Postcards from Ecotopia

old new lefty

old new lefty
alienation, discontent
September 16
Making trouble whenever possible
virgin novelist, middle school teacher for the morally handicapped, government bureaucrat, most famous unknown photographer in LA, PhD dropout, coat hanger sorter, presidential campaign worker, sewer worker, and retired guy -- but not in that order.


Old new lefty's Links

No links in this category.
FEBRUARY 17, 2011 10:36PM

A Very Disturbing Book

Rate: 21 Flag

To some extent, the conservatives are right.  The 1950s can be seen as a more innocent time, and certainly part of the reason for nostalgia for those years was that it was before 1963 when everything changed.  Anyone in my age cohort has to be interested in the events surrounding Dallas in November of that year.  Anyone who's old enough to remember those events, watching the TV set continuously from November 22nd to November 25th in 1963 will remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when it was announced that John F. Kennedy had been felled by an assassin's bullets.

 In the 1960s, Mark Lane and Jim Garrison attempted to get at the truth surrounding the assassination, but their efforts were turned into a media circus and there were plenty of authoritative voices who vigorously defended the results of the Warren Commission's assertions that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of the president.  In 1977, the House of Representatives convened a subcommittee on the assassination and concluded that a conspiracy did exist behind JFK's death, and that the most likely suspects were the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans.  In my examination of the evidence, I had to agree with this assessment, and I vigorously disagreed with the theories put forward by people like Sherman Skolnick and Oliver Stone that a much broader and deeper conspiracy existed.  The Mafia-Cuban theory was simpler, and a broader conspiracy theory was much more complicated.

The fly in the ointment to even a limited conspiracy theory has been put forward very well by James W. Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable:  Why he died and why it matters.  This book published in 2009 and 2010 takes advantage of a whole host of eyewitnesses to various pieces of the jigsaw puzzle who were deathly afraid that they would quickly "commit suicide" if they revealed what they saw and what they knew about the events of Dallas.  And in fact, mysterious deaths occurred to witnesses as late as 1995 -- a full 32 years after the crime of the century!

There are many, many people that Mr. Douglass has tracked down who have fleshed out most of the details behind the asssassination, and it becomes quite clear that elements of the CIA and military had an active role in not only suppressing evidence but in actually aiding the actual assassins well before November 22nd. While Douglass adds some substantial pieces to the puzzle of November 22nd, oddly enough, the most significant findings for me were of the events of November 2nd, twenty days before the assassination.

November 2nd, 1963 was the date that President Ngo Dihn Diem of Vietnam was assassinated in a military coup.  Douglass shows how Kennedy had been sandbagged both by his closest advisors as well as by the CIA and US Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.  JFK became adamantly opposed to American involvement in Vietnam, but he felt hogtied about acting on this before the 1964 election.  And JFK struggled valiantly to prevent the assassination of Diem, but the CIA and Ambassador Lodge undermined the President's policies.

More particular to the JFK assassination was the fact that the CIA prevented alarm bells from going off in the FBI when it was learned that a Lee Harvey Oswald was venturing to Mexico City to meet with staff from the Cuban and Soviet Embassies.  In case you didn't know, "Oswald" in Mexico had no resemblance to the real Lee Oswald, who was still in Dallas at the time.  In fact, Douglass presents ample documentation of Oswald twins doing completely different things at the same time throughout late 1963.  The "false Oswald" appears to have done everything to draw attention to himself and his plans to kill JFK, and he did so multiple times.  But the CIA kibosh on focusing major law enforcement attention on the real Oswald shows at least complicity on the part of the agency.

 If this was the only evidence of the falsity of the Warren Commission reports alone, this would be damning evidence of a US cover-up.  Unfortunately, there's much stronger and worse evidence of parts of the government's active attempt to kill of the President by examining the events surrounding the attempted assassination of JFK in Chicago on November 2nd, 1963.

JFK was faced with multiple threats in Chicago when he was supposed to go to an Army-Navy football game at Soldier Field.  First of all, there was a four man hit squad of snipers  with high powered rifles who had rented a room from a lady who saw their weapons stockpile, along with a map of the President's parade route and literature from the John Birch Society.  Secret Service agents actually captured two of the snipers, while the other two got away.  In addition, authorities were also alerted to the intents of one Thomas Arthur Vallee, a schitzophrenic former Marine and gun nut who just happened to have a job at a lithography plant right alongside the proposed parade route for the President.  And like Dallas, the route required that the presidential car slow down below 45mph as recommended by Secret Service security as it passed underneath Vallee's window at work.

