Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Message from Tony Summers:

*Dropped from the updated Not in Your Lifetime is the alleged episode in Clinton, Louisiana, in which Oswald was apparently sighted in Clinton with Guy Banister and David Ferrie. I long ago went to Clinton myself for the BBC - and interviewed several of the relevant witnesses. They seemed fairly credible at the time.

As the entire thing has been demolished in a book by a researcher I respect, Pat Lambert, I have removed the passage from the text and consigned it to a much briefer note. (See p. 553, n.11)
* All references to the work of Cyril Wecht have been dropped. I spoke at a conference he held, and was amazed to hear him ranting from the stage on the subject. Having taken advice from others I do respect on the forensic area of the case, I felt only what seemed firmer should remain.
* The Tippit chapter is altered - in particular with reference to the pistol bullet evidence. See p. 106 of the new edition - re. "ballistics testimony dispels much of the doubt about Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder." (I raise my hat to Dale Myers' book on the Tippit case. (p. 499 new edition, Note 2)
* Virtually all the stuff in the old Chapter 20 (Double Image in Dallas) has gone. This was, in the old edition, about supposed sightings of an Oswald that may not have been the real Oswald. Now, I do not even now entirely reject the notion that Oswald was impersonated on occasion before the assassination. (What went on in Mexico City remains unresolved.) Too many of the sighting, however, did not belong in the text. You will now find them summarized in the Notes. (Note 9, at p. 578 of the new edition.)
* The celebrated use of the name Oswald in New Orleans, buying jeeps as early as 1961, was writ large in the earlier editions.It now seems less reliable. I thought it must be mentioned, however, because there's a supporting contemporary document that fitsm in the case in an interesting way. The Deslatte episode now appears only in the Notes (p. 580, n 10)
* The emphasis on Ferrie has changed, retaining Ferrie's early association with Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol but reducing the suggestion of his involvement at the time of the assassination. This because of the excellent, focused research on Ferrie by David Blackburst - who has worked just that seam over recent years, demolishing much of the shaky stuff propagated since the Garrison circus.
* Rose Cheramie. Though I made it a point, years ago, to interview Francis Fruge, the policeman who handled the matter - and found him believable - I was persuaded by forum traffic about Cheramie in the end, and with so much else to include in Not in Your Lifetime, that the episode just is not solid enough.
* Finally, at least in this letter, the dark suggestion that Braden/Brading was guiltily involved in Dallas on the day has gone. I had previously relied to a degree on the reporting of a fellow reporter named Pete Noyes. On closer examination, I felt that - though Braden/Brading (not a nice person) was in Dallas that day - the dark implications that have been drawn were shaky. You won't find him in the index now.
As the author, one is sometimes in a quandary when dropping items. Even in the book's previous edition, I dropped the matter of Oswald's reported outgoing call, while under arrest, to a man named "Hurt" in Raleigh, North Carolina. (One of the two people of that name in the area was a military intelligence veteran.) The HSCA tried years later to follow up, without success - as did I - and Robert Blakey has called the matter "deeply disturbing." As this was said to have been an outgoing call, it remains interesting. On reflection, I am probably right to have dropped mention of this in the text. On the other hand, I should probably have sustained a reference in the notes.
Some of these issues are Solomon-type decisions, and I'm sure I sometimes get them wrong.
Tony Summers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refer you to:

http://anthonysummersandrobbynswan.wordpress.com

in which Tony expresses his opinions "On When to Stop Asking Questions...?" - "Correcting the Record on Herminio Diaz" and my favorite, "A Few Thoughts on the Nature of Conspiracy."

There's a lot to digest in the latest edition of "Not In Your Lifetime," and as Jeff Morley said, it is the best one book on the assassination and number one on my list.

I'm also proud of the fact that Tony acknowledges my blog as a primary research source, and will later elaborate on the issues he mentions that I worked on and am familiar with - including Peter Noyes and Jim Braden and the Tippit murder.

In the meantime, NIYL 2013 is a full meal to digest but well worth it.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An author explaining? Or an author explaining issues away? I mean Summers' entire slate of excisions, though the rationale for the one below seems particularly egregious:

"I was persuaded by forum traffic about Cheramie in the end, and with so much else to include in Not in Your Lifetime, that the episode just is not solid enough."

