‘Before History Dies’ introduces the JFK story to a new generation

Before History Dies by  Jacob M. Carter 

Through a series of interviews with key experts and researchers in the Kennedy assassination field, author Jacob Carter offers readers the unique opportunity to take a fresh look at one of the most pivotal moments in American history.

31 comments

  1. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I’ve been wondering how the sales on this book are doing.
    The balance mentioned in many of the overwhelmingly positive reviews on amazon give the book an appeal to the open minded that those from one side or the other cannot attain. It presents Talbot, Morley and Hardway to an audience who probably would not seek them out.
    By the same token two of the glowing reviews are by Posner and Meyers who don’t get a of of positive feedback from the 60-70-80% of Americans who don’t believe Oswald acted alone.
    I had to just shake my head when reading Russo thinking, the mockingbird is still singing.
    The progression of the thinking of David Scheim since Contract on America mirrors my own.
    Maybe a follow up is in order. Might I suggest Dr. Scott, Douglas and Dieugenio for starters?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Ronnie Wayne
      June 18, 2016 at 9:47 pm

      “Maybe a follow up is in order. Might I suggest Dr. Scott, Douglas and Dieugenio for starters?”

      Why would you suggest these three? All three have done much to confuse the issue with their BS. DiEugenio being particularly weak in my opinion.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I forgot to mention John Newman.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Ronnie Wayne
          June 20, 2016 at 12:26 am

          “I forgot to mention John Newman.”

          Well played Ronnie! Very well played. You got me here. I had to chuckle at this one.

          But of course this doesn’t mean Newman isn’t one of the worst ones here. So many take his BS as gospel, including DiEugenio.

          • Photon says:

            He tells them what they want to hear and the facts be da—d.
            I have yet to hear him or any of his acolytes explain why the Diem coup would not have completely thrown the conclusions of what JFK would have done previously out of the window. I’m not sure that many of them are even aware of the Diem coup.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Photon
            June 20, 2016 at 1:10 pm

            “He tells them what they want to hear and the facts be da—d.”
            “I have yet to hear him or any of his acolytes explain why the Diem coup would not have completely thrown the conclusions of what JFK would have done previously out of the window. I’m not sure that many of them are even aware of the Diem coup.”

            I like what General Colin Powell told the great chicken hawks as they were pushing for war in Iraq; “you break it you buy it”.

            There it is.

          • J.D. says:

            I have no idea what Photon is talking about here. Douglass dedicates an entire chapter (“Saigon and Chicago”) to the Diem coup in his book. Newman certainly discusses it in “JFK and Vietnam.” I’m less familiar with Scott’s work, but DiEugenio has discussed the Diem coup at length several times on Black Op Radio.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            June 22, 2016 at 5:41 pm

            “I have no idea what Photon is talking about here”.

            J.D., I don’t propose to speak in Protons place but I believe he is saying JFK broke it when he approved the plan to remove Diem. So then JFK was obligated to buy it. See Colin Powell quote on my other message please.

            There is a school of thought, of which I am a member, that thinks by removing Diem JFK obligated himself to helping South Vietnam recover from the damage caused by the overthrow. We were tied more closely to the struggle then.

            The extent of our planning for what was to happen after Diem was very puny to say the least. Uncle Ho said, “He couldn’t believe that the Americans had been so stupid”. I believe Uncle Ho was right.

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      Perhaps this book is only few fair books.
      In USA,60% people believed conspiracy,10% didn’t know,30%
      believed Oswald acted alone.
      So-called “assassination reserch book” is almost 100%
      conspiracy side.
      Only 1% official-side.
      Why 99%(conspiracy side) versus 1%(official side) showdown
      result majority-side(conspiracy side) 60% victory?
      Because conspiracy-side is very weak.
      Under the fair circumstances,three time mock trial(1986,1992,2013),four time vote,40 of 48 jury voted Oswald
      guilty.
      Perhaps you read Dieugenio book,I read and analyzed his
      “Destiny Betrial” first ver(Hard cover) and new ver(paper back).
      Clearly he retreat his conspiracy thinking.
      In first ver,he insist again and again “Grassy-knoll shooter”‘s
      existence and evidence.
      But not in new ver.
      He is partly honest.
      I think Dr,Scott is top-heavy with ideas,Douglas book assassination part is scam,bad,joke,low-level,third-rate,fairy-tale.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        HIDEJI OKINA
        June 22, 2016 at 3:22 am

        “Perhaps you read Dieugenio book,I read and analyzed his
        “Destiny Betrial” first ver(Hard cover) and new ver(paper back). Clearly he retreat his conspiracy thinking.
        In first ver,he insist again and again “Grassy-knoll shooter”‘s existence and evidence. But not in new ver.
        He is partly honest.”

