info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Material dropped from Anthony Summers' revised book
123 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave Reitzes
Oct 31, 2013, 7:36:03 PM10/31/13
to
Although Anthony Summers and I disagree about many things related to the
JFK assassination and its investigations, I have frequently recommended
his books as some of the most responsible work done into the area of
conspiracy. A new email of his (sent to a group of which I am a member)
reaffirms my confidence in him. He has given me permission to post it
online:
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------
ALL
I would like to draw the group's attention to items and episodes you will
NOT now find in the much updated text of my book Not in Your Lifetime.
Omission in this context is ina real sense, commission - and I think
though our attention may be largely on the Shenon book at the moment,
group members may find this note interesting.
And some group members will no doubt disagree!
*Dropped from the updated Not in Your Lifetime is the alleged episode in
Clinton, Louisiana, in which Oswald was apparently sighted in Clinton with
Guy Banister and David Ferrie. I long ago went to Clinton myself for the
BBC - and interviewed several of the relevant witnesses. They seemed
fairly credible at the time.
As the entire thing has been demolished in a book by a researcher I
respect, Pat Lambert, I have removed the passage from the text and
consigned it to a much briefer note. (See p. 553, n.11)
* All references to the work of Cyril Wecht have been dropped. I spoke
at a conference he held, and was amazed to hear him ranting from the stage
on the subject. Having taken advice from others I do respect on the
forensic area of the case, I felt only what seemed firmer should remain.
* The Tippit chapter is altered - in particular with reference to the
pistol bullet evidence. See p. 106 of the new edition - re. "ballistics
testimony dispels much of the doubt about Oswald's guilt in the Tippit
murder." (I raise my hat to Dale Myers' book on the Tippit case. (p. 499
new edition, Note 2)
* Virtually all the stuff in the old Chapter 20 (Double Image in
Dallas) has gone. This was, in the old edition, about supposed sightings
of an Oswald that may not have been the real Oswald. Now, I do not even
now entirely reject the notion that Oswald was impersonated on occasion
before the assassination. (What went on in Mexico City remains
unresolved.) Too many of the sighting, however, did not belong in the
text. You will now find them summarized in the Notes. (Note 9, at p. 578
of the new edition.)
* The celebrated use of the name Oswald in New Orleans, buying jeeps
as early as 1961, was writ large in the earlier editions.It now seems less
reliable. I thought it must be mentioned, however, because there's a
supporting contemporary document that fitsm in the case in an interesting
way. The Deslatte episode now appears only in the Notes (p. 580, n 10)
* The emphasis on Ferrie has changed, retaining Ferrie's early
association with Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol but reducing the
suggestion of his involvement at the time of the assassination. This
because of the excellent, focused research on Ferrie by David Blackburst -
who has worked just that seam over recent years, demolishing much of the
shaky stuff propagated since the Garrison circus.
* Finally, at least in this letter, the dark suggestion that
Braden/Brading was guiltily involved in Dallas on the day has gone. I had
previously relied to a degree on the reporting of a fellow reporter named
Pete Noyes. On closer examination, I felt that - though Braden/Brading
(not a nice person) was in Dallas that day - the dark implications that
have been drawn were shaky. You won't find him in the index now.
Tony Summers
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------
From a follow-up email:
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------
David,
Thank you for your note.
You may, of course, distribute this list of people or episodes whom
I've decided to drop out of the frame - to as many of the JFK-related
forums as you like.
I should have added to the list of those dropped:
* Rose Cheramie. Though I made it a point, years ago, to interview
Francis Fruge, the policeman who handled the matter - and found him
believable - I was persuaded by forum traffic about Cheramie in the end,
and with so much else to include in Not in Your Lifetime, that the episode
just is not solid enough.
As the author, one is sometimes in a quandary when dropping items.
Even in the book's previous edition, I dropped the matter of Oswald's
reported outgoing call, while under arrest, to a man named "Hurt" in
Raleigh, North Carolina. (One of the two people of that name in the area
was a military intelligence veteran.) The HSCA tried years later to follow
up, without success - as did I - and Robert Blakey has called the matter
"deeply disturbing." As this was said to have been an outgoing call, it
remains interesting. On reflection, I am probably right to have dropped
mention of this in the text. On the other hand, I should probably have
sustained a reference in the notes.
Some of these issues are Solomon-type decisions, and I'm sure I
sometimes get them wrong.
Tony
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------
I responded to Mr. Summers that I agreed with his decisions about Fruge
and the Hurt call, for these reasons:
Fruge's 1967 NODA memos sharply contradict his later claims. It's clear
that Cherami said some provocative things while hospitalized, but there
isn't a single first-hand witness to her saying anything BEFORE the
assassination. Fruge later said she did, but in 1967 he said she didn't.
