Posts: 830
Threads: 135
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
I saw this on Amazon and am posting some details here in case others missed it, or if it's of general interest. HIGH TREASON author Harrison Edward Livingstone has published a 478-page review of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ASSASSINATION RECORDS REVIEW BOARD. [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Kaleidoscope-Review-Douglas-Assassination-Records/dp/1481012274/ref=pd_sim_b_4"]
[/URL]
http://www.amazon.com/Kaleidoscope-Revie..._sim_b_4#_
It's available in paperback, but not yet on Kindle. There's a 'look inside the book' feature which gives you a taster of what's inside. The circular nature of the whole exercise is kind of amusing and hopefully someone on CTKA will do a review of Livingstone's book in return.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
You know having read the preview, I don't know what to make of this "book".
Its pretty clear that Livingstone still despises Lifton. ANd he is going after Horne since Horne is and was a disciple of Best Evidence.
But man, Harry is such an unorganized and undisciplined non fiction author. In the best sense, his books are not really books. THey are a collection of essays without real flow and ebb and no arc e.g. High Treason 2, Killing the Truth. (Martin Hay listed this as one of the worst books ever on the JFK case and I agree.) And this carries over into his attempt at criticism. Its hard for him to separate the personal from the professional. Which is what you have to do as a critic. And you have to write clearly and in an organized fashion in order to make sure the reader follows your argument.
I have never read his novels, I sure hope they are better written than this.
Posts: 1,473
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
I read all that was allowed in this pitch to the suckers on the midway.
I have one of the High Treasons, maybe two.
Dr. Livingstone certainly despises Horne-Lifton.
The "correction" of the account of the major and the coffins and the arrivals is marred by the failure to follow the command "out".
In shutzhund training taking the sleeve of the gun arm is well and good, but equal points are awarded for "out".
Rictus Livingstone clamps down. The rest is low growls.
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Anthony, we aim to please at CTKA. You got your wish.
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kaleidoscope...stone.html
Posts: 1,473
Threads: 2
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Horne's Appendix 77 claims the four-page memo "has the smell of blackmail", claims that as elint v. humint is unquestionably a true account of Soviet analysis.
Livingstone likes it as support for his Texas-based plot.
United in blind acceptance of chimera.
Set the table: it's 1966: Johnson has appointed Helms DCI;
The day AFTER the Big Hit Castro did 12,000 words standing on his head and as much as said it smelled like CIA/patsy;
Jackie and Robert had already made it clear they didn't suspect Russians, but domestic players;
Hoover never did make heads nor tails of Mexico City--only that it was CIA lying--and his six FBI agents made liars out of the Phillips crew's claim the tapes were recycled each week.
Horne needs to have the body produced for sterilization (as did Lifton) and Livingstone needs Parliament and the Queen to beg him to intervene in the Naval Treaty.
The Soviets, being realists of the Lenin-Stalin-Brezhnev school don't need to pull an all-nighter on Johnson--they got his number when he came on the scene--
--Hoover only got his tin crown for FIGHTING THE RED MENACE (see also Nixon's 1946 race)--and Venona shows the democracy to be vulnerable to infiltration of spies--see also Garrison, Jim.
Perhaps Horne was being paid by the pound. Editing, condensing, indexing, foot-noting--and remove the untutored "smell of blackmail" comments.
Livingstone receives standing ovations at Nobel ceremonies but has not produced anything memorable.
He and Lifton are very generous with visceral criticism, vying with the slanderous Bugliosi.
Custer told Gunn and Horne a C3/4 with metal fragments was missing; told of the fracturing typical of an entry at the right temple.
To which Sherry Fiester adds the metal spray concentrated there (unrelated to the "rear entry" Pong game of the Three Stooges and Various Pompous Panels).
Backspatter, initial movement toward shooter, all proofs of frontal shot; no pre-autopsy, no drama.
Which is good. The murder of the president supplies all of that; the sacrifice of a subcontinent and a generation and a nation's soul--well, much bigger than one's ego, no?
The problem with the ARRB is that it didn't want to get answers from the autopsy claim of a rear entry wound. Such a board does not want the truth.
Truth would destroy the legitimacy of government, its ability to bluff its subjects into submission.
Posts: 3,905
Threads: 200
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Phil Dragoo Wrote:I read all that was allowed in this pitch to the suckers on the midway.
I have one of the High Treasons, maybe two.
Dr. Livingstone certainly despises Horne-Lifton.
The "correction" of the account of the major and the coffins and the arrivals is marred by the failure to follow the command "out".
In shutzhund training taking the sleeve of the gun arm is well and good, but equal points are awarded for "out".
Rictus Livingstone clamps down. The rest is low growls.
He needs a fact checker. I have Killing the Truth. Don't waste your money.
He just makes things up.
So I can't imagine getting a new volume where he vents his personal hatred.
Dawn
Posts: 515
Threads: 30
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2012
22-04-2013, 02:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-04-2013, 10:43 PM by Jim Hackett II.)
I have HT and HT2. I value them.
I value Killing Kennedy for some of the "Pre-Fetz" ZToon sections.
As flammable as both authors are I find myself drawing a line.
But all the others by HL I have read I do not value.
I find it more productive to disagree than to disagree and attack.
Credit where due,
HT brought my interest back to life at a time when I though I was
oh so burned out on all of it.
Marr's Crossfire too in that day before the film Oliver Stone made.
I guess by the time I read Reasonable Doubt I found I was not so burned out after all.
The hangover from the HSCA breach of faith redux was over.
Then Hollywood came to town...
And Thanks Phil and Jim for saving me the bucks at least on this HL job.
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
Posts: 830
Threads: 135
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Oct 2010
Good work Jim and thank you for the link. The Amazon reviews for this one are also very negative. So much effort (by Livingstone) to what seems so little purpose.
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
How could Livingstone be so stupid as to ignore the V notch cited by Dr Humes. Since Dr Humes indicated he saw surgery to the head at the very beginning of the 8 o'clock autopsy, and this surgery did not exist at Parkland, therefore the only place it could have occurred was at Lifton and Hornes' covert pre-autopsy. Also was it Custer who was climbing the stairs at Bethesda with JFK's x-rays in his hands when he looked out the window and saw the grey ambulance arriving with the Bronze casket?
These two things both verify Horne and destroy Livingstone's criticism of him in one short example. How could Livingstone be so foolish?
