JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 30, 2026, 07:35:18 PM
-
If someone told me that they knew virtually nothing about the JFK assassination, that they wanted to understand all sides of the debate, and that they wanted me to recommend six books that would enable them to have a decent handle on the case, here are the six books I would recommend:
-- Last Second in Dallas, by Josiah Thompson.
-- The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination, by Lamar Waldron.
-- Inside the ARRB, by Doug Horne.
-- JFK Assassination Paradoxes, by David Mantik.
-- A Cruel and Shocking Act, by Philip Shenon.
-- JFK: The Smoking Gun, by Colin McLaren.
Which six books would you recommend?
-
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.
-
None, especially Shenon's book and Garrison subject matter books by Mellen and DiEugenio.
I did not view Stone's 1992 film, JFK, until 2013. If I had read assassination themed books
or Stone's film earlier, I would not have delved deeply into the observations of the late Tom Purvis
posted on the Ed Forum calling into question the claims Garrison was a victim of sinister forces
attempting to discredit his truth. Thanks to Purvis, I found compelling evidence the opposite is closer to the truth.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0
.....
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20298-man-of-a-million-fragments-the-true-story-of-clay-shaw-2013/?tab=comments#comment-275862
Thomas H. Purvis - Posted July 18, 2013
As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.
In event there is any difficulty in location of these postings, one may want to look up the terminology "Land Sharks".
Tom
P.S. John.-----Glad to see that you have re-opened the forum. With the 50th anniversary of the event soon approaching there will no doubt be many who are searching for some of the factual truths.
Many of which can be found on this forum.
Authors and film producers authored products for sale. Admitting there is persuasive new research evidence tending
to prove their entire conspiracy scenarios unreliable, is not something almost any of them are inclined to do!
Stone and DiEugenio are about the last people open to or politely gracious enough to consideration of facts of sufficient weight to seriously
call into question who Garrison and his agenda truly were. DiEugenio, for example insulate himself with a belief system
intolerant to consideration that there was nothing sinister about the provenance of the postal money order linked to the
payment for the alleged assassination rifle.
The most inflexible conspiracy cult members to considering impeaching evidence are the supporters of the book authored by John Armstrong.
Instead of reading or watching products for sale, join an active JFK Assassination forum and do all of your own research.
My research impeached author Peter Janney's claims in his book Mary's Mosaic, that Mary was assassinated by a shadowy witness who testified
against attorney Dovey Roundtree's murder trial defendant in 1965 and then vanished off the face of the earth, protected by the CIA, ever since.
As a consequence Janney had to issue a revision of his book.
I found proof Garrison and Mellen's CIA people were actually first cousin brothers of Garrison's wife, Leah, and that Shaw had been informed
by one of the two, David Baldwin, shortly after Shaw's indictment, that he was Leah Garrison's Godfather as well as her cousin.
So Shaw knew this information early and author Joan Mellen, who knew Garrison personally since 1969, proved she was kept from awareness of those
relationships, IOW, never informed of them by Garrison.
Supporting citations available here,:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0
-
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.
Lance, I am as open minded a CT leaning researcher as you are likely to encounter, and I completely disagree with almost all of your posts, especially of
the books and authors you included. I got to know Jean Davison fairly well via online PMs. She is a sweet old lady. She claims RFK and Allen Dulles had opinions
of each other close to muitual admiration!
Epstein exposed who he was. I'd be happy to back up my opinion, if you are interested.
-
I don't know about RFK and Dulles, but I have read a great deal of Jean Davison's work and many, many of her posts and have always been impressed by the quality and clarity of her thinking. My point with those listings was simply for someone to get to know Oswald as thoroughly as possible before looking beyond Oswald. Each of those books may have their flaws or agendas, but I believe they are all worthwhile. I also think a newcomer would benefit from Peter Vronsky's work on "Lee Harvey Oswald in Russia." https://web.archive.org/web/20110208121423/http://russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm I briefly corresponded with Vronsky. He said he went to Minsk with the idea of making a definitive CT-oriented documentary and came back believing "the Warren Commission basically got it right."
The problem with a newcomer joining JFKA forums is that they are dominated by complete loonies and a newcomer has no ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. People like MTG and DiEugenio and even David Josephs certainly "sound" like they are worth listening to - as I once thought they were. It would be wonderful if every newcomer had the time and energy to go to primary sources and do his or her own research, but that would be a massive task - as I have learned from spending an absurd amount of time just trying to nail down one factoid like the Postal Money Order nonsense, to wit:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4962.msg178234.html#msg178234
-
Lance, I am as open minded a CT leaning researcher as you are likely to encounter, and I completely disagree with almost all of your posts, especially of
the books and authors you included. I got to know Jean Davison fairly well via online PMs. She is a sweet old lady. She claims RFK and Allen Dulles had opinions
of each other close to muitual admiration!
Epstein exposed who he was. I'd be happy to back up my opinion, if you are interested.
Hmmm ... when you said you "completely disagree with almost all of my posts" I wondered if you might have me confused with someone else. My posts are so all over the map, LN-wise and CT-wise, that it would be difficult to strongly disagree with almost all of them.
Now I wonder if you have Jean Davison confused with someone else. I did both Google and Ed Forum searches and could not find anything substantiating what you describe as her views about RFK and Dulles.
In fact, the only thing I really found was a post by you on this very forum from 2023 in which you quoted a post by Jean in the comments section at JFK Facts as follows:
JEAN DAVISON
APRIL 5, 2016 AT 11:17 PM
“Anyone who actually believes that the Kennedy’s and Dulles held each other in high regard is mortally naïve or utterly disingenuous.”
-
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.
I wonder if you realize how extreme and biased you make yourself look with this kind of polemic.
You couldn't even list six books, but only five. Then, you just had to get on your soapbox and repeat your talking point that everyone who disagrees with you has a "conspiracy-prone mindset." In other replies, you've stated that those who disagree with you have warped minds, faulty neural pathways, and even a form of mental illness. In one reply, you said Greg Doudna was part of the "lunatic fringe." In another reply, you said that Dr. David Mantik sees things that no one else sees.
And notice the difference between the balance in my list and the lop-sided nature of your list. You list a very old book (Epstein) that questions the Warren Commission but posits a conspiracy theory that virtually no one believes anymore, and you list a book on Oswald in Russia (Titovets) written in 2021 by a guy who knew Oswald during his few years in Russia from October 1959 to June 1962. I would have been hard pressed to think of two weaker pro-conspiracy books. Your three pro-LN books are not terrible--I can think of several that are worse--but two of the authors had rather weak credentials to be writing about the JFK case, and it shows in their books (McMillan and Davison).
In my list, I included a recent and robust scholarly defense of the Warren Report, an exposition on the mortal-error theory (which disagrees with both the lone-gunman view and the conspiracy view), a book that focuses on the nature of the shooting and goes no further than to argue for multiple shooters without speculating on suspects), a book on the historic ARRB disclosures written by a former senior ARRB analyst, a book on the forensic and ballistics evidence written by a radiation oncologist and physicist who's also licensed in radiology, and a book on the evidence of Mafia involvement written by an award-winning investigative journalist.
-
Six Seconds in Dallas
Last Second in Dallas
JFK: Absolute Proof
No More Silence
Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
The Plot to Kill the President
-
I wonder if you realize how extreme and biased you make yourself look with this kind of polemic.
Pretty dadgum extreme and biased. YEE-HAA!
You couldn't even list six books, but only five.
That's because I was quoting a post from 2018. Here ya go: Walden by Henry David Thoreau. Happy now?
Then, you just had to get on your soapbox and repeat your talking point that everyone who disagrees with you has a "conspiracy-prone mindset." In other replies, you've stated that those who disagree with you have warped minds, faulty neural pathways, and even a form of mental illness. In one reply, you said Greg Doudna was part of the "lunatic fringe." In another reply, you said that Dr. David Mantik sees things that no one else sees.
Not everyone, sweetie, but indeed some we could name. ::) I'm sure Greg is an intelligent and hardworking guy who is kind to stray dogs, but in my opinion his ideas on virtually every issue are indeed lunatic fringe stuff. YMMV, and I'll bet it does.
The fact is, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is now a VAST body of psychological and sociological literature concerning the conspiracy-prone mindset. Your continued umbrage might seem to many as though you were protesting just a wee bit too much.
Familiarity with this literature would be exceedingly helpful to a newbie in attempting to separate the wheat (e.g., Larry Hancock) from the chaff (i.e., you) in the CT literature.
And notice the difference between the balance in my list and the lop-sided nature of your list. You list a very old book (Epstein) that questions the Warren Commission but posits a conspiracy theory that virtually no one believes anymore, and you list a book on Oswald in Russia (Titovets) written in 2021 by a guy who knew Oswald during his few years in Russia from October 1959 to June 1962. I would have been hard pressed to think of two weaker pro-conspiracy books. Your three pro-LN books are not terrible--I can think of several that are worse--but two of the authors had rather weak credentials to be writing about the JFK case, and it shows in their books (McMillan and Davison).
In my list, I included a recent and robust scholarly defense of the Warren Report, an exposition on the mortal-error theory (which disagrees with both the lone-gunman view and the conspiracy view), a book that focuses on the nature of the shooting and goes no further than to argue for multiple shooters without speculating on suspects), a book on the historic ARRB disclosures written by a former senior ARRB analyst, a book on the forensic and ballistics evidence written by a radiation oncologist and physicist who's also licensed in radiology, and a book on the evidence of Mafia involvement written by an award-winning investigative journalist.
I will concede: you are as fair and balanced as FOX News. ::)
What you fail to grasp is that I am talking about methodology for a newbie. My suggestion would be for a newbie, BEFORE he (or she) dives into substantive JFKA materials, to (1) familiarize himself with the literature concerning the conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) thoroughly acquaint himself with Oswald the actual man, not the fictional Most Interesting Man Who Ever Lived of much CT literature or the cardboard cutout who is plugged into many conspiracy theories only because "we gotta do something with him."
-
Hmmm ... when you said you "completely disagree with almost all of my posts" I wondered if you might have me confused with someone else. My posts are so all over the map, LN-wise and CT-wise, that it would be difficult to strongly disagree with almost all of them.
Now I wonder if you have Jean Davison confused with someone else. I did both Google and Ed Forum searches and could not find anything substantiating what you describe as her views about RFK and Dulles.
In fact, the only thing I really found was a post by you on this very forum from 2023 in which you quoted a post by Jean in the comments section at JFK Facts as follows:
JEAN DAVISON
APRIL 5, 2016 AT 11:17 PM
“Anyone who actually believes that the Kennedy’s and Dulles held each other in high regard is mortally naïve or utterly disingenuous.”
Lance, please accept my sincere apology. I'm aware my vision deteriorated but I've thought that my mind and memory have not also noticeably degraded.
I try to allow for the expectation that the person exhibiting such symptoms is always the last to know. I don't know how my post ended up worded that way.
I was pleased to log in here yesterday and find that you had decided to participate here. I intended my post to read that I disagreed with most of what I quoted
from your post, certainly not with almost everything you post generally.
Anyway, I believe Jean Davis was quoting what I posted about the post JFKA relations between Dulles and since I remain confident I accurately recall her opinion
and took the counter argument of hers. Her opinion had taken me quite by surprise,
https://web.archive.org/web/20181226165123/https://jfkfacts.org/devils-chessboard-today/#comment-867706#comment-867706
(Scroll down....)
Jean Davison
April 5, 2016 at 11:17 pm
“Anyone who actually believes that the Kennedy’s and Dulles held each other in high regard is mortally naïve or utterly disingenuous.”
QUOTE:
“Allen Dulles handled himself awfully well, with a great deal of dignity,” Robert Kennedy said of the period after the Bay of Pigs, “and never tried to shift the blame. The President was very fond of him, as I was.”
UNQUOTE
–Schlesinger, “Robert Kennedy and His Times, p. 459
https://books.google.com/books?id=5L-EeG9djO4C&pg=PA459&lpg=PA459&dq=dulles+%22handled+himself+awfully+well%22+dignity&source=bl&ots=_I7BoSypjI&sig=tZ9sHF_C6D8E2dgWeXBdHwj9-iE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1id-e3PfLAhVB72MKHYNUBfwQ6AEIJjAC#v=onepage&q=dulles%20%22handled%20himself%20awfully%20well%22%20dignity&f=false
According to several writers, following the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy told Dulles, “Under a parliamentary system of government, it is I who would be leaving. But under our system, it is you who must go.”
http://www.newsweek.com/bay-pigs-newly-revealed-cia-documents-expose-blunders-67275
Tom S.
April 6, 2016 at 12:14 am
Jean,
You have not convinced me that even you believe JFK held Dulles in high regard, or that he was fond of Dulles.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vf9ZJx8WkjQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Legacy+of+Ashes%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrt8X0j_nLAhWK2SYKHQw0CqkQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=sexual%20dalliances&f=false
Photon
April 6, 2016 at 6:53 am
How did Kennedy not know that Eisenhower didn’t approve an invasion of Cuba? It didn’t happen while he was in office. He could not have given an order to do so when he was no longer Commander in Chief. It is really a pointless statement attempting to divert a President’s responsibility to know the facts before making a decision to somebody else.
It leads me to question the veracity of the author.
Jean Davison
April 6, 2016 at 10:48 am
Tom,
Who do you think is lying, Schlesinger or RFK?
If there’s evidence that the Kennedys didn’t hold the opinion about Dulles expressed in that quote, what is it? I’m certainly open to believing it, if you can show me.
The author you quoted didn’t present any evidence that I see when he made the claim about what Joe Kennedy supposedly told his son. Is there any?
I’m not naïve enough to accept any writer’s assertion as fact without seeing what it’s based on.
Tom S.
April 6, 2016 at 2:01 pm
Jean,
You have a conflict of interests. You want to keep your book relevant. You cannot have certain details be of
any consequence, just as DiEugenio cannot have the relatives of Garrison’s wife being the principle named CIA saboteurs of Garrison and his investigation, matter in the least. For both of you authors, your reactions are reflexive and quite understandable. It is reasonable not to accept what you keep defending,
warm relations and mutual admiration between Allen Dulles and the Kennedy brothers.
https://books.google.com/books?id=KUX-Dk6esuUC&dq=editions%3AISBN0517098644&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=stripped+retirement
BTW, I think the more we actually know, the more we have to take what we think we know with a grain of salt. We have to embrace less, admitting to ourselves that it is all quite complicated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afsaneh_Mashayekhi_Beschloss#Education
….Current activities
Beschloss is chairman of the Investment Committee of the Ford Foundation and is on the Investment Committee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. She is a member of the board of trustees of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Urban Institute.[5] She advises international pension funds and central banks and has written a number of journal articles and books.
Personal life
Beschloss is married to presidential historian Michael Beschloss.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/01/31/its-father-versus-son-as-morris-beschloss-declares-george-soros-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/
It’s Father Versus Son as Morris Beschloss Declares George Soros ‘The Most Dangerous Man in America’
…..Afsaneh and Michael Beschloss
We then began to talk about the self-designated, progressive “media watchdog group” Media Matters for America. Michael Beschloss (the son) is married to Iranian born Afsaneh Mashayekhi Beschloss. She has well-documented, strong ties to Democrats and George Soros-backed groups, including Media Matters….
Willy Whitten
April 6, 2016 at 1:43 pm
Again Jean, nobody has to be lying when it comes to the decorum of statesmanlike speech. It is political language Jean, empty of true meaning, just as Orwell stated.
What was Bobby going to say to an author who was likely to publish his answers: “Allen Dulles was a no good S.O.B. and me and John hated that Barsteward!”?
Guys like Trump, who might be expected to say something like that, didn’t come along until half a century later.
\\][//
Jean Davison
April 6, 2016 at 5:48 pm
“You have a conflict of interests. You want to keep your book relevant. You cannot have certain details be of
any consequence…”
That’s BS, Tom. I don’t give a flip about “keeping my book relevant.” That’s a fantasy you’re projecting onto me.
