Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

THE INHERITANCE: fantastic book on the JFK assassination

Recommended Posts

Dave says: 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. 

I share your disappointment. I think we had a President for the first time since FDR to be in a position to really bring the hammer down on the banks, and he didn't have the nerve. Maybe he just decided that he would be content to   be the first trailblazer Jackie Robinson of the Presidents, but we obviously needed a real transformation.  The banks were certainly expecting more retribution.

 I saw "Vice" and  liked the interview with Mc Kay.  But I do disagree with some of his assertions, and probably don't share all of your pessimism, as maybe I see an opportunity.

America's general population is not at all political. This can be useful. They did elect a Republican only 6 years after Nixon's resignation, so the idea that the Democratic brand is "spoiled" doesn't really hold water. A party can make massive mistakes for a long time but the electorate's memory is short. And you really need just one vote over half to win an election.(unless you split into 3 parties)

Ok, I sort of agree with him that Cheney seized power, but all the fresh ideas were coming from the conservatives, and ultimately the Democrats were so empty, they ended up just going along when it became harder to get elected. And they still haven't come up with any new ideas since, at least not with any united sense of conviction. The big difference between now and other times is that there is becoming a sense of urgency. I don't share his idea that Liberals by nature are not capable of seizing power.

If the Democrats define the enemy as income inequality, and the resultant free-for- all of money into politics, exploit the downfall of the middle class as Sanders did, and promise economic rights, including affordable health care, cheaper education. What real opposition in numbers is there?

Obviously, history tells us if the Dems could blow it, they will,  but  I don't think the Democrats have to be obsessed with playing it "safe" with Biden anymore. I think people have to be inspired that the candidate represents real "change".

The reason the Republicans hate Pelosi so much is her ability to raise gobs of money. Her rhetoric is that she would like to get the money out of politics.She's probably learned to push for HR1 because she now realizes the limiting of campaign contributions and smaller contributions favor  her party. For the remaining time she has, there's no skin off her a-s for doing that because she has plenty of support and has pledged to leave by 2022 anyway. But even if given a Dem President, will she go far enough?

The other issue involves is, "Where does part of this money for these expenditures come from."  It would be partly  from the winding down of the American Empire. This would be very tricky as there are politically a lot of hawkish sentiments across the board in the American psyche as well, and a very ensconced Defense industry, but on the other hand, there is now a meeting between the Left and Right about excessive militarism.

I think once you get this generation of leaders out, it will be much like  Chernenko and Andropov disappearing from the scene, hopefully giving way to a younger Gorbachev.. The new generation coming in is becoming much more aware of the problems than our generations are, and that's where you get a lot of the Green Energy contingent.

 
 
 
 
“There must be a conspiracy somewhere!” Have you noticed that everyone believes in conspiracy
Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with your last statement,  I rely on reviews to determine what is worthy to read. I don't want to read a book with the same info I already know. I had thought about picking this one up but it sounds like it's a no go. There is so many out there and only so much time. I am going to focus on getting Lisa's book and Joseph McBride's. Both respected and authorities on each of their subjects. I wish I would have read reviews on Mary's Mosiac, although it was a good read even if the info may be suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2019 at 12:40 PM, James DiEugenio said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a reason – and it has nothing to do with Christopher Fulton’s choice of literary styles to pen his memoir – why Mr. DiEugenio has been unable to do a review of this book.  It should become clear by the end of this post.   The way Jim framed Mr. Fulton’s encounter with General Alexander Lebed belies the undercurrent of contempt he evidently felt about the entire book and how it has apparently created conflictions for him personally.  But contrived insolence does not disprove the merits of this profoundly important book, it merely reflects DiEugenio’s own frustration as noted in the first few sentences of his “non-review.”

As for Fulton’s meeting with General Lebed, if Jim really doubts that it occurred, maybe he should check with the assistant district attorney (in the 1997-99 period) who, rather brutally, interrogated Christopher on multiple occasions, Mr. Stewart Barman.  In the first one, March 3, 1999, Barman grilled him on the meeting with Lebed, so he must have had reason to believe the story.   Regarding DiEugenio’s astonishment that Fulton had the temerity to use material from Waldron’s book, how could he do that when the conversation with General Lebed took place eleven years before Waldron published his book?   And the fact that Fulton is merely reporting the information volunteered by Lebed does not constitute an endorsement on his part of what Lebed told him.  There is no denying that what he was told by Lebed is similar to Waldron’s “thesis,” so – instead of using “kneejerk” analysis, if one approaches it more thoughtfully – there is a veritable explanation for that anomaly, though Fulton would have no reason to have determined what it was:  Given that his conversation with Lebed occurred in April, 1997 and Waldron’s book was not published for over decade after that (together with the fact that General Lebed’s death in a helicopter crash had also occurred six years before Waldron’s book was published) it appears that the genesis of Waldron’s story might have begun with Lebed (where he got it from is open to conjecture).  But the fact is, Waldron had obtained much of his information about the story from Harry Williams (see Legacy of Secrecy, p. 766), who was closely associated not only with Almeida, but Robert F. Kennedy as well.  Capisce Jim? 

