07-11-2010, 07:06 PM
I accept the criticism. I have read parts of HARVEY & LEE, about which I have previously posted (in the long thread about Judyth). I have also criticized Jack for not readin DR. MARY'S MONKEY and ME & LEE. He has now read Ed's book and, I hope, will soon read Judyth's. Neither of them is quite as massive as John's, but I do have it and need to do more. I was offering what I take to be the structural weakness of his argument.
Jack White Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:Of course, I am not suggesting John or Jack are CIA. I am suggesting an alternative interpretation of the documents and records they have turned up. And of course, fabricating photographs--and even films!--can be part of the exercise, as I presume we know from the study of the Zapruder. Hosty actually tore up the note from Lee and flushed it rather than burned it, but Myra makes the appropriate point: Why would anyone have done that if they had not wanted to conceal their contacts with Oswald? Why, indeed!
Jim harbors the false assumption that Armstrong's book relies only
on CIA documents. He needs to read the book. John conducted dozens
of interviews with living witnesses. He relied on Warren Commission
documents which were published in 1964 and could not have been
altered at a later time. He relies on other historical records and books.
Only a small portion of his evidence could have been altered at a
later date as part of a coverup. If Jim would take time to read John's
book, he would realize this.
Jim harbors the false assumption that living witnesses interviewed by
John somehow could have been tampered with by the CIA. Witnesses
like Frank Kudlaty, who said LHO attended Stripling Junior High School
in Fort Worth, when the WC says he was at Beauregard Junior High
in New Orleans. It is faulty research to dismiss this witness without
bothering to read the book.
Jack