This was MUCH better than I had expected after reading quite a few negative reviews. True, it isn't written in the same style as Frank Herbert (but afThis was MUCH better than I had expected after reading quite a few negative reviews. True, it isn't written in the same style as Frank Herbert (but after the last 2 Dune books, I'd have to say that's a blessing). The plot consistently held my interest and the pace of the narrative moved briskly. If you're a fan of the original Dune books, you should enjoy this. ...more
If you're a film fan and a history buff, like I am, you'll definitely enjoy this book. Most of the articles are written by mainstream historians, and If you're a film fan and a history buff, like I am, you'll definitely enjoy this book. Most of the articles are written by mainstream historians, and they are generally well done. Two misfires, however are Stanley Karnow's review of JFK, and Bob Woodward's review of NIXON. Karnow knows nothing about the JFK assassination, and instead focuses on misleading the reader, assuring us that Kennedy would have done the same as LBJ did in Vietnam. Woodward is a poor choice to review Oliver Stone's NIXON, because he props up the official story, and was himself involved in it under fairly suspicious circumstances (as described in the book SILENT COUP)....more
If you're a film fan and a history buff, like I am, you'll definitely enjoy this book. Fraser writes well, and skillfully combines a wide-ranging knowIf you're a film fan and a history buff, like I am, you'll definitely enjoy this book. Fraser writes well, and skillfully combines a wide-ranging knowledge of history and film. It's also richly illustrated with plenty of B&W photos....more
This is probably the most important book I've read about the events of 9/11. Like the work done on the JFK assassination by Harold Weisberg, Sylvia MeThis is probably the most important book I've read about the events of 9/11. Like the work done on the JFK assassination by Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher, Howard Roffman and others, Davidsson meticulously focuses on the government's own evidence, and attempts to release more of it through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The emphasis is on official documentation (or the lack of it), normal procedures not being followed, the lack of photographic evidence, the lack of a chain of possession for the evidence we have been shown, etc.
As with many other events, we have the familiar pattern of the official story being slowly revealed to the public by the corporate media, in quotes attributed to anonymous officials. These leaked stories change frequently until the final "official" version eventually emerges. Sometimes there are several "final" versions (we have three different, conflicting official accounts of President Kennedy's wounds, for example). If the government's investigation into 9/11 were subject to an outside audit by a reputable firm, it would fail miserably.
I challenge anyone who believes the official story to read this book and try to debunk it....more
Overall, this is an excellent examination of various cover-ups and controversial subjects in recent US history (since 1963). Jeffries does a good job Overall, this is an excellent examination of various cover-ups and controversial subjects in recent US history (since 1963). Jeffries does a good job explaining the concept of fake liberals/leftists, and the idea that elites prefer to create a controlled political opposition to maintain the appearance of democracy. This includes a compliant corporate media, and the phony Republican-Democrat puppet show.
The chapter on the JFK assassination is pretty good. The MLK section is too short and doesn't mention the 1999 civil trial. The RFK chapter is very well done. Chappaquiddick and Watergate could have been discussed in more detail. The book gets much stronger dealing with the 1980s and beyond. The Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years are covered in detail, including black operations, false flags, mysterious deaths and cover-ups that I had either forgotten or never heard about. There is no partisanship here. Jeffries skewers both parties equally, and even gets into the darker regions of child trafficking.
The chapter on the death of JFK Jr. is also excellent, and contains a lot of information that was new to me.
There are a few weak spots, though. There is no mention of the USS Liberty, which appeared to be an attempt by the Israelis and Lyndon Johnson to sink an American ship, blame Egypt for it, and get the US involved in the Six Day War (perhaps to overthrow Nasser and retake the Suez Canal). There are also a few errors. Operation Northwoods was not a CIA plan; it was conceived by the Pentagon. He also claims that Nixon was the first President to impose wage and price controls, but this was also done by FDR during World War II. I don't understand the praising of Ferdinand Marcos either (he misses the chance to discuss the Golden Lily treasure here).
