16-04-2010, 02:34 PM
JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON (WHO APPEARS TO HAVE HOMEWORK BEFORE HIM)
Then I can't wait for you to respond to the twenty or so posts that demonstrate John Armstrong
appears to be mistaken, inaccurate or wrong in various aspects of his research. And if enough
of those individual pieces fall into this category, then the theory "Harvey" and "Lee" will fall with
them. No doubt, there is ample evidence there to prove "that the government was engaged in
a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald." That, of course, also follows if
the agency was using multiple impostors, including his own brother, Robert, to impersonate him
on various occasions. If you check it, you will see that Judyth and I have noticed various errors
in his work. If you haven't studied them, then you seem to be poorly positioned to endorse them.
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='189773' date='Apr 16 2010, 02:30 AM']
[quote name='Dean Hartwell' post='189723' date='Apr 15 2010, 06:00 AM']
Doug,
You had a question about my comment:
With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.
Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence.
Dean[/quote]
Dean:
Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
Best,
Doug Weldn
[/quote]
Then I can't wait for you to respond to the twenty or so posts that demonstrate John Armstrong
appears to be mistaken, inaccurate or wrong in various aspects of his research. And if enough
of those individual pieces fall into this category, then the theory "Harvey" and "Lee" will fall with
them. No doubt, there is ample evidence there to prove "that the government was engaged in
a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald." That, of course, also follows if
the agency was using multiple impostors, including his own brother, Robert, to impersonate him
on various occasions. If you check it, you will see that Judyth and I have noticed various errors
in his work. If you haven't studied them, then you seem to be poorly positioned to endorse them.
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='189773' date='Apr 16 2010, 02:30 AM']
[quote name='Dean Hartwell' post='189723' date='Apr 15 2010, 06:00 AM']
Doug,
You had a question about my comment:
With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific.
Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence.
Dean[/quote]
Dean:
Whatever one thinks about Harvey and Lee, it is a very unique book in that many of its premises could be proved with witnesses who are still living and evidence that continues to be very impressive. I did not agree with Armstrong on the impact of every piece of the evidence but some of the evidence is jaw-dropping. Watch the interviews and read the book. John Armstrong conducted one of the most impressive investigations of the JFK case ever done. John is unique in that he lets the evidence speak for itself. I believe you or I (or any attorney) could go into court and easily prove that the government was engaged in a covert activity and was manipulating the identities of Oswald. Jack White is not making outrageous comments about the evidence. Whether you agree with him or not on other issues the evidence here is very solid. I am not commenting on Judyth and whether this makes a difference for her argument. I am simply agreeing with Jack that John Armstrong has compiled a mountain of evidence and the fact that individual pieces of the evidence might be questioned in no way detracts from the volumess of evidence John acquired.
John engaged in his research in a thorough and painstakiing manner. John is actually a very modest man. One of the differences between him and myself are in examples like John Pic. John located him but was very reserve in his contacts whereas I would have been knocking at Pic's door. What is amazing is how much more evidence Armstrong acquired but did not publish. John was fortunate to have the resources to do what few of us could have. I deeply respect John's work. It does not detract from other work I highly respect such as Lifton's. I predict the work of both will withstand the test of time. I have always realized that my credibility could be destroyed by being led down false roads. It is the tragedy of Garrison. I have been extremely cautious. However, I stand unequivocally behind these two men.
Best,
Doug Weldn
[/quote]