I’ve been posting in JFK forums ever since Prodigy years ago, when I was delighted to find a group of people who knew what CE399 was, even though most of them didn’t agree with me. I have NEVER brought up the subject of my book on any public forum, not ever. If I say things similar to what I wrote back then it’s because that’s what I believed then and still believe.
I take it from this personal attack that the author you quoted provided no evidence to support his claim about why JFK appointed Dulles.
I don’t care whether the Kennedys hated Dulles or not. I just want to see the evidence for it.
Jean Davison
April 7, 2016 at 11:28 pm
Sorry, I forgot the link. Please post this instead.
———————-
“Again Jean, nobody has to be lying when it comes to the decorum of statesmanlike speech….What was Bobby going to say to an author who was likely to publish his answers: “Allen Dulles was a no good S.O.B. and me and John hated that Barsteward!”?
Well, Willy, here’s RFK’s reported opinion of J. Edgar Hoover from the same book.
QUOTE:
…Anthony Lewis asked Robert Kennedy whether he thought Hoover just a nasty person or truly dangerous. “No, Kennedy replied, “I think he’s dangerous.” “He’s rather a psycho,” he told John Bartlow Martin, “…I think it’s a very dangerous agency…and I think he’s become senile and rather…frightening.” (p.260)
UNQUOTE
http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Kennedy-Times-Arthur-Schlesinger/dp/0618219285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460083881&sr=8-1&keywords=schlesinger+robert+kennedy#reader_0618219285
So much for “the decorum of statesmanlike speech.” If RFK didn’t want to comment on Dulles he could’ve said “no comment.” He didn’t have to lie.
Willy Whitten
April 8, 2016 at 5:23 am
“Anthony Lewis asked Robert Kennedy whether he thought Hoover just a nasty person or truly dangerous. “No, Kennedy replied, “I think he’s dangerous.” “He’s rather a psycho,” he told John Bartlow Martin, “…I think it’s a very dangerous agency…and I think he’s become senile and rather…frightening”.”~Jean Davison
Perhaps J Edgar Hoover was a softer target by that time. Dulles was still dangerous to RFK, in fact he most certainly had a hand in Robert Kennedy’s death as well as his brother John’s.
\\][//
Jean Davison
April 9, 2016 at 12:29 am
“Perhaps J Edgar Hoover was a softer target by that time. Dulles was still dangerous to RFK, in fact he most certainly had a hand in Robert Kennedy’s death as well as his brother John’s.”
Or maybe Schlesinger’s quote was accurate and RFK meant what he said. You certainly haven’t presented any evidence to the contrary. You haven’t shown that the Kennedys “despised” Dulles nor provided a shred of evidence for your other accusations quoted above.
Willy Whitten
April 9, 2016 at 2:01 am
“You haven’t shown that the Kennedys “despised” Dulles nor provided a shred of evidence for your other accusations quoted above.”~Jean Davison
I think that a proper assessment of the entire period shows that there was great antagonism between Kennedy and Dulles – serious mortal antagonism. If you can’t see that, it is no my problem.
You have not put either one of those quotes in context, nor perspective. You don’t even state what dates they were made, and it is unclear as to which author quoted which quote.
\\][//
....
-
Lance, please accept my sincere apology. I'm aware my vision deteriorated but I've thought that my mind and memory have not also noticeably degraded.
I try to allow for the expectation that the person exhibiting such symptoms is always the last to know. I don't know how my post ended up worded that way.
I was pleased to log in here yesterday and find that you had decided to participate here. I intended my post to read that I disagreed with most of what I quoted
from your post, certainly not with almost everything you post generally.
Anyway, I believe Jean Davis was quoting what I posted about the post JFKA relations between Dulles and since I remain confident I accurately recall her opinion
and took the counter argument of hers. Her opinion had taken me quite by surprise,
No problem, Tom. I strongly disagree with at least half of my own posts! :D In fact, when someone here appeared to have created sock puppets to agree with his posts, I suggested it would be way more fun and interesting to create a sock puppet who violently disagreed with your posts.
What I notice recently is that I will type a word completely different from the word I intended to type. On one post today, I meant to type "joined" and typed "enjoyed." My brain and memory still seem to be hitting on all cylinders, but it is quite weird and unnerving.
That is surprising about Jean, but I don't know enough about the RFK-Dulles stuff to comment. (My paternal grandmother was a fabulously wealthy Kansas City socialite who knew the Dulles family. More accurately, to quote my father (her son), she was a "good-looking slut" who had him at 16 - in 1908 - and then married into fabulous Kansas City wealth in the form of an industrialist named Lester T. Sunderland.)
-
No problem, Tom. I strongly disagree with at least half of my own posts! :D In fact, when someone here appeared to have created sock puppets to agree with his posts, I suggested it would be way more fun and interesting to create a sock puppet who violently disagreed with your posts.
What I notice recently is that I will type a word completely different from the word I intended to type. On one post today, I meant to type "joined" and typed "enjoyed." My brain and memory still seem to be hitting on all cylinders, but it is quite weird and unnerving.
That is surprising about Jean, but I don't know enough about the RFK-Dulles stuff to comment. (My paternal grandmother was a fabulously wealthy Kansas City socialite who knew the Dulles family. More accurately, to quote my father (her son), she was a "good-looking slut" who had him at 16 - in 1908 - and then married into fabulous Kansas City wealth in the form of an industrialist named Lester T. Sunderland.)
Lance, thank you. I have high confidence that this is the woman you described. She was 16 during part of 1908. I'll delete this link if you prefer.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/190262426/sara_p-simmons
I took Jean's challenge by purchasing a used copy of Willie Morris's book, snapped a shot of the page with the God quote and I shared the image of the page with her :
https://1drv.ms/i/c/fe47b6f7a749f492/IQDyAGiDenHcQ66Pmhrou1TFAdwWkTdkwfy90-qhMTIA-X8?e=2WFeLf
-
I'm sure Greg is an intelligent and hardworking guy who is kind to stray dogs, but in my opinion his ideas on virtually every issue are indeed lunatic fringe stuff.
Good grief Lance, what are you on about? You are the first and only person to my knowledge that has ever accused me of being lunatic fringe. I've said some stupid things, may be wrong on some things, but you're just out of line and I don't think you know what you are talking about.
"on virtually every issue"? Wow.
Do you mean my defense of Ruth Paine? In which I argued the shocking idea that one possible interpretation of a woman for whom no proof has ever been shown in her entire life of criminal wrongdoing or any proof of the suspicions against her might conceivably be because she is innocent? Of the vast quantity of attacks and defamations of her from the conspiracy community, to its utter and deep shame? I knew Ruth Paine and I'm serious on this. Yes it goes against majority thinking (among readers of JFK forums), but does that make it lunatic fringe? Or a minority dissenting argument? My major paper on Ruth Paine, https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1686
Do you mean my argument that Dallas businesswoman Edith Whitworth at the Furniture Mart really saw Oswald and Marina in her store on the morning of Nov 11, 1963, Veterans Day, with Lee inquiring where to find a gunsmith? This is another minority opinion, but anyone who reads the paper can see it's not lunatic fringe territory, whether one agrees or disagrees. I admit the theoretical possibility that I could be wrong (I don't think so on this one though) but that is not what lunatic fringe makes. Here's that paper: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450 .
Do you mean the companion paper I wrote to that, in which I argued that Oswald next went down the street to the Irving Sport Shop and had Dial Ryder there reinstall the scope back on the Mannlicher-Carcano? Don't kneejerk opinions based on surface reaction to the conclusion; read the argument and see this is not lunatic fringe territory in the least. Here's that paper, https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1485 .
Do you mean my original first effort in the JFKA area, my interview with John Curington (the late HL Hunt aide), and comments in my footnotes and introduction there? No one else other than you has ever called that lunatic fringe. Most have found it highly interesting. And don't jump to conclusions that I believe everything Curington said. I think you jump to a lot of conclusions without knowing what you are talking about, concerning me. Here's that paper. https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1514.
How about this short piece that Larry Hancock published on his blog, a piece of original research I did on an uninvestigated report of an Oswald aptitude test showing a poor score in motor coordination which the Texas Employment Commission counselor who had that test done on Oswald believed correlated, in her anecdotal experience, with poor rifle markmanship ability, and which she attempted to bring to the attention of the Warren Commission and the FBI, and the FBI refused to investigate it? I broke that story, Larry published it in 2025, and it was missed before. More lunatic fringe there? Here's that one: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1749
How about the utterly shocking argument I made that the phone call Dean Andrews in New Orleans received regarding legal counsel for the arrested Oswald in Dallas, the weekend of the assassination, did not come from Clay Shaw, but came from Marcello circles via Marguerite Oswald in Dallas seeking a lawyer for her son. Original argument and research through and through in that paper, not everyone will agree, all matters Garrison arouse strong opinions. I'm in the camp negative on Garrison's prosecution methods. Is that lunatic fringe to take a contrarian opinion to the majority CT view favorable to Garrison? Here's my Dean Andrews paper: https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1690
Or do you mean the original research I did developing a first-ever study of the Odell Estes story, making cases for some Dallas-New Orleans mob and Ruby/Carousel Club connections in the summer of 1963 that have not been brought out before? Yes, there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on specifics in this paper because by its nature, the evidence is fragmentary. All I did in that paper is to make cases for some things. Is there anything in this paper that is "lunatic fringe"? https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1710 .
I have no track record of "lunatic fringe" in any non-JFKA area that anyone has accused me of. Nobody I've ever heard of thinks I'm lunatic fringe except your name-calling. What is the bee in your bonnet here? You have repeated this a few times, and its just off the wall, uncalled-for. I've always treated you respectfully to my knowledge. How would you like to have someone say "virtually every issue" you say anything about is "lunatic fringe"?
I have done quite a bit of reading and research on studies of the conspiracy-theory phenomenon, current research on it. Don't think you are the only one who has.
-
Pretty dadgum extreme and biased. YEE-HAA!
That's because I was quoting a post from 2018. Here ya go: Walden by Henry David Thoreau. Happy now?
Not everyone, sweetie, but indeed some we could name. ::) I'm sure Greg is an intelligent and hardworking guy who is kind to stray dogs, but in my opinion his ideas on virtually every issue are indeed lunatic fringe stuff. YMMV, and I'll bet it does.
The fact is, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there is now a VAST body of psychological and sociological literature concerning the conspiracy-prone mindset. Your continued umbrage might seem to many as though you were protesting just a wee bit too much.
Familiarity with this literature would be exceedingly helpful to a newbie in attempting to separate the wheat (e.g., Larry Hancock) from the chaff (i.e., you) in the CT literature.
I will concede: you are as fair and balanced as FOX News. ::)
What you fail to grasp is that I am talking about methodology for a newbie. My suggestion would be for a newbie, BEFORE he (or she) dives into substantive JFKA materials, to (1) familiarize himself with the literature concerning the conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) thoroughly acquaint himself with Oswald the actual man, not the fictional Most Interesting Man Who Ever Lived of much CT literature or the cardboard cutout who is plugged into many conspiracy theories only because "we gotta do something with him."
You just can't help yourself, can you? This thread is supposed to be a chance for people to list the top six books they would recommend to a newcomer. But, of course, you only list five books and then deluge us with more of your endless, pompous posturing that everyone who disagrees with you is part of the lunatic fringe and/or has a conspiracy-prone mindset and/or has a warped mind and/or has a form of mental illness, blah, blah, blah--after, that is, you announce that you will talk about your supposedly high IQ and academic honors if anyone asks.
I really don't think you grasp that when you bloviate like this, as you frequently, people quickly discern that you are hopelessly biased and closed minded.
I will again remind you that the ranks of people who reject your version of the shooting include medical doctors, historians, ballistics experts, former federal prosecutors, former federal investigators, forensic pathologists, physiologists, neuroscientists, firearms experts, neurologists, radiation oncologists, radiologists, physicists, etc., etc., not to mention that the last federal investigation into the assassination--the HSCA--concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that there were four shots, that Jack Ruby had significant Mafia ties and lied about how and why he killed Oswald, that there is credible evidence that anti-Castro Cubans were trying to frame Oswald weeks before the assassination, etc., etc.
And, just FYI, many researchers who posit a conspiracy initially believed in the lone-gunman theory. I'm one of them.
-
The HSCA concluded that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, that two gunmen were involved, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, and that there were four shots.
Question: On what basis did the HSCA conclude that?
Answer: A Dictabelt recording of a stick-open microphone on a three-wheeler police motorcycle miles from Dealey Plaza.
-
I wouldn't recommend 6 books. The WCR is all that is needed to know the truth of the JFK assassination. If one wants to deal with the myths of the JFKA, they can read Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugilosi. He does a thorough job of demolishing those myths and addressing all the objections made about the WCR, at least the ones that had been invented up to the time he wrote the book. Newer and nuttier ones are being invented all the time.
Back when I first started studying the JFKA, I bought a sampling of conspiracy books, Plausible Denial, Mafia Kingfish, and Best Evidence. What I learned from these books is that I should be more discerning in what I spend my money on.
-
Lance, thank you. I have high confidence that this is the woman you described. She was 16 during part of 1908. I'll delete this link if you prefer.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/190262426/sara_p-simmons
That is indeed Dear Old Granny. We called her Mammy. She was actually always very nice to me in a distant way. If folks here want a further freak-out, she was one of the "Baker girls," born in the Cayman Islands. The "Baker" was Lorenzo Dow Baker, one of the founders of the - wait for it - United Fruit Company! My middle name is Baker, establishing a direct connection between me and the CIA!
-
Good grief Lance, what are you on about? You are the first and only person to my knowledge that has ever accused me of being lunatic fringe. I've said some stupid things, may be wrong on some things, but you're just out of line and I don't think you know what you are talking about.
If I knew what I was talking about, I certainly wouldn't be on a JFKA forum, would I? :D It's right in the Terms of Service: "Those who actually know what they are talking about are strongly advised to refrain from interrupting the discussions with informed or rational contributions." No, like most everyone here I absolutely revel in not knowing what I'm talking about.
"Lunatic fringe" is just my catch-all for CT theorizing that strikes me as beyond the pale. Viewed from the 30,000-foot level - i.e., as an entire scenario - your theories of the JFKA and Tippit murder strike me as overly elaborate and convulted to the point of resembling science fiction, almost as though someone had set out on a mission to break new ground, believability be damned. I did appreciate your defense of Ruth Paine, whom I regard as the soul of innocence.
It probably is unfair to place you and MTG in the same pod, MTG being (in my opinion) the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe. In your case, I meant "lunatic fringe" in a kinder and gentler way. The larger question being, "Who cares what I think anyway?"
MTG slings ad hominem insults like they were popcorn, but Dear Old Lance and most of his other targets just consider the source and let the popcorn fall where it will.
-
You just can't help yourself, can you? This thread is supposed to be a chance for people to list the top six books they would recommend to a newcomer. But, of course, you only list five books and then deluge us with more of your endless, pompous posturing that everyone who disagrees with you is part of the lunatic fringe and/or has a conspiracy-prone mindset and/or has a warped mind and/or has a form of mental illness, blah, blah, blah--after, that is, you announce that you will talk about your supposedly high IQ and academic honors if anyone asks.
Uh, you might want to review my first post here and YOUR response, he of the conveniently short memory. You will see that it was YOU who went off on a tangential rant. You repeatedly - incessantly - mischaracterize what others have said and then respond to that straw man. In my interactions on perhaps 30 internet forums dating back to 1996, you are among the most grimly humorless, thin-skinned, self-important, just-flat-whacked-out characters I have encountered. Fortunately, most here are perceptive enough to see you for what you are.
-
I wouldn't recommend 6 books. The WCR is all that is needed to know the truth of the JFK assassination. If one wants to deal with the myths of the JFKA, they can read Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugilosi. He does a thorough job of demolishing those myths and addressing all the objections made about the WCR, at least the ones that had been invented up to the time he wrote the book. Newer and nuttier ones are being invented all the time.
Back when I first started studying the JFKA, I bought a sampling of conspiracy books, Plausible Denial, Mafia Kingfish, and Best Evidence. What I learned from these books is that I should be more discerning in what I spend my money on.
