The Worst Books Ever on the JFK Assassination

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Todd, I actually had the clipping.

It might not have been an article. It might have been a quote form you, but I definitely recall it and I clipped it.

LOL!

So now it's not an article from one of the “JFK journals back in the early nineties” but rather it "might" have been a “clipping” of a quote from me.

In another thread somewhere in this forum you wrote, asking another poster, "About these quotes for these witnesses: please supply the proper academic sourcing for them."

I as you now, can YOU provide the “proper academic sourcing” for YOUR claim about what I supposedly wrote (or what I supposedly said, depending on which version you choose to tell)?

And again, could you please address the other issue I raised regarding your claims about me in your article?

Bump, for Jim.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

You know Todd, this is what I have learned to dislike about you.

When you were part of the Gang of Three, you always tried to play the friendly, reasonable one who had an open mind--sort of like the Good Cop Bad cop routine.

As time went on, I began to see that this was really a pose. There you were doing shooting experiments with McAdams. There you were going to conferences and speaking about the viability of the SBT, displaying things like the Croft photo. There you were taking part in Russo's pitiful book and saying that it was no real problem for Oswald to fire three rounds in six seconds, or so.

Then there was your professional and personal friendship with Myers. About which you are also duplicitious. WHen you first came on here,you deferred questions about his lying, fraudelent Secrets of a Homicide video to him. Yet, you posted replies to those who did not like the book Myers co-wrote, Reclaiming History, on his Secrets of a Homicide web site, where he marketed his fraud to the public. And you pushed his video many years ago when it was just coming out. And in the many years since that fraud has been exposed by people like Milicent Cranor, Pat Speer, and Dave Mantik, have you ever admitted it was wrong on many counts? Even when Myers put it on national TV, where he made one of the most hideous comments ever to the public on the JFK case. Namely that this phony reconstruction had now turned the SBT into the Single Bullet Fact? When in fact, the new evidence coming out of the ARRB proved just the opposite? Namely that the FBI knew and participated in the charade of the planted bullet from the first 24 hours.

If you said anything about this mirage, I did not hear it. It must have been well hidden, and very quiet. And then, oh so conveniently, once you sign on here, you wish to separate yourself from your former partner--now that his ersatz reconstruction has been exposed as fraudulent on many levels. Levels that somehow you could not see.

So which is the real Todd? Over time, I discovered which. So, in light of the above, to say that somehow you would not say anything like the above to counter Stone's film, when in fact you were in the middle of people who were planning on doing just that and then made mucho money doing precisely that--sorry its just not credible. Its like the guy downstairs playing the piano in the bordello.

I don't buy it. And I don't buy you anymore either: neither your credibility nor your honesty.

"You know Todd, this is what I have learned to dislike about you."

What's that Jim, me asking you to support a claim you made about me? You've got to be kidding me.

The Gang of Three. Thats some hilarious stuff Jim. Since in your article you mention Russo, Myers, Zaid, and myself, who exactly is in the Gang of Three?

I never did shooting experiments with McAdams. I did however, let him and others fire my Carcano at a informal gathering of researcher in Grand Rapids, Michigan put on by Steve Barber. If you had been there I would have let you shoot as well.

I display(ed) things like the Croft photo? Oh no, Jim, NOT THAT!!! What will be next, me displaying things like the Altgens photo or the Bond photos? NOT THAT TOO!

Taking part in Russos book? He wrote a page or two in his book (a bit incorrectly I might add) about a shooting experiment I had done with my Carcano and had told him about. How does that equate with taking part in his book?

As for Myers, I suggested that if you or anyone else has questions about his Secrets of a Homicide video, you or they should ask him, not me. Just as Id suggest to that anyone that has questions about your work that they ask you and not, say, Lisa Pease.

The articles that I wrote on Dales website were not replies to those who did not like the book Myers co-wrote, Reclaiming History, rather they were articles regarding the the factual record in the case. Perhaps you should go back and actually read what I wrote.

And I NEVER pushed Dales video, whatever that means.

So, back to your claim that I wrote or said something about LHO hanging out of the window to shoot at Kennedy on Houston street in order to counter Stones movie. I see you still cant support your claim with the type of proper academic sourcing you asked of someone else here to support what they said. Rather, you now revert to trying to support your ever-changing bogus claim by saying I was in the middle of people who were planning on doing just that. What a hoot, Jim. Makes you out as quite the hypocrite, dont you think?

I see that once again, despite a reminder, youve failed to deal with my question to you about your claim about me and my Carcano being loaded. I posted that question earlier in the thread, remember? . Ill repost it for you.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Jim

In your article at…

http://www.ctka.net/...iosi_myers.html

You write…

“If Russo needs someone to get off three shots in six seconds for his book, Vaughn can do that. (It doesn't matter if he isn't firing at moving targets or if the gun isn't loaded.)”

Could you please tell me exactly what you mean by “It doesn't matter if…the gun isn't loaded”.

Thanks.