Having read Summers & Swan's kowtowing 9/11 book, I can't help but feel the title of his latest JFK summation is deterministic of the contents. And a propagandistic statement.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Summers was impressed with the research of Dale Myers and Pat Lambert? All the changes Summers made should prove popular with lone nutters. Call me cynical, but I sense a clear strain of what I've termed neo-conspiracy (or neo-con) in his latest thoughts on the case.

Does Summers now think that Oswald fired any of the shots at JFK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Raleigh call is credible and worthy of study by anyone interested in Lee H. Oswald, in my view.

I have doubts about John Hurt's wife explaining it away that Hurt made a drunken call to Oswald in jail. Call me a skeptic.

Here are a few links from Dr. Grover B. Proctor, Jr., who did the deepest investigation in this area:

http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html

http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk-douglass.html

Here is an article:

http://m.indyweek.com/indyweek/jfk-oswald-and-the-raleigh-connection/Content?oid=3192079

And a few Ed Forum links. There is good stuff within from Jim Root (where has he been?), James Richards, and others:

The "Raleigh Call":

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2278

New John B. Hurt Info:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3391&page=1

Japanese Linguist John Hurt:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2967&page=1

John B. Hurt:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8571

John David Hurt:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3041

Oswald's 30 minute call:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2653

Indyweek article discussion:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19683

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

Yes, I read your comment about David Lifton's interview, twice now. I've also read about it elsewhere. I haven't heard the interview, and so I put no stock in it. As well, there are two possible Hurts we know of. The totality of the evidence suggests a call was attempted by Oswald, in my view.

I'll remain skeptical about John Hurt's alleged drunk dialing Oswald in jail.

Steve

Edited by Steve Rosen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not refuting what Dale Myers has to say, it's adding what he leaves out and doesn't tell you.

Myers relegates to a footnote, the incredible tale of Wes Wise and Carl Mather, and dismisses the fact that Oswald was seen driving Mather's Plymouth in the neighborhood of the murder of Mather's good friend J.D. Tippit.

And there was a Plymouth at the scene of Tippit's murder, and did those who later identified Oswald as the fleeing killer see Oswald or the guy who impersonated Oswald at Top Ten Records and beer and candy store that morning?

How come Oswald denied owning a rifle but acknowledged owning the pistol? How come the bullets found in Tippit couldn't be traced to that pistol? Where did the bullets come from?

And the shells found at the scene didn't match the bullet make? What is that all about?

Dale Myers may have convinced Tony Summers that Oswald shot Tippit based on the ballistics that match the shells found at the scene to the gun Oswald had on him, but where did the five unspent bullets come from that were found in Oswald's pockets over an hour after his arrest? The bullets that had spent considerable time in a leather holster.

And what was the story about the shooting of the car dealer who was a witness?

And did anybody look into to the IBM employees who were in the shoe store when Tippit's killer ducked in?

And did the ticket girl really later break down and cry and admit that she sold a ticket to Oswald earlier?

And did the popcorn guy actually say he sold some pop corn to Oswald who went up to the balcony?

And what happened to the official list of theater witnesses?

And who was the guy they took out the back door?

And how come Oswald has three wallets?

And what's the contents of the wallets again?

And Det. Bently - the cigar chomping planesclothes cop who escorted Oswald out of the theater,

what was his tie to ONI and the "extensive files ONI kept on Oswald."

By the way, that was one document Tony wouldn't use - the ONI document from San Diego, telling Bentley ONI had a big file on Oswald.

Well since Tony decided not to use it, we located the origin of that letter and forum members confirmed it, and I'm sure that if you go down Tony's list you will find that some of them if not many of them will someday be confirmed.

It's not the facts of Dale Myers book that I take issue with, its his conclusions that the most significant items in evidence in the case are not important.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not refuting what Dale Myers has to say, it's adding what he leaves out and doesn't tell you.

Myers relegates to a footnote, the incredible tale of Wes Wise and Carl Mather, and dismisses the fact that Oswald was seen driving Mather's Plymouth in the neighborhood of the murder of Mather's good friend J.D. Tippit.

And there was a Plymouth at the scene of Tippit's murder, and did those who later identified Oswald as the fleeing killer see Oswald or the guy who impersonated Oswald at Top Ten Records and beer and candy store that morning?

