Jump to content
The Education Forum

1967 Debate: Mark Lane vs. Wesley Liebeler


Recommended Posts

guys, guys, guys!

"proof" is in the eye of the beholder. EVERYBODY knows that!

right, D.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

DVP:

"Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?"

ME:

I cannot answer for Jim or anyone else, D., but I suspect that many of us can in some degree agree with this. For your entertainment, and for the record, as far as evidence against LHO goes, I don't think anyone would dispute that at least some of Oswald's behavior after the shooting conveys some consciousness of guilt, which can be considered testimonial evidence in some cases. (sounds like some wording the WC would have used, doesn't it.)

Consciousness of guilt can be used as evidence, but NOT on its own. So, yes, I think that SOME of the evidence that points to Oswald is legitimate evidence. I also think that the value of this evidence is much worse than that of the evidence that points elsewhere.

I have a point-blank question for you:

Does DVP study the WC's and the HSCA's evidence of LHO's guilt in the JFK assassination at KFC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The CTers who think Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or Tippit (which encompasses roughly 80% of Internet CTers, which is probably a conservative estimate) most certainly must believe that all of the evidence that points to Oswald is fraudulent."

support the italicized part of this statement, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVP: I haven't backpedaled on anything, Jimmy.

Davey, you first made the implication that all the critics think all the evidence is phony.

I then proved that false, let me reiterate:

1. Let me now list some critics who do not think there is wholesale fakery in the evidence (List of ten critics followed)

2. She (Marjorie Field) started with a set of large easels. She then blew up pages from the WR to show the central tenets of the report. She then blew up pages from the 26 volumes. She then glued the stuff in the volumes that contradicted the WR and put it right below the tenet, which was now proven to be questionable, if not false. This went on for about 200 pages. The WR was shredded by its own evidence. Would that have been a blockbuster book?

3. Now, let me go ahead and link to a fine critique of the Ayton-DVP book which attacks it without saying the evidence is faked.

http://www.ctka.net/...ton Review.html

You then revised your position to this:

The CTers who think Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or Tippit (which encompasses roughly 80% of Internet CTers, which is probably a conservative estimate) most certainly must believe that all of the evidence that points to Oswald is fraudulent.

I have bolded and italicized the statement as amended.. Why did he amend it? Because in the statements I made I showed how a lot of critics, especially the early ones, have shown--with the WC's own evidence in the 26 volumes--that the WR did not prove its case against Oswald. I mean Salandria did this quite powerfully back in 1965.

He wants to get around the fact that many critics shredded the WR by using the 26 volumes. So now its not just if the evidence is real or not, its if one thinks Oswald was involved by at least firing a shot at either JFK or TIppit.

But this is a distinction without a difference. Because people like Meagher showed the WC case was a fraud against Oswald in every way, by using its own evidence. So did Field.

Secondly, he now asks me what I personally think of the authenticity of the evidence. That is irrelevant to the argument as he propounded it. My point is that the evidence is so weak and dubious that one can use a variety of arguments against it to show its not probative. And all the arguments have value, if one accepts the evidence the WC used or not. Like I said Field used the 26 volumes -she just glued them in--to show the WC wildly overstated its own evidence. Salandria did the same to show that the Magic Bullet was a fantasy. He never went beyond that in his original essays.

​See, that is what lawyers are taught to do. If you can use the prosecution's own evidence to show his case is not credible, I mean what else do you need?

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me link to another example of DVP's logical fallacy: the life and true identity of Oswald.

As I showed in another thread, by the early summer of 1964, the WC just about gave up on trying to make sense of Oswald. John Hart Ely was coming up with too many problems in the data. So Howard Willens then decided that he was too good a lawyer and he brought in a guy who had never seen the inside of the court room to do the whitewash.

Which can be done of course. But here is the rub: you have to leave out a lot of crucial things in order to do it. And the stuff you leave out completely modifies the stuff you left in.

One of Davey's favorite authors on this case--almost as high up in his canon as Bugliosi--is Jean Davison. Davison wrote a book about Oswald after the HSCA was completed. Now, if you don't know anything about Oswald, which many people do not, one might find her book convincing: Oswald killed Kennedy because he was a communist and liked Castro etc. The whole AP journalist Daniel Harker story--which, by the way, Bugliosi does not accept. But Davison tried to revive this since she thought the problem with the world not accepting the WC verdict was their failure to apply a motive. (What makes that funny is that the WC knew about the Harker story, like Bugliosi, they did not find it credible.)