Todd

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Jim,

From your article at http://www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_myers.html

QUTOE ON

In that article I wrote about a man who approached me during the Dallas ASK conference back in 1993. During my closing night speech, I talked about the PBS special Russo worked on and I also mentioned a weird letter attorney Mark Zaid had sent me. The man had listened to my address and he told me that, from his past SDS experience, Russo and Zaid fit the profiles of infiltrators. I included it in my essay, but I did not agree with him at the time. Today, after many years more experience with Russo, Myers, Vaughn, and even Zaid, plus the net worth of both the 1993 PBS special and the 2003 ABC special that both Myers and Russo worked on, I think he was right. Its the only way to explain why the Gang of Three kept on going to conferences way past the time they had flip-flopped on the issue of Oswald's guilt. A great example of this would be Vaughn's relationship with Harrison Livingstone. After the organization Coalition on Political Assassinations was formed, Livingstone tried to create a rival group. On the flyer Livingstone sent out for his group, Vaughn was listed as a member. Why? To tell the members during meetings that they were all wrong? Oswald did it. They should disband. It makes no sense. On the surface.

But if your agenda was different than the members, it does make sense. By staying inside the group you could makes speeches attacking their research and goals, thereby creating dissension and disturbances. (I detail specific instances where Russo did this in my article.) Secondly, you could monitor the newest developments and then try to think up ways to counter them in your journeys to the other side.

QUOTE OFF

The fact is that Livingston listed me on his silly little “Coalition on Political Assassinations” flyer without my permission. He never asked me nor did he inform me that he was going to do so. And I was never a member of his “Coalition on Political Assassinations”, which I don’t think ever got off the ground anyways. Nor did I ever attend any meetings if it did.

Why did Livingston do that? Probably because around that time I had helped or been helping him with the chapter of his book “Killing the Truth” on the acoustics, and I suppose he thought it would be ok with me. Well it was not, as I let him know shortly after I found out about it. Needless to say we had a falling out thereafter - of course MOST people had a falling out with Livingston at one point or another.

As to why I went to JFK conferences in 1991, 1992, and 1993, as if I have to explain myself to you, I did so because I was interested in the assassination – is that so hard for you to believe? And exactly what conferences did I “keep on going to” after 1993 as you claim? The answer is none!

Let me ask you Jim, instead of making this crap up about me, why didn’t you just contact me and ask me about it?

Todd

[Todd W. Vaughan]

I made up nothing Todd.

Russo uses you in his book to demonstrate that Oswald could get off three shots in six seconds. SImple as that.

Livingstone listed you as a member of his group. Simple as that. You just admitted to working with the guy. I even asked him about this via e mail.

You did attend many conferences in the nineties. Every time I saw you you were upholding the WC. And you did so with relish. Did I miss something?

Are you also going to say you forgot meeting me in Dearborn and doing your MC demonstration for me--the gun was not loaded Todd-- and telling me how great Myers simulation was? Which he also showed me at the time.

You did not go after any of the critics of VB's book at Myers site?

THis is what I mean about you. You want to have it both ways.

I don't buy it.

JIM: “I made up nothing Todd.”

Sure you did, Jim, you made up a lot about me, as we will see.

JIM: “Russo uses you in his book to demonstrate that Oswald could get off three shots in six seconds. SImple as that.”

No it’s not as simple as that.

What you originally claimed was that “There you were taking part in Russo's pitiful book and saying that it was no real problem for Oswald to fire three rounds in six seconds, or so.”

Russo’s write up of my Carcano test is on page 476 and 477 of Live By The Sword. No where there (or anywhere else in the book) do I say anything like “it was no real problem for Oswald to fire three rounds in six seconds, or so.

You made that up.

JIM: “Livingstone listed you as a member of his group. Simple as that. You just admitted to working with the guy. I even asked him about this via e mail.”

Again no, it’s not as simple as that. As I’ve already told you, Livingston put my name on that flyer without consulting me. I was never part of his group. Ever – in any way shape or form. And my helping him on his acoustics chapter had nothing to do with his group.

You claimed that I joined his group to infiltrate it.

I did not.

You made that up.

JIM: “You did attend many conferences in the nineties. Every time I saw you you were upholding the WC. And you did so with relish. Did I miss something?”

Yes, you did miss something –the truth as you should know it.

The only JFK conferences I’ve attended were the ASK conferences in 91, 92 and 93, and the Chicago conferences in 92 and 93.

At either the 91 or 92 ASK conference, or perhaps the 92 Chicago conference, I had a discussion with you on Nagell and his story, in which I told you that I found (and still do find) highly intriguing and wanted more information on it . You had none.

And at one of these conferences we also discussed Gordon Novel and I told you I thought there was a good chance that he was TUM. We discussed the PSE test Novel took for Cutler. I even sent you a complete copy of the PSE test a week or so later.

I also asked you about the claim in Tom Miller’s book, The Assassination Please Almanac, that Garrison found a firearms book in Ferrie’s apartment after his death that had notations in it of distances and angles of cartridge shell ejections patterns. You knew nothing about it (though I see it mentioned in Davy’s Let Justice Be Done).

And of course I pursued numerous conspiracy related matters with others at the conferences.

It was only at the 93 ASK conference that I spoke of anything even remotely upholding the WC, where I spoke in favor of the SBT trajectory regarding its trajectory component.

So your claim that “Every time I saw you you were upholding the WC.” is simply not true.

You made that up.

JIM: “Are you also going to say you forgot meeting me in Dearborn and doing your MC demonstration for me--the gun was not loaded Todd-- and telling me how great Myers simulation was? Which he also showed me at the time.”

