17-04-2010, 05:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 22-04-2010, 02:08 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
RESPONSE TO JACK AND COMMENT ON DOUG WELDON: IT WAS NOT WELL-DONE!
REPLY TO JACK
I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course,
in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so
far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders")
in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not
tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the
place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where
Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is
supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start
with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment.
You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the
Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them,
even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE.
COMMENT ON WELDON
Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but
no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified
endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is
as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in
the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis-
credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such
moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two
Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts
and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the
kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is
trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of
my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake!
NOTE TO ALL
Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some-
thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am
finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but
when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and
Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both
Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he
always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act.
It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars.
And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on
the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer!
When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189848' date='Apr 16 2010, 09:50 PM']
Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or others
submit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them.
Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon,
David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions,
just as you and JVB are.
I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please
use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS:
.......
ERROR:
H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH
DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR:
(SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than
100 words.
........
This is very simple.
1. Point out the error and page number
2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less)
3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket!
No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal
insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's
book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his
research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce
just one document naming her, if you can.
And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that
you think should have been said is not an error.
Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine
listing of genuine errors will move research forward.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189845' date='Apr 16 2010, 08:12 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEE
Jack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific
blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective
in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have
a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an
index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you
cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality.
Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how
the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the
Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to
Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John
adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained
all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's.
The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the
same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye-
color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt
with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on
the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind,
Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible.
The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr.
High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth
missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the
back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of
the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your
time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee".
The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap
about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind
the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does
not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you
combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider
arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning.
It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be
defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by
the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms
some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support
those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal
knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to
our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude.
In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that
Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with
Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them
has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by
inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support?
I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189829' date='Apr 16 2010, 05:24 PM']
Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything she
says is merely her OPINION.
You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions
as being not worthy of wasting time over.
Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK.
What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point
that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren
Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation.
It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say
there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking.
As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what
that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send
each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's.
I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes.
But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book.
And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most
ill-considered comparison you have ever made.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189822' date='Apr 16 2010, 02:44 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE
I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".
When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.
So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?
Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!
Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.
Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?
Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.
On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".
Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,
"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index.
It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk.
There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.
It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.
This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplete.
For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed."
So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.
Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:
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.
He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
REPLY TO JACK
I have already done that. In each case, I have given specific pages, except, of course,
in case you haven't noticed, his "Introduction" does not have page numbers! Now, so
far, I and Pat Speer and Michael Hogan have all pointed out mistakes (or "blunders")
in HARVEY & LEE. Several occur on the first five pages of the book, so it should not
tax you overly much to track them down. I have also identified pages 92-93 as the
place where the Beauregard Junior High School "lost tooth" episode occurs, where
Lillian Murret remembered having paid for the dental bill, except that the one who is
supposed to have lost the tooth was "Lee" while Lillian was "Harvey"'s aunt. Start
with the "index" error, the founding of the commission error, and Lillian's payment.
You seem to have me in a quandary, my friend. You excoriate me into reading the
Armstrong book but, when I do and turn up mistakes, you don't want to hear them,
even when they bear on crucial aspects of the fundamental thesis of HARVEY & LEE.
COMMENT ON WELDON
Douglas Weldon does a soft shoe to spare himself embarrassment. Well, nice try but
no cigar. If Weldon had known, he could not possibly have made such an unqualified
endorsement of BOTH Lifton AND Armstrong, especially given how "cautious" he is
as a student of JFK. So now three scholars whom I have esteemed and defended in
the past are playing fast and loose with the situation: Lifton, who claims that he dis-
credited Judyty during a phone call, but won't share the cassette; and who has such
moral integrity that he won't even state on this forum that he does not buy the "two
Oswalds" HARVEY & LEE scenario; Jack White, who won't even read Judyth's posts
and is now asking me to do something I have already done, while committing the
kinds of fallacies of reasoning I taught freshmen to avoid; and Doug Weldon, who is
trying to cover his ass from a manifest absurdity and who has thereby lost more of
my respect than from simply coming clean and admitting that he made a mistake!
