Best book about the JFK assassination

[John Simkin]

Last year, I was able to buy several of the older 1960's books.. some have interesting bits of info that has been forgotten through the years. I have a notebook of such items to evenually check out. I have found that some things were only erroneous info from unreliable sources or perhaps misunderstandings... misinfo.

I have also discovered that some things have been passed down from book to book and still believable today, yet was actually erreonous info. to begin with. So, I have discovered it is best to check sources as best you can.         

Dixie Dea makes an important point. Many of the books are no more than summaries of other books written about the case. This often involves repeating mistakes made by earlier writers. It is these mistakes that people like John McAdams concentrate on. To be fair to the authors concerned, I am sure they would agree they made mistakes in their books. However, the problem is, how do you get those mistakes corrected. Books do not always have second print-runs. I know from bitter experience, that publishers are reluctant to make alterations to second print-runs because it adds to the expense of the venture.

This raises the issue of how we communicate details of our research. I think that electronic publishing provides some answers to these problems. A mistake on a website can be corrected almost immediately at no cost to the publisher. Forums like this are very useful for pointing out mistakes. The experiment of discussing Larry Hancock’s book on the forum is an interesting one. I suspect that this debate will have an impact on the second edition of this book. It will also probably influence the contents of his next book.

I believe the quality of the books/articles/websites produced on the JFK in the future will depend on how they are written. The quality will also depend on the collaboration that takes place during the writing process. For this to work effectively, the author needs to be open-minded and be willing to change what he/she has written, if fellow collaborators point out flaws in their work. This takes intellectual courage (and a great deal of self-confidence). Let us hope that researchers can develop that most important of traits.

[Larry Hancock]

Dixie always makes good points

I can say from personal experience that forums are invaluable for surfacing

corrections, regardless of how much peer review occured before publication.

On the basic question though, one solution is electroniclly available errata sheets. The third version for my book is posted on Lancer now with the fourth becoming available this month I hope. And the errata include not only corrections but elaborations on content (such as John's pointing out Billing's involvement in Garrison's investigation) and new research (such as the Red Bird DC3 incident). As I see it the author has to stay with a book for at least a year afterwards doing corrections and essentially improving it. Noel Twyman did a sincere job on a print errata sheet for Bloody Treason but his health did not permit his carrying that on beyond a certain point. And waiting years for a second edition really does not cut it.

P.S. Anyone wishing to receive copies of my errata sheet can always email me directly as well as send corrections or elaborations. I'm all for colloboration in whatever form possible.

-- Larry

[Jim Hackett II]

Larry (or Mr. Hancock as you would prefer):

You may rest assured that I too will get your book as it seems to be quite good. and a necessary addition to my library.

I too agree that I wish Mr. Twyman would put out a new edition of Bloody Treason or a BT 2.

I am sure from the quality and depth of his work in that volumn that it was a trying task to get written.

I would also compliment his efforts to keep the readers updated on errata and such.

If he cannot or doesn't do so, I am glad to have the book he did do.

I would encourage any curious people to read this book and it is too bad that it isn't more widely available, my local library had a copy so I knew I had to get it.

I may not have as big a bookself as some but darned if I don't find myself building another additonal shelf or two every few months.

Concerning Mr. Twyman, As he said in his book this whole issue can consume and keep consuming one's life until one learns to draw a line.

And I don't know this but I would "bet" that the contentions and "flame fests" can be quite discouraging. I mean writing a good book is not easy and it becomes an almost living thing breathing life force into a crafted creative effort can make it hard to listen to some tear apart your thinking and work.

Foolhardy it would be for me to say, "can't we all get along."

It is necessary for me to "take a break" from the research sometimes, just to maintain a life outside of the "Black Ops Era." For me anyway.

On the positive side, at the encouragement of my partner the last self imposed break lead to finally starting my own manuscript after about a 6 month break.

She is the one that saved all the books CDs and printouts etc. when I thought I had thrown them out in the trash.

One day a certain Mr. Gary Mack made me mad when I heard him say on TV that "We will never know now..."

Oh but to the contrary, we know more all the time these days, in spite of efforts to convince us that the WC solved the case 40 years ago. More is "known" and provable now than ever before.

In a week or three I'll get your book. And seek to get it added to the local library and/or reserve it so I can read it before I can afford it.

It is all too clear that some people have been talking about the conspiracy from even before it's culmination in Dallas.

