My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Peter Lemkin]

From memory, Mary F's boss and some of her friends and 'contacts' were quite right-wingers [not that that would automatically make her one...but it does lend some je ne sais quoi to the equation]. Mary was a gatekeeper, for sure....even who she'd see and let have information...aside from what information she imparted - or asked doggedly about. I think she was DEEPLY interested in knowing all she could about the assassination and all of its players and connections, but may have had another secret agenda, as well. It is hard to prove, but I always had that feeling from the way she treated me and other of her actions and inactions. We still owe a huge debt to her, whatever her motives were. There were other researchers who I believe played a dual role....I'll save naming them for some other time.

[Charles Drago]

But was Mary's mission -- and yes, she was on a mission -- to sink the Titanic? Or the Bismarck?

Maybe the answer is "Yes".

I deserved that one.

And you're right.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Mr. McBride I just ordered your book on Amazon, but what's up with the shipping time? Why does Amazon not have any copies available and has to send it to another publisher beginning with the letter v? They are giving me a date of sometime between July 10th and 25th. That is WAY too long. I might be removed against my will by then to France.

This is the only time of year i have any reading time. Frustrating my skull.

[Allen Lowe]

allright. I eagerly await the details.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Joseph:

Why did you self publish?

I am sure you could have gotten a publisher if you tried.

[Joseph McBride]

Joseph:

Why did you self publish?

I am sure you could have gotten a publisher if you tried.

Thanks -- I wanted to be completely independent with this book. Hightower Press is
my own company. Self-publishing has become more of a viable option in this
age of electronic typesetting and print-on-demand. Once Amazon started
distributing self-published books, it was a major change.

I self-published my first book in 1968, but the distribution options were very limited
back in those days. Some books are right for major commercial publishers and university presses, and I've
worked with many in this country and abroad. Vintage Books published
my WRITING IN PICTURES: SCREENWRITING MADE (MOSTLY) PAINLESS in 2012. My 1982 Howard Hawks
interview book, HAWKS ON HAWKS, is coming back into print
this fall from the University Press of Kentucky. My STEVEN SPIELBERG:
A BIOGRAPHY came out in a new third edition last fall from Faber
and Faber in England, and the book was also published recently
for the first time in mainland China. But some books are suited
for the self-publishing route and can do well in that way. I would
recommend it to others in our field.

[Joseph McBride]

Mr. McBride I just ordered your book on Amazon, but what's up with the shipping time? Why does Amazon not have any copies available and has to send it to another publisher beginning with the letter v? They are giving me a date of sometime between July 10th and 25th. That is WAY too long. I might be removed against my will by then to France.

This is the only time of year i have any reading time. Frustrating my skull.

Thanks for ordering the book from Amazon, Nathaniel, and for being eager to read it. INTO THE NIGHTMARE is a print-on-demand title published
by my own company, Hightower Press, with fulfillment by another company. It takes a little longer to get books this
way than it might from Amazon directly. Hopefully
you'll get it in ten days or two weeks. Thanks for your patience.

[Charles Drago]

I apologize for posting the material below yet again. It's just that the soon-to-be-eliminated delay between the times of my posts and the times of their appearances on-line often lead to them being buried.

So, Mr. McBride, once more I offer the following:


I add my voice to those raised in welcome, Joseph McBride. You appear to bring to these pages the all-too-rare investigative technique that answers the question, "Must our work be driven by rationality or intuition?" with a resounding "Yes!"

It was the late radical historian and JFK author George Michael Evica (And We are All Mortal; A Certain Arrogance) who first appreciated the JFK conspiracy as dramaturgy -- one vulnerable to studies by criminalists and literary scholars, but deeply understood only when both perspectives are equally valued and applied.

Given the literary inclinations and/or talents of three uber-suspects within the Facilitator level of the plot (James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and E. Howard Hunt) and one in the doggerel-eat-doggerel cheap seats (Clay Shaw), we should not be surprised.

