Tony Summers Isn't Sure There Was a Conspiracy
John McAdams
<Quote on>
I was listening to an archived interview with Lisa Pease on Black Op
Radio earlier this week. She was discussing the recent 'Cracking The
JFK Case' conference in Washington, D.C.
Tony Summers, who was a panelist on the first day, stated that he
regretted titling his book 'Conspiracy.' Lisa said that she was
surprised to hear this, and took him aside later and asked him why he
felt that way. He said that he just didn't think that a conspiracy had
been proven.
Lisa considered Summers' comment to be self-serving, since he makes
his living as a journalist, and he doesn't want to become another Gary
Webb:
http://www.blackopradio.com/black248a.ram
(23:45)
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Hunt
John Hunt
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:43aa113c....@news.alt.net...
Kenneth A. Rahn
When one reads Summers's "Conspiracy" carefully, with no
predisposition because of the title, one finds all sorts of weasel words
and passages that appear to say one thing but are actually leaving the
door open to the opposite interpretation. Most conspiracists have blown
right by these parts. I think the book is very different from the way it
is usually interpreted. I think Summers was trying to have it both ways,
and his answer to Lisa Pease acknowledges that uncomfortable truth. It
should have been entitled "Conspiracy?"
Ken Rahn
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:43aa113c....@news.alt.net...
Stug...@aol.com
he isn't sure or he doesn't have enough information to go on.
It happens all the time in scientific articles. Scientists don't
guess how their samples were packaged, shipped and mixed. They don't
presume to have a random sample without knowing. They don't honor
unpublished studies. The only scientists who do that are scientists
who want to have solid scientific proof evn though they can't vouch for
their own data.
Maybe the folks on this forum need to familiarize themselves with
phrases like this:
"Not enough information at this time ..."
"Not enough data to draw a conclusion."
"The sample may be biased because ..."
"Potentially yields a high sampling error..."
They are thrown all around scientific journals, especially articles
that are legitimately peer-reviewed. Those weasley scientists.
-Stu
Canuck
Tony's book was republished with additions to each chapter and is now
entitled NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME (taken from remarks made by Earl Warren
to the press). Maybe Tony should have entitled his book originally as
CONSPIRACY? Keep in mind that the book came out and was influenced by
the HSCA's conclusions, which suggested that there was, indeed, a
conspiracy (involving organized crime and/or military intelligence).
I like Tony (whom I met in Chicago in '93 and corresponded with for
quite a while, mainly in connection with Jean Aase/Lawerence Meyers and
Mario Garcia Kohly), and enjoy his style of writing, but he is not the
ultimate expert on this subject, of course (who is?). - Peter R.
Whitmey
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>.John,
>
> When one reads Summers's "Conspiracy" carefully, with no
>predisposition because of the title, one finds all sorts of weasel words
>and passages that appear to say one thing but are actually leaving the
>door open to the opposite interpretation. Most conspiracists have blown
>right by these parts. I think the book is very different from the way it
>is usually interpreted. I think Summers was trying to have it both ways,
>and his answer to Lisa Pease acknowledges that uncomfortable truth. It
>should have been entitled "Conspiracy?"
>
>Ken Rahn
Amazing, Ken. You and I are in agreement. Good points.
Pamela :-)
tomnln
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1135281813.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know how far into that interview she introduces the Tony
> Summers portion? I'd hate to subject myself to an hour of Lisa Pease!
>
>
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:pkvlq1d4fc342tcf0...@4ax.com...
> On 22 Dec 2005 01:49:12 -0500, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>.John,
>>
>> When one reads Summers's "Conspiracy" carefully, with no
>>predisposition because of the title, one finds all sorts of weasel words
>>and passages that appear to say one thing but are actually leaving the
>>door open to the opposite interpretation. Most conspiracists have blown
>>right by these parts. I think the book is very different from the way it
>>is usually interpreted. I think Summers was trying to have it both ways,
>>and his answer to Lisa Pease acknowledges that uncomfortable truth. It
>>should have been entitled "Conspiracy?"
>>
>>Ken Rahn
>
> Amazing, Ken. You and I are in agreement. Good points.
One small step for Pamela... :-)
You have shown good judgment here I have high hopes for you. It is only a
matter of time...
Ken Rahn
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>Pamela,
>
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:pkvlq1d4fc342tcf0...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Dec 2005 01:49:12 -0500, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>.John,
>>>
>>> When one reads Summers's "Conspiracy" carefully, with no
>>>predisposition because of the title, one finds all sorts of weasel words
>>>and passages that appear to say one thing but are actually leaving the
>>>door open to the opposite interpretation. Most conspiracists have blown
>>>right by these parts. I think the book is very different from the way it
>>>is usually interpreted. I think Summers was trying to have it both ways,
>>>and his answer to Lisa Pease acknowledges that uncomfortable truth. It
>>>should have been entitled "Conspiracy?"
>>>
>>>Ken Rahn
>>
>> Amazing, Ken. You and I are in agreement. Good points.
>
>One small step for Pamela... :-)
Sorry to disappoint, Ken.
To acknowledge that Summers' books are pseudo-conspiratorial is hardly
the same thing as going through the looking glass and believing there
wasn't a conspiracy...
>
>You have shown good judgment here I have high hopes for you. It is only a
>matter of time...
So 40 years haven't been enough? :-)
>
>Ken Rahn
>
Pamela
Kenneth A. Rahn
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1b2pq156po5nrbuln...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Dec 2005 14:33:22 -0500, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>Pamela,
>>
>>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pame...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>news:pkvlq1d4fc342tcf0...@4ax.com...
>>> On 22 Dec 2005 01:49:12 -0500, "Kenneth A. Rahn" <kr...@uri.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>.John,
>>>>
>>>> When one reads Summers's "Conspiracy" carefully, with no
>>>>predisposition because of the title, one finds all sorts of weasel words
>>>>and passages that appear to say one thing but are actually leaving the
>>>>door open to the opposite interpretation. Most conspiracists have blown
>>>>right by these parts. I think the book is very different from the way it
>>>>is usually interpreted. I think Summers was trying to have it both ways,
>>>>and his answer to Lisa Pease acknowledges that uncomfortable truth. It
>>>>should have been entitled "Conspiracy?"
>>>>
>>>>Ken Rahn
>>>
>>> Amazing, Ken. You and I are in agreement. Good points.
>>
>>One small step for Pamela... :-)
>
> Sorry to disappoint, Ken.
>
> To acknowledge that Summers' books are pseudo-conspiratorial is hardly
> the same thing as going through the looking glass and believing there
> wasn't a conspiracy...
I'm not disappointed, Pamela. I didn't expect the whole thing at once. In
this Season Of Light, you have taken the first small step toward
Enlightenment. I'm proud of you, and am patiently awating the next steps.
:-)
Ken Rahn
The Original Lisa Pease
chuck schuyler wrote:
> Does anyone know how far into that interview she introduces the Tony
> Summers portion? I'd hate to subject myself to an hour of Lisa Pease!
She rambles on about Dr. John McAdams being an undercover CIA agent.
But he isn't. She has said Gloria Steinem was an undercover CIA agent
in the 1960s. But she wasn't. Lisa Pease is not a reliable source on
the CIA or its possible involvement in the assassination.