Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paz Marverde

Who changed the motorcade route?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I have LIfton on ignore, . So i only see what he says when someone else posts it, 

Unfortunately Rich reposted one of his posts.  So I had to read it.  

Let me warn him, because he is a pro at trying to smear the reputations of those who disagree with him, (it started way back with Garrison.)

I do not tell whoppers. And I warned you about this before. I have never written anything factual I did not have a source for.  And unless you have been asleep for about five years, I have been quoting the first Secret Service interview with Marina for a very long time. It was made by Charles Kunkel within days of the assassination.  And I have used it in my books,  Now, if you do not have it, fine.  But apparently you are not even aware that Weisberg used it liberally in Whitewash 2. Incredible.

If you turn to page 16 of that book you will see the questioning of Marina on this handgun issue. Its right there in Black and White.

Lifton apparently likes others doing his research for him.

And if he is unaware of this interview, buys into Marina as a witness, buys the Nixon episode, and uses the late Gary Mack as a source on the rifle, well I mean :help

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

Sorry.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

DVP, that was effectively countered days ago.

We proved that you were cherry picking the one time out of four entries that the DMN mentioned the dogleg, which IMO shows that you either did not know the evidence or you were deliberately misrepresenting it.

And WHY do you continue to totally ignore the OTHER Dallas paper (the Times Herald) which shows the "dogleg" (in both text and map forms) in TWO of its papers---Nov. 19 and again on Nov. 21?

So that's THREE separate newspaper editions showing the Elm turn, not just one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Oswald never ordered a rifle or pistol.  This is well documented and explained on other threads, by David Josephs in particular among others.

If Marina was a spy she failed. No evidence ever of a US contact.  She and her daughters have assimilated well.  Good for them, a better life than they would have had in the USSR.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5&sp=2&qs=AS&pq=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&sc=8-24&cvid=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5

The whole Nixon thing was created as disinformation by Cord Meyer.  (This came to me in a peyote dream).

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald never ordered a rifle or pistol.  This is well documented and explained on other threads, by David Josephs in particular among others.

If Marina was a spy she failed. No evidence ever of a US contact.  She and her daughters have assimilated well.  Good for them, a better life than they would have had in the USSR.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5&sp=2&qs=AS&pq=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&sc=8-24&cvid=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5

The whole Nixon thing was created as disinformation by Cord Meyer.  (This came to me in a peyote dream).

Peyote dream - gotta love that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald never ordered a rifle or pistol.  This is well documented and explained on other threads, by David Josephs in particular among others.

If Marina was a spy she failed. No evidence ever of a US contact.  She and her daughters have assimilated well.  Good for them, a better life than they would have had in the USSR.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5&sp=2&qs=AS&pq=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&sc=8-24&cvid=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5

The whole Nixon thing was created as disinformation by Cord Meyer.  (This came to me in a peyote dream).

Ron:

The evidence is crystal clear that Oswald ordered a rifle (under the name A. Hidell) to his PO Box, the order being dated 3/12/63.  He also ordered a pistol (in mid-January 1963; the transaction with the Rose Company, in Los Angeles).  Re the rifle: Marina testified that he possessed a rifle, and she certainly talked to me about it, too. (Do you think she made all of that up?) Furthermore, DeMohrenshieldt describes how, when visiting the Oswald apartment, Marina pointed to the rifle--standing upright in the closet-- and said (words to this effect): "We hardly have enough money to eat, and my foolish husband ordered a rifle."

Are you aware of this evidence?  (Why do you ignore it?)

What bothers me is that people who are interested in this case, and who follow this thread, will follow the nonsense of DiEugenio rather than what is plainly shown in the historical record. 

So it is in that spirit that I ask the following questions:

Please explain why you do not believe, contrary to the documentary evidence, that Oswald ordered a rifle.

Separately: Please explain why you do not believe, contrary to the record, that he "possessed" a rifle (i.e., that Marina saw him with it).

And finally, and throwing this into the mix "for good measure," please do explain the basis for the assertion in your post that "the whole Nixon thing was created as disinformation by Cord Meyer." 

