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

Did Oswald order the Rifle: Almost Certainly Not

Recommended Posts

So how about my SBT question that you have been dodging for the last few months, Davey? Care to have a go at that or do you not want to get your hair mussed up?

You've got a very short memory, Bobby. Just thirteen days ago, we had this exchange....


How did the bullet get through JFK's neck without striking any vertebrae?

You don't KNOW that the bullet would have absolutely HAD to have struck JFK's vertebrae. You're GUESSING. That's all. Nothing more.

You know, of course, that many many doctors (pathologists) have endorsed the idea that one bullet DID transit through JFK's upper back and neck, including the three autopsy surgeons. But you don't care about all those doctors' opinions, do you? You think Bob Prudhomme, MD, is MUCH more qualified to tell the world about this matter. Right, Bob?

Tell me, Bob, what year did you graduate medical school? And why should I toss the entire WC and HSCA and Clark Panel and Rockefeller Commission and the autopsy doctors under the bus because some self-appointed "expert of the human vertebrae" has posted endless amounts of his anti-SBT opinions at various Internet forums?

In short, you need to dig up John F. Kennedy's body in order to have a chance at proving your anti-SBT theory.

Plus, when we factor in the absurd "Two Bullets Entered & Never Exited & Both Bullets Disappeared" alternative, it then becomes quite clear that the idea of a NON-transiting missile entering JFK's body is an idea not even worth considering---and that's because the CTers need TWO of those non-transiting bullets to make their theory work. And what rational person could possibly even begin to accept such a remote possibility?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT is not an argument, Davey, that is a rant from a little child.

I guess it is finally time to rub your nose in the dirt on this topic. Just remember, you asked for it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

One might say the FBI framed him. Very good. But he was served up to the FBI. Question: Who served him up?


What exactly do you mean when you say that Oswald was "served up to the FBI"?

Oswald was never in "FBI custody". He was always in DPD custody.

And one of the big problems CTers have is constructing a reasonable and sensible "Oswald Was Framed" theory since it would by necessity need to involve people from various law enforcement agencies -- the DPD, the FBI, the Sheriff's Department, and the Secret Service. All of those agencies had a hand in gathering and processing at least some of the evidence that incriminates Oswald (e.g., the front-seat bullet fragments were first touched by the SS; the rifles and Sniper's Nest evidence was first handled by the DPD; several Dallas Deputy Sheriffs were on the sixth floor and first discovered all of the TSBD evidence; and we all know the CTers love to blame Hoover for a lot of evidence switching and other assorted tomfoolery with documents, etc., so that puts the FBI in the middle of the alleged frame-up too, or even in the LEAD, even though the FBI didn't actually COLLECT a single bit of the evidence, they just tested it).

And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. (That's how far off the rails of reality many CTers have strayed.)

So if Oswald was truly innocent, we'd have to believe that many individuals were trying their darndest to make it look like Oswald was guilty -- and guilty of TWO murders on November 22 too, not just one killing. The Tippit murder cannot be brushed aside as just an unrelated murder on that same day the President was killed (although some CTers seem to brush it aside anyway).

Given the evidence against him, believing in Oswald's guilt is quite easy to do. In fact, it's impossible, IMO, to believe Oswald could have been innocent of TWO murders with the evidence that exists against him. And believing it's all been manufactured to make an innocent man look guilty is too much to stomach---because there's TOO MUCH evidence to manufacture and get away with such a scheme.

But CTers, particularly on the Internet, seem to lean toward all the evidence being fake anyway, despite the implausible nature of such massive fakery being attempted and--even more unlikely--the evidence fakers being able to get away with every last bit of it.

And then when we add in the implications of Oswald's own actions ON TOP of the large pile of evidence that all points toward LHO (guns, bullets, shells, the paper bag, and fingerprints), it becomes much much more difficult to envision a large-scale "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. For how on Earth did those same evidence planters/manipulators (or even a DIFFERENT group of plotters) manage to get a totally innocent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the unorthodox things he did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22?

If the EVIDENCE + OSWALD'S ACTIONS don't add up to a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, I'd sure like to know why not.

And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. There's no evidence that the Frazier's made up the story about the bag. Someone may have made it up for them. There certainly was never any evidence that a long paper bag ever existed prior to the police dept making a few of them.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP: Yeah, so I've been told (thousands of times) by CTers. But, to date, I've yet to see a smidgen of something called PROOF to back up the non-stop allegations of evidence fakery that we keep hearing about from conspiracy theorists.

​From the WR: "[Hall} said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawernce Howard..and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald..."

​From Accessores after the Fact: "That FBI report indicates that only two days after the original locating of Loran Eugene Hall on September 16, 1964, an interview with William Seymour...elicited a denial that he was even in Dallas in September 1963 or had ever had any contacts with Sylvia Odio. " (p. 387)

Wow! That's the best you can do, Jimmy? One very hazy and indistinct report regarding people who have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the physical evidence in the JFK assassination?

Mighty weak, Jim. In fact, pathetic.

