A simple question to James DiEugenio

[Cory Santos]

13 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Paul,

I am no fan of Jim, but in the interest of fairness there is a JFK conference today (if I remember right) and he may be in attendance there.

Paul I would add there really is no need for insulting comments. Jim, whether you agree w him or not, has been a reputable member of the research community for decades. As have other people on both sides.   You might see him and DVP go at it but truthfully they have a relationship.  Saying he is not in reality is pretty tough.  

[Pamela Brown]

2 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

Jim, as usual, avoids reality. HIs motivation fascinates me more that that of Lee Harvey Oswald. He can't, and won't, answer a very simple question. End of.

With all due respect, I have not known Jimmie D. to 'avoid' anything.  Probably another explanation.

[Joseph McBride]

I would hope Jim and other will ignore the disinformation that

is being spewed out by Carlier. He is obviously one of those

trolls whose job is to derail legitimate discussion of the issues.

[Ron Bulman]

16 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

I can help with the maths. Or math, as you probably say.

Given your page of one liners and that Jim's MIA for a day I have a question.  If your a mathematician or physicist what to you think about the impact of two simultaneous shots to the front of the head.  One from the front in the top of the forehead hairline, and one in the temple slightly above and in front of the right ear?  Along with one from the back at the base of the skull?  Have you read neurologist Dr. Chesser's chapter in Jenkins recent book Cold shoulder?  I believe Mr. Horne and Dr. Mantick concur at least in part.  I get lost somewhere between algorithms and logarithms myself.   

[Cory Santos]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

I would hope Jim and other will ignore the disinformation that

is being spewed out by Carlier. He is obviously one of those

trolls whose job is to derail legitimate discussion of the issues.

Here here professor. 

[François Carlier]

3 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

I would hope Jim and other will ignore the disinformation that

is being spewed out by Carlier. He is obviously one of those

trolls whose job is to derail legitimate discussion of the issues.

Apart from writing totally utter nonsense, is there anything you can do ?

[Cory Santos]

8 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Apart from writing totally utter nonsense, is there anything you can do ?

He is a well respected professor at a major university and a heck of a nice guy.

[David Von Pein]

On 12/11/2018 at 7:04 PM, James DiEugenio said:

...and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA.

Jim's reference above to President Donald J. Trump gives me a good excuse to post this video that I found a few weeks ago lurking on YouTube. It's Off-Topic, yes, but it's worth it because it's so darn hilarious....

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Paul Baker]

On 12/14/2018 at 3:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:

 JFK is hit like a thunderclap, his entire body is smashed backward and lifted slightly upward and to his left, with such force that it bounces off the seat; motorcycle policemen are hit with blood and issue with such force that they think they were hit themselves.  And somehow that is one shooter. With the TSBD behind the limo?

This is what I objected to. That someone still refers to this action as proof of the direction of a shot. I did a calculation a while back that showed that a bullet would impart a maximum velocity of 1m/s, and that's a theoretical maximum. People only fly in the direction of a bullet in films. It amazes me that anyone can still use the apparent movement of JFK in response to being shot as proof of shot direction, when it means very little at all. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Paul Baker
Autocomplete :(

[Cory Santos]

10 minutes ago, Paul Baker said:

This is what I objected to. That someone still refers to this action as proof of the direction of a shot. I did a calculation a while back that showed that a bullet would impart a maximum velocity of 1m/s, and that's a theoretical maximum. People only fly in the direction of a bullet in films. It amazes me that anyone can still use the apparent movement of JFK in response to being shot as proof of shot correction, when it means very little at all. 

Paul lets talk about the shot that hit him in the back.  Why is there no whiplash effect seen on film or any pictutes?  

[Paul Baker]

20 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Paul I would add there really is no need for insulting comments. Jim, whether you agree w him or not, has been a reputable member of the research community for decades. As have other people on both sides.   You might see him and DVP go at it but truthfully they have a relationship.  Saying he is not in reality is pretty tough.  

Jim doesn't exactly hold back in terms of throwing insults about, in my opinion. I can't see how you can read many of his comments any other way. 

[Cory Santos]

4 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

Jim doesn't exactly hold back in terms of throwing insults about, in my opinion. I can't see how you can read many of his comments any other way. 

He is always nice to me. 

[Paul Brancato]

I met James DiEugenio for the first time yesterday, because he invited me to join a round table symposium on JFK and related in SF. First time I have attended anything JFK related since following Mark Lane in NYC in 1964 when I was 16. Linda Pease was there sharing some of what is in her new book on RFK, but the rest, including Jim D., spoke on issues related to JFK. Jim’s talk was basically about John Kenneth Galbraith (at least that was the main point I got from it) being the most important and trusted advisor to JFK from the get go (after RFK). Jim’s forte in my opinion is his ability to correct false historical narratives, and he is very good at it. At one point during a short exchange I had with him, he mentioned this current thread. Jim likes to argue, as he did a few times yesterday, and I’ve seen him get testy here on the Forum with some writers and researchers.  But there is no ill will in it. What is most obvious is that he cares about truth and tries to be truthful always. 

[Micah Mileto]

The nature of the back wound was apparently such that the autopsy pathologists chose to dissect the chest instead of the modified tracheotomy wound above it. And that was after they had to specifically ask permission to examine the chest instead of just the head. For some reason, they thought it was a better idea to excavate the CHEST for signs of a bullet to accommodate the back wound rather than check the neck area or ask the Parkland staff about it.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

7 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

This is what I objected to. That someone still refers to this action as proof of the direction of a shot. I did a calculation a while back that showed that a bullet would impart a maximum velocity of 1m/s, and that's a theoretical maximum. People only fly in the direction of a bullet in films. It amazes me that anyone can still use the apparent movement of JFK in response to being shot as proof of shot correction, when it means very little at all. 

Paul, if you want to promote the official story, why not just build your case on CE 567, the fragment with flesh and blood on it? 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Micah Mileto