Yes, this! And I will add that Vincent Bugliosi’s huge book is worth at least five other books. So, I think essentially this should equal six books…. ;)
-
Yes, this! And I will add that Vincent Bugliosi’s huge book is worth at least five other books. So, I think essentially this should equal six books…. ;)
I assumed we were talking about a newcomer with a genuine interest in becoming "involved" in the JFKA. Reading the WR report and Bugliosi right off the bat would certainly serve to indoctrinate a newcomer into the LN narrative, but this would be like a CTer suggesting that a newcomer read Doug Horne's or Jim DiEugenio's work first. In my responses, I was not talking about "indoctrinating a newcomer into my view of the truth of the JFKA" but more in the vein of "preparing a newcomer to think rationally about the JFKA" when he dives into the LN and CT literature. To be fair to MTG (eek!) his list is at least somewhat balanced, albeit with books I wouldn't recommend. If I were following his approach, I would've recommended what I regard as the three best LN-oriented books and the three best CT-oriented books, but I really don't think this is the way for a newcomer to begin.
-
Six Seconds in Dallas
Last Second in Dallas
JFK: Absolute Proof
No More Silence
Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
The Plot to Kill the President
Those are all good books, but they're all pro-conspiracy, so a newcomer would get no unfiltered presentation of the pro-WC view. They would also get no exposure to the mortal-error view. The mortal-error view is a minority viewpoint, but it has a number of adherents, and it is based on some hard evidence that refutes the idea that Oswald fired three shots and that one of them hit JFK's head.
Last Second in Dallas is especially important because it contains over 100 pages of material on the crucial new research on the acoustical evidence done by BBN scientists from 2015-2018.
-
Six Seconds in Dallas
Last Second in Dallas
JFK: Absolute Proof
No More Silence
Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
The Plot to Kill the President
All of these books will end up on history's clearance table, as they should, while the WCR will continue to stand tall as the definitive account of JFKA as it has since it was first released to the public almost 62 years ago.
-
All of these books will end up on history's clearance table, as they should, while the WCR will continue to stand tall as the definitive account of JFKA as it has since it was first released to the public almost 62 years ago.
I predict my question will offend the sensibilities of all LNs as well as most CTs. If so, is the reaction I predict merely coincidental, or did it serve to justify
the time and financial cost it must have expended to arrive as a problem solving strategy that has turned into a nearly completer success in its obvious goal, to confuse and make both LNs and CTs look much more ridiculous than the contents and "conclusions" of the Warren Report, arrived at during the limits of a strict, politically motivated deadline, VS following the evidence wherever it led, regardless of total monetary costs and length of time required?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0
.....
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20298-man-of-a-million-fragments-the-true-story-of-clay-shaw-2013/?tab=comments#comment-275862
Thomas H. Purvis - Posted July 18, 2013
As was long ago indicated on this forum, the Clay Shaw/Garrison case was little more than a massive "smoke screen" that was created in order to mis-direct the attentions of those who were making attempt at resolving the issues of the assassination.
In event there is any difficulty in location of these postings, one may want to look up the terminology "Land Sharks".
Tom
P.S. John.-----Glad to see that you have re-opened the forum. With the 50th anniversary of the event soon approaching there will no doubt be many who are searching for some of the factual truths.
Many of which can be found on this forum.
Authors and film producers authored products for sale. Admitting there is persuasive new research evidence tending
to prove their entire conspiracy scenarios unreliable, is not something almost any of them are inclined to do!
Stone and DiEugenio are about the last people open to or politely gracious enough to consideration of facts of sufficient weight to seriously
call into question who Garrison and his agenda truly were. DiEugenio, for example insulates himself with a belief system
intolerant to consideration that there was nothing sinister about the provenance of the postal money order linked to the
payment for the alleged assassination rifle.
The most inflexible conspiracy cult members to considering impeaching evidence are the supporters of the book authored by John Armstrong.
Instead of reading or watching products for sale, join an active JFK Assassination forum and do all of your own research.
My research impeached author Peter Janney's claims in his book Mary's Mosaic, that Mary was assassinated by a shadowy witness who testified
against attorney Dovey Roundtree's murder trial defendant in 1965 and then vanished off the face of the earth, protected by the CIA, ever since.
As a consequence Janney had to issue a revision of his book.
I found proof Garrison and Mellen's CIA people were actually first cousin brothers of Garrison's wife, Leah, and that Shaw had been informed
by one of the two, David Baldwin, shortly after Shaw's indictment, that he was Leah Garrison's Godfather as well as her cousin.
So Shaw knew this information early and author Joan Mellen, who knew Garrison personally since 1969, proved she was kept from awareness of those
relationships, IOW, never informed of them by Garrison.,
Joan Mellen's "CIA person", David Baldwin advised his former Trade Mart boss, Clay Shaw, of the following, soon after Shaw's indictment of inconvenient facts
neither, along with Nicholas Lemann, ever disclosed on the record or obviously to Joan Mellen or to the editor of Garrison's biography and writer of the JFK, the movie screenplay, Jeremy Sklar!
Supporting citations available here,:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2296.0
Have you ever resented learning something new or having someone like me put it in front of your face, but not wanting to
know because it contradicts what you know you already know? It happens to me too often and I resent it and assume others are similarly unappreciative of suddenly learning unimpeachable truth.
Despite my 2016 discovery that Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann (wife of NOLA attorney Monty Lemann) was step-mother of Garrison accused, "WDSU outside counsel" distributing CIA funds to pay lawyers representing clients obstructing the Garrison investigation, Stephen B. Lemann and his brother, Thomas B. Lemann, father of prominent, chronic Garrison critic Nicholas B. Lemann, and that Mildred C.L. Lemann also happened to have a daughter, also Mildred, married to former CIA covert agent, David G. Baldwin, described by author Joan Mellen,
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
Tom S. April 12, 2016 at 1:25 pm
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html)
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
…….
REX: I – I think –
JOAN: – when (Attorney Edward) Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people….
.....
In the course of attempting to determine if my new fact checked research details were actually original, I found identical details, by author of a biography of Clay Shaw, Donald H Carpenter.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvc/m_y25b9LkuA/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9mQtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq="joan+mellen"... (https://books.google.com/books?id=9mQtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq="joan+mellen"+stephen+lemann&source=bl&ots=JQ0cQ7W_xe&sig=zjEbm-HJgiFBiqsZJ_VSNijJh0U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAvsOe1YnMAhVLHD4KHdSUDKoQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=%20stephen%20lemann&f=false)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6e7iexAG0lM/Vrds4GJIGUI/AAAAAAAACvM/3WomDDWJrMw/s512-Ic42/BaldwinLemannStepsisterCarpenter.jpg)
Nicholas Lemann wrote a scathing review in GQ magazine late 1991 of about to be released, JFK, the movie, followed by an appearance on the Charlie Rose TV
show to discuss and debate the reliability of that film, with its screenplay writer, Zachary Sklar, who Lemann had obviously not disclosed the conflicts of interests
involving Lemann's own key familial relationships, His uncle, Steohen Lemann was accused by Garrison as being the CIA pay master in New Orleans, His father Thomas and uncle, Stephen, were board members and part owners of the holding company that owned WDSU TV and radio....
Jesse Core just happened to be feated at a party in reaction to his wedding engagement, held at the Dallas home then owner occupied, said owner later renting
that home to Gen. Edwin Walker....
https://archive.org/details/Charlie-Rose-1991-12-30
Charlie Rose 1991-12-30 : PBS : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming …
Dec 30, 1991 · Nicholas Lemann, David Denby, and Zachary Sklar debate Oliver Stone's JFK; Art Spiegelman on his new book; actor Martin Sheen.
Does this not resemble false representation to a court?
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/806/603/1747985/
Russo v. Conde Nast Publications, 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992)
US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana - 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992)
November 17, 1992
......
UNDISPUTED FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
In its January, 1992 issue, GQ Magazine published an article entitled "The Case Against Jim Garrison" (hereafter the "GQ article"). The GQ article was written by Nicholas B. Lemann, a New Orleans native and winner of numerous awards for his books and articles. The GQ article was a personal memoir[1] of Lemann's recollections of growing up in New Orleans during District Attorney Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw for allegedly conspiring to assassinate JFK.
The 1991 movie release, JFK sparked renewed interest in the assassination as well as the prosecution itself of Clay Shaw. The film was purportedly based on Garrison's book, On the Trail of Assassins, and sympathetically portrayed Garrison.
The GQ article published by Lemann took a different slant, expressing his view that Shaw's prosecution was built on flimsy evidence and was a tremendous embarrassment to the city.[2] The thrust of Lemann's article was his opinion countering that expressed by Stone in his film release JFK, to wit:.....
.....Not only is the Garrison-Stone case for the greater importance of the Kennedy assassination essentially a fantasy, its strange that they feel it has to be made at all.... Garrison and Stone are trying to make it into something more: the main turning point in American history which it wasn't. Garrison, for all these years, has been engaged in a witch-hunt, not a genuine attempt to solve a crime. Like all witch hunts, his has been based on the idea that some vast, mysterious evil has society in its grip. If the sense *605 of pervasive corruption isn't there, then Garrison's mission (and, even more, his method) somehow completely loses its aura of virtue.[3]
-
All of these books will end up on history's clearance table, as they should, while the WCR will continue to stand tall as the definitive account of JFKA as it has since it was first released to the public almost 62 years ago.
Thanks for the good laugh!
FYI, three of those books were bestsellers and were widely acclaimed. They were also extensively cited in later scholarly books on evidence of Mafia involvement written by historians Dr. Richard Mahoney and Dr. David Kaiser.
Last Second in Dallas, published in 2021, is still selling well. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Rhodes, a graduate of Yale University, wrote the foreword for the book. What do you suppose Rhodes sees in the book that you don't?
BTW, you might want to read the HSCA's critique of the WC's investigation.
Anyway, do you plan on providing your list of six books that you'd recommend to a newcomer, or are you just here to snipe and posture?
-
Thanks for the good laugh!
FYI, three of those books were bestsellers and were widely acclaimed.
So was Gone With The Wind. Do you think that was a factual account as well?
They were also extensively cited in later scholarly books on evidence of Mafia involvement written by historians Dr. Richard Mahoney and Dr. David Kaiser.
I always get a chuckle when you throw around the word "scholarly".
Last Second in Dallas, published in 2021, is still selling well. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Rhodes, a graduate of Yale University, wrote the foreword for the book. What do you suppose Rhodes sees in the book that you don't? [/quote]
You'd have to ask Rhodes that. Your mention of "a graduate of Yale University" reminds me of the line from the movie Quiz Show spoken by Albert Freedman and the gesture he made. "Ooh, Harvard Law School".
BTW, you might want to read the HSCA's critique of the WC's investigation.[/quote]
Why would I care what an investigation that got it wrong have to say about the investigation that got it right.
Anyway, do you plan on providing your list of six books that you'd recommend to a newcomer, or are you just here to snipe and posture?
No.
-
MG: They were also extensively cited in later scholarly books on evidence of Mafia involvement written by historians Dr. Richard Mahoney and Dr. David Kaiser.
JC: I always get a chuckle when you throw around the word "scholarly".
Oh, so are you saying that Dr. Mahoney and Dr. Kaiser are not scholars? Do you know anything about their education and credentials?
Just to give you some idea of how discrediting and unserious your comment is, here is some information on Dr. Mahoney's and Dr. Kaiser's education and credentials:
----Dr. Richard Mahoney----
Dr. Mahoney was educated at Brophy College Preparatory, Princeton University, Johns Hopkins University and Arizona State University.
Mahoney has lectured as a visiting professor at Templeton College (Oxford University), The JFK School of Government (Harvard University), the Beijing Institute of Foreign Trade, and the Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador (Quito campus).
In addition to his JFKA book The Kennedy Brothers, he has authored JFK: Ordeal in Africa, Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, and Getting Away with Murder. He has also authored numerous articles and monographs on presidential history, foreign policy, and international trade.
----Dr. David Kaiser----
Dr. Kaiser earned his Ph.D. in history from Harvard University.
He was a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College from 1990 until 2012. He has taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College, and Harvard University.
In addition to his JFKA book The Road to Dallas, his published works include Economic Diplomacy and the Origins of the Second World War, Postmortem: New Evidence in the Case of Sacco and Vanzetti, Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler, and Epic Season: The 1948 American League Pennant Race.
I guess Mahoney and Kaiser are two more people who, according to you, have "lost their ability to think rationally" because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
Maybe, just maybe, they're not the ones who cannot think rationally.
MG: Anyway, do you plan on providing your list of six books that you'd recommend to a newcomer, or are you just here to snipe and posture?
JC: No.
Gee, I wonder why.
Perhaps because you haven't read six books on the assassination?
-
Oh, so are you saying that Dr. Mahoney and Dr. Kaiser are not scholars? Do you know anything about their education and credentials?
Just to give you some idea of how discrediting and unserious your comment is, here is some information on Dr. Mahoney's and Dr. Kaiser's education and credentials:
----Dr. Richard Mahoney----
Dr. Mahoney was educated at Brophy College Preparatory, Princeton University, Johns Hopkins University and Arizona State University.
Mahoney has lectured as a visiting professor at Templeton College (Oxford University), The JFK School of Government (Harvard University), the Beijing Institute of Foreign Trade, and the Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador (Quito campus).
In addition to his JFKA book The Kennedy Brothers, he has authored JFK: Ordeal in Africa, Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, and Getting Away with Murder. He has also authored numerous articles and monographs on presidential history, foreign policy, and international trade.
----Dr. David Kaiser----
Dr. Kaiser earned his Ph.D. in history from Harvard University.
He was a professor in the Strategy and Policy Department of the United States Naval War College from 1990 until 2012. He has taught at Carnegie Mellon, Williams College, and Harvard University.
In addition to his JFKA book The Road to Dallas, his published works include Economic Diplomacy and the Origins of the Second World War, Postmortem: New Evidence in the Case of Sacco and Vanzetti, Politics and War: European Conflict from Philip II to Hitler, and Epic Season: The 1948 American League Pennant Race.
I guess Mahoney and Kaiser are two more people who, according to you, have "lost their ability to think rationally" because they believe JFK was killed by a conspiracy.
Maybe, just maybe, they're not the ones who cannot think rationally.
Gee, I wonder why.
Perhaps because you haven't read six books on the assassination?
[/quote]
It's quite possible in our education system to accumulate numerous degrees without demonstrating an ounce of common sense. Anybody who can look at the evidence against Oswald and not conclude he was the assassin is not someone who should be taken seriously, no matter how many sheepskins they have on the wall.
Reading lots of books is not going to make one educated or informed about the JFK assassination. Quality is what matters over quantity. You apparently have read lots of books and don't seem to have a clue as to how the assassination occurred or who did it. That's remarkable given how easy it is to figure out.
-
All of these books will end up on history's clearance table, as they should, while the WCR will continue to stand tall as the definitive account of JFKA as it has since it was first released to the public almost 62 years ago.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340568/m1/1/med_res/)
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/pdf/WH2_DeclanFord.pdf
,,,,been very helpful.
Mrs. FORD. I hope so. I frankly wish I had questioned her more but I didn’t
feel it was my duty, but I wanted to tell you what she said to me.
recess.)
The CHAIRMAN. We will take a short recess.
(Short
TESTIMONY
OF DECLAN
P. FORD
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ford, you were given a copy of this statement were you?
Mr. Foan. Yes, sir.
....
.... No.
Representative
between
FORD. That is all.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice, may I confer briefly with counsel?
The CIIAIRMAN. Where were you born?
Mr. FOBD. Los Angeles.
The CHAIR~~AN. Did you go to the publicxschools there?
Mr. FORD. I attended both parochial
and public the two schools in Los Angeles and Glendale.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you went to the University of California
Mr. FORD. Right.
The CHAIRX~AN. Where did you go after that.
at Los Ahveles? You were in the service, did you say?
