23-07-2012, 07:09 PM
Greg Burnham Wrote:I have been both perplexed and somewhat entertained by the posts in this thread. Both "sides" (for lack of a better word) have made good points.
I agree with Charles to a limited degree, in his observation (among others) that:
Quote: Charles Drago said: "The fact that Lamar Waldron presents a demonstrably specious argument for an OC-sponsored conspiracy in JFK's death does not lead us to conclude that there was no conspiracy in Dallas. Does it?
Indeed, absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.
I also observe, what I perceive to be, a defensiveness on the part of Jim. No need for that. State your case, make an argument, mindful that it needs to be strong in this company. Impeccably so.
Having said that...I too, like Phil, remain skeptical...to the extreme.
Indeed, I tend to chalk-up Janney's latest to an ill conceived "didn't quite make it to the tabloid press" bit. Thankfully that. *
* or maybe I'm behind and it did?
Thanks, Greg, for your considered response.
I might note for all interested parties that in none of my responses to date have I, directly or indirectly, opined on the merits of Janney's book.