Gary Mack Explains

[David Von Pein]

"Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely.

ROTF LOL

To me this is a distinction without a difference.

No. I think the difference between "kook/delusional" and "xxxx" is substantial. A person can be very truthful and honest and still be a kook. That type of person, when it comes to the JFK case specifically, just simply has no capacity for properly evaluating the evidence in front of him. And it has been apparent to me for quite some time now that James DiEugenio is one of those persons. I mean, when a guy can suggest that Lee Oswald didn't carry any large bag at all into the Book Depository on Nov. 22--well, I think you get my point and I can safely rest my case.

You are saying that whatever I say cannot be trusted.

I'm saying that the conclusions you draw from your research cannot be trusted. Take that "paper bag" example yet again. Almost everyone alive--even hard-boiled conspiracy theorists--agree that Lee Harvey Oswald carried some type of large brown paper package to Buell Wesley Frazier's house in Irving on the morning of November 22, with Oswald placing that package into the back seat of Frazier's car. And almost all conspiracists love the idea that that package was too small to hold Oswald's Carcano rifle.

But you, Jim, can now never again utilize that very popular "too small" theory about the paper bag -- because you don't think Oswald had any bag at all. Therefore, if you ever try to argue the "too short" or "too small" argument, you're going to look mighty foolish, because according to you, Linnie Randle and Buell Frazier didn't see ANY bag at all. (Which should make you wonder, Jim, why on Earth those two liars known as Randle and Frazier didn't at least say that their make-believe paper bag was big enough to hold the item that they both knew had to go inside of it. That's hilarious.)

And speaking of Jim's conclusions that "cannot be trusted" -- let's have a look at another one (and this one is a real lulu):

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. I mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

In light of the massive amount of evidence that PROVES that an assassin was firing shots at JFK from the east end of the sixth floor of the TSBD (including the eyewitness accounts of people like Mal Couch, Bob Jackson, Amos Euins, and Howard Brennan), the above statement made by DiEugenio is so outrageous and ridiculous it deserves only a hearty laugh or two.

And in case some people think I might have just made up the above DiEugenio quote just to ridicule him, you can listen to Jimbo say those words HERE (at 34:17).

And in all the reams you have written about me, how can you be so sure you never did call me a xxxx? I mean why not? You called me everything else.

Oh, it's quite possible I have. I'm not 100% sure. And I left open that possibility by using the verbiage I did in my previous post, when I said:

"And I think you might even have a difficult time digging up a post of mine where I have called you a xxxx. Because I don't think I have used that word when referring to you. "Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely." -- DVP

While it's "not very likely", it's still possible that I've let the L word slip through the cracks a time or two when talking about the hundreds of silly things that James DiEugenio believes concerning the Kennedy assassination.

But I've certainly never accused Jim of doing the despicable, vile, and illegal things that he has no problem at all accusing many people of doing (sans any proof whatsoever) -- such as: planting evidence in a Presidential murder case in order to incriminate an innocent "patsy" named Oswald....covering up tons of stuff relating to the assassination....falsifying official documents....coercing witnesses and forcing them to tell one lie after another about the murder of JFK....and on and on.

Those are the kinds of serious allegations that I would love to see a conspiracy theorist have to defend in a court of law someday, after somebody who has been slandered by one of those conspiracy mongers takes them to court on a defamation charge. The CTer wouldn't stand a chance.

Edited March 13, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

"Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely.

ROTF LOL

To me this is a distinction without a difference.

No. I think the difference between "kook/delusional" and "xxxx" is substantial. A person can be very truthful and honest and still be a kook. That type of person, when it comes to the JFK case specifically, just simply has no capacity for properly evaluating the evidence in front of him. And it has been apparent to me for quite some time now that James DiEugenio is one of those persons. I mean, when a guy can suggest that Lee Oswald didn't carry any large bag at all into the Book Depository on Nov. 22--well, I think you get my point and I can safely rest my case.

You are saying that whatever I say cannot be trusted.