Here things get more and more sinister.  While the Secret Service held the two snipers, their names were never revealed and their disposition after their arrest and interviews with Chicago Secret Servicemen was never known.  Did the government just kill them or did they let them go?  There are no answers to this.  And certainly the other two snipers were never apprehended.  A request from conspiracy researchers into the material from the Chicago Secret Service office surrounding that incident appears to have made the Secret Service actually burn all of the Chicago documents after the request was made in 1995!

Thomas Vallee was charged with an attempt to assassinate the President in December, 1963.  I know, because I lived in Chicago at the time and I remember this incident.  What I didn't know is that Vallee had virtually the same profile of military service as Lee Oswald.  And when he was arrested on November 2nd, he was driving a car with New York plates  belonging to an intelligence agency.

Even more damning was the case of Abraham Bolden, a Chicago Secret Service agent who saw what took place in the office where he worked.  The Special Agent in Charge of the Chicago office took the unusual step of collecting all material related to November 2nd, going so far as to confiscate agents' notebooks and ordering no written reports on this except for what he compiled.  And all material was sent off to Washington, DC where it remained until it was burned in 1995.

When Bolden tried to make waves, questioning the events of November 2nd, he was first offered a super-secret job with the IRS to investigate members of Congress.  On this job it would be necessary for him to not only assume a completely new identity, but his birth certificate would have to be destroyed.  Bolden thought at the time this was a plan to eliminate him, and later when he attempted to make contact with the Warren Commission, he was immediately arrested on trumped up charges of collaborating with a counterfieter.  He was railroaded through two trials, and sentenced to a federal prison where he was immediately sent to a psychiatric ward where his handllers attempted to destroy his mind.  Only with the rapid intervention of his wife and friends was he able to avoid disappearing along with all of the other inconvenient witnesses to the JFK assassination who met untimely or mysterious deaths.

Towards the end of the book, we learn of how the "false Oswald"  and a Cuban compatriot was spirited out of Dallas on a CIA plane to Roswell, New Mexico, thus cementing the CIA connection to JFK's assassination in yet one more way.  But more importantly, Douglass lays out how JFK repeatedly alienated the CIA and the military industrial complex as he moved away from the Cold War mentality of Berlin and the Cuban Missle Crisis and towards a real rapproachment with the Soviet Union for peace.  Douglass makes it clear that many members of the MIC were urging Kennedy to authorize a first strike of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union, as delay in doing so would allow the Russians to obtain enough weaponry to respond in kind with nukes towards America.

The military powers that be, in combination with the CIA and defense contractors had a vested interest in promoting the Vietnam War as much as they possibly could.  And JFK's plans to actually withdraw from Vietnam ASAP appear to be the motivation for the conspirators to kill in Dallas.  When you examine the CIA infiltration of Vietnam in 1963, you will find that it's totally equivalent to the CIA infiltration of Afghanistan.  And this puts current events into perhaps a different light.

Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward gives a very detailed account of how the 44th POTUS was rolled by the Defense Department and CIA.  Rather than showing the kind of courage that JFK demonstrated in his last days on Earth, Woodward gives a picture of a president who was deeply conflicted about the prosecution of a war, but who nevertheless went along with the program.  And the results are clear.

While the Republicans today scream about how they want to eliminate $100B from the current budget immediately, and while we see President Obama propose cuts in heating allowances for poor people in a New England winter, it's clear to me that it would be remarkably easy to eliminate this much money from the federal deficit if we only got out of Afghanistan.  Instead, we see a war that is a festering sore on the economy and the entire Middle East, a war where graft and corruption are not only standard operating procedure but an integral part of doing anything in that part of the world, a war that may well yet succeed in bringing down the American Empire just as much as war there brought down the Soviet and British Empires.  And yet nothing is done.

Is it possible that President Obama is aware of the fate that befell JFK because of his opposition to the war in Vietnam?  The Douglass book certainly provides this as a  possible motive for Obama's personal behavior in current events.

