Jump to content
The Education Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    What a pile of unmitigated malarkey. The difference between me and you is simple: I am going by a fact based scenario. And also by the enshrined standard of our justice system, namely that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The WC did not even come close to that standard. And their report was not admitted in New Orleans in the Clay Shaw hearings for just that reason. As per Givens, oh please. Everyone should read this fine article by the late Sylvia Meagher to see what a lying cuss this guy was. Same as Norman. Here is the signature graph: "Most of all, Givens’ testimony was suspect because in his affidavit to the Dallas police later that afternoon he said nothing about forgetting his cigarettes, returning to the sixth floor, or meeting Oswald there — an omission that was incomprehensible, if the encounter was authentic." http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the-curious-testimony-of-mr-givens And whatever Meagher writes here Pat Speer goes even further at his site on this subject. If DVP like liars then fine. Just admit what they did to earn that moniker, at least then DVP would be honest.
  3. David Von Pein

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    You see, this is one of the big differences between conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and "LNers" like myself --- Jim sees everything through the darkened prism of "conspiracy" and "cover up". While I, on the other hand, don't possess such a mindset. I don't automatically jump to a "conspiratorial" conclusion about every single thing connected to the JFK case. Jim almost always does. Jim never allows for even a possible non-conspiratorial answer to any of the things he mentioned in his last post. For example, the fact that Oswald asked some of his TSBD co-workers why there were crowds gathering at Elm and Houston Streets prior to the motorcade arriving in Dealey Plaza. This action taken by Oswald, in DiEugenio's mind, must indicate that Oswald really and truly wasn't even aware that President Kennedy was going to be driving by the Depository that day. In Jim's conspiracy-infested brain, Oswald couldn't possibly have only been feigning his ignorance when he asked his fellow workers why the crowds were forming outside the building. But the overall weight of the evidence, which unquestionably favors Oswald's guilt in the murder of JFK, is telling me that Lee Oswald certainly was feigning his ignorance. And Jim thinks the Warren Commission needed to have Charles Givens "lie his head off", just so the WC could have Oswald in almost exactly the same place he was when Givens and the other TSBD employees heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft just a few minutes before Givens' encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55. Were Lovelady, Williams, and Arce also lying when they each placed Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository (either the fifth or sixth floor) at about 11:45 AM? If not, what was really gained by having Givens "lie his head off"? I don't see much of any "gain" at all. But I guess Jim does, therefore Givens gets to be labelled as yet another l-i-a-r in Jim's excruciatingly long list of liars connected to this murder case. After a short while, it should become embarrassing for DiEugenio to call so many different people "liars". Just look at how many people he has called outright liars in just this discussion alone. It's pathetic. More on Charles Givens here. Re: The higher-paying job that James DiEugenio is convinced that Ruth Paine deliberately kept Oswald from getting, Click Here.
  4. I got on Coast to Coast last night around 4:45 AM. I was surprised they took me so late; I hardly had to wait to get on. Ian Punnett was the guest host (what an apparent oxymoron, ey?). IP was very receptive to me telling about this historic petition/statement. And he gave me a good lead. He said he periodically checks on the Daily Mail websites, both the American and British versions, because they tend to be a good barometer of popular preferences.
  5. Today
  6. You’ve convinced me that I should read the book. I’ve read your review completely. I still have problems with one element - which is NOT the notion that LBJ was central to the conspiracy. If you’ve ever seen my trading cards ‘Coup D’Etat’ you would see I came to the same conclusion in 1990. I’m not writing to you here to debate this. My thinking has evolved over the years. I do object to any notion that there is a Deep State that is primarily a feature of the Democratic Party. Deep State keeps us divided along any and every line of seeming demarcation, by religion, by sex, by political affiliation.
  7. James DiEugenio

    Oswald was not in MC

    I think that was the plot of the movie The Package with Tommy Lee Jones and Gene Hackman.
  8. It might be gone but not permanently. I think the embargo was on until Saturday night.
  9. Paul Brancato

