Bill O'Reilly and Gerald Blaine will NEVER sway the vast majority...but beware the cult of personality

Bill O'Reilly and Gerald Blaine will NEVER sway the vast majority...but beware the cult of personality

Bill O'Reilly's new book "Killing Kennedy" follows the same path dug previously by William Manchester, Jim Bishop, David Belin, Gerald Posner, Norman Mailer, and Vince Bugliosi, among others, before him: Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy. For his part, Gerald Blaine chose the very same route, but with a twist: JFK was to blame, as well, a despicable claim with no basis in fact and one Blaine should and DOES indeed know better (for clarification: Blaine not only states that Oswald acted alone and there was no conspiracy, he also shifts the blame for Kennedy's assassination from his fellow agents---who failed to protect the president---to the president himself, falsely claiming that JFK ordered the agents off his limo, a claim that is patently false, as proved by my research. For the uninitiated, please see: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.html).

O'Reilly's book, from a major publishing house, is already a big best-seller, as was, to a lesser extent, Blaine's propaganda. What I find ironic is Blaine and his ilk are always claiming that the so-called "conspiracy cottage industry" make alot of money off the assassination, when, in actual fact, it is HIS ilk---Posner, Bugliosi, Mailer, O'Reilly, Manchester, Bishop, etc---who, by toting the official line, not only see their books come out via major publishing houses, but also see MASSIVE profits that we in this "industry" can only dream of, as well. In fact, the vast majority of those in this "industry" make little or NO money at all! It is HIS ilk that massively profits from their dubious tales. And, if that wasn't enough, Blaine has the temerity to not only have produced a television documentary on his book but now a full-fledged Hollywood movie, as well, slated for the 50th anniversary.

Blaine's goal (along with O'Reilly et al)? To convince the populace that Oswald acted alone and to move on.

They have failed and they will continue to fail.

The overwhelming opinion polls (and interest/ commentary on the internet) demonstrate the majority believes---knows---there WAS indeed a conspiracy. That will NEVER change, no matter how much fame and profit these men seek for themselves.

But I WILL give credit where credit is due. The "cult of personality" can be a powerful factor to overcome.

Slickly written and produced, these works CAN, albeit temporarily, cause one to ponder (and even, as was the case with Bugliosi's book, cause one to change his mind about the case!). I am on the record as stating (for about 6 months in 2007 only) that, although I STILL believed multiple conspiracies (PLURAL) were out to get Kennedy, Oswald beat them all to the punch; so powerful and persuasive was Bugliosi's tome at the time (apparently, ONLY to me at the time, but I digress!). WHY did Bugliosi sway me at the time? The reasons were varied- I was burned out on the case; I had personal life distractions; the powerful one-sided prosecutorial "brief" that wasn't (the book is massive- a cinder block, in fact); and, most of all, "the cult of personality": I was and still am a huge admirer of Vince Bugliosi- as a writer and former prosecutor. Henry Kissinger once famously said that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" and the power of celebrity (Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, former JFK Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine, Bugliosi, etc) can cause normally rationale people to think twice after reading an author of such stature.

However, if someone as well-read and learned on this case---myself---can "return to normalcy" and see the light, one can see how the vast majority of the public, not assassination scholars attuned to all the nuts and bolts of the case, would be hard-pressed to be swayed from their original core beliefs no matter WHO is writing the book.

So, try as they might, O'Reilly, Blaine, and their ilk will line their pockets handsomely but, when the dust settles, life will go on and the vast majority of the public will CONTINUE to believe there was a conspiracy.

In other words, they might not buy it (believe it), but they sure will BUY it. At the end of the day, perhaps that is all they cared about in the first place.

Beware the cult of personality.

Vince Palamara

Listening In: The Secret White House Recordings of John F. Kennedy

Listening In: The Secret White House Recordings of John F. Kennedy


JFK 'bugged' Oval Office

• From: The Times

• October 01, 2012 12:00AM

CAROLINE Kennedy was four years old when she wandered into the Oval Office in October 1962 to chat to her father, president John F. Kennedy. At the time he was preoccupied with the Cuban missile crisis and the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

Half a century later, his daughter's brief interruption can be heard on a set of Kennedy recordings that has once again thrust the US's most glamorous political family back into the spotlight.

Unbeknown to Caroline and all but a few of her father's closest aides, Kennedy had ordered the secret service to record all his telephone calls and Oval Office meetings. JFK amassed a huge archive of private recordings, many of which are to be made public for the first time.

