A
Anonymous
Guest
Nixon was actually in Dallas the day JFK died, working as a lawyer for Pepsi-Cola.
Not sure about LBJ?
Not sure about LBJ?
Anome
Bibliomancer
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
- Location
- Left, and to the Back
Re: Title Mistake
I think they've just gotten to him. After all, despite the fact he names Elvis in the title, there is nothing on Elvis in the book. It's obvious that he originally had an insightful analysis of the connections between the JFK assassination, UFOs and Elvis Presley, but by the time he got to press, the lizards (either 12 feet tall and a long way away, or 12 inches and really close) got him to take it all out.
FraterLibre said:
I think they've just gotten to him. After all, despite the fact he names Elvis in the title, there is nothing on Elvis in the book. It's obvious that he originally had an insightful analysis of the connections between the JFK assassination, UFOs and Elvis Presley, but by the time he got to press, the lizards (either 12 feet tall and a long way away, or 12 inches and really close) got him to take it all out.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Here in Sunnydale, it's well known that `Tricky Dicky' used to work for `Wolfram and Hart.' Need I say more?
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Main Man
No offense taken. In fact, I rather agreed with you, and you're quite right, it's bovine humanity. Or, as I like to call 'em, hairless onanistic chimps.
Who Shot JFK is a cottage industry showing no signs of waning, but the veneer of apathy and ignorance overlying USSA's citizens -- if we can be called that any longer, given our lack of participation in our own affairs these days -- has me convinced that the old argument about keeping "The Truth" about UFOs "Secret", (what an open secret, though), to prevent mass hysteria is ludicrous. No revelation would create mass hysteria, it seems.
Did you see CONTACT? Or read Sagan's novel? In both, mass hysteria and media hoopla are depicted as the result of revealing ET's existence. What bunk. In truth, there would be a mad scramble, but it would be focused on how to make profits off the new-found exploitable ET.
In Childood's End, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, then writing under the handicap of not having been knighted, conceived the ETs who swooped down as looking pretty much exactly the way we tend to depict Satan, or the devil. Red skin, horns, goatees, cloven feet, etc. I think they even stank of brimstone.
This similarity to xtain cultural bigotry was noted by the ETs, who kindly hovered over our cities for decades to let us get used to them BEFORE revealing how they actually looked. This to convince us they meant no harm and were in fact here to help.
Clarke's thinking was obviously along the mass hysteria lines, too. His pixie sense of humor then led him to compound the irony by making ET not only not cute and cuddly, but downright devilish.
In real life, a Satanic looking ET race would enliven so-called Satanists and heat up the sale of kewpie dolls at carnivals, but otherwise would probably bore everyone the way a particularly unimaginative sequel movie does.
Compared to all this, who shot JFK is small potatoes.
No offense taken. In fact, I rather agreed with you, and you're quite right, it's bovine humanity. Or, as I like to call 'em, hairless onanistic chimps.
Who Shot JFK is a cottage industry showing no signs of waning, but the veneer of apathy and ignorance overlying USSA's citizens -- if we can be called that any longer, given our lack of participation in our own affairs these days -- has me convinced that the old argument about keeping "The Truth" about UFOs "Secret", (what an open secret, though), to prevent mass hysteria is ludicrous. No revelation would create mass hysteria, it seems.
Did you see CONTACT? Or read Sagan's novel? In both, mass hysteria and media hoopla are depicted as the result of revealing ET's existence. What bunk. In truth, there would be a mad scramble, but it would be focused on how to make profits off the new-found exploitable ET.
In Childood's End, Sir Arthur C. Clarke, then writing under the handicap of not having been knighted, conceived the ETs who swooped down as looking pretty much exactly the way we tend to depict Satan, or the devil. Red skin, horns, goatees, cloven feet, etc. I think they even stank of brimstone.
This similarity to xtain cultural bigotry was noted by the ETs, who kindly hovered over our cities for decades to let us get used to them BEFORE revealing how they actually looked. This to convince us they meant no harm and were in fact here to help.
Clarke's thinking was obviously along the mass hysteria lines, too. His pixie sense of humor then led him to compound the irony by making ET not only not cute and cuddly, but downright devilish.
In real life, a Satanic looking ET race would enliven so-called Satanists and heat up the sale of kewpie dolls at carnivals, but otherwise would probably bore everyone the way a particularly unimaginative sequel movie does.