NOTE TO ALL
Let me make this point very clear. I am not denying that Armstrong may have some-
thing serious to contribute. I am asserting that, when I begin to read his book, I am
finding mistakes--some rather elementary, some impinging upon his basis thesis--but
when I point them out, Jack White is non-responsive and, in other respects, Lifton and
Weldon are playing games. Weldon solemnly declares his unswerving support for both
Lifton and Armstrong yet, when I point out that yields a contradiction, he acts as if he
always knew that anyway--and Jack backs him up! This is turning into a carnival act.
It is not the kind of response to genuine criticism that I expect from serious scholars.
And after all the insults I have endured from Jack White (no doubt, at least in part, on
the basis of emails from Lifton and Weldon), I am just not going to take it any longer!
When they have something serious to offer, I'll be glad to hear from them--not before.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189848' date='Apr 16 2010, 09:50 PM']
Jim...your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I asked that you or others
submit errors ONE AT A TIME in a specific manner, and I will ask John about them.
Instead I get yet another lecture about what a terrible researcher I, Doug Weldon,
David Lifton and others are. Doug, David, I and others are entitled to our opinions,
just as you and JVB are.
I have read your posting, but it is not suitable for me to submit to John. Please
use the following format to submit what YOU THINK ARE ERRORS:
.......
ERROR:
H&L page 234, states SUCH AND SUCH
DOCUMENTATION OF ERROR:
(SOURCE) states the contrary is true, SUCH AND SUCH, ETC. in less than
100 words.
........
This is very simple.
1. Point out the error and page number
2. Provide documentation to the contrary (100 words or less)
3. Only one error at a time, please...not a bushel basket!
No LONG essays. No emotional harangues. Keep it simple and objective. No personal
insults. Remember, opinions by JVB are not proofs of errors. No part of John's
book was based on her opinions. She was UNKNOWN at the time he did his
research, and unknown by all the agencies controlling LHO. Please produce
just one document naming her, if you can.
And remember, an author has to be selective. Failure to say something that
you think should have been said is not an error.
Surely you are capable of following these simple instructions. A genuine
listing of genuine errors will move research forward.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189845' date='Apr 16 2010, 08:12 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH AND HARVEY & LEE
Jack, your response is mind-numbingly irresponsive. I have spelled out very specific
blunders in Armstrong's book. The first was his claim that Dulles had been so effective
in managing the Warren Commission that the index to its 26 volumes did not even have
a reference to the CIA. But, as I observed, the 26 supporting volumes did not have an
index and THE WARREN REPORT, which did, had dozens of references to the CIA. If you
cannot acknowledge that as a "blunder", then we have different standards of rationality.
Again, as Pat Speer observed when I posted a section in which John was explaining how
the FBI had played a fast one on the public by secretly taking the physical evidence (the
Oswald possessions) to Washington and then laundering them, returning the evidence to
Dallas and later making a big to-do about it with a public loading into a vehicle, where John
adds that this was weeks before the Warren Commission was formed. Since I explained
all of this in my posts, I suppose you are no more reading my posts than you are Judyth's.
The quality of an argument, Jack, is independent of its source. If McAdams had posted the
same critiques as Judyth about some of the photographs or explained why the alleged eye-
color difference carries no weight, they would still stand as arguments that have to be dealt
with on their own. You love to commit the genetic fallacy, which is to discount arguments on
the basis of their origin. I spent 35 years teaching students to avoid fallacies of that kind,
Jack, and I am not going to accept them from you. Your conduct has been irresponsible.
The existence of "two Oswalds" largely rests upon accounts like that from Beauregard Jr.
High School. But when I notice that, while "Lee" is supposed to be the one with the tooth
missing but Lillian, who was "Harvey"'s aunt, pays the dental bill, you dismiss it with the
back of your hand, conjuring up some nonsense about how they, too, must have know of
the existence of "Harvey" and of "Lee". Your defense is indefensible. You spend all your
time begging the question by taking for granted that there were both "Harvey" and "Lee".
The Doug Weldon, whom I have also admired in the past, comes on with this fawning pap
about how wonderful Armstrong is and how cautious Weldon is and yet he stands behind
the work of both LIFTON and ARMSTRONG, clearly oblivious of the fact that LIFTON does
not buy HARVEY & LEE, even though I had been pointing this out repeatedly. When you
combine this worshipful attitude toward Armstrong with the unwillingness to even consider
arguments to the contrary that Judyth and I have presented, the result is simply stunning.
