My new book, "Into the Nightmare"

[Charles Drago]

So when I call for civility rather than abuse and for people listening to each other's arguments and then agreeing
to disagree if they can't reach a consensus, I don't think I am trying not to engage in a genuine dialogue. I think
that I am doing exactly the opposite. I am trying to keep the discussion on the facts of the case and what they
mean. The case is too important to descend into name-calling and mudslinging.

Do you "agree to disagree" with Bugliosi? Posner? Ken Rahn? John McAdams?

Where do you draw the line? How do you draw the line?

I find personal abuse directed at me or other researchers, whatever their beliefs and arguments may be, simply tiresome and at worst a calculated distraction from issues. Such abuse has ruined many a forum. I try to avoid engaging with such people in both fields in which I work. Also unhelpful is criticizing a book without reading it. That is simply absurd, as well as unscholarly, and it's hard for an author to respond to someone who is ignorant of the book's contents and in some cases refuses to read what the author has written but prefers to keep a closed mind. I am always happy to entertain reasoned criticism of what I write, or to take into account additional information or new insights, but simple uninformed invective serves no real purpose.

Twice now I have challenged your hypothesis that J. D. Tippit very well may have been the "Badge Man" figure allegedly firing at JFK from behind the picket fence. I have argued that the ability to hit a stationary target at a great distance under relaxed, non-life threatening circumstances does not equate to the ability to hit a moving target under the most pressure-packed, life-threatening circumstances imaginable.

Rather than address this point, you repeatedly choose to accuse me of not having read your book. You do it again above.

You can run, sir, but you can't hide.

I've read your book. Every word. And for your information, I am widely recognized to be one of the most outside-the-box thinkers in JFK research.

My criticism is based on scholarship, informed by decades of research, and utterly reasoned.

My mind is wide open.

Please answer my questions.