My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Lauren Johnson]

Magda and Joseph,

I do think Joseph you have dodged CD's pointed questions. And you are correct, they are important. But accusing you of doing it for economic reasons was over the edge on my part as you and Magda have pointed out. I apologize and withdraw my accusation.

[Magda Hassan]

Magda and Joseph,

I do think Joseph you have dodged CD's pointed questions. And you are correct, they are important. But accusing you of doing it for economic reasons was over the edge on my part as you and Magda have pointed out. I apologize and withdraw my accusation.

I am sure Joseph is hoping to sell some books here too. I have ordered one and it looks like other have too including Charles. But it also gives us an opportunity to discuss and further explore the matters brought up by the book in more depth and detail with Joseph, and I hope the Joseph also takes away from us new insights and ideas that might further develop this subject area for another time.

[Joseph McBride]

Magda and Joseph,

I do think Joseph you have dodged CD's pointed questions. And you are correct, they are important. But accusing you of doing it for economic reasons was over the edge on my part as you and Magda have pointed out. I apologize and withdraw my accusation.

I am sure Joseph is hoping to sell some books here too. I have ordered one and it looks like other have too including Charles. But it also gives us an opportunity to discuss and further explore the matters brought up by the book in more depth and detail with Joseph, and I hope the Joseph also takes away from us new insights and ideas that might further develop this subject area for another time.

Thank you, Magda and Lauren. I appreciate your good words and
the spirit behind them.

As I say, I welcome and wish for lively discussions with pointed questions and/or disagreements
about my research and ideas. I am critical of various books and researchers
in INTO THE NIGHTMARE but try to focus on their arguments logically rather
than making ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is usually a sign
the person making it has no genuine argument. We see a lot of that
on other forums. Sometimes I have trouble understanding a question
if it's too vague or unformed. I don't try to dodge questions if
they are serious and focused on issues. So I look forward to clearly pointed ones
here. There are a lot of highly knowledgeable people here, which
is why I came to this site to have good discussions.

[Charles Drago]

Sometimes I have trouble understanding a question
if it's too vague or unformed. I don't try to dodge questions if
they are serious and focused on issues. So I look forward to clearly pointed ones
here. There are a lot of highly knowledgeable people here, which
is why I came to this site to have good discussions.

Please help me to help you understand the following two matters, which I now have raised and directed to your attention publicly at least six times in the aggregate:

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence, I have argued that the ability to hit a stationary target at a great distance under relaxed, non-life threatening circumstances (a skill which, according to Tippit's father as stated in your interview with him, Tippit possessed) does not equate to the ability to hit a moving target under the most pressure-packed, life-threatening circumstances imaginable. Yet your Tippit-as-Badge-Man argument is predicated in great measure (but not exclusively) on a simple "if you can hit a bird, you can hit a president" conclusion.

I find your argument here to be deeply flawed and otherwise uninformed by refined deep political analysis. As a direct consequence, the often valuable insights you present in the book are opened to ridicule.

Please indicate the flaws in my reasoning.

2. Regarding your "agree to disagree" position vis a vis the demonstrably ludicrous and, in my estimation and that of many others, hostile-to-the-truth conclusions of Phillip Nelson, please enlighten us as to the limits, if any, of your collegiality.

Do you "agree to disagree" with lone nut lie proponents Posner? Bugliosi? Rahn? Cinque? McAdams? Dunkel? Specter? Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line and distinguish between honorable argument and enemy action in JFK scholarship?

Do you agree that the LN/conspiracy faux debate is the critical component in the ongoing JFK conspiracy cover-up?

In closing: Previously you have dismissed these questions as unworthy of response by leveling the charge that I had not read your book and thus was unqualified to pose them.

You now seem to have abandoned that wholly spurious claim and replaced it with new evasions: My questions are too vague ... unformed ... not serious ... unfocused ...

So again: Help me to help you.

[Tracy Riddle]

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence...

