Jump to content
The Education Forum

John Kelin

Members
  • Posts

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by John Kelin

  1. Hi all, I learned today that the e-book version of my 2007 book Praise from a Future Generation is now available on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Praise-Future-Generation-Assassination-ebook/dp/B00DY0GTVM/ref=sr_1_1_bnp_1_kin?ie=UTF8&qid=1380209592&sr=8-1&keywords=praise+from+a+future+generation The book is a nonfiction account of the grassroots response to the JFK assassination; i.e., the story of the first-generation critics.
  2. Hi all, I wrote a few words about today on my blog: http://bluelung.blogspot.com/2011/11/jfk-another-anniversary.html
  3. According to my notes of May 24, Moorman said the first shot was followed by two more in quick succession. This is a fusillade that was over in seconds. So, while it might seem like your points are logical, I think they overlook the rapidity of events. True. But that doesn't change the points I was making in my previous post re Mary Ann hearing multiple shots after the head shot.
  4. Mary Ann Moorman did not state in the May 24 interview that the head shot was the first shot. She stated that the head shot was the first one that she heard. Big difference.
  5. I don't find the iantiques site very intuitive or easy to navigate. Go here: http://www.iantique.com/videos ...and most of the JFK shows, including the Moorman one, should be in a group of about ten videos. For some reason the first JFK show is not there. You might have to join the site. I think I did. It's free. Alternately, Joe Backes has linked to the Moorman show from his blog: http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JusticeForKennedy+%28Justice+For+Kennedy%29
  6. David, I started setting my replies in a distinctive font, but I think that could get messy very quickly. So I've deleted previous remarks and am starting fresh. I agree that there is more here than meets the eye, but I don't really know the details. I first heard about this event the same way everyone else probably did -- an item on the PRNewswire dated May 5. As soon as I realized it was near my home, I made a few phone calls and was soon talking to Gary Stover, the show's host. The whole thing seems rather incongruous, I said: does Mary Ann Moorman now live in the Denver area? No, he said, she's still in Texas (Dallas I think). As I understand it, an antiques dealer associated with the Brass Armadillo met her over the holidays, the most recent ones I gather. How he happened to meet her, I don't know. (I can't think of his name offhand, but if you have seen the other iantique.com JFK shows that have run through the month of May, he's the camera expert in the very first one.) So that's the apparent connection. One thing, I guess, led to another. They paid for Mrs. Moorman and her husband to come up here, but frankly I'm not sure who "they" is. But yes, she wants to sell the original print. Without checking my resources -- a risky thing to do -- I think Ray Marcus wrote in his #5 Man monograph that Josiah Thompson saw the original around 1967 and noted there had already been some degradation. During the interview, Mrs. Moorman said that Jean Hill had the fixative "gel" in her pocket. She took off across Elm Street almost right away and so the fixative was not immediately applied. I think she said they finally applied it once they got to the press room in the Criminal Courts Building. Elapsed time? Maybe 15-20 minutes, but that's my guess. She didn't say that. Mrs. Moorman also says during the interview that the Sixth Floor had the original photo in a vault for about 15 years, but that she has since retrieved it and has it stored in another vault elsewhere. As for why she's selling it now, and whether it is to coincide with the 50th anniversary...I don't know. I heard her use the phrase, "They say the fiftieth anniversary is coming" several times (as if there were some doubt about it), but there was no apparent linkage. As I noted previously, Mary Moorman's location in Dealey Plaza has never been an interest of mine. With that caveat, and not knowing whether her statements the other night contradict anything she might have previously said...her remark about the street not being a safe place to be certainly seems reasonable. Wherever she was at the moment she took the picture, she would not have known she was in the line of fire. (And I don't think there's any "if" about a grassy knoll shooter.) She said, and Jean HIll said, and I think photos bear out, that after taking the picture, she fell down. She addresses this in the video. She said a cop came up to her and said something like, "I thought you were the young lady who had been hit." As far as I know, there were no "representatives" from the Sixth Floor Museum on hand. As for Mrs. Moorman's "current living situation, physical, medical, etc"...she still lives in Texas, as noted. Her husband was with her and I met him, too. Mrs. Moorman seemed like an average 78 year old woman: no obvious health issues, but no spring chicken, if you will. During our post-interview chat, when I was one of several people hovering about trying to get a word or three in edgewise, I mentioned Richard Trask's book -- and dang, I'm sorry, I can't remember the context now. But she unhesitatingly recalled his name, adding something like "He sent me a copy of his book." Earlier she had said that she does not read ANY assassination books, and reiterated that now -- pointedly including Trask's. I think it's worthwhile that Mary Moorman has gone on the record again, since there have been so few instances of her doing so. (She says in the video that she didn't testify to the WC because she twisted her ankle. She called her WC contact and cancelled a scheduled deposition, and then never heard from them again. Implicit in this, though she didn't say it, is that she would have been a willing witness.) I think the most important things to come out of this May 24 interview include her statements that she heard three shots -- and that the first one she heard was when she took her picture. Officially, of course, two shots had already been fired. (In her 11-22-63 statement she said "I heard three or four shots in all," but no mention of when she heard the first.) Even so, this is hardly earth shattering. Equally important is her observation on May 24 that the limo slowed almost to a stop right after the fusillade. At the end of the interview Mary Moorman said, "I believe there's a whole lot more to the story than has been told," but then, the polls show us that most people think that.