Some quotes are also questionable. I've never been able to confirm that the Sarah McClendon quote from GHWB was actually printed in her newsletter. Has anyone ever seen a copy of it? The Caroline Kennedy quote about Obama is from a very iffy source. The William Colby quote is found all over the internet; it apparently comes from Dave McGowan and I'm skeptical that he actually said it.
I also wish there was a bibliography. Still, I highly recommend this book. Jeffries has obviously been researching these subjects for a long time, and a few errors are unavoidable in a work like this....more
I feel this is a very important work. I've always been fascinated by the corporate media's coverage of events like this (the JFK assassination is my sI feel this is a very important work. I've always been fascinated by the corporate media's coverage of events like this (the JFK assassination is my specialty), and how our "approved history" is created and accepted by the masses.
Zwicker does a fine job examining how official stories take hold in the popular imagination, how reporters resist questioning them, and how even many "leftists" become gatekeepers to restrict debate. The chapter on Noam Chomsky is distressing, but not a surprise to those who have witnessed his defense of the official JFK assassination story. He also delves into the psychological reasons for human denial and self-deception about disturbing issues like this one. There is also a nice tribute to the research of David Ray Griffin.
Strangely, his chapter on historical false flag events does not include the USS Liberty attack, which apparently was done with the intention of blaming Egypt so the US could jump into the Six Day War on Israel's side.
Zwicker writes: "Once a storyline has taken hold, two universal tendencies emerge. One is to downplay or even dismiss facts that don't fit the story, along with the arguments brought forward to support it. The second tendency is to play up and make central anything that fits the story."
"You see it in on-line chat rooms. One person says he's convinced that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Immediately, someone responds with, 'Don't you understand that 3,000 innocent people died that day?!' This mother of all non sequiturs is encouraged by the dark forces behind the demolitions. False-flag operations are designed to inflame emotions and overcome rational thought. The confusion reinforces the Big Lie."...more
I've owned this book since it was released in 1988, and I'm still impressed by it. Timothy Good covers the subject of the worldwide UFO coverup in a sI've owned this book since it was released in 1988, and I'm still impressed by it. Timothy Good covers the subject of the worldwide UFO coverup in a scholarly way, with an appendix of reproduced government documents, footnotes and an Index. There are separate chapters on Great Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Australia, Canada, China, USSR, with the largest section covering the United States....more
Myers is one of the more scholarly supporters of the Warren Commission, but there are only so many ways to put lipstick on a pig. This book contains mMyers is one of the more scholarly supporters of the Warren Commission, but there are only so many ways to put lipstick on a pig. This book contains many photos and diagrams, and Myers did a lot of interviews and serious research. But he decided to ignore a lot of the evidence and just support the official story anyway. It certainly is a lot easier!
But there are researchers like Larry Ray Harris, Greg Lowrey, Gary Murr, Bill Drenas, Ken Holmes and Bill Pulte who spent decades digging into this case. The late Larry Ray Harris actually took a job as a letter carrier in Oak Cliff so he could investigate the murder. Gary Murr wrote an excellent 1971 monograph called "The Murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit" which you can find in John Armstrong's online archives.
According to the earliest evidence, the Tippit murder actually occurred somewhere between 1:06pm and 1:10pm. The only way Oswald could reach the scene that quickly is if he was driven there. And that would obviously present some problems for the no-conspiracy crowd.
Joseph McBride's new book "Into the Nightmare" contains several chapters on the Tippit murder and sums up the multitude of problems with the official story. Mark Lane recalled that when he and Emile de Antonio went to Dallas to film interviews for the documentary Rush to Judgment, "There was absolutely no tension at all on the scene of the assassination. We were there three hours. All the tension is where Tippit was killed." Witnesses were afraid to talk; some had already been victims of violence or had received threats. Some had left town. The fear was still palpable in the neighborhood many years later....more
Mel Ayton and David Von Pein are well-known on the internet for being indefatigable defenders of the official stories of the assassinations of the 196Mel Ayton and David Von Pein are well-known on the internet for being indefatigable defenders of the official stories of the assassinations of the 1960s. Von Pein's presence, in particular, is overwhelming: blogs, YouTube accounts, Amazon reviews, forum postings. I will not question their motives or sincerity, but it is mystifying why people would devote so much time and energy to defending obvious falsehoods.
