General Category > Lee Harvey Oswald

LHO vs. General Edwin A. Walker

(1/1)

Alan Dale:
How would any of us respond to the challenge that there may be a deeper level of evidence and implication that exists apart from the perpetual accusations and innuendos connecting LHO to his supposed criminally violent acts?

I'm certain that there's room for disagreement among intelligent people about the interpretation of the evidence. How would we respond to the suggestion that the evidence being debated is an inherited construct which has served as the frame upon which all the discussion and argumentation has rested? In other words, what if the basic elements introduced to us concerning our cognition of what we think we know about LHO the building blocks of our conjectures and opinions aren't true?

Most of us rely upon the work of others to accumulate information and gain insight. We tend to accept what we're told. The most basic process is that the more we're told, the more we know. It's also rather basic, and understandable, that we are most accepting of ideas that complement our predispositions. What if the information to which we've been exposed was deliberately introduced to us for a sinister purpose? And that accumulating greater and greater amounts of information can never lead to certainty unless we know the information upon which our knowledge is based can be trusted?

This is a religion. We accept or reject what we're told. More often than not, we cherry-pick the parts we like, cafeteria style, and reject the rest. The division between the atheists, agnostics, faithful will not easily be bridged. Not easily.

Here's an example:

There is reason to doubt that LHO attempted to murder General Edwin Walker. A former employee of General Walker's named William McEwan Duff may be a much more deserving suspect in that shooting than LHO. I'm sure that an investigation into all of what is now available on the subject of the Walker shooting would produce materials worth considering if we want to confirm or reject the charge that Oswald, acting alone, was guilty.

Maybe we can't be sure of what we know because we've been the victims of deceit, deception, and misdirection.

Ulterior motives are a drag.

Navigation

[0] Message Index