As to your comments that my work is deeply flawed - it has been praised by Dan Moldea, Max Holland, Larry Sneed, Ron Rosenbaum (New Yorker), Anthony Summers, Patricia Lambert, HNN editor and presidential historian Richard Shenkman, Professor John McAdams, Professor Lonnie Athens, and JFK researcher and psychologist, Professor Martin J Kelly amongst many.
I am sure your work has been praised by Max Holland and John McAdams. That is like Hitler saying that Mein Kampf was praised by Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels.
Yet you, John, who as far as I can tell has never been published by any respectable publisher or university have the gall to make these remarks. I believe the only people you are capable of persuading are the likes of JFK Lancer who dismiss anything that spoils their money-making enterprise.
It is true that most of my work has been published by two small publishers (Tressell and Spartacus). Despite the problems of competing with the multinational corporations, they still managed to sell over 100,000 copies of my books.
The reason why I chose to go with small publishers is because they gave me the freedom to write what I wanted. As you probably know, mainstream publishers are usually unwilling to publish controversial books. This is especially true when you want to be critical of organizations like the CIA and the FBI.
Just because companies are small does not mean they are not “respectable”. What do you know about Tressell and Spartacus to question their respectability? Or is this just a smear that you are unable to back up?
Nor is it true that I have never been published by a large organization. When it suits me I have had work published in the Guardian, the TES, Teaching History, etc.
Except for the odd favour, I no longer write for the print media. All my work goes on my website. It currently gets over 6 million page impressions a month. That of course does not make it “good” or “right” but it does suggest that a lot of people want to read my work.
Mel & John,
I read Mel's response, posted on the same 3-4 threads, and it is indeed gone. There was nothing so objectionable to warrant deletion, in my opinion, though it was feisty and seemed to be saying that Mel didn't intend to suffer further insult and referred readers to his own website for further info on his views. I would strongly defend Mel's right to speak his mind on this subject, including that posting. I think any such deletion would be unwarranted and hardly defensible not to mention being totally unnecessary. (On the other hand, if we delete our own posts in their entirety does this show up as "post deleted" without our adding that notice?)
As I have explained I have not deleted Mel's posting? Why would I do that? The whole idea of this Forum is to have open debate.
Why does Mel not post it again if he is so proud of his work? John Hunt, a leading expert on the RFK assassination has offered to discuss this issue with him. I am looking forward to seeing this discussion. The new thread is here: