My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Tracy Riddle]

A few months back on this forum I took Vince to task vehemently -- some at the time thought violently -- for his ostensibly long-concluded affaire d'amour with Bugliosi and a lesser known, not-quite-public dalliance with Gerald Posner. In speculating on the motivations for such perfidy, I drew attention to Vince's narcissism (just yesterday, on his Facebook page, he breathlessly noted how many times he is referenced in the McBride book -- a disturbing and too-common behavior exhibited within the contexts of other JFK-related works over the years that cannot be explained as a one-off, pre-publication book promotion tactic). And I did not write off the possibility that darker agendas were at play.

A good point. He does seem to review books that mention him somewhere in the text (even just the footnotes or bibliography). "Brothers" drops his name on one page, so he left one of his instant reviews on Amazon. "Breach of Trust" doesn't mention him, so he didn't review this truly great book.

Anyway, I'm done griping about him. It just annoys me how often I come across his self-promotion on the internet. This subject is not a parlor game, or a chance to build your career on the History Channel.

[Charles Drago]

A few months back on this forum I took Vince to task vehemently -- some at the time thought violently -- for his ostensibly long-concluded affaire d'amour with Bugliosi and a lesser known, not-quite-public dalliance with Gerald Posner. In speculating on the motivations for such perfidy, I drew attention to Vince's narcissism (just yesterday, on his Facebook page, he breathlessly noted how many times he is referenced in the McBride book -- a disturbing and too-common behavior exhibited within the contexts of other JFK-related works over the years that cannot be explained as a one-off, pre-publication book promotion tactic). And I did not write off the possibility that darker agendas were at play.

This subject is not a parlor game, or a chance to build your career on the History Channel.

Amen.

[Charles Drago]

Tracy and Charles,

I'm sure we can agree to disagree on numerous aspects of
assassination-related research. I think that's part of what
makes it such a rich and complex field of study. We can't expect to fully agree
with any of us.

I most assuredly do NOT "agree to disagree" with Nelson or his champion Palamara regarding the former's fatally flawed contention that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination.

There is ZERO evidence to place LBJ within the Sponsor level of any reasonable assassination model.

There is, however, compelling reasons to conclude that the resurrection of LBJ as a FALSE Sponsor, timed to reach a peak during 50th anniversary commemorations, is designed to support the ongoing cover-up.

So I am pleased that [Palamara] found my book helpful as well.

Joe

So how would you react to a similar endorsement from Nelson?

"Agree to disagree" means having a tolerance for differing views
and a willingness to have free exchanges. I try to do that. I think
the assassination research community does not benefit from
the kind of infighting that is too common in it.

So would you agree to disagree with Bugliosi on the matter of JFK's assassination?

Would you agree to disagree with Nelson? Would you welcome his endorsement of your book?

Are all positions on the JFK assassination worthy of respect?

(You should be aware that proponents of the "lone nut" lie are not welcome on this forum. I mention this in passing.)

Because if your answer is "yes" to these questions, then you're not engaged in a war for the soul and the future of your country.

You're engaged instead in a polite debate with the killers of JFK and their witting and unwitting surrogates.

Which does NOT argue against "tolerance for differing views and a willingness to have free exchanges."

It simply places you and your work in a specific context.

[Charles Drago]

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.

I reiterate a simple question:"Did you uncover evidence suggesting Tippit possessed 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?"

And another: "Do you concede that extraordinary skills relating to 'hitting a small target at a long distance' and the skills described in the previous question are other than synonymous?

Surely you can provide answers without returning to the "read my book" default position.

[Matthew Poe]

Joseph McBride,

I am excited about your book, given your establishment bona-fides (harder for it to be ignored as serious scholarship) and look forward very much to reading it. I'm sure your methods, as stated here, have availed something new in both uncovering and advancing understanding about the mechanics of the assassination and the conspiracy behind it.
I am quite sure that in his seminal and deeply flawed '65 work "Who Killed Kennedy," Thomas Buchanan named Tippit as one of the shooters. Were you aware of this coincidence? Do you think he had some good information and some disinformation or just playing on a lucky hunch? In case you haven't read Buchanan, writing from Europe as an American emigre, his thesis was that the assassination was a Rightist plot in the Bircher-Dixie-Minuteman mode.

[Anthony Thorne]

Good question Matthew, being pedantic I think Buchanan's book first came out very early (March/April) of '64, just a few months after the assassination itself. I am quite keen to read Joseph's book.

[Allan Peak]

Mr. McBride

Will this book be available in the UK?

Al

PS. Hi forum

[Joseph McBride]

Mr. McBride

Will this book be available in the UK?

Al

PS. Hi forum

Al,

The book is available only through Amazon.com, but the
fulfillment house will ship copies to the UK.

[Cliff Varnell]

Mr. McBride,

As you know, JFK was struck in the throat from the front. The round didn't exit and there was no round recovered during the autopsy.

JFK was struck in the back in the vicinity of his third thoracic vertebra. The round didn't exit and no round was recovered during autopsy.

Do you address this conundrum in your book?

[Joseph McBride]

Mr. McBride,

As you know, JFK was struck in the throat from the front. The round didn't exit and there was no round recovered during the autopsy.

JFK was struck in the back in the vicinity of his third thoracic vertebra. The round didn't exit and no round was recovered during autopsy.

Do you address this conundrum in your book?

Yes, indeed. Clarifying the wounds is essential to showing that
the Warren Report was a sham and that Oswald was scapegoated. And I have a lengthy section on bullets not admitted by the Warren Commission. The bullet
that Alan H. Belmont, assistant director of the FBI, wrote on the night of the assassination was "lodged
behind the president's ear" is one of them. I have a section in INTO THE NIGHTMARE on the Belmont memo, which
alone destroys the Warren Report. I discovered that memo in the mid-eighties, at a time
when it had never been written about. Douglas Horne discusses it in his books, but it is still
rarely discussed. I go into that key piece of evidence in detail and include corroborating information on the fact that Kennedy was struck
by a bullet in the right temple, fired from the Grassy Knoll.