I give a nod to all this in my Introduction to A Certain Arrogance. And I share a small excerpt from Evica's c.v. on this thread -- he taught Myth and Ritual in Literature, Genre Studies in Literature, Literary Criticism, Consciousness Development and the Symbolic Process, Linguistics, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Investigative Reporting, and Investigative History. He also studied Advanced Studies in Linguistics and Anthropology at Columbia University and Advanced Studies in Myth and Literature at Hartford Seminary Foundation -- to underscore my contention that the depth of one's investigation into the JFK assassination may be measured in direct proportion to the breadth of the mind conducting it.

We would benefit, I'm certain, from your thoughts on all this.

Also, you'll note above that I reference the "Facilitator" level of the JFK plot. At a certain point in any serious investigation of the assassination, the investigator must arrive at a working model for the conspiracy -- one based on fact and insight gathered to date, open to development and de-construction, and useful in the reverse-engineering of what we know to have taken place.

So as not to overload a single post, I'll go into detail a bit later.

Thanks so much for your attention.

AND ...

When I use the terms Sponsors, False Sponsors, Facilitators, and Mechanics, I do so within the context of what has come to be known as the Evica-Drago Model for the JFK conspiracy:

SPONSORS -- Those with the authority and motive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitating agents and systems. Among them in my opinion: the most powerful supra-national entities who were -- and are -- above Cold War and Clash of Civilization cosmetic differences.

FALSE SPONSORS -- Selected primarily from involved high-level FACILITATORS and otherwise uninvolved entities who logically might have come under suspicion. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, the CIA, the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Big Business, Big Oil, Castro, Khrushchev, etc.

FACILITATORS -- From the "princes" who directly and/or through buffers routinely interacted with and carried out the agendas of the SPONSORS and who created the plot in all its complexities, through high-level members of facilitating organizations, to mid- to low-level functionaries who performed the heavy lifting. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, David Sanchez Morales, Lucien Conein, Gerald Patrick Hemming, "William Bishop" and other CIA officers and agents, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Rosselli, Jimmy Hoffa, certain Secret Service, FBI and military intelligence officers and agents, individuals intimately linked to Big Business and Big Oil, certain Dallas elected officials and members of the DPD, certain members of the print and broadcast media, certain heads of state, etc. etc. etc.

MECHANICS -- The gunmen and support personnel on-site who carried out the attack and escape-evade procedures. Among them in my opinion: possibly a team from Pakse Base, former Wermacht/SS sniper(s), etc. Think the most skilled hunters of humans on the planet.

Your thoughts, if you please.

[Joseph McBride]

I apologize for posting the material below yet again. It's just that the soon-to-be-eliminated delay between the times of my posts and the times of their appearances on-line often lead to them being buried.

So, Mr. McBride, once more I offer the following:


I add my voice to those raised in welcome, Joseph McBride. You appear to bring to these pages the all-too-rare investigative technique that answers the question, "Must our work be driven by rationality or intuition?" with a resounding "Yes!"

It was the late radical historian and JFK author George Michael Evica (And We are All Mortal; A Certain Arrogance) who first appreciated the JFK conspiracy as dramaturgy -- one vulnerable to studies by criminalists and literary scholars, but deeply understood only when both perspectives are equally valued and applied.

Given the literary inclinations and/or talents of three uber-suspects within the Facilitator level of the plot (James Jesus Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, and E. Howard Hunt) and one in the doggerel-eat-doggerel cheap seats (Clay Shaw), we should not be surprised.

I give a nod to all this in my Introduction to A Certain Arrogance. And I share a small excerpt from Evica's c.v. on this thread -- he taught Myth and Ritual in Literature, Genre Studies in Literature, Literary Criticism, Consciousness Development and the Symbolic Process, Linguistics, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Investigative Reporting, and Investigative History. He also studied Advanced Studies in Linguistics and Anthropology at Columbia University and Advanced Studies in Myth and Literature at Hartford Seminary Foundation -- to underscore my contention that the depth of one's investigation into the JFK assassination may be measured in direct proportion to the breadth of the mind conducting it.

We would benefit, I'm certain, from your thoughts on all this.

Also, you'll note above that I reference the "Facilitator" level of the JFK plot. At a certain point in any serious investigation of the assassination, the investigator must arrive at a working model for the conspiracy -- one based on fact and insight gathered to date, open to development and de-construction, and useful in the reverse-engineering of what we know to have taken place.

