James DiEugenio

Unfortunately, there is no Kindle version yet. I guess when Amazon collapsed Crate Space into Kindle there is now a problem with the process. BTW, if I was advising John, I would tell him to stick to five volumes. Please do not do six. You want people to read the thing don't you? Its the same problem I had with Doug Horne.

Thanks Steve, that is even better.

To answer Steve: I have come to the conclusion over time that JFK was not killed for any one specific reason e.g. Cuba, Vietnam, monetary policy etc. I now believe today he was killed for the whole panoply of policies but especially what he was doing with is foreign policy in the Third World. And I see Cuba and Vietnam as extensions of that. To David: Again, I am talking about Hammarskjold. Which is what this thread is about.

Thanks for that Micah. I did not even know that browser existed. It looks good.

From one of the best news sites out there, the late Bob Parry's Consortium News https://consortiumnews.com/2019/01/18/narrative-control-firm-targeting-alternative-media/ When one combines this with what I have heard about what Google is doing with their search engine, its kind of discouraging. I heard about this from Russ Baker and I then tested it. I did a four part series on the Kennedys and Civil Rights. If you punch that rubric into Bing or Yahoo, it will come up on the first page 2-3 times. If you punch it into Google, it comes up once. Maybe this is why? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/20/googles-earth-how-the-tech-giant-is-helping-the-state-spy-on-us There is a war on for the space between your ears. And these guys will try anything to win. As Thomas Jefferson said, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

He is referring to the man who said it not the reply. Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building." How did you talk with those people at KFC? Sign language? BTW, Davey does this a lot, that is, he distorts the original testimony with all kinds of tricks, breaking it up, enlarging certain parts to make them central, when they are not etc. Like I said, he is the equivalent of a cardsharp.

Paul, Two comments. I was not talking about the JFK case. I was talking about the Hammarskjold murder, you know, shot out of the sky over Congo, with what appears to be an instant cover up with someone sticking the ace of spades in his collar. Can you please explain how you think Lumpkin, Crichton and Brandstetter were involved in that case? As per Markel, if the guy was a secret assassin for the Agency, where else would you get any certification for that? I mean it took Newman over fifty years to put that one together.

He said he thought it was Givens he did not say it was him. Read English much partner? But he expressed no doubt about what Frazier said. But I am glad we smoked you out on this. According to you Shields is lying. So Shields and Dougherty, liars; but Dougherty twice right? Because he was in position to see Oswald fly down the stairs at the right time after the shots rang out. And Adams and Styles? Are they lying or mistaken Davey? And Stroud? Lying or mistaken? Therefore that is three instances of lying and three of either liars or mistakes or whatever you want to call it. Shameless.

You are so full of it Davey. In my book, that is what I said. That Shields heard Frazier's reply to someone else's question. What does it matter who asked it? What matters is what Shields heard Frazier say. This is another example of your diversionary methods, and also your double standard when it comes to evaluation of witnesses.

The above is pablum. Yawn.

Do you know how much 96.65 is today? About a thousand dollars. Please.

These two links will show you how part of the Establishment Caro is: http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2015/10/dan-hardway-rebuts-shenons-assertion.html https://consortiumnews.com/2012/07/28/caros-flawed-tale-of-lbjs-rise/ I am not looking forward to Caro's next book on LBJ. Especially after reading and reviewing the last one.

Caro is such an MSM toady. You mean to tell me that LBJ actually got money from Texas oil men? And he then spread it around to increase their influence? Sort of like Claude Rains in Casablanca "You mean there is gambling at Rick's? I am shocked! Shocked!" His last book on LBJ was pretty much a dud and he fell for that whole set up of RFK suggesting Dulles to Johnson for the WC which Dan Hardway exposed. Now this last installment is supposed to take us from 1965 to the end of Johnsons's life? I hope so. Then we can all bid adieu to this overrated darling of the MSM.

The above is a good example of Davey's technique on this. He is saying that Shields is lying since what Shields testimony consists of is quoting Frazier as to dropping off Oswald at the TSBD prior to parking his car. But he does not want to say he is calling him a xxxx. Because then that would take away his rhetorical/propaganda technique of saying, "You guys say everyone is lying" as he just screamed above. Now, again, as properly quoted, Shields and Dougherty contradict Frazier. They have no reason to lie. But Davey says they are. He then wants to cover up the fact that he is saying that.

Pamela, To this day the CIA says that Oswald was in MC. And they will tell everyone that. Even though the evidence trail indicates they could not find a trace of him.

Let us take another example of the problems with Frazier. Frazier told the HSCA that he always locked his car doors at night since his car was in a car port not a garage. Well, how did Oswald get the package in the car that morning as Linnie said he did? Frazier replied that that particular door was broken. Jack Moriarty, an experienced detective, replied, "You figure that one out OK?" Davey and FC like to cover up the problems with the witnesses they like. And they then say that everyone who contradicts them is a xxxx.

LOL, ROTF This is what happens when the dynamic duo fall on their faces. Anyone can read what Shields said. When asked where his friend was Frazier replied , "I dropped him off at the building." According to DVP, this is a lie.

Boy is that interesting.

Its ok when DVP calls someone a xxxx, right e.g. Shields and Dougherty. He then tries to cover up that fact by saying, well, I just think Frazier's testimony supersedes them, which is baloney. Either Frazier is lying or Shields is about whether or not LHO was with Frazier parking the car. Either Dougherty is lying or Frazier is about Oswald's package. The reason he does this is that he does not want us to use his tactics on him. That motive is pretty transparent. Shields and Dougherty had no reason to lie. Frazier did. I once put together a list of 57 people who had to be lying for DVP to be right. He did the same salsa dance. Talk about a double standard.

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.

IMO, the McChann interview is really something. I never heard of that landmark he uses, the Janet Leigh gala before. As I said, if that is accurate, then it cinches the whole imposter idea.

Excuse me to the longhairs. But it was published in France. https://www.nouvelobs.com/histoire/20190121.OBS8876/60-personnalites-veulent-rouvrir-les-enquetes-sur-quatre-assassinats-des-annees-60.html Incredibly Jean Daniel is still alive and edits this journal.

Larry: Her book is not the only one on the subject with that general thesis. There was a book by Peter Hounam, former Times of London reporter which said just about the same thing, the idea was to nuke Cairo and therefore eliminate Nasser once and for all. Its called Operation Cyanide. http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/07/operation-cyanide-the-attack-on-uss-liberty-was-a-failed-provocateur-action-and-pretext-for-us-invasion-of-egypt-for-israel/

Does he read French? I thought that was all a hoax and he lives in the Bronx.

One of our best reviewers critiques the Gayle Nix Jackson book and gives Pieces of the Puzzle a positive review. Very interesting info in here about Odio and McChann and MC trip. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-k...anthology-2017