Matthew Poe Wrote:Joseph McBride,

I want to make clear that I meant no disrespect with regard to mentioning "Who Killed Kennedy?" I have always thought that it made sense Tippitt was involved in the plot on some level. Can I take it from your non response that you weren't aware of the '64 book's claim and it didn't inspire your research? Perhaps I am ignorant and there is a long tradition of suspicion falling on Tippitt.

If you don't reply I still am ordering your book and look forward to reading it. I have your Capra book and found the research masterful.

Joseph McBride Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:

Joseph McBride Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Joseph,

I have read and considered with the utmost care your argument that the so-called Badge Man figure firing at JFK could very well be J. D. Tippit.

Here is a splendid case-in-point in which the application of a refined and encompassing conspiracy model informed by not just the facts of the assassination as we know them, but also by a broad and deep understanding of deep political systems and methodologies, can lead us to valuable insight.

Has your unarguably valuable research uncovered evidence of Tippit possessing world-class marksmanship skills of the sort associated with snipers firing at moving targets while operating as part of a military style, two- or three-person team?

Here's why I ask: I'm not alone in having concluded that the conspirators (at the Sponsor and Facilitator levels, at least) understood that, once initiated, the attack on JFK must succeed if their own security and that of the institutions they represented were to be preserved.

Accordingly, only the most accomplished snipers in the world would have been entrusted with the assignment of fatally wounding the president.

If it can be documented that Tippit possessed such rare skills, then you're on to something.

If not, then Tippit-as-Badge-Man either was shooting blanks (perhaps as a diversionary tactic) or was servicing an as yet poorly understood aspect of the ambush.

To put it another way: Absent proof of Tippit's sniping prowess, identifying him as one of the JFK shooters is as foolhardy as naming the likes of Johnny Roselli, Charles Nicoletti, James Files, and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Thank you, Charles. I'm not sure why you wonder
if there is proof of Tippit's shooting prowess in the book, because there is.
See the references to J. D. Tippit's
marksmanship, including the story told me by his father about
his son's uncanny skill in hitting a small target at a long distance. The
retaining wall where Badge Man was firing was relatively close to the position of the limousine. Kennedy was
hit at least twice from the Grassy Knoll. There probably were two
shooters there. That too is covered extensively in the book.

I understand.

But I was not asking after Tippit's skills relating to "hitting a small target at a long distance."

Rather, I specifically referenced "world-class marksmanship skills of the sort associated with snipers firing at moving targets while operating as part of a military style, two- or three-person team."

A world of difference.

Charles, I find it hard to argue about whether or not topics are discussed
in my book when in fact I do discuss a subject at different points in the book; I mentioned one such piece of information. Please look up the references to this
subject in my book.

Matthew Poe Wrote:Joseph McBride,
Thank you for answering, it was well worth the wait. In my follow-up, I was just clarifying that I had no problem with your thesis and was not attempting a sly dig at it by mentioning Buchanan's flawed work. Because while most sources maintain he was a blacklisted communist journalist working as a computer analyst in Paris there have been suspicions voiced (at least over at EF) that he was actually affiliated with the Agency somehow. Was not perhaps Sauvage (or was it Joeston?) raising that possibility when--in a review of "WHO KILLED KENNEDY?"--he mused that Buchanan had blamed every interest that could have potentially benefited from JFK's assassination except the big one--the one that mattered the most: i.e. the Warfare State. Any thoughts in that direction, i.e. that the book would have been an attempt to take highly skeptical Europeans in the wrong direction, away from the military/CIA to the southern racists is pure speculation however, not keeping in the spirit of your work. And no matter how you slice it looking back from the generations his hunch (inside info?) about Tippitt is indeed remarkable.

I look forward more than ever to reading your book and I'm glad you are busy doing press for it.

I recommend FRANK CAPRA: THE CATASTROPHE OF SUCCESS to anyone enamored with classic movies and interested in studio history. Along with a couple of others, it is in my accounting, the highest manifestation of the genre.

Quote:The intensification of the LBJ-as-mastermind operation has been noted for some months now and is openly scheduled to continue through the fall. The work of one of its prime Facilitators, "author" Phillip Nelson (prime exponent of the "mastermind" characterization), recently was referenced on this forum and prompted a generally admirable JFK assassination author to note that we are obliged by the dictates of professional courtesy not to challenge the motives of our fellow correspondents, but rather to bow from the waist (my description) and politely "agree to disagree" with them when necessary.

Where does such courtesy end?

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Charles:

Quote:The intensification of the LBJ-as-mastermind operation has been noted for some months now and is openly scheduled to continue through the fall. The work of one of its prime Facilitators, "author" Phillip Nelson (prime exponent of the "mastermind" characterization), recently was referenced on this forum and prompted a generally admirable JFK assassination author to note that we are obliged by the dictates of professional courtesy not to challenge the motives of our fellow correspondents, but rather to bow from the waist (my description) and politely "agree to disagree" with them when necessary.

Where does such courtesy end?

I presume you are referring to McBride here. I found this call for a polite disengagement to be disappointing on his part. Saying we must 'agree to disagree' should only come after every effort has been expended to be understand the argument of the other. But when the concern is to promote a book, one would never want to engage in a genuine dialogue which would expose its weaknesses. It would hurt business.