Jump to content
The Education Forum
François Carlier

A question to David Lifton

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I couldn't disagree more strongly, W. Niederhut.

The Warren Commission (and Vince Bugliosi) actually had something that conspiracy theorists can only dream about having ---- that is: HARD EVIDENCE to work with—e.g., Oswald's guns, bullets and fragments and shell casings from Oswald's guns, Oswald's lies, the Tippit murder witnesses, Oswald's unusual actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, etc.

Whereas CTers have nothing that even comes close to matching the Lone Assassin/Oswald evidence. And the likely reason for that is --- No such hard "conspiracy" evidence exists. And never did.

 

    Well, sir, the "hard evidence" in those two massive works of fiction that you describe is, certainly, an illusion-- but I will not waste more time enumerating the well-documented critiques published by Sylvia Meagher, James DiEugenio, and the true experts.

    The "lone nut in the TSBD" narrative is easily debunked by the "hard evidence," and by basic Newtonian physics.  The only thing that really interests me about the sham Warren Commission "investigation" is the light that it sheds on our Deep State history, and on the ability of our Deep State (and the affiliated mass media) to create and perpetuate public myths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

the "hard evidence" in those two massive works of fiction that you describe is, certainly, an illusion--

You think ALL of the physical ("hard") evidence----guns, bullets, shells, prints, paper bag----is "an illusion"?

Are Oswald's actions also an "illusion" created by the WC and/or Bugliosi?

Get real.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You think ALL of the physical ("hard") evidence----guns, bullets, shells, prints, paper bag----is "an illusion"?

Are Oswald's actions also an "illusion" created by the WC and/or Bugliosi?

Get real.

     Frankly, from what I have read, I don't believe Oswald even fired a single shot on 11/22/63.  He had no gun powder residue on his face, and his prints weren't on the Carcano (until after his murder.)  He was also seen by multiple witnesses in areas of the lower TSBD floors inconsistent with being in the 6th floor "sniper's nest."

  I have NO doubt, whatsoever, that the fatal head shot was fired from the grassy knoll area, causing a right frontal entry wound, and an occipital exit wound.  So, it wasn't fired from the TSBD.

  Oswald was a patsy, as he insisted, who had been an FBI informant posing as a pro-Castro Marxist in New Orleans and Dallas.  His Dallas area contacts included CIA-affiliated assets like George De Mohrenschildt, David Atlee Phillips, (aka Maurice Bishop) and Ruth Paine (who got him the job at the TSBD in October of '63.)

  As nearly as I can tell,  Oswald was a pawn in a much larger black op who thought he was going to be flown out of Red Bird Airport on 11/22/63.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Frankly, from what I have read...

I think you need to stop reading all the pro-conspiracy crap.

Not a single thing you mentioned in your last post has been proven to be true. Not even close.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I think you need to stop reading all the pro-conspiracy crap.

Not a single thing you mentioned in your last post has been proven to be true. Not even close.

    My advice is that you carefully study all of the well-documented, highly-detailed evidence in Mr. DiEugenio's latest opus on The JFK Assassination, which carefully critiques Bugliosi's big book of JFK assassination baloney.

  For a detailed critique of the Warren Commission Report, study Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Von Pein, all you do is deny everything, every piece of evidence that doesn't fit the official Warren Commission theory, and defend

the transparently phony Warren Report. Your role is that of a professional Conspiracy Denier. It's entirely predictable, and your posts

could have been written in late 1964. In case you haven't noticed, this is 2018, and a lot of independent

research has been done, and many documents and witness statements have come out that weren't

public back then, as well as abundant new evidence.  I don't know why people bother arguing

with you here. Your role seems to be to take up time and space by reiterating your

few simple points and attacking others' arguments through rote denial and to deflect any

genuine questioning and investigation.  You seem to spend many hours each day

at this task. The only interesting question is, Who is paying you?

Edited by Joseph McBride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph,

You're entitled to your opinion about the JFK assassination....and so am I. If you want to think the Warren Commission's 10-month probe was nothing but a "transparently phony" investigation, you're free to believe that if you want to. But that doesn't mean I have to swallow such a notion too----and I certainly don't. Believing that the Commission had a hidden agenda to frame Oswald as the lone killer and to cover-up any and all evidence of a conspiracy is a belief that, in my opinion, is a patently silly one.

When you've got to accuse so many people in Officialdom of lying and covering up and hiding the truth, etc., I think it's time to re-think your position. But it seems that most of the CTers I've talked to over the years don't think it's unreasonable at all to believe that a whole bunch of people connected with so many different organizations (such as the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the Clark Panel, the DPD, the FBI, and the Secret Service, among others) all decided to jump on board the "Let's Frame An Innocent Lee Harvey Oswald As The Sole Assassin" train. But, to me, that scenario is simply ridiculous (not to mention virtually impossible to pull off, especially considering all the evidence that exists against Oswald in this double-murder case). I'm supposed to actually believe that ALL of the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases is fake, phony, and manufactured? (Come now, my good man. Let's be sensible here.)

And, Joseph, do you truly think that a person who has been interested in President Kennedy's murder for over 35 years (like myself) couldn't possibly believe in Oswald's lone guilt without also being on the payroll of one of the alphabet agencies (or any agency)? Is that why I was treated to your closing "Who is paying you?" salvo in your last post? Even though I don't agree with any of your theories in the Kennedy/Tippit case, your Internet posts normally rise above the level of such juvenile inquiries.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

[…]
For the simple reason that the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964.  Anybody who says it was does not know the case or has an axe to grind about a football field long e.g. McAdams with that phony chart.

