James DiEugenio Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 1. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Cuban embassy. 2. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Soviet embassy. 3. At least ten chances for a photo--negative result. We actually have the CIA checks on this today. This is why Goodpasture lied about the Mystery Man photo. She could not find a pic of LHO. 4. The voice on the tapes is not LHO. Complete mismatch. This was so bad the CIA later lied about the tapes being destroyed prior to the assassination. They were not! 5. Duran's description is not LHO. 6. The Saturday call had to be phony per reasons stated above. 7. As David shows, the two CIA plants in the Cuban embassy were shown the picture of LHO. Both said he was not there. The CIA did not want to accept this so they tried again, came up empty twice. 8. David's new discovery is the CIA monthly phone bank summary. No listing of anyone who matches Oswald's description in the calls at at the Cuban embassy. 9. David has demolished the WC story of how Oswald was allegedly transported down and back up. Wrong passport, wrong buses. 10. I Love that visa card. The FBI tried to find the picture company where Oswald took it. Recall, he did not have it for Duran. They visited every picture shop in a five mile radiusof the embassy, could not find anyone who saw Oswald there. But there is something else wrong with the visa card which I will let David inform you of. And there is also something else wrong with the Russian embassy visit I will let on later. This is just the opening salvo. I guess we should keep on posting these until he replies. (Sound of crickets) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: All the more reason to know your make-believe Oswald Patsy Framers must have all been total morons! Because on a complete idiot would want to have a blond guy who was 5-feet-5 try to impersonate a guy who had dark hair and was 5-9. Just how stupid were your Mexico City plotters in 1963, Jim? I don't think they were 'total morons' at all. They thought the discussion would go away after a few weeks, and that would be the end of it. After all, this was before Watergate, and the Pentagon Papers, so people pretty much accepted anything from the govt and the dupe news. People accepted the word of Pres Eisenhower that the U-2 shot down was a 'stray weather ballon'. So today, in 2019, I think they're shocked that the circumstances of the assassination are still being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said: So why did "they" use some blond guy in the first place? You, Jim, are just inventing excuses so you can ignore the best evidence --- which is: CE2564, CE15, and Marina's testimony about Lee going to MC. And I'd still like to see a good answer from a CTer to my prior question.... If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in Mexico City from Sept. 25 to Oct. 2 of 1963, then where the heck was he? This is Rule #14 of the 25 Rules of Disinformation. 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10. I would add Rule #4 as well, it applies: 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. How can we tell where LHO was everyday of his life? Straw man created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Meanwhile can you reply to the other nine points: Why is there no photo? At either embassy? Why is there no voice match? Why did both informants say he was not there? Twice. Why was there an alleged call on Saturday? Why is there no indication of the calls on the newly decalcified CIA summary per month? Why is it the wrong buses and wrong passport? I can't answer all those questions, Jim. And neither can you (or any other CTer). Part of the answer is almost certainly bungling and probably some carelessness (and, no doubt, mistakes) on the part of the people at the embassies who should have been recording and/or photographing Oswald. And part of the answer could be faulty equipment at the time Oswald visited the embassies/consulates. Plus, some incorrect assumptions were also made regarding the topics of the photographs and the tape recordings. I don't know all the answers to these discrepancies. I don't think anybody knows everything about it. But, IMO, Commission Exhibit No. 15 (Oswald's 12/9/63 letter that he typed on Ruth Paine's typewriter), which has Lee Oswald's own signature on it (another "fake" signature, Jim?), trumps any and all theories about Oswald not travelling to Mexico City in September '63.... https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0029a.htm And CTers have to claim that Ruth Paine lied about the above CE15 letter of Oswald's too....because Ruth said she read the "draft" of that letter that Oswald (for some reason) left behind on Ruth's desk. So, was Ruth lying about the "draft" of the letter, Jim? (I'm pretty sure you'll have no trouble labelling Ruth a l-i-a-r once again, right?) But don't expect me to follow you down that path of fantasy. Because I won't do it. Therefore, in addition to all of the other things I've mentioned (and Francois has repeated as well) that prove LHO went to MC in '63, there's also that testimony of Ruth Paine concerning the "draft" of the letter (CE15), in which Ruth said that Lee lied about the FBI "no longer having