But thanks for illustrating that the BEST the mighty James DiEugenio can do in an effort to PROVE that ANY evidence was faked in the JFK case is a reference to a quote in Sylvia Meagher's 1967 book, which is a blurb involving the Odio incident, which everybody knows (even me) is a great-big huge QUESTION MARK to begin with.

As Jimbo's favorite of all female authors (hehe) said in her 1983 book....

"When these men visited Odio's apartment, Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald. In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight? And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- Jean Davison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's Game"


in an effort to PROVE that ANY evidence was faked in the JFK case Same song, 422nd verse. You ignore the fact that not one piece of evidence, whether faked or not, has ever established any proof as to who committed the crime. No one has to claim the evidence is fake when there is NO evidence that proves guilt. All the crap, such as fake BY photos is not evidence, it's fake pictures. The Manlicher Carcano rifle is not 'fake' evidence. It's not evidence. If something can't be established as authentic, it's not allowed as evidence. So all the stuff that you bring up is not evidence.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The X-rays themselves answer your last question, Jim. And this X-ray was proven to be a legit and unaltered X-ray by the HSCA.....


"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

Now, tell me again how those 20 experts on the HSCA's Photographic Panel were all rotten liars when they signed off on 7 HSCA 41.

And then you can tell everybody about your fantasy about there being a huge hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head---which, of course, doesn't exist at all in the X-ray pictured above.

More fakery...

More Government liars...

More fake reports...

Right, Jimmy?

Does the fakery ever end in this case (or, I should say, in your colorful imagination)?

That's not a fake Xray, it just isn't JFK's head.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

THAT is not an argument, Davey, that is a rant from a little child.

No, it's the truth that you don't want to face.

And you'll just ignore the immense "Two Bullets That Didn't Exit" problem too. Won't you, Bob?

And you'll ignore, as always, the fact that every Government investigation into JFK's death---plus the autopsy doctors too!---concluded that one bullet DID go all the way through Kennedy's body. But what do THEY know, right? After all, the HSCA's FPP was only comprised of NINE very trained pathologists. But we'll just trust Dr. Prudhomme instead of placing an ounce of faith in those NINE medical doctors. Right, Bobby?

I guess it is finally time to rub your nose in the dirt on this topic. Just remember, you asked for it.

Oh, you mean the other 99 times you posted your charts and graphs was just the warm-up? The real ballgame hasn't started yet, eh? Good. I've got time to get a hot dog and a Dr. Pepper (LHO's favorite) before game time then.

Bring it on, Dr. Anatomy. My answer will still be the same. It'll be that "child's rant" I posted above --- which is the absolute truth and you know it.

But waste more bandwidth on 22 more anatomy charts if you want. I'm going to watch the Reds game instead.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Ray, the autopsy photos and X-rays are in AGREEMENT with another piece of photographic evidence -- the Zapruder Film. The Z-Film shows that the BACK of President Kennedy's head was not "blown out".

So, along with the autopsy photos, you must also think the Z-Film was altered too, right Ray?

Is there ANY point in this case when you feel it's okay to put on the brakes when it comes to this "Massive Fakery Overload" thing you CTers have got going on? (Just wondering.)

Strange that the only evidence supporting your view is photographic, i.e autopsy photos, and the Zapruder film. The easiest items to fake, How come the autopsy photos disagree with the Parkland witnesses? Were they all hallucinating?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, Gary M. (and Hi.).... Von Pein's having a couple of bad days..... Give'em some solace.

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I mean wow.

This is just plain nuts.

Davey does not know the first thing about the court room. Does he?

As any number of Law Dictionaries or compendiums will show, a visual exhibit like a photo or X ray, has to be certified.

Let me quote McCormick on Evidence:

The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps and diagrams...a photograph is viewed merely as graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness.

Now see, this is how screwy DVP's valuation of evidence is. Its completely the opposite of what the rules of evidence say it should be.

Now, in this case, the autopsy evidence is an absolute disaster. I doubt if any of the exhibits would be admitted.

The three autopsy pathologists would not admit the x rays, as noted above. And Stringer would negate the brain photos. He said under oath he did not take them.

You have about 40 witnesses who would impeach the back of the head photo. And on and on. (I mean that got so bad the HSCA lied about it.)

Can you imagine the cumulative impact this would have on a jury? They would not trust anything the prosecution put on after this fiasco.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

JEH alone controlled all the evidence.

I get a big kick out of the idea that J. Edgar Hoover--of all people on the planet!--would have wanted to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for the two murders in Dallas in November 1963.

In reality, of course, Hoover would have probably been about the LAST person in America who would have wanted to frame Oswald. And everybody here should know why that is so.

Just think about it for a couple of minutes and maybe the light bulb will go on.

JEH, of all the people on the planet? Because he is THE paragon of justice? You have to be the only one on this planet or any other that still think this of JEH. That is the most absurd argument I've ever heard.

DVP, I'm not waiting for your light bulb to come on as you obviously don't even HAVE a light bulb...