Compared to all this, who shot JFK is small potatoes.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I remember reading that Hoover's diary would be made open to the public in about twenty years time, but can't find anything on Google?
Any corraboration out there?
Any corraboration out there?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mc Adams makes a good case against Elroy's story. I dont believe Elroy either. He is a small time crook looking to make some money.
A
Anonymous
Guest
You could well be right, and Ellroy is an admitted speed freak, thief and panty sniffer. His books are excellent though.The Fireclown said:
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Absurd Prejudice
Ellroy was those things as a youth. He's been a successful novelist and best-selling novelist for decades now and is a superb writer. He's in fact living proof that such kids can be turned around, if one can find their obsession.
Holding his past against him, and calling him a small time crook, is absurd.
What's in YOUR wallet?
We're all carrying things we ought not. It's what we are RIGHT NOW that counts.
Ask any politician. LOL
Ellroy was those things as a youth. He's been a successful novelist and best-selling novelist for decades now and is a superb writer. He's in fact living proof that such kids can be turned around, if one can find their obsession.
Holding his past against him, and calling him a small time crook, is absurd.
What's in YOUR wallet?
We're all carrying things we ought not. It's what we are RIGHT NOW that counts.
Ask any politician. LOL
A
Anonymous
Guest
After reading the shit he went through in 'My Dark Places' its amazing he didn't become a serial killer. Instead he became one of the best American writers for years.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Dark Spots
Yes, indeed, My Dark Places is almost unreadably brutal, and it's written in a very terse, very blunt style. You can feel him shutting down his emotions just to get another phrase down on paper. It's appalling what happened to him, and awesome that he can deal with it so clearly. Him sitting down alone to face the contents of his mother's personal items envelope from the murder scene evidence is unnerving and devastating for any reader who can even start to imagine what it must be like. Ellroy tells you, if you want to hear.
The first of Ellroy's books I read that caught my attention, riveted it, in fact, was The Black Dahlia. That book, based on the notorious murder case, parallels his mother's death in many ways. Although I didn't know it at the time, I sure did recognize a personal stake in things. His clarity and bluntness, and his insight into the nasty stuff, compelled me to read on.
Ellroy is a rare example of a guy determined and smart and lucky enough to escape an almost sure early death as a reprobate criminal, by sheer will and focus. That he's become one of the best American writers is a bonus no one would have bet on, probably least of all him.
In any case, his ideas in American Tabloid are on the paranoid side of things, but he's got reasons, and while I'm not entirely convinced, I'm also not dismissing it completely either. There are less cogent takes on the JFK thing.
Yes, indeed, My Dark Places is almost unreadably brutal, and it's written in a very terse, very blunt style. You can feel him shutting down his emotions just to get another phrase down on paper. It's appalling what happened to him, and awesome that he can deal with it so clearly. Him sitting down alone to face the contents of his mother's personal items envelope from the murder scene evidence is unnerving and devastating for any reader who can even start to imagine what it must be like. Ellroy tells you, if you want to hear.
The first of Ellroy's books I read that caught my attention, riveted it, in fact, was The Black Dahlia. That book, based on the notorious murder case, parallels his mother's death in many ways. Although I didn't know it at the time, I sure did recognize a personal stake in things. His clarity and bluntness, and his insight into the nasty stuff, compelled me to read on.
Ellroy is a rare example of a guy determined and smart and lucky enough to escape an almost sure early death as a reprobate criminal, by sheer will and focus. That he's become one of the best American writers is a bonus no one would have bet on, probably least of all him.
In any case, his ideas in American Tabloid are on the paranoid side of things, but he's got reasons, and while I'm not entirely convinced, I'm also not dismissing it completely either. There are less cogent takes on the JFK thing.
A
Anonymous
Guest
There is nothing illegal in my wallet. If you are a crim dont assume I am and start making accusations.
Actually I have never heard of an Elrroy and mixed him up with the laughable claims of a crim named Elrod the La Fontaines use as a major source in their shoddy book. Hey, its a living I suppose. You wont find many researches that take Elrod seriously. The "I shared a cell with Oswald and he told me everything" claim is ludicrous.
