21-02-2018, 05:07 PM
James Lateer Wrote:Mr. Thorne and Tracy--Please know that I have not in any way intended to insult anyone regarding the JFK evidence. If an American has read even one book on the assassination, that alone merits real respect just by itself. And the authors on this site apparently have decades upon decades of experience in dissecting the JFK case and I personally can't hold a candle to any of that expertise.
I also don't want to insult anyone here because I know how it feels to be insulted. Recently, after sending a review copy to a well-known professor/author/biographer, he replied by calling me (1) a "hare-brain", (2) a "fabulist" (i.e. a liar) and (3) a "sloppy researcher". Ouch. Now that is a professional insult, I'm sure.
I have to admit that I read six books on Operation Paperclip and each provided some subtle differences of information and approach. In my research, I read 150 books but came up with only 75 hard items of circumstantial evidence which, to me, convict the perpetrators. But that's only 1/2 item per book. You never know where or when you will stumble across a new lead. So every book doesn't have to be earthshaking. Author Ron Chernow has recently published a new book on General Ulysses S. Grant. Knowing the work of Chernow, it know it will be well worth reading despite the multitude of books already available about Grant.
Theoretically, the reader could find new and astounding evidence by reading a book about Oswald's two wallets, Oswald's rifle, the backyard photos, the Zapruder film, etc. etc. I think the biggest "micro-topic" regarding the assassination which needs more work is the psychiatric situation of Oswald which should be researched by a real psychiatrist. I think Oswald possibly suffered from PTSD from being raised as a homeless child and also a multiple personality disorder due to childhood sexual abuse possibly at the hands of David W. Ferrie. But that's a digression.
But mostly, I would like to ask both of you point-blank. Do you think that anyone does a good service to the country by enabling the cover-up in any way? I recently noted that my alma mater has named the University Law Library the Albert Jenner Library. Of course, Jenner was the counsel to the Warren Commission. I'm sorry, that offends me.
If someone if fascinated by Oswald's weapons, the question of whether Oswald had a drivers' license, how the fake "backyard photos" were created, it's hard to criticize that. Any maybe not everybody is motivated to plow their way through Dr. Jeffry Caufield's 800 page book "General Walker."
But I do sincerely feel you get back only in relation to what effort you put in. I can tell you that there is a thrill which came to me when I discovered that Torbitt suspect General Julius Klein was also the West German "shadow ambassador." Ditto when I discovered that Hitler's former General Staff Commander General Adolf Heusinger was in command of 400 employees at the Pentagon on 11-22-63. Ditto when I found out that the Otepka biographer William J. Gill was married to a female Nazi spy who was involved in trying to assassinate Hitler on 7-20-1944. (So when the recent JFK papers were released, why did the documents include the alleged identity of Hitler who allegedly lived on in Ecuador after the War?) Did Hitler order the JFK assassination? That sounds absurd, but it's not by any means impossible.
The book Dallas 1963 by Bill Minutaglio and others was in many bookstores. The problem is that it maintained the lone gunman theory and claimed that after shooting at General Walker, Oswald buried his rifle in the woods without having a shovel. Nice trick. To me books like that deserve to be strongly criticized. I don't mean to insult anyone, but rather to encourage any potential reader to pick a more difficult book rather than a candy-coated rehash of old evidence. Not that such books have no value. But it's called "opportunity cost." In reading a rehash, you are losing the time you could devote to ACTUALLY FINDING OUT WHO MURDERED JFK! It's now possible, at least in the major part.
The information is now available. And there's even better stuff on the drawing-board (like the Albarelli book on QJ WIN).
Lastly, Tracy, if there were no important facts or issues still in the archives, then all the documents would have been released last October. That seems to be an open-and-shut obvious conclusion. I'm not sure how that could work any other way. But, like in any of the above issues, I sure could be wrong and my mind is open to any explanation of that or any other JFK issues.
James Lateer
James, no offense was taken. Some unreleased docs might reveal that LHO was a US intelligence employee/informant, that his defection was faked, etc. But they won't tell us who killed JFK and why.
Why do people across the political spectrum continue to defend the official story? They have a lot invested in it after 50+ years; it's become part of our national mythology, and it's politically very useful to many people and institutions. Much more so than revealing that JFK & MLK (and probably RFK, though that one is a little more complicated) were killed by "super patriots" in the military and intelligence community because they thought those men were soft on communism and threats to the national security.