Highlights from the tapes are being released with a book and CD set, Listening In: The Secret White House Recordings of John F. Kennedy, featuring a foreword by his daughter. She said last week he had wanted an "accurate record" of his conversations after disputes over who said what during an abortive CIA-backed invasion of Cuba shortly after he took office in 1961.



Caroline Kennedy said her father also intended to use the tapes to write his memoirs after he left office - a project that died with his assassination in Dallas in 1963. The tapes were removed from the White House by the Kennedy family and were eventually given to the US National Archive.

Early reports of the tapes' contents suggest they are low on scandal - there is no whispered flirting with Marilyn Monroe - but there are new details.

At one point JFK was appalled to learn that well-meaning military aides had built a maternity room at an airbase near his holiday home for Jackie, his then pregnant wife, in case she went into labour. The president had feared a PR debacle at a time when congress was squeezing the military budget and described the aide responsible as "a silly bastard" who should be posted to Alaska.

Lunar ambitions were ulterior. He just wanted to beat the Russians. "I'm not that interested in space," he said.

THE SUNDAY TIMES



According to Caroline Kennedy, JFK "installed secret Oval Office recording devices after the Bay of Pigs disaster so that he could have an accurate account of who said what, in case of any later disputes as to the exact nature of conversations." The full 265 hours of taped conversations have now been made available by the Kennedy Library. Listening In presents transcripts from more than 60 of these conversations and two CDs which carry the audio from 36 of them.



The true value of this package is the CD which allows the listener to eavesdrop on "a president being president" as described by editor Ted Widmer. He claims that this is the closest to a JFK autobiography as we can ever get. While the audio quality on some of the entries is weak, on others the voice of the President is hauntingly clear and evocative. And the range of the selections is as wide as can be imagined. We hear the President finish a conversation with his daughter to be briefed by the CIA on their discovery of offensive missiles in Cuba. He argues with Mississippi Governor Barnett about how to restore order during the integration of the University ("How can I remove him, Governor, when there's a riot in the street and he may step out of the building and something happen to him?") JFK gives his regards to Yugoslavia Marshal Tito and chews out his assistant defense secretary for publicity about a costly furniture purchase ("You just sank the air force budget! You're crazy up there! Are they crazy? That silly bastard with his picture next to the bed?") In one call, he briefs former President Herbert Hoover about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Hoover emerges from a different world in which he was chief executive in 1928 and opens by observing, "It seems to me these recent events are rather incredible." The tapes capture the Joint Chiefs complaining about those same Missile Crisis plans after the President has left the room. ("You're screwed, screwed, screwed. And, if some goddamn thing, some way, he could say, that they either do the son of a bitch and do it right, and quit friggin around.")



There is much to learn in these tapes. In one transcript, JFK repeatedly tells his science advisor and the heads of NASA that "the whole thrust of the Agency, in my opinion, is the lunar program." He goes as far as to advise that the moon landing must remain the top priority, "otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money, because I'm not that interested in space." Just 10 months later, however, another conversation shows that the President has fully galvanized NASA to pursue his goal. At that point, he can afford to be more reflective and to discuss if the manned moon landing is a good idea. This demonstrates JFKs transition from visionary leader to hard driving chief executive and, finally, self-critical manager.



In another tape, Kennedy dictates his reactions to the Saigon coup that deposed President Diem and his brother. He begins by criticizing himself for approving an initial communication that may have green-lighted the US role in the coup. JFK Jr enters to play with his father and at one point says, "Naughty, naughty Daddy." As his son exits, the President resumes his dictation by stating, "I was shocked by the death of Diem and Nhu." This kind of counterpoint seems far-fetched for a novel, let alone real life.



My only criticism is that many of the transcribed conversations are not included in the CDs, such as the NASA discussion cited above. I would have liked to receive all of them in audio form. The true value of this package is the tone and pace of the recorded audio conversations.



Caroline Kennedy refers to these transcriptions as a "legacy of strength in the face of conflict." Listening to the President talk calmly during the Missile Crisis that could have resulted in the death of a large percentage of the human race while hearing his fear that "by the end of next month, we're going to be toe-to-toe on Berlin, anyway" certainly supports her assessment. In any case, I found the recordings mesmerizing and instructive.



Listen to the CDs first. Hearing the actual conversation informs the written transcription in a way that makes other history seem colorless and barren. The President comes alive once again in these tapes. It is a fascinating and sometimes disconcerting listening experience.