        You might be giving him too much credit here but I agree with you. Bingo.

        “I think Dr,Scott is top-heavy with ideas,”

        Something is wrong with him. This might be it.

        “Douglas book assassination part is scam,bad,joke,low-level,third-rate,fairy-tale.”

        Bingo again. I think you have done a good job of evaluating these 3 men and their theories.

        • HIDEJI OKINA says:

          Thanks your comment.
          I read “JFK and the unspeakable”,
          I can’t stop my tears.
          JFK is my forever hero,perhaps you too.
          If he lived,history changed to good direction.
          In “What if?America:Eminent Historians Image What Might Have Been” the book,Robert Dallek write “JFK LIVES” chapter.
          Only “What if?””If JFK lives?”…but I believe
          a Dallek’s future simulate.

          As a cold-wra era historical book,Douglass’s book
          is excellent,but his book is worst as a assassination reserch book.
          Why he believed a Ed Hoffman and “Flight from Dallas”?
          Why he spend many page these stupid testimony?
          Why his book JFK assassination parts contain a so many factroid?

          I read Vincent Palamara’s book “Surviors Guilt” from limited binder-version to book ver,my one is his signed book,number 8.
          His book is excellent,but he is not a truth-seeker,just only conspiracy-believer.

          Perhaps assassination reserchers like a President Reagan’s shooting incident analysis and comparison with JFK case.
          Perhaps their dislike a President Ford’s twice shooting incidents and President Obama-era secret service’s many big blunder analysis and comparison with JFK case.

          If JFK case compared with former case,
          people think JFK case is intentional sabotage.
          If JFK case compared with latter cases,
          people think JFK case is not a strange, not a mysterious,not a unusuall.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Too bad Dr. Scott is too Deep for you.
        Stay away from books like Jim Marr’s Rule By Secrecy or I Dare Call It Treason by Servando Gonzalez (about he Council on Foreign Relations). Who wrote The Power Elite, in what year? I wonder if JFK had read it?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Ronnie Wayne
          June 22, 2016 at 10:02 pm

          “Too bad Dr. Scott is too Deep for you.”

          Heh! Yes he is too deep Ronnie; in BS up to his chin. His treatment of NSAM 273 can only be described as part of this “vast left wing conspiracy” to avoid actual facts that displease them.

          “Stay away from books like Jim Marr’s Rule By Secrecy or I Dare Call It Treason by Servando Gonzalez (about he Council on Foreign Relations).”

          I will. Thanks for the tip.

  2. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Sorry, I forgot to provide the link. It’s an interesting, fairly short, relatively inexpensive read. Decide for your self.

    https://www.amazon.com/Before-History-Dies-surrounding-assassination-ebook/dp/B017YQ4IQY/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466298139&sr=1-1&keywords=before+history+dies

  3. J.D. says:

    Jacob Carter’s book is terrific. It’s one of the very few JFK books that should appeal to absolutely everybody with an interest in the case. Jacob talked to some of the smartest and most interesting people who’ve written about the JFK story, and all of them come at the case from a different perspective. A must-read.

    As a Warren Commission skeptic, I actually found Gerald Posner’s interview to be surprisingly thoughtful and interesting. He struck me as rather open-minded in a way that a lot of anti-conspiracy writers are not.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [J.D. wrote:]

      “Gerald Posner struck me as rather open-minded in a way that a lot of anti-conspiracy writers are not.”

      ================================

      Just for the sake of argument, J.D., I disagree. For starters, trying to consider the opposing camps as symmetric is a fallacy.

      Here’s an argument that I present to the Warrenistas, one that they cannot possibly defeat.

      There are 1,000 serious indicators of a high level domestic conspiracy, right?

      • If only ONE turns out to be a fact, we the CTs win.

      • OTOH, the WC skeptics need a perfect record: all 1,000 damning events must be false. What are the chances of this?

      Q.E.D.

      The bottom line is that a person must be airtight close minded to be a Lone Nutter.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        J.D.: It is only now that I realize that you were contrasting Posner with his fellow LNs, as opposed to comparing him with CTs.

        In any event, the rest of what I wrote holds.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Ramon F Herrera
        June 21, 2016 at 1:50 pm

        “The bottom line is that a person must be airtight close minded to be a Lone Nutter.”