    Oswald was not in MC

    That makes logical sense. I have a feeling that there was Deep State Military/industrial (big money) collusion decades earlier, and that when Krushchev referred to his own ‘hardliners’ he was pointing the finger in that direction. Vince Salandria even opined that the conspiracy to kill JFK may have included elements from both US and Soviet Intelligence.
  10. My first post on this forum in about 8 years; no particular reason for that, other than that I had other priorities. My review of Christopher Fulton's book explains why I believe this is one of the most important books ever written about the JFK assassination. It also attempts to explain why the reader must leave their own prejudices about the literary tools used in Fulton's memoir "checked at the door." The two examples I used to do that (Robert Caro's very meticulous use of all the conventional scholarly methods didn't stop him from ignoring important facts, witnesses and events that did not conform to his narrative, and Hunter S. Thompson's "Gonzo Journalism" style -- without using that scholarly approach -- to present the most profound truths of events [including the JFK assassination] were merely to illustrate that one cannot always presume that truth exists only in works that have the appearance of scholasticism. There are numerous other "non-fiction" books written sans end-notes (etc.), some of which contain essential truths (e.g. Peter Maas) and others which should be re-categorized as "fiction" (e.g. Bob Woodward, Hampton Sides). Fulton has produced a factually-based, elegantly-written book designed to reveal his own personal experiences, all because of his interest in acquiring JFK's gold Cartier watch as his personal memento of his hero from the time he was a child. He wrote this book as anyone who simply wanted to describe how that desire eventually practically destroyed his life (and actually did destroy his wife's and mother's in the process). Although he chose instead to substitute 120 pages of photos and documents, plus copies of others within the narrative itself, for the foot-notes should mitigate that issue sufficiently for most objective readers. That he inserted certain dialogue to "round out" the story -- clearly such discussions had taken place -- given what he personally experienced could have only resulted from such actions, it is reasonable to accept them as a "given" predicate.
  11. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    What is fair to say Cory? Did you see those Trade Mart invitations in David Joseph's essay? And he had to ask someone why there was a crowd below. Oswald was not even on the sixth floor at that time, let alone later. And the WC knew this and that is why they had Givens lie his head off. What luck? The luck of having Ruth Paine lie about not telling him about that other job he could have had that paid more money, thus making sure he was at the TSBD? Some luck.
  12. I disagree. Richard Nixon fought the declassification of his records until they day he died in 1994. At that time less than 20 per cent of all this records, tapes and papers, had been released. Even though he had been out of office for almost 20 years. Nixon himself did this by hiring a fleet of lawyers to argue his special case. Therefore we did not get any real release until the new millennium. And we then found out why he did this. Nixon's courtiers like Buchanan and Price tried to tell the press that somehow RMN was some kind of foreign policy maven. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nixon was an unadorned follower of Foster Dulles, a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior. He and/or Kissinger presided over three of the worst post war genocides: Bangladesh, East Timor, and the worst, Cambodia. Nixon dropped more bombs on Indochina than LBJ did. By about a million tons. But what made that worse is that both he and Kissinger knew that the war could not be won when they ascended into office in 1969. But they kept it going for four years anyway just so that Nixon would not be tagged with losing the war on his watch. Then he unleashed the Xmas bombing when Hanoi decided they had to take some of Thieu's objections back to the Politburo for discussion. Nixon then lied about that. Le Duc Tho did not want to come back after the Xmas bombing. Nixon had to ask him to return. And he still did not want to come back. It was the Chinese who talked him into returning. And let us not leave out Allende and Chile. Never forget one of the great comments on that by Kissinger: "I don't see why we have to sit back and let a country go communist just because the people voted for it." How stupid were Nixon and Kissinger? Reagan and Thatcher both thought that Gorbachev was a real reformer. Nixon and Kissinger were so wedded to the Cold War that they advised Reagan not to deal with him. In fact, Nixon was so thick that he told Reagan's advisors not to leave him in a room with Gorby alone. And this is why Reagan turned down the great Iceland offer. Nixon and Kissinger never merited the reputations which they held for so long. Very few people on the left of center think Obama accomplished much of anything domestically except his rather poor healthcare plan that is simply too expensive. In foreign policy, maybe not invading Syria? But that is about it. As far as the War on Terror, he was pretty much the same as W. LBJ today is one of the most piled on of all recent presidents. For example, Philip Nelson has made a career out of this. You know, killed his own sister, along with about seven other people etc. In reality, Reagan was a guy who pretty much started the whole deindustrialization of America and the whole transfer of wealth to the top ten percent. But he is today still canonized by much of the media. And. ignoring all the missed opportunities with GOrby, they still say he ended the Cold War. I could not stomach watching the week long hagiography of Bush 1. I mean if you have ever read any good books about that guy, he was in reality a criminal. I mean people are now saying because of Trump that W really was all that poor. When, in fact, he was a disaster. But that is how much of a downward slope we have had since 1963.
  13. Steve Thomas

    Marina ... pretty agent for LHO?