Next, Jim’s unsubstantiated doubt about the meeting Robert White had with Ronald Reagan, as retold by Mr. Fulton, was highly substantiated: Hint, look at the top of page 440, where you will find definitive proof – a photo of their meeting – affirming indeed that it occurred.  Yes, it is unfortunate that both White and Reagan died and made Jim’s job so difficult, but thankfully the 120+ pages of photographs, in addition to the numerous references (verbatim copies) within the narrative to many affidavits and other correspondence will live on so that future generations will learn essential truths (as much as that seems to bother some folks with restricted agendas).

DiEugenio’s next point related to Bill Kelly’s inconsequential “review” has already been addressed in my own book review, so I will leave it at that.  But, given the FBI’s and SS’s many well documented manipulations of evidence, witnesses and falsified documents – and their choices of sending only those agents who were well-schooled in compliance to those methods (see James Douglass’ pp. 309-310 for more information on that issue, if anyone is unfamiliar with it) – it is troubling that Jim would reference Vincent Drain as a presumably credible source for anything.  In fact, his credibility has been an issue on multiple subjects over the years.  One was his failure to initial the bullet shells during the period he had custody of them, which “broke” the chain of custody, thereby devaluing their possible use as evidence.  For another instance, see the document “The Paper Bag: An FBI Blueprint for Revised Documents” by Edgar F. Tatro for more on this point: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=520805

Finally, regarding Bouck’s statement that the Secret Service had gathered all the evidence (ignoring the FBI’s key role in that) is, so far, the only substantive “error” that I have seen in this otherwise magnificent and completely new work.  Bouck’s oversight might be explained by the fact that he was a ranking official of the Secret Service, probably habitually used to speaking about their role and forgetting momentarily that their sister organization was also involved.  But comparing that omission to the numerous misstatements within DiEugenio’s own “non-review,” as noted above, is disturbing, to say the least.

The real, and transparently clear, reason that Messrs. DiEugenio, Kelly and Schnapf (among numerous others) are aghast about the publication of this book is that it has turned their long-embraced beliefs – that “The ‘CIA did it’ all on their own with a little help from their friends,” – on its head because of the numerous references to Lyndon B. Johnson’s central role in it (and by logical extension, the other assassinations done during the period of his reign).  That Christopher Fulton obtained this information from a high-level Secret Service official, who had been sworn to secrecy about all of it, by Robert F. Kennedy himself, is simply too much for these purported “truth seekers” to swallow.  It is as if they are in a room with many doors to open for “real truths” but the one marked “LBJ” must never be opened, only all the others.  The massive locks they and their forebears have installed on that door is precisely the reason that the “Crime of the Century” has still never been solved to anyone’s satisfaction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why Mr Nelson will never be a valued critic.

I do not dispute the meetings.  What I am questioning, quite specifically, is the content of the discussion.  

There is simply no way to ascertain that aspect.  For the specific reason I mentioned, that is the passing on of the other party.

As per Nelson's specialty, the cheap shot on Drain, the transfer to the FBI on the night of the 22nd has been certified and documented by writers like Carol Hewitt and John Armstrong.  And it was done many, many years ago.  In fact back in the late nineties for articles they did for Probe Magazine on Ruth and Micahel Paine and the disappearance of the Minox camera.

How anyone can write about  the Waldron/Hartmann thesis today escapes me.  If you have not read my reviews of Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy, please do:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/ultimate-sacrifice

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/legacy-of-secrecy-by-lamar-waldron-with-thom-hartmann

The first one garnered  a very nice compliment from a Los Angeles area Advanced Placement teacher.  She said that she thought my review was a model for detecting misinformation and she taught  a lesson to her class based on it.  In the second, Waldron and Hartmann actually changed part of their book based upon my first critique, and I note it in the review.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Derek Thibeault said:

I agree with your last statement,  I rely on reviews to determine what is worthy to read. I don't want to read a book with the same info I already know. I had thought about picking this one up but it sounds like it's a no go. There is so many out there and only so much time. I am going to focus on getting Lisa's book and Joseph McBride's. Both respected and authorities on each of their subjects. I wish I would have read reviews on Mary's Mosiac, although it was a good read even if the info may be suspect.

Derek - you can judge a great deal about the book by the pages made available for preview on the Amazon page for The Inheritance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is why Mr Nelson will never be a valued critic.

I do not dispute the meetings.  What I am questioning, quite specifically, is the content of the discussion.  

There is simply no way to ascertain that aspect.  For the specific reason I mentioned, that is the passing on of the other party.