Mr. FOBD. I was in the service. in Bakersfield After I got out of the service I went back
to UCLA and finished my education and then went to work in the oil industry first and in Los Angeles, Ventura, DeGollyer
and McNaughton
The CHAIRMAN. I see. ....
12 years ago I added this section to the Earl Warren Wikipedia biography, reasoning that the JFK Wikipedia bio included plenty of dirt, a substantial portion less well supported than the following, after I noted that the Earl Warren bio made him out to be an altar boy.The wikipedia minder removed the CONTROVERSY section less than an hour later.
Warren as prosecutor, had known Declan Ford's father, and as governor, had appointed Declan's brother, John, as a state judge. Warren was pleased when Judge John Ford issued a favorable ruling related to air pollution reduction.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/ford_d.htm
TESTIMONY OF DECLAN P. FORD
"....Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice, may I confer briefly with counsel?
The CHAIRMAN. Where were you born?
Mr. FORD. Los Angeles.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you go to the public schools there?
Mr. FORD. I attended both parochial and public schools in Los Angeles and Glendale.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you went to the University of California at Los Angeles?
Mr. FORD. Right.
The CHAIRMAN. Where did you go after that. You were in the service, did you say?
Mr. FORD. I was in the service. After I got out of the service I went back to UCLA and finished my education and then went to work in the oil industry first in Bakersfield and in Los Angeles, Ventura, and then went to work for DeGollyer and McNaughton overseas.
The CHAIRMAN. I see. .."
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3865.msg152738.html#msg152738
I did not understand how the opportunity arose for this to happen, or why. Warren did not interfere with his daughter Virginia being a fixture on the arm of Conrad Hilton, an organized crime front and money launderer. After it was assumed Virginia Warren would marry the much older Hilton, she married John Daly, visibly an alcoholic who Warren had to have encountered, considering the amount of time Daly spent drinking at Toots Shor's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toots_Shor
Toots Shor - Wikipedia
The then-Chief Justice, Earl Warren, considered Toots one of his closest friends. "The Chief" showed up to be photographed with a shovel full of dirt when Toots broke ground on Toots' 52nd street "joint". Third restaurant
Supporting links can be accessed at this link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earl_Warren&oldid=432596658#Controversy
Controversy
Although Drew Pearson and Earl Warren were close friends and vacationed together[44] and considering Pearson's stepson, Tyler Abell and his wife Bess were employed in the Lyndon Johnson White House[45], the reporting of Drew Pearson in October, 1963, was incompatible with the proposal by Earl Warren and the endorsement of Tom C. Clark of the appointment of Albert E. Jenner, Jr. to the Warren Commission staff.
In 1946, fearing for his life, Chicago organized crime leader James M. Ragen contacted Clark through newspaper columnist Drew Pearson to obtain the protection of federal agents in exchange for information. A dozen FBI agents were sent to Chicago to interrogate Ragen. After checking and confirming the details of mob activity provided by Ragen, Tom Clark withdrew Ragen's FBI protection for lack of federal jurisdiction to prosecute the suspects Ragen named. Almost immediately, Ragen was seriously wounded by gunfire. Several suspects were arrested but no one was prosecuted due to the disappearance of some witnesses and the lack of cooperation of others. Ragen's condition was improving after the shooting, but he died suddenly in the hospital of mercury poisoning. Drew Pearson hinted in his syndicated column in October 1963 that Clark had told him that the FBI confirmed Ragen's accusations of Chicago mob control by leading businessmen and politicians. This was confirmed in the posthumous publication, eleven years later, of Drew Pearson's Diaries, 1949–1959 edited by Tyler Abell.[46]; Tom Clark had told Pearson that Ragen stated that Henry Crown, the Hilton Hotels chain, and Walter Annenberg controlled the mob.[47][48][46][49][50][51][52][53][54]
Earl Warren and his family were close friends of Henry Crown's investment partner, Conrad Hilton, and Warren's daughter, Virginia was formerly involved in a close relationship with Conrad Hilton.[55][56][57][58] The year following the publication of the Warren Report, Earl Warren selected[59] as his Supreme Court law clerk, the son of Paul Ziffren,[60]former California state Democratic party chairman, forced to resign after allegations of Ziffren's organized crime connections were leveled by Earl Warren's friend,[61] Senator William F. Knowland.[62][63][64][65]
"One of the things that was embarrassing and got national coverage was the Reader's Digest article of July, 1960. It was written by Lester Velie and is called, "Paul Ziffren, The Democrats' Man of Mystery." (The author sets forth a very detailed account of "Ziffren 's connections with the underworld and gambling figures of the period,") "[66]
Despite the disturbing information about Henry Crown, et al., Drew Pearson claimed was provided to him by Clark in 1946, Justice Tom Clark appointed Crown's son, John, as one of two of his 1956 Supreme Court session law clerks.[67] In December 1963, Chief Justice Earl Warren, acting as head of the newly formed Presidential Commission investigating the death of President Kennedy, suggested that Henry Crown's attorney, Albert E. Jenner, Jr., who also, at that time employed Crown's son, John at Jenner's Chicago law firm, be appointed as a senior assistant Warren Commission counsel. Warren gave his fellow commissioners the names of two men who approved of Jenner's appointment, Tom C Clark and Dean Acheson. [68]
The appointment of Albert Jenner to investigate[69] whether either Oswald or Ruby acted alone or conspired with others remains controversial.[70][71] In 1953, Albert E. Jenner, Jr. had represented Michael Frank Darling when he was investigated by the House Committee on Education and Labor.[72]Darling was business manager of IBEW union Chicago local 1031, the first and largest union organization to contract insurance coverage with Allen Dorfman and his father, Paul, an associate of Jack Ruby. [73][74][75]
https://books.google.com/books?id=oGq1AAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=high+places
Diaries, 1949-1959, Volume 1
Drew Pearson
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974 - Journalists - 592 pages
"...high places. J. Edgar Hoover intimated the same thing. He said the people Ragen pointed to had now reformed. I learned later that it pointed to the Hilton Hotel chain, Henry Crown, the big Jewish financier in Chicago (involved in Cook County real estate deals with Jake Arvey) and Walter Annenberg.."
The accusation was that Crown and Hilton were Tony Accardo financiers, Howard Willens, DOJ liason to the WC who assigned the investigatory subject matter to
Albert Jenner and the othe Asst. WC counsels, was the son of a man who purchased the home in River Forest, IL, next to Accardo's and, when it was up for sale recently, a rumor emerged that the former Willens home had a tunnel connecting it to the Accardo residence!
-
All of these books will end up on history's clearance table, as they should, while the WCR will continue to stand tall as the definitive account of JFKA as it has since it was first released to the public almost 62 years ago.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340568/m1/1/med_res/)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Joseph_Ford
,,,,,From 1934 to 1941, Ford was a professor at Loyola Law School—the school where his father was the founding dean.[1] From 1941 to 1943, he was the Chief Enforcement Attorney in Los Angeles for the Office of Price Administration, the newly established federal agency responsible for rent and price controls (the OPA was abolished in 1946).[1]
In 1943, Governor Earl Warren appointed Ford to the Los Angeles County Municipal Court, where he served until 1948 when Warren elevated him to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.[1] Ford left the Superior Court when Governor Pat Brown appointed Ford to the California Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three in 1959.[1] Brown elevated Ford to Presiding Justice of the same court in 1966.[1] Ford retired in 1977 and died in Newport Beach, California in 1982.[1]
Childhood
Ford was one of three children of father William Joseph Ford and Margaret McCarthy. The other 2 were Robert and Margaret. Ford's mother died when he was four years old. Ford's father later remarried Cecily Chambers and had 7 more children: Liam, Moira, Patrick, James, Declan, Joe Brendan, and Derrick. John Joseph Ford went on to graduate from Loyola High School. Robert "Bob" Ford, Moira Ford, Patrick Ford and James Ford also became practicing attorneys in California.
12 years ago I added this section to the Earl Warren Wikipedia biography, reasoning that the JFK Wikipedia bio included plenty of dirt, a substantial portion less well supported than the following, after I noted that the Earl Warren bio made him out to be an altar boy.The wikipedia minder removed the CONTROVERSY section less than an hour later.
Warren as prosecutor, had known Declan Ford's father, Wkilliam, and as governor, had appointed Declan's brother, John, as a state judge. Warren was pleased when Judge John Ford issued a favorable ruling related to air pollution reduction.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/ford_d.htm
TESTIMONY OF DECLAN P. FORD
"....Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Chief Justice, may I confer briefly with counsel?
The CHAIRMAN. Where were you born?
Mr. FORD. Los Angeles.
The CHAIRMAN. Did you go to the public schools there?
Mr. FORD. I attended both parochial and public schools in Los Angeles and Glendale.
The CHAIRMAN. Then you went to the University of California at Los Angeles?
Mr. FORD. Right.
The CHAIRMAN. Where did you go after that. You were in the service, did you say?
Mr. FORD. I was in the service. After I got out of the service I went back to UCLA and finished my education and then went to work in the oil industry first in Bakersfield and in Los Angeles, Ventura, and then went to work for DeGollyer and McNaughton overseas.
The CHAIRMAN. I see. .."
[/quote]
-
Vincent Bugliosi’s huge book is worth at least five other books. So, I think essentially this should equal six books. ;)
Yes, at least six. Possibly up to 10! 😉
Pack a lunch and dive into this review below: 😁
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEiB7L3bVyx6o-QkNO1E9PFrXOAxIOWoS1y1kTmnIt1c65uk7OGBGqclSaMQPw6R3CEaq170D5i49Ohs-ymDqSZWb1Cb02c5woQgg_v-DfXLh1TmLZ-rWO9BqF7FkIdrAFumA277SSwwAzWFkUEr3wtRR74jb5KRzF9mNJvdvYXgIicBLDOOPFsfTi-uObs=s670) (https://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com)
-
I wouldn't recommend 6 books. The WCR is all that is needed to know the truth of the JFK assassination. If one wants to deal with the myths of the JFKA, they can read Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugilosi. He does a thorough job of demolishing those myths and addressing all the objections made about the WCR, at least the ones that had been invented up to the time he wrote the book. Newer and nuttier ones are being invented all the time.
Yes, this! And I will add that Vincent Bugliosi’s huge book is worth at least five other books. So, I think essentially this should equal six books….
Yes, at least six. Possibly up to 10!
And this kind of severe bias and echo-chamber group think is why you guys are in a decided minority in the Western world; it's why your version of the shooting is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world.
Here you have simply been asked to list six books that you think would give a newcomer a decent understanding of the JFK case, and you can't even bring yourselves to do that.
I started the thread by listing six books, four of them pro-conspiracy and two of them anti-conspiracy, and two of the four pro-conspiracy books do not attempt to identify any suspects but just focus on the evidence relating to the shooting and JFK's wounds.
Now, as for Bugliosi's book, I would bet good money that not one of you has read any of the scholarly critiques of the book. These critiques document that Bugliosi made many erroneous claims on important issues, and that the book's errors far outweigh its valid points.
For those who might be interested, here are some of the critical scholarly reviews of Bugliosi's book:
Dr. Gary Aguilar's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html
Dr. David Wrone's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History.html
Michael Green's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Pat Speer's review:
https://www.reclaiminghistory.org/speer_2007-07-24.htm
Dr. Don Thomas's reviews:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi.html
Former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Reply_From_a_Conspiracy_Believer.html
Dr. Jerry McKnight's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html
Dr. Josiah Thompson's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Epic_Book_Resurrects_Finding_That_Oswald_Acted_Alone_in_killing_JFK.html
-
And this kind of severe bias and echo-chamber group think is why you guys are in a decided minority in the Western world; it's why your version of the shooting is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world.
I'm sure it gives you a great deal of comfort knowing that a woefully uninformed public thinks like you do about the JFKA.
-
To be honest, the WC clearly had a mandate and agenda not to look too closely at certain possibilities. It was heavily FBI-reliant, staff-reliant, and operating under pressure to "get the damn thing done." The WR report is an impressive piece of work under the circumstances, but there is no way it can be viewed as an impartial, full-scale investigation and vetting of all the relevant issues; it just can't.
Reclaiming History is a prosecutor's brief from the title to the last page of the index. Bugliosi was neither an historian nor a scholar. In addition to being a successful prosecutor, he was a massively self-promoting publicity hound; that's just the reality. In my experience, prosecutors and defense counsel both tend to have a one-dimensional view of every case.
Yes, the WR and VB would be the place to steer a newbie if one wanted to frontload him with the LN narrative, but I fail to see how that would be any more reasonable than a CTer steering him to Horne's books. Almost everyone in the JFKA is such a fanatic that the inclination is to frontload a newbie with "the Truth" - be it LN Truth or CT Truth - before he encounters anything else. That's why I say (1) learn everything you can about Oswald the man, because he's central to the case and every theory, and (2) at least learn a bit about epistemology and logic lest you be wowed by smart and articulate people saying crazy things.
-
To be honest, the WC clearly had a mandate and agenda not to look too closely at certain possibilities.
I must have missed that memo. Can you cite it.
It was heavily FBI-reliant, staff-reliant, and operating under pressure to "get the damn thing done."
I'm always suspicious when I see a word or phrase quoted out of context. It makes me wonder what is being omitted.
The WR report is an impressive piece of work under the circumstances, but there is no way it can be viewed as an impartial, full-scale investigation and vetting of all the relevant issues; it just can't.
Because you say so.
Reclaiming History is a prosecutor's brief from the title to the last page of the index. Bugliosi was neither an historian nor a scholar. In addition to being a successful prosecutor, he was a massively self-promoting publicity hound; that's just the reality. In my experience, prosecutors and defense counsel both tend to have a one-dimensional view of every case.
On the contrary, Reclaiming History is a thorough and meticulous defense of the WCR.
Yes, the WR and VB would be the place to steer a newbie if one wanted to frontload him with the LN narrative, but I fail to see how that would be any more reasonable than a CTer steering him to Horne's books. Almost everyone in the JFKA is such a fanatic that the inclination is to frontload a newbie with "the Truth" - be it LN Truth or CT Truth - before he encounters anything else. That's why I say (1) learn everything you can about Oswald the man, because he's central to the case and every theory, and (2) at least learn a bit about epistemology and logic lest you be wowed by smart and articulate people saying crazy things.
The WCR and Reclaiming History are where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of the JFKA without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical conspiracy crap. Reclaiming History is especially valuable in the debunking of most of the popular conspiracy myths that had been propagated in the 43 years since the release of the WCR. I saw most because new ones have cropped up since it's publication.
-
Now, as for Bugliosi's book, I would bet good money that not one of you has read any of the scholarly critiques of the book. These critiques document that Bugliosi made many erroneous claims on important issues, and that the book's errors far outweigh its valid points.
For those who might be interested, here are some of the critical scholarly reviews of Bugliosi's book:
Dr. Gary Aguilar's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Review_of_Reclaiming_History.html
Dr. David Wrone's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History.html
Michael Green's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Besmirching_History.html
Pat Speer's review:
https://www.reclaiminghistory.org/speer_2007-07-24.htm
Dr. Don Thomas's reviews:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Debugging_Bugliosi.html
Former HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Reply_From_a_Conspiracy_Believer.html
Dr. Jerry McKnight's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Bugliosi_Fails_to_Resuscitate_the_Single-Bullet_Theory.html
Dr. Josiah Thompson's review:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Epic_Book_Resurrects_Finding_That_Oswald_Acted_Alone_in_killing_JFK.html
I neglected to mention Milicent Cranor's revealing critique of Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_A_Crime_Scene_Between_Two_Hard_Covers.html
She documents that Bugliosi repeatedly misrepresented the medical evidence and ignored the contradictory results of Lattimer's wound ballistics tests.
Cranor is a currently a senior editor at WhoWhatWhy. She previously worked as an editor of legal and scientific documents and has co-authored numerous peer-reviewed articles for medical journals.
Here are some excerpt from her review:
You will not learn from Bugliosi that the majority of Parkland doctors said the [throat] wound was not ragged. What is more seriously deceptive is that Bugliosi put these words — “ragged edges” — into the mouths of doctors who in fact said the opposite.
