Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

James DiEugenio

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About James DiEugenio

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

12,258 profile views
  1. Michael Paine dies at 89

    So no one really knows where that came from I guess. Alright, then since I have you here, how about the other picture? The one that was burned by either Marina or Marguerite? Isn't that a completely different pose? Greg Parker thinks that was taken in Russia.
  2. Morley lawsuit back in court

    There are two aspects to this case. The first is that the CIA is not giving Morley all it has on Joannides. The second is this: if the CIA prevails here then it will discourage FOIA actions on all fronts. Because in such actions, one of the qualifying standards is that of a public interest in the documents. If there is, then the plaintiff does not have to pay legal fees. The government does. So if Morley loses, it very well may set a standard. This combined with what I hear is going on at the Archvies tells us about who is winning in the battle for openness on the JFK case.
  3. Anyone who trusts Weinstein and Chambers is too far out for my taste. Weinstein was caught in so many fabrications of testimony, the guy was sued and had to settle out of court. Bagley is what I thought he was. There have been three books written in the last four years which pretty much explode the whole case against Hiss. I read all three of them. They were all good. And they all vitiate Chambers beyond repair. But the one that i think is best is the one by Joan Brady called America's Dreyfuss. To say she has some interesting information on Mr Bullitt, does not even begin to tell half the story. Lewis Hartshorn's fine examination of Chamber's list of lies is really impressive and he shows that the prosecutor was going to indict Chambers until the ridiculous Pumpkin Papers showed up. For Bagley to say that the film of the PP proved Hiss's treason is beyond the pale of rational argument. Victor Navasky showed that those films were simply a pile of junk. Which is why Nixon would not let anyone look at them until years later. And Tom, you do know about the typewriter do you not? Please tell me you do. If you do not then there is no point in continuing this. Sign up for the Harvey Klehr newsletter.
  4. Note how CV cut this out: "First its Rago, then Mr Factually incorrect, CV with Epstein's jacket." Please show me how the first post on this refers to Epstein's jacket. First Rago, and then CV--just as I said. Now this thread is gone.
  5. I don't consider the Rosenbergs and Sobell to be part of the US government. They were scientists who worked on government projects. Hiss was not a spy, as the most recent literature on that case shows. With that out of the way, care to name some of them?
  6. This is how a thread gets hijacked, and I warned about it a few posts ago. First its Rago, then Mr Factually incorrect, CV with Epstein's jacket. If someone has nothing to say about the topic, then why comment on the thread?
  7. LIENVOY monthly status report for SEPT '63 - no OSWALD

    This was on October 8th? Which was allegedly a week later, after Oswald was gone from Mexico City?
  8. Chuck, Thanks for that but I don't think Hunt actually admitted to that. The case proved that Hunt could not demonstrate with credibility where he was on 11/22/63, which gave ballast to the famous Hunt Memorandum of Angleton to Helms about having to find an alibi for Howard on that day.
  9. Oh no. Get ready for Rago/RIngler and his policeman on the knoll with a handgun.
  10. Dawn and Don (like that one?): It has been a long held ambition of the rightwing in the USA (both the rabid right and the well funded, sophisticated right) to somehow show that the people who triumphed over Joe McCarthy, e.g. Bobby Kennedy, were actually wrong about the matter. That somehow, some way, that image of McCarthy as the drunken blowhard being led around by the nose by the ambitious and brutal Roy Cohn, was wrong. He was really a smart, courageous, and astute man who was really a true blue patriot. Maybe a bit loud and boisterous at times, but, hey, extremism in the defense of liberty is not an offense, as Goldwater said. The opportunity for this long held ambition--by Bill Buckley for one--was realized with the crack up of the USSR in the early nineties. Yeltsin's disastrous America backed "shock doctrine" policies drove the whole country into a kind of economic Stone Age. So many people began to abandon ship. Some of these were in the KGB. They were welcome with open arms by people in the west who were in bed with MI 6 and CIA. For example, Christopher Andrew. And therefore, the rehab on McCarthy now began in earnest. And also, the attacks on people like Mark Lane were also realized. The fact that he kept records that contradicted their accusations did not matter. The fact that one was sued successfully also did not matter. Rupert Murdoch was going to publicize this stuff. I guess that is part of the MSM Tommy G likes. That there was never any open review of these so called archives does not bother their acolytes. That some of what was in them was inherently implausible does not either. That their advocates could use them to revive their terminal ambition--Cold War 2--does not phase them. Why? Because, at heart, this is political, not historic. Its a use of the former KGB with the CIA and MI 6 that somehow TG completely misses.
  11. Well, that would be nice I think. Since most of us would tend to think the most evidence one has for one's ideas then the more credible they would appear to be. But if one is to have an open forum--unlike DPF--then one has to allow people like DVP on the one hand, and PT and Mike Rago on the other, even though their ideas simply lack any credible evidence, let alone proof, e.g. see my review of Caufield's book. As they say, you have to maintain minority rights.
  12. Michael Paine dies at 89

