Roger DeLaria Posted January 31, 2015 Posted January 31, 2015 I was recently poking around in one of the many used book stores in my area, and I found a copy of "In The Shadow Of Dallas - A Primer on the Assassination of President Kennedy", published by the editors of Ramparts Magazine, 1967. I haven't read through it yet, but it looks pretty insightful for the time. I also picked up a copy of The Ruby Cover Up by Seth Kantor. I haven't read that one yet. They also had a copy of the WC Witness Testimony, I was thinking of picking that one up if it's still there. Might provide some interesting, if not fanciful reading.
Pat Speer Posted February 1, 2015 Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) I was recently poking around in one of the many used book stores in my area, and I found a copy of "In The Shadow Of Dallas - A Primer on the Assassination of President Kennedy", published by the editors of Ramparts Magazine, 1967. I haven't read through it yet, but it looks pretty insightful for the time. I also picked up a copy of The Ruby Cover Up by Seth Kantor. I haven't read that one yet. They also had a copy of the WC Witness Testimony, I was thinking of picking that one up if it's still there. Might provide some interesting, if not fanciful reading. If the book of witness testimony was entitled "The Witnesses"... beware. The book was rushed out by the New York Times as a companion to the Warren Report. It presents testimony supporting the Commission's conclusion...which is to say it is a con job. How the editors of the New York Times could rationalize their showing the public the parts supporting the single-assassin conclusion, while omitting the many bits raising doubt about the single-assassin conclusion, is beyond me. Isn't that called propaganda? Isn't that the exact opposite of responsible journalism? Isn't that a violation of the public trust? Edited February 1, 2015 by Pat Speer
Roger DeLaria Posted February 1, 2015 Author Posted February 1, 2015 Pat, It might have been that one, I don't remember, I'd have to give it a look-see again. I figured right from the get-go that it's a con job. Anything related to the WC, in my mind, is useless except as to read what bs they were spinning & shoveling to the public. I would not put any stock in it.
Michael Clark Posted February 12, 2017 Posted February 12, 2017 On 1/31/2015 at 0:51 PM, Roger DeLaria said: I was recently poking around in one of the many used book stores in my area, and I found a copy of "In The Shadow Of Dallas - A Primer on the Assassination of President Kennedy", published by the editors of Ramparts Magazine, 1967. I haven't read through it yet, but it looks pretty insightful for the time. I also picked up a copy of The Ruby Cover Up by Seth Kantor. I haven't read that one yet. They also had a copy of the WC Witness Testimony, I was thinking of picking that one up if it's still there. Might provide some interesting, if not fanciful reading. Roger, did you read "In the Shadow of Dallas"? What did you think of it?
Roger DeLaria Posted February 12, 2017 Author Posted February 12, 2017 It's been a while since I've looked at it, but I liked it. It's a good, basic primer on the assassination, pretty insightful for January 1967.
Paul Trejo Posted November 18, 2017 Posted November 18, 2017 On 1/31/2015 at 11:51 AM, Roger DeLaria said: I was recently poking around in one of the many used book stores in my area, and I found a copy of "In The Shadow Of Dallas - A Primer on the Assassination of President Kennedy", published by the editors of Ramparts Magazine, 1967. I haven't read through it yet, but it looks pretty insightful for the time... Roger, What did you think of the article "In The Shadow of Dallas?" Regards, --Paul Trejo
Roger DeLaria Posted November 18, 2017 Author Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) Paul, It's been quite awhile since I've looked at it, so I'd have to read it again to refresh specific info. For that time period, when most journalists and all media toed the WC line, for these researchers to bring up the questions they did, really bucked the trend. What I found interesting in just taking a quick glance without reading, are how the researchers such as Penn Jones and others, noticed the multiple mysterious deaths of persons who all had some kind of knowledge related to the assassination. Such as the meeting in Ruby's appt. on 11/24/63 when 3 at the meeting, Jim Koethe, Bill Hunter, and Tom Howard, all died mysterious deaths. Whenever any of these people investigated, such as when amateur researcher Shirley Martin, a housewife from Oklahoma, made trips to Dalls to interview witnesses, the police would tail her, openly following her around, and stick to her until she left Dallas. The same happened with others investigating in the area. The Dallas police would constantly surveil anyone coming in to investigate. Someone clearly didn't want anybody poking around. Edited November 18, 2017 by Roger DeLaria
Michael Clark Posted November 18, 2017 Posted November 18, 2017 4 hours ago, Roger DeLaria said: Paul, It's been quite awhile since I've looked at it, so I'd have to read it again to refresh specific info. For that time period, when most journalists and all media toed the WC line, for these researchers to bring up the questions they did, really bucked the trend. What I found interesting in just taking a quick glance without reading, are how the researchers such as Penn Jones and others, noticed the multiple mysterious deaths of persons who all had some kind of knowledge related to the assassination. Such as the meeting in Ruby's appt. on 11/24/63 when 3 at the meeting, Jim Koethe, Bill Hunter, and Tom Howard, all died mysterious deaths. Whenever any of these people investigated, such as when amateur researcher Shirley Martin, a housewife from Oklahoma, made trips to Dalls to interview witnesses, the police would tail her, openly following her around, and stick to her until she left Dallas. The same happened with others investigating in the area. The Dallas police would constantly surveil anyone coming in to investigate. Someone clearly didn't want anybody poking around. I read a just-released document that demonstrates Mark Lane's early commitment as well as the FBI' interest in Lane's investigation (May, 1964)
Michael Clark Posted November 18, 2017 Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) Page 2 of that Doc did not come through. Here is the link. Edit.... adding a link just brings page 1 up again. add "pdf" to this and it will take you to the document. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32123917. Edited November 18, 2017 by Michael Clark
Michael Clark Posted November 18, 2017 Posted November 18, 2017 (edited) .... Edited November 18, 2017 by Michael Clark
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now