Why do you not understand that Oswald did the various provocative things he did under the guidance of a third party (a "handler") and instead come up with these assorted explanations that are without any evidentiary foundation?

DSL

6/9/18 - 7:45 PM PDT

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have LIfton on ignore, . So i only see what he says when someone else posts it, 

Unfortunately Rich reposted one of his posts.  So I had to read it.  

Let me warn him, because he is a pro at trying to smear the reputations of those who disagree with him, (it started way back with Garrison.)

I do not tell whoppers. And I warned you about this before. I have never written anything factual I did not have a source for.  And unless you have been asleep for about five years, I have been quoting the first Secret Service interview with Marina for a very long time. It was made by Charles Kunkel within days of the assassination.  And I have used it in my books,  Now, if you do not have it, fine.  But apparently you are not even aware that Weisberg used it liberally in Whitewash 2. Incredible.

If you turn to page 16 of that book you will see the questioning of Marina on this handgun issue. Its right there in Black and White.

Lifton apparently likes others doing his research for him.

And if he is unaware of this interview, buys into Marina as a witness, buys the Nixon episode, and uses the late Gary Mack as a source on the rifle, well I mean :help

Jim DiEugenio:

You're repeating your usual nonsense.

When first questioned by the two SS agents (Charles Kunkel and Mike Howard) she told falsehoods in a futile effort to protect her husband. But then, within days (or a few weeks at most), she in effect threw in the towel and told the truth. All this is explained, quite clearly, by Marina herself, when she testified. (That's right. . .she admitted she lied, admitted to it, under oath, to Chief Justice Warren, and then said that she would not do that again--that henceforth, she would tell the truth.  And guess what: She did)

So it is not Marina, but it is you who is spreading nonsense on this forum, and not paying proper attention to the historical record.

And just for the record, and referring to that Secret Service document, which is a transcript of Marina's very first interview with the Secret Service at the Inn of the Six Flags in Dallas. . .: FYI: It was I who first obtained the transcripts of the Executive Sessions of the Warren Commission, plus that specific Secret Service Report to which you refer (CD 344, if memory serves), and privately published that material (in 1968, approx) as "Document Addendum to the Warren Report," selling several hundred copies to all the major researchers (at the time) and to many libraries. Yes, DiEug, some decades before you got involved in this case, I privately published the very document to which you are referring, and distributed it widely to those who were researching the JFK case.

And yes, Jim: You do tell whoppers.  That's your trademark, in fact. 

For example: Remember the one that you told on Black Ops radio?. That's when you suggested that the reason there were "two coffins" in this case, was that the naval ambulance which met the Kennedy party at Andrews Air Force Base, and left there with the Dallas coffin, and Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy,  stopped en route to Bethesda Naval Hospital?  (That's Whopper #1. Spreading nonsensical confusion, for no particular reason, other than to muddy the waters).

Here's another (call it Whopper #2): How about your statements, on Black Ops radio, that the reason Paul O'Connor stated that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, was that he was confused by the news coverage of the Vietnam War, where nightly broadcasts sometimes showed U.S. casualties, in body bags.  Oh sure, Jim. . So that's why O'Connor remembered the president's body as being delivered to Bethesda in a body bag, inside a shipping casket? Because he watched too much TV?  (Perhaps you don't know this. . .but O'Connor was a medic in Vietnam. So perhaps you will now cite that as an "explanation" for his account?  That he perhaps confused his battlefield experiences with what occurred on the night of 11/22/63 at Bethesda?)  Really: Is that your idea of proper analysis and debate?

Pardon my wording. . I'm trying to be polite. Yes, your "warning" notwithstanding, these are whoppers--totally false and irresponsible statements, in fact.  You own them, and they're "yours"--along with a lot of the other bluster that you disseminate.