Now, you can make this work--if you apply rigorous censorship. But that is the only way it works. The minute you start to let too much information in, it shrivels up and dies. Which, of course, is the problem with the WR in general.

For a demonstration click here: http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html

But the problem is that as one famous Harvard professor once said, "facts are like sunshine, they allow us to see properly".

Which is what Davey does not want us to do.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He [DVP] now asks me what I personally think of the authenticity of the evidence. That is irrelevant to the argument as he propounded it. My point is that the evidence is so weak and dubious that one can use a variety of arguments against it to show it's not probative.

Yeah, I knew you'd duck the question and refuse to answer it directly. The precise question, btw, was this one (in case you forgot the exact wording):

"Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?"

But you actually have already answered it in a variety of posts and hundreds of Black Op Radio appearances, in which you have attempted (and failed at, of course) to trash and invalidate virtually every single piece of evidence in the whole case -- e.g., the rifle, the paper bag, every bullet, every shell casing, the Klein's paperwork, the backyard photos, the fingerprints and palmprints, the autopsy photos and X-rays, the autopsy report, the V510210 S&W revolver, every witness who fingered Oswald, and even the 5 unfired bullets that were taken out of Oswald's pocket after his arrest.

I doubt that a single piece of evidence has been left "undamaged" by DiEugenio The Evidence Expert in the Black Op shows plus your online handiwork of fantasy regarding the evidence. So you really HAVE already answered my question---you think all the evidence is fake. And, like always, that's a really silly thing to believe.

Here's a suggestion for Jim DiEugenio's new forum signature (it fits like a glove)....

"I am part of the defense team." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

ROTF LMAO

:hotorwot

I just wrote about two pages of stuff showing how wrong you were.

You did not reply to almost all of it.

And you accuse me of avoiding the question. HA HA HA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per Davey's snark above, I explained why I did not reply. My reply is irrelevant to his point. He doesn't even know what he is arguing most of the time.

But to go further with the whole Davison nonsense: there is a part two to the saga.

See, Davsion made a mistake when she wrote her cover up book.

She left in evidence that Oswald was learning the Russian language while in America.

That creates a problem. Because it leaves open the probability--as Jim Garrison so aptly perceived-- that Oswald was getting intel training. I mean why else learn Russian at the height of the Cold War? You sure weren't going to tour the Crimea.

Well, see someone--probably McAdams, maybe Reitzes--noticed this and told her. You know, "Jean, you slipped up and let the cat out of the bag." So she then altered her stance on this. She now said something that was so nutty it approached science fiction. Please sit down before you have a stroke.

She now said that Oswald learned the Russian language from the Intourist guides when he got to the USSR! :help

Is that about the most bizarre thing you ever heard? These were the guides from the Soviet state run tourist bureau. I mean if you have ever been to Hawaii on a tour, they have these people running things. I never learned Polynesian from them. Further, when I talked to Ernest Titovets in Washington at the AARC conference, I asked him about this. Titovets was a friend of Oswald's in Minsk. I first asked him when he met Oswald. He said it was about 11 months after he got to the USSR. I asked him if he spoke good Russian at that time he met him. He said yes he did.

Now, as the late illustrious Phil Melanson showed in his milestone book Spy Saga, Russian is a very hard language to learn. As opposed to a Romance language, it takes a very long period of formal study, plus professional tutoring. Melanson talked to a professional in the field and the guy said, minimum of 1.100 hours of rigorous study to do it.

Now, go through the WR and see how long Oswald spent with his Intourist guides. Absolute hogwash by Davison.

Further demonstrated by this link: http://www.ctka.net/2014/Davison%20update.html

But this is the kind of work Davey accepts and encourages. And make no mistake. This is a key aspect of the case. Because if Oswald is not what the WC says he was, Pandora's Box is opened.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this have to do with Davison?

DId you give up? :news

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:news

I am "spreading the news", Jim. The news about Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

And, yes, Jean Davison thinks his guilt is "obvious" too....

"In my opinion, Oswald was not only guilty, he was obviously guilty, but I wouldn't tell anyone, "One can only avoid that conclusion by refusing to look at the evidence." If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't interpret the evidence the same way you [Pat Speer] do. When you end up with a large number of people "lying" for no apparent reason, that's a red flag, imo." -- Jean Davison; December 8, 2014

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...