I 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.
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.
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?
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?
RSS Feed