+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Jim DiEugenio on Caufield's General Walker book (/thread-14555.html)
Pages:
1
2
Jim DiEugenio on Caufield's General Walker book - Jim DiEugenio - 06-03-2016
Drew:
1. I am fully aware of Armstrong's work. What I am saying is that Caufield does not adapt it to his book. You can only critique what is in front of you. There was no hint at that in Caufield's book. I don't think I would have missed it.
2. In my view, there is no credible evidence that Oswald either shot at Kennedy or at Walker. And I spent a lot of time showing why. The only way that case was made at all was through the switching and disguising of the bullet evidence, and the dubious testimony of Marina Oswald. In my view, the former cancels out the latter.
Jim DiEugenio on Caufield's General Walker book - Drew Phipps - 07-03-2016
Jim: You're an author, and a good one. I'm confident you understand the concept of "allusion." It's a pity my writing skills are so poor that I cannot convey a reference to another idea, as an example, without being taken so literally that the idea is distorted. But of course you are a good enough writer that you use allusion all the time. For instance, you said in your review that Caulfield is calling Oswald a Nazi. That literally is not true. He never says that. But all your readers understand that is what you think Caulfield means.
I am looking forward to reading the remainder of your review.
Jim DiEugenio on Caufield's General Walker book - Jim DiEugenio - 07-03-2016
Anyone can read Caufield pgs. 75-90 and make up their own mind.
But its hard to avoid this on page 90:
"Credible evidence presented herein suggests Lee Harvey Oswald was tied to at least one leader of the American Nazi party, Ray Leahart, if not a second, Dan Burros. The allegations are not unexpected, since Oswald came from a racist and anti-Semitic household and had a close ties to to Nazi Oriented individuals, Guy Banister and David Ferrie."
The first sentence, as I showed in my review is simply false. The second sentence is a bit ridiculous. It is all over the top and irresponsible hyperbole in order to paint Oswald as something he was not.
But its surprising you don't detect what the author is aiming at, because I fail to see the allusion there.