My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Charles Drago]

Tracy and Charles,

I'm sure we can agree to disagree on numerous aspects of
assassination-related research. I think that's part of what
makes it such a rich and complex field of study. We can't expect to fully agree
with any of us.

I most assuredly do NOT "agree to disagree" with Nelson or his champion Palamara regarding the former's fatally flawed contention that LBJ was the "mastermind" of the JFK assassination.

There is ZERO evidence to place LBJ within the Sponsor level of any reasonable assassination model.

There is, however, compelling reasons to conclude that the resurrection of LBJ as a FALSE Sponsor, timed to reach a peak during 50th anniversary commemorations, is designed to support the ongoing cover-up.

So I am pleased that [Palamara] found my book helpful as well.

Joe

So how would you react to a similar endorsement from Nelson?

"Agree to disagree" means having a tolerance for differing views
and a willingness to have free exchanges. I try to do that. I think
the assassination research community does not benefit from
the kind of infighting that is too common in it.

So would you agree to disagree with Bugliosi on the matter of JFK's assassination?

Would you agree to disagree with Nelson? Would you welcome his endorsement of your book?

Are all positions on the JFK assassination worthy of respect?

(You should be aware that proponents of the "lone nut" lie are not welcome on this forum. I mention this in passing.)

Because if your answer is "yes" to these questions, then you're not engaged in a war for the soul and the future of your country.

You're engaged instead in a polite debate with the killers of JFK and their witting and unwitting surrogates.

Which does NOT argue against "tolerance for differing views and a willingness to have free exchanges."

It simply places you and your work in a specific context.