If the official story is true (a simple case of murder as its defenders claim, muddied only by the "conspiracists"), why is yet another book required to defend it? William Manchester, Jim Bishop, David Belin, Charles Roberts, Jim Moore, Jean Davison, Gerald Posner, Vincent Bugliosi and so many others have already written the allegedly "definitive account" that supposedly "closed the case." Or so the media proclaim whenever these works are published. Mel Ayton has already written at least two other books to "dispel the conspiracy myths." There is a whiff of desperation involved in these books, and the TV news "specials" that appear when anniversaries roll around. Americans are increasingly aware that their official history is a lie, more attractively packaged and marketed than in other countries, but still a lie.
Martin Hay at the CTKA website has also written an excellent rebuttal to Beyond Reasonable Doubt....more
Mel Ayton is well-known on the internet for writing articles defending the official stories of the assassinations of the 1960s. How was James Earl RayMel Ayton is well-known on the internet for writing articles defending the official stories of the assassinations of the 1960s. How was James Earl Ray, sitting with a rifle in a public bathroom that was shared by several other rooms on that floor of the boarding house, supposed to know if or when Dr. King was going to appear on the balcony that night? How would he have that kind of inside information about King's schedule and whereabouts?
JFK and Martin Luther King were killed using the same method - the alleged sniper firing from a window in a tall building at the target outside, the real assassin(s) hiding behind foliage in another location. A shadowy "loser" (Oswald, Ray) was set up to look like the assassin through the use of a fabricated "sniper's nest" and planted evidence....more
James DiEugenio, an expert on the JFK assassination, wrote on an internet forum that Fuhrman privately does not agree with the official story: "That wJames DiEugenio, an expert on the JFK assassination, wrote on an internet forum that Fuhrman privately does not agree with the official story: "That was a put up job. I know this since I was on his show twice about [DiEugenio's book] The Assassinations. He is a conspiracy guy through and through. He liked the book so much he invited me back after the first hour long interview. He especially liked the two part essay by Armstrong. What happened to Fuhrman had a lot to do with the Simpson trial. Dominick Dunne became infatuated with him. After he was disgraced, he did all he could to restore his life for him. Among which was getting him a talk show in Spokane. He wrote that book as part of his penance to the rightwing network Dunne was in cahoots with. Like I wrote in this essay about McAdams, this is one of the things the RW network demands of you to stay in their good graces."...more
Even Vincent Bugliosi (supporter of the Warren Commission) wasn't taken in by the official story of the RFK assassination. He actively helped critics Even Vincent Bugliosi (supporter of the Warren Commission) wasn't taken in by the official story of the RFK assassination. He actively helped critics back in the 1970s and 1980s in locating new witnesses who saw extra bullet holes in the pantry door frame. These holes were seen by numerous people, identified as bullet holes by experts and even photographed, and then the frames were later destroyed by the LAPD.
Don't waste your time with Mel Ayton's books. If you want to learn something about the RFK assassination, turn to the works of Philip Melanson, William Turner and Jonn Christian, and Ted Charach's documentary, THE SECOND GUN....more
William Turner was an FBI agent for ten years. He became an assassination researcher in the mid-1960s and the senior editor of the radical magazine RaWilliam Turner was an FBI agent for ten years. He became an assassination researcher in the mid-1960s and the senior editor of the radical magazine Ramparts. He and Jonn Christian (an investigative journalist) spent many years digging up evidence and interviewing witnesses in this case. This important book, initially suppressed after its original 1978 publication, was updated and reissued in 1993 thanks to renewed interested in the Kennedys due to Oliver Stone's film. It clearly demolishes the official story that a "lone nut" killed Robert F. Kennedy....more
William Turner was an FBI agent for ten years. He became an assassination researcher in the mid-1960s and the senior editor of the radical magazine RaWilliam Turner was an FBI agent for ten years. He became an assassination researcher in the mid-1960s and the senior editor of the radical magazine Ramparts. He and Jonn Christian (an investigative journalist) spent many years digging up evidence and interviewing witnesses in this case. This important book, initially suppressed after its original 1978 publication, was updated and reissued in 1993 thanks to renewed interested in the Kennedys due to Oliver Stone's film. It clearly demolishes the official story that a "lone nut" killed Robert F. Kennedy....more
