THE INHERITANCE: fantastic book on the JFK assassination

[Paul Brancato]

Lance - I agree with your posts on this book. The promotion is suspect. In my view there are important recently released books that have almost no promotion. Reminds me a bit of Judyth Vary Baker. I’m still waiting for the publisher of the Inheritance to answer my question about RFK jr.

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Lance - I agree with your posts on this book. The promotion is suspect. In my view there are important recently released books that have almost no promotion. Reminds me a bit of Judyth Vary Baker. I’m still waiting for the publisher of the Inheritance to answer my question about RFK jr.

Well, thanks, Paul.  I realize I have gone "somewhat" over the top on this thread, but there is SO much of this stuff across all the subject matters in which I am interested, and it distracts SO much from intelligent discussion and analysis, that I am simply fed up to the gills.  My posts here are not because I am anti-conspiracy but because I am anti this sort of stuff.

[Steven Kossor]

Wondering where the JFK audio tapes and dictabelts are now.  It looks like JFK Jr got the Cartier watch but I wonder where it is today.  Anybody know?

[Douglas Caddy]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 2:48 PM, Lance Payette said:

Ask John Lear, I'm sure he'll have a lot to say about Bob Lazar.  🤣  No, I'm not going there.  Suffice it to say that when Lazar was first being promoted by KLAS-TV reporter George Knapp (who had not yet established himself as a self-promoting clown of the first magnitude) way back in 1988 or so, I (who was then the city attorney in a nearby city) offered to Knapp both by letter and voice mail to fund a serious background investigation of Lazar by a serious background-research firm.  I explained who I was, what my interest was, and what resources were available to me as a lawyer that might not have occurred to Knapp.  I was after what I am after here - WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY, REALLY?  I never received so much as a response from Knapp, who had no interest whatsoever in learning the truth about his meal ticket.  My own minor league investigation satisfied me that Lazar was the classic hoaxer who had just enough kernels of truth associated with his tale to give it the ring of superficial plausibility.  These days I really don't know anyone this side of the UFO lunatic fringe who takes Lazar (or Knapp for that matter) any more seriously than they take John Lear or David Icke - but the UFO community does have a sizable lunatic fringe and they are indeed enthusiastic world-class loons.  I'm sure Lazar, Knapp and Lear would all be fascinating guys to have a beer with, just as are other high-profile prophets of the UFO lunatic fringe with whom I actually have had a beer, but in my informed opinion they are all just tellers of tall tales.  I won't try to convince you otherwise.  God knows there is enough about Lazar on the Internet for anyone with a sincere interest to form his or her own opinion.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1063407/alien-news-area-51-FBI-raid-bob-lazar-home-UFO-spt

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-did-the-fbi-raid-the-home-of-the-biggest-alien-truther

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Douglas Caddy

[Phil Nelson]

My first post on this forum in about 8 years; no particular reason for that, other than that I had other priorities.   

My review of Christopher Fulton's book explains why I believe this is one of the most important books ever written about the JFK assassination.  

It also attempts to explain why the reader must leave their own prejudices about the literary tools used in Fulton's memoir "checked at the door."  The two examples I used to do that (Robert Caro's very meticulous use of all the conventional scholarly methods didn't stop him from ignoring important facts, witnesses and events that did not conform to his narrative, and Hunter S. Thompson's "Gonzo Journalism" style -- without using that scholarly approach -- to present the most profound truths of events [including the JFK assassination] were merely to illustrate that one cannot always presume that truth exists only in works that have the appearance of scholasticism.   There are numerous other "non-fiction" books written sans end-notes (etc.), some of which contain essential truths (e.g. Peter Maas) and others which should be re-categorized as "fiction" (e.g. Bob Woodward, Hampton Sides).

