The Worst Books Ever on the JFK Assassination

[Steve Duffy]

But Jim, when does he get the time?

[David Von Pein]

Dave, glad you enjoyed his book ["With Malice"]. .... I think I'll stick by my claim.

The evidence clearly shows Oswald to be guilty of killing J.D. Tippit. Simple as that.

Steve, do you really believe Oswald didn't shoot Tippit? Really?

Edited December 3, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

He sells chicken.

Jimbo is wrong (again).

Edited December 3, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Steve Duffy]

Dave, glad you enjoyed his book ["With Malice"]. .... I think I'll stick by my claim.

The evidence clearly shows Oswald to be guilty of killing J.D. Tippit. Simple as that.

Steve, do you really believe Oswald didn't shoot Tippit? Really?

Dave, I been pretty tolerant of everyone since I joined here. I lurked here a lot longer. I've read and studied the assassination for more than 15 years, as a hobby, more than anything. I'm new to the forums, but not a novice. My boyish profile pic not withstanding ha ha.

Recently, I've been able to spend nearly all my time on this and related issues.

My ideas aren't new. They do change as I read more. I'm part of no group, have no agenda, and have no one to please but myself. I rarely get involved in the debates.

In all that time, I've come to some firm conclusions, some that I'm unsure of, and other's that I've not gathered much interest in, but hope to get to later. Posting here, and asking those questions, helps me find some of those answers.

I've also became more than aware, by my little own self, which writers and researchers are the ones that have most in common with my thinking on certain subjects, and which, I feel, are at the forefront of this study.

I read all sides of the argument, as much as I can. (Hence, my comment's on Rob's list. I would never post a list of books I haven't read) I am predisposed, and always have been, that the Kennedy Assassination was an American Coup. That is why, it should be obvious, I come here, which is predominately (wouldn't you agree?)a pro-conspiracy site.

I have asked you, on a couple of occasions, why you are here, out of genuine interest. Your answer was remarkably pat. You claimed, facetiously, I believe, that you have no life, and that a dissenting voice is needed. I agree somewhat with the latter.

But as I've yet, I've not read nary a single thing you've posted which I thought needed more investigation. If anything, it has come to the point, beside this little essay, that I, as many others seem too, simply ignore your posts. If you are trying to sway people to your side of the street, you are wanting. During your long debate with Jim, a relative newcomer(who was straddling the fence, but was mostly a WC defender)stated right out that you you were offering nothing of substance to learn from.

That, to me, is instructive.

As for the actual writer's on the case, such as Myer's, I have stated my opinion, and yes, I really believe that. I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't.

Your views on it's work are meaningless to me. I have been to that link, a long time ago, plus the link you provided on Posner, when I questioned you on your thought's of his credibility. If your views on Gerald Posner haven't changed from that early review, then there's nothing I can really say. If they have, I don't care. Actually, sending me that link showed how dismissive you are of really enlightening others.

There is much talk about you, your aware. Frankly, I don't care. It's...interesting, but affects me in no real way. Personal attacks, which I've seen from Francois, S V Anderson, May et al, are a different matter. I am in no way suggesting you have done this to me.

My belief is debating with a LN (My first use of the word, as these labels are just stupid and corrosive)is pointless.

So, my views should be clear, now. I spent more time on this than I thought.

I'd still like to get this back to the question I asked Robert Morrow. I'm sure Mr Fetzer would too.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Steve Duffy

[David Von Pein]

Thank you, Steve Duffy, for your last post. I appreciate your candor.

One question (re Myers' book "With Malice"):

Can you provide for me one or two things that you think Myers has gotten completely wrong regarding the evidence in the Tippit shooting?

And what has Myers LEFT OUT of his book that make you think he was hiding something (or just simply wasn't telling "the whole story" regarding the Tippit murder)?

Thanks.

[David Von Pein]

Are you admitting that its [sic] a fake picture then?

No, it's not a fake. It's a picture from 1991, Jim.

Edited December 3, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Great question, Jim DiEugenio. I have similar one for you. I gather you are a fan of Gary Aguilar's work. I

published a chapter in MURDER by him in which he demonstrated the consistency of the descriptions of

the massive blow-out to the back of his head (right up to the time that Humes took a saw to the cranium).

Since you believe in Gary's work, has it occurred to you that the blow-out he has documented ought to

be visible in frames 313-316 but is not? Have you also noticed that it is visible in frame 374? And if it

is visible in frame 374 but is not visible in frames 313-316, do you admit that those frames are fake?

Are you admitting that its a fake picture then?

Edited December 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Excellent post, Steve. I am afraid that commenting on books you have never read is one form of mental inertia on this forum. Bill Kelly was denigrating Jesse Ventura's JFK show on "Conspiracy Theory", which he obviously had not watched. His complaint was that Jesse didn't deal with "who dunnit", when Jesse nails Nixon, Ford, Bush, Specter, and LBJ! It is stunning. They won't even admit it.

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 James H. Fetzer

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Steve:

He sells chicken.

What is tha supposed to mean?