In the 1980s, Dr. Weiss started saying she did, but in 1978 he said he
heard it from Dr. Bowers. Donn Bowers says he never spoke to Rose Cherami
at all, and heard about her from Weiss. Other statements commonly cited by
Jim DiEugenio, Joan Mellen, et al, are also hearsay, mostly originating in
1967 reports from Fruge. Radio broadcaster Jim Olivier said he interviewed
a police officer, Donald White, who supported Fruge's latter day claims,
but Olivier (now deceased) never produced the tape of this interview, and
-- based on details given by Olivier -- White's story may be based on
Fruge's latter-day claims rather than the personal experience White
allegedly described. If anyone has further information on White, perhaps
we could better assess his credibility. See:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100cher.html
Pay particular attention to the endnotes. Source documents are collected
here:
http://www.jfk-online.com/cherfile.html
I'm satisfied with Henry Hurt's [no relation] explanation of the Hurt call
[and corroborated by David Lifton -- see the end of this post], and
skeptical of the 15-year-old eyewitness testimony that led Professor
Blakey to deem the call an outgoing one. It's a shame the incident wasn't
more fully investigated when memories were fresher.
Incidentally, several members of the email list -- which I would
characterize as being roughly split between LNs and CTs -- chimed in their
approval of Summers' announcement, including Peter Dale Scott, who
congratulated Summers and indicated that he agreed with every single one
of Summers' decisions.
To help explain why Summers made some of the decisions he did, I would
suggest these resources:
My article on the Clinton-Jackson witnesses cites Patricia Lambert's
findings as well as research of my own, and presents previously
unpublished, complete NODA interviews with key Clinton witnesses:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm
Dale Myers' book on the Tippit case is now back in print:
http://www.jdtippit.com/
This is my 1999 review of Myers' book:
http://www.jfk-online.com/myers.html
I was very much a conspiracy theorist at the time I wrote it, as noted in
the review. Myers convinced me that Oswald killed Tippit, which I'd never
accepted before.
My website has articles and numerous primary source documents
demonstrating why Summers is correct to minimize allegations against the
late David Ferrie. This is a good place to start:
http://www.jfk-online.com/ferriepre.html
Click on the links to access some of the sources I cite.
Another article of mine discusses a particular allegation that's commonly
made about Ferrie, as well as allegations that Jim Braden can be linked to
the assassination:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid.htm
As a former believer in John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory, I can
hardly condemn anyone for placing credence in reports of an Oswald
impersonator, but I've become rather skeptical about them. I think what we
know about the nature of memory and eyewitness testimony is explanation
enough for why people sometimes mistake public figures for people they
have encountered in the past.
This collection of newsgroup articles from myself and others examines some
of the reports of Oswald at the Sports Drome Rifle Range in Dallas. A
claim in Gus Russo's LIVE BY THE SWORD gave me reason to take another look
at these oft-dismissed sightings, but as described at my website, the
claim did not hold up to close scrutiny:
http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html
John McAdams' site has some good resources on the subject of Oswald
sightings, including a contribution or two from me:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
I highly recommend Elizabeth Loftus' textbook, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, and
her book for a general audience, WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE, to explain how
eyewitnesses -- sometimes even a whole group of eyewitnesses -- can stand
up in court, dramatically point at a defendant, and honestly, confidently
announce, "THAT's the man I saw!" -- and be 100% wrong.
Cyril Wecht deserves a mention, as he is the one and only qualified
forensic expert to examine the original autopsy materials and proclaim
them to be insufficient to support the autopsy pathologists' original
conclusion that John F. Kennedy was struck by two -- and only two --
bullets, both fired from above and behind him.
Wecht AGREED with the other experts consulted by the Rockefeller
Commission and the HSCA, that the autopsy materials showed no evidence
whatsoever of any other shots, but insisted that he could not, in good
conscience, agree that these materials proved that JFK was shot only from
the rear -- even while conceding that the evidence for a second head shot
(which he believed in prior to his examination of the autopsy materials
and continues to argue for to this very day) to be "Very meager, and the
possibility based upon the existing evidence is extremely remote."
While Wecht's qualifications are beyond question, his behavior over the
years has raised concerns about his objectivity, and I'm glad to see that
Summers shares those concerns. See for example:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wecht.htm
The Raleigh/Hurt call:
From Henry Hurt's REASONABLE DOUBT (New York: Holt and Co., 1985), pp.
244-45:
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
A peculiar incident possibly linking Oswald to the military intelligence
was the mysterious telephone call involving Oswald in the Dallas County
Jail following his arrest. The first account that emerged from intensely
conflicting evidence was that Oswald tried to make an outgoing telephone
call to one John Hurt in the 919 area code, which is eastern North
Carolina. For years a debate continued about whether the call was really
outgoing to North Carolina or incoming to the jail, since the best
evidence was on a slip of paper written by a jail telephone operator and,
according to one version, thrown into a trash can and later retrieved by a
souvenir hunter. The evidence was tainted, to say the least, and the
contradictory testimony of the telephone operators only added to the
confusion. The speculation was that Oswald, if an agent, might have been
trying to contact his control.