Great new Clint Hill article

Great new Clint Hill article




http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/content.detail/id/569262/A-witness-to-history.html?nav=5010

Judyth Baker, author of "Me and Lee", endorses my work

Judyth Baker, author of "Me and Lee", endorses my work

"Your book documents the perfidy of Secret Service in their handling of JFK, and the book THE KENNEDY DETAIL, which you exposed, was a shameful cpover-up that almost blamed Kennedy for his own death. Your book sets down the truth for all to see. It's very important. That's what I fight for--the truth."

Blaine's book is boring

too much of which we already knew, September 22, 2012


By dennis (fort valley, va, United States) - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME) This review is from: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence (Paperback)

Not only does this book retell history, much of which can be found in History text books, the author seems to make comments that do not seem pertinent, at least events that have little to do with the job of Special Agents. The title is misleading. I didn't buy the book to read about the lives of Agents. If the book was titled "The impact of being a Presidential detail Secret Service Agent", the title would be more correct. The title intimates that we are going to get some personal details of a man who has been dead for 50 years. According to what I know, which may be incorrect, death and the passing of a century protects the writer from being sued, and could be of benefit to historians. It certainly does not violate any confidentiality or code that may have once be applicable. Nobody could still be working on November 22, 1963 as a Secret Service Agent, who currently works for the agency today. They are all private citizens.



I thought the text was just slightly above boring. Who besides myself, bought this book, for a more in depth personal view of Presidents that can not be found in scholastic History text books.



I was a second year student on campus, when I heard of the death of Kennedy. This book does nothing to inform me of anything more than I have learned in 50 years.

David Lifton comments on the Secret Service stand down issue

David Lifton comments on the Secret Service stand down issue

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17779

Vince,




You're doing a fine job. And you are correct--it doesn't matter which agent it was who "waved away" the agent clearly intending to board the JFK limousine as it left Love Field.



The body language in that event speaks for itself; and I remember being quite amazed when I was first shown it back in 1985.



Moreover, in view of the numerous people and media institutions who believed it was Rybka (and not Lawton), and the massive amount of research you have done, and the unique data base you have created, no apology is required.



When what happened at Love Field, is joined with the non-reaction of the White House Detail in Dealey Plaza, and the plentiful evidence of a car stop (or a serious "car slowdown," for those who cannot accept the idea that the Z film was altered) in Dealey Plaza, this body of evidence speaks for itself.



Let me remind anyone reading this thread what Gen. Godfrey McHugh, JFK's Air Force aide, told me when we spoke (at length) in November, 1967. I had called him mainly to inquire about events at Bethesda, but then the conversation veered over to the arrival at Love Field. McHugh said that after Air Force One arrived, and when the motorcade was forming, he was specifically requested NOT to ride in the front seat of the JFK limo, as was often his practice. I pressed him as hard as I could as to exactly who made the request, and he would not name the person--but from other remarks he made, I infer that it was Kenneth O'Donnell, who (himself) was passing on a Secret Service request. For the record: I don't think O'Donnell acted in bad faith; I DO think he may have been used to pass on an instruction from some Secret Service person, who didn't want to be directly "exposed" by personally making such a request.



My point: The direct request to McHugh, not to ride in the limo, when joined with the filmed behavior of shift leader Roberts, "waving away" another agent who was trying to hop aboard, and whose presence was clearly not desired, speaks for itself.



One final point: I want to congratulate you on another "first": I think your observation that Rybka's report (25 H 787) is undated--I stress UNdated--and that it was not written on Treasury Department stationary, AND that it did not bear the counter-signature of SAIC Gerlad Behn--all of this may turn out to be significant as more information becomes available. (Perhaps you can do a review of ALL the reports and let us know just how many SS reports are NOT on official stationary, and/or do NOT bear Behn's counter-signature. Very interesting, and thanks for that rather sharp-eyed observation.



Back then (circa 1963-1964) there was no guarantee that this whole affair would not "blow" and that such matters (and as to the chain of responsibility, who was in charge, who was "covering up," etc.) might --at that time--have had some legal significance.



Again, many thanks for all your hard work.



DSL

6/2/11 4:50 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA




..

"W. House ‘ho’ twist": Columbia Secret Service scandal update

White House staffers may be involved in the Colombian Secret Service sex scandal, it was reported last night.



Fox News Channel said it’s been told by “multiple’’ law-enforcement and congressional sources that two members of President Obama’s advance team checked hookers into their hotel, the Cartegena Hilton, before the presidential visit in April.



“Three US delegation members that stayed at the Hilton brought prostitutes back as overnight guests,’’ a high-ranking Secret Service official told Fox.



“One of them was ours [Secret Service], and the other two were White House staffers.’’



When the scandal broke, the administration denied that any of its staffers were involved.