How come Oswald denied owning a rifle but acknowledged owning the pistol? How come the bullets found in Tippit couldn't be traced to that pistol? Where did the bullets come from?

And the shells found at the scene didn't match the bullet make? What is that all about?

Dale Myers may have convinced Tony Summers that Oswald shot Tippit based on the ballistics that match the shells found at the scene to the gun Oswald had on him, but where did the five unspent bullets come from that were found in Oswald's pockets over an hour after his arrest? The bullets that had spent considerable time in a leather holster.

And what was the story about the shooting of the car dealer who was a witness?

And did anybody look into to the IBM employees who were in the shoe store when Tippit's killer ducked in?

And did the ticket girl really later break down and cry and admit that she sold a ticket to Oswald earlier?

And did the popcorn guy actually say he sold some pop corn to Oswald who went up to the balcony?

And what happened to the official list of theater witnesses?

And who was the guy they took out the back door?

And how come Oswald has three wallets?

And what's the contents of the wallets again?

And Det. Bently - the cigar chomping planesclothes cop who escorted Oswald out of the theater,

what was his tie to ONI and the "extensive files ONI kept on Oswald."

By the way, that was one document Tony wouldn't use - the ONI document from San Diego, telling Bentley ONI had a big file on Oswald.

Well since Tony decided not to use it, we located the origin of that letter and forum members confirmed it, and I'm sure that if you go down Tony's list you will find that some of them if not many of them will someday be confirmed.

It's not the facts of Dale Myers book that I take issue with, its his conclusions that the most significant items in evidence in the case are not important.

BK

Sounds like Bill Kelly has his mind made up about a lot of things, even things he could have reasonably figured out from what I already mentioned in my post -- like reasons to be skeptical of Oswald sightings. In other cases -- IBM employees? -- Bill's curiosity seems a little overactive to me. (Consider posting your IBM file from the email list, Bill. It's a classic.)

Perhaps one of the reasons Anthony Summers has always been one of the most respected of all conspiracy-oriented authors, however he and I may disagree about some issues, is that he is not only an accomplished investigative journalist, but he seems to be uncommonly open-minded as well, and perfectly willing to challenge preconceptions on any side of the issue. But being open-minded can get you in trouble with people whose minds are made up already.

What's important is that so long as Bill Kelly has questions that haven't been answered to his satisfaction, there MUST have been a conspiracy, right?

HI DAVE, AS LONG AS THERE ARE QUESTIONS, WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO SEARCH FOR ANSWERS. YOU SEEM TO AVE ALL THE ANSWERS AND CAN'T SEEM TO PUT TOGETHER TWO SENTENCES WITHOUT SAYING THE WORD CONSPIRACY.

And as long as 9/11 Truthers have questions about 9/11, then 9/11 must have been an inside job, right?

NOW THERE YOU GO - DAVE - TRYING TO BRAND ME A 9/11 TRUTHER - YOU'RE THE INSIDE JOB.

And as long as creationists have questions about evolution, then there's no way in hell that any of us evolved from a common ancestor along with monkeys, right?

THERE WAS A STUDY MENTIONED IN PITTSBURGH OF TRUTHERS, CREATIONISTS, HOLOCAUST DENIERS, GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS AND LONE NUTTERS - ALL HAVING AN EQUAL PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION - LONE NUTTERS ARE THE EXTREMIST NOT CONSPIRACY THEORISTS

This is known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the argument from ignorance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Basically it says, if you can't disprove everything I say, then I must be right.

Author and SKEPTIC publisher Michael Shermer has summed up the contrary position: "Unexplained is not inexplicable." Shermer observes, "Many people are overconfident enough to think that if THEY cannot explain something, it must be inexplicable..." Shermer is talking about the natural world, but it applies equally well to conspiracy theories. I discuss this in an article at my website:

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk-fringe.html

I didn't start this thread to argue about whether there was a conspiracy in J.D. Tippit's death or anyone else's, but Bill seems to get positively apoplectic when a highly respected conspiracy-oriented author like Anthony Summers says that he thinks Dale Myers has refuted some of the arguments Summers himself made in earlier editions of his book.

DAVE, THE TOPIC IS MYERS AND HIS WORK - AND I SAY HE DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY - AND MYERS HASN'T REFUTED ANYTHING

Take it up with Tony Summers, Bill. I happen to know you have his email address.