Best to you and all

Jim Hackett II

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Jim, thanks for the remarks and just a little information about Noel Twyman, actually he did continue a bit of research after the publication of his book and he was kind enough to let me publish it for him as an appendix to my own (which is directionally a continuation of work done by both Gaeton Fonzi, Dick Russell and Noel Twyman). The appendix is Noel's extensive interview with Roy Hargraves and Gerry Hemmings brother. I also managed to integrate some additional work that Noel had done verifying that Col. William Biship (or whatever rank he really was) did indeed know Hargraves circa 1963.

Noel had done the work with the thought of a second addition but age, health problems and a good sound view of priorities led him to decide to at least try and avoid the temptations of Kennedy conspiracy obsession - a challenge most of us cycle through every few years...grin.

And it's definitely Larry, nothing more formal than that...

[Jim Hackett II]

Larry:

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY for this information.

I hope only the BEST for and to Mr. Twyman.

And to yourself naturally,

OK Now "ya Dunit!" all doubt is removed and all haste is reinforced to get your book. <Grin>

Got my curiosity up.

By the way I find the local library doesn't have this book yet, so I recommended it for purchase, for what ever good that might do. ??

The staff is usually very good about keeping current on this topic. Pro and Con. As it should be to keep all good sources open. FWIW.

Again thank you.

Jim Hackett II

[James Richards]

For Jim and anyone else who hasn't read Larry's book, the interview with Roy Hargraves is fascinating indeed. There are a couple of real jaw droppers in there.

Hargraves (family name Mings) is one of those guys who hasn't received much press over the years but Larry tackles him head on. Hargraves and his friend Vidal are prime suspects indeed.

James

[Jim Hackett II]

Very much intrigued. Very much determined to acquire this book.

Moreover because my own interest is the "people factor", meaning linkages and empowerment of people commonly known to interested people.

Given to that my feeble efforts to write focus on a "longview" of the trend of history from about 1930-2002. With the November Coup being a crucial watershed point in time. Not limited to a strictly U.S. History focus as so many parallel events overlap other nations too.

Indeed this will be money well spent I am sure.

Only Best Regards

Jim Hackett II

[John Simkin]

When you get a copy of Larry's excellent book I suggest you join the debate on it here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=693

It will give you the opportunity to shape the contents of the next edition. I would especially recommend this action if you are one of those people discussed in the book.

[Jim Hackett II]

Uh Well Gee John:

How can I react?

I'll order this book soonest, then I would have some questions for Larry to seek his opinion as it would seem we likely agree on most things and even if we don't, that is the means to finding new data sometimes. Given civil discourse.

After having perused the table of contents and preface at Lancer's site, I am impressed as the trend of thought seems to be near the things I want to know about.

Like David Morales with that subset of likely conspirators and so forth. And a heck of a lot more I bet.

Between Dick Russell's epic book TMWKTM, Bloody Treason and Larry's work I would bet the image of the real assassination is clear.

A thought keeps returning to my thinking: Fletcher Prouty is reported to have said when asked "who knew before?" "They all knew."

In the longview I prefer, the absence of the codeword level material on the Cabinet plane bound for Tokyo is a large statement, the traitorous actions of the highest Cabinet and JCS level of the US Government must be considered if not explained.

Who stood down the 112th Intelligence Group from doing their assigned duty to suppliment the Secret Service. This had to be Cabinet or Joint Chief of Staff level. No little group of conspirators playing around on the periphery of power centers.

Or the probability that if the shooter from the rear had made the head shot, the Zapruder film would have been on the evening news and Lee Oswald would have been executed in short order by the Texas Justice system, even if he were in the second floor lunchroom all along.

Sadly given the huge nature of the jigsaw puzzle we are left with by the 5 primary US Government based "investigations" all evidentiary rules must be applied to make reasonable estimates of what is credible and what is not.

I was very VERY impressed with this point made in Larry's preface. As I was when I read that near exact point made in Twyman's Bloody Treason.

I anticipate Larry's work being a central piece of the solution, along with the seminal works of Lifton and Weisberg and Fetzer for the on scene screw ups of the execution of the coup itself. And the long view of Russell and Scott and Twyman and Larry compliment the view from a distance to get past the short focus of the Dealy Plaza impressionist painting we are supposed to be drawn into. The smoke and mirrors thereof.