So as not to overload a single post, I'll go into detail a bit later.

Thanks so much for your attention.

AND ...

When I use the terms Sponsors, False Sponsors, Facilitators, and Mechanics, I do so within the context of what has come to be known as the Evica-Drago Model for the JFK conspiracy:

SPONSORS -- Those with the authority and motive to sanction the assassination and the connections to engage facilitating agents and systems. Among them in my opinion: the most powerful supra-national entities who were -- and are -- above Cold War and Clash of Civilization cosmetic differences.

FALSE SPONSORS -- Selected primarily from involved high-level FACILITATORS and otherwise uninvolved entities who logically might have come under suspicion. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, the CIA, the Mob, anti-Castro Cubans, Big Business, Big Oil, Castro, Khrushchev, etc.

FACILITATORS -- From the "princes" who directly and/or through buffers routinely interacted with and carried out the agendas of the SPONSORS and who created the plot in all its complexities, through high-level members of facilitating organizations, to mid- to low-level functionaries who performed the heavy lifting. Among them in my opinion: LBJ, James Angleton, Edward Lansdale, David Atlee Phillips, David Sanchez Morales, Lucien Conein, Gerald Patrick Hemming, "William Bishop" and other CIA officers and agents, Santos Trafficante, Johnny Rosselli, Jimmy Hoffa, certain Secret Service, FBI and military intelligence officers and agents, individuals intimately linked to Big Business and Big Oil, certain Dallas elected officials and members of the DPD, certain members of the print and broadcast media, certain heads of state, etc. etc. etc.

MECHANICS -- The gunmen and support personnel on-site who carried out the attack and escape-evade procedures. Among them in my opinion: possibly a team from Pakse Base, former Wermacht/SS sniper(s), etc. Think the most skilled hunters of humans on the planet.

Your thoughts, if you please.

Charles,

Good thoughts. I try in INTO THE NIGHTMARE to link a ground-level investigation of the
complex facts of the case -- which is essential -- with a macro-level investigation of
the political context and the roles of those you aptly call the Sponsors and people in the other categories. It is
difficult to do both in tandem but I believe essential. And it is one reason it took
me a long time to write the book, both assembling the research materials and putting them into context.

Bringing a critical/analytical sensibility to bear is key to understanding events such as these. My
research turned up previously unknown events and information. And even when you reinterpret
familiar events through a new lens and with the benefit of fresh information
found in your own research and in document releases, new patterns emerge. I continually
found revealing insights that way. It was an exciting process. The case is a large mosaic, with
patterns that take a while to discern and some missing pieces; our job is partly to fill those
in, partly to bring a sharper focus to the mosaic.

I admire Peter Dale Scott and others for studying the assassination in its broad
sociopolitical context while using finely detailed data, carefully mined, to draw their conclusions. Dr. E. Martin Schotz
has done important work in analyzing the psychology of coverup and denial that
permeates the case and misleads people. The cultural and social context (including
media criticism and the reflections of the assassination in films, TV, and literature
before and after the events) is part of the story as well, since it's part of
how we tell the story to ourselves. I try to look at the Dallas events through all these lenses.

My work as a film historian has taught me to approach our culture in conjunction with sociopolitical
themes -- I have focused on filmmakers who deal with important social issues. That makes the
research fascinating and challenging. I hope you and others appreciate the
search I have made into why my candidate was killed (a shattering event
that made me recreate myself and change my aspirations from politics to writing) and the many discoveries I have made along the way.

[Charles Drago]

I hope you and others appreciate the
search I have made into why my candidate was killed (a shattering event
that made me recreate myself and change my aspirations from politics to writing) and the many discoveries I have made along the way.

Word comes today that my copy of your book has been dispatched. It will jump to Number One position on the tower of tomes next to my bed (above the new novels by le Carré and McCarry).

As a writer (short and long prose fiction and drama for the small and large screens) I value beyond measure the application of the artist's sensibilities to our shared quests for truth and justice.

(As an aside: When asked why he had not chosen to write about the JFK assassination, le Carré responded simply, "It's too difficult.")

I eagerly anticipate gaining appreciations of your search and the manners in which you choose to describe it.