Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
John Corbett, Tom Graves

Author Topic: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?  (Read 5133 times)

Online Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
    • JFK Assassination Website
Re: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?
« Reply #56 on: Yesterday at 07:57:16 PM »
Why should LNs be objective. We figured out a long time ago that Oswald killed JFK by himself. It is no longer an open question. Hasn't been for a long, long time.

Actually, Russo co-authored the book with Stephen Molton.

Anyway, your bombastic verbiage -- "forced at gunpoint by a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy fantasist" -- suggests a severe bias.

Yes it is. A bias toward the truth.

You act as if this is a multiple choice exercise. It's not. There is only one truth.
You seem to have a low bar for whom you consider scholars.
That's right. DVP didn't have trouble figuring this out. It's really pretty obvious Oswald did it and there is no credible evidence he had even a single accomplice. Given that the CT have had 62 years to search for evidence that somebody other than Oswald was complicit in the crime and have come up empty, why should anyone entertain the possibility others were involved.
DVD has lots of credibility and anyone who looks at the evidence objectively and applies common sense will reach the same conclusions he has.
You've always seemed to favor quantity over quality. It's reflected in your posts.
I'd estimate the 90+% of those people are ignorant of the evidence of Oswald's guilt and probably got most of their knowledge from Oliver Stone's shitty movie.
Keep clinging to that crap. It's all you have.
The HSCA was a cluster. The only things it got right were the things they agreed with the WC on.
The SBT wins by default because in 62 years, no one has been able to offer a plausible alternative that explains JFK's non-fatal wounds and all of JBC's. No one can come up with another explanation that tells us where other shots could have been fired from and the wounds they could have caused. I know you won't be able to. If you could've you would've.
The WC offered several possible scenarios. The consensus of modern LNs conforms to one of those scenarios, that the first shot missed, the second was the single bullet, and the third was the fatal headshot. None of that conflicts with the findings of the WC. The are a few nutty LNs who have come up with goofy alternatives but that is not the fault of the WC.

As for motive, no one can know for sure what Oswald's motive was nor is it necessary to prove why he did it to prove that he did it.

Your frequent message formatting errors, grammatical errors, and punctuation errors suggest you're in no position to be deciding who is a scholar and who is not, much less to be making sweeping pronouncements about JFKA evidence and research.

As for your comment about motive, ask any prosecutor and they'll tell you that in a complex or strongly contested case, establishing motive is very important for the prosecution--both in identifying a suspect in the first place and in persuading a jury of guilt in a trial.

Ask any detective about motive, and they'll tell you that one of the main things they seek to establish is whether the suspect had a motive.  If they've identified two possible suspects and one suspect had no motive and the other suspect did have a motive, they will see the latter person as the more likely suspect, all other things being relatively equal.

I had to giggle when I read your first sentence (which you failed to punctuate correctly, but anyway. . . .):

Why should LNs be objective.[?]

LOL! Yeah, gee, why should they be objective?! Humm, maybe because being objective is a key principle of critical thinking? Maybe because being objective is a hallmark of credibility, education, and an open mind?

Perhaps you should change your forum name to John "I Don't Need No Stinkin' Objectivity" Corbett.

Here's one book that very few have read, but one that carries a ring of truth... by one of the three tramps... Chauncey Holt's book,Self-Portrait of a Scoundrel...

Huh, in reading the description of the book on Amazon, I find myself thinking I might just read it. It sounds like an interesting book, assuming he did in fact write it. I heard years ago that he'd written a book but never gave it a second thought.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 07:59:07 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online John Corbett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1741
Re: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?
« Reply #57 on: Yesterday at 10:42:18 PM »
Your frequent message formatting errors, grammatical errors, and punctuation errors suggest you're in no position to be deciding who is a scholar and who is not, much less to be making sweeping pronouncements about JFKA evidence and research.

There's one person I know is not a scholar and that would be the person I am responding to.

If I wanted to get into a pissing contest with you, I could point out your grammatical errors as well but pointing out your logical errors already consumes too much of my time.
Quote

As for your comment about motive, ask any prosecutor and they'll tell you that in a complex or strongly contested case, establishing motive is very important for the prosecution--both in identifying a suspect in the first place and in persuading a jury of guilt in a trial.

Ask any detective about motive, and they'll tell you that one of the main things they seek to establish is whether the suspect had a motive.  If they've identified two possible suspects and one suspect had no motive and the other suspect did have a motive, they will see the latter person as the more likely suspect, all other things being relatively equal.

