Steve Cearfoss

Nobody could be that hard up

And to think this recreant has the temerity to actually title his new book ‘What Unites Us’ — brazen hypocrisy of the first water.

Sorry Mervyn. I didn’t go back to the beginning of the thread. My bad. Will follow up later.

Jim: I didn’t mean to imply that he was invited by the school to speak to the students. To the best of my memory, he was invited by someone in our group and he came to speak to us snd whoever else we could rustle up. That’s when I bought the book and asked him to sign it. It’s been so long that some of the details are a little vague but to the best of my knowledge that’s what happened. I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t a bookstore event. But I wouldn’t place any money on that one either. Been a long long long time.

Mervyn: You didn't ask me that question: You asked if I read it. Be that as it may, as for the book, Marks uses a catechistic method somewhat along the line of the questions/answers posed by Bertrand Russell but much more thorough. As far as offering an analysis of ‘Murder Most Foul’ goes, trying to review a book that consists of 975 questions and answers is rather daunting, not to mention the fact that it’s been quite a while since I read it. The book consists of 14 chapters of what looks like typewritten pages photostated into a small booklet – – not professionally bound, etc. The publisher was Bureau of International Affairs. Sorry I can’t be more accommodating.

Of course I read it. At that time I had read every book on the JFK assassination and was avidly following the developments in New Orleans. I received the book at about the same time that a group of us, who were following the Garrison investigation, received a copy of the Zapruder film from a gentleman in either Sherman Oaks or Thousand Oaks, California who had received his copy from Garrison– his name escapes me now— and we immediately procured a room and invited people to come and watch the film. One thing I will never forget is the alarm and fear on the faces of those who had just watched the film followed immediately by shaking heads and total denial, a response that continues to this day.

I Have a signed copy of that book when Marks visited Arizona State University in 1967 or 1968.

I've often wondered – – and I'm striving mightily to keep my paranoia index subdued – – whether RFK could've been shot after being transported from the hotel. In other words between the hotel and hospital. It's true that he was hit at close range from behind, yet I wonder why no one saw the other shooter . . . at least nobody came forth with information. Even during the chaos of the moment you would think someone would have seen the other shooter. Also, why would the perpetrators take a chance on a gambit like that? Surely it would have been a high-risk line of action with a distinct possibly of quick apprehension. I don't remember whether all the surviving bullets were ever matched solely to Sirhan's gun; doubtful, though, considering the ineptitude/deceit of the investigators.

‘4) All the citizens compliantly abide by the official story,they're good little citizens who can easily set aside what theireyes and ears see to believe in a fake story.’ Nicely put. And this is precisely why we find ourselves in this predicament – – a mild word – – today: Proto-fascist monocracy lurking in the wings: one with a grimace and one with a smile.

‘Were we controlled?’ By Lincoln Lawrence, 1967 I bought this book back then and I believe I still have a copy in my library. It’s available on Amazon, but it’s a bit pricey to say the least. Lawrence’s argument seems fanciful in some ways, but quite reasonable in others. A real curiosity, especially the introduction of Wall Street in the JFK assassination. Steve

Isn’t this just a little off topic?

BYP??? AFAICT???? How difficult is it to write out ‘as far as I can tell.’ The overuse of these acronyms is irritating

If Greer heard the first shot, but wasn’t sure from which direction the shot came, it would’ve been natural, I think, for him panic and brake, fearing that he may he may have been driving right into a fusillade of gunfire. But that still leaves a question unanswered: If the frames showing the limousine nearly stopping were excised, why? Perhaps simply to cover their own asses? As an aside, I, too, think that the ‘theory’ of Greer turning to shoot Kennedy is implausible; It’s simply ludicrous, and only further muddies the water.

‘The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once and get people arguing heatedly over which is the truth.’ Ezra Pound — of all people! — who, nevertheless, probably knew a bit about techniques of infamy. The “traditional” neocons, those who came into their own during GW’s reign, and are now laughably trying to pass themselves off as the defenders of democracy, have designated Russia as the Global Villain and any attempt by that country to exert influence anywhere Is looked upon as a threat to the USA’s world hegemony. So, no matter who comes out on top in this Deep State/Trump battle, it’s a lose-lose situation for the American people.

‘The technique of infamy is to start two lies at once and get people arguing heatedly over which is the truth.’ Ezra Pound — of all people! — who, nevertheless, probably knew a bit about techniques of infamy. The “traditional” neocons, those who came into their own during GW’s reign, and are now laughably trying to pass themselves off as the defenders of democracy, have designated Russia as the Global Villain and any attempt by that country to exert influence anywhere Is looked upon as a threat to the USA’s world hegemony. So, no matter who comes out on top in this Deep State/Trump battle, it’s a lose lose situation for the American people.

I have a first edition of the Archer book that I’ve had for number of years. It was a real eye-opener. Donald Gibson‘s books also are well worth anybody’s time who’s interested Wall Street’s nefarious activities.

who is being quoted?

‘With all due respect,’ ‘IMHO’ — ‘LOL’, ad nauseum, me thinks the best way to confront this stuff and nonsense from an insincere, calculating xxxxx is to simply ignore him. Have a nice day, Tommy, and I mean it.

Lisa mentions author 'Bill Davy' is that the correct spelling

Sorry. Mea culpa. No citation threw me. My oversight not to note the date at the top. I am familiar with the book, as a matter fact I still have an old copy of it. Please forgive. Thanks

What is this nonsense doing on the JFK assassination site?

My response was a feeble attempt at humor ala Hunt and Nixon. Mea culpa

"George H.W. Bush couldn't remember where he was on the day that JFK was killed." Hearsay. I have not been able unearth a direct report of Bush saying he didn't remember where he was that eventful day. Witnesses, and there were many, say he was speaking at the Blackstone Hotel in Tyler, Texas on November 22, 1963. Propagating the myth that he couldn't remember where he was that day does not help the cause, indeed it only gives the 'lone nutters' more reasons to denegrate the work of serious scholars of the JFK assassination.

I can’t remember.

ID mr Papich please