  7. The following is presented for whatever it may be worth. The Brass Armadillo, where Mary Ann Moorman’s interview took place on May 24, is only about half an hour from where I live, so I went down there for the webcast. By now the interview has been posted to the iantique website, so I won’t belabor any of that. But I did get to talk with Mrs. Moorman for a few minutes afterward. First, though, I should point out I’ve never been interested in where she was standing when she took her famous photo, so my questions about that were probably not too incisive. During the webcast, Moorman told Gary Stover that she stepped into the street twice, to take pictures of two motorcycle cops in the motorcade, both of whom she knew. Stover then asked if she stepped into the street for her famous photo. My scribbled notes have her replying, “I’m pretty sure I stepped back just on the very edge of the curb to get on the grass.” I thought that was a little ambiguous. She stepped back before or after taking the picture? Stepped back after taking one of the cop photos? So after the webcast, I asked her about this explicitly. She answered that she took the picture from the curb, adding that between the presidential limo and the motorcycle cops there wasn’t a lot of room in the street. It wasn’t safe. One of the themes of the May 24 interview, it seemed to me, was discrediting Jean Hill. I know many find her a problematic witness. I don’t have a strong opinion about her. Haven’t read The Last Dissenting Witness. I was especially interested in comparing the Hill and Moorman accounts of being taken to that press room by Jim Featherstone. In particular, I wanted to ask her about Jean Hill’s statement, which I’d just re-read in the WC volumes. I’d scrawled an abridged version into my notes, which I read to Mrs. Moorman. Jean Hill is telling the WC about her encounter with a man she took to be a Secret Service agent. “They keep saying three shots,” she testified telling this man. “I said, I know I heard more…he said, ‘Mrs. Hill, we heard more shots too, but we have three wounds and we have three bullets, three shots is all that we are willing to say right now.’” [WC vol. 6, pp. 220-21.] Moorman told me she had no recollection of this exchange. But she acknowledged the scene was very chaotic. She could have missed it.
  8. I got the same email, although it just said "Bernice" -- no last name. I didn't take the bait. A year or so ago I got a nearly identical message, this time using the first and last name of a well known person within the JFK community. I didn't take the bait on that one, either, although this email was slightly more convincing. Within a few hours the JFK person found out, and sent around a message saying no, he hadn't been mugged in Europe, beware of the fraud. I second that. Beware.
  9. I had not known that The Realist is online now. For anyone who (like me) is interested in early assassination criticism I would suggest you check out "The Unsinkable Marguerite Oswald," from the September 1964 issue. http://www.ep.tc/realist/53/12.html The issue contains some other interesting stuff, too. (See "The Crackpot and the Evidence" on page 4.) You can access its cover page by omitting the "12.html" from the above URL, then click through the issue page by page. I called Paul Krassner when I was researching the early critics, because the copy I had of "Unsinkable" was truly horrid. He hinted that he had all issues up in his attic, or in storage, something like that -- accessible, but a major inconvenience for him to get to. Eventually I got a better copy from the UC Santa Barbara library's rare books room. But this online version is even cleaner.
