20-09-2013, 11:21 AM
Hello Peter,
I don't mean to cause offence, but would you like some examples of Jack White getting it wrong? I can provide plenty.
As I said his Apollo analysis was embarrassing and did little for his credibility.
We can do it in another thread if you like.
I don't think I'm alone in thinking Harvey and Lee is absurd.
For the record, if you want to know where I stand - I stand by what James Douglas wrote in JFK and The Unspeakable (the best JFK book to date IMO). Sylvia Meagher too. I like much of what Jim DiEugenio writes too (although I can't agree with him about Harvey and Lee and I'm not sure he 100% embraces it).
The "50 Reasons for 50 years" videos are mostly excellent (I have a few quibbles but nothing major).
None of these need the compexity of Oswald mother and son dopplegangers. Although I do agree that Oswald seems to have been impersonated at some points.
Greg Parker on the EF highlighted many areas where Armstrong was simply wrong and the people he was up against either ignored it, said it wasn't important or moved the goalposts. The normal MO is to quickly skip onto the next item on the list without due acknowledgement - I've seen this over and over in Apollo Hoax debates (which usually entails a Jack White analysis popping up at some point), also 9/11 debates (September Clues nonsense) - it's always the same... look at this photo.. look at this photo... you nail each one in turn but it's never enough to make them stop and question themselves... on to the next "gottcha".
If my view on Harvey and Lee is unwelcome on this forum I will of course leave and let you get on with it.
I don't mean to cause offence, but would you like some examples of Jack White getting it wrong? I can provide plenty.
As I said his Apollo analysis was embarrassing and did little for his credibility.
We can do it in another thread if you like.
I don't think I'm alone in thinking Harvey and Lee is absurd.
For the record, if you want to know where I stand - I stand by what James Douglas wrote in JFK and The Unspeakable (the best JFK book to date IMO). Sylvia Meagher too. I like much of what Jim DiEugenio writes too (although I can't agree with him about Harvey and Lee and I'm not sure he 100% embraces it).
The "50 Reasons for 50 years" videos are mostly excellent (I have a few quibbles but nothing major).
None of these need the compexity of Oswald mother and son dopplegangers. Although I do agree that Oswald seems to have been impersonated at some points.
Greg Parker on the EF highlighted many areas where Armstrong was simply wrong and the people he was up against either ignored it, said it wasn't important or moved the goalposts. The normal MO is to quickly skip onto the next item on the list without due acknowledgement - I've seen this over and over in Apollo Hoax debates (which usually entails a Jack White analysis popping up at some point), also 9/11 debates (September Clues nonsense) - it's always the same... look at this photo.. look at this photo... you nail each one in turn but it's never enough to make them stop and question themselves... on to the next "gottcha".
If my view on Harvey and Lee is unwelcome on this forum I will of course leave and let you get on with it.