Is Your Trainer Asking You These Questions?

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:31:44 -0600, the Moderator wrote:

"MU" wrote in message
.. .
If not, and if he/she is not getting a recent medical history, dump them.
Mine are more extensive than this, the training interview last at least
one
hour and can often involve spouses, family members, input from physicians,
etc.

snip

Not that I would want a personal trainer, but I would prefer a personal
trainer who was not a control freak.

Then you would get what is out there. Semi-literate cheerleaders for the
most part.

an editor at Random House, one Bob
Loomis, got in contact with him and promised him cooperation from
the CIA with the book. This explains how Posner got access to KGB
turncoat Yuri Nosenko, who was put on a CIA retainer in the late
seventies. At the time of Posner-mania, Alan Houston wrote Mr.

Loomis, who also edited the Posner book. In a reply dated
10/27/93, Loomis revealed much about himself:
I have no doubt that you really believe what you are saying, but
I must tell you that your letter is one of the best indications
I've seen yet as to why the American public has been misled by
ridiculous conspiracy theories.

You have proved nothing insofar as I can see, except for the fact
that you simply can't see the truth of the situation. My feeling
is that it is you and others like you who have perverted the
historical record and, in an inexcusable way, pardoned the
murderer.

Readers of Probe know that Loomis is not a new pal of the CIA. In
our Watergate issue (Vol. 3#2), we wrote about the long,
controversial career of journalist James Phelan, a strong
supporter of the Warren Commission and harsh critic of Jim
Garrison and his "wacky conspiracy theories." Phelan always
strongly denied he was compromised in any way. Even when
confronted with documents showing connections to government
agencies (like the FBI) he still denied it. When Phelan did his
book on Howard Hughes-which completely whitewashed the ties of
the eccentric billionaire to the CIA-that "instant" book was a
top secret p

an editor at Random House, one Bob
Loomis, got in contact with him and promised him cooperation from
the CIA with the book. This explains how Posner got access to KGB
turncoat Yuri Nosenko, who was put on a CIA retainer in the late
seventies. At the time of Posner-mania, Alan Houston wrote Mr.

Loomis, who also edited the Posner book. In a reply dated
10/27/93, Loomis revealed much about himself:
I have no doubt that you really believe what you are saying, but
I must tell you that your letter is one of the best indications
I've seen yet as to why the American public has been misled by
ridiculous conspiracy theories.

You have proved nothing insofar as I can see, except for the fact
that you simply can't see the truth of the situation. My feeling
is that it is you and others like you who have perverted the
historical record and, in an inexcusable way, pardoned the
murderer.

Readers of Probe know that Loomis is not a new pal of the CIA. In
our Watergate issue (Vol. 3#2), we wrote about the long,
controversial career of journalist James Phelan, a strong
supporter of the Warren Commission and harsh critic of Jim
Garrison and his "wacky conspiracy theories." Phelan always
strongly denied he was compromised in any way. Even when
confronted with documents showing connections to government
agencies (like the FBI) he still denied it. When Phelan did his
book on Howard Hughes-which completely whitewashed the ties of
the eccentric billionaire to the CIA-that "instant" book was a
top secret p

now
believe that Hersh's stories were part of Colby's campaign to
oust Angleton, sanctioned by the CIA Director himself.

Next up for Hersh was the story of the downing of KAL 700. This
was the curious case of the Korean Air Liner shot down over
Russian air space after having drifted off course. Many suspected
that, as with the My Lai case, there was more here than met the
eye. The long length of time that the plane had been off course,
as well as its failure to respond to signals, led some to believe
that the Russians had no choice but to shoot down the plane. In
fact, many articles appeared, for example in The Nation, to
support that thesis. The Reagan administration wanted to portray
the incident as an example of Soviet barbarity (shades of
Basulto's Brothers to the Rescue). They, and specifically Jeanne
Kirkpatrick, treated the downing as a great propaganda victory.
In his book, The Target Is Destroyed, Hersh ended up siding with
the administration.

