John McAdams

[Paul Baker]

When are you going to say I think Elvis is alive?

Jimbo,

On Black Op Radio you expressed an opinion that no shots were fired from the sniper's nest window of the TSBD. Fairly recently on Black Op radio you called into doubt the identity of the person standing on the steps of the TSBD in the famous Altgens photograph, which I find interesting since his identity was established rather a long time ago. Even today anyone with functioning eyeballs can see who it is and who it isn't. So personally I wouldn't be at all surprised if you believe that Elvis is still alive.

As for Black Op Radio, the best shows by far are #442 and #443, which feature you getting your a$$ royally kicked by the very man you're hell-bent on discrediting. I'll never cease to enjoy listening to you fail to answer his rather simple closing question.

Paul.

[Paul Baker]

Jimbo,

There are fundamental aspects of this case which you call into doubt, presumably in order to give your outlandish half theories some credence. It works on some people, just not those blessed with intelligence.

That I am not sure if its Lovelady or Oswald in that famous photo? (And please do not say that Lovelady said it was. We know Lovelady was already suborned by the WC through Barry Ernest's book.)

It's Lovelady. There is no doubt about it. Either you haven't examined the photograph, or you're attempting to inject doubt. (Place your bets folks ...)

And if shots actually came from that particular window?

Evidence puts that fact beyond reasonable doubt. Naturally you'll want to load up the bull$hit blunderbus and attempt to confuse the issue, Jimbo. It's what you do.

And this equates with Elvis?

Yes. Why not?

As per your last, you cannot be serious. I exposed McAdams' numerous lies so often during that debate that he angrily emailed me after and lied about his lying! And he since has gone into a state of denial about his lying ever since.

Mr McAdams seemed to me to maintain his composure throughout the debate, which is more than you managed to achieve. Whereas he presented cogent arguments backed with real evidence, you performed your usual trick of laughing like a hyena and spouting crap. That might be good enough for some people, but I found you - as usual - totally unconvincing.

PS: Man, my appearances on BOR must be driving these guys nuts. They have them memorized.

On the whole your skits on Black Op are repetitive and of little consequence. I think the transcripts could be condensed to fit on a single sheet of toilet paper without suffering any loss of information.

Paul.

[Michael Hogan]

Could DVP please explain for the benefit of lurkers who are sympathetic to his POV what motive Lee Oswald had?

Of course, J. Raymond knows what my answer is going to be, but I guess he likes to see the same thing in print a million times.

Of course he does. He has told you that you are closer to the truth than most EF members.

[Gil Jesus]

4. If one goes by the postal regulations in place back then, then the post office broke at least two rules in the process of transferring the merchandise.(Armstrong, pgs. 452, 476) One on firearms, one on giving merchandise to the holder of the box. (Again, this has been gone over ad nauseum here and DVP knows it.)

He does this all the time. He gets "taken to school" on an issue and he just goes off on his merry way spreading his disinformation at another forum as if he'd never been taken to the woodshed. Recently, he posted about Oswald's PROVEN ownership of the rifle after getting his proverbial ass kicked here in this forum over it.

HE'S LIKE A TV PROGRAM IN RERUNS.

I'm no psychiatrist, but I just don't think that's normal.

Edited July 5, 2011 by Gil Jesus

[Pat Speer]

4. If one goes by the postal regulations in place back then, then the post office broke at least two rules in the process of transferring the merchandise.(Armstrong, pgs. 452, 476) One on firearms, one on giving merchandise to the holder of the box. (Again, this has been gone over ad nauseum here and DVP knows it.)

He does this all the time. He gets "taken to school" on an issue and he just goes off on his merry way spreading his disinformation at another forum as if he'd never been taken to the woodshed. Recently, he posted about Oswald's PROVEN ownership of the rifle after getting his proverbial ass kicked here in this forum over it.

HE'S LIKE A TV PROGRAM IN RERUNS.

I'm no psychiatrist, but I just don't think that's normal.

I agree that many LNs tends to repeat talking points, even after they've been proved (or at least reasonably demonstrated) to be incorrect.

