I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[David Von Pein]

Also See:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

[James DiEugenio]

Davey, you never answered my question.

 

Why did Kirk Coleman never appear to testify before the Warren Commission?

[François Carlier]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 4:15 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Carlier can you really buy this?

This is what I am saying.

 

WOW !
Mister DiEugenio, you have just admitted that you believe that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza that day.
Thank you for your honesty.
Now, I have one question : were all those three shots fired from the back of JFK or was one or more fired from the front (presumable the grassy knoll) ?
But more to the point, how do you account for the fact that other conspiracy theorists claim that there were more than three shots fired that day ?
You know very well that most of your fellow conspiracy advocates claim that four shots were fired, and some even say that up to 8 shots were fired (Robert Groden comes to mind). A few conspiracy advocates even suggest that there were more…
How can that be ?
How is it that while you know that only three shots were fired, some people claim that more than twice that number were actually fired ?
Are they dumb ? Are they totally ignorant ? Are they disinformation agents ?
Where do they take those numbers from ? Out of thin air ? In the fourth dimension ?
And if they can be that wrong about the number of shots, how could we give any credence to whatever else they may claim ?
And what can we conclude about their capacity as researchers ?
Or maybe you are wrong. There were actually seven shots and you admit only to three of them. Maybe you are part of the cover-up ?
Those are very important questions. I mean, you admit it, don't you ?
I would love to have your honest opinion on that.
Thanks in advance.

Edited October 12, 2018 by François Carlier

[François Carlier]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.   

 

Well, let me give you my input on that.
When I was in the process of writing my book on the Kennedy assassination, I conducted several interviews. I remember when I spent one day at a police station (in France). I even spent some time with detectives who investigate crimes or bank robberies, or things of the kind. They even invited me to visit the department where they take mugshots and fingerprints. It was very interesting. What they told me about witnesses really had an impact on me.
They explained to me that whenever they go to a crime scene, people don't remember the same things. And the discrepancies can sometimes be huge ! For example, after a bank robbery, some witnesses don't even remember the number of thugs (it can vary greatly), even from one to three ! That's impressive ! Some will say the guy had a beard. Some will say he was clean shaven. Some will say he had a hat. Some will say he didn't. Some will say they took a car to flee the scene. Some will say they don't know. Some will say they just ran away.
And the police come to ask questions just a few minutes or hours later, or the very same day, or the day after. It's close to the event. But people recall things differently.
The same applies with car crashes. I have compiled science magazine articles for a book on pseudoscience. They have conducted a lot of experiments. People close to the car accident and who saw it before their own eyes won't remember the same event… They'll give different accounts.
Or, for example, scientists will show a film to an audience and then ask written questions about the film that people have just seen minutes ago. That is very interesting. Some people don't remember the things that they have just seen, and some people actually remember things that they didn't even see !
That’s true. Scientific literature (and books, such as the very fine science books published by Prometheus Books) is full of such experiments. You should know that.
That's why I am advising you to be very cautious.
Giving us a name of a so-called "witness" to the Walker shooting is fine, but it can in no way prove your point. Far from it. I hope that you are aware of it.

[François Carlier]

I enjoy reading posts on this thread. It is interesting.
I must say that I have great admiration for Lance Payette. I LOVE his posts. What a marvelous display of common sense, logic, honesty, wit and eloquence ! He can express with words ideas and concepts that I have in my mind but am unable to put in writing. Whenever I read his posts I'm like : "OK, let's stand back now. With such good posts by him, nobody needs my lame interventions any more. I'd better step aside and stop writing".
For years I have been saying that David Von Pein was the very best. Well, I'm beginning to think that Lance Payette is in his league ! 😉
Add to them W. Tracy Parnell, who is very good, too.
This forum definitely has good-quality, intelligent, factual, high-level posts to offer. That's great !
I enjoy that a lot !
People who visit this forum will appreciate that a lot.
Thank you, Sirs !
Keep up the good work !

Edited October 12, 2018 by François Carlier

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Mister DiEugenio, you have just admitted that you believe that only three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza that day.
Thank you for your honesty.

Francois,

Jim DiEugenio doesn't think that just three shots were fired. There's no way he believes that. He, like all CTers, thinks that at least 4 shots were fired (probably even five or six, or maybe more). He was merely attempting (lamely) to explain what he thinks the Warren Commission was boxed into accepting in 1964, based on James Tague's testimony --- as if Tague's testimony was the BE-ALL & END-ALL of the whole case, which it is not, of course, because many witnesses were wrong on some things regarding the "timeline" of the shooting. But Jim likes Tague's statements about the timeline, therefore (per Jimmy) Tague CANNOT BE MISTAKEN about ANYTHING.