We are the only Jury the case will ever get and the rules of evidence will have to be learned if we all are really ever to function as that jury. No matter our personal opinion about the guilt of Lee Oswald, the "case" deserves no less, the validity of the US Government and it's implied "consent of the governed" DEMAND we function as jurors. Jurors are charged with judging the law and the conduct of the prosecution and enforcement agents of the legal system in most states along with adjudicating the "guilt and innocence" of any accused.

If more people knew that fact and applied it when in the jury box, the very top people of the "invisible government" would quake in fear of exposure.

The American Bar association won't tell citizens this fact, nor is it in the interests of the prosecutors or the "law enforcment empire."

This is a duty of the citizenry just like voting and conscription, IMHO, but those duties have been rendered meaningless to effectively eliminate the power of the people to seek redress of grievance. I have serious problems with conscription by jerks that avoided the draft or deserted in their own time of testing.

More than enough said I reckon.

Best to all

Jim

Edited May 11, 2004 by Jim Hackett II

[Larry Hancock]

Hi Jim, I'll leave these comments for your return...you've raised some items which are far to broad for an easy forum reply but maybe I can provide some food for thought.

1) It is amazing how much more we know of the cover-up and indeed the details of the hours and days immediately following the assassination now. Much of it is from ARRB era releases, CIA segragated files esp. on Mexico City, the Johnson tapes and areas like Horne's ARRB work on Bethusda - the two brains etc. You can draw your own conclusions from the book but mine is that the cover-up was much more reactive, iterative and in many cases marginal than commonly accepted. In fact without Johnson's ongoing pressure back on Dallas, on Hoover, on Mexico City, on the press and his manipulation of first the Texas Court of Inquiry and later the WC I think conspiracy might have been the generally accepted conclusion. Hoover did not want to exclude it from the FBI report, Mexico City CIA, FBI and Mann were pushing it heavily and had D.C. badly stressed over first Kostikov/Oswald and then Oswald/Alvarado.

It is important to realize though that Johnson was not the only one actively countering talk of conspiracy - so was Robert Kennedy. Mann makes this clear in a letter to the HSCA. There are also suggestions that there was actually a high level contingency plan that kicked in based on prior concerns (initiatially established at RFK's request) about Castro retaliation against senior U.S. government officals for the attempts on his life. This area is very cloudy at the moment but you may well see more detail emerge on it within the coming year. This plan was apparently leaked to the HSCA early on but as with many things was not explored - at least for the record.

2) As to the cabinent flight and code book, I'm not sure that's terribly significant because the reality of the situation was that there were really only two people who could have changed the course of events, the new President and the Attorney General. If RFK had aggressively championed a case of conspiracy not even Johnson could have stood against him, but he didn't. There are some tantilizing rumors that from the very inner Kennedy circle that there was at least minimal discussion about what would have to be done to prevent Johnson taking office but that is sheer gossip and I'm not sure it will ever be more. As we all know though, to this day the Kennedy family in general is very uncooperative in regard to anyone on this subject ...especially in regard to access to primary evidence, we won't even go into dumping the coffin (a primary piece of evidence in regard to Bethusda as Lifton and Livingston developed) into the Atlantic ocean at Bobby's request.

3) As to the 112th and Prouty, a very long story there with much work done by the ARRB including an extensive follow-on interview of Prouty in regard to his remarks about the stand down, and with others in the 112th. Still a lot of questions about some areas but I'd urge you to read the actual interviews with all parties, the background material on the 112th and the ARRB working papers. You

can get it all from NARA or from Lancer on my CD which includes my work on the 112th.

4) You mentioned the other investigations - for reference we also know a great deal more about the subversion of the Garrison information since we have the CIA internal working files and memos on their Garrison Team and we also have the Justice Department files. Interestingly one can make a great case that Justice was a great deal more active in subverting the investigation and especially in aiding Shaw's defense than the CIA. In fact in most cases the local FBI office was reporting to Justice who informed CIA and it was the local FBI who arranged the actual meetings with Shaws lawyers and support for them. This could be a book in itself for anyone wanting to slog through the documents.

-- Larry

[Jim Hackett II]

I appreciate your input Larry:

I will be off to NARA shortly.

I will be back. Again.

It will take an awful lot to convince me that Fletcher Pouty didn't portray events accurately. Too many times the "story" refutes his data but time and further disclosures prove him to have been right all along.

Did ARRB disclose who made the call? Or did they refute the idea of a call?

