November 13 Camelot Posting

11-15-2008, 12:59 AM

Greetings all,

I just checked Camelot, and read the posting from yesterday. Two questions for the group (if I may be so bold):

1) Do you agree with the researcher that the Obama presidency may indeed turn out to be the presidency of disclosure? What would happen if Obama got on TV one night and said to the world, "Look. Back in the 1940s, we found some shxt. Every appliance plugged into your wall is the direct result of what we found. Here is the deal . . . ."? Technically that is two questions rolled into one, but too bad.

2) Do you think there was an honest attempt on the part of the researcher to warn Bill and Kerry (sorry to mention you two in third person - I'm not sure if you read this stuff) about certain interviewees, or do you think his warnings were motivated more as a tool to distance himself from the other Camelot interviewees - to avoid what one might dub the "Camelot effect"? I think its great that the interviews get done. It puts it all out there, let the reader/listener decide. But when I read what was posted yesterday, there is something strikingly not there - if the last half of the post was an actual response to the researcher's warning, how did the researcher respond to that? Did he say, "Yeah, well, I got the inside line on that 'Jim Johnson,' and he is a total loon"? Or did he say, "Yeah, well, some of that stuff just sounds nutty to me"? Or did he say, "yeah, well, which 90%, because everything differs so radically that there is not 90% to stand behind"? And, yes, technically that was five questions - so my math ain't so great, eh? (Dang, now its six).

Anyway, just some fat to chew folks - love to get your thoughts.

Dantheman62 · 11-15-2008, 02:04 AM

Hey hc, I believe the Obama comment was something anybody could say and hope for, but rather vague, and I believe that the guy, Steve, was more or less kinda standing back as if not to be really associated, and yes I could only guess at his real response to the other interviewees. He's cautious for sure!

11-15-2008, 12:59 AM	#1
historycircus Guest Posts: n/a	November 13 Camelot Posting Greetings all, I just checked Camelot, and read the posting from yesterday. Two questions for the group (if I may be so bold): 1) Do you agree with the researcher that the Obama presidency may indeed turn out to be the presidency of disclosure? What would happen if Obama got on TV one night and said to the world, "Look. Back in the 1940s, we found some shxt. Every appliance plugged into your wall is the direct result of what we found. Here is the deal . . . ."? Technically that is two questions rolled into one, but too bad. 2) Do you think there was an honest attempt on the part of the researcher to warn Bill and Kerry (sorry to mention you two in third person - I'm not sure if you read this stuff) about certain interviewees, or do you think his warnings were motivated more as a tool to distance himself from the other Camelot interviewees - to avoid what one might dub the "Camelot effect"? I think its great that the interviews get done. It puts it all out there, let the reader/listener decide. But when I read what was posted yesterday, there is something strikingly not there - if the last half of the post was an actual response to the researcher's warning, how did the researcher respond to that? Did he say, "Yeah, well, I got the inside line on that 'Jim Johnson,' and he is a total loon"? Or did he say, "Yeah, well, some of that stuff just sounds nutty to me"? Or did he say, "yeah, well, which 90%, because everything differs so radically that there is not 90% to stand behind"? And, yes, technically that was five questions - so my math ain't so great, eh? (Dang, now its six). Anyway, just some fat to chew folks - love to get your thoughts.

11-15-2008, 02:04 AM	#2
Dantheman62 Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: So. Cal. U.S. Posts: 4,205	Re: November 13 Camelot Posting Hey hc, I believe the Obama comment was something anybody could say and hope for, but rather vague, and I believe that the guy, Steve, was more or less kinda standing back as if not to be really associated, and yes I could only guess at his real response to the other interviewees. He's cautious for sure!