20-06-2018, 07:10 AM
I think Skyhorse has avoided publishing Judyth Baker's works for reasons unrelated to pressure from intel agencies. Her work is not universally loved. Not by a long shot.
And there may well be reasons they didn't want to publish Scott's work, or spend an extended amount of time nutting out details with him. If Trine Day are better, they can print Scott's latest work. If Trine Day and Scott don't currently get on, it seems a bit much to berate Skyhorse for feeling the same way.
As for Skyhorse being dedicated to the lone nut theory of history, I'd imagine at a rough guess that they've published well over 100 volumes dedicated to describing conspiracies, including JFK and others. They republished Harold Weisberg's complete works, and Mellen's book, and DiEugenio and others. In fact, next to Trine Day, they've probably published more pro-conspiracy books than any other mainstream US publisher. I wish other publishers would publish as many credible pro-conspiracy volumes as they have.
I'd hate to express judgement on Scott's commentary, but his post on this thread doesn't really constitute evidence of anything except his POV and thoughts at the time he wrote it - which is fine, but I can barely tell what Scott's involvement with Skyhorse was, let alone what the publisher did wrong.
And there may well be reasons they didn't want to publish Scott's work, or spend an extended amount of time nutting out details with him. If Trine Day are better, they can print Scott's latest work. If Trine Day and Scott don't currently get on, it seems a bit much to berate Skyhorse for feeling the same way.
As for Skyhorse being dedicated to the lone nut theory of history, I'd imagine at a rough guess that they've published well over 100 volumes dedicated to describing conspiracies, including JFK and others. They republished Harold Weisberg's complete works, and Mellen's book, and DiEugenio and others. In fact, next to Trine Day, they've probably published more pro-conspiracy books than any other mainstream US publisher. I wish other publishers would publish as many credible pro-conspiracy volumes as they have.
I'd hate to express judgement on Scott's commentary, but his post on this thread doesn't really constitute evidence of anything except his POV and thoughts at the time he wrote it - which is fine, but I can barely tell what Scott's involvement with Skyhorse was, let alone what the publisher did wrong.