There is really no substitute for the History Commons website, but this book is still very worthwhile. One of the basic things it demonstrates - as ThThere is really no substitute for the History Commons website, but this book is still very worthwhile. One of the basic things it demonstrates - as Thompson discusses in Barrie Zwicker's DVD "The Great Conspiracy" - is that frequently the mainstream media will report all kinds of important facts that don't agree with the official story, but because there is no follow-up, no attempt to connect the dots, no context or background given to the reader, these stories usually disappear and are soon forgotten about. Instead the official narrative takes over and is constantly reinforced until it becomes our approved history....more
I enjoyed this more as a teenager back in the 1980s. Rereading it today, I can see that despite its brilliant and original concept, there are some flaI enjoyed this more as a teenager back in the 1980s. Rereading it today, I can see that despite its brilliant and original concept, there are some flaws in its execution. This may be due to the fact that this novel was pieced together from two novellas originally published in 1967 and 1971 in science fiction magazines. Still, I highly recommend it for fans of speculative fiction....more
I enjoyed this more as a teenager back in the 1980s. Rereading it today, I can see that despite its brilliant and original concept, there are some flaI enjoyed this more as a teenager back in the 1980s. Rereading it today, I can see that despite its brilliant and original concept, there are some flaws in its execution. This may be due to the fact that the novel was pieced together from two novellas originally published in 1965 and 1966 in science fiction magazines. Still, I highly recommend it for fans of speculative fiction. ...more
I was slow to buy this book because I have the internet version of it released years ago. But this edition contains new, updated information. It reallI was slow to buy this book because I have the internet version of it released years ago. But this edition contains new, updated information. It really is a phenomenal piece of research, and I have to give Palamara a lot of credit for his diligence and persistence in getting former Secret Service agents and other key people to speak on the record. For many years he has made his research available for free on the internet, but it deserves to be preserved in printed form.
One of the points discussed in the book is something that I've always been troubled by: the last-minute cancellation of the photographers' vehicle (directly in front of the Presidential limo) which had been expected by newsmen that day at Love Field (Thomas Dillard of the Dallas Morning News: "We lost our position out at the airport. I understood we were supposed to have been quite a bit closer. We were assigned as the prime photographic car which, as you probably know, normally a truck precedes the President on these things and certain representatives of the photographic press ride with the truck. In this case, as you know, we didn't have any and this car that I was in was to take any photographs which was of spot-news nature...and the whole parade, the whole trip to town, I could only distinguish the President's car on very few occasions in high rises in the ground, when we got on hills. It was difficult because the people in the cars ahead of me were sitting on the backs of cars which pretty well covered the President's car for me. We had a very, very poor view of the President's car at any time from the time the parade started.") Instead, photographers were forced to scramble for rides farther back in the motorcade, where even the White House photographer could not do his job of photographing the President. Consequently, the only photographic witnesses to the assassination were those on foot in Dealey Plaza....more
For the most part, I thought this was a well-researched, and very plausible, account of a plot by a group of high-level "Patriots" in Washington and TFor the most part, I thought this was a well-researched, and very plausible, account of a plot by a group of high-level "Patriots" in Washington and Texas to eliminate a President they felt was a threat to the country's national security. The writing is mostly just average, and the characters often sound too much alike. But the plot is very credible, dealing with themes that Noel Twyman explored in his non-fiction book, BLOODY TREASON. Were there just too many people in positions of power who felt that Kennedy had to be removed for the good of the country (as they envisioned it)?
