What's the worst JFK assassination related book you ever came across?

[Sean Kneringer]

Appointment in Dallas

[Fergus O'Brien]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

really ? ok educate me .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Well, I'm not arrogant enough to think I know for a fact that Bugliosi (and others) made "millions" of dollars off their books. I have no idea what they made----and neither do any of the know-it-all CTers.

And the "Myers Was Bugliosi's Ghostwriter" crap is just that-----crappola!

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/ghostwriting.html

"I have no idea what they made " Mr von pien

let me see if i understand you correctly . you readily admit that YOU HAVE NO IDEA , yet you are attacking me saying i dont know WHAT YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT ? . lol lol . perhaps if you read stuff instead of refusing to do so you MIGHT THEN HAVE AN IDEA ? . the point i was making was that LN authors dont write books , create animations and work FOR NOTHING . they get paid WHAT EVER THEY GET PAID . but apparently a so called CT author should dedicate them selves to years and perhaps decades of research and do it all and not expect any sort of return ? .

[David Von Pein]

let me see if i understand you correctly . you readily admit that YOU HAVE NO IDEA , yet you are attacking me saying i dont know WHAT YOU ADMIT YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT ?

Yes. Exactly.
There's nothing incongruous there.

[Paul May]

have you actually read his jfk assassination books ? . i know LN often dont read so called CT material . even (and i am going from memory here ) Mr von pien in debate with Jim di eugenio refused point blank to view or even read any of the books , resources etc that Jim provided in that debate that supported his claims (i dont remember if the debate was here on this forum or the ed forum ) . Mr von pien posted in essence that he has absolutely no interest in reading ANYTHING that is CT related . and LN very often complain that CT dont read LN material such as the warren report or reclaiming history lol , that is quite a large slice of LN hypocrisy dont you think ? . but this is hardly surprising .

I have which is why I made my comment.

[Fergus O'Brien]

Yes. Exactly.
There's nothing incongruous there.

lol

[Fergus O'Brien]

Warning!

This is either a claim made by somebody who knows what the actual truth is (and can prove it with conclusive evidence) or the biased opinion of a fanatical LN who dismisses everything out of hand that does not match his belief.

Which is it, Paul?

what we are of course seeing in this thread from some is sadly what i expected from the very start . which is biased and or agenda driven LN comments about books . and this mentality also can be the case with authors and researchers , if they have a theory ,  bias , or agenda that this bias etc will be evident in any book they write .

[Jon Banks]

I'd be completely against any new laws; the existing ones on defamation are fine. Although some people have advocated re-visiting Sullivan's distinction between public and private individuals. I think Justice Thomas has supported that. Besides, LBJ is dead; you can't defame a dead person. I still believe that the answer to bad speech, to bad ideas is more speech. The truth doesn't always win out but the alternatives are worse.

At this point the assassination is simply an event that people use to express their grievances with the government or with some entity. For Roger Stone it's LBJ. It's why we see people with far right wing or far left wing views using it; they both think democracy has been stolen. And they've convinced themselves that the only reason these powerful groups killed JFK was because he was such a threat to them and their power. He was going to "end the Cold War", leave Vietnam, make nice with Castro, establish Camelot. And it was for this they had to strike him down.

"Just because you're 'paranoid' doesn't mean someone isn't trying to kill you"


I'll grant that people who distrust major government institutions and the mainstream media are more likely to believe there was a conspiracy in JFK's assassination while people on the Left and Right who still defend and trust major institutions are less likely to believe in conspiracy in this case.

While those two things explain the level of confirmation bias on both sides, the bottom lines that we can't ignore without lying to people or being intellectually dishonest are:

- The forensic evidence is conflicting and inconclusive for the most part on the question of a single shooter vs multiple shooters.

- From the Dallas PD to the CIA, investigators lied, covered up important facts, and manipulated or destroyed evidence.

- LHO was killed while in police custody by a guy who was connected to both organized crime and the US intelligence community (Ruby was an FBI informant).

- 60 years later, the government refuses to declassify all the remaining files related to the JFK investigations or files related to a handful of suspected intelligence officers who have been dead for decades.


So it's totally reasonable given the above described circumstances for people to suspect that we don't know the complete truth about what happened leading up to 11/22/63.

Without accusing people of being "kooks" or "conspiracy theorists, we should be able to accept that the JFK assassination may never reach some sort of general consensus where everyone agrees on what happened due to the points I cited above...