Paul Brancato Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Actually Thomas - you clearly have something against DiEugenio. What is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Actually Thomas - you clearly have something against DiEugenio. What is it? Actually, Paul B. Other than the fact that he's way too emotional, a bit paranoiac (IMHO), and has never seen a conspiracy theory he didn't like, The Agency pays me Really Good Money to make fun of everything he says. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean ... Isn't it obvious? --Tommy Oh yes, and gullible, Definitely. Definitely. Definitely gullible. Yes. Definitely. Edited February 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 Neither does he. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Actually Thomas - you clearly have something against DiEugenio. What is it? Actually, Paul B. Other than the fact that he's way too emotional, a bit paranoiac (IMHO), and has never seen a conspiracy theory he didn't like, The Agency pays me Really Good Money to make fun of everything he says. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean ... Isn't it obvious? --Tommy Oh yes, and gullible, Definitely. Definitely. Definitely gullible. Yes. Definitely. "Pepperoni, right?" "Well have to make a stop, ..." edited and bumped Edited February 7, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Forget the ridiculous non sequitur to Rain Man. This all started in earnest when Lance the Lawyer jumped on and tried to say that because he had the UFC number on the (ersatz) money order, then CASE CLOSED, LHO ordered the rifle and had it in his effects. I tried to say that hold it, because one stage of a ten part transaction seems OK, that does not mean all the other nine stages are. In fact, its the opposite in a court of law--the fact that the other nine are dubious means the single one is probably ersatz and added e.g. the markings on CE 399. (BTW, because I know this case well, and I can articulate myself on it, does that mean I am "over emotional"? No. It just means I know this stuff and I can articulate it.) Tommy the knew jack about this whole thing. So he tried to say that somehow I was being frustrated by Lance the Lawyer and I should concentrate on the UFC number. Which is like saying in the JFK case, "but see CE 399 has the markings of the rifle." Or a few years ago, in the ballistics field saying, "but look at the NAA." Well, sorry I would not play Lance the Lawyer's, Von Pein's, or Tommy's game. Well, I eventually won over people like Sandy Larsen who made very good contributions, and Jon, and now John Armstrong has taken this thing even further than he or anyone else had done. And he has shown, with very convincing evidence, that its likely the whole thing was created and then backdated after the fact. And David Josephs has shown that its likely that Klein's never had that rifle at the time. As I advised Tommy, if you don't know anything about a topic then just keep quiet and learn. I mean that is what I did for many years. But he knew better--except that he did not. Edited February 7, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) Let me also address the other cheap smear by Tommy Since has has now done it twice. That somehow I have a conspiratorial view of say ISIS, and I have never met a conspiracy I did not like. I have no opinion on things like ISIS, 9-11, etc. For the simple reason I have not studied them at any length or depth. Therefore I don't talk about them in any way as an authority. The JFK case, MLK case, and RFK case plus Kennedy's foreign policy is what I spend my time on now. So that is what I write and speak about. I really do not like people who assume they are authorities in one field and then jump into another and saying, "Well see since I did that over there, I am now an authority over here." It takes a very long time of intense study to master one of these areas. And no one person can do all of them. This is why I was so critical of Jim Fetzer and is forays into things like 9-11, the RFK case, CIA contra drug running and the death of Gary Webb, and Sandy Hook etc. It makes us all look bad. I stick to what I am good at and what I know well. Strike two against Tommy Edited February 7, 2016 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 The Paines, like everyone else who got on board with the Oswald-did-it-alone story, did OK in subsequent years. Not great but OK. Unlike some who departed from the Official Version. Lovelady wound up doing well financially, as I understand. Roger what's-his-name, the Dallas cop who saw..., he shot himself in the head, right? Ruth is a good Christian lady. Check. She's charitable. Check. She's trusted by the Secret Service, the group in Central America, JFK researchers. No check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) On 2/7/2016 at 1:56 PM, James DiEugenio said: Forget the ridiculous non sequitur to Rain Man. This all started in earnest when Lance the Lawyer jumped on and tried to say that because he had the UFC number on the (ersatz) money order, then CASE CLOSED, LHO ordered the rifle and had it in his effects. I tried to say that hold it, because one stage of a ten part transaction seems OK, that does not mean all the other nine stages are. In fact, its the