When researchers finally found a John Hurt in Raleigh, North Carolina, he
proclaimed complete ignorance about the matter. He said he had never known
or heard of Oswald before the assassination and that he made no telephone
call to Oswald and, of course, had no knowledge of Oswald's trying to
telephone him.
This claim was quickly tarnished, however, when researchers discovered
that Hurt had a background in military intelligence as well as a law
degree. Hurt insisted to researchers that he had no idea why Oswald might
want to call him. That only fanned speculation that Hurt -- who perhaps
had some covert operations connection with Oswald -- was keeping the
cover. The mystery remained, even though arguments that the call was
incoming were as strong as the arguments that Oswald made the call.
John Hurt died in 1981. A few months later, his wife told the author that
Hurt had admitted the truth before he died. Terribly upset on the day of
the assassination, he got extremely drunk -- a habitual problem with him
-- and telephoned the Dallas jail and asked to speak to Oswald. When
denied access, he left his name and number. Mrs. Hurt said her husband
told her he never had any earlier contact with Oswald and had been too
embarrassed to admit that he got drunk and placed the call. In view of the
fact that Hurt's military-intelligence background appears innocent of any
deep operational connections, the account by John Hurt's wife makes as
much sense as anything else.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
David Lifton posted the following on an Internet forum in 2010:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3041&st=15
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
For what its worth. . . : I called Hurt back around 1970, and spoke with
him for between 30 minutes and an hour. I believe he told me the same "I
was drunk" story--and, again "FWIW", he sounded credible (i.e., that he
was indeed drunk). I have a BASF tape of the entire conversation.
Somewhere in my collection. With regard to anything I write here, I would
defer to the tape as the better evidence. What I do remember is coming
away from the call believing I had done what I could do, pursuing this
lead, and there wasn't much to it.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
Dave
JFK assassination and its investigations, I have frequently recommended
his books as some of the most responsible work done into the area of
conspiracy. A new email of his (sent to a group of which I am a member)
reaffirms my confidence in him. He has given me permission to post it
online:
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------
ALL
I would like to draw the group's attention to items and episodes you will
NOT now find in the much updated text of my book Not in Your Lifetime.
Omission in this context is ina real sense, commission - and I think
though our attention may be largely on the Shenon book at the moment,
group members may find this note interesting.
And some group members will no doubt disagree!
*Dropped from the updated Not in Your Lifetime is the alleged episode in
Clinton, Louisiana, in which Oswald was apparently sighted in Clinton with
Guy Banister and David Ferrie. I long ago went to Clinton myself for the
BBC - and interviewed several of the relevant witnesses. They seemed
fairly credible at the time.
As the entire thing has been demolished in a book by a researcher I
respect, Pat Lambert, I have removed the passage from the text and
consigned it to a much briefer note. (See p. 553, n.11)
* All references to the work of Cyril Wecht have been dropped. I spoke
at a conference he held, and was amazed to hear him ranting from the stage
on the subject. Having taken advice from others I do respect on the
forensic area of the case, I felt only what seemed firmer should remain.
* The Tippit chapter is altered - in particular with reference to the
pistol bullet evidence. See p. 106 of the new edition - re. "ballistics
testimony dispels much of the doubt about Oswald's guilt in the Tippit
murder." (I raise my hat to Dale Myers' book on the Tippit case. (p. 499
new edition, Note 2)
* Virtually all the stuff in the old Chapter 20 (Double Image in
Dallas) has gone. This was, in the old edition, about supposed sightings
of an Oswald that may not have been the real Oswald. Now, I do not even
now entirely reject the notion that Oswald was impersonated on occasion
before the assassination. (What went on in Mexico City remains
unresolved.) Too many of the sighting, however, did not belong in the
text. You will now find them summarized in the Notes. (Note 9, at p. 578
of the new edition.)
* The celebrated use of the name Oswald in New Orleans, buying jeeps
as early as 1961, was writ large in the earlier editions.It now seems less
reliable. I thought it must be mentioned, however, because there's a
supporting contemporary document that fitsm in the case in an interesting
way. The Deslatte episode now appears only in the Notes (p. 580, n 10)
* The emphasis on Ferrie has changed, retaining Ferrie's early
association with Oswald in the Civil Air Patrol but reducing the
suggestion of his involvement at the time of the assassination. This
because of the excellent, focused research on Ferrie by David Blackburst -
who has worked just that seam over recent years, demolishing much of the
shaky stuff propagated since the Garrison circus.
