James DiEugenio

Marina, the Commission, and Mexico City

360 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

James Di Eugenio did not like my scathing criticism of Probe Magazine's unfair treatment of Ruth Paine in the 1990's.

James also disliked my noting that he merely copied that same material into both editions of Destiny Betrayed (1992, 2012).

The utterly unforgivable sloppiness of the logic used to accuse Ruth Paine of being a CIA agent or operative must continue to be broadcast publicly.

James calls this "misrepresentation."

In fact, it is accurate reporting of what James Di Eugenio said -- and of the quality of his own reporting in the JFK saga.

Ruth Paine is one of my pet projects.  James is not on my Xmas list.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

PT, are you blind or can't you read?

If you read my post, I just corrected you on your smears of John Newman, which are either ignorant, or libelous.  Only you know that.

Only you could say that the Lopez Report was published in 2003.  If that were the case then how did John footnote it in his book eight years earlier? 

The answer is, you don't know what you are speaking of in regards to the Lopez Report, or John, since  the evidence is you read neither of them.  And you sure as heck do not know how the Lopez Report got declassified.  It was mainly through the constant efforts of John Newman, who harped on it every time he went before the Board.  Especially at the so called Experts Meeting they had in 1994.  Which you probably know absolutely nothing about.  

If you don't know what you are talking about, then just be quiet.  You might learn something.  But if you could not learn anything from Ernie L, then you simply cannot. Period.

 

PS Jeff and I are talking about Ruthie in another thread.  Take a look. And I will be speaking about both Paines on my next BOR appearance.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

PT, are you blind or can't you read?

If you read my post, I just corrected you on your smears of John Newman, which are either ignorant, or libelous.  Only you know that.

Only you could say that the Lopez Report was published in 2003.  If that were the case then how did John footnote it in his book eight years earlier? 

The answer is, you don't know what you are speaking of in regards to the Lopez Report, or John, since  the evidence is you read neither of them.  And you sure as heck do not know how the Lopez Report got declassified.  It was mainly through the constant efforts of John Newman, who harped on it every time he went before the Board.  Especially at the so called Experts Meeting they had in 1994.  Which you probably know absolutely nothing about.  

If you don't know what you are talking about, then just be quiet.  You might learn something.  But if you could not learn anything from Ernie L, then you simply cannot. Period.

PS Jeff and I are talking about Ruthie in another thread.  Take a look. And I will be speaking about both Paines on my next BOR appearance.

James,

You will never be able to revive your failed Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel.

The Lopez Report was published in parts, the last of which was in 2003.

Your attempt to mystify the reader fails yet again.

Ernie Lazar is a bore, as. you have become over the decades.

John Newman was wrong --face it.

As for hateful attacks on Ruth Paine, you will cry uncle in public, dude.

As for Greg Parker, he promised to "make toast" of Ruth Paine more than a year ago.  Maybe he changed his mind.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo - ugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Paul Trejo - ugh

rinse and repeat....  bottom line boys and girls - you can't fix stoopid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When my detractors have only insults, but no arguments, I feel vindicated.   Wouldn't you?

In case you haven't read much CT literature lately, here is the mandatory reading list:

Treachery in Dallas (1996) by Walt Brown
The Lopez Report (2003) by Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez
State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) by Bill Simpich
General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) by Jeff Caufield

My detractors claim they have read them, but it sure doesn't sound like it.

To sum my opinions:

(1) Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was certainly in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963.

(2) LHO was trying to get an instant visa into Cuba based on his New Orleans resume as a Fake FPCC officer, courtesy Guy Banister.

(3) LHO was certainly impersonated over the telephone in Mexico City.

(4) The impersonator attempted to link the name of Oswald to KGB assassin Valeriy Kostikov.

(5) The CIA language translators knew in 15 minutes that the voice was not LHO.

(6) The CIA started an internal Mole-Hunt that very hour.

(7) JFK was assassinated by people attempting to blame the Communists for it.

(8) They fumbled it.  The US Government opted for the "Lone Nut" theory instead.

(9) The full truth will come out on Thursday 26 October 2017, when the JFK Records Act is fulfilled.