That was not my gun, Jim, it was someone else’s who was there (was it Dennis’s?). And the only demonstration I did there with it was to show whoever had it and was dry firing it there that they didn’t need to completely take the weapon off of their shoulder to cycle the bolt each time they fired it like they were doing. I demonstrated that by not doing that, one could get shots off a lot quicker.

Was the gun loaded? Of course it wasn’t – we were in a public place.

So this wasn’t my “MC demonstration”, in the sense that it wasn’t the live fire test firing that I had done a few month earlier in a remote location in northern Michigan.

As for Myers simulation, Myers showed a rather early version to you and it was YOU who got all excited, exclaiming “Wow! That’s impressive. Have you showed this to Dr. Mantik yet”

I never said “how great Myers simulation was”.

You made that up.

JIM: “You did not go after any of the critics of VB's book at Myers site?”

I went after Don Thomas’s and Gerald McKnight’s reviews of Reclaiming History, each of which were loaded with errors and outright distortions and misrepresentations of the factual record in the case.

I notice that in your haste to cast me an evil infiltrator you conveniently ignore the two scathing articles at Dale’s site that I wrote (with Dale) about an article by WC supporters Max Holland and Johan Rush.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2007-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&updated-max=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-05%3A00&max-results=40

and..

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/12/cherry-picking-evidence-of-first-shot.html

So yeah, Jim, you did make stuff up, quite a lot actually.

But it only takes one instance to have YOUR credibility and your honesty called into question.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Wow Todd.

I brought the rifle to Dearborn, or my colleague did? Neither of us ever had one to bring. The guy who brought us there did not have one either. And it has never been a part of any presentation I ever did. Whew.

After my talk, which you and Myers interrupted throughout--especially during my discussion of Oswald's life-- you both approached me. Myers pulled out a small electrical device which contained his early version of his BS simulation. You said words to the effect, "This is really something." Since I did not know what I was watching, I could not have made any evaluative comments. I may have been impressed by the technology for that time.

Now, the above is a perfect example of you and Myers doing the kind of thing that Mack and Perry did at Jim Marrs' class at UT. You knew what the approach would be, you knew you disagreed. You came anyway. You disrupted the presentation and then you went ahead and did your MC and video stuff supporting the WC.

Now you also say that the purpose of this demonstration was to show you could fire the rifle without taking it off the shoulder. Well, I guess so, that is without ammunition and no explosion in the chamber. What that proves is your secret. But you were eager to show me.

Your whole demonstration of this MC thing is to surmount what the FBI did with the rifle and what the early critics did with those results. You can dress that up anyway you want: put rouge on it, mascara, curl its hair, draw eyeliner, whatever. But that is what the purpose of it was. And this has been the purpose of the Gang of Three for about as long as I have known you. That is, to somehow show that the early WC critics were wrong iin their deductions, and Oswald somehow could have done what they say he could not have.

How you can spin that to mean anything else kind of stuns me.

When I emailed Harry about you and his group, I asked him why he would allow people like you in it. He said words to the effect that he was open to all at this time. And that was it. This coincides with your behavior in the past--at Dearborn and at conferences. If you did not do anything as part of it, its probably because the group never went anywhere. Which, considering Livingstone's personality, was predictable.

When I said you upheld the WC at conferences, I did not mean in whatever private conversations we had. I meant in public. And this perfectly illustrates my point about having it both ways. If you really did believe in Nagells' story or that Gordon was TUM, how could you uphold the WC? Which is something you do.

You admit you went after two critiques of the Myers/ Bugliosi atrocity. Good. Interesting that you say you did this since they were error filled. The implication being that this was your sacred duty in that regard. Hmm. Reclaiming History is not error strewn?

This relates to my other question which you never answered: Have you ever denounced the complete fraud that Secrets of a Homicide is? You say that you felt obligated to go after Thomas and McKnight's critiques of Reclaiming History. You say they were error filled. Yet, are you really going to say that--the site from which you did this, Secrets of a Homicide, is not error filled?

I await your answer. Should be interesting.

JIM: “Wow Todd.”

Wow is right.

Wow, I see you’re still making things up.

JIM: “I brought the rifle to Dearborn, or my colleague did? Neither of us ever had one to bring. The guy who brought us there did not have one either. And it has never been a part of any presentation I ever did. Whew.”

I never said or implied that YOU brought the rifle.

You made that up.

I suggested, with a question mark, that perhaps your “colleague” Dennis did, but I didn’t say he did. What I said was that “it was someone else’s who was there”. Did you not read that? Did you read it but just not comprehend it? Why would you imply that I said it was YOU that brought the rifle? Oh, wait – SPIN, DiEugenio-style. I get it.

JIM: “After my talk, which you and Myers interrupted throughout--especially during my discussion of Oswald's life-- you both approached me.

We didn’t interrupt your talk “throughout. People in the audience were raising their hands with questions from time to time and you were accommodating them. I don’t recall asking any specific questions myself, but I would only have done so after raising my hand and being acknowledged by YOU.

At one point Dale asked you a question about something you had said about Walter Cronkite being involved in the conspiracy and/or cover-up. .

So no, we didn’t interrupt your talk “throughout”.

You made that up.