Your tags:


Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:


Type your comment below:
And of course, the father of the Koch brothers funded the John Birch Society back then, and the brothers fund the JBS today in addition to the Tea Party.
Any person of integrity who then stands up for that integrity knows he will be assassinated. Need only listen to MLK's last speech to know that. But the time of men like that has passed and it's the corrupt who've completely taken over.

It's funny people think they have an actual future in that.
That's what I think, too. Obama knows that he can do more alive than dead. Even if it's much less than I, or even he, would like. Stay alive, Mr. Obama.
Fascinating account ONL. Dunno if they hand out here but there's a large number of Kennedy assassination students (Posner for one) who basically accept the Warren Commission findings. I lean to the conspiracy theory and Mafia + Cubans + CIA seems as likely as any other.

The Chicago November 2 stuff is brand new to me. I remember once when a few of us were playing a game where you had to pick someone dead who would answer anything you asked, my choice was Allan Dulles to explain everything he knew that was really behind the assassination. We'll go to our graves not knowing for sure.
The president is the figurehead that we, the great unwashed public, are permitted to have so as to make us think that we actually have some input into what will be done about anything and who and when it will be done. Obama can no more change things that the power elite don't want changed than he can walk on water.

"Der Shrub", not being a man of honour, willingly played along. All this honourable president can do now is keep a stiff upper lip and try to endure.

America, Achmerika, what have you become.......?!

Does the author at least accept that Oswald was the shooter, and that no evidence exists for any other shooters? If not, I'd have to say his credibility is already in tatters. That one of his star witnesses ended up in a psychic ward hardly strengthens his case, either.
I already knew most of this and have long felt that there was a connection to Obama's failure to act on things we were quite certain that he would, such as closing Gitmo.

I sincerely believe that any President who stands up to the the people actually in charge will meet the same fate a JFK. It's all pretty obvious to anyone willing to look.

Shrub was always just a shill.
The capacity of americans to NOT believe the truth canNOT be underestimated.

I am Canadian. Being outside your troubled country sometimes allows me to see things that many of you might be too close to it to see.

Have any of you noticed that, starting with JFK, every president you've had, in his first year in that high office, has taken on a disturbed, haunted look? Then not been able to keep his electoral promises and seemed to lose heart in what he is doing. (Except Shrubsie, who tried to become the class clown and world emperor all at the same time - with remarkable success in the clown department and dismal failure at the emperor business .)

It is as though, once elected, some horrible information is given to them that quite knocks the stuffing out of them. At 70 years of age, this has been observed, first hand, by me for a good while.

One can see that Obama is no different from his predecessors; he looks 10 or 15 years older than he did when elected. His despair is evident in his posture and attitude.

I wonder why?

Obambi (and that's the only name I'm going to use from now on) has only himself to blame. He's weaker than Carter, and refuses to fight a good fight for the ideals he claims to hold. He could be 666.
Fascinating post, ONL. There is only so much information that we, the American populace, are privy to. Anyone who believes that the President has ultimate power is sadly misinformed. Abrawang is right - we'll all go to our graves not knowing the "real" truth - not only about the JFK assassination, but about the underpinnings of our government and about the powers-that-be that actually steer our government and our country.
ONL ... As always, you've written an excellent piece that is both well structured and thought provoking. I thank you for that. Here's my take ... on it and other comments:

Overall, the piece seems to suggest that there are forces out there ... Military,-Industrial, financial ... that are more powerful than the President; that if so, when the president seeks to move in a direction other than those supported by those forces, the forces will take action to correct that problem ... possibly using assassination; even having the ability to do it with the help of governmental agencies like the CIA, even the Secret Service. I've seen other evidence that would suggest this, too.

But here's the part I don't get. If all of this is so, then what is it about our Presidents … any of them … that in the face of these theories, anyone thinks he/she should ignore the consequence to advance an agenda?

What is it about (some of) us that believe it is his job … and his, alone … to do so? We need to get real. Presidential candidates are NOT running for the position of Jesus Christ. They are NOT running for martyrdom. They are not running to be Don Quixote. They rum to advance ideas that they believe reflect the direction this nation should be going. They offer up the ideas and themselves as leaders. Let me repeat: leaders. The word, alone, suggests followers … followers who agree, who support and who WILL STAND SIDE BY SIDE with the leader in the crusade. If you want a voice, you better be prepared to be a player. There is no space for spectators in a democracy.

