19-01-2011, 09:44 PM
Charles Drago Wrote:Lauren,
You are in the enviable position of opening the doors of perception for a group of what appear to be thoughtful, courageous readers.
You might reassure them that even the most well-read and otherwise experienced deep political observers are often hard-pressed to avoid victimization by clever agents of disinformation. Over the years I've been fooled often, more than once in the most embarrassing of ways. As a result I've developed skin that arguably is too thick -- skin that at times may be impenetrable by the truth.
Alas, there are no easy formulae to apply to sexy tales such as Vinson's in order to assay their truthfulness -- beyond, that is, the application of common sense informed by as much deep political study as you can bring to the process.
Vinson may have been pitching a screenplay or novel. Literally. He may have told the truth as he knows it, but a "truth" regarding events designed to muddy the investigative waters. He may have been a witting spreader of disinformation.
What I conclude with a strong degree of confidence is that Vinson's story is worthless as an investigative lead unless we see its value as a variation of what Peter Dale Scott has termed a "negative template."
I hope this helps.
Charles
Yes: I think as far as I go the Vinson story-which I recall coming across a few years back before JD's book (I'd love to remember where or when I heard it). Is probably one of the few faults I could find in the Douglas work. It has not really sat well with me at all even less after seeing the discussions about it on many a forum.
But hey, even Michaelangelo missed a few strokes. Thus JD has earned the right to make a mistake or two.