JIM” Myers pulled out a small electrical device which contained his early version of his BS simulation. You said words to the effect, "This is really something." Since I did not know what I was watching, I could not have made any evaluative comments. I may have been impressed by the technology for that time”

Your claim that you “did not know what (you were) watching” is absurd – it was explained to you by Dale, and anyone with an interest in case and half of a brain would know what they were watching.

Your claim that “I could not have made any evaluative comments” is equally absurd. Your words, after viewing Dales early reconstruction video were, “Wow! That’s impressive. Have you showed this to Dr. Mantik yet?”

JIM: “Now, the above is a perfect example of you and Myers doing the kind of thing that Mack and Perry did at Jim Marrs' class at UT. You knew what the approach would be, you knew you disagreed. You came anyway. You disrupted the presentation and then you went ahead and did your MC and video stuff supporting the WC.”

I came to your little Dearborn meeting because a friend of my father’s found a flyer for the meeting on her car that had been parked in a Dearborn Michigan shopping mall and, knowing my interest in the case, passed it on to my father, who in turn let me know about it. Dale lived close by at the time and I asked him if he wanted to go. We’ve both been interested in this case since 1975 – why wouldn’t we go to a local speech on the assassination?

The video “stuff” was shown only to you– it wasn’t like we got up and spoke before the whole room. Similar thing with the MC “stuff” – that was part of a discussion with a few people about firing the rifle. You act like it was a huge “black op” intelligence operation.

JIM: “Now you also say that the purpose of this demonstration was to show you could fire the rifle without taking it off the shoulder. Well, I guess so, that is without ammunition and no explosion in the chamber. What that proves is your secret. But you were eager to show me”

Your whole demonstration of this MC thing is to surmount what the FBI did with the rifle and what the early critics did with those results. You can dress that up anyway you want: put rouge on it, mascara, curl its hair, draw eyeliner, whatever. But that is what the purpose of it was. And this has been the purpose of the Gang of Three for about as long as I have known you. That is, to somehow show that the early WC critics were wrong iin their deductions, and Oswald somehow could have done what they say he could not have.”

First off, it was an off the cuff, on the spot, “demonstration”, Jim, I essentially asked the owner of the rifle if I could see the rifle for a moment to show him something, because in HIS demonstration he was taking the rifle of his shoulder after every shot and every time he worked the bolt. Even you should be able to see that added time to recycle and fire the rifle – unnecessary time. I simple showed him that someone familiar with bolt action firearms could operate the bolt without taking the rifle off of their shoulder each time.

And ammunition or no ammunition makes no difference – that you think it would reveals your ignorance about firearms and shooting. In fact if we had been firing live rounds the recoil would only have served to drive the rifle deeper into the shoulder of the shooter.

JIM: “When I emailed Harry about you and his group, I asked him why he would allow people like you in it. He said words to the effect that he was open to all at this time. And that was it. This coincides with your behavior in the past--at Dearborn and at conferences. If you did not do anything as part of it, its probably because the group never went anywhere. Which, considering Livingstone's personality, was predictable.”

What I said was the truth: Harry put my name on that list without consulting me first, and I never had anything to do with the group nor would I have had it come to fruition. And I called Harry out for doing it.

What YOU said, that I joined that group as an “infiltrator”, was/is not the truth.

You made that up.

As for your emailing Harry, what did you expect him to email you back - “I put Todd’s name on the list without his permission and he called me and was upset about that.” Come on, Jim.

JIM:”When I said you upheld the WC at conferences, I did not mean in whatever private conversations we had. I meant in public.

I only spoke “in public” one time, Jim – at ASK 93. Before that I had not, so I could not have been upholding the WC “at every conference”.

JIM: “And this perfectly illustrates my point about having it both ways. If you really did believe in Nagells' story or that Gordon was TUM, how could you uphold the WC? Which is something you do.”

You’re apparently ignorant of the fact that, according to Nagell, Oswald was “up to his ears” in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Further, Nagell has intimated at least once or twice that Oswald was a gunman in Dealey Plaza.

JIM:”This relates to my other question which you never answered:

Oh, you mean the part you added to the original post after I had already read it and began formulate a response to offline. Kind of disingenuous tactic, don’t you think, Jim? Post something, let enough time pass for me to read what you posted and start replying, then edit your post to add something and, when my reply doesn’t address what you added, claim I ignored it.

JIM: “Have you ever denounced the complete fraud that Secrets of a Homicide is? You say that you felt obligated to go after Thomas and McKnight's critiques of Reclaiming History. You say they were error filled. Yet, are you really going to say that--the site from which you did this, Secrets of a Homicide, is not error filled?

No, Jim, I have never “denounced the complete fraud that Secrets of a Homicide is”. I’ve seen the critiques of Myers work by Cranor and Mantik, etc. and frankly I think they fall far short of the mark and are themselves error filled and certainly biased.

Now, YOU want to talk about “complete fraud” as it relates to the trajectory analysis of the SBT? Good, Then let’s start with the diagram on page 101 of YOUR book, Destiny Betrayed. What the hell is that? It looks like it was done by a 4th grader. Among other things, it’s not even close to being anatomically correct, it’s not to scale, it doesn’t relate to any Zapruder film frame, and it has Governor Connally sitting higher than President Kennedy.

