Jump to content
The Education Forum

Anthony Summers


Recommended Posts

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of Anthony Summers, author of various versions of a book called "Conspiracy". I do not believe he has shed any light upon the murder of JFK, while his writing on Marilyn Monroe has virtually zero merit, IMHO.

For those who feel otherwise, I recomend this statement by John McAdams:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...998a9dcaf08b94d

I rarely agree with Dr. McAdams, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of Anthony Summers, author of various versions of a book called "Conspiracy". I do not believe he has shed any light upon the murder of JFK, while his writing on Marilyn Monroe has virtually zero merit, IMHO.

For those who feel otherwise, I recomend this statement by John McAdams:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...998a9dcaf08b94d

I rarely agree with Dr. McAdams, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you. I have found his books puzzling. Looks like he has really been a sheep in wolves clothing all along.

Ironically, I have information concerning his involvement with another project where his actions were entirely unhelpful and may have (temporarily) sabotaged the conspiracy-based project. I am not at liberty to discuss this in more detail just now, but I will say that the gnawing sense of disappointment I experienced then is recurring now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a fan of Anthony Summers, author of various versions of a book called "Conspiracy". I do not believe he has shed any light upon the murder of JFK, while his writing on Marilyn Monroe has virtually zero merit, IMHO.

For those who feel otherwise, I recomend this statement by John McAdams:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...998a9dcaf08b94d

I rarely agree with Dr. McAdams, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Unfortunately, I happen to agree with you. I have found his books puzzling. Looks like he has really been a sheep in wolves clothing all along.

Ironically, I have information concerning his involvement with another project where his actions were entirely unhelpful and may have (temporarily) sabotaged the conspiracy-based project. I am not at liberty to discuss this in more detail just now, but I will say that the gnawing sense of disappointment I experienced then is recurring now.

JR and Pam,

I was going to let Squire-Solicitor JR Carroll slide on that, thinking it was just one Mick's careless comments about another, and had to be tongue-in-cheek, but since Pamela has seconded the motion, I must differ.

Tony Summers' "Conspiracy" was the best book published up to that time, and "Not In Your Lifetime" stands out as one of the best books to cover the assassination of President Kennedy from every imporant angle, and he does it from his fresh and well thought out perspective. While new info is now coming out, both books have stood the test of time. And screw John McAdams, his opinion isn't worth anything, and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as someone like Tony Summers.

As a person, I worked with Tony when he was writting the Vanity Fair article. He contacted me when he learned I was interviewing John Martino's sister and brother in Atlantic City. He was in Florida at the time with Martino's son and widow. When Tony was in Washington researching the update for "Conspiracy" which became "Not In Your Lifetime," he asked me to work with him at the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) in DC, where we read and copied newly released documents as a result of the JFK Act.

I found Tony and his wife Robyn to be exceptonally nice and thoroughly professional people and journalists, from whom I learned a lot. I never looked at Tony as a sheep, and nor did those who killed JFK. He was and is a dangerous independent muckraking journalist. If Tony's a wolf, then call me a crumby wolf too.

One way to keep independent researchers from actually solving this case is to keep us discussing each other.

I'm proud to know Tony and to have worked with him, and I wish he would return to subject: JFK Assassination, and help wrap this xxxyyzzzz thing up.

Bill Kelly

bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Summers' "Conspiracy" was the best book published up to that time, and "Not In Your Lifetime" stands out as one of the best books to cover the assassination of President Kennedy from every imporant angle, and he does it from his fresh and well thought out perspective. While new info is now coming out, both books have stood the test of time.

In 1980, with Blakey's Mafia-did-it The Plot To Kill The President coming fresh on the heels of the failed HSCA proceedings, Tony Summers' Conspiracy was a groundbreaking revelation for me. Summers' work has indeed withstood the test of time. It never ceases to amaze me how casually people, including a prominent member of this forum, resort to accusing researchers like Tony Summers and Mary Ferrell as being CIA.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony Summers' "Conspiracy" was the best book published up to that time, and "Not In Your Lifetime" stands out as one of the best books to cover the assassination of President Kennedy from every imporant angle, and he does it from his fresh and well thought out perspective. While new info is now coming out, both books have stood the test of time.