* Finally, at least in this letter, the dark suggestion that
Braden/Brading was guiltily involved in Dallas on the day has gone. I had
previously relied to a degree on the reporting of a fellow reporter named
Pete Noyes. On closer examination, I felt that - though Braden/Brading
(not a nice person) was in Dallas that day - the dark implications that
have been drawn were shaky. You won't find him in the index now.
Tony Summers
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------
From a follow-up email:
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------
David,
Thank you for your note.
You may, of course, distribute this list of people or episodes whom
I've decided to drop out of the frame - to as many of the JFK-related
forums as you like.
I should have added to the list of those dropped:
* Rose Cheramie. Though I made it a point, years ago, to interview
Francis Fruge, the policeman who handled the matter - and found him
believable - I was persuaded by forum traffic about Cheramie in the end,
and with so much else to include in Not in Your Lifetime, that the episode
just is not solid enough.
As the author, one is sometimes in a quandary when dropping items.
Even in the book's previous edition, I dropped the matter of Oswald's
reported outgoing call, while under arrest, to a man named "Hurt" in
Raleigh, North Carolina. (One of the two people of that name in the area
was a military intelligence veteran.) The HSCA tried years later to follow
up, without success - as did I - and Robert Blakey has called the matter
"deeply disturbing." As this was said to have been an outgoing call, it
remains interesting. On reflection, I am probably right to have dropped
mention of this in the text. On the other hand, I should probably have
sustained a reference in the notes.
Some of these issues are Solomon-type decisions, and I'm sure I
sometimes get them wrong.
Tony
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------
I responded to Mr. Summers that I agreed with his decisions about Fruge
and the Hurt call, for these reasons:
Fruge's 1967 NODA memos sharply contradict his later claims. It's clear
that Cherami said some provocative things while hospitalized, but there
isn't a single first-hand witness to her saying anything BEFORE the
assassination. Fruge later said she did, but in 1967 he said she didn't.
In the 1980s, Dr. Weiss started saying she did, but in 1978 he said he
heard it from Dr. Bowers. Donn Bowers says he never spoke to Rose Cherami
at all, and heard about her from Weiss. Other statements commonly cited by
Jim DiEugenio, Joan Mellen, et al, are also hearsay, mostly originating in
1967 reports from Fruge. Radio broadcaster Jim Olivier said he interviewed
a police officer, Donald White, who supported Fruge's latter day claims,
but Olivier (now deceased) never produced the tape of this interview, and
-- based on details given by Olivier -- White's story may be based on
Fruge's latter-day claims rather than the personal experience White
allegedly described. If anyone has further information on White, perhaps
we could better assess his credibility. See:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100cher.html
Pay particular attention to the endnotes. Source documents are collected
here:
http://www.jfk-online.com/cherfile.html
I'm satisfied with Henry Hurt's [no relation] explanation of the Hurt call
[and corroborated by David Lifton -- see the end of this post], and
skeptical of the 15-year-old eyewitness testimony that led Professor
Blakey to deem the call an outgoing one. It's a shame the incident wasn't
more fully investigated when memories were fresher.
Incidentally, several members of the email list -- which I would
characterize as being roughly split between LNs and CTs -- chimed in their
approval of Summers' announcement, including Peter Dale Scott, who
congratulated Summers and indicated that he agreed with every single one
of Summers' decisions.
To help explain why Summers made some of the decisions he did, I would
suggest these resources:
My article on the Clinton-Jackson witnesses cites Patricia Lambert's
findings as well as research of my own, and presents previously
unpublished, complete NODA interviews with key Clinton witnesses:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clinton1.htm
Dale Myers' book on the Tippit case is now back in print:
http://www.jdtippit.com/
This is my 1999 review of Myers' book:
http://www.jfk-online.com/myers.html
I was very much a conspiracy theorist at the time I wrote it, as noted in
the review. Myers convinced me that Oswald killed Tippit, which I'd never
accepted before.
My website has articles and numerous primary source documents
demonstrating why Summers is correct to minimize allegations against the
late David Ferrie. This is a good place to start:
http://www.jfk-online.com/ferriepre.html
Click on the links to access some of the sources I cite.
Another article of mine discusses a particular allegation that's commonly
made about Ferrie, as well as allegations that Jim Braden can be linked to
the assassination:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid.htm
As a former believer in John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" theory, I can
hardly condemn anyone for placing credence in reports of an Oswald
impersonator, but I've become rather skeptical about them. I think what we
know about the nature of memory and eyewitness testimony is explanation
enough for why people sometimes mistake public figures for people they
have encountered in the past.
This collection of newsgroup articles from myself and others examines some
of the reports of Oswald at the Sports Drome Rifle Range in Dallas. A
claim in Gus Russo's LIVE BY THE SWORD gave me reason to take another look
at these oft-dismissed sightings, but as described at my website, the
claim did not hold up to close scrutiny:
http://www.jfk-online.com/oswaldrifle.html
John McAdams' site has some good resources on the subject of Oswald
sightings, including a contribution or two from me:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/2oswalds.htm
See also:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
I highly recommend Elizabeth Loftus' textbook, EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY, and
her book for a general audience, WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE, to explain how
eyewitnesses -- sometimes even a whole group of eyewitnesses -- can stand
up in court, dramatically point at a defendant, and honestly, confidently
announce, "THAT's the man I saw!" -- and be 100% wrong.