Which brings us to the nineties. Everyone knows that the broad
release of Oliver Stone's JFK in 1992 put the Kennedy
assassination back into play. The pre-release attack against the

now
believe that Hersh's stories were part of Colby's campaign to
oust Angleton, sanctioned by the CIA Director himself.

Next up for Hersh was the story of the downing of KAL 700. This
was the curious case of the Korean Air Liner shot down over
Russian air space after having drifted off course. Many suspected
that, as with the My Lai case, there was more here than met the
eye. The long length of time that the plane had been off course,
as well as its failure to respond to signals, led some to believe
that the Russians had no choice but to shoot down the plane. In
fact, many articles appeared, for example in The Nation, to
support that thesis. The Reagan administration wanted to portray
the incident as an example of Soviet barbarity (shades of
Basulto's Brothers to the Rescue). They, and specifically Jeanne
Kirkpatrick, treated the downing as a great propaganda victory.
In his book, The Target Is Destroyed, Hersh ended up siding with
the administration.

Which brings us to the nineties. Everyone knows that the broad
release of Oliver Stone's JFK in 1992 put the Kennedy
assassination back into play. The pre-release attack against the

have been attractive to females. He was appreciative of
their overtures. There seems to me to be nothing extraordinary
about this. Here we have the handsome, tall, witty, charming son
of a millionaire who is eligible and clearly going places. If he
did not react positively to all the attention heaped on him, I am
sure his critics would begin to suggest a "certain latent
homosexual syndrome." But what makes this (lengthy) aspect of the
book interesting is that when the Blairs ask some of Kennedy's
girlfriends what his "style" was (clearly looking for juicy sex
details), as often as not, the answer is surprising. For
instance, in an interview with Charlotte McDonnell, she talks
about Kennedy in warm and friendly terms adding that there was
"No sex or anything" in their year long relationship (p. 81).

Another Kennedy girlfriend, the very attractive Angela Greene had
this to say:
Q: Was he romantically pushy?
A: I don't think so. I never found him physically
aggressive, if that's what you mean. Adorable and sweet. (p.
181)

In another instance, years later, Kennedy was dating the
beautiful Bab Beckwith. She invited Kennedy up to her apartment
after he had wined and dined her. There was champagne and low
music on the radio. But then a news broadcast came on and JFK
leaped up, ran to the radio, and turned up the volume to listen
to it. Offended, Beckwith threw him

have been attractive to females. He was appreciative of
their overtures. There seems to me to be nothing extraordinary
about this. Here we have the handsome, tall, witty, charming son
of a millionaire who is eligible and clearly going places. If he
did not react positively to all the attention heaped on him, I am
sure his critics would begin to suggest a "certain latent
homosexual syndrome." But what makes this (lengthy) aspect of the
book interesting is that when the Blairs ask some of Kennedy's
girlfriends what his "style" was (clearly looking for juicy sex
details), as often as not, the answer is surprising. For
instance, in an interview with Charlotte McDonnell, she talks
about Kennedy in warm and friendly terms adding that there was
"No sex or anything" in their year long relationship (p. 81).

Another Kennedy girlfriend, the very attractive Angela Greene had
this to say:
Q: Was he romantically pushy?
A: I don't think so. I never found him physically
aggressive, if that's what you mean. Adorable and sweet. (p.
181)

In another instance, years later, Kennedy was dating the
beautiful Bab Beckwith. She invited Kennedy up to her apartment
after he had wined and dined her. There was champagne and low
music on the radio. But then a news broadcast came on and JFK
leaped up, ran to the radio, and turned up the volume to listen
to it. Offended, Beckwith threw him

his book a collection of "sleaze." Summers fought back by
saying that Hoover and De Loach were peddling "sex tapes" about
Martin Luther King to the press. At that point, if Larry King
weren't such a stiff, he would have stepped in and noted, "But
Tony, we expect that kind of thing from a guy like Hoover. What's
your excuse?"

So Where are the Kennedys?