A perfect example of this is how they treat the autopsy. Many LNs support the HSCA FPP, and claim the entrance wound on the back of the head was 4 inches higher than claimed by the autopsy team. Some, however, turn around and claim the HSCA FPP was wrong when they claimed the back wound was below the throat wound.

WELL, it follows from this that NEITHER of these groups of doctors were correct in their assessment, and that their conclusions are not to be trusted. If the original autopsy was correct about the head wound, after all, then the bullet trajectory for the head wound makes little sense. If the HSCA FPP was correct about the back wound, after all, then the bullet trajectory for the single bullet theory shot makes little sense.

And YET. many if not most LNs will claim that, even though neither of these two panels is to be trusted, we KNOW their conclusion the president was struck by two bullets is correct.

HUH? How can they not see how illogical this is?

Of course, cognitive curiosities are not unique to the LN side of the fence. I agree with most LNs and many if not most CTs that the man on the steps in Altgens is Lovelady. Not only because it looks like him. Not only because he said so. But because his co-workers said he was there.

As far as the possibility they all were forced to lie, I just don't buy it. Many of those claiming it was Lovelady on the steps, including Lovelady himself, had long admitted they'd thought the shots were fired from west of the building. Certainly, if it had been Oswald on the steps, one of his co-workers would have said as much somewhere along the line. Yet none did.

[Gil Jesus]

Many of those claiming it was Lovelady on the steps, including Lovelady himself, had long admitted they'd thought the shots were fired from west of the building. Certainly, if it had been Oswald on the steps, one of his co-workers would have said as much somewhere along the line. Yet none did.

Pat you bring up something that has bugged me for quite some time, maybe you have an opinion on this.

Jarman, Norman and Williams ran toward the west end of the building after they heard the shots. Yet both Jarman and Norman claimed to have heard the bolt of the rifle being operated, and Jarman said he could hear the shells hitting the floor above him.

It doesn't make sense to me.

[Pat Speer]

Many of those claiming it was Lovelady on the steps, including Lovelady himself, had long admitted they'd thought the shots were fired from west of the building. Certainly, if it had been Oswald on the steps, one of his co-workers would have said as much somewhere along the line. Yet none did.

Pat you bring up something that has bugged me for quite some time, maybe you have an opinion on this.

Jarman, Norman and Williams ran toward the west end of the building after they heard the shots. Yet both Jarman and Norman claimed to have heard the bolt of the rifle being operated, and Jarman said he could hear the shells hitting the floor above him.

It doesn't make sense to me.

As I recall, they claimed they saw everyone running and got caught up in the excitement. If you read their testimony and subsequent statements closely, however, it's clear that Williams only heard two shots fired, Jarman thought the shots were fired from somewhere below, with the last two shots close together, and that Norman was somewhat confused as to how many shots he'd heard. It follows from this that, in those crucial seconds, they had no strong sense that all the shots were fired from above, and that, lacking that strong sense, they were anxious to see what had aroused everyone's interest.

P.S. Does anyone know if Bonnie Ray Williams is still alive? If he is, I suspect he'd have quite an interesting story to tell.

[Karl Kinaski]

Gil Jesus: Pat you bring up something that has bugged me for quite some time, maybe you have an opinion on this.

Jarman, Norman and Williams ran toward the west end of the building after they heard the shots. Yet both Jarman and Norman claimed to have heard the bolt of the rifle being operated, and Jarman said he could hear the shells hitting the floor above him.

It doesn't make sense to me

That only makes sense, if Yarm, Norm and Williams were in the westernmost window of the south side 5th floor,hearing the bolt of the rifle etc abhove...and then turned, (not run)to the west window next to them. That would implicate that a shooter was in the westernmost window 6th /7th floor, the very same window where the Rowlands observed a gunman prior to the shooting.

KK

I personally believe that there was a shooter in the westernmost window 6th/7th floor south side SBDB...and a second shooter, or signaler in the so called Oswald window, and that Amos Euins saw both: the barrel of a rifle in the westernmost window AND a kind of pipe sticking out the Oswald window...

Why were Jarman and Norman by the WC staff photographed watching through the westernmost window of the south side 5th floor when the tale goes they were underneath the Ossi window on the easternmost side??

CE 488 - Photograph of the southwest corner of the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

CE 489 - Photograph of one of the west windows of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

My link

A WC faux pas?