Most of the presidents we’ve had since Kennedy have been … at the very least … complicit in the advancement of a Military-Industrial economy. Most have subscribed to us meddling in the affairs of others; to acting as the self-appointed police force of the world.

When you get a guy who has continuously expounded that we change that direction … and refocus on our own needs … get the f**k behind him, and let the a-holes who are the real culprit know their time is over. It is a group effort; no the work of one man!

But that won’t happen. Because for some reason unknown to me the demo-liberal side of this nation would rather piss and moan about what’s not happening then to take a stand with what can (realistically) happen.

For leaders to effect change,they need to know they have the ACTIVE support of those for wehom they are effecting that change.

So while you downplay Obama as weak to people like me … a Republican who jumped over to support his goals … the Rep-Conservative … Military-Industrial society … have been busy convincing the people who are truly disenfranchised into believing that they, the MI, hold the answer … while they serve the “Unknowing” more and more tea.

ONL … sorry for the rant. You do great work. But, Jesus I get miffed every time I see a liberal knock the one damn chance they will have in this decade, mayve this century, of seeing positive social change. They keep wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water. It scares the hell out of me.

But, my friend, {{{R10}}} to you. Douglass' conclusion seems sound, and your work about it super!
You and I are usually in agreement, but this time around, you have jumped the shark. Yes, there are questions about the JFK assassination, and yes there are seeming impossibilities -- like the single-bullet theory -- in the official explanation. However, several exhaustive recreations have proven it was indeed possible for a single bullet to have done what it is alleged to have done.

On the other side of the ledger, in half-a-century of trying, conspiracy theorists have yet to provide any more than speculation to support their claims. The best they've been able to come up with is a scratchy dictabelt tape that supposedly recorded sounds coming from a mic accidentally left open by a motorcycle cop, who might have been in proximity to the limo.

That "evidence" was the centerpiece of the ’77 Congressional hearings, and audio engineers using the limited technology available at the time, boldly proclaimed the tape provided “slam dunk” [sarcasm mine] evidence of four gunshots.

Unfortunately for those experts – and for conspiracy theorists – digital improvements in audio technology have cast considerable doubt on that conclusion. Most experts today agree the tape does not provide evidence of four gunshots, and in any case, a compilation of films and photos taken on that day, prove the motorcycle cop in question was not in the immediate vicinity of the limo at the time the shots were fired.

So – what are conspiracy theorists left with? Not much – so now, as in this book you mention, they resort to fantastical plots to bump off witnesses. You know -- the same sort of shit conspiracists pulled on the Clinton’s, who everyone knows (wrongly) had Vince Foster murdered – apparently (it’s alleged) because he knew too much about Whitewater.

But of course, logic is wasted on those whose ideas about the Kennedy assassination are “informed” by Oliver Stone’s pathetic movie JFK. Sad to say, it’s Once Upon A Time time in America, a land where perception has become reality. And in this sorry land, the paranoid delusions of gay-bashing Jim Garrison have become reality – thanks to Oliver Stone and Americans laziness.
Why do people accept such nonsense without questioning it? I dunno – why do people listen to Beck or Rush or Bachmann and accept their idiocy without question?
To be fair, there is a reason people gravitate toward conspiracy theories – tho it’s not a good reason. In some perverse twist of human thinking, it’s much more comforting to believe that sinister forces are responsible for such acts than that one crazed gunman can change the world – as Oswald most certainly did.
We will never know the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination because no one – then or now – knew/knows the whole truth. But if you want to inform yourself, read Vincent Bugolosi’s Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
As far as the JFK assassination goes, much of the material that Douglass presents is new information, unavailable until now because of fear. There's more than one death bed confession about what transpired in 1963, and Douglass is an impeccable historian and documenter.

As far as the President and the military-industrial complex, to me, one of the most important tasks awaiting this republic is the dismantling of the military-industrial complex so that those trillions of dollars that are wasted can in fact be applied to productive uses that will benefit all Americans and the planet as well.