*SPOILER ALERT*
Helppie uses a few fictional characters to educate the reader about the backstory (late 1940s to 1963). The main character, Patrick McCarthy, rises rapidly up the ranks of the CIA and meets just about every important person of the time (JFK, Nixon, Eisenhower, Dulles, Khrushchev, Castro, etc), as well as other figures (Marilyn Monroe, Frank Sinatra, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Jack Ruby, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Dave Ferrie, Howard Hunt, David Atlee Phillips, Johnny Roselli, etc.). McCarthy and other characters (Grant, an LBJ crony; Chase, a journalist; Ruger, a psychotic mafia assassin) are involved in many important Cold War events - the coups in Iran and Guatemala, the Red Scare, US elections, the U-2 program, the nuclear race, assassinations, the Bay of Pigs, MK/ULTRA, and later, Operation Phoenix. McCarthy is also skilled with a sniper rifle. The story periodically flashes forward to 1978, as Patrick McCarthy hides out in New Orleans during the HSCA investigation, hoping to avoid being silence by his erstwhile colleagues.
Strangely, there is no discussion of Eisenhower's big plans for a peace summit in 1960, which failed because of the U-2 event. Helppie could have worked Fletcher Prouty's theory of the U-2 downing into the story. He doesn't talk about Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech, or the Pentagon's plans in the summer of 1961 for a preemptive nuclear strike on the USSR "in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions." He does, however, mention Seven Days in May and Operation Northwoods. In fact, at one point the "Patriot" plot is presented to Patrick McCarthy as an effort to stave off a more serious direct military takeover. McCarthy suspects it may have more to do with LBJ. He will eventually come to regret participating in the assassination plot. He also suspects the Patriots of later being behind the deaths of MLK and RFK.
Helppie has clearly done a lot of reading about the assassination, though in my opinion he relies too much on sources like Hersh's DARK SIDE OF CAMELOT and Giancana's DOUBLE CROSS. There is too much emphasis on the tabloid trash stories of Kennedy's womanizing and drug use, and not enough about his policies. In fact, an unknowing reader might come away thinking that JFK was a spoiled, shallow, indecisive, undisciplined, selfish rich kid who needed to be taken out. The portrayal of the Cuban Missile Crisis is too one-sided, for example. I understand that McCarthy represents a particular point of view - the "super patriot" who felt that the Cold War was a titanic struggle between Good and Evil - but even there, Helppie misses the opportunity to show how Kennedy was consciously working to end the Cold War after October 1962. He also falls for the questionable claims that the Kennedy brothers were actively involved in the assassinations of foreign leaders. He doesn't mention Kennedy's back-channel talks with Castro, his shutting down of Cuban exile raids, or many other aspects of his foreign policies. Vietnam and the Steel Crisis are barely discussed. His civil rights policies are alternately portrayed as too weak and too aggressive.
Helppie works John Armstrong's research (HARVEY AND LEE) into the story by having McCarthy's character meet both "A.J. Hidell" and "Lee Harvey Oswald," and then combining their identities for a fake defector program, which McCarthy runs. He has nothing to do with (and feels betrayed by) Oswald's later use as the patsy in the JFK assassination. For the most part, the assassination scenario is pretty credible. McCarthy is the team leader for the shooters (a group of Corsicans, along with Ruger, Mac Wallace and Roscoe White), and has to fill in for one who gets sick at the last minute. He becomes the Grassy Knoll gunman. Helppie devises a clever explanation for the "pool of blood" seen by some witnesses in Dealey Plaza, and the stories of a dead Secret Service agent. The account of Oswald's escape from the Book Depository and the death of J.D. Tippit are also plausible enough. He also works the accounts of a "pre-autopsy" at Walter Reed into the plot. Unfortunately, he also adds questionable people like Gordon Arnold and Beverly Oliver, plus Jack Ruby planting the pristine bullet at Parkland (instead of it being fabricated in an FBI water tank). McCarthy is also actively involved in "guiding" the Warren Commission's botched investigation, by influencing junior counsels like Arlen Specter. The story ends in 1978 in New Orleans, when we find out what happened to the "other" Oswald....more
I still have my hardcover copy of this book published 20 years ago. I haven't read it since then, but I remember it being a strongly written, well-resI still have my hardcover copy of this book published 20 years ago. I haven't read it since then, but I remember it being a strongly written, well-researched book, though I feel that Brown implicates the Dallas Police a little too heavily. Clearly some members of the DPD were involved in the plot and cover-up, though. It also includes an appendix listing of Warren Commission witnesses, as well as a listing of witnesses not called by the WC....more
Loading...