I'm saying that the conclusions you draw from your research cannot be trusted. Take that "paper bag" example yet again. Almost everyone alive--even hardboiled conspiracy theorists--agree that Lee Harvey Oswald carried some type of large brown paper package to Buell Wesley Frazier's house in Irving on the morning of November 22, with Oswald placing that package into the back seat of Frazier's car. And almost all conspiracists love the idea that that package was too small to hold Oswald's Carcano rifle.

But you, Jim, can now never again utilize that very popluar "too short" theory about the paper bag -- because you don't think Oswald had any bag at all. Therefore, if you ever try to argue that the "too short" or "too small", you're going to look mighty foolish, because according to you, Linnie Randle and Buell Frazier didn't see ANY bag at all. (Which should make you wonder, Jim, why on Earth those two liars known as Randle and Frazier didn't at least say that their make-believe was big enough to hold the item that they both knew had to go inside of it. That's hilarious.)

And speaking of Jim's conclusions that "cannot be trusted" -- let'sd have a look at another one (and this one is a real lulu):

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. I mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end. .... And I've always suspected there was a sniper in the Dal-Tex Building." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

In light of the massive amount of evidence that PROVES that an assassin was firing shots at JFK from the east end of the sixth floor of the TSBD (including the eyewitness accounts of people like Mal Couch, Bob Jackson, Amos Euins, and Howard Brennan), the above statement made by DiEugenio is so outrageous and ridiculous it deserves only a hearty laugh or two.

And in case some people think I might have just made up the above DiEugenio quote just to ridicule him, you can listen to Jimbo say those words HERE (at 34:17).

And in all the reams you have written about me, how can you be so sure you never did call me a xxxx? I mean why not? You called me everything else.

Oh, it's quite possible I have. I'm not 100% sure. And I left open that possibility by using the verbiage I did in my previous post, when I said:

"And I think you might even have a difficult time digging up a post of mine where I have called you a xxxx. Because I don't think I have used that word when referring to you. "Kook", "delusional", "conspiracy-thirsty clown"--yes--I've utilized those most-appropriate terms to describe your absurd anybody-but-Oswald beliefs...but "xxxx", not very likely." -- DVP

While it's "not very likely", it's still possible that I've let the L word slip through the cracks a time or two when talking about the hundreds of silly things that James DiEugenio believes concerning the Kennedy assassination.

But I've certainly never accused Jim of doing the despicable, vile, and illegal things that he has no problem at all accusing many people of doing (sans any proof whatsoever) -- such as: planting evidence in a Presidential murder case in order to incriminate an innocent "patsy" named Oswald....covering up tons of stuff relating to the assassination....falsifying official documents....coercing witnesses and forcing them to tell one lie after another about the murder of JFK....and on and on.

Those are the kinds of serious allegations that I would love to see a conspiracy theorist have to defend in a court of law someday, after somebody who has been slandered by one of those conspiracy mongers takes them to court on a defamation charge. The CTer wouldn't stand a chance.

Y-A-W-N and the lone nut-SBT-WCR apologist beat goes on! LMAO!

[David Von Pein]

Y-A-W-N and the lone nut-SBT-WCR apologist beat goes on! LMAO!

Time for a reprise:

"Gosh, you're a strange person." -- DVP; Mar. 10, 2013

[David Von Pein]

I pointed out four instances where Mack/Dunkel--in the best John McAdams tradition-- flat out misrepresented the facts of the case. (And in two instances there have been retractions. Which is more than what McAdams does.) And, BTW, I could have gone even further in this regard. Now, when every single one of these instances points in one direction, then what is the clear bias that is evident? It seems to me to be pretty obvious: Mack/Dunkel wants to out Warren Commission the Warren Commission. Because not even they went as far as he does in these instances. At least not as far as I can see.

Now, this is all carelessness? All randomness? Just mistakes? When the guy sits atop of one of the largest repositories of information in the country? With my little library of maybe seventy books on JFK and his assassination, I don't commit howlers like that. Even though I write and speak much more often than he does.

Let's put it this way: If he was a visiting scholar at a storied institution, what do you think would happen to him?

