It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Apply for Membership
↳ General Show Discussion
↳ Introduce Yourself!
↳ Assassination Research
↳ Current Events / News
↳ Everything Else
In this Discussion
Stephen King's "11/22/63
Well, I just finished my first Stephen King book, "11/22/63". As a book, it's mildly entertaining (emphasis on "mildly") in parts if you enjoy speculative fiction; but I wouldn't recommend that anyone buy it. Spolier alert: this book is about a guy who travels in time back to 1963 to stop the JFK murder. To make a long story short, the book concludes that Oswald was the lone shooter (and a malcontent, etc, etc)(I have no idea why I thought King would have concluded otherwise, but I guess that's what made me buy the book). Anyway, the kicker, as Jim DeG would say, is that King has an afterword in the book in which he states that he's 98 percent sure Oswald acted alone; he cites his reading list as Case Closed (Posner), Legend (Epstein), Oswald's Tale (Mailer) .... and he gives a big salute to the Gary Mack and the 6th Floor Museum ... he also buys the fact that Ruby killed Oswald because Ruby so distraught over JFK's death. By this point, I should have gagged ... so, save yourself your dollars and time.
But this ridiculous book made me ask this question: If you had to give the top 5 or 10 reasons that heavily suggest that JFK was killed in a conspiracy, what would they be? I know that Len has asked this question, but here are two facts (ASSUMING I'm correct, and please correct me if I'm wrong) that in and of themselves suggest that Oswald's story is much more complicated than the WC presented. In fact, if I'm correct about these facts, I might even write to King myself and politely tell him how wrong he is
(1) Jack Ruby attends press conference held in basement of Dallas Police Dept on day of the assassination. Ruby corrects the speaker regarding Oswald's involvement with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I have seen photos of video of a man at this conference who very much looks like Ruby; and I've seen an interview of someone who says that Ruby was there (the someone, I believe, was the person given the briefing re: Oswald). I would be very curious what Posner's of the world have to say about this, and perhaps someone who has done deeper research can tell me. Otherwise, you have ask what the hell is Ruby doing at a press conference correcting info re: Oswald.
2) Ruby knew Oswald. How did the Warren Commission and its defenders deal with the numerous people who said that they recognized Oswald because Ruby introduced them?
I'm sorry I even bought this book.
Thanks for that review. Here's some things related to Stephen King relying on likes of known disinfoteers i.e.,
Edward Jay Epstein
, et al...
This is on the heels of Stephen King's latest novel "11/22/63" , which also espouses the lone gunman meme.
It is starting to annoy me.
I figured I would start a thread to keep track of these mentions in any
of the various media I take in, and see if this trend snowballs as we
approach the 50th anniversary of the events in Dallas.
I did end
up reading that King book by the way, it is awful. Even the parts that
mainly deal with the concept of time travel suck.
interesting to me because lately my facebook page is riddled with my
friends comments thanking Mr. King for making statements against Mitt
Romney. So, King is seen as a hero to the Left, even as he spreads the
lone gunman meme.
Perhaps that fits in with 8bit's "Why Is It Right Wing To Think The Media is Brainwashing?" thread.
might be interesting to those who have no intention of reading the
novel to see who King thanks first for their "useful source-materials" :
source-materials"? It would be tempting to label these guys with the
Orwellian term "Useful Idiots", but it obviously goes beyond that.
Before he was exposed as a
, Gerald Posner inadvertently revealed his
. As for those others...
Ron Ecker wrote:
Posted Yesterday, 07:36 PM
Includes excerpt from a New York Times Book Review by Gerald Posner.
Leave it to the NYT to choose Posner to write a review of a Kennedy
assassination book. These people are beyond any decent description.
as I recall, Moldea's book did a good job of proving a conspiracy, then
on the last page he strangely concludes that Sirhan did it alone. I
wonder if someone had a gun to his head as he wrapped up his manuscript...
Of course the evidence suggests that
was blackmailed into concluding that Sirhan acted alone:
I know from a first-hand source -- whom I will name, if legally pressed -- that
Dan Moldea had privately complained that the major publishers had "blackballed" him after he wrote a book called
Interference: How Organized Crime Influences Professional Football
The blackballing stopped the moment he agreed to write a book about the
Robert F. Kennedy assassination pushing the "lone nut" hypothesis
Much the same way
was blackmailed into supporting the lone nutters...
Jim DiEugenio wrote:
Posted 31 January 2011 - 03:26 AM
1973, Mailer published a book, Marilyn, (really a photo essay) with the
assistance of longtime FBI asset on the Kennedy assassination
He recirculated the tale again, inserting a new twist. He added the
possibility that the FBI and/or the CIA might have been involved in the
murder in order to blackmail Bobby ( p. 242). In 1973,
the media had some standards. Mailer was excoriated for his baseless
ruminations. In private, he admitted he did what he did to help pay off a
tax debt. He also made a similar confession in public. When
Mike Wallace asked him on 60 Minutes (7/13/73) why he had to trash Bobby Kennedy,
Mailer replied “I needed money very badly.”
Who knows what
Speaking of Gerald Posner reviewing Dan Moldea's book for the New York Times. IIRC there was something about the NYTimes cutting out their main book reviewer (
) in favor of using CIA asset Priscilla Johnson or Liz Smith(?) for a review of one of the better JFK books (Plausible Denial?).
Keep in mind that you are rarely if ever going to get the truth from anyone who makes their living from writing. There's just too much chance of being blackballed. The only reason any solid research gets done at all is because of the army of amateurs who do it on the side, because they are truly concerned about what is happening to the U.S. and the rest of the West.
Add a Comment
Powered by Vanilla