Actually I have never heard of an Elrroy and mixed him up with the laughable claims of a crim named Elrod the La Fontaines use as a major source in their shoddy book. Hey, its a living I suppose. You wont find many researches that take Elrod seriously. The "I shared a cell with Oswald and he told me everything" claim is ludicrous.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Remain Relatively Calm
Fireclown - Dont be so defensive about your wallet, lad. I've no interest. Was just joshing, citing a popular -- or unpopular, really -- USSA TV ad in which a credit card shows hordes of barbarians of various sorts massing to attack various "regular" Americans. As they swarm down to loot and pillage, the wife whips out a certain credit card, the mere mention of which causes the attacking vermin to stop their attack and stomp off in a huff of chagrin.
All a contexual josh, you see. So take no offense.
As for mistaking the nimrod Elrod for James Ellroy, understandable mistake for those not familiar with the latter. Once exposed to him, though, you'll know he is NOT kidding around, not even a little bit.
In one book, his protagonist's dog is named Rape-O because "...it fucks anything it comes across..." This led for years to the rumor that Ellroy's dog, an ugly white pit bull terrier, is named Rape-O. Not true. He's named Bark-O. LOL
In other words, Ellory's been something of a lightning rod.
Fireclown - Dont be so defensive about your wallet, lad. I've no interest. Was just joshing, citing a popular -- or unpopular, really -- USSA TV ad in which a credit card shows hordes of barbarians of various sorts massing to attack various "regular" Americans. As they swarm down to loot and pillage, the wife whips out a certain credit card, the mere mention of which causes the attacking vermin to stop their attack and stomp off in a huff of chagrin.
All a contexual josh, you see. So take no offense.
As for mistaking the nimrod Elrod for James Ellroy, understandable mistake for those not familiar with the latter. Once exposed to him, though, you'll know he is NOT kidding around, not even a little bit.
In one book, his protagonist's dog is named Rape-O because "...it fucks anything it comes across..." This led for years to the rumor that Ellroy's dog, an ugly white pit bull terrier, is named Rape-O. Not true. He's named Bark-O. LOL
In other words, Ellory's been something of a lightning rod.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I recommend all those interested in conspiracies to read his Underworld USA series.
The first 'American Tabloid' deals with the events leading up to JFK's assassination. The second 'The Cold Six Thousand' is set around RFK and Martin Luther King's assassination.
The final book is unpublished, but apparently it's dealing with Nixon's presidency, so presumably Watergate, Gordon Liddy, etc?
Obviously all book are fictional, but ooze authenticty (in atmosphere, attention to detal, slang, etc - the factual content is up for debate) and are so hard boiled they have the gravational pull of a black hole.
The first 'American Tabloid' deals with the events leading up to JFK's assassination. The second 'The Cold Six Thousand' is set around RFK and Martin Luther King's assassination.
The final book is unpublished, but apparently it's dealing with Nixon's presidency, so presumably Watergate, Gordon Liddy, etc?
Obviously all book are fictional, but ooze authenticty (in atmosphere, attention to detal, slang, etc - the factual content is up for debate) and are so hard boiled they have the gravational pull of a black hole.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I have to carry on like that so noone really will search my wallet.
I do know of Ellroy but had no idea he had any connection to the JFK assassination and nobody has ever mentioned him in the newsgroup or any of the research I did at uni or in the last six months. Elrod is another matter and a complete waste of time. I thought it strange he had written books.
I do know of Ellroy but had no idea he had any connection to the JFK assassination and nobody has ever mentioned him in the newsgroup or any of the research I did at uni or in the last six months. Elrod is another matter and a complete waste of time. I thought it strange he had written books.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Earlier this week I watched the movie JFK again, and by coincidence stumbled across a re-run of the British documentary The Men Who Killed Kennedy. I was watching it from nostalgia, as I remember as a kid being chilled by it when it first aired in the late eighties. However, I was surprised to find it had been updated a few years ago with some new gear.
The main thing I found interesting the suggestion that the fatal shot had come from a storm drain in Dealey Plaza - a theory I'd never heard before. I looked a bit more into it on the web and was unimpressed. Here is a funky little film claiming to show the manhole cover moving at the time of the assassination. Don't see it myself.
There's also a slideshow of the offending drain which also doesn't say a lot. Though it does strike me as a perfect spot to be if the line of sight was possible. This piccie suggests it might be. The way in is shown here.