Reference 1069 only documents Humes’s questionable claim that, from Malcolm O. Perry, he learned for the first time JFK had a bullet wound in his throat. But Perry never told Humes or anyone else that the wound had “ragged edges.”
Perry implied the wound was definitely not ragged:
“I indicated that the neck wound appeared like an entrance wound, and I based this mainly on its size and the fact that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged” (7 HSCA 312).
Elsewhere, Perry told the WC that the edges were “neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean.” (3 WCH 372). . . .
Carrico testified in at least two places the [throat] wound was “rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.” (6 WCH 3); “fairly round, had no jagged edges.” (3 WCH 362)
Significant omission: The statement, by Charles R. Baxter, that came immediately before the above selection: “It did not appear to be a jagged wound such as one would expect with a very high velocity rifle bullet.” (6 WCH 42)
[Quoting Bugliosi]"The flying fragments of rib and soft tissue, which were blown out by the tumbling bullet, ripped a large ragged hole in both the shirt and the jacket, just as Oswald’s bullet had done in Dealey Plaza.” (Bugliosi, Endnotes, p.326)
The hole in the front of the governor’s shirt was large, no doubt due to exiting rib fragments, but the hole in the front of the jacket was created only by the bullet, and the small size of this hole indicates the bullet exited straight on, i.e., not sideways, and thus it was not tumbling.
Why would Bugliosi lie about the hole in Connally’s jacket? Why would he want it to appear as though the bullet had exited tumbling?
(1) The alleged tumbling is allegedly caused by the bullet’s alleged journey through JFK.
(2) The alleged tumbling is allegedly associated with the outward movement of Connally’s jacket lapel.
The false evidence concerning the actual size of the hole in Connally’s jacket was manufactured by the late John K. Lattimer, M.D., a well known urologist with powerful connections who wrote several articles, all hard sell and soft science — infomercials, really — that promoted the many aspects of the lone assassin theory. Lattimer’s disinformation on the ballistics of the single bullet theory was based on experiments using mock-ups of Kennedy and Connally (reference #4 below). Lattimer presumably shot Carcano bullets through these mock-ups, then presented various bits of data from the experiments, including the size of the mock torso’s back wound, and the experiment’s jacket lapel — both used to prove the bullet was tumbling.
Lattimer then falsely claimed that the bullet holes in the experiments matched those in the actual case. The similarity of these lies is interesting, expressed here in millimeters for easy comparison:
Back wound, actual size: 15mm
Size per Lattimer: 30mm
Hole in lapel, actual size: 9mm
Size per Lattimer: 30mm
Bugliosi was also very careful in the way he reported a second set of experiments performed by Lattimer to complement the first. When Lattimer fired directly at the simulated torso alone, with no intervening target representing Kennedy’s neck, the mock-up ribs did not push out the lapel, the bullet did not exit tumbling — it came out straight, and the hole in the experimental jacket lapel was small. In Lattimer’s own words, “The jacket did not bulge out and the lapel did not turn over.... With the bullet going straight ahead, wounds to the rib, shirt and jacket were punctate....”
But look how Bugliosi avoids the significant details of this experiment. Not one word from Bugliosi on the size of the hole in the front of the jacket used in the experiment.
-
The WCR and Reclaiming History are where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of the JFKA without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical conspiracy crap.
The [Bible is] where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of [reality] without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical [history and science] crap.
See how that works? Religious zealots are all the same, even if their religion is the LN narrative or Harvey and Lee. :D :D :D
-
The [Bible is] where to steer anyone who wants to know the truth of [reality] without having the waters muddied by a bunch of nonsensical [history and science] crap.
See how that works? Religious zealots are all the same, even if their religion is the LN narrative or Harvey and Lee. :D :D :D
There's a fundamental difference between the Bible and the WCR. One is faith based and one is based on evidence.
-
Here are 10 JFK Assassination books that I would recommend:
1. The Warren Commission's Final Report (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#The-Warren-Commission)
2. "Reclaiming History" (http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com) by Vincent Bugliosi
3. "Case Closed" (http://case--closed.blogspot.com) by Gerald Posner
4. "Oswald's Game" (http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com) by Jean Davison
5. "The JFK Myths" (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/book-review-jfk-myths.html) by Larry Sturdivan
6. "With Malice" (http://with--malice.blogspot.com) by Dale Myers
7. "Kennedy And Lincoln" (http://kennedy-and-lincoln.blogspot.com) by Dr. John K. Lattimer
8. "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" (http://you-are-the-jury.blogspot.com) by David Belin
9. "The Death Of A President" (http://the-death-of-a-president.blogspot.com) by William Manchester
And, of course, my own book (which provides a good overview of the case)....
10. "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (http://beyond-reasonable-doubt-book.blogspot.com) by Mel Ayton with David Von Pein
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMx77R0F9gjaS5mmM_Dp9CPR6KKX3Z0b_zyn-goRbf5ZT76S590-ZKRJFU9a1BtTO-ANZ7a2nJXbCJCwRjUXpVBaG8XSBNquat4YTLL78Hn3IrRqooFfPSyNtkGn3FKnkkvZo3PtbbZ2Kd/s410/Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt-Front-Cover.png) (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1939521238)
-
Here are 10 JFK Assassination books that I would recommend:
1. The Warren Commission's Final Report (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#The-Warren-Commission)
2. "Reclaiming History" (http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com) by Vincent Bugliosi
3. "Case Closed" (http://case--closed.blogspot.com) by Gerald Posner
4. "Oswald's Game" (http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com) by Jean Davison
5. "The JFK Myths" (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/book-review-jfk-myths.html) by Larry Sturdivan
6. "With Malice" (http://with--malice.blogspot.com) by Dale Myers
7. "Kennedy And Lincoln" (http://kennedy-and-lincoln.blogspot.com) by Dr. John K. Lattimer
8. "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" (http://you-are-the-jury.blogspot.com) by David Belin
9. "The Death Of A President" (http://the-death-of-a-president.blogspot.com) by William Manchester
And, of course, my own book (which provides a good overview of the case)....
10. "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (http://beyond-reasonable-doubt-book.blogspot.com) by Mel Ayton with David Von Pein
Wow, so you wouldn't recommend a single pro-conspiracy book to a newcomer, and you'd recommend the Warren Commission's report to a newcomer but not the House Select Committee on Assassinations' report.
It says much about your objectivity and credibility that you couldn't bring yourself to list a single pro-conspiracy book that you'd recommend to a newcomer. On a side note, did you not notice that the thread is about which six books you'd recommend to a newcomer, not which 10 books.
Again, it's this kind of severe bias and echo-chamber group think that is part of the reason your view of the JFK case is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world. You guys just don't seem to get it, and you just can't seem to help yourselves.
Finally, FYI, the 10 books that you list contradict each other on some key issues, such as the location of the rear head entry wound, the trajectory of the back-wound bullet, the location of the back wound, the position of JFK and Connally in the limo during the alleged hit of the single-bullet theory, and the 6.5 mm object on the autopsy skull x-rays.
-
I would recommend the following six books for a new student of the JFKA:
(1) The first chapter ("Summary and Conclusions") of the Warren Report to get familiar with the basic facts as presented by the Commission. This is a good starting point.
(2) Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Chapters I B ("Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy") and I C ("The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.")
(3) Sylvia Meagher - Accessories after the Fact to get acquainted with criticism of the Warren Report. For the same reason I would encourage the reading of
(4) Harold Weisberg - Whitewash I
(5) Jim Marrs - Crossfire - The Plot that killed Kennedy. One of the books promoting the existence of a rather large conspiracy. Biographical data about Oswald interesting, in general well written by former journalist Marrs. The complete absence of end notes prevents the reader from fact checking the sometimes bold statements. A good read though.
(6) The Zapruder film is not a book, therefore the recommendation of Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas for an analyses of the film.
-
I would recommend the following six books for a new student of the JFKA:
(1) The first chapter ("Summary and Conclusions") of the Warren Report to get familiar with the basic facts as presented by the Commission. This is a good starting point.
It's a damn good finishing point as well.
(2) Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Chapters I B ("Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy") and I C ("The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.")
This is where things go off the rails.
(3) Sylvia Meagher - Accessories after the Fact to get acquainted with criticism of the Warren Report. For the same reason I would encourage the reading of
(4) Harold Weisberg - Whitewash I
This is where the train has completely jumped the tracks.
(5) Jim Marrs - Crossfire - The Plot that killed Kennedy. One of the books promoting the existence of a rather large conspiracy. Biographical data about Oswald interesting, in general well written by former journalist Marrs. The complete absence of end notes prevents the reader from fact checking the sometimes bold statements. A good read though.
This is where the train has gone down the embankment and is plowing through a cornfield.
Jim Marrs never met a conspiracy theory he didn't embrace. The guy was a charlatan.
(6) The Zapruder film is not a book, therefore the recommendation of Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas for an analyses of the film.
Not the silliest conspiracy book ever written but one of the earliest. Even the title of the book is a faulty premise since the shooting took more than 6 seconds despite popular beliefs to the contrary.
-
Here are two books providing a different slant....
https://www.amazon.com/Kennedy-Ripples-True-Love-Story/dp/0963929801/
Kennedy Ripples: A Priest, a Woman, and the Assassination of J.F.K.
by Marianne Sullivan (Author)
The object of the above author of the above book's affection, Dallas Catholic priest, Walter Machann, who re-emerged in NOLA, post assassination.
Right into the hands of Stephen B Lemann, the man Garrison accused of being CIA paymaster in NOLA, at the same time Lemann and his brother, Thomas,
were each listed as individually, 10 percent or greater owners of the holding company that owned WDSU. The Lemann brothers happened to be step-sons
of the mother-in-law of a man Joan Mellen described to Rex Bradford as a CIA person in NOLA, David Baldwin, Clay Shaw's Trade Mart spokesman.
During the week Garrison indicted Clay Shaw, evidence in the archive of Clay Shaw shows that David Baldwin advised his friend,, Shaw, that David Baldwin
was Godfather and first cousin of Garrison's wife, Leah, and that Garrison was a psych case.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20160425212323im_/https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iqSsbVnCyuY/VunrPn_XVHI/AAAAAAAADS4/uUGdOF8zSPog_XJPZ5JJJ0HRhos7kRaAACCo/s512-Ic42/FatherMachannLemann072265.jpg)
....
Despite my 2016 discovery that Mildred Crumb Lyons Lemann (wife of NOLA attorney Monty Lemann) was step-mother of Garrison accused, "WDSU outside counsel" distributing CIA funds to pay lawyers representing clients obstructing the Garrison investigation, Stephen B. Lemann and his brother, Thomas B. Lemann, father of prominent, chronic Garrison critic Nicholas B. Lemann, and that Mildred C.L. Lemann also happened to have a daughter, also Mildred, married to former CIA covert agent, David G. Baldwin, described by author Joan Mellen,
.....
In the course of attempting to determine if my new fact checked research details were actually original, I found identical details, by author of a biography of Clay Shaw, Donald H Carpenter.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvc/m_y25b9LkuA/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9mQtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq="joan+mellen"... (https://books.google.com/books?id=9mQtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq="joan+mellen"+stephen+lemann&source=bl&ots=JQ0cQ7W_xe&sig=zjEbm-HJgiFBiqsZJ_VSNijJh0U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAvsOe1YnMAhVLHD4KHdSUDKoQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=%20stephen%20lemann&f=false)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6e7iexAG0lM/Vrds4GJIGUI/AAAAAAAACvM/3WomDDWJrMw/s512-Ic42/BaldwinLemannStepsisterCarpenter.jpg)
...I am hoping the above flaw in the research and writing of DiEugenio, Ms. Pease, and Ms. Mellen is obvious to readers. Garrison had kept secret, even from his own biography editor, Zachary Sklar, co-screenplay writer with Oliver Stone, of "JFK the Movie," that "CIA brothers" David and Edward Baldwin, were sons of Garrison's wife's father's sister, Adele Ziegler Baldwin Raworth, and that Shaw knew this from the week after his arrest. The Lemanns, including Garrison critic, Nicholas, Clay Shaw, the Baldwin brothers, and Garrison were all keeping the same secret.... that the Garrison alleged "conflict" with the CIA likely could have been sorted out over a family dinner on Easter Sunday, 1967.
In the last hour, still smarting from a couple of cheap shots posted by Mr. Smith and Mr. Freeman on the now 54 pages long Tippit shooting thread, I got back to work, intent on presenting this in my recent thread....
The co-author of the following title was a long time, NY Times journalist, Lucy Freeman,
https://www.amazon.com/Lucy-freeman-julie-roy-1977-01-16/dp/B014BH6QXM/
Betrayal (1977-01-16)
by Lucy Freeman and Julie Roy (Author) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Freeman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Freeman
Lucy Sylvia Freeman (née Greenbaum ; 13 Dec 1916–29 Dec 2004) [1][2] was an American journalist and author who published 78 books. [3][4] She is best known for her articles on psychiatry and mental health for The New York Times,
A third party version of the same sexual assault by WC witness, Dr. Hartogs,:
The “sensuous psychiatrist”: the case of Julie Roy vs. Renatus Hartogs, MD, PhD: landmark case of sexual abuse by a therapist
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780429298431-11/
VS Dr. Hartogs' testimony against his former adolescent examination subject, LHO, a student in NYC public school, LHO,
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hartogs.htm
-
I would recommend the following six books for a new student of the JFKA:
(1) The first chapter ("Summary and Conclusions") of the Warren Report to get familiar with the basic facts as presented by the Commission. This is a good starting point.
I'd change that to the first seven chapters. The first chapter doesn't even mention the issue of Ruby's Mafia ties. But, yes, chapter 1 is a good starting point to understand the original lone-gunman theory.
(2) Final Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Chapters I B ("Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy") and I C ("The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.")
I would include the HSCA's extensive and historic research into Jack Ruby's Mafia ties and how Ruby entered the basement to shoot Oswald. These were two areas where the HSCA showed what a joke the WC's investigation was.
(3) Sylvia Meagher - Accessories after the Fact to get acquainted with criticism of the Warren Report. For the same reason I would encourage the reading of.
Meagher's book has too many errors for me to recommend it to a newcomer. In some cases, she severely distorts the primary sources that she cites. She does make many valid points, but she also makes quite a few errors.
(4) Harold Weisberg - Whitewash I
A solid choice. As a former Senate investigator, Weisberg was a very careful scholar. He was also honest. He turned on Garrison when he realized that Garrison was incompetent and unethical.
(5) Jim Marrs - Crossfire - The Plot that killed Kennedy. One of the books promoting the existence of a rather large conspiracy. Biographical data about Oswald interesting, in general well written by former journalist Marrs. The complete absence of end notes prevents the reader from fact checking the sometimes bold statements. A good read though.
My two copies of Crossfire both have endnotes. I'm not sure which edition you have. The updated 2013 edition has endnotes, including in the Kindle version.
Most of Marrs' research on the JFK case was credible.
(6) The Zapruder film is not a book, therefore the recommendation of Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas for an analyses of the film.
Oh, Thompson's updated version of Six Seconds in Dallas, his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas, is much better. It includes over 100 pages on the historic new research that was done by BBN scientists on the acoustical evidence, including the PCC test by Dr. Richard Mullen that proves the gunshot impulses on the dictabelt were recorded during the assassination. Thompson also makes very good use of the historic ARRB disclosures regarding the autopsy evidence.
-
Now that I'm rereading it, I cannot believe that no one has mentioned Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why by Gerald McKnight. McKnight was a serious academic, and this book is widely regarded as one of the two or three absolute best CT tomes. McKnight doesn't go off on any wild CT tangents but simply provides a pretty devastating alternative perspective on the WC and the events swirling around it.
-
Now that I'm rereading it, I cannot believe that no one has mentioned Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why by Gerald McKnight. McKnight was a serious academic, and this book is widely regarded as one of the two or three absolute best CT tomes. McKnight doesn't go off on any wild CT tangents but simply provides a pretty devastating alternative perspective on the WC and the events swirling around it.
