[Patrick C]

(08-30-2016, 11:37 PM)Nick Principe Wrote:  

Patrick C Wrote:"Since you are a believer, then from your perspective all pro-conspiracy books would be wrong. If they are all wrong, how therefore can you recommend any of them?"

What a silly statement.

Firstly it is obvious that if anyone wished to gain an appreciation of the assassination theories for conspiracy or lone gunman that they should read books that reflected both sides of the discussion. I would have thought that this would be blindingly obvious!

Secondly there are several hundred pro conspiracy books - so where to start.....? Well as someone who has read most of them, it might be worth taking a recommendation of some of the more respected works and authors. Bugliosi for example would recommend Anthony Summers as a well respected investigative journalist with BBC credentials. 

Rather than on the contrary picking up books from the likes of Orlando Martin which - in his case - is a pitiful and woefully misleading account of events in Dallas - no matter what you believe!

Thirdly, my conclusion that Oswald acted alone, is essentially my formulated opinion based on my own research and assimilation, it is not a definitive account of the assassination and nor should be taken as such.

It is clear Nick Princip that your appreciation of the investigation of historical events and for that matter even the application of basic scientific method to determine truth and or actuality, is rather limited.

Did you for example ever undertake a "compare and contrast" essay at school ......I wonder...?

One of the key aspects of my thesis on the assassination of JFK was an assessment of the literature available to the public and it's accuracy, reliability, neutrality and other aspects of the material as valuable sources for the reader - and this was done under the guidance of a couple (at least) of eminent historians.

I think that gives me some qualification to make a general recommendation against individual works on this case.

And, no, just because I believe that the ultimate conclusion is probably wrong, does not make the work poor.

"Conspiracy" for example by Anthony Summers addresses many of the key points of doubt as to whether Oswald acted alone and arms the conspiracy theorist with material to question whether or not he was the lone assassin. Some examples would be, could Oswald have made the shots in the time he had, could he have got to the Tippit scene in time to shoot Tippit, could one bullet have caused the non fatal wounds of JFK and JC...etc ?

Summers gives good reason to pause for thought, however on closer investigation IMO, authors such as Majerus, Ayton and Posner for example answer those question in the affirmative and challenge Summers belief.

Summers himself does not conclude that there was a conspiracy - he presents a case for conspiracy. In fact he is no longer of the belief that there is indeed a convincing case for a conspiracy and one of his advisors - Paul Hoch at Berkeley - is also no longer convinced there was a conspiracy and both I am sure would recommend reading for example Mel Ayton and Bugliosi to name but two, to any student of the assassination.

It is very obvious to me, based on your statement and question that your background is not one of academia....if it is, your statement belies your background.

Not only is your statement silly, it is quite astonishing.