23-04-2013, 02:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 23-04-2013, 03:20 PM by Jim Hackett II.)
QUOTE Me:[ Carl Ogelsby was right as I really thought there was a copy of the depositions in that book and I had let my memory shape my view of evidence. A no - no.] UNQUOTE Me
Though I found this sentence clear,
Thanks Dawn let me explain. But after I thank you for your interest and reply.
I would have sworn that there is a copy of O.P. Wright or Tomlinson's sworn deposition re: CE 399 in "6 Seconds In Dallas".
Not being the copper jacketed lie and not being round nosed lie either as the NARA CE 399 lie is now.
I would have sworn the deposition(s) was/were reproduced in Thompson's work.
I bragged in a BOR greet n feed gathering about the lack of verification for CE 399 in a conversation, and cited "6 Seconds in Dallas".
I bought a copy and searched again and again for the depositions in that book.
I found no such.
The reference is on page 175 in note 17.
The reason I referenced Carl was he cautioned us to have extra care to not warp the evidence to fit our own view of the crime. I had done just that as my memory of that deposition was bogus for location.
The discussion guest in my home conceded the point of a bogus CE 399 based on Thompson's book and a little thing Mr. Jack White did about lands-and-grooves changing between Lie 1 and Lie 2 (WC and HSCA).
My so called manufactured memory was wrong, but the issue is Not.
Jim
Though I found this sentence clear,
Thanks Dawn let me explain. But after I thank you for your interest and reply.
I would have sworn that there is a copy of O.P. Wright or Tomlinson's sworn deposition re: CE 399 in "6 Seconds In Dallas".
Not being the copper jacketed lie and not being round nosed lie either as the NARA CE 399 lie is now.
I would have sworn the deposition(s) was/were reproduced in Thompson's work.
I bragged in a BOR greet n feed gathering about the lack of verification for CE 399 in a conversation, and cited "6 Seconds in Dallas".
I bought a copy and searched again and again for the depositions in that book.
I found no such.
The reference is on page 175 in note 17.
The reason I referenced Carl was he cautioned us to have extra care to not warp the evidence to fit our own view of the crime. I had done just that as my memory of that deposition was bogus for location.
The discussion guest in my home conceded the point of a bogus CE 399 based on Thompson's book and a little thing Mr. Jack White did about lands-and-grooves changing between Lie 1 and Lie 2 (WC and HSCA).
My so called manufactured memory was wrong, but the issue is Not.
Jim
Read not to contradict and confute;
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON
nor to believe and take for granted;
nor to find talk and discourse;
but to weigh and consider.
FRANCIS BACON