[Michael Hogan]

Excellent post, Steve. I am afraid that commenting on books you have never read is one form of mental inertia on this forum.

Harvey & Lee comes to mind.

[David Von Pein]

Are you admitting that it's a fake picture then?

Great question, Jim DiEugenio.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

There is a picture online from a guy who appears to be Davey's brother that shows Davey Boy in what looks like a KFC or Church's chicken store.

When this picture got around, people started to kid him about being a chicken to debate me, and also his rather diminutive height.

Davey replied that this was a family owned business, therefore he didn't really work there as an employee.

Now, if what he is saying is that he does not work there now, the implication is that teh business has been since sold.

Davey won't spell this out. Since he likes goofing around with me and saying, "See, DiEugenio is wrong again." Like I live in Hoosier land and know this stuff.

Bonnie Ray Williams was eating a chicken sandwhich on the 6th floor and Harold Weisberg used to be a chicken farmer.

Sounds like you're onto part of the conspiricy here.

[David Von Pein]

Davey won't spell this out. Since he likes goofing around with me and saying, "See, DiEugenio is wrong again." Like I live in Hoosier land and know this stuff.

But that won't stop you from speculating (in print), will it Jimbo my boy?

Truth is, in this "chicken" instance, I really enjoy toying with conspiracy-happy people who think they know everything about everybody. It's quite hilarious to watch them speculate -- with a recent example being when one of Jimbo's "volunteers" (who apparently has been assigned by Jimbo to monitor my every Internet move) dashed off a report to DiEugenio about the possibility of my using the alias "Kurt Ferrer" on the StarzMovie website.

Naturally, after getting the emergency report from his "volunteer" back at the CTKA Conspiracy BatCave, DiEugenio was more than eager to pounce on this important revelation and confront me with it.

I also took note of how DiEugenio misspelled Ferrer's last name (he spelled it "Furrer" the first time he confronted me with the name), which I now think was possibly a slick little ploy on Jimbo's part to try and get me to type the man's name correctly in one of my posts. And if I had accidentally spelled the name correctly (as Ferrer), then Jimbo would have a nice little chunk of "evidence" to throw in my face regarding this so-called "alias" that I told him I had never used.

Nice trick too, Jimbo. Too bad it didn't work.

I could be wrong, though. Maybe Jimbo's just a lousy speller. (He does need to let go of the "shift" key sooner when he types many of his posts. Jimbo often capitalizes the second letter of a sentence-starting word by mistake. He's just typing out his conspiracy crackpottery too fast at times, I guess.)

Edited December 3, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So why can we see it in frame 374? and what does that tell you about frames 313-316? Have

you not watched John's introductory tutorial on the film at http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ ?

Have you never read the Preface or the Prologue to HOAX? This is not that hard to figure out.

I laid out a series of simple steps for Robert Morrow. You can follow them. Ignorance is not bliss.

Davey:

I assume then that you are implying that the Church's or whatever was sold since then?

Todd:

That, at least, WAS his job.

Jim F:

This issue of whether or not you can see the rear hole in the Z film has other variables to it. Groden has addressed them as have many others.

It is not a slam dunk case on anyone's part.

I will be going up to the valley over Xmas to see the Wilkinson work on this.

Edited December 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Robert Howard]

Todd V:Bonnie Ray Williams was eating a chicken sandwhich on the 6th floor and Harold Weisberg used to be a chicken farmer.

Sounds like you're onto part of the conspiricy here.

Todd I am afraid this shows your WC bias and Weisberg animus.

I have no problem with Davey's lot in life, now or previously.

The reason I pointed this out was the same reason others have found it so bracing. And I have specifically mentioned this before.

DVP, the guy who is (or was) in the chicken selling business, is too chicken to debate me under normal rules of procedure. I even used this figure once when I said maybe one of my allies in the area should chase him down in a chicken outfit. DVP called this juvenile. I don't think so. Its quite apt. Davey is all too eager to play the WC/VB blabbermouth in these forums. But somehow, when a perfect opportunity to test his honesty, and knowledge against someone like me arises, he, excuse me, CHICKENS OUT. I think he understands that he would have to lie, like McAdams did, to stop from being crushed. And those lies would then be exposed here.

See, he likes to talk about his "paperless debates" on his site. These are so full of holes, incomplete and outright dishonest, that it is mind boggling. He makes Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford look positively judicial. But he knows he won't get away with this Von Peinian crapola in an equal time forum where each side is prepared. So he grows feathers and lays an egg.

Don't you find that rather cowardly and unbecoming?

Probably not.

To inject a moment of humor, although anything with DVP qualifies in that regard as far as I'm concerned.

My personal all-time worst of the worst, is

Broken Silence - Ray "Tex" Brown and Don Lasseter 1996.

The preview kind of sums it up

A man who personally taught both Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby how to shoot at a moving target reveals explosive new information about the Kennedy assassination.

I can't even remember who the man was, Thank God.....

Oh that's right, it was Ennis del Mar....

And of course everyone knows the Chicken Dance is the celebration dance of the Kennedy assassination.

Edited December 5, 2010 by Robert Howard