A simple question to James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I agree.  I am not sure if this is the show where I was almost  wailing about how Trump is letting these guys break the law.  But he is.

See, the more I learn about what really happened with the ARRB, its really  a shame.  They had a good PR guy in Tom Samoluk, but the end result was kind of deceptive.

I have come to the conclusion that they were not able to do their job in the defined length of time as a result of their being underfunded and understaffed.  And also as Doug Horne wrote in his book, some people there were not as zealous as they should have been.  I mean Earle Cabell as a CIA asset from 1959 and that info is NBR, not believed relevant?  And it was held back for over 20 years?  Please.   

Edited December 1, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Michaleen Kilroy]

In my mind, all anyone needs to know about questioning the official story of the JFK assassination is ‘The Big Coincidence.’

- Somehow this little low-life, sociopathic nobody named Oswald stumbled across a secretly funded and guided CIA anti-Castro group when he stepped into Carlos Bringuier’s store in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

- Somehow Oswald ties the Fair Play for Cuba Committee with the communists at the exact moment David Atlee Phillips and James McCord are running a propaganda campaign in the US against the FPCC. And shows up to get a travel visa to Mexico the day after the CIA tells the FBI they’re exporting their program internationally.

- Somehow Oswald’s well-publicized antics with the DRE in NO that summer are instantly seen on national TV the night of the assassination and make the newspapers the next day, immediately branding him as a pro-Castro agitator in the public’s eye. 

- Somehow the CIA never tells the Warren Commission that the agency founded, funded and guided the DRE. The CIA’s liaison to the WC is Richard Helms who personally hired agency’s DRE case officer George Joannides in the Miami-based station. Joannides reported directly to Helms.

- Somehow the CIA lies and obstructs in its relationship with DRE again in the 70s with HSCA, telling Congress it had stopped working with the group in 1963. When young investigators start heading down the path of the nexus between the CIA, Cubans and Oswald, the agency feloniously runs a covert operation against the HSCA to subvert any further inquiry by bringing Joannides out of retirement to act as liaison, never revealing he ran the DRE.  In his testimony, Helms perjured himself by saying he knows of no other information material to the case, never mentioning his hiring of Joannides to Congress.

- Somehow Joannides’ files around the time of Oswald have never been released by the agency to this day. The files of DRE case officers before and after him have been released.

That’s a 55-year illegal cover-up by the nation’s spy agency in the assassination of a president.  The case can never be closed until the reasons for that cover-up are revealed. 

Also, Jim Di, curious what you think of this: 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2018 by Mike Kilroy

[James DiEugenio]

Mike:

As I said, Butler is an interesting character who very few people have honed in on.

But if you examine New Orleans, the guy shows up in quite a few places at the most opportune times.  And as I said, the alacrity with which he went to Washington after Kennedy's murder is notable.  Also, I think he was involved with Bringuier's broadsheet publication assembled about 24 hours after the assassination.

Howard may be Joannides.  Would not be surprised.

[François Carlier]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 12:34 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

The “official version” of the Kennedy Assassination has been in the garbage heap of history for more than half a century.  You don’t need recent releases of anything to see that.

Since you seem to sound sincerely interested in the truth, why don’t you spend three minutes to see a small part of the truth in the short video.  It takes just three minutes of your time.

 

 

Would you like to see more of the truth?

Are you kidding me ?

[François Carlier]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 1:01 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Francois,

Yes there are.  But why should I share them with you?

You and DVP and the Arizona lawyer (who, thank God, is not here anymore) are so invested in the WC at a metaphysical, psychological, and emotional level, that it really does not matter how much evidence I, or anyone else, produces.  Which is why none of you would ever pass muster to be on a jury in this case, since normal terms of argument and ratiocination are foreign to your makeup. In fact, the other jurors would probably ask the judge to remove you.

I have been on several radio shows since last October, besides BOR, and have talked about these discoveries which are in fact new.  But i don't see any point in doing such a thing with you, DVP or similar types. It would be like arguing about the Third Reich with the Kenneth Mars character from the original film of The Producers.