Given the current economic challenges that we're facing, it's safe to say that President Obama has a full dinner plate, and from a policy perspective, there are a lot of different conflicting sets of advice that he should follow. But his timidity on Afghanistan is appalling to me, as it is one thing that is very responsible for our economic decline, and if we get out, we can go a long way towards solving our problems.

But on a sleepy day, the Department of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse --oops! I mean, the Defense Department is a snarling junk yard dog. And on a bad day, Douglass has demonstrated that it is an animal that will sneak into your bed while you're sleeping and kill you dead.

And I think, as a realistic politician, Obama knows that, which is one of the reasons why he refuses to deal with the gaping maw of the DOD, except to give them everything they want.
I'm an old geezer like SkyPixie and he nailed it. After Obama's first big "briefing" you could see the change. As for Dallas, the conspiracy theories proliferate but I can say this: In the 1960's I too owned that shitty piece of crap Carcano Italian WWII rifle and it's bolt action was a sloppy balky POS. I have never believed that mail order gun did the deed by itself.
Hat tip to Rod Emmons. Couldn't agree more.

Interesting stuff, Lefty. I fear most of the "truth" of that faithful day and what lead up to it are lost in the sands of time. The important thing is to always be open to new possibilities....

I tried to solve the JFK assasination when I was 12 years old. I did a drawing of Dealy Plaza and used different colored pencils to indicate the directions of the shots fired. Ultimatly, I concluded that someone definetly shot the President.
I disagree with those who find fault with you "imagining" more than one gunman. The most oft quoted intelligent sort who still purports this theory, Vincent Bugliosi, has spent his life as a prosecutor, i.e., has professionally been trained and practiced at the art of ignoring evidence and self-propmoting a particular position in order to win.
I too, along with others have seen the immense change shortly after election, in the faces and personage of those elected POTUS, and recall Clinton quitetly speaking about it only once. It's not wacky to still believe in the laws of physics and to disbelieve some that may say otherwise.
Good post.

Beginning in the mid-70s, when I became interested in this subject, I read all the core classics of the Kennedy conspiracy genre - all of Mark Lane's books, Garrison's, David Lifton, etc., saw the documentary Rush to Judgement, the dramatised films - Executive Action, JFK - etc. Based on only their selection and interpretation of the case, I believed Oswald was the innocent victim of the conspiracy responsible for JFK's murder.

After seeing Stone's JFK, I began reading about Jim Garrison and his trial of Clay Shaw. I read Garrison's own books, but also Epstein's Counterplot and Kirkpatrick's American Grotesque. I also read the summary volume of the Warren Commission for the first time. I spent hours on CompuServe's JFK assassination forum reading and writing messages.

It didn't take me very long to completely change my conclusion of the case. There is absoluely no credible evidence that anyone beside Oswald killed Kennedy.

I'm sure Douglass's book may seem persuasive, if you are predisposed to believe his premises, and have never read anything else about this case or have only read other pro-conspiracy treatises.
I just did a bit of research on the evidence Douglass puts forth to support his conclusion, and found that Douglass revives the wholly discredited myth that a photograph taken by James Altgens purportedly shows Oswald standing on the steps of the front entrance of the Texas School Book Depository at the time when Kennedy's limousine goes past it.

The man shown in the photograph is Billy Nolan Lovelady, an employee of the Book Depository. Lovelady identified himself in the photo, as did his fellow employees who were with him on the steps that afternoon as they watched the presidential motorcade.

Mark Lane repeated the fiction in his book, Rush to Judgement, and the documentary based on the book several years later, even after the matter had been settled and it was proven that it was Lovelady, not Oswald, on the steps.

Mark Lane is not a reputable source on the subject of the assassination of JFK. Now, Mr. Douglass is either naive and credulous in relying on sources such as Lane without independently investigating their claims because it appears to confirm a preexisting belief, or a cynical opportunist.

In either case, his book is not worth serious consideration.
Mr Winkler is quite adamant in assuming that the Douglass book has no validity. He mentions that someone supposedly took a photograph of Oswald in front of the school depository building, and that somehow this is a crucial piece of evidence debunking a conspiracy theory.

