Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[James DiEugenio]

BTW:  This is priceless as an indication of how acute and honest FC is when he is getting his butt kicked.

FC on the Raleigh call :  My answer : I don't know and I don't care.
Because, only YOU think that it is relevant. in fact, it is NOT.

Which shows he did not even read the Grover Proctor article, the definitive study of that call.

Even  Bob Blakey said the call was really disturbing.

Oswald is trying to call a military intelligence officer on the east coast, a man who lives about 2 and a half hours from Nags Head NC.

Now, FC, let us take a step back.  Why would he try to do that? Well, was not LHO in the Marines?  Did he not do some funny stuff there: like learn the Russian language to the point that according to Rosaleen Quinn and TItovets, he spoke it quite well by the time he left the service? (A point Davison slipped up on in her trashy book and admitted was the case.)

Did LHO then not leave the service early, before his term was up?  Did he then not "defect" to the USSR?  

Nags Head was a naval base which prepared guys to do just that.  (Just so you understand: the Marines are a part of the Navy.)

Now, you find absolutely no importance to the fact that the morning after LHO tried to make that call to a military intel officer he was rubbed out in the DPD parking lot, literally in the arms of the police?

Well, i beg to differ with you but if even Blakey thinks its disturbing, that makes you kind of weird. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let us keep on going. (But if I was the other side, I would have yelled "Uncle" by now.)

 

Did the WC know that within about 72 hours of JFK's assassination, David Ferrie, who was close to Oswald in the CAP and who knew him from Banister's office in New Orleans that summer, was looking for evidence that connected him with LHO? This included things like a picture from the CAP, and his library card.

The reason he wanted these pieces of evidence is that he wanted to eliminate them from the record.

Did the WC know that?

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Wow way to come into a discussion and try and change the issue.   I’ll stick with it. So you know what that is by DCM head?  Do you dispute Bowers testimony?  

 

Oh, yes, this is such a narrowly focused and on-topic thread, isn't it?  🙄  I should be ashamed.

When a conspiracy zealot plays the conspiracy zealot game a little too obviously and badly, I do like to point out the inanities inherent in the game lest innocent readers be misled.  It's a dirty and unpopular job, but someone has to do it.  I think of myself as a missionary from the real world to the lost souls of conspiracy land.  A voice crying in the wilderness, as it were.

With a photo of that quality, no I don't know what "that" is by his head or indeed if there is anything by his head.  Common sense and logic - a radical notion, I realize - tell me that a conspirator wasn't sitting on the curb in full view talking on a walkie-talkie to a fellow conspirator.  But if you can prove he was - go for it.  You'll need to prove who he was, what he was actually holding, and what he was actually doing with it - a daunting task in the real world, but child's play in conspiracy land.  The mere fact that you regard this non-evidence as highly significant speaks volumes.

Do I dispute Bowers' testimony?  No, I don't dispute that he said what he said.  I dispute that it is of any great significance.  I'm sure I'd dispute whatever "conspiracy spin" you might put on it.  I'll let Dale Myers, who does at least seem to operate in the real world, answer for me:  http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/09/lee-bowers-man-behind-grassy-knoll.html

But again, you're just playing the "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" game.  Is there "reasonable doubt" about what DCM is holding, if anything?  Sure.  Is there "reasonable doubt" about what Bowers saw?  I really don't think there is, but I'll play along.  In terms of proving a conspiracy or even creating reasonable doubt about a lone assassin, such "reasonable doubt" as to what an items shows is irrelevant and the items have zero evidentiary weight.  You are engaging in raw speculation.  You have to affirmatively prove what you are claiming - which conspiracy enthusiasts have been conspicuously unable to do after 55 years of trying.

I realize my posts are infuriating.  That's because I refuse to waste my time playing the game on your turf as DVP chooses to do.  I simply bring the larger perspective that what you are doing is bogus and what you are saying simply makes no sense.

[James DiEugenio]

To answer my own question:

There is no evidence that the WC knew that Ferrie was doing these quite curious things within 72 hours of the assassination. 

So  they never were able to ask him:  Why would you want to collect any evidence connecting you to Oswald in the wake of the assassination?

But I will add the clincher: the FBI did know he was doing those things.  How?  Because the people who Ferrie was calling about those artifacts contacted the Bureau and told them!

Now if those quite innocent people suspected something was up, do you not think the Bureau did?

They didn't.  There was no follow up at all, period.  In fact, the photo of the two did not surface for 30 years.

Now, most rational thinking people--which eliminates FC and DVP--would then ask:  Hmm, the FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph, and they did nothing with  Ferrie's odd behavior in the wake of Kennedy's murder.   Why would they do that kind of thing? 

