28-06-2019, 06:14 PM
According to the millennials, they subscribe to the theory that "nobody knows anything."
The corollary to this belief, is the JFK research attitude that says "I can't necessarily prove who it was that killed Kennedy, but I'm sure you don't know either."
The review by Michael Le Flem of the Skorzeny Papers seems to be picking out a single tree and chopping the hell out of it, with total disregard of the forest. I (for the life of me) can't understand why those who have no proof as the JFK killers, totally disrespect various authors who, at least, have a unified theory as to the assassination which might answer all the major problems with the multitude of claims made by all the research community.
The reviewer seems to like the theory that anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA did it. Granted, some people in the CIA must have had either prior knowledge or post-assassination knowledge of the particulars of the assassination. But as we are seeing with the Mueller report, one segment of the government will not cover-up for other particular segments of the government.
The House Democrats may be peddling the theory that the Russians rigged the election, but the conservative press and the House Republicans are busy full-time poking holes in that deep-state fantasy. To one side, Mueller is Jesus-like but to the other side, Mueller is pretty much the Devil.
So it's not credible that liberals in Congress like Senator J William Fulbright (who himself was threatened by McCarthy-ites) would cover up collectively over a period of decades for James Angleton, Allen Dulles, etc. Why would they rig the House Select Committee on Intelligence and go to all that length to try and falsely blame the Mafia? Would they do that to protect the likes of Sergio Arcacha Smith or Carlos Bringuier? That doesn't come close to adding up.
You have to have a theory that explains why (even in 2019) there would be a stonewalling of the release of documents about 11-22-63. And very few Americans had any motive to cover-up for anti-Castro Cubans--at all, never mind for 55 years.
Simply put, the truth has pretty much emerged that the JFK plot had to be at the level of world leaders. You have to explain why all the intel agencies on the planet have remained silent for 55 years, when it wasn't that hard for investigators to know the main principals of the JFK plot.
In my opinion, the best explanation of that is that West Germany and NATO were heavily involved. And even in 2019, most people would not want to jeopardize either our alliance with Germany or to trash NATO.
So in that context, the reviewer Mr. Le Flem doesn't analyze the Skorzeny book based on what the book has to say about international connections to the assassination. To me, that's the import of the Skorzeny Papers. Mr. Ganis presents so many connections between Skorzeny and Dallas that it's unbelievable. That level of connection as to be taken very seriously.
And the main connection in The Skorzeny Papers is the involvement of David Martin with Skorzeny. Sadly, very few people who read this site are aware of the importance of David Martin to the assassination. So it's difficult for someone to write a review of The Skorzeny Papers without the reviewer having a very wide understanding of the assassination.
Without that, one is limited to just poking holes is someone else's theory. And as author and attorney Mark Lane proved, you can poke all kinds of holes in, say, the Warren Commission Report, but that won't explain WHO ACTUALLY DID KILL KENNEDY. IMHO, Mark Lane never figured out who were the JFK killers, even though he spent his whole life trying.
And somebody did kill JFK. And Oswald could not have acted alone. So unless you can explain all the unexplained loose ends of the vast JFK evidence, you cant' claim very much. And if you don't have the explanation of the entire event and cover-up, then you really can't evaluate or pass judgment or fundamentally disprove the theory of those who have done the in-depth research that you, yourself, have never done.
You can only pass judgment on the work of Mr. Ganis by comparing his work to the work of others who have taken their shot. And in that light, Mr. Ganis looks pretty darn good and Mr. Albarelli probably would have looked even better, rest his soul.
James Lateer
The corollary to this belief, is the JFK research attitude that says "I can't necessarily prove who it was that killed Kennedy, but I'm sure you don't know either."
The review by Michael Le Flem of the Skorzeny Papers seems to be picking out a single tree and chopping the hell out of it, with total disregard of the forest. I (for the life of me) can't understand why those who have no proof as the JFK killers, totally disrespect various authors who, at least, have a unified theory as to the assassination which might answer all the major problems with the multitude of claims made by all the research community.
The reviewer seems to like the theory that anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA did it. Granted, some people in the CIA must have had either prior knowledge or post-assassination knowledge of the particulars of the assassination. But as we are seeing with the Mueller report, one segment of the government will not cover-up for other particular segments of the government.
The House Democrats may be peddling the theory that the Russians rigged the election, but the conservative press and the House Republicans are busy full-time poking holes in that deep-state fantasy. To one side, Mueller is Jesus-like but to the other side, Mueller is pretty much the Devil.
So it's not credible that liberals in Congress like Senator J William Fulbright (who himself was threatened by McCarthy-ites) would cover up collectively over a period of decades for James Angleton, Allen Dulles, etc. Why would they rig the House Select Committee on Intelligence and go to all that length to try and falsely blame the Mafia? Would they do that to protect the likes of Sergio Arcacha Smith or Carlos Bringuier? That doesn't come close to adding up.
You have to have a theory that explains why (even in 2019) there would be a stonewalling of the release of documents about 11-22-63. And very few Americans had any motive to cover-up for anti-Castro Cubans--at all, never mind for 55 years.
Simply put, the truth has pretty much emerged that the JFK plot had to be at the level of world leaders. You have to explain why all the intel agencies on the planet have remained silent for 55 years, when it wasn't that hard for investigators to know the main principals of the JFK plot.
In my opinion, the best explanation of that is that West Germany and NATO were heavily involved. And even in 2019, most people would not want to jeopardize either our alliance with Germany or to trash NATO.
So in that context, the reviewer Mr. Le Flem doesn't analyze the Skorzeny book based on what the book has to say about international connections to the assassination. To me, that's the import of the Skorzeny Papers. Mr. Ganis presents so many connections between Skorzeny and Dallas that it's unbelievable. That level of connection as to be taken very seriously.
And the main connection in The Skorzeny Papers is the involvement of David Martin with Skorzeny. Sadly, very few people who read this site are aware of the importance of David Martin to the assassination. So it's difficult for someone to write a review of The Skorzeny Papers without the reviewer having a very wide understanding of the assassination.
Without that, one is limited to just poking holes is someone else's theory. And as author and attorney Mark Lane proved, you can poke all kinds of holes in, say, the Warren Commission Report, but that won't explain WHO ACTUALLY DID KILL KENNEDY. IMHO, Mark Lane never figured out who were the JFK killers, even though he spent his whole life trying.
And somebody did kill JFK. And Oswald could not have acted alone. So unless you can explain all the unexplained loose ends of the vast JFK evidence, you cant' claim very much. And if you don't have the explanation of the entire event and cover-up, then you really can't evaluate or pass judgment or fundamentally disprove the theory of those who have done the in-depth research that you, yourself, have never done.
You can only pass judgment on the work of Mr. Ganis by comparing his work to the work of others who have taken their shot. And in that light, Mr. Ganis looks pretty darn good and Mr. Albarelli probably would have looked even better, rest his soul.
James Lateer