The fact that a majority of Americans don't believe the WCR is an indictment of them, not the WCR.
-
It's a damn good finishing point as well.
This is where things go off the rails.
This is where the train has completely jumped the tracks.
This is where the train has gone down the embankment and is plowing through a cornfield.
Jim Marrs never met a conspiracy theory he didn't embrace. The guy was a charlatan.
Not the silliest conspiracy book ever written but one of the earliest. Even the title of the book is a faulty premise since the shooting took more than 6 seconds despite popular beliefs to the contrary.
The purpose of providing new students with a reading list should not be the indoctrination of the pupil and pushing any given narrative but to stimulate independent thinking and critical analyses of the subject matter. This is the reason I listed the reports of the two government bodies that investigated the case (and came to somewhat different conclusions), two critical analyses of the Warren Report and two books by conspiracy theorists. I think it is a nice balance of the various points of view on the case.
-
I'd change that to the first seven chapters. The first chapter doesn't even mention the issue of Ruby's Mafia ties. But, yes, chapter 1 is a good starting point to understand the original lone-gunman theory.
I would include the HSCA's extensive and historic research into Jack Ruby's Mafia ties and how Ruby entered the basement to shoot Oswald. These were two areas where the HSCA showed what a joke the WC's investigation was.
Meagher's book has too many errors for me to recommend it to a newcomer. In some cases, she severely distorts the primary sources that she cites. She does make many valid points, but she also makes quite a few errors.
A solid choice. As a former Senate investigator, Weisberg was a very careful scholar. He was also honest. He turned on Garrison when he realized that Garrison was incompetent and unethical.
My two copies of Crossfire both have endnotes. I'm not sure which edition you have. The updated 2013 edition has endnotes, including in the Kindle version.
Most of Marrs' research on the JFK case was credible.
Oh, Thompson's updated version of Six Seconds in Dallas, his 2020 book Last Second in Dallas, is much better. It includes over 100 pages on the historic new research that was done by BBN scientists on the acoustical evidence, including the PCC test by Dr. Richard Mullen that proves the gunshot impulses on the dictabelt were recorded during the assassination. Thompson also makes very good use of the historic ARRB disclosures regarding the autopsy evidence.
- Michael -
You're quite right, I overlooked the parts regarding Jack Ruby and the fact that the Dallas Police Department allowed their prime suspect to get lynched. It always troubled me that Ruby was allowed to be in the parking garage during the 'aborted transfer' of Oswald, that not a single police official recognized him and told him to leave. It is most unfortunate. A trial could have provided many answers.
The 'joke' of the Warren Commission can be explained, at least in part, by the geopolitical circumstances of the time. Remember LBJ telling Earl Warren about the 40 million American dead within an hour? The Warren Report offers a political solution to the crime. Another handicap was the complete reliance on FBI and other federal agencies and the lack of independent investigators.
The version of Crossfire that I own was made available to me as a free PDF and has no notes whatsoever. Now that I know there is a version that includes end notes I will try and acquire it. Thanks for the heads up.
-
Now that I'm rereading it, I cannot believe that no one has mentioned Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why by Gerald McKnight. McKnight was a serious academic, and this book is widely regarded as one of the two or three absolute best CT tomes. McKnight doesn't go off on any wild CT tangents but simply provides a pretty devastating alternative perspective on the WC and the events swirling around it.
-Lance-
I thought about it (I read it couple of years ago) but think the learning curve is quite steep for a new student of the case. Same goes for dr. John Newman's Oswald and the CIA.
There is a mind-boggling array of books on the assassination. Just to pick six for a newbee is not easy.
-
-Lance-
I thought about it (I read it couple of years ago) but think the learning curve is quite steep for a new student of the case. Same goes for dr. John Newman's Oswald and the CIA.
There is a mind-boggling array of books on the assassination. Just to pick six for a newbee is not easy.
It is if you limit the choices to those worth reading. If I do that, I don't think I could come up with six.
-
Wow, so you wouldn't recommend a single pro-conspiracy book to a newcomer...
That's correct, I wouldn't.
But if I was being forced at gunpoint by a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy fantasist to recommend just one conspiracy-leaning JFKA book, it would be this one by Gus Russo:
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5M8q9CmiDjVKHSmXtvQQFBIrsGacwfwTOeWY5uv_8G5yfNLWmuEPcmak3AbpffOQvtWaDtk58GVXmBEv4ZVN46mSnxhxr3io-w6pbXtNgGFIHlVFrjIW1jxvuRpDSvBeR84OnAdDxh6NlmF7I9HyeDBE01XzivOPOqmgW_-sdEWnqvB-WQK7EfPLoIo4/s290/Russo-Book.jpg) (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1596915323)
But there are some big problems with that book too, which I talk about HERE (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-976.html).
...and you'd recommend the Warren Commission's report to a newcomer but not the House Select Committee on Assassinations report.
That's correct. And that's because the HSCA's Dictabelt-based conclusion that JFK "was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy" has since been completely discredited and disproven.
But the first five conclusions that we find on THIS PAGE (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm) of the HSCA's Final Report are things that should be read by everybody. (And those 5 findings have never been proven to be wrong.)
On a side note, did you not notice that the thread is about which six books you'd recommend to a newcomer, not which 10 books.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RS3gXfPv2GU/XKmIz-2CIeI/AAAAAAABRG8/60SevG4bfnUiq1Y7Gk8ygs8HpoKCFsCoQCLcBGAs/s280/Click-Here-Logo-2.png) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGYQVPpVbsFY5inlO5KazwTbeRkTQDKqJKDU-nneK9Q7gsZSOCFREJWnD6rYyJav_sk2O-oi-0fRUbLpY9zWkH-ktjZvXbgTWE9b2Hus2ATMD8QNOGEfOALKox6b04mIivgZkzwJ98jHzvpkw-lkzFUQ4XtbCnaeyyiQhGHjhRtw6xdcAQ_M5h0fUU_h4/s500/zzzzzz.png)
FYI, the 10 books that you list contradict each other on some key issues, such as the location of the rear head entry wound, the trajectory of the back-wound bullet, the location of the back wound, the position of JFK and Connally in the limo during the alleged hit of the single-bullet theory, and the 6.5 mm object on the autopsy skull x-rays.
But each of those books does something that no pro-conspiracy book has ever done --- i.e., follow the actual evidence in the case to where it all leads—a single gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald—without resorting to conjecture, speculation, guesswork, and unsupportable claims of fake evidence.
-
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.
Lance, I expect you will agree research as detailed and well supported as the following just doesn't grow on trees.
Marina and Lee - Priscilla Johnson McMillan
David Lifton found Priscilla and Marina trustworthy interacting with them personally, and reacted to my research results by shooting me, the messenger.
Jackie's sister's father-in-law, Cass Canfield, authorized the advances for books to be written both by William Manchester and Priscilla Johnson.
He appears to be behind the introduction of George McMillan and Priscilla, through Cass's and George's mutual connection with the winter season,
Aiken, SC polo conmunity.
https://www.nytimes.com/1967/08/20/archives/cass-canfield-70-plans-a-busy-career-as-editor-past-and-future.html
Cass Canfield, 70, Plans a Busy Career as Editor; Past and Future
August 20, 1967
...The projects range from a book on India by the young novelist Ved Mehta, an anthology of true spy stories by Allen W. Dulles, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, and a new modern history by several Columbia University professors, to personal interviews with a score of writers ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_a_President
https://ia801800.us.archive.org/31/items/MarinaAndLee/Marina%20and%20Lee%20by%20Priscilla%20Johnson%20McMillan.pdf
MarinaAndLee
[PDF]“McMillan achieves with art what the Warren Commission failed to
Marina Oswald and Priscilla Johnson McMillan hit it off immediately. McMillan then signed a contract with Harper & Row for a book about Lee Oswald for which she received an advance of $60,000.
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/28/obituaries/cass-canfield-a-titan-of-publishing-is-dead-at-88.html
March 26, 1986
....Mr. Canfield, who joined the company in 1924, was president from 1931 to 1945, chairman of the board from 1945 to 1955, and chairman of the executive committee from 1955 to 1967, when he became Harper & Row's house senior editor, a post he retained until his death. He served as a director of the company until 1967, and became an honorary director in 1969.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Temple_Canfield
Michael Temple Canfield was an American diplomatic aide and later London editorial representative for Harper & Row. Adopted by publisher Cass Canfield and Katherine Temple Emmet, he served at the U.S. Embassy in London under Ambassadors Winthrop W. Aldrich and John Hay Whitney during the Eisenhower administration. Twice married—to Lee Bouvier, sister of Jacqueline Kennedy, and later Frances Laura Charteris—he died of a heart attack in 1969 at age 43.
Born: Aug 20, 1926 (Bern)
Died: Dec 20, 1969 (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada)
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/royal-family-us-diplomat-illegitimate-28755039
....Prince George, Duke of Kent is said to have been the father of the diplomat(
....
And, according to the memoirs of Loelia, Duchess of Westminster, King Edward VIII believed his brother Prince George had an illegitimate son with Kiki Preston, a "glamorous but drug-addicted American socialite who was a member of the Happy Valley set."
Kiki was known by her nickname 'the girl with the silver syringe' owing to her heroine addiction....
......
It is believed that the couple's illegitimate child was Michael Temple Canfield, an American diplomatic aide during the Eisenhower administration.
Canfield was born in Switzerland in 1926 and was adopted by Katherine Temple and her then-husband publishing executive, Cass Canfield.
The sister of James A Thomas, the NY Times described James, who reported Stuart missing, as the last person to see Stuart Johnson, Priscilla's father, alive in 1969, is described below as a Dulles cousin. She served as maid of honor in the wedding of Allen Dulles's daughter, Clover. Priscila answered a question during her HSCA testimony about
the 14 year interlude between receipt of a $60,000 advance from publisher, Harper, and publication of Marina and Lee in 1977.
Priscilla responded by saying she was so affected by her father's sudden death, which she described as a "hidden suicide", that it was
the principal reason for the long delay in finishing the book. She also credited editor Wyeth for his long patience in not pressuring her to complete the book.
https://paw.princeton.edu/memorial/marion-s-wyeth-jr-48
Marion S. Wyeth Jr. ’48 | Princeton Alumni Weekly
Feb 8, 2012 · Buz Wyeth legendary editor at HarperCollins Publishers, who edited Old Yeller, With Malice Toward None, Paper Lion, Out of My League, and The Boys of Summer, among many other titles, died …
Wyeth's architect father happened to reside two residences away from the Philip Sharples (located at end of Woodbridge, on left in photo), DeMohrenschildt in-laws, on a dead end street in West Palm Beach, FL.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/2544-edwin-walker/page/20/#comment-271075
...the lot just below the "W" in Woodbridge Rd., was the residence from 1940 to 1983 of the architect father
of Priscilla Johnson's second Harper editor, the very patient and understanding Marion S. Wyeth, Jr. Two doors down
from Wyeth, Sr. at the end of very end of Woodbridge Rd. on the left, was the longtime residence of DIdi Sharples' parents,
the Philip Sharples. " Mrs. Philip Sharples, 185 Woodbridge Rd. Georgian brick house. Beautifully landscaped to lake, charming
rock and water garden beside entrance court "
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aMK-fBJxEvQ/UWGNrxjGTBI/AAAAAAAAA3s/MdJgslHfREo/s720/PriscillaWyethSharples.jpg)
https://archive.is/esTuB#selection-843.0-885.79
1.) Eleanor Lansing Thomas was the sister-in-law of Hugh Aynseworth's editor at Newsweek, Osborn Elliott.
2.) This is an excerpt from the New York Times reporting about the death of Prisicilla's father Stuart Johnson, excerpted from the full article
displayed below.:
....Fell Leaving House
A widower who lived alone, he had dined last night at the home of Mr. and Mrs. James A. Thomas at
7 Wood Lane in neighboring Locust Valley.
As he stepped out of the house to get into his car, according to his hosts, he fell to the walk.
They said they helped him to his feet, and, although he appeared dazed, he insisted on driving home...
3.) James A. Thomas was the brother of Eleanor Lansing Thomas who was the sister-in-law of Osborn Elliott.
4.) In the Clover Dulles wedding article displayed below, it is stated that Clover Dulles's (daughter of former CIA director, Allen W. Dulles)
maid of honor was Clover's cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas. Eleanor's brother, James A. Thomas, must also have been
a cousin of Clover Dulles and her father Allen.
5.) Priscilla Johnson Mcmillan informed the HSCA in transcribed statements classified and withheld by the CIA for the fifteen years
following her 1978 testimony, that she believed that the circumstances of her father Stuart's death were covered up. James A. Thomas,
a cousin of Allen W. Dulles and the brother of Osborn Elliott's sister-in-law, was reported to be the person most involved in the cover up
described by Priscilla Johnson McMillan in statements she had made to the HSCA.
https://www.google.com/search?q=eleanor+thomas+best+man+brother+osborn&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22ELEANOR+THOMAS+IS+WED+IN+LONDON%3B+Former+Vogue+Editor%22+brother+osborn&oq=%22ELEANOR+THOMAS+IS+WED+IN+LONDON%3B+Former+Vogue+Editor%22+brother+osborn&gs_l=serp.12...18900.26294.5.28587.18.17.0.0.0.0.100.865.16j1.17.0...0.0...1c.1.2.serp.G0mG9KLWxnA&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.eWU&fp=bd7b309bfcec9f34&biw=1440&bih=723
ELEANOR THOMAS IS WED IN LONDON; Former Vogue Editor ...
New York Times - Jul 28, 1956
Isabel ratto.wa.9 the bride s only : attendant. Osborn i Elliott eras the man for his Brother: r . . .' `he. is--a graduate of the Chapin Schbol--and Bernard Collees.
Saying goodbye to ad legend Jock Elliott | News - Advertising Age
http://adage.com/article/news/goodbye-ad-legend-jock-elliott/105186/
Nov 7, 2005 – David Ogilvy once remarked that the man who would replace him at the ... His survivors include his wife, Eleanor Thomas Elliott, his brother Osborn and numerous nieces .....
.......
https://archive.is/esTuB#selection-843.0-885.79
(https://dc5pfgxr88wrmn.archive.is/esTuB/acd369eb3e71dd5fb2e02bb9c3cfd6afc89638cc.jpg)
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Kennedys_Ghost#fn_2
...
[2] Declassified documents show that Dallas reporter Hugh Aynesworth was in contact with the Dallas CIA office and had on at least one occasion "offered his services to us." The files are chock full of Aynesworth informing to the FBI, particularly in regard to the Garrison investigation. See for example an account of lengthy FBI meeting with Aynesworth on 26 Apr 1967 re: Garrison and 5 May 1967 Domestic Intelligence Division note. See also a CIA 27 Dec 1967 account of a phone call in which Aynesworth is said to have offered to secure documents "extracted" from Garrison's files (by William Gurvich). Also of note is a message Aynesworth sent to George Christian at LBJ's White House, in which Aynesworth wrote that "My interest in informing government officials of each step along the way is because of my intimate knowledge of what Jim Garrison is planning." See Jim DiEugenio's Hugh Aynesworth: Refusing a Conspiracy is his Life's Work. :
http://www.ctka.net/aynesworth.html
https://archive.is/esTuB#selection-771.0-777.1520
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Kennedys_Ghost#fn_2
..........................
[1] Soviet expert and former journalist Priscilla Johnson McMillan has admitted she applied to work for the CIA in 1952, though she later withdrew her application and was never hired. In her HSCA testimony, declassified in 1993 (see part 1 and part 2), she said that she had only two witting contacts with CIA officers, the latest in 1962. However, either her witting contacts were more extensive than admitted, or she was unwitting of the CIA status of some of those with whom she dealt (or perhaps "don't ask, don't tell" was the modus operandi). An 11 Dec 1962 CIA report of a meeting with Priscilla Johnson stated that she "had been an OO source" (OO: Office of Operations) and had been "selected as a likely candidate to write an article on Yevtushenko in a major U.S. magazine for our campaign." Another CIA document states that she was approved for debriefing under Project [**]DINOSAUR on 3 May 1963. Another contact report from among the many CIA files relating to Ms. Johnson dates from early 1964. See Peter Whitmey's Priscilla Johnson McMillan and the CIA for more information, though that was written in 1994 before many of the documents were available. Ms. Johnson was also involved with Marina Oswald in the unlikely finding of a bus ticket, months after Marina's possessions had been searched by the Dallas Police and the FBI, finally providing "proof" that Oswald had indeed traveled to Mexico City. Commissioner Russell found the story of the bus ticket discovery difficult to believe - see 5WH601-603.