[…]

This has to be one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read on this forum ! I don't understand why even James DiEugenio would say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

[…]
Oswald was a patsy, as he insisted, who had been an FBI informant posing as a pro-Castro Marxist in New Orleans and Dallas.  His Dallas area contacts included CIA-affiliated assets like George De Mohrenschildt, David Atlee Phillips, (aka Maurice Bishop) and Ruth Paine (who got him the job at the TSBD in October of '63.)

[…]

Ruth Paine ? Are you serious ? Do you really pause to consider before writing your posts ? Have you no shame to accuse a fine lady ? Whenever someone goes so far as to include Ruth Paine in their conspiracy theory, I know that they are well beyond the point where you could have a healthy debate with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Whenever someone goes so far as to include Ruth Paine in their conspiracy theory, I know that they are well beyond the point where you could have a healthy debate with them.

Then you can forget about having a healthy debate with Jim DiEugenio, because James has been accusing Ruth of being an evil conspirator for years now---as evidenced by Jim's outrageous allegations aimed at Mrs. Paine at the webpage below (allegations that don't have a stitch of evidence to back them up, except in Jim's imagination)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

A sample....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID [IN 2013]:

I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo?

None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening.

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.

[End 2013 Quotes.]

In addition to Jim D., I've noticed a trend over the last several years of CTers slinging their arrows at Ruth Paine (with no actual evidence at all to support their allegations, naturally). You should see some of the hostile and downright vile comments aimed at Ruth that I get on some of my Paine-related videos on my YouTube channel. Some of the comments contain such vulgar language that I feel compelled to delete them due to their disgusting and hateful content. It's pathetic.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

David Von Pein, all you do is deny everything, every piece of evidence that doesn't fit the official Warren Commission theory, and defend

the transparently phony Warren Report. Your role is that of a professional Conspiracy Denier. It's entirely predictable, and your posts

could have been written in late 1964. In case you haven't noticed, this is 2018, and a lot of independent

research has been done, and many documents and witness statements have come out that weren't

public back then, as well as abundant new evidence.  I don't know why people bother arguing

with you here. Your role seems to be to take up time and space by reiterating your

few simple points and attacking others' arguments through rote denial and to deflect any

genuine questioning and investigation.  You seem to spend many hours each day

at this task. The only interesting question is, Who is paying you?

Joseph, it's all an act.

David Von Pein and Dale K. Myers are brutally efficient debunkers of the SBT.

Von Pein has observed that only "a little bit" of JFK's jacket was elevated in this photo taken on Elm St.

15c.%2BCroft%2BPhoto%2BShowing%2BJFK%27s%2BCar%2BOn%2BElm%2BStreet.jpg

Von Pein's observation is spot on!  The bullet defect in JFK's jacket is 4.125 inches below the collar; the one in the shirt is 4 inches even.

The jacket was bunched up 1/8 inch = "a little bit."

The location of the holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound, as per Von Pein's admission.

Dale K. Myers is a man of even fewer words -- this shows JFK's clothing as required by any T1 back wound.  Note the top of the jacket collar a good inch up into the hairline.

Anyone who claims that JFK's jacket was hiked up into his hairline on Elm St. is flat out prevaricating.

SBT%202_zpsffsko8jk.jpg't

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when you get into a silly back and forth with these guys.

I never said anything more valid than there was no inquiry in 1963-64.  And I never say anything on this case without back up.

If you read The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, you will see that statement is based  on my talks with the ten year veteran of the FBI Bill Turner.  He understood how FBI inquiries are conducted and he outlined the three step process to me: collection of all relevant leads, the following of the leads to their ultimate end, the collation of all the information into a non conclusive report. 

Bill said that in the JFK case, it was obvious to him that step 2 was not done.  In fact, the inquiry was so lacking in that part that he concluded that the fix had to be in from the beginning.  Because FBI agents just do not act like that.  But if that crucial step was neutered then step 3 was compromised.  Which is what he said happened.  But it was even worse, because even though step two was dodged, this report was conclusive.  BTW, this is what the WC objected to also and its something Bugliosi tries to cover up.

 Please, when did the FBI investigate David Ferrie? Can anyone keep a straight face reading an FBI report that deals with MC in three pages?  I mean David Josephs is just getting warmed up in three pages. And he is not done for 30 more at least.With all this new info on that aspect that neither FC nor DVP have read, I mean three pages is just sick.  Or what about what Don Adams, another veteran FBI agent said. When he was stationed in Dallas, he went down to a screening room and watched the Z film for the first time.  When he left he told the two guys with him, "Well, he was obviously hit from two directions."  They replied with words to the effect:  You think we do not know that?  But that is not what Hoover and Tolson want to hear.  

OK, so its not me.  Its guys in the FBI who knew this.  And so did Hoover. For instance he wrote in a memo that the CIA had sold him a snow job on Oswald in MC.  As he said in the late summer of 1964 when asked by the son of a friend, he could not tell him what really happened in the JFK case as it could endanger our political system.

As they say, that is from the horses's mouth.  Vince deliberately avoided all this to sell his flatulent and mendacious book.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

One wonders then... what was his plan?  According to the WCR there was little advance planning... but there had to be some planning involved... 

https://kennedysandking.com/content/oswald-on-november-22-1963

kinda looks like they had a suspect and made the evidence fit... after the fact...but you decide....

(which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread that I started).

Edited by François Carlier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

(which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread that I started).

Francois,  you missed it.

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Vince deliberately avoided all this to sell his flatulent and mendacious book.

That is the point.

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

×
×
  • Create New...