13-01-2018, 09:30 PM
(This post was last modified: 14-01-2018, 09:51 AM by Peter Lemkin.)
James Lateer has just joined the Forum, and likely will be making his first post shortly. So, if any have questions (or comments) for/to him, you might want to start thinking about what they are.
For myself, I'll admit to Mr. Lateer that while I've ordered his book, I have not yet received nor read it, and my comments were based on what one can gather from the TOC and cover. I don't quite understand why you thought the association of names on a page - or in proximity with one another over a wide range of JFK assassination books would provide valid answers to in-life associations or in-life significance. Many of the JFK assassination books go chasing after known false leads - developed either out of inexacting research or ones that were tossed in by the cover-up teams to confuse the matter. Also, the fact that two names appear on a page or even the same paragraph or sentence is no sure way of their having been associated. Ditto the frequency of a name turning up in many books/pages/etc. While such analysis can give a certain level of information and hints to possible associations as ascribed by a number of authors, that doesn't mean that this presumed or calculated 'association' is related to any true one. I personally have been down many blind 'rabbit holes' in my own research and often the most promising finds have never or hardly ever been touched/mentioned by anyone else before. Some names became 'popular', even 'fashionable' to mention over and over again. Some associations of individuals have been shown to be false or of no particular significance in the case. To me such an analysis would be a valid starting point, but then one would have to take these more frequently mentioned names or more frequent associations and do the hard and long kind of standard research to really validate that they were active participants and at what level. No good JFK researcher denies that, for example, DeMohrenschildt was closely connected into the manipulation/setting-up/'baby-sitting'/sheep-dipping' of Oswald - nor that he was later murdered for knowing a bit too much about his friend Lee and who might have directed him to befriend and puppeteer Lee. That said, I don't think, personally, he had a top level nor major [as opposed to prominent] role in the plot. Ditto the Paines - they were front and center in setting up Lee and likely knew it - but for them it was just another intelligence 'Op' someone else had designed, and they did not question their assigned tasks within. Again, I'm speaking here without having yet read your book. Perhaps I can ask/say more directed comments/questions after I get it. I'm in Europe and had to order from the US. You are welcome to jump in on this thread or start your own in the 'Books' section - as you prefer.
For myself, I'll admit to Mr. Lateer that while I've ordered his book, I have not yet received nor read it, and my comments were based on what one can gather from the TOC and cover. I don't quite understand why you thought the association of names on a page - or in proximity with one another over a wide range of JFK assassination books would provide valid answers to in-life associations or in-life significance. Many of the JFK assassination books go chasing after known false leads - developed either out of inexacting research or ones that were tossed in by the cover-up teams to confuse the matter. Also, the fact that two names appear on a page or even the same paragraph or sentence is no sure way of their having been associated. Ditto the frequency of a name turning up in many books/pages/etc. While such analysis can give a certain level of information and hints to possible associations as ascribed by a number of authors, that doesn't mean that this presumed or calculated 'association' is related to any true one. I personally have been down many blind 'rabbit holes' in my own research and often the most promising finds have never or hardly ever been touched/mentioned by anyone else before. Some names became 'popular', even 'fashionable' to mention over and over again. Some associations of individuals have been shown to be false or of no particular significance in the case. To me such an analysis would be a valid starting point, but then one would have to take these more frequently mentioned names or more frequent associations and do the hard and long kind of standard research to really validate that they were active participants and at what level. No good JFK researcher denies that, for example, DeMohrenschildt was closely connected into the manipulation/setting-up/'baby-sitting'/sheep-dipping' of Oswald - nor that he was later murdered for knowing a bit too much about his friend Lee and who might have directed him to befriend and puppeteer Lee. That said, I don't think, personally, he had a top level nor major [as opposed to prominent] role in the plot. Ditto the Paines - they were front and center in setting up Lee and likely knew it - but for them it was just another intelligence 'Op' someone else had designed, and they did not question their assigned tasks within. Again, I'm speaking here without having yet read your book. Perhaps I can ask/say more directed comments/questions after I get it. I'm in Europe and had to order from the US. You are welcome to jump in on this thread or start your own in the 'Books' section - as you prefer.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass