4 thoughts on “Why Won’t Max Boot Talk About the Substance of ‘JFK Revisited’?”

  1. The Warren Report devotes only one page out of nearly 900 to the autopsy, and only two sentences to the path of the bullet (really ‘bullets’ in my opinion) inside President Kennedy’s skull. As such, if all Max Boot has ever read is the Warren Report, he probably thinks he is devoting the correct proportion of attention to the subject, according to Establishment preferences. Boot is, above all, an agent of the Establishment. For Boot, who never served in the military, to attack the veteran Oliver Stone so vociferously for criticizing the national-security state should be off-putting to any decent person. It is doubtful Boot has ever seen a US military intervention he didn’t like, and it was disturbing to see how quickly Boot was welcomed to The Washington Post as a columnist after deciding he didn’t like the “isolationism” of Donald Trump.

    Is it not true, however, that most of the Kennedy family still guards access to the complete set of autopsy photos? This doesn’t help matters. Those who have read more than the Warren Report account of the autopsy can only counter the likes of Max Boot with testimony to HSCA and ARRB. Robert Knudsen said he remembered photos showing the probes in Kennedy’s wounds, but if no one else ever gets to see them, people like Max Boot enjoy an unfair advantage in their attacks on dissenters – bolstered by legacy media.

  2. I read and enjoyed your review of the Stone film in Counter Punch (12/31/21).
    I also agree with your criticism of Stone’s contention that a massive plot was underway on 11/22/63, involving many officers from many federal agencies.
    I agree with your citation of former CIA agent Rolf Mowatt-Larsen, who thinks the plot in this case probably involved 4 or 5 persons with actionable knowledge, possibly including Mr. Joannides in Miami.
    What I suspect, based on all the evidence adduced so far, is that a small “rogue” group of action officers performed the hit. Oswald was part of the group, although it is uncertain whether he was an active shooter or, as he said, “a patsy.” As you have pointed out, his activities were closely followed by high ranking CIA officials, including OPS directors.
    His activities in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 are well documented, including “double agent” activity witnessed by Odio, Bannister, Vecciana, “El Mexicano,”( the guy who drove him to Mexico City), and the Cuban bartender in New Orleans whom you have mentioned, who saw him consorting with CIA/FBI agents at his bar.
    What I suspect, following Mowartt-Larsen’s theory (and Hunt and Phillips, who said the same thing) is that LHO was a pawn who they planned to use in some larger scheme .
    When the assassination occurred, and Joannides released the incriminating info to the press, the CIA quickly realized that LHO was one of their guys and had to be separated from the agency at al costs. They still operate from that motive, it would appear.
    As Nixon so clearly demonstrated, the cover up can be worse than the crime. And, make no mistake, we are still in the midst of a cover up.

  3. Clarence Carlson

    Without necessarily commenting on the whole “regime change” topic I do agree that there is much about the president’s autopsy that I’ve never been able to resolve. Much has written, in granular detail, about the deficiencies of the examination. But even the view from 30,000 feet shows shows, for lack of a better word, weirdness.

    Many people don’t realize that Dr Earl Rose, the Dallas County medical examiner was recognized as a very competent forensic pathologist. One would think that special agents of the various federal agencies, being law enforcement personnel, would have desired a thorough and well performed autopsy to bring to the eventual trial of any assassin(s). They knew that the crime would have to be tried by the State of Texas. That they opted for the minor leagues is an unresolved puzzle to me. The resulting examination seems to offer more questions than answers.

  4. That the brain of the deceased was lost in the autopsy says a lot and very bad about the person who carried it out.
    In short: Neither will they uncover all the other secret files next year. The cover-up institution will never regain honesty.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top