In 1980, with Blakey's Mafia-did-it The Plot To Kill The President coming fresh on the heels of the failed HSCA proceedings, Tony Summers' Conspiracy was a groundbreaking revelation for me. Summers' work has indeed withstood the test of time. It never ceases to amaze me how casually people, including a prominent member of this forum, resort to accusing researchers like Tony Summers and Mary Ferrell as being CIA.

T.C.

I am throwing my hat in the ring with Bill and Tim, Anthony Summers shouldn't have to defend his work, and especially on this Forum. I think the practice of 'critiquing JFK researchers' is not only a tiresome distraction but basically stupid. If anyone is offended, think about how the person your trashing would feel, especially if they are doing the best they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

I was going to let Squire-Solicitor JR Carroll slide on that, thinking it was just one Mick's careless comments about another, and had to be tongue-in-cheek, but since Pamela has seconded the motion, I must differ.

Since Mr. Kelly knows Anthony Summers so well, he should know that Mr. Summers is not a Mick, even if he pretends to be one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to let Squire-Solicitor JR Carroll slide on that, thinking it was just one Mick's careless comments about another, and had to be tongue-in-cheek, but since Pamela has seconded the motion, I must differ.
Since Mr. Kelly knows Anthony Summers so well, he should know that Mr. Summers is not a Mick, even if he pretends to be one.

I was surprised by the reference to Tony Summers as a "Mick." We Carrolls know our Micks.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Summers' work is so respected precisely because he doesn't believe in a conspiracy. He examines evidence to see what it suggests, and discusses the evidence honestly. Over the last few years, I've read dozens of books, hundreds of articles, and thousands of posts from "believers" both lone-nut believers, and conspiracy believers (and even Castro dood it believers). And it's clear to me that being a believer does nothing but mess with your ability to think rationally... whether it's John Lattimer insisting the single-bullet theory works, or Howard Donahue convincing himself the head shot was a stray shot from the Secret Service, building a case around a belief is a short road to fantasyland. That's not to say it's wrong to develop a theory and test against the likelihood of that theory. In such instances, however, the one doing the testing must be honest with oneself, and have a good grasp of reality. Sadly, those qualities are lacking in far too many people...

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

building a case around a belief is a short road to fantasyland. That's not to say it's wrong to develop a theory and test against the likelihood of that theory. In such instances, however, the one doing the testing must be honest with oneself, and have a good grasp of realityPat

Yet again I find myself following on the heels of Pat. This is such an important point to my mind. And it is an issue that is pivotal to the research community being taken seriously.

I would add that an important element is the researcher being able to separate out the uncomfortable sensations that arise on the body in being publicly shown to be wrong, separating them from the wrong 'evidence' and accommodating the new viewpoint.

If this could be recognised as a desirable thing then possibly also critique would be less vitriolic and more succinct AND forth coming. ::: What I mean is: if it is widely recognised that my feelings are owned by me, while my 'evidence' and thoughts, interpretations are not, then the responsibility for my feelings belong only to me and thus various responses to my input for example need not be tempered by any considerations for my feelings, then the feelings that anyone may have about any other researcher is equally unimportant and thus the ONLY thing of importance is the topic under discussion.

This allows a dispassionate rational appraisal that would go a long way to restoring/creating faith/respect in the 'spectators'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Summers' work is so respected precisely because he doesn't believe in a conspiracy. He examines evidence to see what it suggests, and discusses the evidence honestly.

Exactly right. Tony Summers has always been reluctant to speculate about the evidence concerning the assassination of JFK. This might frustrate his readers but Summers is at heart a historian, rather than a conspiracy theorist. What he has done over the years is to accumulate the evidence that indicates that JFK was not killed by a lone gunman.

Tony Summers is a much respected investigative journalist in the UK. For many years he worked for the BBC (Panorama). Along with people like Tom Mangold (read his great book on James Angleton) he broke a great many important stories. As well as writing one of the best books about the JFK assassination, he has also written the best book about Hoover The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover (1993). Other books worth reading are The File on the Tsar (1976), Goddess: The Secret Lives of Marilyn Monroe (1985), Honeytrap (1988) and The Arrogance of Power:The Secret World of Richard Nixon (2000).