Cyril Wecht deserves a mention, as he is the one and only qualified
forensic expert to examine the original autopsy materials and proclaim
them to be insufficient to support the autopsy pathologists' original
conclusion that John F. Kennedy was struck by two -- and only two --
bullets, both fired from above and behind him.
Wecht AGREED with the other experts consulted by the Rockefeller
Commission and the HSCA, that the autopsy materials showed no evidence
whatsoever of any other shots, but insisted that he could not, in good
conscience, agree that these materials proved that JFK was shot only from
the rear -- even while conceding that the evidence for a second head shot
(which he believed in prior to his examination of the autopsy materials
and continues to argue for to this very day) to be "Very meager, and the
possibility based upon the existing evidence is extremely remote."
While Wecht's qualifications are beyond question, his behavior over the
years has raised concerns about his objectivity, and I'm glad to see that
Summers shares those concerns. See for example:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wecht.htm
The Raleigh/Hurt call:
From Henry Hurt's REASONABLE DOUBT (New York: Holt and Co., 1985), pp.
244-45:
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
A peculiar incident possibly linking Oswald to the military intelligence
was the mysterious telephone call involving Oswald in the Dallas County
Jail following his arrest. The first account that emerged from intensely
conflicting evidence was that Oswald tried to make an outgoing telephone
call to one John Hurt in the 919 area code, which is eastern North
Carolina. For years a debate continued about whether the call was really
outgoing to North Carolina or incoming to the jail, since the best
evidence was on a slip of paper written by a jail telephone operator and,
according to one version, thrown into a trash can and later retrieved by a
souvenir hunter. The evidence was tainted, to say the least, and the
contradictory testimony of the telephone operators only added to the
confusion. The speculation was that Oswald, if an agent, might have been
trying to contact his control.
When researchers finally found a John Hurt in Raleigh, North Carolina, he
proclaimed complete ignorance about the matter. He said he had never known
or heard of Oswald before the assassination and that he made no telephone
call to Oswald and, of course, had no knowledge of Oswald's trying to
telephone him.
This claim was quickly tarnished, however, when researchers discovered
that Hurt had a background in military intelligence as well as a law
degree. Hurt insisted to researchers that he had no idea why Oswald might
want to call him. That only fanned speculation that Hurt -- who perhaps
had some covert operations connection with Oswald -- was keeping the
cover. The mystery remained, even though arguments that the call was
incoming were as strong as the arguments that Oswald made the call.
John Hurt died in 1981. A few months later, his wife told the author that
Hurt had admitted the truth before he died. Terribly upset on the day of
the assassination, he got extremely drunk -- a habitual problem with him
-- and telephoned the Dallas jail and asked to speak to Oswald. When
denied access, he left his name and number. Mrs. Hurt said her husband
told her he never had any earlier contact with Oswald and had been too
embarrassed to admit that he got drunk and placed the call. In view of the
fact that Hurt's military-intelligence background appears innocent of any
deep operational connections, the account by John Hurt's wife makes as
much sense as anything else.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
David Lifton posted the following on an Internet forum in 2010:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3041&st=15
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------
For what its worth. . . : I called Hurt back around 1970, and spoke with
him for between 30 minutes and an hour. I believe he told me the same "I
was drunk" story--and, again "FWIW", he sounded credible (i.e., that he
was indeed drunk). I have a BASF tape of the entire conversation.
Somewhere in my collection. With regard to anything I write here, I would
defer to the tape as the better evidence. What I do remember is coming
away from the call believing I had done what I could do, pursuing this
lead, and there wasn't much to it.
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
Dave
BT George
Oct 31, 2013, 11:52:58 PM10/31/13
to
Good stuff Dave. Bugliosi was fairly hard on Summers, but my impression
was generally that he is one of the most responsible CT's around.
I am glad to see he erred towards more conservative scholarship in his
latest revision. I may eventually check his updated book out again. I
started it once before a few years ago but got only half-way through it
when personal problems struck my family and I never finished it.
BT George
was generally that he is one of the most responsible CT's around.
I am glad to see he erred towards more conservative scholarship in his
latest revision. I may eventually check his updated book out again. I
started it once before a few years ago but got only half-way through it
when personal problems struck my family and I never finished it.
BT George
Dave Reitzes
Nov 1, 2013, 12:04:19 PM11/1/13
to
CT cause:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20596
I wanted to post Summers' announcement there myself, but John Simkin beat
me to it.
