Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jim DiEugenio on Caufield's General Walker book
#1
At CTKA.net, my two part review of Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy is now posted. Part one is here:

http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart1.html

and part two

http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart2.html


Easily one of the most agenda driven, solipsistic exercise in recent years on the case. Probably the worst book since Ultimate Sacrifice.
Reply
#2
Trejo must be in heaven. He must have an ornate lighted shrine in his living room for the book.


Just the latest version of mastermind...
Reply
#3
I disagree. it's long and repetitive, but carefully and exhaustively researched. There was much new material that I'd never seen before. You may not like Caulfield's theory, but you can't fault his research.\

Jim: the links are messed up.
"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."
Reply
#4
Yes you can, just read the review.

I mean look what he did with Loran Hall, for just one example.
Reply
#5
I think you mean Western Cartridge instead of "Winchester" for the Carcano ammunition.
Reply
#6
That will be corrected.

Drew, I went through every link and they all worked.

Which one did you have trouble with?

BTW, do you really think Oswald was on the sixth floor? Do you really buy the lying cuss Givens?

If you click through on that one, you will see three different ways in which he is exposed a a perjurer--Meagher, Speer, Jesus-- but Caufield used him anyway.

That is not careful research.

Neither is calling Oswald a Nazi with just about nothing to back it up.
Reply
#7
The first link didn't work at all and the second link did not go to the second part. I haven't tried them tonight. I'll read the review tomorrow.

I think Oswald being conned into/told to fire a couple shots (not necessarily AT JFK) from the 6th floor is as plausible on its face as, say, twin Oswalds, or one Oswald that can run down 4 flights of stairs, without being seen or heard, and without apparent effort, or an Oswald that can walk in and out a glass door in tight quarters undetected in the presence of a number of people that know him...

If you read the chapter about Oswald's childhood, a right-wing mindset can be inferred from the data that Caulfield presented. It's not the only plausible mindset. We do know that he, from time to time, would profess contradictory beliefs. And a lot of the JFK "witnesses" turned out to be liars of one stripe or another. That doesn't mean that they ALWAYS lied.
"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."
Reply
#8
They should be working now.

As per your idea above, two Oswalds, Caufield does not go for any of that stuff.

And as I said, his evidence about using the N word is simply a non starter as far as growing up in the south at that time. And his stuff about being anti semitic is even weaker than that.

I read all 790 pages. And took copious notes.

I feel like suing him for mental torture. What a pretentious hoax.
Reply
#9
Morning gentlemen,

Yes, the first/top link draws a 404 error message; however, the 2nd/bottom link landed/directed safely.

That said, An excellent review, Mr. DiEugenio, certainly a pretty fair assessment of Mr. Caufield's lengthy work. In an otherwise diligent effort on his behalf, he is obviously reaching to infer the wrongfully accused is a Nazi or took part in the General Walker episode, let alone shoot at him. As the saying goes way down in Texas, those dogs don't hunt.
Reply
#10
The links are working now.

My "two Oswald's" reference above was not at Caulfield, but referring to John Armstrong, a thorough researcher whom I respect, and whose work is worth studying in detail, even if I can't quite agree with his theory. It's unfortunately true that otherwise well meaning people did use that phrase in the 50's and 60's. I would point out that that period's "mainstream" opinions concerning minorities would be shockingly out of place by today's standards.

Look at the example of General Walker. His racist beliefs were so ingrained that he was willing to basically commit (or foment) treason rather than accept overdue reform. And he wasn't that far, ideologically speaking, from the mainstream at that time. You didn't have to be a Nazi to be a bigot.

Alan: There is ample evidence to support, let's say, "probable cause" that Oswald did take a shot at Walker. Or at least at his house. Certainly, most of that evidence is suspect (ahem - Marina), but that's pretty much true at this point for all of the JFK evidence. Testimony from wife Marina about Oswald's alleged "admissions" would not have been allowed into evidence at a Texas criminal trial. Assuming that Walker would have denied at trial that the bullet in evidence was the same bullet as the one pried from his wall (as he did historically), and assuming Oswald refused to confess (as he did historically), without Marina's testimony, the trial would have probably resulted in an acquittal.

The most fundamental problem with linking Oswald to the Walker shooting (as an arranged publicity stunt, as Caulfield suggests), is the fact that there is no evidence that Walker and Oswald ever met each other. (Oswald attended a Walker speech.)
"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."
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Jim DiEugenio: Not to be Trusted Richard Gilbride 22 1,759 10-06-2024, 12:40 AM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio On "The Loser's Club" Brian Doyle 0 318 30-12-2023, 07:06 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Reviews Kamp's Book But Doesn't Mention Prayer Man Brian Doyle 0 439 06-10-2023, 02:54 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Jim DiEugenio Betrays Deep Politics Forum Over Prayer Man Brian Doyle 4 808 05-10-2023, 05:11 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Bart Kamp's 'Prayer Man More Than A Fuzzy Picture' Book Brian Doyle 1 444 27-09-2023, 03:30 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Gives Reference To ROKC Troll Farm And Kamp Brian Doyle 0 445 09-08-2023, 03:02 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  DiEugenio Betrays Conspiracy Research Brian Doyle 1 603 07-07-2023, 04:32 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Selverstone's Book Jim DiEugenio 3 993 13-04-2023, 05:10 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  Oswald and the Shot at Walker Jim DiEugenio 1 678 24-03-2023, 04:35 PM
Last Post: Brian Doyle
  John T Martin: Filmed on same reel: Edwin Walker's Home, Oswald NOLA Leaflets Distribution Tom Scully 1 2,587 10-03-2023, 09:34 AM
Last Post: Tom Scully

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)