ME AND TONY ARE COOL, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SEEMS TO WANT TO ANOINT DALE MYERS THE POPE OF OAK CLIFF, AND I'M JUST SAYING HE'S LEFT THE BEST PART OUT AND YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO GET IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, AS DALE'S NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THE WHOLE STORY.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An author explaining? Or an author explaining issues away? I mean Summers' entire slate of excisions, though the rationale for the one below seems particularly egregious:

"I was persuaded by forum traffic about Cheramie in the end, and with so much else to include in Not in Your Lifetime, that the episode just is not solid enough."

Having read Summers & Swan's kowtowing 9/11 book, I can't help but feel the title of his latest JFK summation is deterministic of the contents. And a propagandistic statement.

David Andrews refers without offering any detail to my "kowtowing" 9/11 book. I don't recall having kowtowed to anyone, and I think the CIA would be amused by the suggestion that I did so in my 9/11 book.
I'd also be surprised were anyone to say, with evidence, that I have ever knowingly - or even unknowingly - made "propagandistic" statements.
Without wanting anyone to spend money on the basis of Mr. Andrews' calumnies, I would refer readers to my 9/11 book The Eleventh Day and - I guess - to the 2013 edition of Not In Your Lifetime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An author explaining? Or an author explaining issues away? I mean Summers' entire slate of excisions, though the rationale for the one below seems particularly egregious:

"I was persuaded by forum traffic about Cheramie in the end, and with so much else to include in Not in Your Lifetime, that the episode just is not solid enough."

Having read Summers & Swan's kowtowing 9/11 book, I can't help but feel the title of his latest JFK summation is deterministic of the contents. And a propagandistic statement.

David Andrews refers without offering any detail to my "kowtowing" 9/11 book. I don't recall having kowtowed to anyone, and I think the CIA would be amused by the suggestion that I did so in my 9/11 book.
I'd also be surprised were anyone to say, with evidence, that I have ever knowingly - or even unknowingly - made "propagandistic" statements.
Without wanting anyone to spend money on the basis of Mr. Andrews' calumnies, I would refer readers to my 9/11 book The Eleventh Day and - I guess - to the 2013 edition of Not In Your Lifetime.

A serious question, Tony. The message posted at the beginning of this thread is basically a list of items you previously found suspicious but now find less suspicious, and less worthy of inclusion in your book. My question is if there is a similar list of items that you now find more suspicious.

I'll give you a personal example. I have studied the medical evidence to a greater extent than just about everyone, and, after this November, will have spoken on the medical evidence three times at the Lancer Conference, once at the Copa Conference, and once at the Wecht Conference in Pittsburgh. And yet I am constantly learning new stuff, much of which makes me more suspicious.

For example, I had long been suspicious of the make-up of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. Most all its members had some sort of connection to Dr. Russell Fisher of the Clark Panel, whose findings they were supposed to be reviewing. Well, within the last year or so I discovered that the Panel's radiology consultant, Dr. G.M. McDonnell, was once on a three-member panel at a radiology convention, and that one of his co-panelists was Dr. Russell Morgan of the Clark Panel. And the purpose of this panel? To convince radiologists that the risk of them getting sick from radiation exposure was greatly exaggerated. Well, this tidbit made me more suspicious than ever that the men picked to review the Clark Panel's findings were men known to be friendly to the members of the Clark Panel, and the government.

This suspicion continues to grow, moreover. At the most recent Wecht Conference, I asked Robert Tannenbaum about the creation of the HSCA Panel, and he told me he gave Dr. Baden the go-ahead to pick whoever he wanted, as long as Dr. Wecht was included. Well, Wecht was the one who didn't fit. Everyone else was connected to Dr. Fisher or the City of Dallas.

In any event, do you find some elements of the story getting more and more suspicious, or is it a one-way street with you, with a lot of the formerly suspicious elements getting less and less suspicious?