        Ramon, my old friend. I see nothing open minded about buying Prouty’s BS that he helped write the Maxwell Taylor report in a Pentagon office among other things. Nor Scott’s BS about NSAM 273, nor Newman’s crap about NSAM 263 nor DiEugenio’s regurgitation of this BS.

        There is a word to use for this but it certainly isn’t “open minded”. I won’t use the word in the interest of civility. In fact Ramon, it seems to me that there is a vast Left Wing conspiracy to sell a bunch of crap.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          Bill, ole’ buddy…

          Fair enough. Let’s annul the following:

          – Taylor
          – NSAM 263
          – NSAM 273

          You guys still have 997 indications to defeat and some of them are incontrovertible.

          [Bill C:] “Ramon, it seems to me that there is a vast Left Wing conspiracy to sell a bunch of crap.”

          Would you be a dear and clarify a basic fact for the readership? In which of the 4 groups below do you find yourself?

          http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-georgetown-set-112125
          [Click on “Show Comments”]

          Feel free to add an extra category, such as Libertarian. I admit that those folks are so weird, that I am unable to figure them out.

          • You guys still have 997 indications to defeat and some of them are incontrovertible.

            List one or two that you believe to be “incontrovertible.”

          • Bill Clarke says:

            I belong to a large and long time family of blue dog democrats. This finally became a strained relationship and it cracked when the Dems nominated Bill Clinton. Now I vote republican and hope my dear deceased mother never finds out.

            It has got to the point that if you wish to cast a meaningful vote in the local elections you must vote republican. I can remember when a republican couldn’t get elected in my county. The Dems did this to themselves. How you like the Dems today Raymond?

      • The same logic would apply to sightings of Bigfoot.

        Can all of those sightings be false? You have a huge burden to prove them all false, don’t you?

        If even one of them is genuine, Bigfoot exists.

        • Photon says:

          He does. And he was on the Grassy Knoll with Yeti setting up a crossfire.

          • Bog Foot was a Sasquatch of North American Indian lore. The Yeti was Asian, from Tibet.

            I wouldn’t dismiss either of being purely mythical. Tweech Izone.
            \\][//

          • Steve says:

            Oh Photon,

            Your “theory” is about as good as what the WO has left the American people…

        • theNewDanger says:

          Can all of those sightings be false? You have a huge burden to prove them all false, don’t you?

          If even one of them is genuine, Bigfoot exists.

          This is from a Ph.D! Someone’s moved on to DOCTORING philosophy.

        • J.D. says:

          The comparison doesn’t work, because there is no plausible physical evidence for Bigfoot. There is physical evidence in the JFK case which is fiercely disputed.

          There are also numerous historical examples of plots or shady dealings which the government either participated in or sought to cover up (the plots against Castro, CIA involvement in various coups over the years, Watergate, Iran-Contra, the NSA spying program), whereas there are no animals in North America (or the fossil record) similar to Bigfoot.

          • The comparison doesn’t work, because there is no plausible physical evidence for Bigfoot.

            There is no plausible physical evidence for a shooter besides Oswald.

            There is physical evidence in the JFK case which is fiercely disputed.

            It’s only “disputed” by buffs who don’t want to believe it.

            There are also numerous historical examples of plots or shady dealings which the government either participated in or sought to cover up

            There are also numerous examples of previously unknown species of animals having been discovered.

          • J.D. says:

            McAdams writes: “There is no plausible physical evidence for a shooter besides Oswald.”

            Not according to the HSCA.

            McAdams, again: “It’s only ‘disputed’ by buffs who don’t want to believe it.”

            This is not an argument. One could, with equal justice, turn your logic around and argue that you refuse to accept the existence of evidence that suggests a conspiracy because you, yourself, “don’t want to believe it.”

            Perhaps people would take your arguments more seriously if you did not feel the need to refer to anyone who disagrees with you as a “buff” or a “fanatic.”

          • Photon says:

            But the HSCA said that all of the shots that hit JFK and Connolly were fired by Oswald.
            At the end they accepted a conclusion based on the ” acoustic evidence” that even one of the two “experts” stated would be invalid if the motorcycle cop whose microphone supposedly picked up the sounds was not positioned exactly as they claimed he was.
            Dale Myers conclusively proved that the same patrolman was nowhere near where he had to be to be the source of the recording, invalidating the whole concept.
            Where is the real evidence of another shooter? Who is that shooter?
            The medical evidence( as noted by REAL experts, not armchair hobbyists or Opthalmologists or Radiation Oncologists) is that all of the shots that hit JFK and Connolly came from the rear. That evidence is refuted only by individuals who have no credentials or forensic experience , ie like claiming that a sports writer can do a Whipple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more