But, as usual, Jim has once again totally ignored Page 117 of the Warren Report, in which the WC specifically says this about James T. Tague....

"Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague's testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities. The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."

I wonder how many more things Mr. DiEugenio can ignore (or mangle) when it comes to page number 117 of the Warren Commission's Final Report? Let's just wait and see.

Edited October 12, 2018 by David Von Pein

[François Carlier]

31 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Francois,

Jim DiEugenio doesn't think that just three shots were fired. There's no way he believes that. He, like all CTers, thinks that at least 4 shots were fired (probably even five or six, or maybe more). He was merely attempting (lamely) to explain what he thinks the Warren Commission was boxed into accepting in 1964, based on James Tague's testimony --- as if Tague's testimony was the BE-ALL & END-ALL of the whole case, which it is not, of course, because many witnesses were wrong on some things regarding the "timeline" of the shooting. But Jim likes Tague's statements about the timeline, therefore (per Jimmy) Tague CANNOT BE MISTAKEN about ANYTHING.

But, as usual, Jim has once again totally ignored Page 117 of the Warren Report, in which the WC specifically says this about James T. Tague....

"Since he did not observe any of the shots striking the President, Tague's testimony that the second shot, rather than the third, caused the scratch on his cheek, does not assist in limiting the possibilities. The wide range of possibilities and the existence of conflicting testimony, when coupled with the impossibility of scientific verification, precludes a conclusive finding by the Commission as to which shot missed."

I wonder how many more things Mr. DiEugenio can ignore (or mangle) when it comes to page number 117 of the Warren Commission's Final Report? Let's just wait and see.

Oh, I see.
I misunderstood. My mistake. Sorry.
Thanks for straightening things out.

[Ray Mitcham]

If Tague was hit by the third bullet as suggested by the Warren report, it must have been a fourth shot which blew the hole in the President's head.

Or are they suggesting that the third shot hit his head then may have  then ricoched to hit Tague?

[David Von Pein]

7 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Or are they suggesting that the third shot hit his head then may have then ricoched to hit Tague?

Yes, of course that's what the WC was suggesting. I've suggested it in the past as well --- although I still favor the first [missed] shot striking the Main Street curb and Tague.

The Commission, however, wasn't suggesting that the WHOLE head-shot bullet went on to possibly strike Tague. Merely a fragment of that bullet. (And remember that more than half of that bullet was never recovered.)

Edited October 12, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

So according to your view,  the bullet entered the head low down at the back, travelled upwards and blew the top of the President's head off and then continued to strike the curb in front of  Tague.  

 

Wanna buy a bridge?

Edited October 12, 2018 by Ray Mitcham

[Guest]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

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?)

Cool!  Even though I was born in Tucson, I was a Milwaukee Braves LUNATIC in my youth.  I can still quote you chapter and verse on the players of that era - did you know Joe Adcock once hit four home runs and a double off the centerfield wall in the same game?  I can still recall watching the 1959 one-game playoff with the Dodgers, when the Braves were trailing 3-2 and had my hero Eddie Matthews BUNT to make the final out!  AAARRRGGGHHH!  My next-door neighbor for the first 18 years of my life was Pat Darcy, who gave up THE home run to Carlton Fisk in the '76 World Series that you see replayed on TV every year.  The last time I saw him, he said "God, you could throw it hard."  I have a wonderful right arm but terrible vision (Ryne Duran, anyone?) and no other talent.  I never pursued baseball but still throw fastballs into my golf net just for the hell of it.  I'm waiting for some Super Senior League talent scout to discover me.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

What they told me about witnesses really had an impact on me.
They explained to me that whenever they go to a crime scene, people don't remember the same things. And the discrepancies can sometimes be huge !

This is one of the realities of life that CTs refuse to accept. Of course, the main reason they do is because the well known and documented physical evidence in this case supports the lone gunman theory. All they are left with is witness statements. And they believe that every witness statement is factual and must be accounted for. But professional investigators know better as you point out. Witnesses to the same event will vary wildly. And the fact is people simply lie for any number of reasons. As Jeremy Gunn said about eyewitness testimony:

"You just cannot believe it. And I'll tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony."

I mention his quote about 35-year-old testimony because it relates particularly to the mother of all "CIA-did-it" theories the H&L theory since that is the exact time-frame during which Armstrong was interviewing his "amazing" witnesses and believing everything they said.

[Denny Zartman]

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, of course that's what the WC was suggesting. I've suggested it in the past as well --- although I still favor the first [missed] shot striking the Main Street curb and Tague.

The Commission, however, wasn't suggesting that the WHOLE head-shot bullet went on to possibly strike Tague. Merely a fragment of that bullet. (And remember that more than half of that bullet was never recovered.)

Are you seriously suggesting that one of the shots at JFK both hit AND missed?

You can't have a shot that hit the target and had a fragment come off, and then call that shot a miss as well.

[Cory Santos]

I do enjoy the ridiculous comments about testimony. 

Testimony in a court is very important.  We do not throw it away.

Yes, some witnesses remember specific facts differently.  Especially when exposed to stress at the same time.  That is called perception and observation.  That does not mean the testimony are thrown out.  Especially when multiple witnesses testify to a certain fact or point.  Perhaps in other countries it is given no weight but in the USA, which is the greatest country on Earth, our court system values testimony.  It is up to the lawyers to examine and cross examine the witnesses looking for errors, lies, bias, etc.  Then the judge and/or jury weighs the credibility of the witness.  That is how it is done.

With an event like this, I would expect recollections to vary on certain specific points.  Some stories evolve.  That can be due to a person changing the story or looking to add things to gain notice.  It can also be that when in a state of shock, certain functions shut down as one is confronted with dealing with the event and potentially needing all energy going to finding survival.  That is how the reptilian brain works.  Read about it.  Because of this, sometimes people begin recollecting points after hours, days, months that they forgot at the time.  It starts coming back to them.

The DPD should have stopped everyone from leaving Dealey and got their name and number.

Then, everyone should have been interviewed.

The W.C. did not do this either.

Had they interviewed as close as possible to every single witness, they would have had a large batch of testimony to make a better conclusion as to the number of shots and where the shots came from.

[James DiEugenio]

One good thing about this thread is Payette  urged these guys to show just how bereft of a case they really do have.

As you can see, first Carlier comes on and says, well see, Kirk Coleman really was not a good witness.  This is based on an interview he did with French cops.  Really?  Did they talk to Kirk?  Did Carlier talk to Kirk?  But see, Carlier wants to get rid of Coleman any way he can.  Sort of like the WC, who never talked to him.

Then, Parnell comes on and says well see, "the documented physical evidence in this case supports the lone gunman theory."

Oh really?

1. You mean like CE 399?  That projectile that never hit anything in Dealey Plaza and which the FBI had to prevaricate about so many times that not even Hoover could keep his story straight? Like saying Odum showed it to the witnesses, when he did not.

2. You mean like CE 139?  Which turned out to be the wrong rifle, which even going on their evidence was not the one the defendant ordered?

3. You mean like the shells at the scene which Fritz had to rearrange because they looked so close to each other that they were clearly planted?  And when the FBI tested the ejection mechanism on the wrong rifle, they proved that was the case.

4. You mean like the three shells that were found at the scene; or was it only two?  Because the photos and evidence reports say only two went to the FBI?  And then the BS story the DPD came up with was that Fritz kept one of the shells in Dallas for "testing" purposes.  Except the one he kept there was the miraculously dented one. The one which TInk Thompson tried all day to dent in that manner and could not. And Chris Mills found out it could only be dented that way by dry loading and then only very rarely.

5. Do you mean like the hole that disappeared from the back of JFK's head, which the HSCA lied about by saying that only the witnesses at Parkland saw it?  When in fact forty witnesses saw it at both Parkland and Bethesda.

6.  Do you mean that raised rear skull wound that the Fisher panel had to elevate since Thompson's book disturbed Ramsey Clark so much?  Except now you have two Magic Bullets in six seconds.  Because that bullet now leaves its center part at the rear of the skull while the head and tail fly forward to the front of the car.  Something which your guy Sturdivan says is not possible.

7. Do you mean the trail of particles that Humes wrote about which he said went from the bottom of the skull in the rear to the top connecting that trail?  Except that when Jeremy Gunn showed him the x ray in the archives today, and asked him if he saw that, Humes said, no its not there.

8.  Do you mean the pictures of JFK's brain in the archives?  Which the man who took them, Mr. Stringer, when examined by Gunn said, no he did not take them. Because he never used that type of  film, and he never used the Press Pack technique they were taken with.

 

Today, in every element of the case, if there is one thing your side should not argue, it is the so called "Documented physical evidence".   The last thing it does is support the Warren Commission.  Today it proves that Sylvia Meagher was correct.  The WC was not just a disgrace.  They were accessories after the fact.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2018 by James DiEugenio