Myra Bronstein Wrote:

Nathaniel Heidenheimer Wrote:Peter this book has intrigued me for some time now. However I know there are some strong critiques of his work. Is there any way that you could summarize these critiques in a big picture kind of way-- I mean while being fair. Also do you think that parts of the book can stand even if you end up agreeing with the main critiques?

Realize this is sort of a whimpy request but this book is not easy to get and wondering if I should make the effort.

And once the book is obtained it's not easy to read.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:

Myra Bronstein Wrote:

Nathaniel Heidenheimer Wrote:Peter this book has intrigued me for some time now. However I know there are some strong critiques of his work. Is there any way that you could summarize these critiques in a big picture kind of way-- I mean while being fair. Also do you think that parts of the book can stand even if you end up agreeing with the main critiques?

Realize this is sort of a whimpy request but this book is not easy to get and wondering if I should make the effort.

And once the book is obtained it's not easy to read.

I didn't find his book hard to read, but it is NOT the kind one reads more than a few pages of at a time and then stop to think and digest it. It is extremely dense with information - much not to be had anywhere else. Yes, the Tippit piece is a microcosm of the book and its style. Sadly, there was much more information he found he never committed to the book. It certainly puts to bed the idea that Oswald was a loner, a nut, or the assassin - in fact it refutes most everything in the official version - or makes it very suspect in as to how it was 'spun' by the authorities.

Jack, Any chance he will return to this matter or put what other information he has in the public realm at some point?

Peter Lemkin Wrote:...Sadly, there was much more information he found he never committed to the book....

Myra Bronstein Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:...Sadly, there was much more information he found he never committed to the book....

Any examples that come to mind Peter?

Jack White Wrote:I assisted John in the production of his book. ...That's all I remember; there may be more.

Jack

Jack White Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:

Myra Bronstein Wrote:

Nathaniel Heidenheimer Wrote:Peter this book has intrigued me for some time now. However I know there are some strong critiques of his work. Is there any way that you could summarize these critiques in a big picture kind of way-- I mean while being fair. Also do you think that parts of the book can stand even if you end up agreeing with the main critiques?

Realize this is sort of a whimpy request but this book is not easy to get and wondering if I should make the effort.

And once the book is obtained it's not easy to read.

I didn't find his book hard to read, but it is NOT the kind one reads more than a few pages of at a time and then stop to think and digest it. It is extremely dense with information - much not to be had anywhere else. Yes, the Tippit piece is a microcosm of the book and its style. Sadly, there was much more information he found he never committed to the book. It certainly puts to bed the idea that Oswald was a loner, a nut, or the assassin - in fact it refutes most everything in the official version - or makes it very suspect in as to how it was 'spun' by the authorities.

Jack, Any chance he will return to this matter or put what other information he has in the public realm at some point?

At some point John's materials may be available at a university.

Jack

Quote:From Page 1 of this topic
Jack White Jack White is offline
Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 113
Default

If you read only ONE book on the assassination, H&L is the one to read.

The ONLY conclusion of the Warren Commission is that Lee Harvey Oswald,
acting alone, shot JFK.

The irrefutable conclusion of anyone reading H&L is that Lee Harvey Oswald
did NOT shoot JFK. Armstrong's 12-year accumulation of all known evidence
concerning LHO is logically presented in the ONLY way that it makes sense,
as two parallel timelines that show that two persons using that name were
in different places at the same time from a very early age. And at that
very early age, another player was introduced, a second Marguerite Oswald,
for the young Oswald doppelganger also needed a mother. The evidence
of a second Marguerite is even more easily shown by Armstrong, since
they only superficially resembled each other, and records are clear that
they co-existed.

Once you follow the 1000 pages of parallel timelines, you reach the
inescapable conclusion that SOME AGENCY had an interest in creating
dual identities for pairs of young men for some purpose LONG BEFORE
1963.

If you read only one book on the assassination, this is the one to read.

Jack

Adele Edisen Wrote:

Quote:From Page 1 of this topic
Jack White Jack White is offline
Member

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 113
Default

If you read only ONE book on the assassination, H&L is the one to read.

The ONLY conclusion of the Warren Commission is that Lee Harvey Oswald,
acting alone, shot JFK.

The irrefutable conclusion of anyone reading H&L is that Lee Harvey Oswald
did NOT shoot JFK. Armstrong's 12-year accumulation of all known evidence
concerning LHO is logically presented in the ONLY way that it makes sense,
as two parallel timelines that show that two persons using that name were
in different places at the same time from a very early age. And at that
very early age, another player was introduced, a second Marguerite Oswald,
for the young Oswald doppelganger also needed a mother. The evidence
of a second Marguerite is even more easily shown by Armstrong, since
they only superficially resembled each other, and records are clear that
they co-existed.

Once you follow the 1000 pages of parallel timelines, you reach the
inescapable conclusion that SOME AGENCY had an interest in creating
dual identities for pairs of young men for some purpose LONG BEFORE
1963.

If you read only one book on the assassination, this is the one to read.

Jack

Sorry that I am jumping in so late on this topic, but I want to ask Jack, and others, if they have ever heard of this:

There was supposed to have been a Polish Military Intelligence operative, prior to World War II or of that time, I believe, who devised a plot to assassinate someone - don't know who - by using twins, or doubles, as patsies or as potential suspects to confuse investigators.

I don't have much more information than this, but I understand that his name, and not much else, is mentioned in The Game of the Foxes by Ladislas Farago. This book is based on microfilmed copies made by the US Army of the Nazi Abwehr (spy agency) files which he discovered stored in the National Archives in Washington, D.C. Farago worked in US Intelligence during WWII.

Adele

Quote:Armstrong's research as I recall did uncover a case of a Russian (Polish?) use of TWIN army officers in intelligence espionage, but I cannot remember the specifics. I am not sure whether it is in his book and do not have time to search it. My new computer does not support many files from
John's research.

Jack