The Summers and Lambert Romance

[Martin Hay]

Great article, Jim.

Although I am a little hurt that you name dropped that tosser Coogan and I don't even get a mention.

[Dawn Meredith]

Great stuff as always, Jim. Summers answered questions from a few people on the EF, but I think it's illuminating that he didn't answer mine, and has seemingly disappeared from the forum now. I feel stronger than ever that the "neo-con" phenomenon I first noticed some years ago is something significant, and something that has adversely affected the whole research community.

There are many examples of this dramatic, inexplicable transformation from conspiracy believer to lone nutter; Reitzes, Todd Vaughn, Gary Mack, Gus Russo, Dale Myers spring immediately to mind. It appears we can add Anthony Summers to this list, and perhaps Stephen Roy. I've asked many of them the same question on forums over the years; what new evidence made you change your mind? What old evidence, that you previously accepted, has now been proven to be invalid? None of them have ever answered, beyond Mack's tired "the critics made many mistakes."

Btw, I am thoroughly enjoying Reclaiming Parkland. People like Tom Hanks should have the insight to realize that, to quote the uncle of a superhero, "with great power, comes great responsibility." I love the fact you're taking Bugliosi to task not only for his magnum ridiculotus on the JFK assassination, but for his absurd fantasy Helter Skelter. The guy who hates "conspiracy theories" believes that Manson was able to manipulate his followers through Beatles' lyrics. Kind of like how the msm swallowed all of Exner's ridiculous allegations while instantly dismissing any notions of conspiracy in the assassination.

You're building a real legacy with your research. Keep up the good work.

I don't buy this notion at all, that conspiracy believers suddenly "change" to lone nutters. Every name above is a fake. Think about it, as JG himself said the only way you can believe the WCR is not to read it. Any amount of study of this case and the lie falls like a rotten stack of cards. So frauds who claim that after more study they "switched sides" are lying. (imho). The research community is so full of spooks that I daresay there may actually be more spooks than true researchers. I could name more names here but I don't need the fallout.

Dawn

[Tracy Riddle]

Summers' mealy mouth qualifications are really disturbing.

As is his insistence on a very small conspiracy, --if there is one-and its mafia orientation.

That is not what the best of the vast majority of the researchers think. Not by a longshot.

In fact, none of the best of the recent outlines that: Douglass, Newman, McKnight, Talbot, etc. ANd none of the declassified files indicates that either.

What the heck did the Mafia have to do with Mexico City or the autopsy? Or Clinton-Jackson?

Oh, I forgot, that didn't happen, dozens of people were lying--before the assassination..

I think Summers has always leaned toward that conclusion.
Also, how could the Mob cancel the photographers' vehicle, and rearrange motorcycles, key vehicles and people in the motorcade?

[Seamus Coogan]

Summers' mealy mouth qualifications are really disturbing.

As is his insistence on a very small conspiracy, --if there is one-and its mafia orientation.

That is not what the best of the vast majority of the researchers think. Not by a longshot.

In fact, none of the best of the recent outlines that: Douglass, Newman, McKnight, Talbot, etc. ANd none of the declassified files indicates that either.

What the heck did the Mafia have to do with Mexico City or the autopsy? Or Clinton-Jackson?

Oh, I forgot, that didn't happen, dozens of people were lying--before the assassination..

I think Summers has always leaned toward that conclusion.
Also, how could the Mob cancel the photographers' vehicle, and rearrange motorcycles, key vehicles and people in the motorcade?

Yes Tracey I have always felt the same way. I have read the two first editions of his book, and I think there was some great stuff. However, by the second he was dishing on Garrison... yet still using all the stuff Garrison had dug up.

As for Marty Hay you jealous little bastard lol!::bowtie::

[Martin Hay]

As for Marty Hay you jealous little bastard lol!::bowtie::

Love you really.::dancing guy::

[Don Jeffries]

Jim mentioned Paul Hoch- you can certainly add him to the "neo-con" list. I believe he was once one of those dreaded "conspiracy theorists," wasn't he? Like all the others, what changed him?

Greg Jaynes is another notable researcher who converted inexplicably to a lone nutter. Jaynes was very helpful working with Mark Oakes, as he was publicizing the valuable Patsy Paschall film for the first time. Oakes described him as a friend that "went from conspiracy to lone nut overnight" right after they first saw the Pascall film. There are still solid articles by him on the internet, much as there are still good articles from Reitzes out there, from their pre-conversion days.

We see this "neo-con" trend clearly in the new "consensus" that there wasn't a hole in the limousine windshield, the Umbrella Man was harmless Steven Witt, none of the witness deaths were suspicious, the limo never stopped, Oswald was the gunman in the Walker shooting attempt, the backyard photos were legitimate, and so many more aspects of this case that were once considered bellwether grounds for conspiracy in the assassination.

If one reads some of the best early works on the subject, and sees how far much of the research community has drifted towards this "neo-con" view, one invariably asks 'why?" If anything, the notion that these were strong indicators of conspiracy should have solidified over the years. No "evidence" of any kind has been brought forth to discredit them, and yet we have so many "respectable" researchers who simply discard them for no reason now. I have often asked these people just what their evidence is for doubting the official story, if they reject all these things which were once rock sold foundations of those who postulated conspiracy.

[Dawn Meredith]

Hell I remember Paul Hock defending the SBT in the mid 80's. I used to get his Echos of Conspiracy paper.

Dawn

[Don Jeffries]

Okay, I didn't know much about Hoch's history. I never read his newsletter, but assumed from the title that he was no lone nutter then. He did put his name on the book The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond, along with Peter Dale Scott, which I recall was pretty good and impressed me as being pro conspiracy.

[Tracy Riddle]

I think that people who make a lifelong career in the academic world (like Hoch at Berkeley) or the media world (like Summers) often keep one eye on their position in relation to their peers (most of whom are hostile to conspiracy thinking). They can't go too far "out there." There are exceptions like Peter Dale Scott and Gerald McKnight.

[Marlene Zenker]

Tony and Reitzes should not say such dumb stuff for attribution. I mean Lambert, can Summers be for real? Plus this is a good review of Clinton/Jackson for novices.

And the Diaz story is decades old. I wonder how much the Enquirer gave him for a story from 1978. Which he did not originate. They have been said to pay well. Especially for cover stories.


http://www.ctka.net/2013/summers.html

If I only had a hundred bucks for every Cuban exile who said he was involved in Kennedy's murder.

Great review, thanks again for your hard work.