Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
06-03-2016, 08:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2016, 05:28 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Drew:
1. I am fully aware of Armstrong's work. What I am saying is that Caufield does not adapt it to his book. You can only critique what is in front of you. There was no hint at that in Caufield's book. I don't think I would have missed it.
2. In my view, there is no credible evidence that Oswald either shot at Kennedy or at Walker. And I spent a lot of time showing why. The only way that case was made at all was through the switching and disguising of the bullet evidence, and the dubious testimony of Marina Oswald. In my view, the former cancels out the latter.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
Jim: You're an author, and a good one. I'm confident you understand the concept of "allusion." It's a pity my writing skills are so poor that I cannot convey a reference to another idea, as an example, without being taken so literally that the idea is distorted. But of course you are a good enough writer that you use allusion all the time. For instance, you said in your review that Caulfield is calling Oswald a Nazi. That literally is not true. He never says that. But all your readers understand that is what you think Caulfield means.
I am looking forward to reading the remainder of your review.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 2,665
Threads: 378
Likes Received: 3 in 2 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
07-03-2016, 05:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2016, 06:57 AM by Jim DiEugenio.)
Anyone can read Caufield pgs. 75-90 and make up their own mind.
But its hard to avoid this on page 90:
"Credible evidence presented herein suggests Lee Harvey Oswald was tied to at least one leader of the American Nazi party, Ray Leahart, if not a second, Dan Burros. The allegations are not unexpected, since Oswald came from a racist and anti-Semitic household and had a close ties to to Nazi Oriented individuals, Guy Banister and David Ferrie."
The first sentence, as I showed in my review is simply false. The second sentence is a bit ridiculous. It is all over the top and irresponsible hyperbole in order to paint Oswald as something he was not.
But its surprising you don't detect what the author is aiming at, because I fail to see the allusion there.