The documentary also interviewed a former Green Beret who claimed he'd been approached by the CIA to murder William Petzer, who was supposedly in possession of untampered evidence from the autopsy. The guy refused, but Petzer turned up dead anyway seemingly from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Anyway, I hear so many conflicting things I don't know what to think anymore. I'll again like to recommend this excellent and thorough skeptical website that does a terrific job debunking the accumulated myths that appear with each new book on the subject.
The main thing I found interesting the suggestion that the fatal shot had come from a storm drain in Dealey Plaza - a theory I'd never heard before. I looked a bit more into it on the web and was unimpressed. Here is a funky little film claiming to show the manhole cover moving at the time of the assassination. Don't see it myself.
There's also a slideshow of the offending drain which also doesn't say a lot. Though it does strike me as a perfect spot to be if the line of sight was possible. This piccie suggests it might be. The way in is shown here.
The documentary also interviewed a former Green Beret who claimed he'd been approached by the CIA to murder William Petzer, who was supposedly in possession of untampered evidence from the autopsy. The guy refused, but Petzer turned up dead anyway seemingly from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Anyway, I hear so many conflicting things I don't know what to think anymore. I'll again like to recommend this excellent and thorough skeptical website that does a terrific job debunking the accumulated myths that appear with each new book on the subject.
I too watched parts of THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY when it was on. It's probably my third or fourth time seeing it by now. Clearly, the most dynamic segment is the photo evidence, where photographic experts blow up the Moorman picture and see a man in a policeman's uniform (Badge Man) firing from the grassy knoll, and the man who claimed to be filming with his 8mm camera some ways away when he said he heard a bullet fly past his ear.
The basic shapes are there, but any discerning person couldn't say anything about the photo one way or another. They said independent evidence confirmed their work in terms of shadows and the like, but it's a Rorshach test, really. You either see the lurking figures or you don't.
The sewer sniper and the Corsican assassins theories on that show did nothing for me, I must say.
Another point: seemingly every one present at the autopsy has a real axe to grind. They all say there was a massive head wound in the back. What an interesing coincidence that JFK's brain went missing, making further study impossible.
Apropo of nothing, I saw a website a while back that concerned Jackie's behavior during the assassination. It's theory was that Jackie's scrambling after the shooting was due to her trying to retrieve her husband's brains in some weird attempt at saving him. And when the footage was shown, it DOES look like she is grabbing at something from the car's trunk.
In truth, any theory about the JFK killing will never satisfy everyone. There's too many voices pissing in the wind.
The basic shapes are there, but any discerning person couldn't say anything about the photo one way or another. They said independent evidence confirmed their work in terms of shadows and the like, but it's a Rorshach test, really. You either see the lurking figures or you don't.
The sewer sniper and the Corsican assassins theories on that show did nothing for me, I must say.
Another point: seemingly every one present at the autopsy has a real axe to grind. They all say there was a massive head wound in the back. What an interesing coincidence that JFK's brain went missing, making further study impossible.
Apropo of nothing, I saw a website a while back that concerned Jackie's behavior during the assassination. It's theory was that Jackie's scrambling after the shooting was due to her trying to retrieve her husband's brains in some weird attempt at saving him. And when the footage was shown, it DOES look like she is grabbing at something from the car's trunk.
In truth, any theory about the JFK killing will never satisfy everyone. There's too many voices pissing in the wind.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The McAdams site is very good. Think he is unbiased? He strongly defends the 'lonenutter' theory and the Warren Commission. He appears to have finally given in with the single bullet theory but generally he defends the govt angle. He is supposedly listed as employed by the CIA.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Forgot to mentio that I think Badgeman and the Umbrellaman theories are rubbish.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Lee Harvey Oswald actually pulled the trigger, but he was told to do it by the Mafia. The Mafia were told to arrange it by the CIA, so I'm not going to vote in the poll, as there isn't an option for my theory!
A
Anonymous
Guest
The McAdam site obviously takes the stance that there was no damage to the back of the head which would suggest a shot from the front.
Here is the X ray of the skull with a critique explaining that the damage is to the front right side of JFK's head.
Another diagram is here.
