29-06-2018, 03:42 AM
James -
I'm between re-installations of my Mac OS but since there's an interest, I'll excerpt some of Walt Brown's commentary on JVB in the coming weeks. There's plenty of it to pick from.
Let me address that briefly. Jim Garrison, Allen Dulles, Sylvia Odio and James Angleton might occur in the index of two different books.
The first book says Garrison was a well-intentioned investigator who was on to something, Dulles was a CIA/deep-state figure determined to cover up the truth, Odio a witness who saw something of interest, and Angleton a shady character who may have been involved in the plot.
The second book says Garrison was a crank who was after publicity for re-election, Dulles a respectable fellow who did his best to investigate the murder of the President, Odio a nonentity named by conspiracy theorists whose story led nowhere once investigated, and Angleton a brave man who fearlessly fought the communist infiltration of America.
Both arguments could lead to an equivalent index listing with all the respective names mentioned the same number of times in the volume, but with the thesis of the respective books at polar opposites from one another.
How is this not blindingly obvious to you?
Do we need to have a 'unique list' to assess another written work as rubbish?
I think every anti-Warren Commission volume from ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT onwards has done exactly this.
I think just reading the actual book is a good way to find out what theory the author is pushing. You've mentioned that you did this with a lot of JFK volumes. That's commendable - I don't think touting the index as a key to what the author is arguing is a step forward though.
Quote:Since the folks who lambaste the work of JVB only level criticisms such as "lies" etc.
I'm between re-installations of my Mac OS but since there's an interest, I'll excerpt some of Walt Brown's commentary on JVB in the coming weeks. There's plenty of it to pick from.
Quote:Obviously, if two books quoted the same list of names in the JFK case, there is no conflict over whether those people would be either suspects or witnesses.
Let me address that briefly. Jim Garrison, Allen Dulles, Sylvia Odio and James Angleton might occur in the index of two different books.
The first book says Garrison was a well-intentioned investigator who was on to something, Dulles was a CIA/deep-state figure determined to cover up the truth, Odio a witness who saw something of interest, and Angleton a shady character who may have been involved in the plot.
The second book says Garrison was a crank who was after publicity for re-election, Dulles a respectable fellow who did his best to investigate the murder of the President, Odio a nonentity named by conspiracy theorists whose story led nowhere once investigated, and Angleton a brave man who fearlessly fought the communist infiltration of America.
Both arguments could lead to an equivalent index listing with all the respective names mentioned the same number of times in the volume, but with the thesis of the respective books at polar opposites from one another.
How is this not blindingly obvious to you?
Quote:Her critics claim that her unique list of suspects is invalid, yet they don't have any unique list themselves.
Do we need to have a 'unique list' to assess another written work as rubbish?
Quote:In other words, they claim that she is a liar, but they don't claim to have the truth themselves.
I think every anti-Warren Commission volume from ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT onwards has done exactly this.
Quote:I feel my statistical technique can be defended as a legitimate way to classify JFK books as to their theories.
I think just reading the actual book is a good way to find out what theory the author is pushing. You've mentioned that you did this with a lot of JFK volumes. That's commendable - I don't think touting the index as a key to what the author is arguing is a step forward though.