Fulton has produced a factually-based, elegantly-written book designed to reveal his own personal experiences, all because of his interest in acquiring JFK's gold Cartier watch as his personal memento of his hero from the time he was a child.  He wrote this book as anyone who simply wanted to describe how that desire eventually practically destroyed his life (and actually did destroy his wife's and mother's in the process).   Although he chose instead to substitute 120 pages of photos and documents, plus copies of others within the narrative itself, for the foot-notes should mitigate that issue sufficiently for most objective readers.  That he inserted certain dialogue to "round out" the story -- clearly such discussions had taken place -- given what he personally experienced could have only resulted from such actions, it is reasonable to accept them as a "given" predicate. 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Phil Nelson said:

My first post on this forum in about 8 years; no particular reason for that, other than that I had other priorities.   

My review of Christopher Fulton's book explains why I believe this is one of the most important books ever written about the JFK assassination.  

It also attempts to explain why the reader must leave their own prejudices about the literary tools used in Fulton's memoir "checked at the door."  The two examples I used to do that (Robert Caro's very meticulous use of all the conventional scholarly methods didn't stop him from ignoring important facts, witnesses and events that did not conform to his narrative, and Hunter S. Thompson's "Gonzo Journalism" style -- without using that scholarly approach -- to present the most profound truths of events [including the JFK assassination] were merely to illustrate that one cannot always presume that truth exists only in works that have the appearance of scholasticism.   There are numerous other "non-fiction" books written sans end-notes (etc.), some of which contain essential truths (e.g. Peter Maas) and others which should be re-categorized as "fiction" (e.g. Bob Woodward, Hampton Sides).

Fulton has produced a factually-based, elegantly-written book designed to reveal his own personal experiences, all because of his interest in acquiring JFK's gold Cartier watch as his personal memento of his hero from the time he was a child.  He wrote this book as anyone who simply wanted to describe how that desire eventually practically destroyed his life (and actually did destroy his wife's and mother's in the process).   Although he chose instead to substitute 120 pages of photos and documents, plus copies of others within the narrative itself, for the foot-notes should mitigate that issue sufficiently for most objective readers.  That he inserted certain dialogue to "round out" the story -- clearly such discussions had taken place -- given what he personally experienced could have only resulted from such actions, it is reasonable to accept them as a "given" predicate. 

 

 

You’ve convinced me that I should read the book. I’ve read your review completely. I still have problems with one element - which is NOT the notion that LBJ was central to the conspiracy. If you’ve ever seen my trading cards ‘Coup D’Etat’ you would see I came to the same conclusion in 1990. I’m not writing to you here to debate this. My thinking has evolved over the years. I do object to any notion that there is a Deep State that is primarily a feature of the Democratic Party. Deep State keeps us divided along any and every line of seeming demarcation, by religion, by sex, by political affiliation. 

[David Andrews]

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

You’ve convinced me that I should read the book. I’ve read your review completely. I still have problems with one element - which is NOT the notion that LBJ was central to the conspiracy. If you’ve ever seen my trading cards ‘Coup D’Etat’ you would see I came to the same conclusion in 1990. I’m not writing to you here to debate this. My thinking has evolved over the years. I do object to any notion that there is a Deep State that is primarily a feature of the Democratic Party. Deep State keeps us divided along any and every line of seeming demarcation, by religion, by sex, by political affiliation. 

Paul, some interesting views on the Democrats in the interview linked to below.  It is possible that the ideas presented are either too small or too large for the Democrats in the Alice-In-Wonderland that is American politics in this time.  I would myself be a Democrat, but too many other ideas interfere, driving me rather leftward.  But, as said, interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/18/adam-curtis-and-vice-director-adam-mckay-on-how-dick-cheney-masterminded-a-rightwing-revolution

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by David Andrews

[Phil Nelson]

15 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

You’ve convinced me that I should read the book. I’ve read your review completely. I still have problems with one element - which is NOT the notion that LBJ was central to the conspiracy. If you’ve ever seen my trading cards ‘Coup D’Etat’ you would see I came to the same conclusion in 1990. I’m not writing to you here to debate this. My thinking has evolved over the years. I do object to any notion that there is a Deep State that is primarily a feature of the Democratic Party. Deep State keeps us divided along any and every line of seeming demarcation, by religion, by sex, by political affiliation. 