I suspect that Tony Summers has upset Pamela McElwain-Brown because he does not believe Judyth Baker’s story. But then again, no serious researcher does believe her.

I don’t know what Tony Summers has done to upset J. Raymond Carroll. However, it is never a good idea to quote John McAdams. This is especially true when he is quoting Lisa Pease. She has complained several times that someone has been impersonating her on the John McAdams’s news group. His system of distributing information involves him controlling what he allows people to communicate. I cannot understand why anybody would want to receive information in this way. I have invited McAdams and his cronies to join this Forum on several occasions. This would allow them to freely post their opinions on the assassination. It would also give us the opportunity to openly challenge these views. It is no surprise that these lone gunman theorists are unwilling to participate in this kind of debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure Tony Summers is a 'Mick' and is frequently interviewed on Iris radio concerning watergate, but does not seem to mention JFK or his assassination in connection with it. He was interviewed on the most listened to radio programme,hosted by Pat Kenny when the Mark Felt story broke.

This is irrelevant, but I just thought I would clear the waters a bit!

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did indeed regret the fact that my then publisher - not I - decided to give my Kennedy assassination book the title Conspiracy. That word wound up on the cover because I had mooted something along the lines of the HSCA's (then fresh) finding of "probable" conspiracy. When the book was republished in the nineties I insisted that the title be changed to Not In Your Lifetime - a reference to Earl Warren's quote on publication of his Report, to the effect that some material not not be released "in your lifetime". It seems to me an affront that this should apply to any relevant material today. And, yes, I did say to Lisa Pease that I don't think a conspiracy has been proven - for the good reason that there is no definite, uncontested proof of conspiracy. Perhaps there was a plot, and my writings show that I'm very open to that possibility. But there's nothing finite, or indeed anything hard enough to "go to the bank" on. Any open-minded person ought to accept that.

I don't know what Pease means by her reference to "self-serving" - and no idea who Gary Webb may be. I certainly have never discussed anyone of that name with Pease or anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learn something new every day. I had no idea what a Mick was, and had to look it up. Same as when that great civil rights leader Jesse Jackson referred to New York City as Hymietown. I had never heard of a Hymie. I guess it's evident that I've led a sheltered life.

With respect to there not being anything hard enough to "go to the bank on" regarding a JFK conspiracy, that may be true, but I think you can reach a point in a criminal case where circumstantial evidence is simply overwhelming. To me a conspiracy in the JFK case is beyond a reasonable doubt, which is enough for conviction in court. The only problem is who to convict.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1980, with Blakey's Mafia-did-it The Plot To Kill The President coming fresh on the heels of the failed HSCA proceedings, Tony Summers' Conspiracy was a groundbreaking revelation for me. Summers' work has indeed withstood the test of time.
I don't know what Pease means by her reference to "self-serving" - and no idea who Gary Webb may be. I certainly have never discussed anyone of that name with Pease or anyone else.

I know this thread concerns Tony Summers' contribution to historical understanding, but I can't help but respond to the mention of Gary Webb. His death just before Christmas last year was incredibly troubling - two supposedly self-inflicted shots to the face. Gary Webb was a heroic, groundbreaking journalist who should not be forgotten:

http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2...mfe_webb_1.html

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Anthony Summers' date='Dec 31 2005, 09:49 PM' post='50286']

And, yes, I did say to Lisa Pease that I don't think a conspiracy has been proven - for the good reason that there is no definite, uncontested proof of conspiracy. Perhaps there was a plot, and my writings show that I'm very open to that possibility. But there's nothing finite, or indeed anything hard enough to "go to the bank" on. Any open-minded person ought to accept that.

Well, I guess that tell us doesn't it?

Tony Summers says "no proof of conspiracy".

I think Norman Mailer also came to this

"conclusion"- after KNOWING differently!!

The more things change...

Dawn

Edited by Dawn Meredith
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...