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://dc5pfgxr88wrmn.archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
Please compare Priscilla Johnson Mcmillan's suspicions about her father Stuart Johnson's sudden death in 1969, as she stated them in her 1978 HSCA testimony, classified by the CIA for the subsequent fifteen years, with what we now know.:
http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/pmcmil1.htm
HSCA Testimony
............................
[At this point 9 pages in a row are missing, with a sheet saying "Access Restricted" - Authority CIA (said HSCA but that was crossed out and "CIA" substituted.) Info withheld becuase of not Security-Classified Information, but "Otherwise Restricted Information" is checked (those were the only two options.) Her testimony has over 40 still classified
pages. But it's clear she met with the CIA.]
..........................................................................
[This woman recalls next to nothing in this whole 100+ page interview. She says "I do not recall" more times than Oliver North!! Funny how she can recall everything Marina told her though - right? She was also one of the few to testify before the HSCA with her lawyer at her side, interfering now and then throughout.
https://archive.is/esTuB
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/09/27/osborn-elliott-1924-2008.html
Sep 27, 2008 8:00 PM EDT
Remembering the legendary editor of NEWSWEEK
Osborn Elliott, a giant of American journalism and a tireless crusader for revitalizing America's cities, died on Sunday in New York City. He was 83.
....Elliott was hired by NEWSWEEK as business editor in 1955 and within four years became managing editor, the third-ranking job. When the newsweekly was put up for sale in 1960, Elliott and Ben Bradlee, then in NEWSWEEK's Washington bureau, conspired to persuade Philip Graham, president of the Washington Post Co., to make an offer for the magazine. Graham outbid the competition and installed Elliott as NEWSWEEK's editor. He was 36. (Bradlee would eventually become the Post's top editor.)....
https://www.google.com/search?q=oswald+%22could+it+be+that+simple%22&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=Can+we+finally+lay+JFK+to+rest%3F+aynesworth&oq=Can+we+finally+lay+JFK+to+rest%3F+aynesworth&gs_l=serp.12...25185.25185.3.28014.1.1.0.0.0.0.51.51.1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.BcnHLN4A25M&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41642243,d.eWU&fp=f696cf497a484799&biw=1440&bih=723
Can we finally lay JFK to rest?
Author: JOHN ANDERS THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS (DAL)
Publish Date: DECEMBER 5, 1991
On the eve of Oliver Stone's eagerly awaited new film, JFK, is there still time to reintroduce one
radical assassination theory: That Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot and killed John F. Kennedy on
Nov. 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas? Could it be that simple?
At the risk of sounding naive, but in the absence of proof to the contrary, I choose to believe the
United States government. For some of us, even at the risk of having our knee-jerk liberal credentials
challenged, the most bizarre theory of all is that the Warren Commission lied to, or willingly withheld
the truth from, the American public. A recent poll showed that 83 percent of Americans reject the
Warren Commission's finding. Most of my friends, even the most learned and intelligent ones, seem to
believe in one conspiracy theory or another. If JFK stimulates debate and ventilates the controversy in
a healthy manner, then democracy is served. If the movie succeeds on purely filmic terms, then art has
triumphed. The makers of JFK do not purport to have the answers. They are producing a popular
entertainment, not a historical document. Make- believability And while it would be unfair to condemn
JFK or any film without having seen it, I have a feeling that the best way to watch this entertainment
is by repeating, "It's only a movie . . . it's only a movie . . . '
The foundation for the film, after all, is the largely discredited conspiracy theory
espoused by former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. Local author Hugh Aynesworth is a former
Dallas Morning News reporter who was at the site when the assassination occurred and in the Texas
Theatre when Oswald was captured. As a reporter for Newsweek several years later, he was the first to
poke holes in Mr. Garrison's theories that Kennedy was assassinated in a plot headed by New Orleans
businessman Clay Shaw. In May 1967, Mr. Aynesworth wrote a Newsweek column blasting what he called the
district attorney's distortion of facts and - bribing of witnesses. "In January of 1967, before his
probe became big-time, Garrison called me at Newsweek and told me he had solved the case,' remembers
Mr. Aynesworth, now South ern bureau chief for The Washington Times. "He said he thought we could share
information. At that point I wasn't about to say no. He invited me to his house and what I saw there
was a portrait of a sick man. He's unbalanced, unwieldy . . . even cowardly . I once saw him run back
into his office to escape a reporter. If you look back on the people he bullied during his
investigations, you'll find they were often homosexuals and Cuban refugees -- people who couldn't fight back.'
Witnessing weirdness
Mr. Aynesworth says that over a two-year period he discredited between 60 and 70 witnesses produced by
Mr. Garrison. "As Garrison would discard them, they would come to me,' he says. "You've never seen such
a bunch of kooks. One of them called himself Julius Caesar. The guy wore a toga and had been convicted
of arson in San Francisco. Another said on the witness stand that he had been made sterile by police X-rays.
He also admitted that he would disguise himself in weird clothing whenever his daughter came to
visit. It was a sideshow.' He adds, "Garrison moved his theory around six or seven times. He was always
producing a new star witness. You've never seen such a group of phonies. Mr. Aynesworth believes anyone
would be foolish to discard the possibility of conspiracy. "But if the Mafia, for instance, wanted to
do it, they wouldn't have relied on a nut like Oswald. And Jack Ruby, who I'd known for years, was a
joke.' As for the Warren Commission, Mr. Aynesworth says, "You'll find some unthorough investigation
and some ineptitude. What you will not find is deceit.' Mr. Aynesworth's newest book (with co-author
Stephen Michaud) is titled Murderers Among Us: Unsolved Homicides, Mysterious Deaths, and Killers at
Large. The Kennedy assassination is not mentioned.
https://www.google.com/search?q=eleanor+thomas+best+man+brother+osborn&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers#hl=en&tbo=d&tbs=ar:1&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22osborn+elliott%22+best+man&oq=%22osborn+elliott%22+best+man&gs_l=serp.12...14932.14932.8.18169.1.1.0.0.0.0.19.19.1.1.0...0.0...1c.1.2.serp.UQI2mlDcJX0&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.eWU&fp=bd7b309bfcec9f34&biw=1440&bih=723
MISS SPENCER WED TO OSBORlq.ELLIOTT; Chapin School ...
New York Times - May 9, 1948
Two "B'RIDESi'0F YESTERDAY, A FIANCEE Two "B'RIDESi'0F YESTERDAY, A FIANCEE Mrs. Osborn Elliott Jay ... John Elliott Jr. was best man! for his brother.
Hugh Aynesworth's boss, Newsweek Editor in Chief, Osborn Elliott had this to say about Aynesworth, just a year after the death of
Priscilla Johnson McMillan's father, Stuart Johnson.:
The news media--a service and a force - Page 26
http://books.google.com/books?id=GSobAQAAIAAJ
Howard Kingsbury Smith, Osborn Elliott, A. Merriman Smith - 1970
.....Let me cite a few other instances of the reporter's involvement in the events he is covering. Take last
summer in Chicago, for example. There is no question in my mind that certain police officers
deliberately assaulted members of the press who were covering events surrounding the convention— and
certainly there was no such question in the minds of eight Newsweek men who were battered by the police
while wearing clear identification as working reporters and photographers. (This was something,
incidentally, that could not be said for the constabulary's own methods of identifying itself; many of
the police officers removed their badges in the parade to make sure they could not be identified.) So
what should the press' reaction have been? In my view, its duty was to report what happened as
dispassionately as possible and later be willing to testify against whichever offending officers could
be identified. This is what our own men did. Or take the coverage of a more recent event—the trial of
Clay Shaw in New Orleans on charges that he conspired in the assassination of the late President
Kennedy. As it happened, Newsweek's chief reporter on the trial had spent literally thousands of man-
hours investigating the assassination itself and was considered a leading authority on the events that
followed. He had witnessed the assassination from close to the Texas School Book Depository and joined
the chase for Lee Harvey Oswald. He interviewed several of the witnesses at the Tippitt murder scene
and was in the Texas Theatre watching when Oswald was apprehended. He was just a few feet from Jack
Ruby when he shot Oswald, and he later interviewed Oswald's widow several times. It was he who
uncovered Oswald's Russian diary in mid-1964. He covered the entire Ruby trial and was the only
reporter inside at Ruby's funeral. In short, quite an expert— and someone that District Attorney Jim
Garrison was anxious to enlist on his side. But this reporter soon became convinced that Garrison had
no case whatsoever, and he made it his business to publicize this fact. The result was one of the first
critical stories published about Garrison— which was followed by a series of intimidating telephone
calls threatening the reporter's life. In Garrison's mind, this reporter and Newsweek had in effect
become co-defendants, and more than 1,100 prospective jurors were asked if they had read Newsweek's
critical story. We left this man on the story because we believed he was the best qualified to cover
it. And to this day, I am satisfied that he did so fairly and thoroughly. But I would not suggest for a
minute that subjectivity had not been involved— once again, in my view, in the interest of the truth.
Some of you may recall that our final story on Clay's acquittal was given only nine lines in the
magazine. It ran under the headline "Fact and Opinion," and in its entirety it read as follows:
"Acquitted: By a jury in New Orleans, exactly two years to the day after his arrest on charges of
conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy, retired Louisiana businessman Clay L. Shaw, 55. Convicted: By a
case that collapsed at every seam, District Attorney Jim Garrison, 47, of incompetence and
irresponsibility as a public official." You can't get much more subjective than that or, in my opinion,
much closer to the truth. There are much larger issues, of course, that involve subjectivity in
journalism— indeed the very largest issues of the day— and for a publication such as my own, which has
no editorial page, they can pose a problem. The news magazines ....
(https://dc5pfgxr88wrmn.archive.is/esTuB/67aa58e2301002da04f3edfcb46847086f513344.jpg[img])
(https://dc5pfgxr88wrmn.archive.is/esTuB/a44b4b3d5cf0e9f8640361a20c3bd31c368b40e3.jpg)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9636&st=75#entry252435
http://boards.ancestry.com/localities.northam.usa.states.massachusetts.counties.berkshire/2671/mb.ashx?pnt=1
Source: Berkshire Eagle
Friday, March 24, 2000
James Thomas Jr.
BECKET -- James A. Thomas Jr., 76, of Becket died Tuesday afternoon at Laurel Lake Center for Health and Rehabilitation in Lee.
Born in New York City on Dec. 9, 1923, son of James Augustus and Dorothy Quincy Read Thomas, he was a 1941 graduate of Deerfield Academy. He received his bachelor of arts degree in 1945 from Yale University and his law degree from Yale Law School in 1948.
He had resided in Becket since 1984.
He leaves his wife, the former Susan Norton; three sons, James Thomas of New York City, Ranald M. Thomas of Minneapolis, and Skeff Thomas of Pitman, N.J.; four daughters, Cameron Thomas of Lexington, Augusta Thomas of Cambridge, and Eleanor Thomas and Dorothy Thomas, both of New York City; two stepsons, William H. Stewart of Washington, and Douglas Stewart of Louisville, Colo.; a stepdaughter, Penelope Eagan of Sun Valley, Idaho; a sister, Eleanor T. Elliott of New York City, and 15 grandchildren.
https://archive.is/esTuB#selection-1073.0-1099.156
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/23/local/me-elliott23
John "Jock" Elliott Jr., former chairman of the leading advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather and an authority on the history of Christmas, has died. He was 84. Elliott died of a cerebral hemorrhage Oct. 29 at a hospital in Mount Kisco, N.Y., said his wife, Eleanor Thomas Elliott....
....In addition to Eleanor, his wife of 49 years, Elliott is survived by his brother Osborn, a former editor of Newsweek magazine.
Eleanor Thomas Elliott, Barnard Figure, Dies at 80 - New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/nyregion/06elliott.html
Dec 6, 2006 – Eleanor Thomas Elliott, an advocate for women's rights who successfully fought Columbia University's attempt to take over Barnard College in .
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22cass+canfield%2C+jr.%2C+has+been+an+understanding*%22++&btnG=
Men at the top - Page xi
books.google.com/books?id=f_cdAAAAIAAJ
Osborn Elliott - 1959 - ....
....Cass Canfield, Jr., has been an understanding, perceptive and imaginative friend and editor throughout, and for his warmth and judgment I am especially grateful. It is customary, in an introduction of this sort, for the author to end by thanking.....
An excerpt from a long post I wrote in May, 2012. :
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19103&#entry252780
Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:57 AM
I found only three threads in this forum (links displayed below) in which the name Cass Canfield is displayed. I think Canfield, the OSS, and the CIA and those who cooperated with them or were "run" by them, have wanted Canfield to be so obscure. If you look at the patterns below, you can see the links between Canfield and so many objects of our research. It seems obvious Canfield sponsored and united Priscilla Johnson and a "writer from Aiken, SC," George E. McMillan. The only question to be cleared up is who Canfield reported to.
Consider how the involved explanation of how Stalin's daughter ended up with Canfield - Evans - Johnson McMillan, reads like a cover story similar to the ones explaining away the coincidences of Priscilla Johnson being everywhere Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife, Marina were. The question comes up of who were the Kennedys and Bouviers, what bargains did they make and what did they know when they were making them, and afterwards? How did these "literary deals" and Jackie's sister's marriage to Canfield's adopted son influence the speech and actions of the members of the Kennedy and Bouvier families after the Assassination of JFK?*
*Original Research in this post Copyright 2012 , TJ Scully -
The original research displayed is the descriptions of the relationships between OSS, CIA, Cass Canfield, George E. McMillan and his one-time spouse, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, and with members of the John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Bouvier families, as well as with Harper & Row Publishing and affiliated magazines, Harpers and Look. -
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14764
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14441&st=15#entry168517
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10108
...............................................................................
Marina hired Priscilla's book agent. The net affect of Marina hooking up with Priscilla was literally bottling "Marina up", from early 1964 until 1978.
http://www.google.com/search?q=knowlton+book+without+their+permission+for+at+least+a+year+after+Its+publication.+wyeth&tbs=nws:1,ar:1&source=newspapers
Oswald Widow's Book .By Lynn Galloon . - Google News
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19770714&id...
Marina's New York Agent, Perry Knowlton, and Harper and Row editors have forbidden ... book without their permission for at least a year after Its publication.
...............
Book To Be Published In The Fall .Oswald's Widow Breaks Silence .
news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19770718&id...
Marina's New York Agent, Perry Knowlton, and Harper and Row editors have ... their permission for at least a year after its publication Harper and Row editor ..
-
MG: Wow, so you wouldn't recommend a single pro-conspiracy book to a newcomer...
DVP: That's correct, I wouldn't.
And that says volumes about your credibility and objectivity.
But if I was being forced at gunpoint by a foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy fantasist to recommend just one conspiracy-leaning JFKA book, it would be this one by Gus Russo: [Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder] [SNIP]
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.
I, for one, would not need to have a "foaming-at-the-mouth lone-gunman theorist" put a gun to my head to get me to recommend a pro-WC book to a newcomer. I listed two anti-conspiracy books in my list of six books because I have enough objectivity and critical thinking skills to understand that it would show excessive bias and violate basic critical thinking principles to only recommend pro-conspiracy books to newcomers.
But there are some big problems with that book too, which I talk about HERE (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-976.html).
"Big problems," huh? That's curious because Brothers in Arms was widely acclaimed--it received positive reviews from scholars on both sides of the debate, from Anthony Summers to Daniel Schorr to Seymour Hersh.