  10. Hi all, I seldom post here but lurk almost daily, and have been following this thread with interest. Insofar as what to call this new effort, I have two cents to throw in. With all due respect to the AIB and everything it accomplished, I would suggest that after thirty-something years, it has no real name recognition with the general public. So I don't think there is any compelling reason to use it. Likewise, with all the known differences of opinion between existing organizations, I don't see any reason to use COPA, Lancer, or whatever for this purpose. I would propose some new name be dreamed up -- the Fiftieth Anniversary Coalition, or something along those lines. Something baggage-free, to reflect what I hope would be some new sense of at least temporary unity. Beyond that, I think Roger Feinman's initial comments are excellent, in particular his "two general concepts." John Kelin
  11. Hi all, I drop by this forum on an irregular basis, so I don't know whether the following has been posted. My apologies if it already has. Ray Marcus, an early WR critic, called me this afternoon (12-17) with the news that Hal Verb died a couple of weeks ago, on December 4. He had been in a hospice for the last six months or so. Like Ray, Hal Verb was an early WR critic. He lived in San Francisco. I met him on several occasions, but when I was researching the early critics a few years back he did not reply to my query letters, so I don't know much about him. He worked with Harold Weisberg for a time, I think, and is mentioned in "Oswald In New Orleans." I think he taught a class about the assassination at San Francisco State College...? Not sure about that though. I remember Hal speaking on the grassy knoll at a remembrance ceremony a number of years back. He modified a familiar quote usually associated with the CIA: "You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you MAD." John Kelin
  12. The following is an excerpt from a letter to the New York Times Book Review, written in response to a review of Reclaiming History. It was signed by Jefferson Morley, Norman Mailer, Anthony Summers, and David Talbot, and published on June 17, 2007. <quote> Bryan Burrough’s laudatory review of Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the Kennedy assassination (May 20) is superficial and gratuitously insulting. “Conspiracy theorists” – blithe generalization – should according to Burroughs be “ridiculed, even shunned ... marginalized the way we’ve marginalized smokers.” Let’s see now. The following people to one degree or another suspected that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, and said so either publicly or privately: Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon; Attorney General Robert Kennedy; John Kennedy’s widow, Jackie; his special adviser dealing with Cuba at the United Nations, William Attwood; F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hoover; Senators Richard Russell (a Warren Commission member), and Richard Schweiker and Gary Hart (both of the Senate Intelligence Committee); seven of the eight congressmen on the House Assassinations Committee and its chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey; the Kennedy associates Joe Dolan, Fred Dutton, Richard Goodwin, Pete Hamill, Frank Mankiewicz, Larry O’Brien, Kenneth O’Donnell and Walter Sheridan; the Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode with the president in the limousine; the presidential physician, Dr. George Burkley; Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago; Frank Sinatra; and the “60 Minutes” producer Don Hewitt. All of the above, à la Burrough, were idiots. No so, of course. <end quote>
  13. Hi all, The Feb 2009 issue of Sojourner magazine has an article called "Tackling the Unspeakable," about the incoming Obama administration and James W. Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable." It can be found online at: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magaz...the-unspeakable There is an accompanying video interview with Jim, which can be found here: http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magaz...or-jim-douglass John Kelin
  14. Hi all, H.C. (Harry) Nash, who wrote the Penn Jones biography "Citizen's Arrest," and who also wrote the Foreword to my own book, sent me a poem he wrote in the aftermath of Barack Obama's election. He said it would be okay if I posted it here. John Kelin GRANT PARK, CHICAGO, 40 YEARS LATER a grandmother named Madelyn Dunham could not be watching, & Rosa Parks could not be watching, & Jack Kennedy could not be watching, & Goodman, Schwerner, & Cheney could not be watching, & Malcolm could not be watching, & Martin & Coretta could not be watching, & Bobby could not be watching, & Fred Hampton could not be watching, & John Lennon could not be watching, but hundreds & thousands of millions were watching from wherever they find themselves around the globe, & old men & women of all colors & faiths were watching, & young women & men of all faiths & colors were watching, & children whose faces shone as naturally as unpolluted sunlight were watching, & what is radiant in the hearts of disenthralled & oppressed people everywhere brought fresh beauty to their faces, & in countless cases tears to their eyes, & what has been bottled up in their minds will from this