Edited August 16, 2011 by Karl Kinaski

[Cliff Varnell]

And until the ARRB declassification process and the work of John Hunt, this subterfuge had everyone arguing about the SBT. But with those two events in tow, it is now exposed as the SBF. Made up out of wholecloth to keep a phony debate going.

The SBT was destroyed decades before. Just because "everyone is arguing" doesn't mean that the SBT defenders ever had a case.

It's always been a phony debate!

The SBT officially didn't survive Gaeton Fonzi's visit to Arlen Specter's office in 1966.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

John Hunt is a Single Bullet Theorist. His work has no bearing on demolishing the SBT. He claims it was a bullet other than CE 399 that entered JFK in the neck, exited his throat, and caused all of Connally's wounds.

alt.assassination.jfk, May 24, 2002. John Hunt:

In any event, here is what I believe happened: One bullet went through both men but it was not CE399. CE399 was planted to inculpate Oswald and never went through Kennedy or Connally, or anyone. Oswald did not fire a shot at Kennedy. He was set up. The bullet that broke up in Connally's chest emerged in two pieces, each causing a separate wound. One the thigh, and one the wrist. Conspiracy

Same vinegar, different bottle.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff:

You never get tired of doing this.

You know specifically what I mean since I have spelled it out so many times.

I specifically say "the work of John Hunt". I do not say his conclusions.

But his conclusions contradict the significance you place on his work.

Since the SBT was demolished in the mid-60's we don't need to pin down the provenance of CE399 to reveal the fraud that is the SBT. To claim that the SBT stood until ARRB and Hunt is absurd.

That is my point, which you never address.

I mean if you read my Bugliosi series, you will see I use the work of Tom Purvis also. Does that mean I support his conclusions?

No.

If you combine Hunt with Marcus and Thompson, then you have utterly demolished the chain of custody of the bullet.

Great. This impeaches the credibility of the FBI Lab.

But the SBT was stillborn, demolished by the first generation of critics.

People have been trying to re-invent the wheel ever since. Salandria demolished the SBT when he threw a shirt and coat at a WC defender in a debate, and challenged the guy to replicate "bunch up."

High back wound fallacists (CTs and LNers) don't even try to replicate their claims. It doesn't get any better than that.

Its not the same bullet: it was on the wrong gurney, no one signed it in transit, Hoover then lied about it twice, no one recognized it, and it got to Frazier before Todd gave it to him. Impossible.

The last is the one contributed by Hunt. As was the Todd initials. Everything else is someone else's work. This is what I do. I borrow the best and then synthesize out of that. I then put it together in my own work, "The Impossible One Day Journey of CE 399."

And no I don't agree that the other arguments completely halted the debate. Since the other side always came up with something else e.g. the lapel flip, the Croft photo, Dale Myers etc. Yes they were all BS. But they served the purpose of distracting the public.

And they'll come up with more BS to counter your CE399 argument. It doesn't matter to them that they ignore the facts. They always say something.

They always come up with noise. It's what they do.

So what?

With this new chain of custody creation it shows that the people involved in creating CE 399 knew it was BS from day one. And we can prove it. You incriminate them with their own evidence. It doesn't get any better than that.

If you want to indict those involved in the cover-up, yes.

If you want to demolish the SBT -- which impeaching CE399 does not do -- I suggest you point out the mountain of evidence of the T3 back wound.

It's what the early critics did, after all.

[Cliff Varnell]

If you then add in the work of Aguilar, Mantik, Hunt on CE 399, certain parts of Horne and Armstrong, the WC is completely demolished.

It was completely demolished by Salandria, Meagher, Fonzi, Weisberg et al.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

But the SBT was stillborn, demolished by the first generation of critics.

People have been trying to re-invent the wheel ever since.

A better metaphor: people have been bouncing the rubble ever since.

The WC was destroyed 45+ years ago, and all we're doing here is bouncing the rubble.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's do burgundy

No Cliff, you are wrong.

Wrong about what?

There are elements in my essay that did not exist at the time of Marcus and his essay or Thompson and his book.

So? This has nothing to do with my points:

1) The provenance of CE399 does NOT impeach the SBT.