A dozen Secret Service agents and another 12 members of the military were accused of bringing prostitutes to their rooms at another hotel in the city, the El Caribe. Eight of the presidential protectors were fired or resigned.



A report from the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General is expected to be released soon.


----------
Published: 8 hours ago


(Fox News) Federal law enforcement personnel and a congressional committee are anxiously awaiting an overdue inspector general’s report that they believe may reveal the involvement of two White House advance team members in the Secret Service prostitution scandal in Colombia earlier this year.



While much of the attention in the case has focused on the actions of Secret Service personnel, multiple law enforcement and congressional sources tell FoxNews.com that investigators also discovered two White House advance team members checked in prostitutes as overnight guests at a Cartagena hotel in the days before President Obama’s April 13 visit.



“Three U.S. delegation members that stayed at the Hilton brought prostitutes back as overnight guests. One of them was ours (Secret Service) and the other two were White House staffers,” a high-ranking Secret Service official told FoxNews.com. “We knew very early that White House staffers were involved.”




White House staffers 'DID bring Colombian hookers back to hotel where president later stayed'

By Daily Mail Reporter

PUBLISHED: 22:14 EST, 19 September 2012
UPDATED: 22:15 EST, 19 September 2012

Comments (2) Share

..A new report is likely to reveal that White House staffers were involved in the Colombian prostitution scandal, with two members of the president's advance team bringing hookers back to the hotel where he later stayed.



The revelation, if proven true, contradicts the White House's original assertion that none of its staffers had patronized prostitutes in advance of Barack Obama's vision to Cartagena for the Summit of the Americas in April.

The scandal ensnared 13 Secret Service agents, seven Army soldiers, two US Marines and two DEA agents -- all of whom were sent to the resort city to prepare security and communications the week before the president was sent to arrive.





Dania Suarez was the prostitute at the centre of the scandal that gripped the Secret Service after one member paid her only $28 instead of her standard $800





Exposed: The incident became public on April 12 when Miss Suarez argued with a Secret Service agent over her payment in a hallway of the Caribe Hotel, pictured

Until now, the White House has avoided embarrassment in the scandal and claimed none of its own advance team had participated in the hard-partying or cavorting with sex workers that sullied the name of the Secret Service.



However, Fox News reports that an internal investigation by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General is likely to conclude two White House staffers picked up hookers and brought them back to the Cartagena Hilton where the president later stayed.





More...•Speaking to the 47%: The $105,000 champagne tower featured at Obama fundraiser hosted by Jay-Z and Beyonce

•Revealed: Ringleader behind 'al-Qaeda attack that killed U.S. ambassador was former Guantanamo inmate handed over to Libya by America'



The military personnel and all but one of the Secret Service agents implicated in the scandal had been staying at the Hotel Caribe -- a separate hotel.



A Secret Service official told Fox News: 'Three US delegation members that stayed at the Hilton brought prostitutes back as overnight guests. One of them was ours and the other two were White House staffers. We knew very early that White House staffers were involved.'





Flirtatious: Bikini-clad working girl Dania Suarez is at the centre of the Secret Service prostitution scandal



U.S. President Barack Obama walks to his limousine alongside Secret Service agents as he arrives at Norfolk Airport in Virginia. He was reported to be furious with the agency that provides him with protection.



Some in the Secret Service are beginning to worry that the report, which could be released as early as this week, has been whitewashed to remove or downplay the involvement of anyone working in the president's offices.



Two senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, sent a letter to the inspector general demanding to know the status of the report.

They also want to know whether earlier drafts of the report were changed after they were reviewed by the Secret Service or the Department of Homeland Security.



A dozen Secret Service officers, agents and supervisors were implicated in the Colombia scandal. Eight have been forced out of the agency, three were cleared of serious misconduct and at least two employees are fighting to get their jobs back.

Controversial: Suárez leaped into notoriety after she provoked an incident at the Caribe Hotel with a Secret Service agent who refused to pay her the agreed price for a night of sex



Revelations: Miss Suarez spoke to a Colombian radio station about the scandal in May

The misconduct became public after a dispute over payment between a Secret Service agent and a prostitute at a Cartagena hotel on April 12.



All the alleged activities took place before Obama arrived in Cartagena for meetings with 33 other regional leaders, but the scandal overshadowed his visit.

Eventually, the prostitute at the centre of the scandal was revealed to be a 24-year-old woman called Dania Suarez.

Speaking on Spanish television in May she said the men were 'stupid brutes' and drinking vodka 'like it was water' in a local bar.



One of the men, identified as Arthur Huntington, would not pay the $800 he initially agreed to pay Miss Suarez.