Of course I disagree with Summers about a lot of things, but I'll leave
that for another time, because I'm greatly encouraged by some of the
things we agree about.
There is one thing I haven't changed my mind about since I was a CT:
whenever newcomers ask me what one book they should read on the case, I
always say read two -- one from the LN side (Bugliosi, Posner, or the
Warren Report) and one from the CT side. There's no single book that sums
up all the most influential CT arguments, but I often recommend Summers',
because it covers a lot of the bases, it doesn't push one specific theory
to the exclusion of all others (like, say Lifton), and it doesn't get too
far into La La Land (like, say, Jim Marrs).
Dave
Glenn V.
Nov 1, 2013, 12:14:32 PM11/1/13
to
Den fredagen den 1:e november 2013 kl. 00:36:03 UTC+1 skrev Dave Reitzes:
> Although Anthony Summers and I disagree about many things related to the
>
> JFK assassination and its investigations, I have frequently recommended
>
> his books as some of the most responsible work done into the area of
>
> conspiracy. A new email of his (sent to a group of which I am a member)
>
> reaffirms my confidence in him. He has given me permission to post it
>
> online:
Excellent posting, very informative. Thanks Dave.
> Although Anthony Summers and I disagree about many things related to the
>
> JFK assassination and its investigations, I have frequently recommended
>
> his books as some of the most responsible work done into the area of
>
> conspiracy. A new email of his (sent to a group of which I am a member)
>
> reaffirms my confidence in him. He has given me permission to post it
>
> online:
Dave Reitzes
Nov 5, 2013, 12:15:05 PM11/5/13
to
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12500-Anthony-Summers#.UniOw3AqhY4
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 01:13 PM #1
Dawn Meredith
Founding Member
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,241
Anthony Summers
Below is an email from Anthony Summers to many people that John Simkin has posted at the Ed Forum. For those -like myself since the 80's- who have had grave doubts about this man, digest this:
Message from Tony Summers:
[snipping the quotation]
Jim Garrison referred to him- (including in a letter to me)- as "One of the CIA's more accommodating prostitutes" .
Dawn
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 02:39 PM #2
Tracy Riddle
Member
Join Date
May 2013
Posts
602
Blackburst is one of McAdams' associates, I believe. Great company you're keeping, Summers. The next edition will probably have a forward by Bugliosi.
I'm still glad to have the first two editions of Conspiracy on my shelf, because they were good books.
"Were the press under actual government control, the harm would be less, for this would be known and allowed for by citizens in evaluating its message." - Harold Weisberg
“We’ve seen revealed one conspiracy after another. Anybody would have to be a fool nowadays to dismiss conspiracies. Perhaps we lived in a fool’s paradise before the Kennedy assassination.” - Robert MacNeil of PBS
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 03:20 PM #3
Dawn Meredith
Founding Member
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,241
I enjoyed Conspiracy as well. But one good book to gain entrance into the research community is a very old trick.
In a letter to me in the mid eighties he wrote that "some rouge elements of the CIA MAY have been involved in a conspiracy."
He also said he'd long since ceased active research on the assassination.
Obviously. Now he just quotes known disinfo artists like Dale Myers and Patrica Lambert.
BUSTED Tony.
Dawn
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 03:32 PM #4
James Norwood
Member
Join Date
Jul 2010
Posts
25
Summers's Unscientific Methodology
Dawn,
In addition to your good points about the limitations of Anthony Summers' revised edition of his book, I would add the following:
It is incumbent on any scholar-researcher to keep abreast of new developments in the field, even if he or she is no longer involved in research. In the case of Anthony Summers, it is clear that he has not taken the time to inform himself of the findings of ARRB and the contributions of countless scholars since the publication of his 1980 book Conspiracy.
Summers is tweaking his outdated book, when it requires a complete re-write, based on the new evidence and discoveries.
There is still value to Summers' Conspiracy, and used copies are available on Amazon starting at $0.54. In the context of all that we know about the JFK assassination today, that is the right price for Summers's book.
James
Last edited by James Norwood; Yesterday at 04:06 PM. Reason: stylistic emendation
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 06:50 PM #5
Tracy Riddle
Member
Join Date
May 2013
Posts
602
British journalist Anthony Summers, whose BBC documentary became the 1980 book “Conspiracy,” says many conspiracy buffs “are fine scholars and students, and some are mad as hatters who think it was done by men from Mars using catapults.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...8_story_1.html
Really, Tony? Funny, I must have missed that particular theory.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 08:10 PM #6
Vasilios Vazakas
Member
Join Date
Mar 2011
Posts
367
This is the difference between Summers and an informed researcher like Jim DiEugenio who completely rewrote his 'Destiny Betrayed' based on the latest discoveries and the ARRB. Summers tried to make a quick buck for the 50th, and he repeated the old news about Herminio Diaz being one of the assassins, something that Fabian Escalante had already revealed some years ago. And yet he has the nerve to talk about conspiracy buffs and to tell us that the case cannot be solved.