moment constitute new auras from villages to reservations to towns to impossibly populated cities around the globe when they awaken the very next time, when they rise & shake off their downtrodden resignations & foolish failures & proclaim their identities & their dreams of solidarity & justice the very next time— the mornings at hand, the noontides at hand, the pregnant afternoons at hand, the early evenings at hand, the nights resonant of desire & agape at hand, the midnights with sleep or sleeplessness at hand, their food & tools at hand, their calling out of births & (natural) deaths at hand, their animals & pasturelands at hand, their mountains at hand, their rivers & streams at hand, their lovers & companions & even their distant relatives at hand, their past & present & futures at hand. Grant Park 40 years later— a man of Kenya & Kansas, Hawaii, Chicago, reason & peace, will & warmth, ways & means, here & now, & you & me . . . --hcn (11-5-08)
  15. Thanks for your reply. If I'm not mistaken, I posed this same question about Dulles to another JFK forum some years back, and Martin gave me the same answer. Obviously, Dulles's statement, or alleged statement, is one of those that has a lot of potential weight attached to it. And it troubles me that I've never seen a source for it. In a similar vein, I looked a long time for the JFK quote about splintering the CIA into a thousand pieces -- finally found it in a 1966 New York Times article. As I recall, it was unattributed, which likewise makes me uneasy. Both quotes may well be accurate, but without proper sourcing start seeming more like urban myths.
  16. This website claims it was said by Allen Dulles, Warren Commission meeting , July 9, 1964: http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...php/t42959.html This website says: "But nobody reads. Don't believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record... the public will read very little. - Allen Dulles, 7-9-64." http://pages.sbcglobal.net/tom.blackwell/ Thanks for the reply, John. The problem is, this is just a web site containing the quote we're all familiar with. The date helps. But this particular meeting, which I'm guessing was an Executive Session, isn't in the "Document Addendum to the Warren Report" or a Lancer CD that has most of the stuff in the Document Addendum. Has anyone seen a transcript of this July 9 session? I guess I"ll try the NARA web site. John
  17. Hi all, Does anyone know the source of the oft-quoted remark attributed to Allen Dulles, "But nobody reads..." ? I have asked other forums and no one seems to know. Paraphrasing, the full statement, in the context of publishing the WC material, is along the lines of, "But nobody reads. Oh, a few academics will read it, but that's about all..." My apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere. John Kelin
  18. My friend Joe Martin has informed me that there is a YouTube video of author James W. Douglass, speaking about his new book, "JFK and the Unspeakable." Joe notes that it was recorded on June 6th, 2008, not May 6th, as the video says. I had the pleasure of hearing James Douglass a few months prior to this in Denver. The YouTube video is worth watching. John Kelin
  19. I just heard from Gary Mack that the SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM plans to arrange a book-signing for John Kelin. This will be a significant event, and I would imagine it will get good coverage at least in local media. Thanks again for all of the kind comments that have been made in this thread. They are quite gratifying. I wouldn't really care to speculate on why Sylvia Meagher was so opposed to Garrison. I will say, however, that I am still in contact with some of the people I wrote about, and several of them, who knew Sylvia and were close to her, remain stumped by this question. One in particular was astonished at the intensity of some of what she had written, such as quotations from an unpublished SM article I used, called "Not With a Roar, but a Whimper," which he had not previously seen. I found the whole matter quite sad -- how it drove a wedge between people who had been very close. I don't know why they couldn't just agree to disagree, but the written record spoke for itself. The Norlin Library, at the University of Colorado in Boulder, is easily the best library in my area. It has several sets of the 26 volumes (though I obtained a set during the course of the project), has vast government documents such as stuff from the La Follette Committee, and multitudes of periodicals, including complete sets of The Minority of One, In Fact, I.F. Stone's Weekly; I even found that rifle magazine (American Rifleman?) that Oswald supposedly saw the Klein's ad in. Plus more stuff I'm probably forgetting, here off the top of my head. Note: I have been writing this post off-line over the course of a morning, as time permits. Looking at the main page, it appears that some of the posts in this thread have vanished, at least from my browser. Mostly this post addresses Peter Lemkin's remarks, but the post he made them in is, for the moment at least, not visible. I don't understand why. I have a feeling I'll not reply to something that I meant to comment on -- but so it goes. I will say, though, that a post that the Sixth Floor is planning a book-signing is news to me!
