NEW BOOK

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ok Glenn and anyone else reading 

I’m sorry. I could have chosen much less nasty language to express myself in that first post. I should not have called it a pile of garbage. My objections to it stand however. This has nothing to do with being open minded. 

 

 

Paul, thanks for the warning about the book.

Any book that portrays Oswald as a lone nut JFK killer is garbage. Just like a book that portrays the Holocaust as being faked is garbage. Because the overwhelming evidence in both cases shows them to be lies. If that statement insults the authors of those books, well so be it. This forum is not like a person's home where we are supposed to hold our noses till an offending guest leaves. It is gathering place of researchers whose goal is to uncover the truth. If lies are being passed off as the truth, it is garbage. IMO.

On the other hand, if a member wishes to tippy toe around around the garbage so as not to offend the source of it, that is their right.

 

Edited December 21, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Glenn Nall]

8 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

He contacted me on FB and  told me he was interested in the Assassination, had a new theory ,and had written a book on JFK. He wanted me to read it. I told him about our forum,( he didn't know about the JFK forums outside of FB.) and that he should join, and , discuss the gist of his book, and see what you folk thought.I figured if what he shared had any merit, you guys would say so, or if it didn't you'd tell him why.  I didn't know what he had, but I thought this would be the best place to talk about his theory, whatever it was. I also offered to show him how to create a thread, and use the search function.  I'd do that for anybody.

Hey, Glenn, what the hell is wrong with that?   

 

Kathy, if you read through the entirety of this thread you'll see that I'M the one who defended Lionel's right to contribute to this forum. I'm the one who called Paul out for being rude to him.

I'm the one who defended anyone's right to participate in this forum, regardless of their stance on the assassination.

So. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

He contacted me on FB and  told me he was interested in the Assassination, had a new theory ,and had written a book on JFK. He wanted me to read it. I told him about our forum,( he didn't know about the JFK forums outside of FB.) and that he should join, and , discuss the gist of his book, and see what you folk thought.I figured if what he shared had any merit, you guys would say so, or if it didn't you'd tell him why.  I didn't know what he had, but I thought this would be the best place to talk about his theory, whatever it was. I also offered to show him how to create a thread, and use the search function.  I'd do that for anybody.

Hey, Glenn, what the hell is wrong with that?   

 

Thanks for your post. Like Glenn I didn’t say anything was wrong with inviting him to the forum. I’m glad you clarified the sequence of communications with the author. 

Glenn - now that we know how this invitation to join came about, do you think the author did so in order to discuss his theory? 

[Glenn Nall]

19 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks for your post. Like Glenn I didn’t say anything was wrong with inviting him to the forum. I’m glad you clarified the sequence of communications with the author. 

Glenn - now that we know how this invitation to join came about, do you think the author did so in order to discuss his theory? 

Damn, Paul.

Lionel said in his initial post that he was here at the behest of Kathy Becket. I've always known this, and even mentioned it in one of my posts to you. No, you didn't say it was wrong to invite him to the forum, but you damn sure didn't make him feel welcome. He bolted, Paul.

And, AS I'VE EMPHASIZED, as far as I know, anyone is welcome, regardless of their stance on the assassination, IDEALLY without insult. AM I WRONG HERE???

So he's promoting a book. SO WHAT? WHAT IS THAT TO YOU?

I said yesterday, when I read a xxxxty book, I mark it down as having read a xxxxty book - AND I MOVE ON.

You said you were, and are, upset.

WHY? 

If you and Sandy are that bothered by a xxxxty book and need to resort to elementary insult to quell your anguish, then I'd say this forum is not the medicament you're seeking.

[Glenn Nall]

there are some really angry people in this forum.

[Glenn Nall]

On 12/19/2017 at 12:57 PM, Lionel Touzellier said:

Hello everybody !

My name is Lionel Touzellier, I am a french novel writer, and I was invited to join this forum by Kathy Becket. I speak to you from France, and from this far little country, I wrote a book on JFK assassination. Although it is a suspense fiction,  I exhibit a new thesis, unknown, based on true and real datas, all verified. I don’t claim that I found the truth but I am proud of it and specially because I discovered a new angle ( it is rare enough to be underlined, I think) To be honest with you, I can not tell you my deep thoughts because it would spoil the end of my book, but what I can tell is that I tried to shed a new light on this blurring event, a light that nobody explored before. However, at the end, everybody is free to believe what he wants. We live in democratic world, and I respect totally this. I am an open-mind person

I give you the link if you are interested to have a look at it : https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077P5PF5K

 

 

Lionel, finally, please once again accept my apologies on behalf of the adults in this forum. I'm sorry you were treated as you were, and I'm sorry you can't attempt some open-mindedness yourself and try to stick it out.