DSL

6/9/18 - 8 PM PDT

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Ron:

The evidence is crystal clear that Oswald ordered a rifle (under the name A. Hidell) to his PO Box, the order being dated 3/12/63.  He also ordered a pistol (in mid-January 1963; the transaction with the Rose Company, in Los Angeles).  Re the rifle: Marina testified that he possessed a rifle, and she certainly talked to me about it, too. (Do you think she made all of that up?) Furthermore, DeMohrenshieldt describes how, when visiting the Oswald apartment, Marina pointed to the rifle--standing upright in the closet-- and said (words to this effect): "We hardly have enough money to eat, and my foolish husband ordered a rifle."

Are you aware of this evidence?  (Why do you ignore it?)

What bothers me is that people who are interested in this case, and who follow this thread, will follow the nonsense of DiEugenio rather than what is plainly shown in the historical record. 

So it is in that spirit that I ask the following questions:

Please explain why you do not believe, contrary to the documentary evidence, that Oswald ordered a rifle.

Separately: Please explain why you do not believe, contrary to the record, that he "possessed" a rifle (i.e., that Marina saw him with it).

And finally, and throwing this into the mix "for good measure," please do explain the basis for the assertion in your post that "the whole Nixon thing was created as disinformation by Cord Meyer." 

Why do you not understand that Oswald did the various provocative things he did under the guidance of a third party (a "handler") and instead come up with these assorted explanations that are without any evidentiary foundation?

DSL

6/9/18 - 7:45 PM PDT

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald never ordered a rifle or pistol.  This is well documented and explained on other threads, by David Josephs in particular among others.

If Marina was a spy she failed. No evidence ever of a US contact.  She and her daughters have assimilated well.  Good for them, a better life than they would have had in the USSR.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5&sp=2&qs=AS&pq=beatles+back+in+the+ussr&sc=8-24&cvid=69f51bd3fd2c45b4beba489bdfed0ea5

The whole Nixon thing was created as disinformation by Cord Meyer.  (This came to me in a peyote dream).

Sorry, I got distracted.  What does any of this have to do with the motorcade route?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Jim DiEugenio:

You're repeating your usual nonsense.

When first questioned by the two SS agents (Charles Kunkel and Mike Howard) she told falsehoods in a futile effort to protect her husband. But then, within days (or a few weeks at most), she in effect threw in the towel and told the truth. All this is explained, quite clearly, by Marina herself, when she testified. (That's right. . .she admitted she lied, admitted to it, under oath, to Chief Justice Warren, and then said that she would not do that again--that henceforth, she would tell the truth.  And guess what: She did)

So it is not Marina, but it is you who is spreading nonsense on this forum, and not paying proper attention to the historical record.

And just for the record, and referring to that Secret Service document, which is a transcript of Marina's very first interview with the Secret Service at the Inn of the Six Flags in Dallas. . .: FYI: It was I who first obtained the transcripts of the Executive Sessions of the Warren Commission, plus that specific Secret Service Report to which you refer (CD 344, if memory serves), and privately published that material (in 1968, approx) as "Document Addendum to the Warren Report," selling several hundred copies to all the major researchers (at the time) and to many libraries. Yes, DiEug, some decades before you got involved in this case, I privately published the very document to which you are referring, and distributed it widely to those who were researching the JFK case.

And yes, Jim: You do tell whoppers.  That's your trademark, in fact. 

For example: Remember the one that you told on Black Ops radio?. That's when you suggested that the reason there were "two coffins" in this case, was that the naval ambulance which met the Kennedy party at Andrews Air Force Base, and left there with the Dallas coffin, and Jacqueline and Robert Kennedy,  stopped en route to Bethesda Naval Hospital?  (That's Whopper #1. Spreading nonsensical confusion, for no particular reason, other than to muddy the waters).

Here's another (call it Whopper #2): How about your statements, on Black Ops radio, that the reason Paul O'Connor stated that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda in a body bag, was that he was confused by the news coverage of the Vietnam War, where nightly broadcasts sometimes showed U.S. casualties, in body bags.  Oh sure, Jim. . So that's why O'Connor remembered the president's body as being delivered to Bethesda in a body bag, inside a shipping casket? Because he watched too much TV?  (Perhaps you don't know this. . .but O'Connor was a medic in Vietnam. So perhaps you will now cite that as an "explanation" for his account?  That he perhaps confused his battlefield experiences with what occurred on the night of 11/22/63 at Bethesda?)  Really: Is that your idea of proper analysis and debate?