  20. I have to agree - a great effort and a great book. I only hope you plan a sequel with the other major researchers after the first group......hint...hint...hint....! First, thank you very much for your very kind and generous words. I hope to revise my book for the assassination's 50th anniversary, but have no plans for a follow-up on later critics. If I try that, I might wind up in divorce court. If you seriously wonder how I "organized this project and what formula used to keep the work on track," well...I shall take a stab at describing it. I've been interested in the earliest critics almost as long as the assassination itself. I guess it comes down to being one of those people who wonders where stuff comes from, who always wonders who the people are behind their bylines, who always reads fine print. So, I was curious about these people. Then I met Vince Salandria at the 1998 COPA conference, as described in the book's Intro (which omitted Bill Kelly's role in that -- acknowledged elsewhere on this forum -- normally I'm not the type to approach speakers or whoever, and ask for a copy of their speech!). Vince and I became friendly, and a year or so later he sent me all this stuff, mostly correspondence, that became some of my raw material. Four or five big boxes of material (months later, he sent a few more boxes). I sorted it all out, saw the broad outlines of the story, and began contacting those critics still alive (Shirley Martin was the first I reached). Organizing: well, much of the book is based on the critics' contemporaneous correspondence. There was an enormous amount of this material, and I logged it all, noting who wrote to whom and when, and what a given letter said. This was very time-consuming but I found it all very engrossing. I also created multiple timelines that allowed me to cross-reference, at a glance, who was doing what when, and how that measured up to what, e.g., the WC was doing. That was how I noticed, for example, that LBJ dispatched Allen Dulles to Mississippi soon after the disappearance of Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner, a time when the WC was still at work. I "organized" what became the book's Part One in my head. But this project kept expanding -- I kept realizing more areas had to be added. So for Part Two and Three, I created a very straight-ahead outline, which was a road map for the rest of the book. There were some detours made but not all that many. But I have no secrets for organizing and the only "formula" was that I tried to keep it interesting. In truth, I hoped for a major publisher and a wider audience -- and I still think the story deserves both (though not necessarily my telling of it). Inevitably there were tough decisions to make, which involved limiting the project's scope. So I tried focusing on those people whose interests and efforts could be dated to 11-22-63. Thus there is not much about Six Seconds in Dallas in my book, although I interviewed Tink Thompson. He was very supportive of the idea of this project -- which of course is not necessarily an endorsement of how it turned out. Even limiting the scope, I managed to fill up 500-something pages! (...which seemed to perplex Anthony Frewin.) Certain people, who should probably have been mentioned in some capacity, were omitted entirely. Space limitations. Mea culpa. I'm sorry, but I don't recall a specific discussion of "Hatman" in SSID. There is no such entry in the hardcover edition's index. The Moorman photo is discussed on pp. 127-9 and photos on 127 compare a Moorman detail with a later photo taken from the same angle. Is this the "hatman" figure? It does not appear to be any of the figures marked 1 through 5 by David Lifton and Ray Marcus, which of course I dwelled on in considerable detail. As for the self-discipline part -- when this thing began, my kids were quite small. I was a freelance writer and my wife had a fulltime job that gave us all the healthcare benefits the world requires. We wanted the youngsters raised by us, so I was the logical one to stay home. So most of the book was researched and written while the children napped or, later, went to preschool. In short, I either had or made the time for it. When you are consumed by something, though, it doesn't really seem like self-discipline. (I'd been publishing a web site called "Fair Play," but that was suspended because I needed the time for the book.) If I may add one thing, at the risk of seeming even more self-indulgent than this lengthy post already must: this book, which I'd say is about an 85-90 percent realization of how I first conceived it, truly seemed to enjoy a state of grace, from my point of view. It seemed like I kept getting the material I needed, when I needed it. For example just when I despaired over finding out much about Sylvia Meagher, I learned of her archive of stuff at Hood College, which was an utter goldmine. I had been unaware of it. (Hood also has the Weisberg archive and the Ray Marcus archive, although I got most of Ray's stuff from Ray himself.) I found almost everyone I was looking for, though I have no background in locating people. Almost everyone welcomed the project and shared generously with me, to my amazement and gratitude. Okay. I'm long-winded. Sorry about that.