It can be important, especially in proving premeditation, but it is not necessary. It is only necessary to prove the accused committed the act. If proving a motive was a requirement, I could walk down a busy sidewalk in an urban area and randomly shoot and kill some poor schmuck in front of 20 witnesses and if the prosecutors couldn't prove why I did it, I would beat the rap. Do you honestly think that would be the case?

We don't have to prove why Oswald did it to prove that he did do it.
Quote

I had to giggle when I read your first sentence (which you failed to punctuate correctly, but anyway. . . .):

All you do when you point out things like this reveal your pettiness.
Quote

LOL! Yeah, gee, why should they be objective?! Humm, maybe because being objective is a key principle of critical thinking? Maybe because being objective is a hallmark of credibility, education, and an open mind?

Objectivity is something you should go into a case with. It is not something you should maintain at the end of the process. When a jury returns a guilty verdict, they have ceased to be objective. They have determined to their satisfaction that the accused is guilty of the crime with which they are accused. It would be pretty silly to still be objective about the JFKA 62 1/2 years after it was committed. Are you honestly going to tell us you are objective about the case?
Quote

Perhaps you should change your forum name to John "I Don't Need No Stinkin' Objectivity" Corbett.

I don't need to change my forum name. I'll gladly say I don't need any objectivity. I figured out a long time ago Oswald was the assassin. You seem to be stuck in neutral.
I won't even bother to point out the double negative you just used.
Quote

Huh, in reading the description of the book on Amazon, I find myself thinking I might just read it. It sounds like an interesting book, assuming he did in fact write it. I heard years ago that he'd written a book but never gave it a second thought.

Online Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?
« Reply #58 on: Yesterday at 11:17:02 PM »
I will attempt to answer this seriously, without descending into the pathetically juvenile silliness that all too often characterizes my self-amusing contributions.  :D :D :D

I recalled this same discussion from the Ed Forum in 2018. Fred Litwin had listed the usual LN staples, and I added:

To [Fred's] list, I would add:

OSWALD'S GAME - Jean Davison
MARINA AND LEE - Priscilla Johnson McMillan
OSWALD'S TALE - Norman Mailer
OSWALD: RUSSIAN EPISODE - Ernst Titovets
LEGEND - Edward Jay Epstein

Yes, yes, I know, the first three at least are staples of the Lone Nut community.  (Epstein's work, of course, is approximately 180 degrees removed from the currently prevailing Deep Politics theories, which is why he is dismissed as either a CIA dupe or disinformation agent.)  I believe it is CRITICAL, before bogging down in minutiae and theories, to gain as much of an understanding as possible of WHO LEE HARVEY OSWALD REALLY WAS.  I would've saved myself a lot of time and money if I had taken that approach.


I still strongly agree with this. The biggest mistake anyone can make, in my opinion, is to dive into the conspiracy literature. You'll end up cross-eyed and confused, quite possibly beyond all redemption. I started with Best Evidence and High Treason, for God's sake. How I escaped, I'm still not entirely sure.

I would also strongly suggest that a newcomer spend some time in the psychological and sociological literature regarding the conspiracy-prone mindset. You might even recognize yourself, as I did! At a minimum, you will have a much better perspective when you dive into the conspiracy literature.

Readers Digest assigned author, Henry Hurt, according to a March, 1977 letter to President Carter by Billy Joe Lord, was pressuring Lord to cooperate with Readers Digest and author Hurt. The letter to Carter describe's Hurts advisor on how to threaten Lord's continued employment by Jim Allison, George Bush's friend and former congressional office staffer, a Midland newspaper publisher. The description matches Bush's closest friend, dating back to childhood summers in Maine, Fitzgerald "Gerry" Bemiss.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_China_Diary_of_George_H_W_Bush/jRvdwoKQOgQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=china+bemis+devine&pg=PA311&printsec=frontcover


Quote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/08/15/bed-breakfast-a-la-bush/28b369d3-ff93-4bd4-9759-a220c45978f5/
BED BREAKFAST A LA BUSH
Aug 15, 1989 — ... W. Moseley, and childhood friend FitzGerald Bemiss -- to name a few. ... The Bushes invited Pettis and her husband, Ben Roberson, to stay with ... Bush's family has been spending summers at Kennebunkport since the ...