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

But its actually worse than that.

When Jim Garrison turned Ferrie over to the FBI, he signed a statement in which he lied his head off. He said he never owned a telescopic rifle, or used one, or even knew how to use one.

He said he did not know Oswald and Oswald was not in his New Orleans CAP.

He said he never knew Sergio Arcacha Smith from 544 Camp Street or any Cuban exile group since 1961.

Every single one of those seven statements constituted perjury under Title 18 US Code Section 1001.

It would have taken about a day or two for the FBI to find the evidence to indict Ferrie for his declaration.

My question: Did the WC ever pursue this relevant perjury?

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Rick McTague]

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But its actually worse than that.

When Jim Garrison turned Ferrie over to the FBI, he signed a statement in which he lied his head off. He said he never owned a telescopic rifle, or used one, or even knew how who to use one.

He said he did not know Oswald and Oswald was not in his New Orleans CAP.

He said he never knew Sergio Arcacha Smith from 544 Camp Street or any Cuban exile group since 1961.

Every single one of those seven statements constituted perjury under Title 18 US Code Section 1001.

It would have taken about a day or two for the FBI to find the evidence to indict Ferrie for his declaration.

My question: Did the WC ever pursue this relevant perjury?

 

Jim,

To take this to the conclusion, David Ferrie (like so many other key witnesses and others in this case) was suicided and shut up forever.  Quite curious in two murders that were supposedly committed by a lone nut on a spontaneous whim for personal glory.  Why the eliminations?  Why the forced signatures to agreements of secrecy for those who witnessed the autopsy if it was so open and shut?  Why did GDM off himself the day he was going to be interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi if LHO acted alone?

Thanks

[Cory Santos]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

No one knows and no one will ever know. And that fact allows people to speculate endlessly. But there is no evidence that it is a two-way radio that he used to instruct unknown (and never located) assassins. In fact, it makes more sense that it was a transistor radio that he was using to try and find out more information about the tragic event he had just witnessed.

Ah so you admit it could be a radio. Regardless of what type it was as you speculate, it was s radio. Thank you. 

[Cory Santos]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Oh, yes, this is such a narrowly focused and on-topic thread, isn't it?  🙄  I should be ashamed.

When a conspiracy zealot plays the conspiracy zealot game a little too obviously and badly, I do like to point out the inanities inherent in the game lest innocent readers be misled.  It's a dirty and unpopular job, but someone has to do it.  I think of myself as a missionary from the real world to the lost souls of conspiracy land.  A voice crying in the wilderness, as it were.

With a photo of that quality, no I don't know what "that" is by his head or indeed if there is anything by his head.  Common sense and logic - a radical notion, I realize - tell me that a conspirator wasn't sitting on the curb in full view talking on a walkie-talkie to a fellow conspirator.  But if you can prove he was - go for it.  You'll need to prove who he was, what he was actually holding, and what he was actually doing with it - a daunting task in the real world, but child's play in conspiracy land.  The mere fact that you regard this non-evidence as highly significant speaks volumes.

Do I dispute Bowers' testimony?  No, I don't dispute that he said what he said.  I dispute that it is of any great significance.  I'm sure I'd dispute whatever "conspiracy spin" you might put on it.  I'll let Dale Myers, who does at least seem to operate in the real world, answer for me:  http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/09/lee-bowers-man-behind-grassy-knoll.html

But again, you're just playing the "Oh, yeah, what about THIS?" game.  Is there "reasonable doubt" about what DCM is holding, if anything?  Sure.  Is there "reasonable doubt" about what Bowers saw?  I really don't think there is, but I'll play along.  In terms of proving a conspiracy or even creating reasonable doubt about a lone assassin, such "reasonable doubt" as to what an items shows is irrelevant and the items have zero evidentiary weight.  You are engaging in raw speculation.  You have to affirmatively prove what you are claiming - which conspiracy enthusiasts have been conspicuously unable to do after 55 years of trying.

I realize my posts are infuriating.  That's because I refuse to waste my time playing the game on your turf as DVP chooses to do.  I simply bring the larger perspective that what you are doing is bogus and what you are saying simply makes no sense.

No your posts are annoying because you think you know everything yet utilize speculation to form the basis of you thoughts.  Moreover you simply can’t answer a simple question without attacking everyone. So let’s try this again. 

Is it your opinion then there is nothing by his head?  If so what is the line that everyone else notes?

 

if you don’t dispute Bowers, you agree then that he saw people in the parking lot utilizing radios?  