He would be treated with respect and would be looked upon as one of the world's leading experts on the JFK assassination (which he most certainly is).

I'll repeat the following quote from Mr. Mack (which DiEugenio undoubtedly thinks is yet another lie being uttered by Gary, even though Jimmy knows that the online version of the Dallas Morning News article in question has been corrected, and why would Gary want it corrected if he was trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes?)....

"Folks who think I would make up something wrong to mislead people just make me laugh. I sat for an interview with a News reporter and spoke off the top of my head for well over an hour and got one thing wrong out of many, many topics we discussed. I sent word to him quickly and the story was corrected. What's online is the archive version people will read forever. There may even be a formal correction notice." -- Gary Mack; March 10, 2013

And I just love this ironic remark coming from Jimmy D.:

"I don't commit howlers like that." -- J. DiEugenio

Now, with the above quote from Jimbo fresh in their minds, I'll now remind everyone to take another look at this lengthy list of DiEugenio's delusional beliefs.

Are you sure you've never committed any "howlers", Jim? None at all?

I beg to differ. Because that list I just linked to certainly suggests otherwise.

To reciprocate, if anybody from a "storied institution" would ever want James DiEugenio to visit them and (gasp!) actually give a talk about the facts of the JFK assassination, I would pity the poor people at the "storied institution" who invited him in the first place. Because those folks are going to hear some "howlers" to be sure.

DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 85)

Edited March 13, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

You [Gary Mack] forgot Fritz had been in front of Oswald when you were working on a show about Ruby killing him.

So what? Who cares? It wasn't FRITZ who got shot, was it? And it wasn't FRITZ who shot Oswald either.

Eliminating Fritz from a re-creation of Oswald's murder is the same as eliminating Nellie Connally or Roy Kellerman from a reconstruction of JFK's murder.

IOW--It makes no difference whatsoever if Captain Fritz is included in a re-creation or not.

Let's now wait for Jimbo to dish out his hogwash about how J. Will Fritz was "in" on a plot to have his prisoner murdered by Jack Ruby in the DPD basement, with Jimbo pretending that the physical "gap" that existed between Captain Fritz and Oswald was placed there by Fritz intentionally in order to allow Ruby easier access to Oswald.

What was Jimmy saying about "howlers" a little while ago?

Talk about Pot/Kettle. Looks like we've got another DiEugenio Howler regarding Fritz' "suspicious behavior".

Edited March 13, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Paul Brancato]

David - I read your list of Jim's beliefs and don't think they rise to the level of delusional. At least Jim is not claiming that the moon landing was a hoax or that the Mossad was responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting. Were Jim proven to be wrong about most of his JFK theories that still wouldn't rise to the level of proof necessary to convict Oswald. Oswald might have made the backyard photos, taken a trip to Mexico and visited the embassies, ordered the rifle and handgun, shot at Walker, taken a package to work on Nov 22, etc., and still be entirely innocent. It is not delusional to question just how far someone would go to frame Oswald, both after and before the assassination.

I have to say that when someone with as much background as Mack makes an error like he did it is reasonable to question whether he did so on purpose, even if, as David points out, it doesn't make sense that he would do something like that deliberately because he knew some readers and researchers would catch the mistake and force him to retract it later. Maybe he didn't reason it through and just went with his gut. If it wasn't just an honest mistake it was at least arrogant, if not deliberately misleading.

[David Von Pein]

David - I read your list of Jim's beliefs and don't think they rise to the level of delusional.

Maybe you didn't thoroughly absorb these DiEugenio Howlers that are included on my list, Paul. Let's review them again:

1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker.

6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy".

13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963.

14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD.

15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.)

19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!)

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination.

I think you're being way too kind to Mr. DiEugenio, Paul.

I have to say that when someone with as much background as Mack makes an error like he did it is reasonable to question whether he did so on purpose. .... If it wasn't just an honest mistake it was at least arrogant, if not deliberately misleading.

He's already told us it was just a mistake. You think he's lying about that?