Now, compare your fraudulent diagram with my trajectory analysis of the SBT on page 146 of Pictures of the Pain. Mine is anatomically correct, it’s to scale, it relates to Zapruder film frame 223, and it has Governor Connally sitting in a correct relationship to President Kennedy.

Who’s being deceitful now?

Answer? Jim DiEugenio, who wants his readers to think that the SBT diagram on page 101 of his book is an accurate representation of how president Kennedy and Governor Connally were seated and of the path the SBT had to have taken.

Talk about complete fraud.

JIM:”I await your answer. Should be interesting.”

You bet, and you’ll spin it any way in which you see fit.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

So you do believe in the SBT then?

Good, glad you admitted it.

Then why is the bullet in evidence not the same one that was found at Parkland?

THis is the Todd Vaughn who wants to keep us running in circles about a fantasy that never happened.

And the ammo vs no ammo in the rifle does not matter? Really. Every hunter I ever talked to said the explosion rocks the rifle and causes the scope to vibrate. So you have to reset your aim. Do you know anything about firearms?

People complained about your behavior after. OK. You did not raise your hand, you made sneering type remarks spontaneously. Especially about LHO playing at being a commie at age 16.

Myers explained this simulation to me? It took him four pages to do it in VIdeo Toaster. And he did it in a couple of moments to me? All I recall was him saying something about the HSCA being wrong in its trajectory analysis. And that therefore this thing somehow proved the SBT. That's an explanation?

Nagell has said that the Cuban exiles he was trailing were setting Oswald up for the assassination.He even said he had a tape to show that. Since Nagell was in jail months before the murder, I don't know how he could say who actually shot Kennedy.

Funny, you say you only spoke one time in public. Todd, from your performance here, at other forums, on Myers' site, if you had spoken more than once, what else would you have said? Would you have changed your approach? No.

OK, so you will not say one critical word about Secrets of a Homicide. That is what I thought. Even though people like Cranor and Mantik and Speer have riddled the thing many times over. And they did it with documentary evidence, that is comparing his demonstration with the actual autopsy results and frames from Zapruder. And you say that its they who are biased.

You finally got around your whole phony "refer to Dale" on this. You are fine with it.

Which, to me, says a lot about my original point. The camouflage is gone.

Before I reply to your latest post, let me ask you a question, Jim.

Do you really think I’m an “infiltrator”? Do you really think I’m a “:spook”, sent to infiltrate the JFK research community, that I have a handler I report to, get instructions from?

Do you REALLY believe that?

Edited August 4, 2010 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Here is my updated list of the worst books on the 1963 Coup d'Etat, aka JFK Assassination, ever written. I do admit that you can find useful nuggets of truth sometimes in books where you disagree with 95% of the thesis. So what are your picks? Which are the worst JFK assassination books ever written and why? What useful nuggets of truth did you did in the refuse of some of these books?

1 The Warren Report: The Official Report on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy FBI/CIA/LBJ/ 7 CON MEN 1964

2 Reclaiming History Vincint Bugliosi 2007

3 Case Closed Gerald Posner 1993

4 ABC News Presents the Kennedy Assassination - Beyond Conspiracy 2003 Peter Jennings 2003 ABC "News" ... whatever

5 Marina and Lee Priscalla Johnson McMillan 1977

6 Counterplot Edward Jay Epstein 1969

7 Legend Edward Jay Epstein 1979

8 JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think About Claims of Conspiracy John McAdams 2011

9 Legacy of Secrecy: The Long Shadow of the JFK Assassination Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann 2008

10 Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann 2008

11 Live By the Sword: The Secret War Against Castro and the Death of JFK Gus Russo 1998

12 Brothers in Arms: The Kennedys, the Castros, and the Politics of Murder Gus Russo and Stephen Molton 2009

13 Conspiracy of One Jim Moore 1991

14 Final Disclosure: The Full Truth about the Assassination of President Kennedy David Belin 1988

15 False Witness: The Real Story of Jim Garrison's Investigation and Oliver Stone's Film JFK Patricia Lambert 2000

16 Portrait of the Assassin Gerald Ford and John Stiles 1965

17 November 22, 1963: You are the Jury David Belin 1973

18 Oswald's Ghost (DVD) Hugh Aynesworth, Robert Dallek, etc 2008

19 Breaking the News Hugh Aynesworth 2003

20 Inside the Target Car Discovery Channel 2008

21 Oswald's Game (Paper) Jean Davison 1986

22 Plot or Politics Rosemary James and Jack Wardlaw 1967

23 Regicide: The Official Assassination of John F. Kennedy Gregory Douglas 2002

24 A Simple Act of Murder: November 22, 1963 Mark Fuhrman 2007

25 The Truth About the Assassination Charles Roberts (Pierre Salinger Foreward) 1967

26 Disinformation, Misinformation, and the "Conspiracy" to Kill JFK Exposed Armand Moss 1987

27 Silencing the Lone Assassin: The Murders of JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald John A. Canal 2000

28 Opium Lords: Israel, the Golden Triangle, and the Kennedy Assassination Salvador Astucia 2002

29 Jack Ruby Garry Willis and Ovid Demaris 1994

30 When the News Went Live: Dallas 1963 Bob Huffaker 2007

31 With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit Dale K. Meyers 1998

32 Eyewitness to History: The Kennedy Assassination: As Seen by Howard Brennan Howard Brennan and Edward Cherryholmes 1987