I remember that Gary Mack's two favorite pieces of conspiracy evidence were "Badge Man" and the dictabelt recording, neither of which I ever felt much confidence about. Staring at that Rorschach test we call the Moorman Polaroid, you can see almost anything if you look hard enough. Raymond Marcus actually identified some more plausible shapes in the photo, but we're still in Wonderland. If only Mary had had a better quality, color camera.

[Albert Rossi]

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence...

I remember that Gary Mack's two favorite pieces of conspiracy evidence were "Badge Man" and the dictabelt recording, neither of which I ever felt much confidence about. Staring at that Rorschach test we call the Moorman Polaroid, you can see almost anything if you look hard enough. Raymond Marcus actually identified some more plausible shapes in the photo, but we're still in Wonderland. If only Mary had had a better quality, color camera.

Let me state, first, that I have Into the Nightmare in my stack of books, and have not yet gotten to it, but am anxious to read it. So I do not know what the arguments about Tippit are that Joseph musters for his hypothesis. But, FWIW, I do know -- outside of Buchanan -- that this identification has been proposed in at least one other place: Phillips, D.T. A Deeper, Darker Truth: Tom Wilson's Journey into the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Illinois: DTP/Companion Books, 2009. The epilogue suggests that Badge Man is Tippit because of the supposed pock mark on his left cheek uncovered by Wilson's digital analysis. In my opinion the book is, to be kind, extremely dubious (I am inclined to say totally bogus junk; there is not enough detail in the presentation to understand exactly what the mathematics of Wilson's technique supposedly consists of), but I thought I'd just add this into the mix here for completeness sake.

[Joseph McBride]

Sometimes I have trouble understanding a question
if it's too vague or unformed. I don't try to dodge questions if
they are serious and focused on issues. So I look forward to clearly pointed ones
here. There are a lot of highly knowledgeable people here, which
is why I came to this site to have good discussions.

Please help me to help you understand the following two matters, which I now have raised and directed to your attention publicly at least six times in the aggregate:

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence, I have argued that the ability to hit a stationary target at a great distance under relaxed, non-life threatening circumstances (a skill which, according to Tippit's father as stated in your interview with him, Tippit possessed) does not equate to the ability to hit a moving target under the most pressure-packed, life-threatening circumstances imaginable. Yet your Tippit-as-Badge-Man argument is predicated in great measure (but not exclusively) on a simple "if you can hit a bird, you can hit a president" conclusion.

I find your argument here to be deeply flawed and otherwise uninformed by refined deep political analysis. As a direct consequence, the often valuable insights you present in the book are opened to ridicule.

Please indicate the flaws in my reasoning.

2. Regarding your "agree to disagree" position vis a vis the demonstrably ludicrous and, in my estimation and that of many others, hostile-to-the-truth conclusions of Phillip Nelson, please enlighten us as to the limits, if any, of your collegiality.

Do you "agree to disagree" with lone nut lie proponents Posner? Bugliosi? Rahn? Cinque? McAdams? Dunkel? Specter? Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line and distinguish between honorable argument and enemy action in JFK scholarship?

Do you agree that the LN/conspiracy faux debate is the critical component in the ongoing JFK conspiracy cover-up?

In closing: Previously you have dismissed these questions as unworthy of response by leveling the charge that I had not read your book and thus was unqualified to pose them.

You now seem to have abandoned that wholly spurious claim and replaced it with new evasions: My questions are too vague ... unformed ... not serious ... unfocused ...

So again: Help me to help you.

Sorry, but you seem to be complaining about some other book than mine.

[Charles Drago]

Sometimes I have trouble understanding a question
if it's too vague or unformed. I don't try to dodge questions if
they are serious and focused on issues. So I look forward to clearly pointed ones
here. There are a lot of highly knowledgeable people here, which
is why I came to this site to have good discussions.

Please help me to help you understand the following two matters, which I now have raised and directed to your attention publicly at least six times in the aggregate:

1. Regarding your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence, I have argued that the ability to hit a stationary target at a great distance under relaxed, non-life threatening circumstances (a skill which, according to Tippit's father as stated in your interview with him, Tippit possessed) does not equate to the ability to hit a moving target under the most pressure-packed, life-threatening circumstances imaginable. Yet your Tippit-as-Badge-Man argument is predicated in great measure (but not exclusively) on a simple "if you can hit a bird, you can hit a president" conclusion.

