06-05-2009, 05:49 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2009, 05:58 AM by Ron Williams.)
In one way I can see how some intelligent people could have been taken in by this clever mosaic but in another way, I can't see why no one would take the time to take it apart. In my view, disinformation, no matter how sophisticated, has to be attacked because it leads many people down blind alleys. --Jim DiEugenio 2001
+++++
+++++
I sure wish I would have saved Jim DiEugenio’s full review of “Torbitt,” as I have come to really appreciate his reviews over the years. He really does take the time to take important books “apart,” be they good or bad, and in a case like this he is probably the only one with the background and knowledge to do it.
Why no one adequately took “Torbitt” apart is something that bothers me too, but in another way. What I believe we need is for an analysis of the who and the why of this thing. Who really authored it and what was their motive? And I believe the analysis needs to be done in the context of “Tobitt” being an example of the “secret document” genre as described by Lloyd Miller (see earlier post above).
What trail might most probably produce results for the historical detective? One I would recommend looking into is the one that leads to the Betrand Russell minions. I remember being startled the first time I saw JFK researcher Jim Hargrove bringing that connection to the attention of the JFK research community, and that is one reason I would like to see that complete article written by Ralph Schoenman for the Santa Barbara newspaper in 1992. Hargrove pointed out that there were important similarities between “Torbitt” and the work of Russell’s “Who Killed Kennedy?” Committee.
Suspicion also might focus on a man that Vincent Salandria labeled an “agent” at one time, Richard E. Sprague, he of the vast collection of JFK assassination photographic evidence. For example, the placing of the three “tramps” on center stage is probably one of the most provocative leads in “Torbitt”
Jim DiEugenio was undoubtedly correct when he pointed out the significance of “Torbitt’s” appearance in 1970 right after the Jim Garrison case, or at least the Clay Shaw trial phase of it. When looked at in that light I think one will conclude that whoever the authors were, they were very knowledgeable of and most probably involved in the Garrison case itself. If so, what again was the motive? I can come up with none other than disinformation and misdirection - the plan to lead many potential investigators down those tiring trails to those false discoveries.
Ron Williams