Abraham Zapruder and others who witnessed the fatal shot appear to agree that it was the front right part of the head that was blasted out, Zapruder famously demonstrating what he saw when appearing on TV.
As for the disappearance of the brain, it's always been a key component for me, though again McAdams presents evidence here that it was actually Bobby Kennedy who took possession of the brain and other materials in order to prevent it being put on display for the public - purely, it seems, for matters of privacy and taste. What exactly happened to it is unclear.
As for McAdams, who exactly is he? I'm not familiar with him. And where is the evidence he is linked to the CIA?
Here is the X ray of the skull with a critique explaining that the damage is to the front right side of JFK's head.
Another diagram is here.
Abraham Zapruder and others who witnessed the fatal shot appear to agree that it was the front right part of the head that was blasted out, Zapruder famously demonstrating what he saw when appearing on TV.
As for the disappearance of the brain, it's always been a key component for me, though again McAdams presents evidence here that it was actually Bobby Kennedy who took possession of the brain and other materials in order to prevent it being put on display for the public - purely, it seems, for matters of privacy and taste. What exactly happened to it is unclear.
As for McAdams, who exactly is he? I'm not familiar with him. And where is the evidence he is linked to the CIA?
A
Anonymous
Guest
He is a major player in the JFK assassination field and runs two JFK assassination newsgroups. One is considerably more scholarly than the other. His site is very good but he is more rigorous with conspiracy theorists than he is to his own side. The claims that he is employed by the CIA come from the newsgroup and he is supposedly listed or a J McAdams is listed as an employee under the freedom of information act. I haven't looked but I wouldn't be suprised if he was running the site as a paid job. Nevertheless his site should be your first site to visit as it is filled with lots of good information as well as lots of links. There are lots of nuts and crooks in this field and he will help you sort them out.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
Spooks
Fireclown is right, McAdams is cut from the same cloth as Posner and although he is fairly scholarly and clear, he is in defense mode and manning the barriers of the Warren Commission conclusion, meaning that he does not critically assess that position's endless flaws. This makes his site little more than propaganda, which is too bad.
And if he is indeed linked to CIA, then one has to raise at least one eyebrow and wonder if he doth not protest too much, especially in light of what the rogue Ops boys have done lately in establishing the USSA facist seizure of power.
In a recent episode of INCREDIBLE, BUT TRUE on History Channel, hosted by Arthur Kent, one dealing with Secret Societies, the point was made that isn't it a bit coincidental that Prescott Bush was a founder of the Federal Reserve Banking System; that a CIA agent named George Bush was in Dallas making inquiries when the three "hobos" were released unquestioned; that shortly after Reagan made a speech in New Hampshire promising to uncover secret societies and never to take known secret-society scion George Bush onto his ticket, the convened an unprecedented late-night walk on at the convention so Reagan could welcome Bush onto the ticket; that two months after being elected, Reagan was shot, and if not for sheer damned luck and about half an inch, Bush would have been President; that W seizes power with the help of Florida, a state governed by his brother, who was involved in the Silverado Savings & Load scandal from years back and so has a slush fund of billions...
Why go on? Coincidence upon coincidence, all just a string of funny funny accidents of fortune, no doubt.
Fireclown is right, McAdams is cut from the same cloth as Posner and although he is fairly scholarly and clear, he is in defense mode and manning the barriers of the Warren Commission conclusion, meaning that he does not critically assess that position's endless flaws. This makes his site little more than propaganda, which is too bad.
And if he is indeed linked to CIA, then one has to raise at least one eyebrow and wonder if he doth not protest too much, especially in light of what the rogue Ops boys have done lately in establishing the USSA facist seizure of power.
In a recent episode of INCREDIBLE, BUT TRUE on History Channel, hosted by Arthur Kent, one dealing with Secret Societies, the point was made that isn't it a bit coincidental that Prescott Bush was a founder of the Federal Reserve Banking System; that a CIA agent named George Bush was in Dallas making inquiries when the three "hobos" were released unquestioned; that shortly after Reagan made a speech in New Hampshire promising to uncover secret societies and never to take known secret-society scion George Bush onto his ticket, the convened an unprecedented late-night walk on at the convention so Reagan could welcome Bush onto the ticket; that two months after being elected, Reagan was shot, and if not for sheer damned luck and about half an inch, Bush would have been President; that W seizes power with the help of Florida, a state governed by his brother, who was involved in the Silverado Savings & Load scandal from years back and so has a slush fund of billions...