As per Nelson's specialty, the cheap shot on Drain, the transfer to the FBI on the night of the 22nd has been certified and documented by writers like Carol Hewitt and John Armstrong.  And it was done many, many years ago.  In fact back in the late nineties for articles they did for Probe Magazine on Ruth and Micahel Paine and the disappearance of the Minox camera.

How anyone can write about  the Waldron/Hartmann thesis today escapes me.  If you have not read my reviews of Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy, please do:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/ultimate-sacrifice

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/legacy-of-secrecy-by-lamar-waldron-with-thom-hartmann

The first one garnered  a very nice compliment from a Los Angeles area Advanced Placement teacher.  She said that she thought my review was a model for detecting misinformation and she taught  a lesson to her class based on it.  In the second, Waldron and Hartmann actually changed part of their book based upon my first critique, and I note it in the review.

 

JD:  "This is why Mr Nelson will never be a valued critic."   

        I agree with this one, at least in JD's opinion (a mutual one, in opposite context, BTW).

JD: "I do not dispute the meetings.  What I am questioning, quite specifically, is the content of the discussion."

        Then why did you sarcastically frame it as: 

"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"

Your message portrays it as if Fulton exploited the name of the "famous general" that he had read about somewhere, knowing that he had since died therefore choosing that name so that no one could ever prove or disprove his assertion? 

(Speaking of devices, as you repeatedly referenced in your first post, then again in the one above, where you are attempting to show that everyone he's cited is now dead, "conveniently" so they can't be questioned.  That particular false theme might have worked, but there are too many critical instances where he has proven that his experiences were factual.).

JD:  "As per Nelson's specialty, the cheap shot on Drain . . ." 

How is my referencing two specific factual cases where Drain's credibility has been questioned a "cheap shot."  And, BTW, I acknowledged this was an error on Bouck's part in not giving "credit" to the FBI for their role in heisting all the evidence out of Dallas, even at a time when the FBI's "authority" to do so was not entirely clear.  Had it not been for the ephemeral (a few days at most) "fear" of a conspiracy (which they were concurrently denying) that would have been "NONE" and that evidence should have remained in the custody of the Dallas PD.   Why are you continuing to argue about a point that has been "asked and answered" already?  

JD:  "How anyone can write about  the Waldron/Hartmann thesis today escapes me."

Jim, if you haven't noticed, it was you who introduced that topic.  I merely responded to you to demonstrate that it was impossible for Gen. Lebed to have used Waldron's thesis since his book came eleven years after that meeting, and six years after Lebed had died.  Fulton merely reported what he had been told, unaware that doing so would cause you so much angst over the fact that the story was so close to Waldron's book.  So please do us all a favor and drop it.  Again, a point "asked, answered and resolved in the last post."  (But since you're still so proud of getting a "thumbs up" from some teacher, please accept my hearty "congratulations" for that magnificent work.  I'll make it a point to read it someday).

I note that, in not responding to it,  you graciously "accepted" the premise of the last paragraph in my previous post, implicitly acknowledging the intrinsic truth of everything there (unlike every other paragraph, where you did find some "nits" to pick).  I will take that as the compliment that I'm sure you intended to make, though very subtly as is your usual style. 

 

 

Edited by Phil Nelson
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Nelson,  why you insist on not understanding what I am saying is a mystery to me. Becuasae most people consider me to have some facility with the language.

1. If, after reading my review of Waldron and Hartmann, you did not understand why I have doubts about Lebed and the whole C Day/Almeida plot which the general seemed to be obsessed with, and why he would reveal it to Fulton, then I consider that to be your problem.  Or maybe you did not read either review I linked to.  Those reviews were two of the most popular and viewed critiques ever posted at our site. That is on you, not me.

2. If you did not understand my references to Armstrong and Hewitt in lieu of Drain, again that is on you not me.

3. Returning to Waldron/Hartmann and Lebed, I did not introduce this topic, Fulton did.  In your review, you passed over this without a mention. Let alone an arched eyebrow.  This shows the difference in our approaches. To me the important thing about writing criticism, in almost any field, is not the evaluation. It is in the analysis. It is there that one really understands the object being discussed. If the critic is knowledgeable and incisive then he can illuminate the work in such a way that the reader can benefit from his writing.  And hopefully the reader can begin to look more thoroughly at the field in general.  But it also follows that the more informed and painstaking the analysis then the more reliable the evaluation.  Your review of the book has no kind of analysis in it, either comparative, qualitative, or quantitative. And in fact, you buy Fulton's journey into John Hankey land when you seem to endorse his version, and reason for, the death of JFK Jr.