It is now becoming apparent that we (Judyth and I) are dealing with a cult, which can be
defined by its core beliefs (such as the existence of "two Oswalds", who had mothers by
the same name and led parallel lives), even if there is mounting evidence that disconfirms
some of the crucial evidence--photographic and historical--that has been used to support
those core beliefs, where Judyth has added further arguments based upon her personal
knowledge of Lee H. Oswald. The members of this cult will not read our posts or reply to
our arguments other than by reaffirming the faith, an irrational and irresponsible attitude.
In your efforts to blunt serious criticism, you resort to ad hoc hypotheses, such as that
Lillian Murret and Dutz must have also known about both "Harvey" and "Lee" along with
Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; and even Marguerite, his mother! Yet none of them
has ever breathed a word about it! Do you not realize the absurdity of your position by
inventing all of this knowledge of "two Oswalds" which you have no evidence to support?
I am sorry, Jack. I thought you were committed to research. It is obvious that I'm wrong.
[quote name='Jack White' post='189829' date='Apr 16 2010, 05:24 PM']
Jim...I do not understand how you can continue to claim that ANYTHING JVB SAYS IS "PROOF". Anything she
says is merely her OPINION.
You say I am struggling over how to "cope with" the questions JVB raises, when in fact I dismiss her opinions
as being not worthy of wasting time over.
Your essay below is so far afield I must repeat the phrase you hate...please READ THE BOOK.
What does it matter that the WC "Index" is only a "name index"? It does NOT matter. But to belabor the point
that it is not a "complete index" is nonsense, as it would have required another complete volume. The Warren
Report and volumes were not done for the convenience of future researchers, but as a record of an investigation.
It has what it calls an INDEX in Volume XV. That it does not suit JVB is too bad, but it IS an index, and to say
there is NO INDEX is extreme nit-picking.
As I stated once before, do not present a long rambling list. If you find an error in H&L, please state what
that ONE error is and your proof of why it is erroneous. Please give the page number of the "error". I will send
each one to John for comment. Do not give JVB opinions as proof. Give documentation superior to John's.
I do not claim that John's book is error-free. One man, working entirely alone, is likely to make a few mistakes.
But nobody has ever pointed out any serious error of fact in the book.
And I do not need to mention how absurd it is to compare John's book to Bugliosi's. That may be the most
ill-considered comparison you have ever made.
Jack
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189822' date='Apr 16 2010, 02:44 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO DAWN AND OTHER DEVOTEES OF HARVEY & LEE
I don't get it. The reverence--even sanctification--of John Armstrong is beyond me. The guy produced a big book, but so did Vince Bugliosi! If we can evaluate RECLAIMING HISTORY with a fine-toothed comb, why not HARVEY & LEE? I began assuming that most of Armstrong's work and most of Judyth's reports could be reconciled, since she only knew the man whom John calls "Harvey". But there was always the chance that at least some of the characteristics of the man Judyth's knew personally might differ from some of those of "Harvey".
When Jack and I first began discussing this seriously, I asked him for a list of the personality characteristics that differentiated them. He did not reply but told me to "Read the book!" I eventually pieced together (possibly with Dawn's help) that "Lee" was more aggressive, non-intellectual, could not speak Russian but could drive, while "Harvey" was non-aggressive, highly intellectual with a special interest in political philosophy, was born in Hungary and could not drive. Plus they were alleged to have different eye color, among their distinguishing features.
So I began to read the book and found an assertion on the fourth page of the unnumbered Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission, who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275, 279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459, 461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?
Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976) explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland, has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In 2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions, and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>. Which led me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!
Meanwhile, Judyth was reporting that the man she knew had no Hungarian accent but rather a trace of a Cajun accent that could be mistaken for an Hungarian accent, that he could drive (which she knew because she had actually driven with him), and that the alleged eye-color difference could be accounted for on the basis of the differing appearance of blue-gray eyes under different conditions of observation. This impressed me, because her explanations and analyses appeared to be better-founded and more reasonable than Jack's replies, which were, more often than not, "Read the book!" So I took additional looks and, on pages 91-92, discovered another story about a physical trait that allegedly distinguished between them.