 

You attack DVP but at least he can debate the issue and not require three pages to do it. I find his responses more genuine than say you or fc for that reason. 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Cory Santos

[Jake Hammond]

Sorry to jump in , but ..... I've seen somewhere the evidence of who the supposed GHWB in Dealey PLaza actually was , and its pretty conclusive. Is there any further argument on this amongst some of the heavier hitters on this forum or is it accepted ? Also, I can't now find the article I saw that shows more photos af the man wo is actually shown in the ' GHWB  photo', does anyone recall his name ?

[Kirk Gallaway]

18 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Another example of the suspicious connections that characterize my life? I just happened to be in DC for the first time ever when GHWB's body was brought to the rotunda.  His death caused the cancellation of the Capitol tour I had previously booked.  Here we are that morning, trying to figure out what to do next.  Not exactly crowded, eh?  Whatever one may think of GHWB, he had qualifications for the Presidency that make all of his successors look like bad sophomore actors in a high school play.  Any notion that he had some role in the assassination of JFK is right down there with the alien angle.  Some of you conspiracy folks really need to take a break and get in touch with reality.  You're losing it.

Good Picture!

Phew!  Lance, I love that never-in-doubt Christian self righteousness. It leaves me totally assured you  could never be wrong about any aspect of George Bush's life. However I do remember after the  November election in 2016 when you confidently said in an Arizona twang. "There's a new sheriff coming to town, you better get used to it, and he's going to drain the swamp."

You were hoping for a second coming of your native son Arpaio, in a bright, new younger personage, coming on the national scene.Yeah and how did that judgment of character work out?

 

Lance, I might be wrong, but I always like to bring people together,  I might be able to bridge this divisive gap between you and Jim Di  and bring you together as unlikely but complimentary bedfellows over this link below.

 

Do you, like Jim Di feel this picture is a beacon, a guiding light for World Peace?

 

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/19/f4/12/19f41266aea52a188f4d94ed29593fbc.jpg

 

I see another ambitious fellow prosecutor there as well, who really just likes to look..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Good Picture!

Phew!  Lance, I love that never-in-doubt Christian self righteousness. It leaves me totally assured you  could never be wrong about any aspect of George Bush's life. However I do remember after the  November election in 2016 when you confidently said in an Arizona twang. "There's a new sheriff coming to town, you better get used to it, and he's going to drain the swamp."

You were hoping for a second coming of your native son Arpaio, in a bright, new younger personage, coming on the national scene.Yeah and how did that judgment of character work out?

 

My good fellow, I DETEST Arpaio, native son or not.  My office was one of the ones that was assigned boxes of his files to review for abuse of prosecutorial discretion about 8 years ago.  I reviewed dozens of them.  I'm limited as to what I can say, or at least I think I am, but I was aghast.

 

Re: Trump, is that an accurate quote from moi?  I'm usually wittier than that, but I'll live with it if I said it.  I did indeed vote for The Donald with a fair amount of enthusiasm, coupled with the fact that I had said 15 years ago that if Hillary ever ran for President against Satan I could guarantee Satan at least one vote.  That the people of the United States ended up with a choice between Trump and Hillary is more than a little frightening, and I feel sure Thomas Jefferson would agree.

 

Like most Christians, my hope for Trump was that he might bring the abortion holocaust to an end through Supreme Court appointments.  So to date I am reasonably pleased.  If I were his puppet master, he would certainly be far more Presidential and statesmanlike than he actually his, but Bill Clinton lowered the bar to such an extent that I'm just kind of bewildered as to what "Presidential" even means anymore.

 

Lance, I might be wrong, but I always like to bring people together,  I might be able to bridge this divisive gap between you and Jim Di  and bring you together as unlikely but complimentary bedfellows over this link below.

 

Do you, like Jim Di feel this picture is a beacon, a guiding light for World Peace?

 

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/19/f4/12/19f41266aea52a188f4d94ed29593fbc.jpg

 

I would be more inclined to see it as a beacon for World Peace if it weren't for that mysterious guy in the beach chair.  Who is he, do we know?  Is he an alien?  Does anyone seriously think he just happens to be in that photo?  I smell a conspiracy and I will not rest until I get to the bottom of it, even if we have to exhume Lee Harvey Oswald and examine his molars all over again.

 

The gap between Mr. Scowly Face and me is all his responsibility.  If he would stop coming here on his "wrong browser," then he wouldn't see my pathetic posts at all, his Napoleonic visage would be more cheerful, and his blood pressure would be lower.  I don't even bother to engage him anymore because I believe our differences are fundamentally irreconcilable since I refuse to take him as seriously as he demands and don't worship the memory of JFK as I should, but I must say I don't think I've ever seen a more mind-numbing, eye-glazing exchange than his one with DVP on this thread.  I'm sure it's very important and points directly to a massive conspiracy, but it had my finger on the scroll key after a couple of posts.  Maybe someone can send me a short private message telling me what it was about and who won.