Why go on? Coincidence upon coincidence, all just a string of funny funny accidents of fortune, no doubt.
Re: Spooks
Was this the same special that put David Icke on completely straight-faced as an "expert?" For shame, History Channel. For shame.
You failed to mention the close family ties to the Bush and Hinckley families. The same day John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan, John's brother Scott had a dinner date with George Bush's son, Neil.
FraterLibre said:
Was this the same special that put David Icke on completely straight-faced as an "expert?" For shame, History Channel. For shame.
You failed to mention the close family ties to the Bush and Hinckley families. The same day John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan, John's brother Scott had a dinner date with George Bush's son, Neil.
F
FraterLibre
Guest
To Be Fair
Ogopogo - They did use Icke straight-facedly, but to be fair, he restrained his Reptoid tendencies and mentioned nothing bizarre or outré. He was referring to his book The Biggest Secret, but kept himself restrained. Or was edited well. LOL
Rynner - Yes, the Bushes are unsettling indeed. And won't we all be a bit less-than-surprised when they take off their masks?
Oh wait, W may have done so already.
Ogopogo - They did use Icke straight-facedly, but to be fair, he restrained his Reptoid tendencies and mentioned nothing bizarre or outré. He was referring to his book The Biggest Secret, but kept himself restrained. Or was edited well. LOL
Rynner - Yes, the Bushes are unsettling indeed. And won't we all be a bit less-than-surprised when they take off their masks?
Oh wait, W may have done so already.
A
Anonymous
Guest
JFK Assassination
Hi All
At one time i was into the Assassonation and had the very type of rifle that Oswald had and tried to do 3 shots in the time stated i did at acouple of times with no hits had it for 13 years it is a pice of junk
I have spoken to two persons that work on the President some years ago Dr.McCelland who as one of the Doctors that work on him in dallas he stated that the wound was in the lower back of the head
Another person was one who helped work on the body at Bethsda this person has been intervied before the reason i will not give a name is that i got a set of the Autopsy Photo's they are very clear ones
More latter
Nebka
Hi All
At one time i was into the Assassonation and had the very type of rifle that Oswald had and tried to do 3 shots in the time stated i did at acouple of times with no hits had it for 13 years it is a pice of junk
I have spoken to two persons that work on the President some years ago Dr.McCelland who as one of the Doctors that work on him in dallas he stated that the wound was in the lower back of the head
Another person was one who helped work on the body at Bethsda this person has been intervied before the reason i will not give a name is that i got a set of the Autopsy Photo's they are very clear ones
More latter
Nebka
Mmmmm..
One thing I'll agree is..I'm a crack shot--that rifle--and oswalds records in the Marines--No way he did that kind of shooting with that rifle from the book d. widow..I could do it with a old M-14- and an wwII M-1 even! but not that weapon LHO had,,you have to factor in all the nervousness and 1/2 dozen other things --noway!!
One thing I'll agree is..I'm a crack shot--that rifle--and oswalds records in the Marines--No way he did that kind of shooting with that rifle from the book d. widow..I could do it with a old M-14- and an wwII M-1 even! but not that weapon LHO had,,you have to factor in all the nervousness and 1/2 dozen other things --noway!!
A
Anonymous
Guest
New JFK footage shows movement in window
Have to say that I am surprised that this did'nt reach the board till now but anyway:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/22/national/main530586.shtml
Have to say that I am surprised that this did'nt reach the board till now but anyway:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/22/national/main530586.shtml
A
Anonymous
Guest
Or unsurprised, perhaps.
taras
Least Haunted
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2002
- Messages
- 1,624
- Location
- Edinburgh
Which reminds me, I must read "The Assissination Of JFK", the one published by The Stationery Office as part of the Uncovered Editions series. I bought it a while ago and had completely forgotten about it, so thanks
"UFOs In The House Of Lords" was good too. Haven't managed to get a copy of "UFOs Over America" yet, but I assume it's just material that's available over the web anyway under the FOIA.
"UFOs In The House Of Lords" was good too. Haven't managed to get a copy of "UFOs Over America" yet, but I assume it's just material that's available over the web anyway under the FOIA.