Kevin Barrett posted about Ken Jenkin's response: http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/06/tales-of-hoffman.html?showComment...

In an email response to my exasperated analysis of Hoffman's empty slide show, my friend Ken Jenkins had a lot to say about psychology (a subject on which he is an expert) but not much on the disputed evidence. I responded to him:

Ken,

I appreciate the psychological insights, but the real issue isn't that complicated.

I argued point-by-point that Hoffman's slide show offers utterly empty "critiques" of CIT. If this is true, we have a huge problem with Hoffman. If it is false, I will stand corrected.

Many of Hoffman's statements that I analyzed are empty, period, and you did not even try to claim that they actually mean something. Perhaps you can explain why he is making empty defamatory statements disguised as critiques.

But perhaps he does have a valid point in there somewhere among the meaningless statements. If so, what could it be?

In your three responses, the one substantive point was:

"I thought they said that they interviewed everyone they could find who was willing to go on record with them. If this is true, then they have every reason to make the interpretations they have made. If there is evidence that they refused to interview, or interviewed and refused to release the tapes, some of these other alleged witnesses, please direct me to it."

Ken: "This is one of the specific points Hoffman made, so you have now been 'directed to it.'"

Please direct me again! I must have missed this part of the slide show. I would like to see a concise, coherent narrative summarizing and linking the evidence that CIT intentionally suppressed witness accounts, especially good fight-path witnesses (any other kind of witness is irrelevant to the question at hand). And by "witnesses" I do not mean any old names cited in MSM stories, and especially not heads of PNAC.

Kevin
June 30, 2010 6:08 PM