You claim the book has "big problems" because your version of the assassination says that not only was Oswald the only gunman but that he had no accomplices of any kind at any point before or after the shooting, not even accessories before or after the fact.
MG: ...and you'd recommend the Warren Commission's report to a newcomer but not the House Select Committee on Assassinations report.
DVP: That's correct.
This is another statement that says volumes about your credibility and objectivity.
In other words, you'd recommend the report of a seven-member presidential commission, with a total staff of 27, that conducted an admittedly hurried investigation (fewer than 10 months), when we now know that three of the commission members disagreed with the report's key findings, but you wouldn't recommend the report of a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives composed of 12 congressmen (only three of whom dissented) and that had a much larger staff, that consulted a much larger number and variety of experts, and that conducted a much longer investigation (nearly 2 years).
And that's because the HSCA's Dictabelt-based conclusion that JFK "was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy" has since been completely discredited and disproven.
If so, why do you suppose the lone-gunman view is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world? It's not like the lone-gunman view has suffered from a lack of cheerleading and advocacy by many legacy news outlets. Most people just don't buy what you're selling.
And the HSCA's acoustical evidence, far from having been "completely discredited and disproven," has been confirmed by new research done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015 to 2018.
Furthermore, it cannot be repeated too often that the NRC/NAS panel that was formed to discredit the acoustical evidence (1) admitted there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the Dealey Plaza test firing occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and (2) admitted there's a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern, identified by the HSCA's acoustical scientists as gunfire from the grassy knoll, is in fact gunfire from the knoll.
But the first five [HSCA]conclusions that we find on THIS PAGE (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0005a.htm) of the HSCA's Final Report are things that should be read by everybody. (And those 5 findings have never been proven to be wrong.)
Oh, boy. To put it more bluntly, you would cherry pick five findings that you like from a 734-page report and ignore the rest of the report.
BTW, as former HSCA staffers have explained, before BBN's chief scientist announced BBN's preliminary findings on the acoustical evidence, the HSCA had already found evidence of Ruby's significant Mafia ties, had already found evidence that the WC was mistaken about how Ruby entered the police basement to kill Oswald, had already found evidence that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, had already found evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City in the weeks before the assassination, had already found evidence that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the assassination at a time when Oswald could not have been there, had already found evidence that Oswald associated with David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, and had already found evidence that Silvia Odio's account was credible.
But each of those books does something that no pro-conspiracy book has ever done --- i.e., follow the actual evidence in the case to where it all leads—a single gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald—without resorting to conjecture, speculation, guesswork, and unsupportable claims of fake evidence.
Actually, newcomers who read those books will quickly see that they contain plenty of "conjecture, speculation, guesswork," starting with the ludicrous and thoroughly debunked single-bullet theory (SBT).
Newcomers will also notice that pro-WC books markedly contradict each other regarding the timing of the shots, the timing of the hits, the location of JFK's rear head entry wound, the location of JFK's back wound, the trajectory of the SBT's alleged magic bullet through JFK and Connally, Oswald's motives, etc., etc.
Humm, could this be part of the reason that your view of the JFK assassination is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world?
-
And that says volumes about your credibility and objectivity.
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.
I, for one, would not need to have a "foaming-at-the-mouth lone-gunman theorist" put a gun to my head to get me to recommend a pro-WC book to a newcomer. I listed two anti-conspiracy books in my list of six books because I have enough objectivity and critical thinking skills to understand that it would show excessive bias and violate basic critical thinking principles to only recommend pro-conspiracy books to newcomers.
You act as if this is a multiple choice exercise. It's not. There is only one truth.
"Big problems," huh? That's curious because Brothers in Arms was widely acclaimed--it received positive reviews from scholars on both sides of the debate, from Anthony Summers to Daniel Schorr to Seymour Hersh.
You seem to have a low bar for whom you consider scholars.
You claim the book has "big problems" because your version of the assassination says that not only was Oswald the only gunman but that he had no accomplices of any kind at any point before or after the shooting, not even accessories before or after the fact.
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.
This is another statement that says volumes about your credibility and objectivity.
DVD has lots of credibility and anyone who looks at the evidence objectively and applies common sense will reach the same conclusions he has.
In other words, you'd recommend the report of a seven-member presidential commission, with a total staff of 27, that conducted an admittedly hurried investigation (fewer than 10 months), when we now know that three of the commission members disagreed with the report's key findings, but you wouldn't recommend the report of a select committee of the U.S. House of Representatives composed of 12 congressmen (only three of whom dissented) and that had a much larger staff, that consulted a much larger number and variety of experts, and that conducted a much longer investigation (nearly 2 years).
You've always seemed to favor quantity over quality. It's reflected in your posts.
If so, why do you suppose the lone-gunman view is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world? It's not like the lone-gunman view has suffered from a lack of cheerleading and advocacy by many legacy news outlets. Most people just don't buy what you're selling.
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.
And the HSCA's acoustical evidence, far from having been "completely discredited and disproven," has been confirmed by new research done by BBN acoustical scientists from 2015 to 2018.
Keep clinging to that crap. It's all you have.
Furthermore, it cannot be repeated too often that the NRC/NAS panel that was formed to discredit the acoustical evidence (1) admitted there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations identified by the BBN scientists between the dictabelt and the Dealey Plaza test firing occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and (2) admitted there's a 77.7% probability that the 144.9 impulse pattern, identified by the HSCA's acoustical scientists as gunfire from the grassy knoll, is in fact gunfire from the knoll.
Oh, boy. To put it more bluntly, you would cherry pick five findings that you like from a 734-page report and ignore the rest of the report.
The HSCA was a cluster. The only things it got right were the things they agreed with the WC on.
BTW, as former HSCA staffers have explained, before BBN's chief scientist announced BBN's preliminary findings on the acoustical evidence, the HSCA had already found evidence of Ruby's significant Mafia ties, had already found evidence that the WC was mistaken about how Ruby entered the police basement to kill Oswald, had already found evidence that Ruby lied about why he shot Oswald, had already found evidence that Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City in the weeks before the assassination, had already found evidence that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the assassination at a time when Oswald could not have been there, had already found evidence that Oswald associated with David Ferrie and Clay Shaw, and had already found evidence that Silvia Odio's account was credible.
Actually, newcomers who read those books will quickly see that they contain plenty of "conjecture, speculation, guesswork," starting with the ludicrous and thoroughly debunked single-bullet theory (SBT).
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.
Newcomers will also notice that pro-WC books markedly contradict each other regarding the timing of the shots, the timing of the hits, the location of JFK's rear head entry wound, the location of JFK's back wound, the trajectory of the SBT's alleged magic bullet through JFK and Connally, Oswald's motives, etc., etc.
Humm, could this be part of the reason that your view of the JFK assassination is rejected by 2/3 to 3/4 of the Western world?
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.
-
If I were asked to provide a second list of six books that I'd recommend to a newcomer who wanted to gain a decent understanding of the JFK case, I'd recommend the following six additional books:
-- Not In Your Lifetime: The Assassination of JFK, by Anthony Summers. One of the all-time classics in JFK assassination research, this book argues for a conspiracy led by the Mafia and examines some of the problems with the case against Oswald. Summers has arguably interviewed more JFKA witnesses than any other scholar.
-- Cover-Up, by Stewart Galanor. This book focuses on the evidence of multiple gunmen, including a grassy knoll gunman, and discusses some of the problems with the case against Oswald. It does not seek to identify who was behind the conspiracy.
-- JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies, by Russell Kent. This is one of the best books ever written on the evidence of fraud in the autopsy photos and x-rays and on the problems with the lone-gunman interpretations of the medical evidence. Kent, a physiologist, consulted extensively with renowned forensic experts Dr. Vincent DiMaio, Dr. Henry Lee, and Dr. Cyril Wecht in his research for the book.
-- A Comforting Lie: The Myth That a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy, by yours truly. I've had several people tell me they thought my book was "the best book I have ever read" on the JFK case.
-- Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, by Vincent Bugliosi. This is arguably the most detailed defense of the lone-gunman theory ever published, but it is ponderously long and sometimes hard to read due to poor writing.
-- Mortal Error: The Shot That Killed JFK, by Bonar Menninger (with Howard Donahue). This book argues that Oswald was the lone assassin, that Oswald fired two shots, and that there was no conspiracy, but that a Secret Service agent accidentally fired the shot that hit JFK in the head. It is based on the research of Howard Donahue, who was a court-certified ballistics and firearms expert (and also a world-class rifleman).
I should point out that I have read all the books that I recommend in the OP and in this reply. As a matter of principle, I don't recommend or criticize any books that I haven't read.
-
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...
(https://i.ibb.co/VYF7qvdY/Screenshot-2026-07-08-at-2-02-51-PM.png)
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
-
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
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51197490078_69a2223cac_b.jpg)
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
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51196621352_0c07b6c848_c.jpg)
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://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51197174691_bf9dc62c13_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50336417373_82bcf8e5f5_b.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=175
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51197299766_c6ea2db21f_b.jpg)
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
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50337248667_4f269c6208_b.jpg)
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.
-
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...
(https://i.ibb.co/VYF7qvdY/Screenshot-2026-07-08-at-2-02-51-PM.png)
-
Here is an interview with Chauncey Holt on YouTube...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z5MgCG4COY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z5MgCG4COY)
(https://i.ibb.co/VYF7qvdY/Screenshot-2026-07-08-at-2-02-51-PM.png)
-
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.
-
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 (https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10120-10459.pdf), 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
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. 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 xxxx 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 xxxx 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.”....
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....
-
Tommy, have you forgotten that, according to the 1930 census, a future CIA officer, Talbot Bielefeldt (https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10120-10459.pdf), 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
I became aware of this memo several years ago.
Question: does this prove that Russophile Ruthie was an agent of the evil, evil CIA?
-
I became aware of this memo several years ago.
Question: does this prove that Russophile Ruthie was an agent of the evil, evil CIA?
More from Solie....
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2022/104-10051-10096.pdf
(https://myimgs.org/storage/images/21979/uofek7bl.png)
Ruthie, CIA? It is possible, but Priscilla is more entertaining.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/19058-questions-for-peter-janney-on-his-book-mary%E2%80%99s-mosaic/page/4/
.....
Oswald and the CIA: The Documented Truth about the Unknown ... - Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=1602392536... John Newman - 2008 - Biography & Autobiography - 669 pages
... One new lead comes from a heretofore unconnected recollection of Priscilla's. It concerns a neighbor, who was a close friend and regular tennis partner of Stuart Johnson's, Priscilla's father. Sometime soon after her return from the Soviet Union, this friend asked Stuart if he might speak with Priscilla about her experiences in Moscow. The meeting took place, and Priscilla told the man what she could remember about her stay in Moscow. That man, who had known her since she was a small child, was F. Trubee Davidson. He worked for the CIA.9
Looking back on her experience now, Priscilla believes it is possi ble that Davidson "was waiting for me to grow up to recruit me." It is an intriguing thought, and one that she has had about one other person too. "The other person who was waiting for me to grow up," she recalls, "was Cord Meyer." While we do not know the extent of Cord Meyer's knowledge or interest in Johnson up to the time that the CIA closed out its interest in her in January 1957, he does show up the next time they become interested.
More than a year after this close-out, the CIA again reopened its interest in Priscilla Johnson. On April 10, 1958, CIA headquarters sent a cable to a place that is still classified but which, from all indications, was one of its stations in Western Europe. It contained this detailed and condescending description of Johnson referred to earlier. It is worth repeating in full:
-
"Priscilla may have been an evil, evil CIA agent." (paraphrased)
Priscilla Johnson checked in with CIA SR/10 "Legal Travelers" Chief, Army MAJOR Alexander "Sasha" Sogolow, in Frankfurt while on her way to, or coming home from, Moscow in 1956.
Sogolow was the KGB mole whom false defector Yuri Nosenko kinda alluded to when he told Tennent H. Bagley and (probable mole) George Kisevalter in Geneva in January-February 1964 that there was an Army CAPTAIN in West Germany who was spying for the KGB, and he was the CIA boss of Igor Orlov/ Alexander "Sasha" Kopatzky, aka Anatoly Golitsyn's mole, SASHA, in Germany.
Bagley says in his 2007 book, "Spy Wars" (which you can read for free by googling "spy wars" and "archive" simultaneously), that the CIA didn't follow up on this "lead" because U.S. Army Captains in Germany were a-dime-a-dozen.
We learn from Newton S. Miler in David Wise's book, "Molehunt," that Sogolow confessed in the 1960s, wasn't prosecuted, and was "played back" against the KGB for a few years.
Igor Orlov/Alexander Kopatzky was "uncovered" by probable mole Bruce Solie in 1966, five years after Orlov had retired from the CIA, and did so based on a "tip" from Kremlin-loyal triple agent Igor Kochnov (KITTY HAWK). Look him up. He's the guy whose mother-in-law, Yekaterina Furtseva, allegedly overrode Nosenko and allowed Oswald to stay in the USSR.
I could go on and on, but that's enough for now.
Hopefully, one of these days you'll tell us about the man with the Slavic surname who was living with the Solie family on their dairy farm when future probable mole, Bruce, was an impressionable lad.
-
I overlooked the parts regarding Jack Ruby and the fact that the Dallas Police Department allowed their prime suspect to get lynched. It always troubled me that Ruby was allowed to be in the parking garage during the 'aborted transfer' of Oswald, that not a single police official recognized him and told him to leave. It is most unfortunate. A trial could have provided many answers.
The simple fact that Ruby was not yet recognized by anyone is very good evidence, to me anyway, that he had only been in the basement for a very short time (two minutes at the most) before Oswald was led out, i.e. there wasn't enough time for anyone who may have known him to even see him.
-
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
We appreciate your candor.
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
Well, your list is actually the most balanced list of the lists submitted by WC apologists in this thread. You deserve credit for including Titovets' book in your list. Epstein's book argues for Oswald's guilt but allows that Oswald may have acted in concert with, or at the behest of, the Soviets. You were the only WC defender who could muster up enough objectivity to at least include one anti-WC/pro-Oswald book in your list.
-
We appreciate your candor.
Well, your list is actually the most balanced list of the lists submitted by WC apologists in this thread. You deserve credit for including Titovets' book in your list. Epstein's book argues for Oswald's guilt but allows that Oswald may have acted in concert with, or at the behest of, the Soviets. You were the only WC defender who could muster up enough objectivity to at least include one anti-WC/pro-Oswald book in your list.
In post #44, the Supposed WC Apologist enthusiastically recommended Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, to wit:
Now that I'm rereading it, I cannot believe that no one has mentioned Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why by Gerald McKnight. McKnight was a serious academic, and this book is widely regarded as one of the two or three absolute best CT tomes. McKnight doesn't go off on any wild CT tangents but simply provides a pretty devastating alternative perspective on the WC and the events swirling around it.
What makes JFKA discussions tedious and unproductive is that virtually everyone is a one-dimensional quasi-religious fanatic who has planted his flag in the LN narrative or some CT alternative and feels compelled to demonize anyone who declines to join his church. Hence, one who is by no means a WC Apologist must be characterized as such so this convenient strawman may be demonized. The JFKA community on both sides simply cannot deal with someone who refuses to be pigeonholed because he has no great emotional involvment in JFK or who killed him. The dynamics are exactly those of the many, many religious debates in which I have participated over the decades.
For the record, your Supposed WC Apologist also just finished rereading William Matson Law's highly readable In the Eye of History in connection with revisiting the truly puzzling death of William Bruce Pitzer. The interviews are of uneven quality - O'Neill and Sibert, who both strongly disavowed the SBT, are excellent - but anyone with a semi-open mind cannot avoid the nagging suspicion that the orthodox LN narrative is not the full story. I, however, have no deep emotional need to plant my flag in any particular notion of what the missing pieces may be; as with all areas of weirdness in which I am involved, I can live with the ambiguity and uncertainty. I don't need a JFKA church.
-
I would recommend Oswald’s Game by Jean Davison, Oswald’s Tale by Norman Mailer, Case Closed by Gerald Posner, With Malice by Dale Myers and Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher.