Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

To clarify, if he had anything, it may have been a transistor radio.

Do you have any other ideas what it could have been?

I ask because you said "if anything".  Certainly it was something correct? So other than a radio, what else do you think it could have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So, you agree in a perfect world it would have been disclosed.

Why do you feel that?  

 If it is imperfect and not provided, doesn't that automatically make it imperfect and inherently wrong regardless of the intention? 

A perfect world is right and where we want to be correct?  Especially when talking about whether someone or group of people were murders?

Well, I certainly don't expect the world to be perfect. I think they did the best they could do and assumed that many facts (such as CIA plots) would eventually become known. I am ok with that and understand the reasons behind it. But I think the WC essentially got it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Do you have any other ideas what it could have been?

I ask because you said "if anything".  Certainly it was something correct? So other than a radio, what else do you think it could have been?

No, I haven't given it any thought and I don't know what it could have been for sure. But it could have been a transistor radio. If I thought there was any more available information on UM and DCM I might consider doing an article. But I think the information is pretty limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Indeed, one of the theories is that two or more of these were shooting at JFK in Dallas on November 23rd,

The assassination was on Nov. 22nd, Lance. Better edit your post before a CTer pounces all over you. :)

 

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

He [Lance P.; aka "Mr. Running Suit"] does not even acknowledge that the DPD did not ever consider LHO a suspect in the Walker shooting the entire time they investigated the case.

How could they? They had nothing but a single bullet in (physical) evidence. They had nothing else solid to go on when the crime originally occurred in April '63. So, tell us Jim, HOW on Earth COULD the DPD have possibly figured out that Mr. Lee H. Oswald was the person who shot at Edwin A. Walker? Tea leaves perhaps?

Get real, Jimmy.

Share this post


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

The assassination was on Nov. 22nd, Lance. Better edit your post before a CTer pounces all over you. :)

 

Thanks - I don't know why, but I have a mental block on that.  I can't tell you how many posts I've had to edit because I got the days mixed up.

Share this post


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

Thanks for proving my point.

You have nothing of any substance to say on this case at all.

So why not go back to Ufology?

Do you seriously not see the humor in all this?  The extent to which you allow someone like me to get under skin is a hoot to me and probably to many others.  What I try to contribute is logic and common sense, which are anathema to conspiracy theorists.  The Conspiracy Game is to keep going deeper down the rabbit hole, focusing on ever-finer minutiae with an ever-more-powerful microscope until the uninitiated finally become so overwhelmed and bewildered that they throw up their hands and scream "OK, I don't know what it was all about but there HAD to have been a conspiracy of some sort!"  When logic and common sense are allowed back into the discussion, the clouds lift and they say (or at least some of them do) "Well, maybe not."

Share this post


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

The fact that the WC never explored this [very silly "umbrella"] angle at all, at least as far as I know, tells you what they were doing.  Not much.

Incredible! A WC investigation that was probably the most thorough and detailed in the history of murder investigations is considered to be "Not much" by the Jim DiEugenios of the world.

Un-freaking-believable!

---------------------------------------

"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonus Quote (one of my favorites)....

"If there is a suspicious fire, the [conspiracy-happy] kooks would investigate the firemen who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of gasoline." -- Bud [an LNer who posts on the Usenet newsgroups]; November 22, 2007

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I've been an avid golfer for 55 years...

Dammit, Lance! You're a golfer. I was hoping you were a baseball player (like I used to be as a youth). If you and I had that "baseball connection" too, then more people could start claiming that "Lance is really DVP in disguise". That's a fun "alias" game that the conspiracy theorists like to play quite often.

(Did you ever play first base, Lance?)

1973-DVP-Baseball-Card.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I will go further. I do not even think the WC acknowledged that whole TUM and DPM.  At least I have never seen any evidence they did.

And that is pretty awful since their activities are so apparent and obvious if yo study the photos.

Actually its kind of incredible that they missed it.

 

BTW DVP I hope you noticed my complaint above. When you make like you are quoting me, then quote me.  Don't alter my words with your injections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey, you cannot be serious about the DPD and the Walker shooting.

You know they had a witness, right? Kirk Coleman.  And the reason you want to dismiss him is that he said there were two people in on the attack.  And they both left in two separate cars, one was a Ford and one a Chevy.  He then described the color of the cars.  Right there, since you are stuck with the WR, that eliminates LHO.  He did not have a car and did not drive.

Later,  when the FBI entered the case, they showed him pics of Oswald and he said no it was not him.  But further, he said he had never seen someone who looked like LHO in the area. Robert Surrey said he had seen two men casing Walker's home two nights before and they left in a Ford.

The suspect the DPD focused on was Duff.

BTW, the FBI was really impressed with Coleman.  They wanted to pursue the case with him because of his detailed memory.  But since it led away from Oswald Hoover nixed it.

Now if its the wrong bullet and the eyewitness says no it isn't him, and the suspects both drive in cars that Oswald never was seen in, then yes there were genuine leads.  But they did not go toward LHO.  IMO, the Walker case could have been solved and the two agents working it thought they could do it.  They just met a brick wall since the powers that be did not like what they were doing.  BTW, Coleman was not called before the WC.  (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, 56-58)

Do you think you and Payette can figure out why he was not called?  You should be able to figure it out from the info above.  Think really hard.   

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Are you allowed to alter someone's quote when you act as if you are quoting that person?

DVP did that to me twice above.

I did no "altering" at all. I added my own comments and clarifications within brackets --- [  ] --- which is the proper way to do it within a verbatim quote.

(Jim likes to stomp his feet and whine, doesn't he? Geesh.)

Share this post


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

Don't alter my words with your injections.

Interjections are needed in many cases. Such as when the quoted word is "he". After many pages have gone by, how is anyone supposed to know who "he" is. Hence, it's necessary to add the person's name [in brackets, of course] for clarification.

An interjection [within brackets] does not equate at all to "altering" somebody's quote. You just like to gripe is all.

Share this post


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

Davey, you cannot be serious about the DPD and the Walker shooting.

And YOU cannot possibly be serious when you try to defend Oswald for still another crime he committed in 1963---the Walker shooting. Can you, Jim?

Yes, amazingly, you are indeed serious, despite Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1---in Oswald's own [Russian] handwriting---staring you in the face (below).

Tell me, Jimmy, who was it who faked all that Russian writing that we find in CE1? Any idea?....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0013a.htm

Or, alternatively, if you actually think that CE1 HASN'T been "faked" (gasp! that'd be incredible, wouldn't it?!), then what do you think Oswald was referring to when he said all those things he said in that note to Marina---such as "If I am alive and taken prisoner", etc.?

Are those the kind of things that an INNOCENT person would write to his wife?

 

Edited by David Von Pein

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

×