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 08:43 PM #7
Anthony DeFiore
Member
Join Date
Apr 2013
Posts
58
Good work Dawn
Summers can play a shell game all he wants. The science doesn't lie ~ there was a conspiracy of many bullets fired on November 22, 1963!
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 11:01 PM #8
Magda Hassan
Administrator
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
12,444
Yes it was a good book. But I will save my money and not bother getting this one. It sounds like he is just sitting on his former reputation and hollowing out the story and replacing it with what a few suspect forum members have told him and not done any of his own research to update anything. Very disappointing. There has been so much more information come to light since 1980's. You're right Tracy. It is just missing Bugliosi's forward
[...]
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>--------------------------------
Yesterday, 11:50 PM #9
Marc Ellis
Member
Join Date
Aug 2013
Posts
5
I'm reading Summers' book now on my iPad. I'm in chapter 6, on Tippit.
Thus far, Summers seems to think Oswald was not the TSBD 6th floor shooter
and even though he thinks Oswald shot Tippit, he seems to argue that would tend to make the
presence of a conspiracy more likely - rather than less. At least, that's what I'm getting.
He mentions:
1. the cop car that honked twice at Oswald's rooming house.
2. The questions about how Oswald got to Tippitt's location and where was he headed?
3. What was Tippitt doing before the shooting?
4. The unreliability of WC witnesses.
5. The mysterious man in a car that belonged to Tippet's friend.
I don't know who shot Tippet. Even if it was Oswald, that does not by itself disprove a conspiracy.
And it may tend to make the presence of a conspiracy more likely.
Here's a quote:
---
“It may be,” said Andy Purdy, former senior staff counsel on the Assassinations Committee, “that Officer Tippit, by himself or with others, was involved in a conspiracy to silence Oswald. And when the attempt to kill Oswald by Tippit failed, then Jack Ruby** was a fallback.”
Excerpt From: Summers, Anthony. “Not in Your Lifetime.” Open Road Integrated Media, 2013-09-06. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBookstore: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/...k?id=704986933
<QUOTE OFF>-------------------------------
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Nov 6, 2013, 8:58:40 PM11/6/13
to
More complaints about Summers, Dale Myers, and...me? I think Jim D. is
confused about this, as I haven't seen Anthony Summers endorse anything of
mine. Perhaps he was thinking of Blackburst, whom I have cited in numerous
articles of mine, and whose research Summers endorsed in the same email
that cited the influence of Lambert and Myers.
BTW, Summers has disavowed the ENQUIRER article being discussed, saying
that it badly misrepresents his work (which is available to all in the new
edition of NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME). He also notes that the reporter he spoke
to claimed to be affiliated with another periodical, and says he would not
have knowingly agreed to an interview for the ENQUIRER.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t492-summers-reitzes-and-myers-what-a-triangle
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by James DiEugenio on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 3:52 am
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/jfk-edited-or-the-importance-of-cutting-the-crap/
This, to me, is shocking.
I think the first version of the Summers' book is the best. I was really
kind of stunned by what he did to it in the nineties.
But now, he has made it even worse. He actually finds propagandists like
Myers, Lambert, and most shocking of all, Reitzes, credible.
Which is think is really bizarre.
He then gets on the cover of National Enquirer? I mean how did that
happen? Has not this case gotten the tabloid treatment enough?
What next for the 50th? I mean, really.
James DiEugenio
Posts: 125
Join date: 2013-08-01
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 5:09 am
I thought "Not In Your Lifetime" was Warren's prediction.
I didn't realize Summers would be an accessory to making Warren's
prediction reality.
Robert Charles-Dunne
Posts: 71
Join date: 2011-08-10
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by Martin Hay on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 6:05 am
Reitzes is a smug prick. I hate the way he's found religion and is now
trying to pass himself off as some kind of intellectual, telling everyone
else on the Ed forum how they should think about the assassination. He's
gotten real brave now that all the good researchers have jumped ship.
I almost wish I hadn't given up my membership so that I could put him back
in his place.
Martin Hay
Posts: 65
Join date: 2013-06-22
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by Albert Rossi on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 7:03 am
You know, my feeling about the 1980/88 edition is that, even though there
were some decent things in it, he was already carefully hedging his bets
there. These latter day retractions are not as surprising to me. I've
not bothered reading anything of the other stuff he has written --
National Enquirer seems about its level.
What, pray tell, is now his version of the events in Dallas? Marcello and
Trafficante did it all by their lonesome?
Albert Rossi
Posts: 68
Join date: 2013-08-29
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by James DiEugenio on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:28 pm
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/exclusive-2nd-gunman-named-jfk-assassination
This is what Albert was talking about.
Do you believe this crap that Summers and Blakey dumped on us for the
50th? They saved it up for 6 years for this anniversary.