Edited March 13, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

A couple of points.

1. Forum members are not allowed to call other members "liars." If you think someone is mistaken, and not telling the truth, you can say "I don't see how you can say that. It's clear you are mistaken, and here's why..." Calling someone a "xxxx" encourages retribution, as opposed to discussion. As a moderator, I must ask that the "L" word be removed from the offending posts...

2. Calling someone a "kook" is equally disrespectful, but there is a difference that some find significant. When someone calls someone a xxxx they are impugning their character. When someone calls someone a "kook" they are impugning their intellect. SOME people have grown used to others impugning their intellect, but take great offense when someone impugns their character.

3. I have studied this over the years, and have come to realize that many LNs, including John McAdams, think that when a LN says something that's clearly untrue, he should be given the benefit of the doubt (because he obviously means well--I mean, he's one of the good guys, right) but when a CT says something that's obviously not true, it's okay to call him a xxxx. There are, of course, CTs who think just the reverse. This is, of course, hypocrisy, pure and simple.

4. There is dispute even as to what constitutes a "lie." Most, including myself, would say that repeatedly stating a falsehood is "lying." Others, including McAdams, will claim that if someone doesn't know what they are saying is false well then it's just mean to say they are "lying." This, of course, allows men such as John Lattimer--who, after viewing Kennedy's autopsy photos, repeatedly claimed Oswald's back wound was higher up on Kennedy's back than shown in the Rydberg drawings--was not lying, but mistaken. This is ridiculous, IMO. It makes no sense, to me, that McAdams and others gladly call Oswald a xxxx--based purely on the say-so of people (e.g. Buell Frazier, Will Fritz) that they've never met, but shy from calling Lattimer a xxxx when the proof of his lie--the back wound photos they believe are legitimate and accurate--have long since been in the public domain.

5. From my own experience, I would say that the number of lies told by LNs and CTs is roughly the same. Many CTs have embraced a whole list of nonsense. LNs, by and large, have embraced fewer lies, but repeat them with such regularity that the overall number probably evens out.

6. The zeal with which many--LN and CT--repeat their lies has led me to conclude that we are truly in a "post-truth" society...where the colored glass through which people see their world has played a role in selecting their furniture.

On a personal note, I must say that David's defense of Gary regarding some of his mistakes is a little misguided. Whether or not GARY believed Fritz was involved in Oswald's shooting is NOT the point. The point is that, in leaving Fritz out of the re-enactment, the viewers were not allowed to decide for themselves if there was anything suspicious. He made similar "mistakes" in Inside the Target Car. There, mixed in with snippets of Nellie Connally and Bobby Hargis discussing the shooting, Gary recounted how the first shot missed, and how the second shot hit both Kennedy and Connally, and how the last shot hit Kennedy. This hid from the viewers that both Connally and Hargis believed the first shot hit Kennedy. This hid from the viewers that the now wide-spread belief the first shot missed is totally at odds with the recollections of the bulk of the witnesses, and was something so ridiculous that not even the Warren Commission could embrace it.

These mistakes by Gary, moreover, all lean in one direction: that Oswald was guilty. While it's not unreasonable to conclude from this that he's lying, moreover, I suspect there's a lot more involved. He works for a company devoted to the premise Oswald was the shooter. It's only natural, IMO, that, not unlike a doctor testing drugs for the pharmaceutical industry, or a 40-year-old record salesman selling boy-band music, he get co-opted by his environment, and unwittingly push crap upon an unsuspecting public.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

On a personal note, I must say that David's defense of Gary regarding some of his mistakes is a little misguided. Whether or not GARY believed Fritz was involved in Oswald's shooting is NOT the point. The point is that, in leaving Fritz out of the re-enactment, the viewers were not allowed to decide for themselves if there was anything suspicious.

Well, actually Pat, I would guess that it's very likely that the theory about Captain Fritz being involved in a plot to kill Oswald was so outlandish and preposterous in Gary Mack's mind that he didn't give it a second thought when he didn't include Fritz in the re-creation, due to the fact that Fritz had nothing to do with Oswald's murder.

