new Facebook group - Educate Tom Hanks
This is a great example of the utility of facebook. A new Facebook group has been set up with the  aim of educating Tom Hanks regarding the assassination (although this seems to be widening into a broader "education revolution" to borrow a phrase). With regard to the actor, people are encouraged to send material they feel will show him the error of Bugliosi's ways. Let's hope with what he receives that Mr Hanks is capable of plucking the baby out before ditching the bathwater.
educate tom hanks
]]>