10-05-2019, 02:49 AM
Just listened to the YouTube interview of author Walt Brown by Mike Swanson, an interviewer.
I don't think I will spend the money on this book. Mr. Brown said you can send $19.95 to P O Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 and get a print copy of the book.
Brown spent an hour presenting his arguments against JVB's credibility. But the problems he points out in her story are just "run-of-the-mill" type of minor criticisms that are often made regarding any JFK narrative, be it Warren Commission, Jim Garrison quotes, interviews, etc.
Brown picks on tiny details like a claim that whether JVB was wearing the clothes of Marina Oswald on a single day. He ridicules the idea the Oswald could have carried weaponized cancer in a jug to Mexico City because it would have spoiled (says Brown). How would Mr. Brown know anything about weaponized cancer to make this criticism?
How soon does weaponized cancer spoil? If anybody reading this knows the answer, I would be interested.
Mr. Brown claims that if Oswald wanted to expedite the killing of Castro, he wouldn't have taken a bus to Mexico City but would have taken an airplane. That seems to me to be a totally imaginary criticism, since how would Mr. Brown know anything about airplane flights to Mexico City from Texas in September, 1963? Could LHO have taken an airplane instead of a bus? WHO KNOWS????
Even if the cited criticisms by Brown cast some minor doubt about the integrity of JVB's narrative, the criticisms by Mr. Brown show a complete lack of analytical skills of any quality or sophistication whatever. And he is listed as a PhD. I'm not sure how he could ever have presented or defended a PhD thesis, not even possible with his lack of analytical skills which he displayed in that interview.
Strangely, he describes his own analysis as an attempt "at God's own truth." I'll take him at his word on that. But his criticisms of Baker lack any sophistication whatever and, really, seem kind of sad. Since he is my own age, I know that when you approach age seventy, your mental sharpness can decline. Maybe that's the problem.
Another simplistic criticism is that JVB's husband was an encyclopedia salesman, yet she claimed that her husband was working until 10:30 pm on a Saturday night. Mr. Brown seems to know that JVB's husband couldn't be selling enclyclopedias at that late hour. OK. Maybe he was doing paperwork. Maybe he was unboxing enclyclopedias late into the night. The point is that Mr. Brown doesn't have a clue about analyzing or criticizing the complicated and challenging work of JVB. Just like Mr. Brown doesn't know whether LHO could have taken a plane to Mexico City (instead of a bus). Or about the work schedule of encyclopedia salesmen.
And to make the worst inference of all, Mr. Brown claims to have spent 50 years researching the JFK case, but offers not the slightest suggestion as to the guilty parties.
In place of the claims and theories of JVB, Mr. Brown offers literally nothing. All he can state that he knows and believes for sure is that LHO was set up as a patsy. REALLY? LHO WAS SET UP AS A PATSY!! AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE DISCOVERED WORTH REPEATING AFTER 50 YEARS? If true, that's more than sad. It would be pathetic.
I'm sorry to have to be this harsh, but Mr. Brown's analysis and presentation in this interview is not the stuff of a PhD. Not in that interview. Maybe he is saving his best stuff for other occasions. But this interview was not even up to the standards of a smart high-schooler. IMHO.
James Lateer
Interview is at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgw0bL32wi4
I don't think I will spend the money on this book. Mr. Brown said you can send $19.95 to P O Box 174, Hillsdale, NJ 07642 and get a print copy of the book.
Brown spent an hour presenting his arguments against JVB's credibility. But the problems he points out in her story are just "run-of-the-mill" type of minor criticisms that are often made regarding any JFK narrative, be it Warren Commission, Jim Garrison quotes, interviews, etc.
Brown picks on tiny details like a claim that whether JVB was wearing the clothes of Marina Oswald on a single day. He ridicules the idea the Oswald could have carried weaponized cancer in a jug to Mexico City because it would have spoiled (says Brown). How would Mr. Brown know anything about weaponized cancer to make this criticism?
How soon does weaponized cancer spoil? If anybody reading this knows the answer, I would be interested.
Mr. Brown claims that if Oswald wanted to expedite the killing of Castro, he wouldn't have taken a bus to Mexico City but would have taken an airplane. That seems to me to be a totally imaginary criticism, since how would Mr. Brown know anything about airplane flights to Mexico City from Texas in September, 1963? Could LHO have taken an airplane instead of a bus? WHO KNOWS????
Even if the cited criticisms by Brown cast some minor doubt about the integrity of JVB's narrative, the criticisms by Mr. Brown show a complete lack of analytical skills of any quality or sophistication whatever. And he is listed as a PhD. I'm not sure how he could ever have presented or defended a PhD thesis, not even possible with his lack of analytical skills which he displayed in that interview.
Strangely, he describes his own analysis as an attempt "at God's own truth." I'll take him at his word on that. But his criticisms of Baker lack any sophistication whatever and, really, seem kind of sad. Since he is my own age, I know that when you approach age seventy, your mental sharpness can decline. Maybe that's the problem.
Another simplistic criticism is that JVB's husband was an encyclopedia salesman, yet she claimed that her husband was working until 10:30 pm on a Saturday night. Mr. Brown seems to know that JVB's husband couldn't be selling enclyclopedias at that late hour. OK. Maybe he was doing paperwork. Maybe he was unboxing enclyclopedias late into the night. The point is that Mr. Brown doesn't have a clue about analyzing or criticizing the complicated and challenging work of JVB. Just like Mr. Brown doesn't know whether LHO could have taken a plane to Mexico City (instead of a bus). Or about the work schedule of encyclopedia salesmen.
And to make the worst inference of all, Mr. Brown claims to have spent 50 years researching the JFK case, but offers not the slightest suggestion as to the guilty parties.
In place of the claims and theories of JVB, Mr. Brown offers literally nothing. All he can state that he knows and believes for sure is that LHO was set up as a patsy. REALLY? LHO WAS SET UP AS A PATSY!! AND THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE DISCOVERED WORTH REPEATING AFTER 50 YEARS? If true, that's more than sad. It would be pathetic.
I'm sorry to have to be this harsh, but Mr. Brown's analysis and presentation in this interview is not the stuff of a PhD. Not in that interview. Maybe he is saving his best stuff for other occasions. But this interview was not even up to the standards of a smart high-schooler. IMHO.
James Lateer
Interview is at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jgw0bL32wi4