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

As far as the onlooker I actually gave you a hint under the link. That was:

"I see another ambitious fellow prosecutor there as well, who really just likes to look.".

 

Yes, a long way from Kansas, I mean Arizona. That guy also ran for President under the Republican ticket. An ex prosecutor, ex governor way over there in New Jersey. His name is Chris Christie, and he apparently just interviewed for Trump's chief of staff and probably rejected him. Anyway it's sort of an uplifting picture. I  suspected that maybe Trump had it in him, if he was so moved to defer to someone else...

I would be more inclined to see it as a beacon for World Peace if it weren't for that mysterious guy in the beach chair. 

I'm not sure how relevant Christie is, except as a humorous add in for those who are familiar.. So you see them as beacon for World Peace and Trump is being thwarted by a MSM and political"Deep State"? And so is Putin, whose really a good guy, whose very tolerant to those that disagree with him,because after all he's so popular, why does he need to fear anybody? And all this Russian  interference is just the same old Cold War propaganda of the MSM "Deep State". Because if you do, I think you and Mr. Scowly Face as you call him, have a lot more in common than you think.

You understand I'm only trying to bring people together..

Edited December 14, 2018 by Kirk Gallaway

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

No your posts are annoying because you think you know everything yet utilize speculation to form the basis of you thoughts.  Moreover you simply can’t answer a simple question without attacking everyone. So let’s try this again. 

Is it your opinion then there is nothing by his head?  If so what is the line that everyone else notes?

 

if you don’t dispute Bowers, you agree then that he saw people in the parking lot utilizing radios?  

 

You attack DVP but at least he can debate the issue and not require three pages to do it. I find his responses more genuine than say you or fc for that reason. 

I don't have an "opinion" as to whether anything is by his head or what it might be if there is.  I see the suggestive line, which could indeed be an antenna but could be a myriad of other things or even a reflection or illusion in a photo this blurry.  If it is an antenna, it could be a transistor radio, which would be entirely plausible at a newsworthy parade - or even a walkie talkie being used for some entirely legitimate purpose entirely unrelated to any assassination conspiracy.  Factored into the analysis has to be the sheer unlikeliness that a conspirator would be curbside in full view of hundreds of people, brandishing a walkie-talkie and carrying on a conspiracy-related conversation.  The photo is simply useless, except for the purpose of fueling raw, conspiracy-oriented speculation.  The fact that a lawyer doesn't grasp this reality is rather mind-boggling to me.

Bowers saw people in the parking lot utilizing radios?  You're going to have to educate me on that (or perhaps wipe the egg off your face), because he certainly didn't say it in his affidavit or WC testimony:

Mr. BOWERS - Yes, some 15 minutes or so after this, at approximately 12 o'clock, 20 to 12--I guess 12:20 would be close to it, little time differential there--but there was another car which was a 1957 black Ford, with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least.
Mr. BALL - How could you tell that?
Mr. BOWERS - He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other, and gave that appearance. He was very close to the tower. I could see him as he proceeded around the area.

Whoa, that's really definitive.  Put that together with your blurry DCM photo and you're about 95% of the way to a conspiracy.

If Bowers said something about "people in the parking lot utilizing radios" in some Mark Lane-coached video - well, yes, I guess I will have to dispute that.

Alas, I am obstinately going to refuse to play the game you would have me play.  Do get back to me when you find that "utilizing radios" quote so I can close this gap in my knowledge - or is this simply another example of "conspiracy facts" getting better every time they are retold?

Oh, I almost forgot:  Those wacky conspirators placed Dark Complected Man right in front of Umbrella Man, directly in line with Being Assassinated Man, just so you wouldn't miss them.  Yeah, that's how conspiracies work.  Too bad Prayer Man didn't get the memo and stayed in the shadows.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Guest

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Is it your opinion then there is nothing by his head?  If so what is the line that everyone else notes?

I'll bring this up again.....

What's the "line" that we see on the upper-left back of the motorcycle policeman in the same picture (which is a line that's angled in the same direction as the "antenna" line)?

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

I must say I don't think I've ever seen a more mind-numbing, eye-glazing exchange than his [James DiEugenio's] one with DVP on this thread.  I'm sure it's very important and points directly to a massive conspiracy, but it had my finger on the scroll key after a couple of posts.  Maybe someone can send me a short private message telling me what it was about and who won.

Here's my archived version of it on my website....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-129.html

Edited December 14, 2018 by David Von Pein