Jump to content
The Education Forum

Richard Booth

Members
  • Content Count

    378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Richard Booth

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,061 profile views
  1. An article about the book: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/11/trump-family-members-secret-service It said this: "the president did repeatedly seek to remove Secret Service staff he deemed to be overweight or too short for the job." “I want these fat guys off my detail,” Trump is reported to have said, possibly confusing office-based personnel with active agents. “How are they going to protect me and my family if they can’t run down the street?” LOL
  2. "he complained about agents drinking on the job, chasing women and showing up unfit for duty." I wonder if Carol Leonnig interviewed him for her book about the Secret Service, given that book is largely about things like agents drinking on the job, partying with hookers and being unfit for duty.
  3. Her book sounds interesting. I read in the description that it will cover "a hobbled agency that’s in desperate need of reform" and I could not help but be reminded of the numerous embarrassing news reports about the Secret Service that I have read over the past decade or so. Drunk agents found passed out on the street. Agents involved with cocaine and hookers in South American countries. People getting into the White House when Obama was in office. Just embarrassing stuff.
  4. It is possible he might have been on that end of political blackmail. I also wonder if perhaps his revulsion for Hoover was related to Hoover's pretty well known sexuality. It could have been that too.
  5. He is quoting from one of his earlier articles. It is in the body of the main text and the link to Unz's earlier article is hyperlinked here https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/ Here is a screenshot. I don't need any detailed "historical essays" -- I know a neo-N a z i when I see one The fact that he reposts Daily Stormer pieces is proof enough. We don't have to agree on this, I don't care if you don't believe it. I am satisfied that what I'm seeing is what it appears to be.
  6. This piece: https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/ by Ron Unz January 27, 2020 "nor does his very comprehensive index include any entry for “Jews” "Stone’s book, while fearlessly convicting President Lyndon Johnson of the JFK assassination, also strangely excludes “Jews" "Douglass’s book follows this same pattern." The guy is a crackpot in my opinion. The Unz Review website has a crapton of neo-poopoo stuff on it republished from The Daily Stormer...
  7. Possibly he was, I haven't read enough about him to get a good feel for what kind of person he was other than he seemed to strongly dislike J. Edgar Hoover.
  8. Based on what is in Summers' book, Truman seemed to be revolted by J. Edgar Hoover bringing nasty sex stuff and dirt to him. There was a quote something along the lines of "get that crap out of here!" I think he was "more honest" than most, but that he lacked some level of introspection or enlightenment. Not a simpleton, but not very deep either.
  9. Joe Rogan clip about the JFK assassination: Rogan goes out of his way to defend the Single Bullet Theory and he also supports the Alvarez Jet Effect in laymen's terms. However, he does talk about CE399 and is pretty adamant that bullets that hit bone don't come out looking like CE399. Shermer tries to go the 'factoid' route by saying "we're kind of getting into the reeds here" to which Rogan replies fairly "no, just the bullet."
  10. The only mistake that I remember offhand is he referred to the HT/LINGUAL program as CI/PROJECT. I suspect that he forgot the cryptonym when writing and he used CI/PROJECT as a placeholder, intending to go back and fix it, and missed doing that. I noticed he also had a regular habit of writing about cryptonyms wrong. For example, if he was talking about "ZR/RIFLE" he would call it "RIFLE" or if he was talking about "QJ/WIN" he'd say "WIN" leaving out the first part of the digraph. Then there were matters of factual error that I came across. The one good thing in Morley's book i
  11. I think that David Talbot's books are pretty good in some ways but not perfect, certainly not overly critical and seemingly incomplete in some respects. They're merely "okay" at the end of the day. I think the same thing about Jefferson Morley -- indeed, I found a number of mistakes in his book on Angleton, The Ghost, and took about two pages of notes. Regarding the Unz Review piece that complained the books don't have "the Jews" in the index - any person who complains that a book doesn't have "the Jews" in the index is clearly a nutcase. And most of the pieces I have read on Unz review
  12. Spotify has deleted about 20 episodes of Joe Rogan's podcast. His episode with Oliver Stone was great, and Joe was respectful to him. However, Joe is a very mixed bag on all kinds of subjects. I've seen him buy into total baloney, and I've also seen him be unreasonably skeptical (ala Hoch) when it's not warranted, for no other reason than he seemed to want to emulate his frequent guest and friend Dr. Michael Shermer. I think there is a good chance that Rogan would take a very skeptical position on JFK, but what's a bigger issue is that Rogan is not well versed in the subject or
  13. I would like to take the time to remind folks that John McAdams' primary method of discourse online involved throwing around ad-hominem personal attacks on people. McAdams' legacy will always be that of the guy who called those who disagreed with him "crackpots" and "buffs" while doing away with facts he didn't want to address by calling them "factoids" which was a clever way of denoting some facts as less-factual, or perhaps relevant, than others. This style works very well when preaching to the choir, or perhaps persuading a person on the fence who is easily persuaded by less than schol
  14. What I wrote was clearly about John McAdams, I identified him by name and I highlighted a few things he liked to do. I noticed that you had brought up a fallacy of logic that McAdams frequently used, and I wanted to chime in to note that it was one of his tactics given this thread is about McAdams. That you would prefer instead to engage in a pointless back and forth about something else entirely is your right, but I'm not going to play that game. This will be the second time that I have had to clarify my comments were about John McAdams and I won't make any additional statements abo
×
×
  • Create New...