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Just wondering what your post just above this means- it quotes me, but there is no quote, and no response from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anthony,

It's great to see you here posting. Like so many others, I was very impressed by your book Conspiracy (as well as your book about Marilyn Monroe). But I'm puzzled by the changes you're making for the new edition. Do you now think Oswald shot Tippit? Dale Myers was unable to answer my question, years ago on another forum- what evidence is there for Oswald leaving the TSBD at 12:33? The Warren Commission just pulled that up from nowhere- not even a Whaley-Bledsoe type of witness to support it. If you can't demonstrate that he left at that time, then the whole ridiculous post-assassination journey (walking away, then taking a bus back towards the scene of the crime, then getting off for a cab in the original direction, becoming embroiled with a hilarious set of uncredible witnesses along the way), becomes completely impossible.

I've commented many times on this forum and others, regarding what I consider to be an unfortunate "neo-con" drift among researchers- an inexplicable trend away from evidence of conspiracy. We see this in the dismissal of all the unnatural deaths of witnesses, the strange actions of the Umbrella Man, ignoring all the witnesses who claimed the motorcade stopped or nearly stopped, the discrepancies about the identity of the rifle found on the sixth floor, the complete failure of the Secret Service to act that day, the undeniable fact that every medical person who saw JFK at Parkland reported a huge blowout in the back of the head, juxtaposed against the official autopsy photos which show no such wound, and many more.

If anything, considering just how crystal clear the evidence for conspiracy is, and how impossible the lone assassin thesis is, we should be seeing more hard line believers in conspiracy. The last thing we should be seeing is a drift away from conspiracy. And yet, that appears to be what's happening. Can you tell us, at this point, who you think killed JFK? Who was involved in the cover up? I'm interested in your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Just wondering what your post just above this means- it quotes me, but there is no quote, and no response from you.

Hi Don,

I was responding to your post - just going to say that I think we should let Tony Summers answer some of the questions posted, and not let Dave Reitzes answer them, when Tony himself posted a response.

So I didn't want to detract from what Tony was saying and tried to delete the post.

I think that each of the items that Tony decided to leave out of his update are worth discussing, and while Tony had deadlines and page limits, we aren't so confied and can, in Tony's words, "research the hell out of it," and come to some firm conclusions.

For instance, if Pat Lampert is correct in that the whole story of Oswald being in Clinton with Ferrie and Shaw can be challenged by demonstrating that eight witnesses who place them there - were KKK and lied - then that is a crime to lie before the Grand Jury that indicted shaw - and it is proof of a conspiracy - at least among those eight people.

I first came into this case on the heels of Jim Braden being arrested at Dealey Plaza and Camden NJ, and though Tony says he is "not a good guy," I don't think he was a violent person, his background indicates that he was a gambler, golfer, swindler and confidence man who seduced wealthy widows - including the widow of the founder of Magnolia Oil - and find it interesting that Oswald met the Paines at a Magnolia Oil party that had nothing to do with Braden. But Braden was taken into custody at Dealey Plaza, not properly investigated, and when questioned by the HSCA, his testimony sealed and locked away - even though Braden himself wanted it released. When it was finally released - we learn that Braden lived in New Orleans in the summer of '63, a very interesting place at the time, and worked out of the office of an oil man on the same floor of the same building as Marcello's attorney - G. Ray Gill. More coincidences piling up. There's more to Jim Braden than meets the eye, but he didn't shoot JFK, as some have alleged.

We can go down Tony's list of subjects left out of the new update, or we can discuss the many new things that he does include in his fine book - the best of the lot in my opinion.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An author explaining? Or an author explaining issues away? I mean Summers' entire slate of excisions, though the rationale for the one below seems particularly egregious:

"I was persuaded by forum traffic about Cheramie in the end, and with so much else to include in Not in Your Lifetime, that the episode just is not solid enough."

Having read Summers & Swan's kowtowing 9/11 book, I can't help but feel the title of his latest JFK summation is deterministic of the contents. And a propagandistic statement.

David Andrews refers without offering any detail to my "kowtowing" 9/11 book. I don't recall having kowtowed to anyone, and I think the CIA would be amused by the suggestion that I did so in my 9/11 book.
I'd also be surprised were anyone to say, with evidence, that I have ever knowingly - or even unknowingly - made "propagandistic" statements.
Without wanting anyone to spend money on the basis of Mr. Andrews' calumnies, I would refer readers to my 9/11 book The Eleventh Day and - I guess - to the 2013 edition of Not In Your Lifetime.

Mr. Summers is correct in principle - Read each book, form your own opinion of either.

If it would content Mr. Summers, it would content me to have the moderators delete both our comments.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...