33 The JFK Myths: A Scientific Investigation of the Kennedy Assassination Larry M. Sturdivan 2005

34 Should We Believe the Warren Report? Stephen White 1968

35 Oswald's Tale: An American History Norman Mailer 2007

36 Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture Noam Chomsky 1993

37 Appointment in Dallas: The Final Solution to the Assassination of JFK Hugh McDonald 1992

38 The Garrison Case: A Study in the Abuse of Power Milton E. Brener 1969

39 LBJ and the JFK Conspiracy Hugh McDonald & Robin Moore

40 Riding the Tiger's Back: A Footnote to the Assassination of JFK Phillip Hemenway 1992

41 Passiongate Joanne Brown 1997

42 The Two Assassins Renatus Hartog and Lucy Freeman 1964

43 Broken Silence Ray "Tex" Brown and Don Lasseter 1996

44 Unsolved History: JFK [DVD] Dave Perry 0

45 The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK James Fetzer 2003

46 A Mother in History Jean Stafford 1992

47 The Death of a President, November 20-November 25, 1963 William Manchester 1967

48 JFK First Day Evidence: Stored Away for 30 Years in an Old Briefcase, New Evidence is Now Revealed by Former Dallas Police Crime Lab Detective R. W. Gary Savage 1993

49 The JFK Assassination, Dispelling the Myths Mel Ayton 2002

50 Umbrella man: Evidence of conspiracy R.B. Cutler 1975

51 The Perfect Assassin: Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA and Mind Control Jerry Leonard 2002

52 Triangle of Death: The Shocking Truth About the Role of South Vietnam and the French Mafia in the Assassination of JFK Bradley Seymour and L.E. Seymour 2009

53 The Day Kennedy Was Shot: An Hour-by-Hour Account of What Really Happened on November 22, 1963 Jim Bishop 1984

54 Real Answers: The True Story Told by Gary Cornwell, Deputy Chief Counsel for the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations, in Charge of the Investigation of the John F. Kennedy Assassination Gary Cornwell 1998

55 Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of Their Assassinations John K. Lattimer 1980

56 Mind Control, Oswald & JFK: Were We Controlled? Lincoln Lawrence and Kenn Thomas 1997

57 The Oswald File: Startling New Evidence and Undeniable Conclusions on the Man Sent to Kill Kennedy Michael Eddowes 1977

58 The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Death of the New Frontier Karen Price Hossell 2002

59 Lee: A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother Robert Oswald and Myrick and Barbara Land 1967

60 Definitive Proof: The Secret Service Murder of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy Dan Robertson 2007

61 The Actual Naming of John F. Kennedy's Assassins: The Vatican Ciphers Stephen Kellogg Brooks 2006

62 The Anatomy of Motive: The FBI's Legendary Mindhunter Explores the Key to Understanding and Catching Violent Criminals John Douglas and Mark Olshaker 2000

63 The Kennedy Assassination Peter Knight 2007

64 The Kennedy Detail Gerald Blaine and Lisa McCubbin 2010

65 "My God, I'm Hit!" Brian David Andersen 2007

66 Oswald's Politics Gary W. O'Brien 2010

67 Elm Street: Oswald a tue Kennedy! Francois Carlier 2008

Edited December 2, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

NOTE: No one who has actually read even the Preface and the Prologue to HOAX could possibly make this claim. Just to

cite ONE of its contributions, I point out that frame 374 actually shows the blow-out to the back of the head. I know

that others, like Pat Speer, who want to disregard the multiple and consistent reports from experienced and competent

physicians at Parkland hospital, want to bury their head in the sand and ignore the obvious fakery in the film. But I

had thought that Robert Morrow was above that. It dismays me that, even after I have patiently taken him through the

way in which he can discover for himself that the film has been altered, he puts HOAX on his list of one of the worst

books on JFK. That is his new ad hominem. The contributors include some of the best students of the case to tackle

it, including David Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, David Healy, and David Lifton. Including it is simply absurd.

Robert,

You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to

conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,

post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and

films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you

think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that

Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of

Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.

There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed

in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different

films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the

23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another

team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today

since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an

unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.

There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,

including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he

received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie

eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet

that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that

he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that

is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his

head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.

Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is

a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a

better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to

create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due

to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.

If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since

the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the

film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on

the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not

a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do

not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where

the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.

You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked before.

In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time

line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what

actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on

the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for

which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the

president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the

shooting, which is archived at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had

found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Jim

Edited December 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest Robert Morrow]

NOTE: No one who has actually read even the Preface and the Prologue to HOAX could possibly make this claim. Just to

cite ONE of its contributions, I point out that frame 374 actually shows the blow-out to the back of the head. I know

that others, like Pat Speer, who want to disregard the multiple and consistent reports from experienced and competent

physicians at Parkland hospital want to bury their head in the sand and ignore the obvious fakery in the film. But I

had thought that Robert Morrow was above that. It dismays me that, even after I have patiently taken him through the

way in which he can discover for himself that the film has been altered, he puts HOAX on his list of one of the worst

books on JFK. That is his new ad hominem. The contributors include some of the best students of the case to tackle

it, including David Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, David Healy, and David Lifton. Including it is simply absurd.