Mister DiEugenio,
I have spent hours listening to all the 2018 Black-op-radio shows where you appeared, plus other YouTube videos with you.
I am still waiting for you to show us the smoking gun that was in the newly-released documents. Granted, the newly-released archives may be disappointing, if only because they are redacted. I heard you talk about a document about an interview with the redaction of the name of the person interviewed.. I agree with you, it's frustrating.
Trust me, I agree with you on that. If it had been for me, no document would have been redacted at all. I mean, 55 years later, I fail to see how a name on a document could endanger the security of the United States…
Anyway, they probably have a good reason.
At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents.
You always claim that people such as myself or David Von Pein know nothing about the newly-released documents whereas you are the expert who has found a lot in them. Well, I have been listening to you with great care. The result is clear : no smoking gun. Nothing even remotely resembling a smoking gun. No new Discovery. Oh, yes, we have learned that at some point Robert Kennedy was told of something that we had thought he already knew or had learned later. Some evidence !
The truth is, those newly-reselased documents contain nothing of substance and we already knew that they could not provide anything that could point away from Oswald's sole guilt.
For example : people saw Lee Oswald with their own eyes when he shot Tippit. What could you possibly expect to find in those recently-released papers ? That Oswald was not in Dallas on November 22, 1963 ?
The sad truth is that nothing in those documents can possibly change what we already know.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

The sad truth is that nothing in those documents can possibly change what we already know.

I totally agree with what Francois just said above.

A nice segue to Francois' above comments would be to quote a few pertinent passages from the JFK Assassination Bible (which is, of course, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"; what else? )....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 953 of "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A favorite theme of conspiracy theorists [is that] documents and photographs [have been] "buried" in the National Archives or in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits. If we're to believe the theorists, it apparently never crossed the minds of the alleged conspirators who killed Kennedy to simply get rid of the evidence that could convict them. Unlike nearly all ordinary conspirators, Kennedy's killers intentionally and knowingly left evidence behind in the archives and the Warren Commission volumes that could expose them — evidence that only the conspiracists are smart and industrious enough to uncover." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 418 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, by far, in world history. Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation. With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxvi of "Reclaiming History"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History"

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

Edited December 11, 2018 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Can you please show me where I said what you write that I did say?

That is there was nothing of any substance in the new documents.

I would like to hear someone ask me the question and I replied as you just said I did.

Because I do not recall saying that.  I did say that many should not have been withheld, and many are still redacted.

But when asked if there was anything substantial in there, I do not recall saying there was nothing there.

Now, if you listened to everything I said on this subject since last October, can you please show me where I said that?

Edited December 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I will be checking back in here about every hour or so to await FC's reply to my question.

 

So far, none.

[Paz Marverde]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Are you kidding me ?

Truth is you are the one, here, endlessly kidding us. People like you should NOT  be here, frankly. 

By the way, Mr. Carlier: do you know that two really important people described the so called "magic bullet" as just total crap? Do you know who they are, Mr. Carlier??

Edited December 11, 2018 by Paz Marverde

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Paz Marverde said:

Truth is you are the one, here, endlessly kidding us. People like you should NOT  be here, frankly. 

By the way, Mr. Carlier: do you know that two really important people described the so called "magic bullet" as just total crap? Do you know who they are, Mr. Carlier??

He won’t respond. When you ask him a question he just ignores and moves to something else.   He claims people saw Oswald shoot Tippit but conveniently ignores testimony from other witnesses.  Your wasting time trying to discuss anything with him when he can’t even acknowledge anything outside his blinders. 

[Paz Marverde]

4 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

He won’t respond. When you ask him a question he just ignores and moves to something else.   He claims people saw Oswald shoot Tippit but conveniently ignores testimony from other witnesses.  Your wasting time trying to discuss anything with him when he can’t even acknowledge anything outside his blinders. 

Yes. So sad 

[Paul Baker]

6 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

Truth is you are the one, here, endlessly kidding us. People like you should NOT  be here, frankly. 

By the way, Mr. Carlier: do you know that two really important people described the so called "magic bullet" as just total crap? Do you know who they are, Mr. Carlier??

Absolutely! Anyone who has a contrary opinion shouldn't be allowed to pollute a forum of 'debate' with their outlandish ideas. Ideas that, although not built on the foundations of heresay, speculation, assumption, misinterpretation, manipulation, etc., are just plain ridiculous nonetheless, by default. They should just shut up! Bravo. Well said.

The single bullet (or 'magic bullet' as conspiracy theorists tend to describe it) theory remains the most coherent interpretation of the established facts. If anyone describes it as 'total crap', that carries very little weight, regardless of their perceived importance, unless they can provide a better explanation. Can these really important people do that?

[Paz Marverde]

3 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

Can these really important people do that?

Baker, same question: do you know who these really important people are? 

[Paz Marverde]

No, you do not, Baker. Of course 

[James DiEugenio]

PB:The single bullet (or 'magic bullet' as conspiracy theorists tend to describe it) theory remains the most coherent interpretation of the established facts.

 

It is not coherent at all.  And I showed why in those pages I referenced for FC.  

Those pages are full of  facts, pure and simple.  Every step of the way the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny.  Its a matter of data, not opinion.  The reason people like Baker hang on to it is because without it, you have a conspiracy.  Even the WC admitted this. And they realized that quite early in the proceedings.  

According to Pat Speer it was in January.

Edited December 11, 2018 by James DiEugenio