In a deeper sense, it is clear now that no one in the major media
was or is "protecting the Kennedys." The anti-Kennedy genre has
now become self-sustaining. Summers used the Collier and Horowitz
book for Goddess. He even uses Priscilla McMillan to connect JFK
with Monroe! (p. 244) Will Liz Smith call him on this? Will Ben
Bradlee? Far from "protecting the Kennedys" the establishment
shields these writers from potentially devastating critiques. The
reason being that the Kennedys were never part of that
establishment. No one protected JFK in Dallas. No one protected
RFK in Los Angeles. The ensuing investigations did everything
they could to protect the true murderers; to hell with the
victims. And since the Church Committee showed in public that the
Kennedys were not business as usual, there has been an intense
and incessant effort to reverse that verdict; in essence to
rewrite history. People like Slatzer, Davis, and now Hersh have
made their living off of it.

The Kennedys themselves deserve part of the blame. In Samuels'
article in The New Yorker, Kennedy family lawyer Myer Feldman
says that he advised the Kennedys not to even comment on Hersh,
let alone sue (p. 69). If I were advising, I would have urged a
lawsuit as far back as 1984 with both the Collier-Horowitz book
and the Davis book. I would have loved to hear how the two former
leftists had no idea t

his book a collection of "sleaze." Summers fought back by
saying that Hoover and De Loach were peddling "sex tapes" about
Martin Luther King to the press. At that point, if Larry King
weren't such a stiff, he would have stepped in and noted, "But
Tony, we expect that kind of thing from a guy like Hoover. What's
your excuse?"

So Where are the Kennedys?

In a deeper sense, it is clear now that no one in the major media
was or is "protecting the Kennedys." The anti-Kennedy genre has
now become self-sustaining. Summers used the Collier and Horowitz
book for Goddess. He even uses Priscilla McMillan to connect JFK
with Monroe! (p. 244) Will Liz Smith call him on this? Will Ben
Bradlee? Far from "protecting the Kennedys" the establishment
shields these writers from potentially devastating critiques. The
reason being that the Kennedys were never part of that
establishment. No one protected JFK in Dallas. No one protected
RFK in Los Angeles. The ensuing investigations did everything
they could to protect the true murderers; to hell with the
victims. And since the Church Committee showed in public that the
Kennedys were not business as usual, there has been an intense
and incessant effort to reverse that verdict; in essence to
rewrite history. People like Slatzer, Davis, and now Hersh have
made their living off of it.

The Kennedys themselves deserve part of the blame. In Samuels'
article in The New Yorker, Kennedy family lawyer Myer Feldman
says that he advised the Kennedys not to even comment on Hersh,
let alone sue (p. 69). If I were advising, I would have urged a
lawsuit as far back as 1984 with both the Collier-Horowitz book
and the Davis book. I would have loved to hear how the two former
leftists had no idea t

characterizes them with the
following: "While some of their tall tales may be true, they are
not unaware that truth that is stranger than fiction will sell
better in a market already jaded by exotic overexposure."

Demaris' book on Hoover can only be called sympathetic. This is
immediately indicated by his choice of interviewees. They include
high level FBI administrators like Robert E. Wick, John P. Mohr,
and Mark Felt; former Attorney General Richard Kleindienst;
Hoover publicity flack Louis Nichols who named one of his sons
after his boss; and actor Efrem Zimbalist who starred in ABC's
glamorized series on the Bureau. In the entire book, there are
eight pages on Hoover's infamous COINTELPRO operations, i.e. the
infiltration, disruption, and occasional destruction of domestic
political movements.

In Hoover's disputes with the Kennedys, there can be no doubt
where Demaris stands. Speaking of Hoover's reputed blackmailing
of presidents, he writes: "It is possible that one or two were
intimidated by their own guilty conscience...." He sums up Hoover
by saying, "He was, whatever his failings, an extraordinary man,
truly one of a kind." The above gives us a hint of why Demaris
hooked up with Exner. But a previous work of his is more valuable
in that regard.

In 1968 Demaris co-authored with Gary Wills a book titled Jack
Ruby. The book is, to say the least, a rather shallow portrait of
Ruby based on a string of conversations with people the nightclub
owner worked with. The profile that emerges is in total
concordance with the Warren Commission view of Ruby as a dim,
emotional, hustler who kil