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/09/bushes200609
43+41=84 |
Jun 4, 2008 — Is he George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush? ... From Washington to Houston to Kennebunkport and back, shaky second- and thirdhand ... When I ask FitzGerald Bemiss, one of 41's oldest friends from childhood summers in ...

Henry Hurt had a job teaching school in the town Bush and Bemiss summered in, all of their lives,
Kennebunkport. Hurt was about to marry Bemiss's cousin.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/88891802/langbourne-meade-williams

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langbourne_Meade_Williams_Jr.
Langbourne Meade Williams Jr. (February 5, 1903 – September 8, 1994) was an American ... "He became president of Freeport-Texas with John Hay Whitney as chairman three years later. He then served as chairman from 1958 until 1967."





https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=175


Quote
AI Overview    +12                    The properties associated with businessman FitzGerald Bemiss and the Virginia Sky-Line Company are the historic lodges located along Skyline Drive in Shenandoah National Park.The Virginia Sky-Line Company, operated by Bemiss beginning in the 1950s, holds the concession for the park's iconic overnight properties:

From Billy Joe Lord's March, 1977 letter to recently sworn-in, President Carter :

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=270


See:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1439

What Henry Hurt does not tell Billy Joe Lord is that Bemiss is Hurt's wife's cousin or that her father, Hurt's father-in-law, is the brother of Freeport Sulphur Chairman, Langbourne Williams. Langbourne and Bemiss have the same grandfather.

Henry Hurt, by the time he published "Reasonable Doubt", had twenty years of advancement of research and new disclosures that Sylvia Meagher had no knowledge of in 1967.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 11:26:25 PM by Tom Scully »

Offline Jake Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
Re: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?
« Reply #59 on: Today at 02:11:16 AM »
Your frequent message formatting errors, grammatical errors, and punctuation errors suggest you're in no position to be deciding who is a scholar and who is not, much less to be making sweeping pronouncements about JFKA evidence and research.

As for your comment about motive, ask any prosecutor and they'll tell you that in a complex or strongly contested case, establishing motive is very important for the prosecution--both in identifying a suspect in the first place and in persuading a jury of guilt in a trial.

Ask any detective about motive, and they'll tell you that one of the main things they seek to establish is whether the suspect had a motive.  If they've identified two possible suspects and one suspect had no motive and the other suspect did have a motive, they will see the latter person as the more likely suspect, all other things being relatively equal.

I had to giggle when I read your first sentence (which you failed to punctuate correctly, but anyway. . . .):

LOL! Yeah, gee, why should they be objective?! Humm, maybe because being objective is a key principle of critical thinking? Maybe because being objective is a hallmark of credibility, education, and an open mind?

Perhaps you should change your forum name to John "I Don't Need No Stinkin' Objectivity" Corbett.

Huh, in reading the description of the book on Amazon, I find myself thinking I might just read it. It sounds like an interesting book, assuming he did in fact write it. I heard years ago that he'd written a book but never gave it a second thought.


Check it out... again, it has a ring of truth to it... Also, you might be able to pick up a video of Holt being interviewed...


Offline Jake Maxwell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 804
Re: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?
« Reply #60 on: Today at 02:18:27 AM »

Here is an interview with Chauncey Holt on YouTube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z5MgCG4COY


Online Tom Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
Re: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?
« Reply #61 on: Today at 04:31:36 AM »
LEGEND - Edward Jay Epstein

Epstein's work is approximately 180 degrees removed from the currently prevailing Deep Politics theories, which is why he is dismissed as either a CIA dupe or disinformation agent.

Dear Fancy Pants Rants (FPR),

The thesis of Epstein's 1978 book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald, is that Marine U-2 radar operator Oswald may have been recruited by the KGB or the GRU in Japan in 1957 or 1958, and that KGB Major I mean Lt. Col. I mean Captain Yuri Nosenko was sent to the U.S. in February 1964 to obscure Oswald’s Soviet intelligence links -- links which J. Edgar Hoover, in the interest of self-preservation, smothered institutionally.

In Legend, Edward J. Epstein correctly "outed" Yuri Nosenko as not-a-true physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964 and disclosed that the FBI's beloved FEDORA (KGB Major Aleksey Kulak) was a Kremlin-loyal triple agent who had duped the Bureau for fifteen years.

Factoid: In 1976, FBI Senior Agent James Nolan conducted an investigation that determined that Kulak / FEDORA was fake. A few years later, counterintelligence-hating Senior Agent James Geer, with help from two CIA researchers, Sandra Grimes and Cynthia Hausmann, provided to him by a Nosenko-protecting probable mole by the name of Leonard V. McCoy, reverted Nolan's appraisal to the original mistaken one.