Robert,

You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to

conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,

post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and

films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you

think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that

Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of

Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.

There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed

in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different

films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the

23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another

team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today

since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an

unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.

There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,

including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he

received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie

eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet

that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that

he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that

is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his

head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.

Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is

a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a

better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to

create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due

to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.

If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since

the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the

film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on

the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not

a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do

not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where

the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.

You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked before.

In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time

line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what

actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on

the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for

which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the

president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the

shooting, which is archived at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had

found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Jim

Professor Fetzer, I admire your work in many areas of the JFK assassination. We are in agreement on many things. However, I am not buying the Zapruder Film alteration/fabrication story ... yet. I have not studied the issue closely. I am currently in the Robert Groden camp and that man is the nation's expert on the film and photography of the Coup of 1963.

The elite plotters of the Coup of 1963 and the murderers of John Kennedy did not have to cook up and fabricate every bit of evidence. No need to. They had both Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI orchestrating the cover up. That is like having BOTH Queens on a chess board at your bidding. Then they had Allen Dulles of the Allen Dulles Commission. And the government and CIA assets at LIFE magazine SUPPRESSED the Zapruder Film mightily.

Just because someone does not accept your book's thesis, does not mean it is an ad hominem attack. Are you able to differentiate ideas from the person, philosophy professor?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not only have you "not studied the issue closely", I don't believe you have even read the book! That is very bad form and,

if you haven't "studied the issue closely", how can you conclude that it's one of the worst books ever published on JFK?

Something doesn't add up here, Robert. Groden is not the leading expert on the film. Costella and Lifton and Mantik and

White are more competent than Groden. You are stuck in a time-warp. Prove to me that you actually have READ THE BOOK

by setting out the arguments for fabrication that I present in the Preface and the Prologue. That should not be overly taxing.

Lay out the arguments and explain why you reject them. Your equivocation here suggests to me that YOU REALLY HAVEN'T

EVEN READ THE BOOK. Your credibility is taking a heavy hit over this, Robert, especially after I have been so very kind as

to lead you through the steps you should take to learn for yourself that the film has been faked. And if you should eventually

discover that it has been faked, as we have explained, would HOAX then move to one of the best JFK books every published?

Do me that favor. Go through the Preface and the Prologue. Lay out the arguments. Refute them. Should be a piece of cake.

NOTE: No one who has actually read even the Preface and the Prologue to HOAX could possibly make this claim. Just to

cite ONE of its contributions, I point out that frame 374 actually shows the blow-out to the back of the head. I know

that others, like Pat Speer, who want to disregard the multiple and consistent reports from experienced and competent

physicians at Parkland hospital want to bury their head in the sand and ignore the obvious fakery in the film. But I

had thought that Robert Morrow was above that. It dismays me that, even after I have patiently taken him through the

way in which he can discover for himself that the film has been altered, he puts HOAX on his list of one of the worst

books on JFK. That is his new ad hominem. The contributors include some of the best students of the case to tackle

it, including David Mantik, John Costella, Jack White, David Healy, and David Lifton. Including it is simply absurd.

Robert,

You are far too intelligent to pass through this life and not appreciate the extent to which the government went to

conceal the true causes of the death of JFK. If they would alter the autopsy X-rays, substitute someone else's brain,

post agents at the photo processing plants around Dallas for two weeks to make sure they got all the photos and

films, steal the body and alter the wounds (by surgery to the head and mutilating the throat wound), why would you

think they would be squeamish about reworking the film, when it would have given the game away? You know that

Greer brought the limo to a halt after bullets began to be fired, which is only one of at least fifteen indications of

Secret Service complicity in the assassination, do you not? Leaving that in would have blown the case wide open.

There are five physical properties that distinguish the original (developed in Dallas) from the substitute (developed

in Rochester). I am talking about properties of the strips of celluloid, respectively. So we know there were different

films. The chain of custody of the original was clearly broken, since one was brought to the NPIC on Saturday, the

23rd, where it was studied by one team of specialists, the other on Sunday, the 24th, where it was studied by another

team of specialists. The second film appears to have been a transitional version in relation to what we have today

since Homer McMahon, who worked on it Sunday night to prepare a briefing board of hits to passengers for an

unspecified official, reported observing six to eight impacts, which is certainly not what we see in the film today.

There are many features beyond the blow-out to the left-rear that are not seen in the current version of the film,

including brains and blood strewn across the trunk and JFK's motions under the impact of the two head shots he

received after Greer brought the limo to a halt: he fell forward from the hit to the back of his head, then Jackie

eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple by the frangible bullet

that blew his brains out to the left-rear with such force that Officer Hargis, when hit by the debris, though that

he himself had been shot. No witness, by the way, reported the back-and-to-the-left motion of JFK's body that

is such a prominent feature of the extant film. The bulging of brains (called the "blob") to the right-front of his

head as well as the blood spray were painted in, while the massive defect (visible in frame 374) was painted out.

Here are some resources I would invite you to consider if you want to understand how we know that the film is

a fake and why it had to be altered. Dawn is not quite right when she suggests that the term "alteration" is a

better term than "fabrication", because each of its frames had to be reshot (using an optical printer) in order to

create a series of images around the sprocket areas (called "ghost panels") which link successive frames due

to images that are created when a film is exposed because of the properties of light relative to its mechanisms.