Pardon my wording. . I'm trying to be polite. Yes, your "warning" notwithstanding, these are whoppers--totally false and irresponsible statements, in fact.  You own them, and they're "yours"--along with a lot of the other bluster that you disseminate.

DSL

6/9/18 - 8 PM PDT

Knowing that both David S. Lifton AND James DiEugenio couldn't be more WRONG and more RIDICULOUS when it comes to almost every theory they each have about the JFK case, I can't help but think of three words when I see David and Jimmy lambasting each other in their respective posts here at EF ----

1. Pot.

2. Kettle.

3. Irony.

(Ya gotta love it.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And WHY do you continue to totally ignore the OTHER Dallas paper (the Times Herald) which shows the "dogleg" (in both text and map forms) in TWO of its papers---Nov. 19 and again on Nov. 21?

So that's THREE separate newspaper editions showing the Elm turn, not just one.

David,

The point I keep trying to get across is this...if Oswald was a regular Joe who had more than a few screws loose and wanted to kill the President, using the newspapers to pin-down the parade route would be confusing if not unreliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

David (L):

Thank you for your explanations of Lee's deceptive behaviour and of the impact it had on Marina. Your first-hand, direct encounters with Marina is something which cannot be substituted with any amount of reading. 

I cannot wait for the Final Charade to be published. I certainly do not need to remind you, however, with the amount of detailed knowledge which you have, it is important that it gets to the public.

In the meantime, notwithstanding how funny it may sound to many people, I will continue analysing blurred images with the hope to show Lee outside...

Addendum: And in case that no one has thanked you for the therapeutic coming out you provided to Marina, I thank you.

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, John Butler said:

David Lifton,

I don't want to move this discussion off topic but, could you take the time to make a comment on whether you would consider Marina Oswald a soviet spy.  That thought is mentioned from time to time with little or no evidence to back it up except her personal history.

thanks,

Short answer: No, I don't.  

On the subject of "who was who's spy," you may be aware that it was Marina's opinion, after she married Oswald (4/30/61), that (she came to believe)  he was a spy for the U.S. She was questioned on this topic when she appeared before the House Select Committee (See HSCA Vol 2, p. 219).  

Also (and in connection with certain unusual (in not exceptional) expedited treatment that he received in connection with his June 1962 return to the U.S.),  I believe that can be explained by the fact that, when he went to the USSR, he had a US intelligence assignment (CIA denials notwithstanding); that his prolonged stay in the USSR was not part of the original plan, and that there were important people back in the U.S. who wanted to see him back in the US as soon as possible.  But no. . I don't think Marina had any secret agenda. It was Lee who had the intelligence connection(s)--and who, on one occasion or another, had a "secret agenda."

DSL

6/9/2018 - 11:50 PM PDT

 

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Lifton cannot handle any information that counters his body snatching and body alteration theory.  Especially if it comes from the critics's side. Take a look at what he did to Cyril Wecht in his book.

Now he says he knows about and had the Kunkel interview.  In other words he knew  what Marina said about the pistol, about Mexico City and the rifle a long time ago. But he said what I said about that was a "whopper".  This, more than anything else, indicates two things.

1.) He is willing to ignore the first statements made.  And to say I told a "whopper" about it when he knew it was true.

2.) He will do this to fit the thematic outline of his book.  This is fine if one is writing plays or novels.  Its not fine in non fiction.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For those who want to see what a real whopper is, please read the manuscript below as written by the late Roger Feinman.  Its a detailed analysis of BE.  

Pay special attention to  how Lifton  got a transcript he needed from Roger, that will show you the kind of person he really is.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Feinman/Feinmanbio.html

This, in part, is where I got that information which LIfton cannot deal with.The other part I got from Ralph Martin's book on John Kennedy.  Again, its right there in Black and White.

Lifton does not like it so he immediately thinks of  Burger King.

As I have said before, if one does not have anything to say, then one should just read. That is how one learns.

Edited by James DiEugenio

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

×