Jump to content
The Education Forum

RFK jr has a book recommendation


Recommended Posts

. : CIA 'Definitely Involved' in JFK's Assassination "They were definitely involved in the murder and the 60-year cover-up," he declared. "They're still not releasing the papers that legally they have to release." "For anybody who has doubts about that, I would recommend a book by Jim Douglass called "JFK and The Unspeakable." Because I think he's done a better job than anybody else at kind of assembling and distilling all of the millions and millions of documents that have been released over the past 50 years. And these revelations are released incrementally, and so nobody really takes notice of them. But when you put them all together, the story is very clear."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope for RFK Jr.'s sake that MSM journalists don't find out/don't mention that Douglass is a 9/11 Truther. I wish he had recommended Doug Horne's five-volume book on the ARRB and the medical evidence, or Anthony Summers' book, or Gerald McKnight's book, or David Mantik's stunning new book on the medical evidence.

 

Edited by Michael Griffith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I liked aspects of Jim Douglass' book, I thought he allowed his political biases into his book, and was not skeptical enough of certain witnesses. 

The fact is, the JFKA research community has enough hard evidence, along with the Biden-Garland-CIA snuff job on the JFK Records Act, to present very credible evidence of at least two active gunsels in Dealey Plaza on 11/22, and a subsequent government cover-up that continues to this day.

We do not need iffy JFKA witnesses, political theorizing, or too much convenient surmising. 

Whatever people's opinions on 9/11 or Russiagate or UFOs is fine. 

But I advise the JFKA research community to act as a stand-alone operation, and concentrate on the JFK Records Act. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I sincerely hope for RFK Jr.'s sake that MSM journalists don't find out/don't mention that Douglass is a 9/11 Truther. 

 

Good point.  It would be a too shocking for the American public to learn the truth about 9/11 so prematurely.

These things take time.   It has only been 21 years and 8 months.

As T.S. Eliot said, "Most people can't handle too much reality."

Perhaps in another 37 years?  🙄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jim Douglass book has become a standard now in the field.

It has sold well over 100,000 copies in all formats.

And what it has that most other books do not have is very well delineated outlines of JFK's policies in Vietnam and Cuba, and shorter views of other places in the Third World.

So the reader understands the reasons for his death.  In that manner it is pretty well unmatched.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I sincerely hope for RFK Jr.'s sake that MSM journalists don't find out/don't mention that Douglass is a 9/11 Truther.

 

Good luck if they try to link an article, interview or essay by Douglass where he expounds on that topic, as there pretty much aren't any online. 

Most 9/11 truthers spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about 9/11, and occasionally also writing about it. As far as I can see, Douglass has mainly just stuck to the JFK topic.

I suspected you've mentioned the 9/11 topic on this site next to Douglass' name more frequently than he has in his whole career. Readers tend to blank out a little when the MSM keeps throwing assertions with zero links or backup alongside it, so absent a damning article where Douglass goes into the topic in depth - and I suspect there aren't any - I expect the assertion would be greeted with a shrug.

Quite a good book for RFK Jr to suggest. Anyone who reads it will be given a detailed picture of JFK's struggles over his Vietnam policy, which is a useful, major part of the story for newcomers to encounter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Good luck if they try to link an article, interview or essay by Douglass where he expounds on that topic, as there pretty much aren't any online. 

Most 9/11 truthers spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about 9/11, and occasionally also writing about it. As far as I can see, Douglass has mainly just stuck to the JFK topic.

I suspected you've mentioned the 9/11 topic on this site next to Douglass' name more frequently than he has in his whole career. Readers tend to blank out a little when the MSM keeps throwing assertions with zero links or backup alongside it, so absent a damning article where Douglass goes into the topic in depth - and I suspect there aren't any - I expect the assertion would be greeted with a shrug.

Quite a good book for RFK Jr to suggest. Anyone who reads it will be given a detailed picture of JFK's struggles over his Vietnam policy, which is a useful, major part of the story for newcomers to encounter.

Anthony,

     I'm not sure which "9/11 Truthers" you are referring to here.

     Many "9/11 Truthers" are scholars with wide ranging intellectual interests and graduate level educations.

     For example, Laurent Guyenot studied both engineering and history at the Sorbonne.

     Ron Unz studied history and physics at Harvard and Stanford.

     David Ray Griffin is a professor of philosophy and religion.