Without knowing I bet they tried to obfuscate the issue.

Jim

Edited May 12, 2004 by Jim Hackett II

[Larry Hancock]

Jim, actually the ARRB first put in a lot of background work on the structure, mission and assignments for the 112th...including tracking down the actual unit records to determine who was really in charge of what in given time frames. That was a little difficult because the 112th was cross-supporting another MI organization which was being rebuilt after a move in that period. But you can't really figure out what was going on without getting it's structure and tasking correct - which they did. Then you will see a lot of work papers dealing not only with the stand down but other issues like Col. Jones testimony and Powell's photographs. Lots of background work before they starting asking any questions at all. Then you will find interviews with several unit members including Dallas personel and the officer supposedly in charge of the stand-down. His interview and letter to the Army about the stand-down story is pretty interesting.

Only then did they invite Col. Prouty who was very gracious about coming in and giving a long interview including remarks about how he heard the stand down story - at that point it actually becomes possible to do enough leg work to determine what rank the person who called him actually held. But you have to dig into the personnel rosters. This is a story that is still being investigated as there are some additional internal communications for the group which have been turned up but nothing at variance with the ARRB leg work.

If you are going to NARA drop me an email and I may be able to direct you to some interesting new documents that have recently become visible including some relating to the Bayo mission that I have not seen myself.

As to the 112th and the stand-down, I'll leave that to your interpretation but the good news is that there is a great deal of data and as far as I can see no particular obfuscation. There is also universal agreement among all the 112th personnel with the exception of Col. Jones....he (and who called him to testify to the Church Committee and HSCA) remains a mystery (especially since his assignment and duties on November 22 are clearly supported by the documents we do have going to him from Dallas and he seems to have forgotten what job he was really performing as of that time when he gives his committee tesimony) - if there is obfuscation it may well be Jone's testimony which seems to have absolutely and incorrectly diverted attention from the mystery man behind the fence with government identification. That is especially important since we have an FBI report naming a possible candidate for at least one person in Dallas with fake Secret Service ID.

-- Larry

[Jim Hackett II]

Dag gone it.

I had a reply worked out and got interrupted and when I came back and finished and tried to post it I was "no longer logged in" and lost it all.

Larry:

You certainly crank the intrigued factor up and in great ways.

I went to NARA's site but didn't find anything in the online part, so maybe in June on a long awaited vacation we can go to Maryland.

In the meantime I do want to get your work and the CD with it first.

I'll ask and expect she will find this a good idea as she has never seen D.C.

I did as an Ironworker when wild and unattached and a TDY month on active duty when also wild and unattached but also young.

I went through my sources here and found some detials in MIDP Fetzer's timeline and Bloody Treason and Mr. Twyman's interview with Col Prouty (ret.)

No one seems to have owned up to tell me who called the 112th MI group.

Also Agreed! about Jones covering up as thats what spooks do.

It training and second nature to them. IMHO.

Oddly I didn't find any reference to the 112trh MI Group in the WCReport or vols, but I didn't do a very thorough search.

I'll have to be out for a few days but I'll be back.

Thanks and I'll email in a few days after we discuss it, she would enjoy it as she has never seen D.C. The Smithsonian alone is worth the effort.

Jim Hackett II

[Kilroy]

(1) "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why" by Albert Newman

By far, the most carefully researched book on the assassination ever published.

(2) "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner

The SECOND most carefully researched book on the assassination.

(3) "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J. D. Tippit" by Dale Myers

Another model of assassination research.

(4) "Pictures of the Pain" by Richard Trask

Who knew even a blurry, overexposed photo could be worth a thousand words?

(5) "That Day in Dallas" by Richard Trask

Part 2 of "Pictures of the Pain"

(6) "Final Disclosure" by David Belin

(7) "Oswald's Game" by Jean Davison

(8) "Lee Harvey Oswald and the American Dream" by Paul Sites

(9) "Assignment: Oswald" by James P. Hosty, Jr.

(10) "Moment of Madness: The People vs. Jack Ruby" by Elmer Gertz

Edited May 17, 2004 by Kilroy

[John Simkin]

(1) "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why" by Albert Newman

By far, the most carefully researched book on the assassination ever published.

(2) "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner

The SECOND most carefully researched book on the assassination.

For an alternative view on Posner's Case Closed read:

http://www.assassinationweb.com/issue1.htm