I can assure you that I closely read the Douglass book, and I do not even recall any mention of what Mr. Winkler is talking about. Even if such a thing was mentioned, it was not a critical piece of evidence because of the wealth of detail that Mr. Douglass has supplied.

And I personally have a real problem with many JFK conspiracy nuts, and I would include Mark Lane and Sherman Skolnick in that category. Mr. Douglass is in my opinion a very reasonable presenter of information.
I don't know how anyone on the left or center-left can romanticize the 1950s when we had McCarthyism and the "red scare" (as well as the "lavender scare") during that decade.

Just sayin'...
So the argument here is that it's all about money? That's why we're staying? In other words, Afghanistan is essentially a gigantic money laundering operation for guys in the military-industrial complex and related corporations like Haliburton?

Have those guys all got that much juice?
Robert, Red scare, hell! They had real segregation back then. No, that's not what anyone should be nostalgic about. But I do wish that the current crop of politicians had more civility, respect, and genuine bipartisanship in their entire bodies than what the giants of the House and Senate had back then. In the 50s, we had Sam Rayburn, Mike Mansfield, and William Fulbright. This year we have John Boehner, and Michelle Bachman. You get my drift.

And kosher, I deeply believe that the entire Afghanistan war is nothing but a big slush fund for the defense contractors and nothing more. When you could pay every Al Queda over there $100M each if they just stopped fighting, and it would be cheaper than the war we're waging now, and everyone knows that it's impossible to win, and if we had ten times more soldiers over there we still couldn't win, and the war will go on at least until 2014, what do you think?
I personally believe that some humans look like humans but are not human at all lefty. That being said, I don't think any president can change much of what this country has set in stone: The multiheaded monster gorgon that is bringing changes to our world by changing us all into little more than wage slaves for the corporations.
Does that have any bearing on this book?? I believe so. JFK wanted to do things differently. He got killed for his wants. No matter whose bullets did the trick. Is the current president in danger from these subhumans?? I draw some good conclusions that he is. Can he bring real change to anything?? You be the judge.
This is as loopy as a like-minded blog by rw some time ago. If anyone here has an interest in learning about JFK's murder I suggest they read THE DEATH OF A PRESIDENT, William Manchester, written at the behest of Jackie Kennedy, so completely researched the Warren Commission used some of Manchester's research.

As for the Army-Navy game JFK was going to in Chicago...? What nonsense. The 1926 Army Navy game was the first sporting event held at Soldier Field. No Army-Navy games played there since. The 1963 game was played, as usual, in Philly, delayed a week by the assassination. Kennedy was not going to Chicago; there was no Chicgago game, no snipers, no arrests, no cover-up (although because the cover-up was so flawlessly executed, I can't "prove" that). Good grief. What's scarier than the blog are some of the comments--Shiela's and markinjapan's. Mr. winkler's comments are spot on; this is nutz. Oliver Stone endorsed the Douglas book, nuff said.
Bad Scot threw me for a loop, as I remember thinking that it was a shame that Kennedy missed going to Soldier Field in 1963. He was going to Chicago in 1962, but he cancelled the trip because the Cuban Missle Crisis was brewing. And I remember Thomas Arthur Vallee being written up in the Chicago papers as attempting to kill the president.

So, if Douglass is wrong about the Chicago trip that Kennedy was going to take, then he's probably wrong about everything.

To make a long story short, I will refer you to footnote #132, in Chapter 5 of the Douglass book.

"1,300 Policeman to Guard Routes of Kennedy Here." Chicago Sun Times, November 1, 1963
As a slush fund, I'm afraid you're right.
The more I know, the more cynical I get.