     I studied physics, chemistry, history, and medicine at Brown and Harvard.

     It's true that the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have focused mainly on the science data relating to the WTC demolitions, but most of them are probably familiar with the JFKA research.

     Obviously, we're all "deranged nutjobs," as Michael Griffith keeps telling the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     Many "9/11 Truthers" are scholars with wide ranging intellectual interests and graduate level educations.

 

I wouldn't call myself a scholar, but if being a 9/11 Truther means I'm a deranged nutjob (per Michael Griffith), I'm proud to be one. As for Griffith, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but they're not a controlled demolition."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I wouldn't call myself a scholar, but if being a 9/11 Truther means I'm a deranged nutjob (per Michael Griffith), I'm proud to be one. As for Griffith, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but they're not a controlled demolition."

 

 

Ron,

     Michael Griffith has never responded to my request for the names of the 9/11 Truthers whom he calls "deranged nutjobs."

      He may be referring to me, and I won't deny that I was kind of a wild and crazy guy in my teen years, before I was psychoanalyzed and became somewhat dull and boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Anthony,

     I'm not sure which "9/11 Truthers" you are referring to here.

     Many "9/11 Truthers" are scholars with wide ranging intellectual interests and graduate level educations.

     For example, Laurent Guyenot studied both engineering and history at the Sorbonne.

     Ron Unz studied history and physics at Harvard and Stanford.

     David Ray Griffin is a professor of philosophy and religion.

     I studied physics, chemistry, history, and medicine at Brown and Harvard.

     It's true that the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have focused mainly on the science data relating to the WTC demolitions, but most of them are probably familiar with the JFKA research.

     Obviously, we're all "deranged nutjobs," as Michael Griffith keeps telling the forum.

I thought it would have been obvious, I am a 9/11 truther myself - I've written as much a number of times - though I possibly look at things there from a slightly different angle to some others.

I'm aware of the background of all three men you cite there (though I probably needed the reminder about Guyenot).

It's possible for people to have a wide ranging intellectual background, and a graduate level education, and for those same people to also spend a lot of time writing about and thinking about 9/11. David Ray Griffin wrote about 9/11 quite a bit, for nearly two decades. Looking at the footnotes of his books, it's clear he put a lot of thought into what he wrote. So it's possible for people to be all the things you mentioned, and for them to also spend a lot of time writing and thinking about the topic, which is all I was really saying in my post above. I'm not sure how many Griffin books I have on the shelf somewhere, but it's probably close to five.

My main point might have been poorly expressed or misconstrued. Michael Griffith tells us in every thread that Douglass is a 9/11 truther. I'd simply ask how much detail we have confirming that Douglass is one, other than that he was given honorary membership with the Consensus 9/11 group (who then give zero about what Douglass' specifics thoughts are on the topic), and another site that notes Douglass is a member and co-founder of Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth. The site for those guys again has zero statements or quotes that are attributable to Douglass directly. So I find it funny how Griffith goes on yelling that the top of his voice that Douglass is a 9/11 truther, when Douglass never seems to mention the topic, never writes about it, has never been quoted about it, and doesn't seem that involved in saying much about it in public. This hardly seems like a towering body of evidence that can be used to lambast Douglass' JFK work. If Griffith has more detailed commentary or quotes from Douglass about 9/11 he can post it, I guess, but if he doesn't it seems slightly demented to constantly be attacking Douglass about it. He seems to be way more fixated on the subject than Douglass is.

Douglass might have given the nod to have his name attached to a couple of these groups, but he largely seems to have other things on his mind, with JFK's death being high among them. So to say the general public will freak out about Douglass' name being listed on a couple of websites seems a bit of a reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

Good luck if they try to link an article, interview or essay by Douglass where he expounds on that topic, as there pretty much aren't any online. 

Most 9/11 truthers spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about 9/11, and occasionally also writing about it. As far as I can see, Douglass has mainly just stuck to the JFK topic.

Are there as many 9/11 forums as there are jfk assassination forums? And are they as active, as in regular posts, as the jfk assassination forums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There used to be more. There are now significantly less.

James Douglas is 86. JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE came out nearly 15 years ago. The 9/11 truth movement was heavily online for a while, and has now subsided a great deal. There are several sites that used to post 9/11 truth news daily which are now nearly defunct, several forums which used to be heavily trafficked which are now nearly deserted, and numerous writers who used to blog frequently on the topic, who now mostly don't. A few of them have taken to Twitter, some of the others have retreated from doing much publicly. A few esteemed writers from the 9/11 truth movement have died over the past six months, Graeme MacQueen being the most recent.