    Then let me ask you this one: How did the DeMohrenschildt version originate? Since that seems to have been taken with an entirely different format with different field of view and resolution.
  13. Michael Paine dies at 89

    I agree Jeff, the HSCA should have been all over that one. Are those two other sources, O'Leary and Fritz in your article? Where could it have come from, if not from the Paines? That is unusual about eh clapboard is it not? What a disgrace the WC was. Costner as Garrison: "Ask the question!"
  14. Mili Cranor on the Wide Tracheotomy

    Mili replies again: To Michael Walton: Thank you for your kind remarks. Keep on searching *** Dr. Stancak treats that which is being questioned as if it were an established fact, and uses it as a basis for his other assumptions. This reminds me of how the HSCA treated the location of JFK’s back wound: They said that (paraphrased), because the lung was not penetrated, then the wound could not have been as low as witnesses claimed. As if it was established fact that the bullet went all the way through – as if its depth of penetration was not as much a question as its location! And remember Hoover’s response to why the Stemmons sign didn’t need to be examined? He said that, because the sign was never between Oswald and Kennedy, then it could not have had any bullet holes in it. What I am trying to say is this: never forget what should be questioned. And if an explanation -- no matter how seemingly authoritative it is -- does not satisfy you, do not swallow it. Whether it’s mine, or someone else’s, do not swallow it, or you will get indigestion. You may hear the truth, and not recognize it. Or you may hear bovine feces. But never forget your questions. And beware of people who avoid your more difficult ones. We have no way of knowing exactly how wide Perry made his throat incision. I do find it fascinating that James Humes gave JAMA a radically revised new width -- even shorter than 3-4 cm. (Regarding Dr. Stancak’s story about the Rochester Institute of Technology photographer, it is impossible to verify. And I cannot ignore that institute’s alleged connections to the C.I.A., and their alleged Department of Perception Management, their expertise in disinformation, and apparent delight in creating confusion.) Regarding my own sources, since Dr. Stancak did not provide you with my reasons for believing Perry gave JFK a limited exploratory, I will repeat them below. "Since 1957 it has been the policy at Parkland Memorial Hospital to explore virtually all penetrating wounds of the neck regardless of the clinical impression as to the severity of the injury..." [4] "The incision was planned to allow full exposure of the tract of injury. Proximal [near] and distal [far] control of the major vessels was also considered in the length and position of the incision. The sternocleidomastoid ("strap") muscle and/or other neck muscles were taken off the insertion or transected whenever necessary to provide adequate exposure." [4] From Perry’s WC testimony: [“Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point, the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.” [6 WCH 10] The textbook book, Principles of Trauma Care contains a chapter written by Malcolm Perry, "Penetrating Wounds of the Neck." [5] Perry's list of findings that indicate the need for exploration include some that applied to Kennedy: Bleeding Large hematoma Shock Respiratory distress Subcutaneous emphysema Blood in the oropharynx Finally, an exploratory is even appropriate in the absence of these signs because life-threatening damage can hide behind a superficial looking wound. The authors of the 1971 paper discovered the following: "…one third of the patients with injury to a major structure had no clinical evidence for this. This latter group included one patient with a through and through bullet wound of the carotid artery." [3] References to the Addendum 1. Saletta JD, Lowe RJ, Lim LT, Thornton J, Delk S, Moss GS. Penetrating trauma of the neck. J Trauma 1976; 16(7):579-587 (Diagram) 2. Blass DC, James EC, Reed RJ, Fedde CW, Watne AL. Penetrating wounds of the neck and upper thorax. J Trauma 1978; 18(1):2-7. (Diagram) 3. Ashworth C, Williams LF, Byrne JJ. Penetrating wounds of the neck. Re-emphasis of the need for prompt exploration. Am J Surgery 1971;121:387-391 (exploratory since WW II) 4. Jones RF, Terrell JC, Salyer KE. Penetrating wounds of the neck: an analysis of 274 cases. J Trauma 1967; 7(2):228-237. (Parkland experience) 5. Perry, M. Chapter 16. Penetrating Wounds of the Neck. In: Shires, G.T., (Ed.) Principles of Trauma Care, Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1985. Please feel free to contact me personally on any of my work, at this semi-private emails address: milicranor@aol.com
  15. Does everyone know what these pics are about?

    Thanks for that data Gary. To me it makes the matter even more interesting. That pics were requested a week in advance. But would not be completed until five days later than the witness testimony. Which leaves the question you posed: Then why not delay the witness testimony? Or perhaps ask Hoover to expedite the request? But, its even more puzzling. Because Wesley was recalled in July, and to my knowledge he was not asked about them at that time either. Was there ever a better scene explaining this case than in JFK with Costner/Garrison sitting in his chair reading the testimony and saying: "Ask the question? Ask the question?" Well, in this example, that opportunity never arose for reasons unexplained. But clearly suspicious.