Plus, how does DiEugenio know that Gary Mack HIMSELF was wholly responsible for the re-creation that was done for that documentary? (BTW, that's a program I never have seen.) But why couldn't OTHER people have arranged the re-creation, with Gary possibly only playing a minimal role in it (if any at all)? I'll readily admit, I have no idea. I'm just asking.

Also, Pat, since you think the "Ruby Connection" program should have had Will Fritz included in the re-enactment because many people suspect Fritz of being "involved" in Oswald's killing in some way -- does that mean that you think Dale Myers' computer re-creation should have included driver William Greer too? After all, many CTers think Greer shot Kennedy. Should Myers have placed an animated Greer in his computer model so that viewers could "decide for themselves if there was anything suspicious"?

In other words, how outrageous and preposterous does a theory need to be before it can be summarily dismissed by reasonable JFK assassination researchers?

I think that's a fair question after nearly 50 years of "outrageous" nonsense surrounding President Kennedy's death. Don't you?

Edited March 13, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Ian Kingsbury]

I do find all this very interesting and have decided to send

DVP a bright orange robe and a set of finger bells

[Ray Mitcham]

I do find all this very interesting and have decided to send

DVP a bright orange robe and a set of finger bells

Stop it, you swine! I've just spluttered cawfee all over my keyboard,again!

Edited March 13, 2013 by Ray Mitcham

[Ian Kingsbury]

“The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he'll fight and die for it.”

[Pat Speer]

On a personal note, I must say that David's defense of Gary regarding some of his mistakes is a little misguided. Whether or not GARY believed Fritz was involved in Oswald's shooting is NOT the point. The point is that, in leaving Fritz out of the re-enactment, the viewers were not allowed to decide for themselves if there was anything suspicious.

Well, actually Pat, I would guess that it's very likely that the theory about Captain Fritz being involved in a plot to kill Oswald was so outlandish and preposterous in Gary Mack's mind that he didn't give it a second thought when he didn't include Fritz in the re-creation, due to the fact that Fritz had nothing to do with Oswald's murder.

Plus, how does DiEugenio know that Gary Mack HIMSELF was wholly responsible for the re-creation that was done for that documentary? (BTW, that's a program I never have seen.) But why couldn't OTHER people have arranged the re-creation, with Gary possibly only playing a minimal role in it (if any at all)? I'll readily admit, I have no idea. I'm just asking.

Also, Pat, since you think the "Ruby Connection" program should have had Will Fritz included in the re-enactment because many people suspect Fritz of being "involved" in Oswald's killing in some way -- does that mean that you think Dale Myers' computer re-creation should have included driver William Greer too? After all, many CTers think Greer shot Kennedy. Should Myers have placed an animated Greer in his computer model so that viewers could "decide for themselves if there was anything suspicious"?

In other words, how outrageous and preposterous does a theory need to be before it can be summarily dismissed by reasonable JFK assassination researchers?

I think that's a fair question after nearly 50 years of "outrageous" nonsense surrounding President Kennedy's death. Don't you?

That's a valid question, David. I think the dividing line runs something like this. The vast majority of reasonable researchers on both sides of the fence have concluded that Greer did not shoot Kennedy, so it would not be "wrong" for Myers to leave Greer off. The vast majority, however, also still question the overall behavior of the SS--in particular Greer's slowing down of the limousine before the head shot. In such case, it would have been "wrong" to leave that out. There is also a lot of debate as to when the first shot impacted Kennedy, so Myers' leaving off Mrs. K and Mrs. C--whose actions might offer an indication of when the first shot impacted--would also be "wrong," and seriously misleading, IMO.

He left Mrs. K and Mrs. C off his re-enactment, of course.

As far as Gary and The Ruby Connection, as I recall it, he was not just a talking head on the program, but an associate producer. The re-enactment was central to the program, designed to test whether or not Oswald could have got a look at Ruby, and recognize Ruby, before he was shot. As I recall it, Gary was shown supervising this re-enactment. While it may not have occurred to him to put a fake Fritz in the re-enactment, it would have cost almost nothing, and would have helped quiet the rumblings in conspiracy-land that the re-enactment was rigged. I consider it a mistake, but quite possibly an honest one.