    FBI Agent Manning Clements did an inventory of Oswald's wallet on the evening of the 22nd. You can see it here: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=613.20 One of the items he listed was a Fair Play for Cuba Committee card signed by New Orleans Chapter President, A.J. Hidell. Photos of the wallet contents can be found in Box 12 of the DPD Archives, running from Folders 11 - 20 or so. Box 12, Folder# 23, Item# 1, Page 1 is a photocopy of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee card Hoover referenced in his letter to Rankin. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box12.htm To me, the Hidell signature on this card doesn't look similar to the others shown above. Steve Thomas
  14. David Von Pein

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    Yes, I think that's quite possible. But I think it's also possible that Oswald stashed his rifle temporarily out on the loading dock before he entered the building to be seen by Jack Dougherty (and this could be the reason Dougherty didn't notice anything in Oswald's hands at that time). And at some later time, Oswald retrieved the rifle from the loading dock area and took it upstairs. All of this kind of talk is, of course, 100% guesswork on the part of anyone choosing to do the speculating. But, I'll admit, it is fun to guess about these things once in a while.
  15. Cory Santos

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    I think that is all fair to say.
  16. Thanks Jim. Do they have a French version so fc can understand?
  17. David Von Pein

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    I agree. It was. But.... The wishing paid off ..... because Bonnie Ray vacated the 6th floor just in time for Oswald to do his dirty deed. Oswald was one lucky SOB on 11/22/63. No doubt about it. But LUCK can certainly play a part in big events like the JFK assassination. Such as LHO's additional "good luck" with the weather on that Friday too. If it had continued to rain....who knows what might have happened. Perhaps a bullet would have been deflected. Or, perhaps, Oswald doesn't even attempt to fire any shots at the enclosed bubbletop at all.
  18. James DiEugenio

    Oswald was not in MC

    Paul: The indications are that they are lying. I have a CIA report from 11/23/63 on the phone communications at the Soviet Embassy. Not one mention of Oswald being at that embassy. Pretty incredible. My idea about all this KGB endorsing of CIA legends is that I agree with Amy Wright, the illustrious Russian scholar. She does not come out and say it, but she suggests that once the USSR started to crumble, and money got scarce, a lot of these guys decided, heck, there is no USSR anymore, Yeltsin is a drunken buffoon who is selling off the country anyway, so why not curry favor with the Brits and Americans and maybe make some money overtly and covertly. And the Anglo/Americans were all too eager to oblige. And boy did the former Russians do all they could to give the Americans what they wanted. There were literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on the table to be made. And that was just overtly.
  19. Joe I see your point and agree to a point but I must add that Obama could not even pardon Jack Johnson, it took Trump to do that. He released no records, again it took Trump. His attorney general fought foi requests for information for years. Few of the more liberal population (not talking about anyone here) yelling about rights ever question Obama signing one the defense acts, 2012 I think, which allows no trial for Americans under certain circumstances. (As to year I am going off memory) and they were silent when he admitted bombing a civilian by a drone was ok. They never discuss monitoring and what has he released for Lance and the UFO community-for the record I dont believe UFOs visit us John Lear forgive me. Bottom line, people inflate how great these people were, especially democratic presidents, without really looking at everything they did. Few talk about China or how Nixon went against the military advisors to end Vietnam. The media focuses on Watergate yet none of LBJs problems are discussed. No Gulf of Tonkin, his ties to mafia, geeze so many I can't even list. No we hear of the great society and the civil rights act. Yet Pres. Bush signed the clean air and water act and the ADA into law and appointed justices not based on party. Yet all you hear on him usually is negative. The press glorifies dem. Presidents and is neutral to hostile to Republicans. Probably because many executives at the organizations are related to dem. Politicians, staff, party, etc. Lastly, this void created fox and right news sources which now has been filled. If in the 80s and 90s there was balance, there is a chance these organizations and talk shows would not have appeared. But Obama did nothing on the JFK issue.
  20. TMZ picked up the story https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/19/jfk-rfk-mlk-malcolm-x-murders-assassinations-conspiracies-reopen-trc/
  21. On the occasion of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a group of over 60 prominent American citizens is calling upon Congress to reopen the investigations into the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Signers of the joint statement include Isaac Newton Farris Jr., nephew of Reverend King and past president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; Reverend James M. Lawson Jr., a close collaborator of Reverend King; and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, children of the late senator. The full statement can be read here: https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKstatement.htm
  22. Paul Brancato

    Oswald was not in MC

    No answer to that, but I’d like to add that there are Russians at the MC embassy who swear Oswald was there. Personally I think they are lying, which would be an important puzzle piece if so. Why lie in support of a CIA fabrication?
  23. Roy, the two Presidents I had in mind were Carter & Clinton. Obama seemed to not want to veer too far into anything that would taint his legacy, especially things too controversial and especially anything that many might label as conspiracy loony like JFK, 9-11, UFO'S. I think Obama knew ahead of time that the most important legacy he needed to create and leave as the first black President for future generations, was that a person of this racial type could do ( and did ) a steady and generally good job in the highest and most important leadership position in our society. No big or even moderate risk taking to jeopardize that main historical legacy goal. Obama surely didn't want to do something that black race haters could say was a horrible job and that you would expect.
  1. Load more activity
×