Finally, one should never be eager to leap to the conclusion that because one does not comment on what someone else says that this denotes agreement.  It does not.  I made my reasons for my criticism of the book in a scholarly way.  I said no one can critique this book because of the (questionable) literary techniques the author used to assemble it.  Those methods guaranteed one could not cross check the content of the discussions therein described.  You apparently were willing to dismiss this key point.  If I would use your tack then I could say that Geez, since Fulton said LBJ was a force in the murder of JFK, that is why Nelson wrote what he did.  I did not. 

My concerns with the book were not at all what you say they were.  They were just what I described.  As I said, it is not possible for anyone to do a real critique of this book since it would take much more time, money and effort than it is worth. And also because Fulton has used a methodology which makes it simply not possible to cross check a large part of his material, since the other person has left this mortal coil.  Again, for whatever reason, you ignored this in your review. Which indicates your agenda.  

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 11, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Vince Palamara said:

A new book (coming 11/22/18- I received an advance copy) I highly recommend: NEW information, very well written. NOTHING in it’s 500-plus pages is in any way, shape or form old news. I am amazed that, at this late juncture, something NEW can come out in book form on this case! Get it when it comes out!

THE INHERITANCE Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/cmfultonauthors/

THE INHERITANCE Amazon page:

https://www.amazon.com/Inheritance-Poisoned-Fruit-JFKs-Assassination/dp/1634242173/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1541962079&sr=1-1

71jog3bxghl.jpg?w=201&h=300

 

Read the book Vince. It's very interesting. Can you weigh in here on the important part various Secret Service agents play in Fulton's story?

especially Bouck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having now read the book in its entirety I'd like to give my impression. First I recommend that everyone read it. 

The scenario presented herein implicates a very deep state interested in protecting its secrets at all costs. The various writers like Jim who object to the style of the book, written like a novel but in first person, would still agree that the overall picture presented is believable. A key point of the book is that the AARB was in many ways an obstacle, a tool of the deep state actors. Who disagrees? 

Some are going to object to naming LBJ. The book postulates that a false flag operation was hijacked by LBJ and made real. But since the Cartier watch was the key evidence, and it is purported to have had on its surface remnants of mercury from the military style bullets used by at least one shooter, it's clear we are not talking about LHO as the assassin. LBJ was known as the Pentagon's Senator. Seems his presidency was proof enough of that. 

I'm not going to tell you all its a true account. I don't have the ability to determine that. But it's an interesting read.

i asked the publisher, and he has not responded here, whether RFK Jr. has anything to say about the book. Im still very interested in having that question answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pursued for mercury traces in blood flecks on the watch.  Why not examine the copious amounts of blood on Kennedy's clothing at the National Archives?

Silenced for something any forensic chemist could disprove by destroying it in the test lab, and then lying about the test result on a witness stand?  It's done to prove cases many times.

Warned off by Ronald Reagan, that paragon of humanity? 

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 3:44 PM, Rich Pope said:

Vince,

Your comment that "NOTHING" in this book is old news is totally a farce.  Several postings on this site and other sites show that a lot in this book is old news.  The only thing that isn't is the Cartier watch.  We all knew some of the bullets were tipped with Mercury.  We all knew the arguments JFK had with LBJ about who was going to sit where in the motorcade.  We all knew the USSS checked all metal objects for radiation.  And there are a lot of things I could list but simply don't need to.  Everyone has heard of these things before.  The book is not a watershed of new information.

"the only thing that isn't [old news] is the watch".

 

So, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln? :)

 

Did you read with the highly respected and esteemed author Dick Russell said about the watch at the start of the book? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 2:18 PM, Vince Palamara said:

"JFK's watch was the single most compelling piece of evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone, that someone else fired the fatal shot from the front, that a conspiracy existed..." The watch is a central part of this book. 

^^Dick Rusell wrote this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

^^Dick Rusell wrote this.

Vince - how much credence do you give the recounting of the Secret Sevice agents in the book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have finished reading The Inheritance, and will be interviewing Christopher Fulton on my weekly "I Protest" radio show this Friday. 

I've been researching this case since working as a teenager with Mark Lane's Citizens Committee of Inquiry in the mid-1970s. I've read more books than I could ever remember on the subject. This book is special, and important. 

Fulton established that RFK, working with JFK's secretary Evelyn Lincoln, deliberately withheld what evidence he could from the government. This was done because RFK understandably didn't trust these agencies, and was biding his time until he could regain the White House and launch a real investigation. Fulton's work also verifies what I discovered in researching the death of JFK, Jr. He was indeed keenly interested in his father's assassination, and was about to enter politics. 

Fulton, unlike those of us who dabble in the minutiae of the assassination, paid a heavy price for possessing material the government wanted to remove from the public. He spent eight years in jail. During that time, his wife and lawyer died in suspicious car crashes, his mother died prematurely, and the guy who was bequeathed the watch and other material from Evelyn Lincoln, died very suddenly as well. This is a great read, and essential to anyone who wants to learn the truth about the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...