OK, here's an update. Kennedy was due in chicago for the Army-AIR FORCE game, not NAVY. Did author Douglas (only one "s") make that error in his book? If so, that's a big boo boo. Kennedy did cancel the trip, and apparently the nut job Vallee was arrested, but any documents on the so-called Cuban assassination team conveniently disappeared (or never existed). Bolden told ABC news in 2007 that there was ONE team of two Cubans, not two. Anyway, agent Bolden was indeed sentenced to six years in federal prison for taking a bribe from a counterfeiter. That, in my book, reduces Bolden's worth as a "witness" to nil. If the conspiritors arranged for so many "suicides" among people who knew too much, why was Bolden spared? Is that Sun Times footnote Mr. Douglas inserted the only footnote for those days? Does he document anything related to the Cuban hit squad, or is it just Bolden's word we're expected to believe? Mr. Douglas is apparently a nice man and peace advocate, but not a historian. He (not you) is loopy.
This was is the final undoing of the American Empire, and I agree with you that Obama has been "rolled." Nothing has changed here in this country, it is the same as it was when founded. That will never change.
Opps. It is Douglass, two "s"; ABC mispelled the name on its own web site as did one Amazon feed. The joy of computing.
Thanks to Bad Scot for uncovering a minor error in Douglass' book.

According to the previous footnote in Douglass' book, the definitive piece of information on the Chicago hit came from a journalist by the name of Edwin Black who wrote an article entitled, " The Plot to Kill JFK in Chicago November 2, 1963" in the November 1975 edition of the Chicago Independent magazine. Douglass found a copy of this extremely obscure publication in the basement of the University of Chicago library. Black spent eight months interviewing witnesses and reading government documents. Black is the author of The Transfer Agreement, IBM and the Holocaust, and War Against the Weak.

In addition, Black mentioned an unnamed Secret Service agent, whom Douglass later interviewed by the name of Abraham Bolden, who served both in the Kennedy White House and in the Chicago office of the Secret Service at the time of the assassination attempt.

There is a whole raft of documented detail on Bolden independent of the author's repeated interviews with the man, including Bolden's autobiography.

And Douglass cites multiple FBI, Secret Service and other documents to the curious case of Thomas Arthur Vallee.

The most interesting thing about the Chicago case was that in 1995, when the Assassination Research Bureau (admittedly a loopy collection) requested historical information on the Secret Service's handling of the events surrounding November, 2 all of the files on the case were burned AFTER the request. The Secret Service apologized to them, and offered to open up more records to them from different time periods after the fact. This is all documented in Douglass' book.
I also lived in Chicago in 1963.
I lived in the western suberb of Broadview.
I was at work on "the" day.
I will always remember everything a clearly as if it was yesterday, etc.
I remember the feelings and most of what esle took place as a result of the assassination.
I remember how majorly cinflicting it was about sucj things as whether the NFL should play its games the following Sunday and a raft of other saide issues.
Most of all, I remember the sadness and disappointment of that day and the following days.

As for who actually pulled the trigger or TRIGGERS, I looked at this over the years from the standpoint of being a lifelong gun owner and a very good shooter.
I've owned a lot of different guns which operate differently one from the other.
I've owned, pumps, bolt action, automatic(what the unknowing call semi-automatic), single shot and pistols.
I am a good shooter.
I sometimes go to the range just for fun.
I will tell you right out that the claims of the "lone guman" are bullshit.
I knew a couple of guys in the service that could shoot rings around me and, they admitted that they couldn't have done this.
Add to this the "pristine/maguic bullet" that somehow "apperaed" out of nowhere on the gurney and I'm reaching for my boots.

It only required reasonable thought to realize how far reaching the control of the MIC is and has been since WWII.
Even though our greatest generation was made up of the individuals in uniform and pounding the ground, WWII was the opportunity of a lifetime for the MIC to hit its stride and STAY there.
Got post, ONL.
I highly commend your review of this vitally important book. I have a couple of other complementary books that help fill in other details and are in substantial agreement with Douglass' book. They are, "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" (actually five volumes - pub 2010) by Douglas P. Horne - Chief Analyst for Military Records, Assassination Records Review Board, and "LBJ - The Mastermind of JFK's Assassination" by Phillip F. Nelson (pub 2010). These three books together weave a compelling account that is extensively documented with all of their sources and evidence, much that has surfaced because of the actions of the Assassination Records Review Board as mandated by the congressional "JFK Records Act". Read these three authors (7 books) and your view of the US establishment, government, and various vested interests will never be the same again!
The strongest evidence against the government is the incompetence of their own work and the fact that there are so many contradictory versions. This includes primarily the Warren report, The Clay Shaw trial transcripts and the House Select Committee Report on assassinations. All of these are available free on line for those who are interested. Thi9s is more than enough to add credibility to some, not all of course but some of the conspiracy theories.