2) The SBT was impeached by the early critics citing the low back wound, the throat entrance.

3) We're all bouncing the rubble -- which is great! There is hardly a rubble I'd rather bounce than the WC.

Specifically the exposure of the Hoover lie about Odum, the Hoover lie about Todd's initials, and the smashing of the time barrier by Frazier getting the stretcher bullet before Todd gave it to him.

This is what I mean. I mixed together both the old and new to create a much stronger synthesis. Which is as strong at one end as it is at the other.

And no John's conclusions do not detract from what I do with his work since I intermingle his work with about 11 other points that are not his at all. I mean read the essay.

I mean address my points, which have nothing to do with your essay except to point out that if you think the SBT wasn't already demolished you are dead wrong.

And I did address your point about the other side always coming up with something else to argue trajectory and body placement. So has Speer. And I mentioned these specifically.

But if you follow the whole trail of the projectile, from beginning to end, then its simply too much to overcome. Its fifteen points.

It is the "Magic Bullet Theory" you are impeaching, Jim. That is not the only SBT (see Hunt).

Blending old and new is great. I can show film frames of JFK's jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza. This corroborates Salandria and Fonzi's work on the clothing evidence in the 60's. Great. I'm bouncing the rubble!

For me, I don't want to argue traejctory, body placement, pictures, or shirt and jacket placement anymore. And I won't.

15 points? How complex. I don't have to argue anything. I can cite a few photos and send these clowns into delusional spasms. I can make my case to a five year old: JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza.

Here:

The FBI knew that the bullet was the wrong one on day one. Therefore it could not have come from Oswald's alleged rifle. Therefore it did not do what the WC said it did.

Yeah, but maybe it was some other bullet that went thru JFK and JBC...see?

CE399 indicts the credibility of the FBI Lab. That's it's significance, imo.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Shorter Varnell:

The work of Jim DiEugenio et al on CE399 is an indictment of the FBI, not the SBT. This work has significance, but not the significance for which Jim D. claims purchase -- it doesn't bear on the SBT.

My central critique, Jim, is that you are mis-appraising the significance of the subject matter.

Nailing the FBI for planting evidence is important, no question.

[Cliff Varnell]

To show you a perfect example of what I mean by the importance of the complete demolition of chain of custody, take a listen to TInk Thompson's interview on KPFK in January of 1967 on You Tube.

This is a man who did really good work on the whole SBT. Clearly a first generation critic who you give credit to for "destroying" the SBT.

Not any more. In SSID he said he examined the Willis 5 photograph under a microscope and found no fabric "bunch."

But when I spoke to him at the 2005 Cracking the Case conference he dismissed his work on Willis 5 -- "Well, if you think that's evidence..." he said with a dubious tone, rolling his eyes.

Also in SSID Tink speculates that the throat wound was an exit.

So I'd have to say his critique of the SBT is tepid, at best.

What does he do amid midway through?

He actually says that Ce 399 could have been the bullet involved in the assassination! That it was fired from Oswald's rifle which was on the sixth floor.

(BTW, TInk said something of the same thing after the NAA came in for the HSCA.)

He can't say that today. And if you look at his interview on MFF, he does not. Specifically citing the Odum interview and Hunt's work at the ARchives. Similar to the talk he gave at Duquesne in 2003.

Once you have demolished completely the chain of custody of a piece of evidence like this, and I have seen few pieces of evidence ever that have been so demolished, no one can say it did what the prosecution said it did. Because if it did, or if it even existed at the time, then the prosecution would not have taken all the risks it did in exposing itself.

And that is what happened. The Commission created the SBF out of wholecloth because it was stuck with CE 399.

Therefore the SBF never occurred and CE 399 was not even found at Parkland.

But Jim, you can't make the leap from impeaching CE399 to impeaching the SBT simply because SBT supporters like John Hunt will claim that it was another bullet that struck JFK at the base of the neck, exited his throat, and went thru Connally.

The strongest evidence against the SBT is the easily proven T3 back wound.

I'm not saying that work on the provenance of CE399 isn't important -- it is. The FBI Lab has no credibility as a result of it's handling of the Magic Bullet. But this doesn't take the SBT off the table, as the low back wound does.