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey, this is nutty even for you:

Hoover would have loved to have found a conspiracy in the JFK case?

The only problem with this is a familiar one with you: all the evidence says the opposite.

Let use use just four examples:

1. What did Hoover do on the Saturday after the assassination? Did he go into his office and ride herd on all the agents in Dallas and New Orleans to try and find out who the real killers were? That is what he would have done if he was intent on finding out a about a conspiracy, right? And he would have surfaced all those leads about people like Banister, and Ferrie and Clay Shaw and Clinton and Jackson ad 544 Camp Street.

But he didn't do that did he? As I noted on the thread about evidence alteration, the FBI covered up the evidence of Oswlald's pamphlets with the 544 Camp Street address.

But further, Hoover did not go to the office on Saturday anyway, he went to the race track with Tolson. (RP, p. 216) That's how much he wanted to find the real killers. Davey doesn't tell you that though does he? Neither does his hero VB.

2. Predating the Katzenbach memo, Hoover told LBJ, "The thing I am most concerned about is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." (ibid p. 221) Hmm. This is how one finds conspirators?

3. Even former FBI employees admit the Kennedy inquiry was a joke. Men like Harry Whidbee, Laurence Keenan, William Walter, Don Edwards, William Sullivan, Don Adams, they all say the FBI inquiry was either half hearted or worse. Some of them even say that FBI HQ rewrote reports from the field. (ibid, pgs. 220-21)

4. Finally, we have Hoover's own private thoughts. Twice. In the privacy of his office, months into the case, but while it was ongoing, he admitted the case was just a bunch of loose ends. Then while on vacation in the late summer of 1964, an acquaintance of the Director's asked him if Oswald was the actual killer. Hoover replied with: "If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our political system would be disrupted." (ibid p. 222)

Hmm. That does not sound like Oswald did it to me. But it does sound like he knew it was a conspiracy but didn't care to uncover it because it would bring down the government. (Maybe because he now knew the CIA had snookered him on Mexico City?)

Davey, is any of this on your site?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since he has not answered this in almost two days, I will take that as "No, its not on my site Jim."

I didn't think so Davey.

Even though its true and goes to the heart of the case.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be a party-pooper, but I have no doubt the autopsy photos and x-rays would have been admitted into court should the case have gone to trial, and the defense have asked them to be admitted into court. It's possible they would have been withheld from the prosecution should they have asked to have them entered, but this would have nothing to do with their authenticity, and everything to do with the fear they would be overly prejudicial against the defendant.

Stringer said he took the autopsy photos. Ebersole said he took the x-rays. Humes, Boswell, and Finck, said the photos and x-rays showed Kennedy's wounds.

That's all there is to it. Once entered into evidence, of course, the other side would have the opportunity to argue that the materials are not authentic, or have been tainted. We saw this over and over in the O.J. case.

While statements by Stringer regarding the brain photos are indeed problematic, for that matter, they are only problematic now. He saw these photos in the 60's and said nothing about them not being as he remembered, etc. We have every reason to believe then that he would have voiced no objection back then, when it mattered, and when his memory was relatively fresh.

It's a matter of fact, moreover, that any defense attorney using Stringer to argue against the authenticity of the autopsy photos would have to put him on the stand, and that the prosecution would then have the opportunity to question him, whereby Stringer would almost certainly have told the jury, as he told the ARRB, that the back of the head was intact at the beginning of the autopsy, and that the back of the head photos are both authentic and photos taken by him personally.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stringer to The ARRB.

Gunn: Do you see the phrase, next to the last sentence, of the document- I’ll read it to you “To my personal knowledge this is the total amount of film exposed on this occasion?” Do you see that?

Stringer: Yes

Gunn: Is it your understanding that that statement is incorrect?

Stringer: Well, yes. If they say that there were only 16sheets of film out of {sic]11, I’d say that was correct.

Gunn: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78, were you intending to either agree or disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last- next to last sentence?


I told him I disagreed with him, but they said “Sign it”

Gunn: And who is “they” ? Who said “Sign it”?

Stringer: Captain Stover.

Gunn: Was Riebe in the room when you signed this?

Stringer : I don’t remember. His signature is on it, so I guess he was there. But I don’t remember.


Gunn Did it really take that much time to put a ruler into the photo

Stringer: Well, they get it set up and all that. I mean, when they were doing it, they were in hurry and said, “Let’s get it over with.”

Gunn : Did you object to that at all?

Stringer: You don’t object to things.

Gunn: Some people do.

Stringer: Yeah, they do. But they don’t last long.



Were you ever previously under any kind of order or restraint from being able to talk about the autopsy?

Stringer: Yes I was.

Gunn : Can you explain, very briefly, what the nature of the order was or the circumstances that put you under the order?

Stringer: Well, I think it was the morning after the autopsy. We were gathered into the commanding officer’s office of the Naval Medical School, who through the fear go God and everyone and he had a paper that we all had to sign that we would not talk to anyone about what had happened on that particular night.

Gunn: Do you remember the name of the person who gave you the order?

Stringer: John Stover.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now