Dave Curbow

The pages that you want are 96-102-5 paperback edition. That is where the information you want resides. Boggs is also cited on pages 45,83, 86, 93,134, and 440 Page 99 is your focus

Forward, XV, Law's book.

Dear Mr. DiEugenio, thank you for trying; I appreciate it. I have a little anecdote from Duquesne that I will private message you. Thank you again, Dave

Mr.DiEugenio, please reconsider Mr. Payette's request and engage him in an exchange over the evidence. This opportunity to examine what both sides can bring to the table is why I have frequented forums for the past twenty plus years. An exchange between two sides of the debate from informed and intelligent points of view would be a gift to the interested community. Thank you! I am counting on you. Dave

No, the quote ends with the ellipsis, then moves on to the next paragraph about further suspicions that Boggs had. Again, no citation after the quote. I looked at the footnotes, the closest citation to the quote a couple three paragraphs away, and that cite referred to the WC transcript of Jan 27, cited in Whitewash IV. I read what Weisberg printed and didn't see any reference to Bogg's quote; it was just the verbatim transcript. Dave

Mr. Andrews has it word for word in his post. I would be happy to do it if you want me to type it again, but Mr. Andrew's quote is perfect. Dave

Mr. Jeffries is correct with page 96, paperback version. No citation as Mr. Andrews pointed out. Dave

Mr. DiEugenio, I have the book next to me. What do you want to know? The quote is not referenced; I posted above as close as it came. If I can assist, let me know what you want. Dave

Mr. Andrews, I agree with your assessment; however, it does have a ring of truth in what Bogg's other comments suggest. But without the sourcing, we are left with nothing. The closest footnote, which wasn't attributed to the quote is the January 27, 1964, meeting published by Weisberg in Whitewash IV, p. 53. I sense another dead end. Haven't had those sources out in a few years~grin. Dave

Repeat of what was just posted. Dave

I apologize to all for my knee-jerk and incorrect response. Dave

Yes.

Good to see you back, Bill. Solid analysis. Dave

What exactly do you disagree with and why? Dave

"How could any reasonable person possibly come to such a conclusion based on the evidence that exists that shows Oswald shot JFK?" That is a question I have always assumed you had undertaken. To arrive at such firm conclusions as you have would require that exercise. Many reasonable, educated people have examined the evidence and determined it inconclusive. For those individuals, Jesse Curry for one, more is needed. For those like you who draw inferences that point to Oswald, that is understandable, too. And many scholars and reasonable people have taken that solid stance. A bit more of the picture must be developed before anyone can definitively state that their inferences are beyond a reasonable doubt the correct ones. Dave

Besides changing the statements into the questions Why would LHO leave a note saying "If I am alive and taken prisoner"; Why would he instruct Marina to give or throw away his clothes; Why would he instruct her to utilize the Red Cross for help; and Why would he leave her as much money as he could, extend the questions beyond CE1: Why would LHO on the morning of November 22 leave most of his cash on the dresser along with his wedding ring? What does the repetitive actions suggest about LHO's mindset that November morning? Dave

Dear Mr. McGuire, Your construction or prediction that both assassinations will be taught as sole assassins disturbed me a bit as it denigrates future generations of students. First I haven't seen a textbook that states anything other than the assassination of Lincoln was a conspiracy. And the textbooks that I have used for decades all point out that there is uncertainty in the Kennedy assassination. And for those future generations, who knows what technology will be at their disposal to instantly find the information if they have any curiosity. You are one of a very few posters that I take the time to read from time-to-time. So I was somewhat surprised by your comment. That is why I bothered to respond. The "just sayin'" comment was an attempt to soften what I saw as an obvious mistake. But in hindsight, I can understand how that angered you. That wasn't the intent. I am disappointed that you were instructed in school that LHO was the only solution. But I can understand in that era that teachers were reluctant to expose students to both sides; time would have been one factor, and knowing the subject matter well enough to engage the students would have been another. The Kennedy assassination is not an emphasis in most college classes. I am fortunate enough to work in a system that allows me the freedom to teach a course that allows students to examine the assassination in depth. A short comment on your statement " history books will be written...will be false that one man killed Kennedy": it has yet to be proven, regardless of what so many people, especially here, think. If it had been proven, there wouldn't be any discussion. I did battle with my mentor in history in college over the subject, and regardless of what I presented, it didn't change his mind, even with the revelations of the HSCA. Some concrete evidence, not just the subtle revelations we jump upon, will have to be proven that changes history. A great example of that was Antonio Veciana's revelation that Bishop was Phillips. That is a bombshell for researchers, but it is part of a puzzle too complicated for the media to present to its day-to-day readers. So it was largely ignored by the press. And that jig-saw is not going to reform curriculum. The ultimate irony was to see almost immediately conspiracy theorists rejecting Veciana's claim because, as I inferred, it conflicted with their pet solution. So that is where is rests for now. I could go on and on, but it would be pure speculation. I reserve that for the audiences at the local history museum. I don't even tell my family what I really think. But for what it's worth, Mr. Hancock and Mr. Wexler are exploring the most pregnant avenue for conspiracy. Keep at it. Dave

Mr. McGuire, you may wish to revise your post concerning the Lincoln assassination, or trade necks with the four who hanged and exchange the time Dr. Mudd spent in prison. Just sayin'. Dave

Greg, I did ask Mr. Griffin if he was going to respond to the presentations. His reply was no, but he and the people with him were there for licensure renewal. Dave

Could he have been hoping to place the package in the car without it being seen? He could have reasonably expected or hoped everyone to be sitting and eating. Of course that behavior implies that he was trying to hide something. Dave

My son and I hope to attend Lancer as well. Hope to see you there, Kathy. Sure enjoyed our conversation a couple years ago. Dave

Mr. DiEugenio, Why did Mr. Newman "leave the field"? Was there a specific reason? I apologize if that has been dealt with before, and I missed it. I am curious. Dave

I, too, wish you the happiest of birthdays! I really enjoyed meeting and visiting with you in Dallas last November. You have a great one! Dave

I would suggest that you have Jerry or Ken take you to General Walker's home as well, and behind it if possible. Also a trip out to the Paine home in Irving would be interesting. Be sure to allow more time than you think necessary for the window next to the "sniper's nest" and for exploring the plaza. No matter how much time I allocate each time, it is never enough. Dave