I find your argument here to be deeply flawed and otherwise uninformed by refined deep political analysis. As a direct consequence, the often valuable insights you present in the book are opened to ridicule.

Please indicate the flaws in my reasoning.

2. Regarding your "agree to disagree" position vis a vis the demonstrably ludicrous and, in my estimation and that of many others, hostile-to-the-truth conclusions of Phillip Nelson, please enlighten us as to the limits, if any, of your collegiality.

Do you "agree to disagree" with lone nut lie proponents Posner? Bugliosi? Rahn? Cinque? McAdams? Dunkel? Specter? Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line and distinguish between honorable argument and enemy action in JFK scholarship?

Do you agree that the LN/conspiracy faux debate is the critical component in the ongoing JFK conspiracy cover-up?

In closing: Previously you have dismissed these questions as unworthy of response by leveling the charge that I had not read your book and thus was unqualified to pose them.

You now seem to have abandoned that wholly spurious claim and replaced it with new evasions: My questions are too vague ... unformed ... not serious ... unfocused ...

So again: Help me to help you.

Sorry, but you seem to be complaining about some other book than mine.

This gets more interesting by the hour.

I'm not "complaining" about any book.

I am calling you (presumably) to task on the "Tippit-as-Badge-Man" hypothesis as proffered in the book Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit .

Are you in fact the author of that book?

On page 277 of the volume to which I shall hereinafter refer as ITN, the author "McBride" writes:

"One of the most important pieces of information I gleaned from my interview with Edgar Lee Tippit had to do with J.D.'s shooting prowess. A story his father told me indicated that J.D. possessed, from an early age, an uncanny skill with firearms ... 'He loved to hunt,' recalled [J.D.'s] neighbor and future brother-in-law Jack Christopher. Tippit's father said of J.D., 'He was a good shot,' and that once when J.D. was young, they saw 'a hawk way off sitting on a treetop. J. D. told me, "Get your gun, and I'll kill the hawk." I said, "You can't." He did do it. He killed the hawk with the first shot, at least a hundred yards [away].'"

On page 568 of ITN, "McBride" writes:

"The shot from behind the retaining wall in relatively close proximity to President Kennedy may not have been a particularly difficult one, but hitting its target was crucial to the success of the plot. The accuracy of that shot that most likely was the one that blew out the back of Kennedy's head attests to the lethal expertise of the gunman who fired it. J. D. Tippit's unusual skill with firearms, from boyhood, was attested to by his father, and it was furthered in his U. S. Army service during World War II and his years with the Dallas Police Department. That expertise could help account for why he may have been chosen for the job of Badge Man [.]"

Did you, or did you not, write these passages?

And are you, or are you not, the individual who posted on this forum the admonition that we should "agree to disagree" with Phillip Nelson regarding his "LBJ-as-mastermind" claim?

[Jan Klimkowski]

To the best of my analytical skills and visual acuity, "Badge Man" is some blur on one of Mary Moorman's photograph.

I respect and mourn Jack White.

I loathe Gary Mack.

My own considered judgement is that "Badge Man" is at best a red herring, at worst a psyop to discredit JFK asssassination research.

I do not welcome the resurrection of this random noise....

[Joseph McBride]

To the best of my analytical skills and visual acuity, "Badge Man" is some blur on one of Mary Moorman's photograph.

I respect and mourn Jack White.

I loathe Gary Mack.

My own considered judgement is that "Badge Man" is at best a red herring, at worst a psyop to discredit JFK asssassination research.

I do not welcome the resurrection of this random noise....

With his intemperate remarks borrowed from prizefighters, etc., Mr. Drago seems to be trying to bait me into attacking him,
for some reason. I'm not sure what he's so exercised about, so I won't try to decipher it or respond.