opposite in a court of law--the fact that the other nine are dubious means the single one is probably ersatz and added e.g. the markings on CE 399. (BTW, because I know this case well, and I can articulate myself on it, does that mean I am "over emotional"? No. It just means I know this stuff and I can articulate it.) Tommy the knew jack about this whole thing. So he tried to say that somehow I was being frustrated by Lance the Lawyer and I should concentrate on the UFC number. Which is like saying in the JFK case, "but see CE 399 has the markings of the rifle." Or a few years ago, in the ballistics field saying, "but look at the NAA." Well, sorry I would not play Lance the Lawyer's, Von Pein's, or Tommy's game. Well, I eventually won over people like Sandy Larsen who made very good contributions, and Jon, and now John Armstrong has taken this thing even further than he or anyone else had done. And he has shown, with very convincing evidence, that its likely the whole thing was created and then backdated after the fact. And David Josephs has shown that its likely that Klein's never had that rifle at the time. As I advised Tommy, if you don't know anything about a topic then just keep quiet and learn. I mean that is what I did for many years. But he knew better--except that he did not. Mr. DiEugenio, What were you trying to say when you wrote, "I tried to say that [sic] hold it ..." ? Regardless... My statement that you are, imho, way too emotional and, (imho), a little bit paranoiac, had nothing to do with your alleging that you "know this case well" and "can articulate myself on it" (LOL). It has everything to do with, for example, your accusing me a few months ago of collaborating with Trejo, simply because he and I agree that David Sanchez Morales may have been monitoring Oswald in New Orleans during August, 1963, and the fact that I helped him get reinstated to the forum by (heaven forbid!) forwarding a PM to one of the moderators for him, if I remember correctly. Like I said, for example. Oh yeah, and the fact that a long time ago I agreed with Trejo that it was very possible that Hemming lured Oswald into bringing the rifle to the TSBD, and leaving it in a secret spot there, under the pretense that someone (Hemming?) would buy it and pay him double the rifle's value. Where have I ever said that I think Walker had anything to do with the assassination? Nowhere. But you do like to accuse people who disagree with you, and you are a bit weak on your general fact-checking, aren't you. --Tommy Edited April 30, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 I for one do get that Tommy. I doubt that Jim thinks you and trejo are birds of a feather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Tommy, I have no dog in this fight. But I applaud your use of the possessive before the gerund. Congrats on good writing. That's writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 (edited) On 2/7/2016 at 2:43 PM, Jon G. Tidd said: Tommy, I have no dog in this fight. But I applaud your use of the possessive before the gerund. Congrats on good writing. That's writing. Thanks Jon. You complimented me on it once before. I think I told you some time ago that after having taught English in the Czech Republic for seven years (and proudly setting their rote-learning educational system back a good ten with my over-the-top "Socratic" approach), I returned home to La Jolla, California, where my adoptive father corrected me one day, and taught me the simple grammar rule "the gerund takes the possessive." The funny thing is that it sometimes sounds either too formal or downright wrong, so maybe it's a good thing I didn't know that rule at the time because I probaly would have tried to teach it to my students. LOL --Tommy Edited April 30, 2017 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) ...It has everything to do with, for example, your accusing me a few months ago of collaborating with Trejo, simply because he and I agree that David Sanchez Morales may have been monitoring Oswald in New Orleans during August, 1963, and the fact that I helped him get reinstated to the forum by (heaven forbid!) forwarding a PM to one of the moderators for him, if I remember correctly. Like I said, for example. Oh yeah, and the fact that a long time ago I agreed with Trejo that it was very possible that Hemming lured Oswald into bringing the rifle to the TSBD, and leaving it in a secret spot there, under the pretense that someone (Hemming?) would buy it and pay him double the rifle's value... --Tommy Well, Tommy, I didn't realize that you vouched for me with the Forum moderators when I was banned back in November. Thanks! As for Hemming's confession to A.J. Weberman (Coup D'Etat in America, 1975) that Hemming from Miami called LHO on a public phone in Dallas on 11/21/1963 and offered LHO double the price of his Manlicher-Carcano rifle if he'd bring it to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/1963 -- I have a revision. There is no evidence that LHO took a package inside the TSBD that day. Therefore, to justify Hemming's confession, we must posit that LHO took that long package (that both Linnie Mae Randle and her teenage brother, Wesley Frazier saw that morning) to some confederate of Hemming's outside of the TSBD, somewhere in the