The "Deep State" exists as a "secret entity" alongside, albeit embedded invisibly into, both/all political parties.  The last paragraphs of my review reference LBJ's own party, which at the time also included some of the (real) "best and brightest" senators of all time, IMHO.  That comment was made not to indict the party -- then or now -- but to suggest that getting to the "truth of the matters" will inextricably embarrass the party(ies) from which the highest-level plotters came.  And further, to insinuate that the potential of that occurring is/will be inherently present  in any attempt to conduct an honest and open reinvestigation of the assassinations.  

Edited January 20, 2019 by Phil Nelson
remove extraneous pronoun

[James DiEugenio]

Paul:

No one can review this book.  It is simply not possible to do so.

Mike LeFlem tried.  I tried.  And, going back over 20 years, no one has reviewed more books in this field than I have.  

The reason one cannot review this book is the same reason that Barr McClellan's book Blood Money and Power is almost unreviewable. Because, like that book, this is not a work of history, or to use a broader term, non-fiction. As Walt Brown said about the McClellan book, its a work of "faction".

For any responsible critic to deal with a book like this, it would take up so much time that it would not justify in any real way the value of this book.  But beyond that, the author deals with many key instances where the people involved are dead so they cannot be checked up on.

For instance, if one recalls, about 25 years ago there was the famous General Lebed in Russia.  Well, guess what? Fulton puts him in this book. He happens to meet him in Russia and what does Lebed wanted to talk to him about?  Sit down before I tell you.

Lebed wants to talk about the thesis of Ultimate Sacrifice--yep Juan Almeida and the coup in Cuba that Lamar Waldron and Tom Hartmann said the Kennedys were preparing.  (See p. 62)  Except Lebed makes up a different excuse for that whole wild C- Day scenario.  Wanna hear it?  Well, after the Missile Crisis, the Soviets left about a hundred tactical nukes on Cuba and Almeida was a way to go ahead and secure Cuba without atomic war. No joke.

Now,  I thought I would never hear something more bizarre than Ultimate Sacrifice. But, in just a few pages, Fulton manages to actually go beyond Waldron and Hartmann. The Waldron-Hartmann original thesis was so specious on its face that no one bought into it. And for good reason.  (Click here for my review https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/ultimate-sacrifice) But we are to think that Lebed did. Conveniently for Fulton Lebed passed on in 2002. 

This device is used throughout the book. For instance, there is a meeting earlier where  Robert White--who I knew--meets with former president Ronald Reagan alone. (pp. 20-23) Reagan goes on and on about the ARRB, about the Kennedys, about Oliver Stone and his movie and even more stuff that I don't even want to mention. He is a combination briefer and investigator.  Again, how convenient for Fulton that neither White nor Reagan are around today so no one can cross check it.

A large percentage of the book is like this.  There is simply no way to check on rather unusual events--or it would be very difficult to do so. There is a document section at the rear of the book but there is nothing there that certifies these kinds of meetings  described in the text.  And Bill Kelly is correct about the whole conversation with Bouck.  This one goes on for about four pages.  And the book has Bouck saying stuff in there that is simply wrong. Like the SS had possession of all the evidence on the night of the 22nd. ( p. 113) This is not accurate.  We know from Vince Drain that Hoover had shipped much of the evidence that night to the Bureau and the rest was held by the DPD. Fulton also has Bouck  say that RFK controlled the JFK autopsy.  Again, this is false.  (See Gary Aguilar's essay in Trauma Room One, pp 177-86) Need I add that Bouck died in 2004.

Robert White had what was probably the most extensive and valuable collection of Kennedy memorabilia ever assembled by one individual.  He spent a lot of time and a lot of money gathering these items, and I personally saw that memorabilia on more than one occasion.  The ARRB would quite naturally have been interested in interviewing him and in parts of his collection. 

