The Summers-Lambert Romance

Tony should not say such dumb stuff for attribution and neither should Reitzes.

And the Diaz story was decades old.  If I had a hundred bucks for every Cuban exile who said he was in on the JFK hit, I could get a week long vacation in Maui.

http://www.ctka.net/2013/summers.html

Hardly surprising to me that Summers now backtracks on some of his early work.  The timing is impeccable though, isn't it?

So the Clinton-Jackson events didn't happen?  

Unbelievable.

An excellent essay Jim, which exposes Summers for what he really is. Well done.

Thanks.  Its really bizarre to me why he does this stuff.

I can only explain it by him wanting to me in the limelight.

Even if its selling a Mafia did it plot with Oswald as part of it with Trafficante.

Even if its in National Enquirer.  Well, I do know they pay well.  IN this case, it was for a 1978 story.

I am among those disturbed (and more than a little disappointed) by some of Tony's latest.

But I have had some (albeit minimal) contact with him in the past, and it would be remiss not to say that he struck me at those times as a thoroughly decent person. 

It was Tony's book that got me started on all this.

Last night I re-watched the execrable "Revealed: JFK's Women," which featured Tony among the talking heads, like the equally execrable Gus Russo. 

It was as I recalled, proof-free allegations designed to disparage a dead President and in so doing diminish enduring interest in seeking justice for him. 

It proved only that one can make the world's crappiest films, so long as one eschews all requirement for research and instead allows on camera anyone willing to say outrageous things about a dead man, with no proof required.  That it ran on the taxpayer-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's NewsWorld channel also shows that no matter how overflowing with crapitude, salacious fiction disguised as fact will find a broadcaster.  Even one that should know much better.

Tony's output has been mercurially inconsistent, but his contribution to that crazy quilt of baseless assertions is surely the lowest ebb for him.  Some of the things he said were entirely without foundation, other than being a repetition of things others had said before him, also without foundation.

How does one take the man seriously after something so shockingly bad and intellectually destitute?

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Last night I re-watched the execrable "Revealed: JFK's Women," which featured Tony among the talking heads, like the equally execrable Gus Russo. 

It was as I recalled, proof-free allegations designed to disparage a dead President and in so doing diminish enduring interest in seeking justice for him. 

It proved only that one can make the world's crappiest films, so long as one eschews all requirement for research and instead allows on camera anyone willing to say outrageous things about a dead man, with no proof required.  That it ran on the taxpayer-funded Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's NewsWorld channel also shows that no matter how overflowing with crapitude, salacious fiction disguised as fact will find a broadcaster.  Even one that should know much better.

Tony's output has been mercurially inconsistent, but his contribution to that crazy quilt of baseless assertions is surely the lowest ebb for him.  Some of the things he said were entirely without foundation, other than being a repetition of things others had said before him, also without foundation.

How does one take the man seriously after something so shockingly bad and intellectually destitute?

Thanks Robert. That's just plain depressing.