vicinity of the back door. That confederate, then, by logical extrapolation, handed the rifle over to the DPD, who themselves planted it on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Remember that the DPD had three eye-witness reports before 12:35pm that a rifle was seen on a 5th or 6th floor window, Southeast corner of the TSBD -- yet the bullets that were alleged found by that window were not reported until 1:15pm. Did it really take the DPD 40 minutes to climb up six floors to check by those windows? No. Most likely, the DPD took 40 minutes to plant the evidence in a way that the Crime Lab would soon photograph. That means that long before 1:15pm, when the 6th floor was finally ready for the Frame, shots were fired from LHO's Manlicher-Carcano rifle, and the hulls and spent shells were carefully collected to be planted after 12:30pm. WHO DID THIS? Just as Michael and Ruth Paine said: "those who published the WANTED:JFK handbill and the WELCOME MISTER KENNEDY TO DALLAS black-bordered Ad in the DMV," which the Warren Report correctly named as Robert Allen Surrey, and General Walker's JBS minions. Among them we must especially identify those inside the DPD (like Roscoe White and J.D. Tippit). Makes perfect sense to me. (With extra thanks to Gerry Patrick Hemming, A.J. Weberman, Ricky White and Jeff Caufield.) Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 8, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) ...It has everything to do with, for example, your accusing me a few months ago of collaborating with Trejo, simply because he and I agree that David Sanchez Morales may have been monitoring Oswald in New Orleans during August, 1963, and the fact that I helped him get reinstated to the forum by (heaven forbid!) forwarding a PM to one of the moderators for him, if I remember correctly. Like I said, for example. Oh yeah, and the fact that a long time ago I agreed with Trejo that it was very possible that Hemming lured Oswald into bringing the rifle to the TSBD, and leaving it in a secret spot there, under the pretense that someone (Hemming?) would buy it and pay him double the rifle's value... --Tommy Well, Tommy, I didn't realize that you vouched for me with the Forum moderators when I was banned back in November. Thanks! As for Hemming's confession to A.J. Weberman (Coup D'Etat in America, 1975) that Hemming from Miami called LHO on a public phone in Dallas on 11/21/1963 and offered LHO double the price of his Manlicher-Carcano rifle if he'd bring it to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/1963 -- I have a revision. There is no evidence that LHO took a package inside the TSBD that day. Therefore, to justify Hemming's confession, we must posit that LHO took that long package (that both Linnie Mae Randle and her teenage brother, Wesley Frazier saw that morning) to some confederate of Hemming's outside of the TSBD, somewhere in the vicinity of the back door. That confederate, then, by logical extrapolation, handed the rifle over to the DPD, who themselves planted it on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Remember that the DPD had three eye-witness reports before 12:35pm that a rifle was seen on a 5th or 6th floor window, Southeast corner of the TSBD -- yet the bullets that were alleged found by that window were not reported until 1:15pm. Did it really take the DPD 40 minutes to climb up six floors to check by those windows? No. Most likely, the DPD took 40 minutes to plant the evidence in a way that the Crime Lab would soon photograph. That means that long before 1:15pm, when the 6th floor was finally ready for the Frame, shots were fired from LHO's Manlicher-Carcano rifle, and the hulls and spent shells were carefully collected to be planted after 12:30pm. WHO DID THIS? Just as Michael and Ruth Paine said: "those who published the WANTED:JFK handbill and the WELCOME MISTER KENNEDY TO DALLAS black-bordered Ad in the DMV," which the Warren Report correctly named as Robert Allen Surrey, and General Walker's JBS minions. Among them we must especially identify those inside the DPD (like Roscoe White and J.D. Tippit). Makes perfect sense to me. (With extra thanks to Gerry Patrick Hemming, A.J. Weberman, Ricky White and Jeff Caufield.) Regards, --Paul Trejo Word Twister, That's fascinating, but I didn't actually "vouch" for you. All I did was forward your question (about what you had to do to get reinstated) to one of the moderators, as you requested in your PM to me, and then I relayed her answer to you. And highly emotional, slightly paranoiac (IMHO) Mr. DiEugenio has held it against me ever since. --Tommy Edited February 8, 2016 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Paul Trejo - You have quoted Hemming's 'confession' to Weberman over and over for years on numerous threads that he offered LHO double for his rifle if he would bring it to work. Now you decide that there is no good evidence that LHO entered the TSBD with a rifle that day. Rather than accept the obvious choice that Hemming, a known falsifier, was lying, you simply make up a story to account for the discrepancy. And then you want the readers to take your criticisms of the work of other researchers - Hewitt, DiEugenio, Peter Dale Scott and others seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now