(10) The CIA-did-it CT is the dumbest CT ever.  Its dumbest spinoff is the "Harvey and Lee" spinoff.

(11) The CIA-did-it journal of the 1990's, Probe Magazine, contains the dumbest material ever printed in the English language.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, Trejo let me know privately that his posts are to convince casual browsers and non posters of his brilliant analysis, so he can be on the record, so to speak, when future document releases prove him correct. He does not engage here for any other reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Folks, Trejo let me know privately that his posts are to convince casual browsers and non posters of his brilliant analysis, so he can be on the record, so to speak, when future document releases prove him correct. He does not engage here for any other reason.

Paul,

If that's the case, then I would prefer that he start his own website for presenting those "newbie" reiterations he unmercifully bombards us with here.  So that we might be spared them.

Thanks for sharing, btw.

--  Tommy  :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

Paul,

If that's the case, then I would prefer that he start his own website for presenting those "newbie" reiterations he unmercifully bombards us with here.  So that we might be spared them.

Thanks for sharing, btw.

--  Tommy  :sun

Except, that is clearly not the case.   I provide new information and new perspectives to many threads on the FORUM, and each of you KNOWS that.

Jealous, much?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Except, that is clearly not the case.   I provide new information and new perspectives to many threads on the FORUM, and each of you KNOWS that.

Jealous, much?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

PT,

"Except, that is clearly not the case."

-Are you claiming that you did not say it? It clearly seems that you are trying to influence the casual observer. Paul's disclosure that you admitted to that was just a confirmation that you are doing what was already obvious to me, and I dare-say, us.

"I provide new information and new perspectives"

-You don't really provide new information. Real researchers do most of that work for you. You pick and choose that which suits your theory and, in my estimation, protect and serve a constituency who are obvious to the reader, regardless of whether you disclose the nature of your interest or relationship to them.

What is most troublesome is that you paraphrase, and convert to prosaic misrepresentations, facts that are dug up and presented by true researchers in the course of their efforts to make legitimate arguments; posing whimsical portrayals of your fantastical historic accounts. It is exhausting to follow you around like the owner of a cat that has had anal-surgery-gone-wrong, cleaning up the mess and trying to maintain the idea that maintaining free speech, and free feline bowels, are preferable to putting up with the stench of the offending glands, removing the cat to the country, or putting it down.

Democracyismessy

Cheers,

Michael

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

each of you KNOWS that.

Jealous, much?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

"each of you KNOWS that."

NOT

"Jealous, much?"

Surely, you jest.

Cheers,

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Except, that is clearly not the case.   I provide new information and new perspectives to many threads on the FORUM, and each of you KNOWS that.

Jealous, much?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Dear Paul,

The problem for us is that is seems that only 10% of what you post is "new information," and the other 90% is rehashed-to-death "context," and your perpetually-tweaked "CT," itself. 

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

The CIA-did-it CT is the dumbest CT ever.  Its dumbest spinoff is the "Harvey and Lee" spinoff.


At least Jim Hargrove is courteous enough to keep his H&L posts confined to dedicated threads.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Paul,

The problem for us is that is seems that only 10% of what you post is "new information," and the other 90% is rehashed-to-death "context," and your perpetually-tweaked "CT," itself. 

--  Tommy :sun

Tommy,

The problem for me is that the most promising avenue for a solution to the JFK assassination, IMHO, is tracing the WC witnesses who worked for the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Sheriff's Office.

Then, when I point this out, many people respond as though that's already been covered -- but it hasn't.  But y'all keep re-hashing various CIA-did-it theories -- which are a half-century old -- without resolution -- and often without making any sense at all -- as if that HAS NOT been covered.

While it's true that 90% of my information comes from the Warren Commission testimony itself -- it's also true that when I present it, it comes as a surprise to many.

OH -- and aside from all that -- the Walker-did-it CT is indeed a new and vital CT which is only beginning to get traction.

The Mexico City problem -- which is the topic of this thread -- was obscured by the Warren Commission.  That's granted.  And yet the clear solution -- the FOIA releases of CIA documents, provided by Edwin Lopez and Bill Simpich -- is treated as just another opinion along with CIA-did-it hacks from the 20th century.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now