[David Von Pein]

Thanks for your latest reply, Pat.

[David Von Pein]

Who else on that show ["The Ruby Connection"] is an authority?

I haven't the slightest idea. As I said, I never saw it. I was merely bringing up the possibility that it wasn't all Gary Mack. I really couldn't care less. Because anyone suggesting Fritz was a co-conspirator is just plain off the rails, IMO.

Plus, if Fritz were bent on framing Oswald (as you also believe), he would probably have said that Oswald confessed to killing either JFK or Tippit (or both). Why didn't Fritz do that, Jimbo?

I, and others, showed through the weight of the evidence that Oswald was framed in both cases on the 22nd, and he did not fire at Walker.

You've shown no such thing, Jimbo. And neither has anyone else. You're just madly in love with the idea that Oswald was innocent (for some unknown reason). But the evidence clearly shows you are dead wrong. But you'll keep pretending you have proven it's ALL fake evidence. And how likely is that?

d. Oswald never picked up that rifle.

Yeah, he was only photographed with it by his wife. His palmprint is on it (CE637). His fingerprints are on the trigger guard (Scalice; 1993). The HSCA said that C2766 was the same rifle Oswald is holding in the backyard pictures (6 HSCA 66). And we know that C2766 was shipped to OSWALD'S post office box in Dallas by Klein's.

You DO realize how many people you have to call LIARS (or boobs) in order to take that rifle out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands, don't you Jimmy? I haven't counted up the total number of liars there would have to be in this regard, but it's certainly quite a few. (Maybe Jim will count them up for us and give us his final "Liars" total connected with the rifle issue.)

BTW, when the SS first interviewed Marina, she said she never saw a rifle with a scope. Just like she never knew anything about LHO in Mexico. Later, when she started getting money from a phony company, she changed her tune about this and many other things.

Oh, brother.

I don't even want to talk about the Tippit murder today.

I don't blame you. Because anyone who has the silly idea that Oswald didn't shoot Officer Tippit should certainly want to keep that embarrassment to themselves. (But Jimbo's going to talk about it anyway--below.)

>>> "I mean after Barry Ernest's book and the testimony he unearthed about the time of the shooting there, I mean forget it." <<<

It always seems to hinge on the timing issue, doesn't it Jim? And you seem to think that the exact time of Tippit's shooting can be established by the witnesses, don't you? Well, of course, it cannot.

And while Jim is convinced that Tippit was killed at 1:06 (or was it 1:10?), Jimbo will totally ignore the BEST EVIDENCE in the Tippit case--the physical evidence--the bullet shells--that littered Tenth Street, which, as per his norm, Jimbo ALSO thinks is phony evidence. (And he gets to add more liars and con artists to his lengthy list of crooks who were bent on framing Oswald.)

>>> "It's obvious that the FBI ignored the best witnesses in that [Tippit] case." <<<

Yeah, right Jim.

Davis, Davis, Callaway, Guinyard, Benavides, Scoggins, Markham, and Patterson were all rotten witnesses. Only Clemons makes the grade as "best" witness in your book. All of those other people who fingered Oswald were nothing but idiots or liars, right?

>>> "And DVP just got his butt kicked--what else is new--on Scoggins by Gil J." <<<

So you DO think Scoggins was a xxxx when he positively IDed Oswald, don't you? (What else is new? Jim thinks somebody was lying. I love it.)

And Jimbo will ALSO find some way to worm his way around Ted Callaway's ironclad "It Was Oswald" testimony too. Won't you, Jim?

And Barbara Davis. And Virginia Davis. And Sam Guinyard. And on and on....

And you say that I'm the one in denial? Look in the mirror.

DiEugenio's campaign to exonerate a double-killer gets more pathetic (and desperate) with each passing day (as my previously posted list clearly demonstrates).

Edited March 14, 2013 by David Von Pein