22-06-2018, 01:29 AM
James, the Turner Christian RFK book was suppressed and buried on first publication. It's since been re-released (twice) and is available on Amazon. It's a good book.
Skyhorse has several JFK conspiracy books that don't point fingers at the CIA. I've simply listed the ones that do as I find it a more compelling premise. The ones I haven't listed touch a number of the topics you included in your second list of works.
Walt Brown also mentioned that 'Richard Belzer's publisher' helped him put his numerous ebooks onto Amazon. Walt's thesis is that 'Army intelligence' played a major role in the hit - he returns to the phrase again and again in his works - and the other renowned players did their part too, including Texans, national right-wingers, Marcello, oilmen and military contractors, etc. I'm assuming that 'Army intelligence' is not too far removed from 'military intelligence', and Belzer's publisher is Skyhorse. Somehow Skyhorse didn't feel the need to ask Walt to redact those accusations from his books.
Out of the numerous volumes you mentioned you read in preparation for your own work, I'm assuming you didn't read the first volume of Walt Brown's ebook chronology - titled 'Dynasty' - as it tears apart Baker's book on a near page by page basis. It's probably the most comprehensive demolition of another volume I've encountered in the literature. To see you rank that book, and Piper's 'Mossad did it' tome, and the Torbitt file in your list of preferred assassination volumes does not fill me with confidence for some reason. Also on your list, from his decades of writing freely available on his website, it should be fairly clear which groups DiEugenio feels were involved in the assassination, and which ones weren't. Re the Caulfield volume, DiEugenio, in his long review, ranks it among the worst books on the case ever written, and his criticisms are fairly specific.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kenne...nt-kennedy
We might have to agree to disagree from here on out, as I disagree with both your assertions there. You read Hinkle and Turner's DEADLY SECRETS, right? Disagreements are fine and your contributions are enjoyable but I'm not quite on board with the arguments you've put forward here.
Skyhorse has several JFK conspiracy books that don't point fingers at the CIA. I've simply listed the ones that do as I find it a more compelling premise. The ones I haven't listed touch a number of the topics you included in your second list of works.
Walt Brown also mentioned that 'Richard Belzer's publisher' helped him put his numerous ebooks onto Amazon. Walt's thesis is that 'Army intelligence' played a major role in the hit - he returns to the phrase again and again in his works - and the other renowned players did their part too, including Texans, national right-wingers, Marcello, oilmen and military contractors, etc. I'm assuming that 'Army intelligence' is not too far removed from 'military intelligence', and Belzer's publisher is Skyhorse. Somehow Skyhorse didn't feel the need to ask Walt to redact those accusations from his books.
Out of the numerous volumes you mentioned you read in preparation for your own work, I'm assuming you didn't read the first volume of Walt Brown's ebook chronology - titled 'Dynasty' - as it tears apart Baker's book on a near page by page basis. It's probably the most comprehensive demolition of another volume I've encountered in the literature. To see you rank that book, and Piper's 'Mossad did it' tome, and the Torbitt file in your list of preferred assassination volumes does not fill me with confidence for some reason. Also on your list, from his decades of writing freely available on his website, it should be fairly clear which groups DiEugenio feels were involved in the assassination, and which ones weren't. Re the Caulfield volume, DiEugenio, in his long review, ranks it among the worst books on the case ever written, and his criticisms are fairly specific.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kenne...nt-kennedy
Quote:rehashing Warren Commission issues likewise is a dead-end effort, and the anti-Castro Cubans have never amounted to much of a theory
We might have to agree to disagree from here on out, as I disagree with both your assertions there. You read Hinkle and Turner's DEADLY SECRETS, right? Disagreements are fine and your contributions are enjoyable but I'm not quite on board with the arguments you've put forward here.