The JFK Assassination (2018) by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Actually, it's utter silliness, Micah. It's a desperate attempt by a CTer to add an element of perceived "conspiracy" into the JFK murder case. But the partially torn dollar bill means (and, more importantly, PROVES) nothing.

 

I might even be that Oswald decided to do that on his own, to enhance his "mystique".

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Oh that makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

Wow. To impress who?

 

[Thomas Graves]

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh that makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

Wow. To impress who?

 

 

OMG,

It's "whom," James?

 

But to answer your question --

Kosti and the boys down in Old Mexico?

Or that nice, very thin-faced "Blond Oswald" down there?

Raul and Che down in Habana?

 

John Hurt?

 

Beats the heck outta me, James.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

On 5/8/2018 at 2:00 PM, Joseph McBride said:

Thomas, ouch -- what an author wants to hear is, "I will buy a copy." I ordered a copy of Jim's book, and it will arrive today. Support

your respected JFK assassination authors!

Purchased. Agree with Joseph McBride, author whose book Into the Nightmare is one of my favorites.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Paul.

Now if we can get everyone on that train, I will soon be up with James Comey in sales at Amazon. 

The irony is that I really think the average person would learn more about modern America from The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today than they would Comey's book. 

But we all know what Alec Baldwin said about that subject.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Paul.

Now if we can get everyone on that train, I will soon be up with James Comey in sales at Amazon. 

The irony is that I really think the average person would learn more about modern America from The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today than they would Comey's book. 

But we all know what Alec Baldwin said about that subject.

 

But best of all, in order to learn how Vladimir Putin and his lackey Julian Assange were able to install a Russian mafia-mobbed up, blackmail-able, expendable-for-Putin, "useful idiot" as our president on November 8, 2016, one must first learn about "KGB" "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations, and how such diabolical operations, so successfully waged against us for 90-plus years and 58 years, respectively, can give rise to Tin Foil Hat Wearing conspiracy theories, the decline of fact-checking, the decline of liberal democracies in general, etc.

And of course in order to do that, one should read Tennent H. Bagley's Spy Wars. 

I mean, it's obvious that John Newman has read it, right, James?

 

James?

 

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

 

Plus: Yawn.

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Plus: Yawn.

Yup, Tommy’s rubber stamping of threads is like graffiti tagging. It does not pass the “would I want everyone to do as I do” test. I wonder if he marks-up bathroom stalls and breaks random stuff for kicks.

It reminds me of a song by Denis Leary... the title of which escapes my memory....

[James DiEugenio]

TG:

If you have not read my book, how do you know what is in it?

My book is as I described it above and in detail the three parts to it.  

So as others have asked of you, why jump on and detour a thread if you do not know what the heck you are talking about?

Edited May 12, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

(W)hy jump on and detour a thread if you do not know what the heck you are talking about?

 

 

James,

 

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but I wasn't talking about your book.  As I said in an earlier post, I'm going to wait for the City of San Diego to buy one copy to be shared among its twenty-or-so libraries, read it, and then write a very "glowing" review of it on Amazon.

Instead, I was talking about how people could learn about modern America.  Because you said something about that in your post.

And as to my allegedly "not knowing what I'm talking about," I distinctly remember your saying something along those lines regarding Rudolf Hess a couple months ago, and how, when I showed that it's now commonly accepted by historians, including our own John Simkin, that Hess was indeed a spy for the Ruskies, you never came back to that thread.

Remember?

And Nosenko?  After listening to John Newman's recent "Spy Wars" presentation, do you still think the guy who said KGB didn't interview Oswald was himself a true defector?

 

Talk about not understanding anything.

 

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

2 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

 

Haven't you noticed that people who think they are excellent writers will trash a worrhwhile thread whenever they can?

 

--  T.G.

 

Italics are M.C.''s

 

Yup..

[Ron Bulman]

9 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Michael,

 

Haven't you noticed that excellent writers can get away with that sort of thing from time to time?

Don't you read any high-brow magazines or websites?

Just the EF and "Jeep News"?

Regardless, everyone's dying to know how many times I've edited this posts since May 1 ...

 

--  T.G.

 

PS  exccept?

 

Dear editors.  If this is not a disguised effort to bump unrelated fluff in pursuit of derailing a thread what is? 

[James DiEugenio]

Trying to get the thread back on track.

One of the things that some shows I have done are most interested in is Bugliosi and the Tate/La Bianca case.  

It was really surprising to me when I read that book for the first time.  I was shocked that no one noted how improbable some of it was.

So I did some research on it and I sent away for a book from Germany about it.   After that I decided to write about 35 pages on that case. Since then, other writers have caught on to the problems with Bugliosi on that one.  

So the way I look at the book is you are getting a revision about that case, in addition to an expose on Hanks and Bugliosi, plus a smaller one on Spielberg. 

Plus, the latest on the forensic evidence in the JFK assassination.

Not bad for between the covers of one book.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Dear editors.  If this is not a disguised effort to bump unrelated fluff in pursuit of derailing a thread what is? 

 

Ron,

 

James' implicit belief that Hiss was not a spy, Nosenko was a true defector, and that U.S. intel wasn't really penetrated until Hanssen and Ames came along in 1979 and 1985, respectively, is "unrelated fluff" in your opinion? 

Even though he does tout the buying and reading of his book as one of the best ways to understand modern America?

 

--  T.G.

 

Edited May 12, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Michael Clark]

21 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Ron,

James' implicit belief that .....

--  T.G.

 

T.. Show us something that supports your understanding of James' beliefs. 

Are we debating your contrivances or something else?