Armstrong reported that both had attended Beauregard Junior High School, but that "Harvey" had left at the end of 5th grade, while "Lee" showed up at the start of the school year for 6th grade. Given his aggressive tendencies--not so much of starting fights but of ending them--the story is related of his having taken a punch from a classmate and losing a tooth! That all sounds fine, where "Lee"'s missing tooth henceforth distingishes him from "Harvey". But the story went on to explain that Lillian Murret remembered the incident and had paid the the dental visit. That was very peculiar, because Lillian was the aunt of "Harvey", not of "Lee", so what was she doing paying for "Lee"'s dental work?
Jack has taken a while to decide how to cope with this, but now suggests that Lillian and Dutz Murret may have known both "Harvey" and "Lee" and nevertheless never said a word about it. Similarly, he insists that Robert, his brother; Marina, his wife; Marguerite, his mother; and no doubt others unnamed have all known that there were "two Oswalds", "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none of them has ever breathed a word about it! I find this rather incredible, especially in the case of his mother, who has insisted from scratch that her son was a government agent and would be most unlikely to remain silent in the possession of such a crucial piece of information.
On a separate thread, during an exchange with Pat Speer, he observed (in relation to an extract I had posted from HARVEY & LEE (about the FBI having secretly taken "Harvey"'s personal effects to Washington to launder them, then secretly returning them and, with great public fanfare, loading them into a vehicle to take them to Washington for the first time) that Armstrong asserts that "FBI officials prepared a 5-volume report, completed within 48 hours of the assassination, that named Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. The report was released several days before the FBI took over the investigation, before they 'officially' received the 'evidence' from the Dallas Police Department, before they interviewed the vast majority of witnesses, two weeks before the Warren Commission was formed, and many months before their investigation was complete".
Since the Warren Commission was formed on 29 November 1963, a week after the assassination, it cannot have also been formed two weeks after a 5-volume report had been released by the FBI around 48-hours after the assassination. So not only has Armstrong blundered about an index but he also blundered about the date of the founding of the Warren Commission itself! Jack replied that there is an "index" to the supporting volumes but, as Judyth observed,
"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true index.
It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.
There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.
There is no Moscow. No Minsk.
There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.
It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS mentioned.
This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplete.
For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed."
So once again, Judyth appears to know the case better than Jack. She has also observed that many of the photographs that have been used to support the alleged existence of "two Oswalds" appear to display aspect-ratio distortion, which can make faces appear to be rounder or fatter than they did in the originals, which she has illustrated in numerous posts. So I ask, when confronted with substantial evidence that seems to undermine the theory of the "two Oswalds", what is a rational response? He invited me to contribute posts to a new "Judyth/Jim" thread, but when I reposted about 20 of them to illustrate the "errors in Armstrong" he wanted to discuss there, he complained that I had "rudely hijacked" his thread, which was nonsense. I was complying with his wishes--or so I thought--by reposting a sampler of the problems that Judyth and I are finding with Armstrong's research.
Jack seems to be willing to expand the list of those who "knew" about both "Harvey" and "Lee" to whatever extend is required to save the hypothesis. I could expand upon the logic of ad hoc defenses of theories during the history of science, but let me simply make the following point. Douglas Weldon has stated that he stands behind the work of David Lifton and John Armstrong:
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.
He says that John conducted his research "in a thorough and painstaking manner". But if that were the case, how could he have committed such gross blunders as the "index" and Warren Commission founding-date errors? Those are not subtle issues but, in the case of the latter, common knowledge among competent students of the death of JFK. Telling me to "Read the book!" when it includes the story of Lillian Murret paying for the dental work on "Lee" when she was "Harvey"'s aunt, does not inspire confidence. And when Judyth's studies of the photographs, the eye-color claim, and much more is simply denied but not actually refuted, I am very (not to say "vary") troubled that we are being sold a fanciful tale. I would therefore welcome any of those who care enough to get to the bottom of this to visit "Judyth/Jim" and explain away the problems we have found. I am not willing to place friendship ahead of truth in relation to JFK.
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Jack, I am reposting from EF your bio of John Armstrong. Thank you for that. He was very circumspect when I met him in Dallas. You are right, not at all egotistical. Not pushing his book. Just fascinating to speak with and I could tell he had made some money in the building trades. (One does not get to live in Hawaii unless one has accumulated some decent income).[/quote]
I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND why anyone seeks to destroy this work. To what end? I question the motives of such a person or people.
Dawn
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]
[/quote]
[/quote]