In case it needs restating, I'm not criticising James Douglass in any way. I'm just slightly puzzled at Michael Griffith harping on about Douglass being a 9/11 truther, because if it wasn't for a couple of websites saying, yeah, Douglass is a truther, you'd never know it. As far as I can tell, Griffith has made more noise about Douglass having particular views about 9/11 than Douglass ever has. But I probably don't need to spend much more time puzzling out comments on this forum from Michael Griffith.

Edited by Anthony Thorne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I thought it would have been obvious, I am a 9/11 truther myself - I've written as much a number of times - though I possibly look at things there from a slightly different angle to some others.

I'm aware of the background of all three men you cite there (though I probably needed the reminder about Guyenot).

It's possible for people to have a wide ranging intellectual background, and a graduate level education, and for those same people to also spend a lot of time writing about and thinking about 9/11. David Ray Griffin wrote about 9/11 quite a bit, for nearly two decades. Looking at the footnotes of his books, it's clear he put a lot of thought into what he wrote. So it's possible for people to be all the things you mentioned, and for them to also spend a lot of time writing and thinking about the topic, which is all I was really saying in my post above. I'm not sure how many Griffin books I have on the shelf somewhere, but it's probably close to five.

My main point might have been poorly expressed or misconstrued. Michael Griffith tells us in every thread that Douglass is a 9/11 truther. I'd simply ask how much detail we have confirming that Douglass is one, other than that he was given honorary membership with the Consensus 9/11 group (who then give zero about what Douglass' specifics thoughts are on the topic), and another site that notes Douglass is a member and co-founder of Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth. The site for those guys again has zero statements or quotes that are attributable to Douglass directly. So I find it funny how Griffith goes on yelling that the top of his voice that Douglass is a 9/11 truther, when Douglass never seems to mention the topic, never writes about it, has never been quoted about it, and doesn't seem that involved in saying much about it in public. This hardly seems like a towering body of evidence that can be used to lambast Douglass' JFK work. If Griffith has more detailed commentary or quotes from Douglass about 9/11 he can post it, I guess, but if he doesn't it seems slightly demented to constantly be attacking Douglass about it. He seems to be way more fixated on the subject than Douglass is.

Douglass might have given the nod to have his name attached to a couple of these groups, but he largely seems to have other things on his mind, with JFK's death being high among them. So to say the general public will freak out about Douglass' name being listed on a couple of websites seems a bit of a reach.

Thanks for the commentary, Anthony.

I agree that Michael Griffith seems to be strangely obsessed with gratuitously disparaging 9/11 researchers, while concurrently refusing to tell us which ones he believes to be "deranged nutjobs."

No doubt, some "9/11 Truthers" are "nutty," but many seem perfectly sane and knowledgeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Anthony Thorne said:

There used to be more. There are now significantly less.

James Douglas is 86. JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE came out nearly 15 years ago. The 9/11 truth movement was heavily online for a while, and has now subsided a great deal. There are several sites that used to post 9/11 truth news daily which are now nearly defunct, several forums which used to be heavily trafficked which are now nearly deserted, and numerous writers who used to blog frequently on the topic, who now mostly don't. A few of them have taken to Twitter, some of the others have retreated from doing much publicly. A few esteemed writers from the 9/11 truth movement have died over the past six months, Graeme MacQueen being the most recent.

In case it needs restating, I'm not criticising James Douglass in any way. I'm just slightly puzzled at Michael Griffith harping on about Douglass being a 9/11 truther, because if it wasn't for a couple of websites saying, yeah, Douglass is a truther, you'd never know it. As far as I can tell, Griffith has made more noise about Douglass having particular views about 9/11 than Douglass ever has. But I probably don't need to spend much more time puzzling out comments on this forum from Michael Griffith.

His claiming that Douglas is a 911 truther reminded me of the "See no body cares"  scene from Jurassic Park. I don't care unless he's like Jessie Ventura and believes Judy Wood.. 

Pretty funny seeing how someone can criticize LN'ers here and then basically turn into one and start copy and pasting articles and citing "experts". LOL

 

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
×
×
  • Create New...