And my reply to that post:
Well then, tell us what he really meant. He said,
"These remarkable similarities suggest that whoever was shaping the
Clinton scenario simply appropriated the entire 'profile' of Estus
Morgan, who really did appear at the registrar's office in 1963, and
attributed it to Lee Harvey Oswald."
If David did not mean that this appropriation was an honest
misidentification then what was it? Did all of these men conspire to lie
about who they saw and talked to? Were all the details about Oswald's
age, his military ID, and the men who were with him, complete,
deliberate fabrications?
These men included members of the C.O.R.E. and members of the KKK. Is
David suggesting that they all conspired to deliberately lie?
(unquote)
And if David meant to say that these were all deliberate lies, then why
didn't he say so?
All he does is claim that some sinister character "appropriated"
Morgan's profile. If David does not want to be misunderstood, then he
needs to stop being ambiguous and say what he means. He has made a
career out of innuendo and implication. And this is no exception.
Anyway, whatever the hell he was claiming, is obviously bullshit. Like
Posner, he tries to exploit small errors made by people thinking back
four years, whose first recollections made off the top of their heads,
were not as accurate as those made after more deliberation and
reconstructing of the actual events.
Robert Harris