I say Nosenko was a "not-a-true defector" in 1964 because, although he was a false defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962, sent there to protect at least one high-level KGB mole in the CIA, in February 1964 he was either a false defector or had "gone rogue" -- and used his putative "intel" on Oswald as his "ticket" to The Land of Milk and Honey.

Although Epstein's main source on Nosenko was Nosenko's former principal CIA case officer until October 1967, Tennent H. Bagley (who was on the fast track to become Director of CIA until Nosenko reappeared in Geneva in January 1964), Epstein seems to have been either a really poor listener or an embellisher par excellence.

To wit: He states Nosenko's self-described career history in the KGB as though it's factual, forgetting to mention that Bagley learned that very little of it, if any, was true.

-- Tom

PS The "mole" that Nosenko was protecting in June 1962 was probably James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Leonard Solie.

It sure would be nice if our resident (or should I say rezident?) genealogist and Wayback Machine social-pages-reader, Tom "A Beautiful Mind" Scully, would look into Solie and tell us about the man with the Russian-sounding name that was living with the Solies on their dairy farm when Bruce was an impressionable lad.
« Last Edit: Today at 05:45:08 AM by Tom Graves »

Online Tom Scully

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Which Six Books Would You Recommend to a Newcomer?
« Reply #62 on: Today at 09:08:04 AM »
Dear Fancy Pants Rants (FPR),

The thesis of Epstein's 1978 book, Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald, is that Marine U-2 radar operator Oswald may have been recruited by the KGB or the GRU in Japan in 1957 or 1958, and that KGB Major I mean Lt. Col. I mean Captain Yuri Nosenko was sent to the U.S. in February 1964 to obscure Oswald’s Soviet intelligence links -- links which J. Edgar Hoover, in the interest of self-preservation, smothered institutionally.
-snip-
......
PS The "mole" that Nosenko was protecting in June 1962 was probably James Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior, Bruce Leonard Solie.

It sure would be nice if our resident (or should I say rezident?) genealogist and Wayback Machine social-pages-reader, Tom "A Beautiful Mind" Scully, would look into Solie and tell us about the man with the Russian-sounding name that was living with the Solies on their dairy farm when Bruce was an impressionable lad.

Tommy, have you forgotten that, according to the 1930 census, a future CIA officer, Talbot Bielefeldt, reporting to Bruce Solie, was residing in NYC with Ruth's  parents.  We'll let Bruce Solie explain it, in his own words.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=162099#relPageId=1
And....
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10051-10096.pdf

Bill Simpich mistakenly describer Talbot as Taylor
Quote
https://aarclibrary.org/2018/01/27/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-12-the-endgame/
By Bill Simpich [Originally published 12/31/2014]

....THE PAINES’ FAMILY AND FRIENDS WERE PROMINENT INTELLIGENCE FIGURES
Based on information from the CIA’s molehunting unit CI/SIG, the FBI wrote a telling report on William Hyde: “On December 4, 1963, CIA made available information to the Bureau Liaison that in 1957 CIA considered using this individual to operate a cooperative educational center in Vietnam but he was not used by the CIA. Investigation by CIA at that time concerning William Avery Hyde was favorable.”

Ruth Paine commented: “The information about the CIA considering my father for Vietnam was a surprise. I doubt if he would have accepted such an invitation, if it was offered. He certainly didn’t go. He went to Peru. He was working with the Agency for International Development. He helped to develop rural credit unions for the compasinos so that they could save enough money to make loans to themselves, instead of always paying the huge bank rates. He loved it. I know that USAID asked my father to appraise a situation in Georgetown, Guiana. He recommended against starting a project there, as he thought the local officials corrupt.”

Bill Hyde was also a strong anti-communist. Dr. Richard Jenkins of the Psychiatric Evaluation Board in Washington DC went to Stanford with the Hydes, and said that “Bill Hyde had been active in the cooperative movement and therefore was aware of the attempts of the Communists to infililtrate the cooperative movement.”

Like Hyde, the Hoke family was also involved in looking for communists. There is a 1955 memo to the CIA’s Office of Security, discussing how William Avery Hyde was back in his hometown of Palo Alto visiting the Hokes.
Quote
Brought into the circle was Dr. Jenkins and also Taylor Bielefeldt,

Bielefeldt was the CIA chief of the USSR Division of the Foreign Documents Division, who had spent a lot of time with Ruth’s parents William and Carol Hyde in the 1920s and 1930s. Bielefeldt’s division worked with the Joint Publications Research Service, a CIA unit that monitored public documents to study scientific and technical developments in the Soviet bloc.