If they had not reshot the frames (in a laboratory), the deception would have been immediately apparent, since

the non-consecutive "ghost panels" would have exposed the deception. They had to change the film's content.

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml

"Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

"The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

Then watch John Costella's "Introduction to the JFK Film Hoax"

http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

You might want to start with the last on my list, which is John Costella's video introduction to the faking of the

film. John has a Ph.D. in physics with a specialization in electromagnetism, which means he is an expert on

the properties of light in relation to the physics of moving bodies. I like Robert Groden personally, but he is not

a scientist and cannot compare with John in relation to technical and scientific questions about the film. I do

not know what he told you, but if you simply compare frame 374 with 313-316, it should be obvious where

the blow-out to the back of the head, which is visible in frame 374, has been painted over black in 313-316.

You may also want to take a look at "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK", which I have linked before.

In the process of recreating the film, they removed multiple impacts of bullets on bodies and shortened the time

line, which means that, for anyone who takes the film to be authentic, it becomes impossible to reconstruct what

actually happened. They did not only remove the limo stop, but also placed Mary Moorman and Jean Hill back on

the grass, when they had both stepped out into the street, where Jean called to JFK and Mary took the picture for

which she is know. Officer Chaney, who was riding to the right-rear, motored forward to inform Chief Curry the

president had been hit, which John discovered when he complied a record of the eyewitness reports about the

shooting, which is archived at http://assassinationresearch.com/v5n1.html When he explained to me what he had

found, I published an article about it, "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

Jim

Professor Fetzer, I admire your work in many areas of the JFK assassination. We are in agreement on many things. However, I am not buying the Zapruder Film alteration/fabrication story ... yet. I have not studied the issue closely. I am currently in the Robert Groden camp and that man is the nation's expert on the film and photography of the Coup of 1963.

The elite plotters of the Coup of 1963 and the murderers of John Kennedy did not have to cook up and fabricate every bit of evidence. No need to. They had both Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI orchestrating the cover up. That is like having BOTH Queens on a chess board at your bidding. Then they had Allen Dulles of the Allen Dulles Commission. And the government and CIA assets at LIFE magazine SUPPRESSED the Zapruder Film mightily.

Just because someone does not accept your book's thesis, does not mean it is an ad hominem attack. Are you able to differentiate ideas from the person, philosophy professor?

Edited December 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Steve Duffy]

Robert, as in your other post, about the best assassination books, it's important to say which you have read and which you haven't. Then explain why. If you haven't read them, don't include them. To do so is disingenuous.

There are several on your list that are worth having: the recent "Oswald"s politics" for eg, has all Lee's writings in one book, whether you agree with the authors analysis or not.

Part of learning is reading the works of others, for good or bad. The reason I came here is, when I read, I take notes, and questions I have I can usually find answers to, whether in the posts or by asking directly.

If you favor a theory, which you do, then I assume it's because you have read those books, and been persuaded by the conclusions. That is fine. Reading others reactions to those books, to be impartial and nonobjective, is also necessary.

I have 2 of James Fetzer's book's. I have read one. My area of interest doesn't lie in the film alteration/ photo analysis. As it is, i have put that issue to one side.

If I had questions, James has kindly pointed out were to look for them, and is offering the same to you.

Have you read his book? and, if not, why is it on your list?

To answer your question directly, My two would be "With Malice" which I paid a penny for, and which did nothing to convince me of Oswald's guilt, for reasons, Jim DiEugenio pointed out at the beginning, but it is worthwhile for the documents, and illustrations. It's handy to have the subject in one book.

Also, "Case closed" for it's blatant dishonesty. Nothing to recommend on this one. Harold Weisberg say's it all in "Case Open". By reading that terrible book, I was introduced to Weisberg. So good things come from the bad.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Steve Duffy

[David Von Pein]

"With Malice"...did nothing to convince me of Oswald's guilt.

An absolutely incredible statement. And absolutely silly, too.

Myers makes Oswald's guilt so obvious, a 2-year-old could have convicted the bum.

http://With--Malice.blogspot.com

[William Kelly]

"With Malice"...did nothing to convince me of Oswald's guilt.

An absolutely incredible statement. And absolutely silly, too.

Myers makes Oswald's guilt so obvious, a 2-year-old could have convicted the bum.

http://With--Malice.blogspot.com

That's because a two year old wouldn't know what Myers leaves out.

It's not what he says, it's what Myers deliberatly leaves out that is sigificant.

PDS's "Negative Template" at work.

And Oswald wasn't a bum. If he did all the things you and Myers say he did,

he acomplished his goals and was a really good and successful assassin.

It is all the aspects of his background that you like to dwell on - being a no-good,

wife beating loser, who couldn't hold a job that makes the case for him being the

Patsy that he claimed to be.

Bill Kelly

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

[Steve Duffy]

Dave, glad you enjoyed his book. Pop it in your top books selection..oh it's already there. Thought so. I think I'll stick by my claim. It does have nice pictures

Bill helpfully gives the same reason's I'd add. Funny how we all see the faults in a work you don't, but I guess we're all silly. But then, you think Posner was a gem of a researcher...

Now, the reason for my post was to ask Robert a question.

If you would kindly get back to your job for a while...you're interjecting a lot lately.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Steve Duffy