06-03-2016, 08:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2016, 05:28 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
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.
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.