Oswald shot Tippit and he was firing in Dealey Plaza with Diaz who was
working for Trafficante.
Albert, I defer to you on this. You were right. Summers was getting
ready to jump ship.
James DiEugenio
Posts: 125
Join date: 2013-08-01
- Similar topics
» Pedagogical Triangle
» UFO Hunters Triangle Footage
» Mystery Quest on the Bermuda Triangle
» Triangle Sighting
» more than a giant triangle
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
"Similar topics"? I'll buy that. \:^)
Dave
P.S. Martin Hay, is "smug prick" really the best you can do? There are LNs
who have said worse things about me.
confused about this, as I haven't seen Anthony Summers endorse anything of
mine. Perhaps he was thinking of Blackburst, whom I have cited in numerous
articles of mine, and whose research Summers endorsed in the same email
that cited the influence of Lambert and Myers.
BTW, Summers has disavowed the ENQUIRER article being discussed, saying
that it badly misrepresents his work (which is available to all in the new
edition of NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME). He also notes that the reporter he spoke
to claimed to be affiliated with another periodical, and says he would not
have knowingly agreed to an interview for the ENQUIRER.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t492-summers-reitzes-and-myers-what-a-triangle
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by James DiEugenio on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 3:52 am
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/jfk-edited-or-the-importance-of-cutting-the-crap/
This, to me, is shocking.
I think the first version of the Summers' book is the best. I was really
kind of stunned by what he did to it in the nineties.
But now, he has made it even worse. He actually finds propagandists like
Myers, Lambert, and most shocking of all, Reitzes, credible.
Which is think is really bizarre.
He then gets on the cover of National Enquirer? I mean how did that
happen? Has not this case gotten the tabloid treatment enough?
What next for the 50th? I mean, really.
James DiEugenio
Posts: 125
Join date: 2013-08-01
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 5:09 am
I thought "Not In Your Lifetime" was Warren's prediction.
I didn't realize Summers would be an accessory to making Warren's
prediction reality.
Robert Charles-Dunne
Posts: 71
Join date: 2011-08-10
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by Martin Hay on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 6:05 am
Reitzes is a smug prick. I hate the way he's found religion and is now
trying to pass himself off as some kind of intellectual, telling everyone
else on the Ed forum how they should think about the assassination. He's
gotten real brave now that all the good researchers have jumped ship.
I almost wish I hadn't given up my membership so that I could put him back
in his place.
Martin Hay
Posts: 65
Join date: 2013-06-22
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by Albert Rossi on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 7:03 am
You know, my feeling about the 1980/88 edition is that, even though there
were some decent things in it, he was already carefully hedging his bets
there. These latter day retractions are not as surprising to me. I've
not bothered reading anything of the other stuff he has written --
National Enquirer seems about its level.
What, pray tell, is now his version of the events in Dallas? Marcello and
Trafficante did it all by their lonesome?
Albert Rossi
Posts: 68
Join date: 2013-08-29
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Re: Summers, Reitzes and Myers: What a Triangle
Post by James DiEugenio on Mon 04 Nov 2013, 12:28 pm
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/exclusive-2nd-gunman-named-jfk-assassination
This is what Albert was talking about.
Do you believe this crap that Summers and Blakey dumped on us for the
50th? They saved it up for 6 years for this anniversary.
Oswald shot Tippit and he was firing in Dealey Plaza with Diaz who was
working for Trafficante.
Albert, I defer to you on this. You were right. Summers was getting
ready to jump ship.
James DiEugenio
Posts: 125
Join date: 2013-08-01
- Similar topics
» Pedagogical Triangle
» UFO Hunters Triangle Footage
» Mystery Quest on the Bermuda Triangle
» Triangle Sighting
» more than a giant triangle
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
"Similar topics"? I'll buy that. \:^)
Dave
P.S. Martin Hay, is "smug prick" really the best you can do? There are LNs
who have said worse things about me.
Dave Reitzes
Nov 7, 2013, 7:57:57 PM11/7/13
to
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?12500-Anthony-Summers/page2#.UnsrlXAqhY4
<QUOTE ON>---------------------------
Jim DiEugenio
Member
Join Date
Dec 2010
Posts
834
Default
I will be doing an essay on the Summers interview with Morley for CTKA.
And I will be going over his reliance on the McAdams crowd and his failure
to update his book.
<QUOTE OFF>--------------------------
I'm omitting some off-topic comments from other posters about John
McAdams' website, although it's tempting to include them. They can be
found at the link above.
Dave
Dave Reitzes
Nov 7, 2013, 9:07:19 PM11/7/13
to
witnesses, but he refuses to consult either Patricia Lambert's research on
the matter (published 14 years ago) or my own (posted online shortly
thereafter), expanding upon her research, including at least one key
document she overlooked:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19539
Dave
0 new messages