Thin skin doesn't work well in here...

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

 

Since you appear to be the only one who read the book, what was the original research done?

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

 

Since you appear to be the only one who read the book, what was the original research done?

Thanks Jim. Before I answer your question I’d like to mention to Glenn that Kathy Beckett clearly says that this author approached her. So to say he joined the forum at her behest is clearly inaccurate.

I’m not sure there was any original research. The author is convinced that the clues reside in a form of divination called Onomancy. I think Tom Hume would be the one to ask whether the author has contributed anything to the study of Oswald’s name and alias, and the various notes he scribbled in his notebook or phone book. The author thinks that Oswald connected himself with John Wilkes Booth in this fashion. He states that Oswald was too much of a loner to be part of a larger plot. He dismisses the nuts and bolts arguments such as the direction of the shots by saying they were inconclusive. For him Oswald took on the role of presidential assassin because he saw fates hand at every turn and willingly carried out the duty handed to him by this invisible force. If anything it sounds more like self hypnoprogramming, to coin a phrase. As far as I can tell the main characters, consisting of two investigators with different skill sets assigned by the Department of Homeland Security to use their talents ( one of them is a scientist whose specialty is nanotechnology, the other a lifelong conspiracy theorist) to finally solve the great mystery, and an old and dying man who has studied the assassination since the day of and has left complex clues for them to follow and false leads to evade the KGB who try to beat the couple to the truth, besieging them at every turn, are entirely fictional.

Edited December 21, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

If you and Sandy are that bothered by a xxxxty book and need to resort to elementary insult to quell your anguish, then I'd say this forum is not the medicament you're seeking.

 

I'm not bothered by the book at all Glenn. Nor am I an angry person. I merely expressed my opinion that Paul got it right when he said the the book is garbage. (By which I took to mean that the thesis of the book was garbage. As a work of fiction the book may be fine for all I know.)

JFK assassination research is decades beyond the question as to whether Oswald was the lone gunman. The thesis of the book, therefore, is nonsense. (Is that word less offensive than "garbage?")

Upon leaving, Lionel said, " I never told to an artist that what he made was a "pile of garbage." He failed to see that there is a difference between his book as a work of art -- it being a fictional novel -- and his book proposing an assassination theory -- something he said the book does. It is the latter being criticized here, not the former.

Lionel said in his first post that everybody is free to believe what they want. That's what Paul did IMO. And that's why I defended him for doing so.

One more thing... Lionel introduced his book in his OP, saying that it has "a new thesis" that deserves to be "underlined." And yet he refused to tell us what his thesis was. Anybody who wanted to know would have to pay for the book. So Paul had to pay for the book, and read it, just to discover that the thesis is nonsense. No wonder Paul felt strongly when he reported back about the book. IMO Paul did us all a great service by doing what he did.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Anthony Thorne]

Quote

IMO Paul did us all a great service by doing what he did

I would have preferred to encourage the author to look at some alternative viewpoints.  Ah well.

I'm open to reading thoughtful novels on the assassination.  I've half a mind to write one myself one day.  It'd take a while though.  You'd have to do justice to the project as a work of fiction, and justice as best as one could to the real data and research about the assassination.  Neither goal would be an easy one, and you'd be stuck with an audience of researchers who are less interested in JFK assassination fiction than they are non-fiction, and an audience of fiction readers who might not appreciate a deep run through the real-life (perhaps footnoted) events of the sort that get discussed here on this board.  No wonder it's not done very often.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Anthony Thorne

[Paul Brancato]

On 12/21/2017 at 11:19 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I'm not bothered by the book at all Glenn. Nor am I an angry person. I merely expressed my opinion that Paul got it right when he said the the book is garbage. (By which I took to mean that the thesis of the book was garbage. As a work of fiction the book may be fine for all I know.)

JFK assassination research is decades beyond the question as to whether Oswald was the lone gunman. The thesis of the book, therefore, is nonsense. (Is that word less offensive than "garbage?")