  21. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. Well it's a pity about the length Mr. Frewin. You must be a very busy man, and ideally would like your "entertainment" summarized in a memo. There is a quite a lot here about Mark Lane, which makes Mr. Frewin a purveyor of false information. In fact John Kelin's book is an important slice of American history. Who died and put Frewin charge of deciding how other people should spend their time? I read the first 300 pages of PRAISE FROM A FUTURE GENERATION in one sitting, and looking forward to the second half. I think this guy Frewin is a pretty MISERABLE EXCUSE for a book reviewer
  22. I read on a website some time ago, that Myers was once a CT and even went on the lecture circuit. Then at some point he changed his views and became an LN. But I can't state this is a definite fact. There may be some here that knows if true or not. If true, he might have at one time not have believed LHO shot Tippit. But then of course, many CT's do believe he did so. === Hi all, I interviewed Dale Myers way back in 1982, when he was indeed on the lecture circuit with a conspiracy point of view. At the time, I was working at a public radio station (WEMU) in Ypsilanti, Michigan. Myers came there to speak, which is how I came to do the interview. I was pretty new to the JFK case at the time, and this was not my finest hour. However, I still have some audio from that interview, and you can hear a clip of Myers declaring, "I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger." http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/d_myers.mp3 BTW, the first voice is mine. Sounds like I just rolled out of bed. I transcribed a much longer segment of the interview for the CTKA web site about five years ago, and it remains posted there: http://www.ctka.net/dale_1982.html Near the end of this transcript, Dale Myers states unequivocally: "I think I will be able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Oswald was not the killer of J.D. Tippit." For what it's worth, John Kelin
  23. To the list for further Roger Craig studies, I would add an FBI document discovered by Chris Courtwright in Archives II about ten years ago, with the ARRB record number 124-10145-10036. It is dated November 23, 1963, and states in part: <quote> Mr. ROY COOPER ... furnished the following information ... He related an incident about a Nash Rambler being seen leaving the building at Elm and Houston on 11/22/63. He was driving his car and following his boss who was driving a Cadillac. They were coming south on Houston and had to wait for the parade and the incident happened shortly after they reached this intersection. COOPER observed a white male somewhere between 20 and 30 years of age wave at a Nash Rambler stationwagon, light colored, as it pulled out and was ready to leave from Elm and Houston. This stationwagon pulled out real fast in front of the Cadillac driven by his boss and his employer had to stop abruptly and nearly hit this Nash Rambler. COOPER could not see who was driving the Nash Rambler and could not furnish any further description of the man who jumped into this car. They drove off at a rather fast rate of speed and went down toward the overpass toward Oak Cliff. <end quote> Cooper's boss was Marvin Robinson, who filed a similar FBI report. The Robinson account did not surface until the 1970s, I believe -- I think I first read of it in Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt.
  24. For anyone interested, the interview with Malcolm Perry is included in a DVD called "Kennedy in Texas" (International Historic Films). This half hour DVD is available for twenty bucks here: http://www.ihffilm.com/22368.html Some interesting stuff on it, but the Malcolm Perry interview is probably its best feature. Once upon a time I had it on VHS, too, and the audio buzz is on both. John Kelin
  25. I tried to make the following post right after this Vince Palamara issue arose, but had some trouble logging in to this site. Since then the points I was going to make have been made by others. But, what the heck. Here is what I wrote (offline) to post here: I"ve met Vince Palamara a couple of times but cannot say I know him, so guessing at his motives or true self is only that, a guess. But he is not the first defector from our ranks, nor will he be the last. I watched his YouTube video. What I found most interesting about it was that he did not offer a single instance of how Bugliosi's book changed his thinking. One would expect, even demand him to say how and why Bugliosi's book did this. But he does not. Instead we get meaningless one-liners, like Bugliosi's book is "devastating" and "re-aligned the universe" for him. He adopts lone nut jargon by referring to LHO as "this little pipsqueak." This, in place of solid arguments. He says, and I quote, "I challenge anybody to honestly read this book, and come away -- you have to say Oswald did it." You have to? Why, Vince? Convince me. Co-Vince me. It's a short and obvious step to conclude that he doesn't elaborate with anything concrete, because he can't. I also find it extremely self-serving that he says while he believes Oswald was the assassin, his own work still stands up. Vince, we hardly knew ye. John Kelin
×
×
  • Create New...