The proliferation of books on the JFK case published in the last 20 years worries me.  There is a surfeit of them since today its easy to do. Hard for anyone to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

12 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Paul, some interesting views on the Democrats in the interview linked to below.  It is possible that the ideas presented are either too small or too large for the Democrats in the Alice-In-Wonderland that is American politics in this time.  I would myself be a Democrat, but too many other ideas interfere, driving me rather leftward.  But, as said, interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/18/adam-curtis-and-vice-director-adam-mckay-on-how-dick-cheney-masterminded-a-rightwing-revolution

 

Would you agree that a Green New Deal might be the new powerful idea that will mobilize the Left?

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - appreciate the non review. I’ve downloaded it, and I’ll read it. I’m not easily fooled. I’m sure that your objections and those of others like Blunt is well considered. I prefer facts to faction.

Why do you think Vince was so high on it? Asking that because you mention SS agent Bouck specifically, and he seems to be an important source. Yet the name is unfamiliar to me. Maybe Vince will weigh in.

[David Andrews]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Would you agree that a Green New Deal might be the new powerful idea that will mobilize the Left?

I have to think about that one.  I am so bitter about the sequential loss of working people's rights and privileges since about 1980, under both Democratic and Republican administrations and through the votes of senators and congressmen on both sides, that I long for a public educated in the history of the labor struggle in this country, c. 1870-1941, and in my worst hours I wish a return of the worst excesses of labor resistance to oppression that in those years won those very same rights and privileges. 

I had thought that the goal of society was to move forward, but I see only the reverse, propped up by the distractions of expensive consumer comforts which only incite the working classes to commit depredations upon themselves.  We still swim in poverty, racism and ignorance, and only fascist politics offer a hand up to a supposedly noble dry land...upon which the working poor may enrich themselves by establishing a superior race, outlaw immigrants, and win back their jobs - or so goes the legend.  The Curtis-McKay interview is correct to say that there is no counter-legend among the Democrats, a feature that perished with Progressivism in the persons of Franklin Roosevelt and John and Robert Kennedy.

Edited January 20, 2019 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

13 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I have to think about that one.  I am so bitter about the sequential loss of working people's rights and privileges since about 1980, under both Democratic and Republican administrations and through the votes of senators and congressmen on both sides, that I long for a public educated in the history of the labor struggle in this country, c. 1870-1941, and in my worst hours I wish a return of the worst excesses of labor resistance to oppression that in those years won those very same rights and privileges. 

I had thought that the goal of society was to move forward, but I see only the reverse, propped up by the distractions of expensive consumer comforts which only incite the working classes to commit depredations upon themselves.  We still swim in poverty, racism and ignorance, and only fascist politics offer a hand up to a supposedly noble dry land...upon which the working poor may enrich themselves by establishing a superior race, outlaw immigrants, and win back their jobs - or so goes the legend.  The Curtis-McKay interview is correct to say that there is no counter-legend among the Democrats, a feature that perished with Progressivism in the persons of Franklin Roosevelt and John and Robert Kennedy.

I’d post a summary of what the Green New Deal proposes to be, but I’m sure you can find it if you haven’t read it. It’s about much more than climate change.

[David Andrews]

8 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I’d post a summary of what the Green New Deal proposes to be, but I’m sure you can find it if you haven’t read it. It’s about much more than climate change.

I've been reading up since the Curtis-McKay interview and will try to weigh in after consideration.  My first thought is that I'd be more impressed if the Democrats put over a single-payer health system in the US, but that isn't going to happen.  Under the banner of HOPE, we got a president who lied about his grassroots campaign funding, and forced expensive health insurance on an already overburdened nation, to the benefit of the corporations that actually funded his campaign. 

What happy days those truly were when we did get a New Deal, even at the cost of entry into world war.  See that song that Mary Poppins sang to the Banks children, but was cut from the final film release print: "It's Good to Have Illusions While You Die."

Edited January 20, 2019 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

I think we have a good crop of new Congress people. I’m hopeful it’s the beginning of a new left populism.