Upon leaving, Lionel said, " I never told to an artist that what he made was a "pile of garbage." He failed to see that there is a difference between his book as a work of art -- it being a fictional novel -- and his book proposing an assassination theory -- something he said the book does. It is the latter being criticized here, not the former.

Lionel said in his first post that everybody is free to believe what they want. That's what Paul did IMO. And that's why I defended him for doing so.

One more thing... Lionel introduced his book in his OP, saying that it has "a new thesis" that deserves to be "underlined." And yet he refused to tell us what his thesis was. Anybody who wanted to know would have to pay for the book. So Paul had to pay for the book, and read it, just to discover that the thesis is nonsense. No wonder Paul felt strongly when he reported back about the book. IMO Paul did us all a great service by doing what he did.

 

 

Thanks Sandy. 

[David Andrews]

On 12/21/2017 at 12:55 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Thanks Jim. Before I answer your question I’d like to mention to Glenn that Kathy Beckett clearly says that this author approached her. So to say he joined the forum at her behest is clearly inaccurate.

I’m not sure there was any original research. The author is convinced that the clues reside in a form of divination called Onomancy. I think Tom Hume would be the one to ask whether the author has contributed anything to the study of Oswald’s name and alias, and the various notes he scribbled in his notebook or phone book. The author thinks that Oswald connected himself with John Wilkes Booth in this fashion. He states that Oswald was too much of a loner to be part of a larger plot. He dismisses the nuts and bolts arguments such as the direction of the shots by saying they were inconclusive. For him Oswald took on the role of presidential assassin because he saw fates hand at every turn and willingly carried out the duty handed to him by this invisible force. If anything it sounds more like self hypnoprogramming, to coin a phrase. As far as I can tell the main characters, consisting of two investigators with different skill sets assigned by the Department of Homeland Security to use their talents ( one of them is a scientist whose specialty is nanotechnology, the other a lifelong conspiracy theorist) to finally solve the great mystery, and an old and dying man who has studied the assassination since the day of and has left complex clues for them to follow and false leads to evade the KGB who try to beat the couple to the truth, besieging them at every turn, are entirely fictional.

OK - so cashing in on the now also passe taste for Dan Brown-style esoteric clue chasing among violent competing parties.  I regret nothing, as some French lady once sang.  Want to be an artist? Find a different agent.

Edited December 23, 2017 by David Andrews

[Tom Hume]

I only read this thread this morning, so I’m new here.

Glenn wrote: “who the hell promotes a book by telling people its "ending???" why the hell would he do that?”

While I sort-of agree with the substance and intent of Glenn’s questions, my favorite author, Kurt Vonnegut, wrote this:  

“Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.”

In an interview years ago, I heard Vonnegut say, and I hope I’m quoting him correctly, “Screw suspense - tell the ending at the beginning.” 

I like and read a fair number of mystery and science fiction novels, and very few writers organize their work like Vonnegut, but thanks to Paul, we might know where Mr Touzellier’s story is headed. 

Before I slogged through Steven King’s “11/22/63”, I had heard what the ending was going to be, but I read it anyway. Had I been introduced to King at, say, a cocktail party on the evening I finished the book, furious, I just might have told him that I loved time-travel stories, and that I thought he’d written 849 pages of pure garbage. I’ve cooled down since. 

I read Mr Touzellier’s free 10 chapters, and had I’d known nothing about the book beforehand, I would have said, “This is a page-turner. I need to read this in one sitting.”

But while I’m willing to dip into “lone nut” treatises by “reputable” researchers, I think “lone nut” fiction is a waste of my time. However, I’ve just put in a request at my local library for Mr Touzellieer’s book because of something Paul wrote:

“I think Tom Hume would be the one to ask whether the author has contributed anything to the study of Oswald’s name and alias, and the various notes he scribbled in his notebook or phone book.”

I don’t know if you were being facetious, Paul, but I’m interested to see if Lionel mentions any of the things I’ve been stumbling over for the last few years. 

Off topic: David Andrews, I think your EF mailbox is full. I lost your email address in my last computer crash, and if you PM it to me we might communicate that way.

 

[Paul Brancato]

David - I thought of Dan Brown too. I also thought how he ripped off the British duo that put together the quite original research that Brown used for his page turner. Look forward to hearing what Hume has to say.