Several people close to Oswald were also active in the Joint Publications Research Service. These people include legend maker #3 Priscilla Johnson, the NANA reporter in Moscow who befriended the Oswald family; legend maker #4 Richard Snyder, the American consul in Moscow; and the allegedly unwitting Spas Raikin, who greeted the Oswald family when they arrived in New York City from the USSR in 1962.

The 1955 memo mentions that Hoke, Bielefeldt and the aforementioned Dr. Richard Jenkins were all Stanford graduates. Hoke has been described as “a very brilliant person who is not very stable but who is very creative.”

The focus of the 1955 meeting was about Paul and Violet Orr. Both were Communist Party members in the San Francisco Bay Area. Paul had just been harshly interrogated by HUAC earlier that year. Violet had worked in the 1930s in the CP-friendly American League Against War and Fascism, just as Harvey’s informant Elizabeth Bentley had done. In more recent years, Violet had been part of the visible Communist Party leadership.

Two days after the memo, a wiretap revealed that former CP member Dorothy Wilson allegedly claimed that Ruth Paine’s mother Carol Hyde – the aforementioned Unitarian minister – admitted to being a communist. Another neighbor later reported hearing this rumor.

Ruth’s sister Sylvia admitted a year later that Dorothy Wilson worked at the publishing company run by her mother-in-law Helen Hoke Watts, and that Wilson had edited a book jointly written by her husband John Hoke and Mrs. Watts. Sylvia denied that her mother Carol Hyde was a communist, saying that her mother was suffering from a mental disorder.

At the time, Sylvia was supposedly working as a personnel research technician for the Air Force. However, a February 1957 memo revealed that Sylvia had been working in a semi-secret position for Naval Intelligence, and had lost her shot at a top secret position because of the Dorothy Wilson-Helen Hoke Watts relationship.

Ruth Paine made a point of telling FBI agent Jim Hosty in the weeks before the assassination that Oswald was a “Trotskyite communist“. Although Oswald subscribed to both the Trotskyist newspaper and the Communist Party newspaper, he maintained that he was not a follower of either ideological persuasion.

It is reasonable to judge Ruth Paine by her family ties. Like legend maker #3 Priscilla Johnson and legend maker #9 George de Mohrenschildt, Ruth’s family may have triggered too many security disapprovals for her to be put directly on the CIA payroll as an informant. Nonetheless, she had substantial ties to men such as Frederick Merrill and Fred Osborn at the State Department, and friends in common with Allen Dulles and Cord Meyer at the CIA...

(H. Jim Rand, employer of Robert E Webster, very, very likely knew Frederick Merrill because Rand's father made Merrill's father president of Remington Rand.
See: https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,752940,00.html )

....Whether or not editor Johnny King had his story right, Michael Paine is somehow caught up in this web of deception.

The aforementioned anomalies of the Oswald story were ignored by the Warren Commission. Instead, the month of September 1964 was used to ensure that these stories and others like it were smoothed over prior to publication. The man who had ordered this review of these stories, J. Lee Rankin, had a shot at being a hero. Rankin didn’t take it.

In the years before his death, Rankin encouraged researchers in the JFK case to keep digging. Rankin asked one researcher, “Are you looking into the plots on the basis of whether they were covered up by the CIA because some of the very people involved in them could have been involved in the President’s assassination?” When told that was an area of investigation, Rankin replied, “Good. Good. You have to look at it that way.”....

Quote
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/358
....
He repeatedly expressed the view that both the FBI and CIA had concealed important material from the Commission, and that the CIA/Mafia plots would have had a "very direct bearing on the areas of conspiracy which we tried to pursue." He also asked, "Are you looking into the plots on the basis of whether they were covered up by the CIA because some of the very people involved in them could have been involved in the President's assassination?" I said that yes that was an area of our investigation, and he replied strongly, "Good. Good. You have to look at it that way." I also said that we were looking into charges that Castro might have retaliated for the plots by killing Kennedy, and he replied, "Where is any evidence of that? I think the other approach would be much more logical." This was apparently in reference to probing those involved in the plots themselves....
« Last Edit: Today at 11:13:29 AM by Tom Scully »