any interest in me", etc. How many liars were there in JUST this "Mexico City" area of the case, Jim? Give me a number. I want to know just HOW MANY people I'm expected to call "LIARS" regarding this Mexico topic. Just "for the record". Thanks in advance for providing me with those numbers. Quote I will not hold my breath in wait for you to reply to these. You have an unseemly habit of ignoring real evidence. (Yawn) Mr. Pot/Kettle strikes again! A man who believes in all 22 of these fantasies is preaching to me about "ignoring real evidence". Ya gotta love the thick irony of it all! (I sure do.) Edited January 5, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: And you are dead flat wrong about Marina. Which is par for the course for you. No, I'm not. You're wrong about Marina. But that's what makes Jimmy Jimmy. He gets everything wrong. Edited January 5, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Robert Card said: How can we tell where LHO was everyday of his life? Straw man created. I don't consider it a strawman when the CTers are alleging that LHO was positively NOT in Mexico City, when the hard evidence (i.e., CE2564 and CE15) is indicating just the opposite. I think the "Where Was Oswald If He Wasn't In Mexico?" question is a perfectly valid inquiry in light of the continual "LHO Was Not In MC" refrain we are always getting from the conspiracy theorists, especially since we're talking about an EIGHT- or NINE-day period. It's not just a few hours or just one single day. It's eight or nine days. And nobody sees him (except in Mexico, of course). Edited January 5, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 Too bad Oswald got killed in the basement of the DPD by Ruby and was never questioned past Hosty's purported question about Mexico City, that he never got he chance to answer that one. Strange that sequence of events ain't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted January 5, 2019 Author Share Posted January 5, 2019 I don't know how many times I have to go through this about Marina. I mean really. This gets so tiresome with a guy who has a middle name of Denial. But this is his game. He just keeps of coming back with stuff he knows is wrong. For the simple matter that he has no life. This is his life. For about the 89th time, let us refer to the first SS interview with marina by Special Agent Charles Kunkel on 11/24. This is summarized in Whitewash 2 by Harold Weisberg. Marina was asked about Oswald in Mexico City in that interview, she replied she knew absolutely nothing about that. (p. 20) And OMG, the Ruth Paine letter! About a week ago, I noted all the problems with it. Please. Everyon where should keep this following URL in their folder for the next time Davey brings up this letter which has more holes than the Oklahoma defense. https://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/oswalds-kostikov-letter/ And this is the difference. You cannot answer why there are no photos. Or why its the wrong voice. Or why the calls are not on the CIA monthly summary. Etc etc. Whereas I can answer yours very easily. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Stancak Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) A very interesting hypothesis popped up recently attempting to explain Lee Oswald's whereabouts during the period he was supposed to be in Mexico City. The new book by Paul Smith: JFK and the Willard Hotel Plot: The Explosive New Theory of Oswald in D.C. , Lee Oswald took a bus for Houston but did not travel to Mexico City, his imposter(s) did. Lee Oswald stopped in Austin and Dallas (Silvia Odio) and reached Washington, D.C. on the 27th of September. According to this hypothesis, Lee stayed at the pricy Willard hotel and was readying for an assassination attempt on October 1. On that day, a motorcade took place with JFK and H. Selasie parading in an open limousine and taking a sharp turn around Willard hotel. There were allegedly two opportunities to shoot at a motorcade, one during the parade on the 14th Street and another on the south lawn of the White House which was visible from Willard hotel back then. Besides the August letters by Lee Oswald in which he signalled he would be moving to Baltimore/Washington, D.C. for a job in October, there is a Secret Service report (dated December 1963) stating that Lee Oswald was indeed seen by a driver of an official's limousine, by a SS agent (Hicks?) and a local police officers. All three men were convinced that the man they saw coming out from Willard hotel and causing disturbance there was Lee Harvey Oswald. The evidence is circumstantial, however, the author makes a good job in connecting the dots. Edited January 5, 2019 by Andrej Stancak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: And this is the difference. You cannot answer why there are no photos. Or why it's the wrong voice. Or why the calls are not on the CIA monthly summary. Etc etc. Whereas I can answer yours very easily. Sure, it's easy to just pretend all the various documents are fake and phony. And it's easy to label someone a l-i-a-r. But the fact is: No Warren Commission critic has ever come close to actually PROVING that those two important documents (CE15 and CE2564) are fake documents (with Oswald's own signature forged on BOTH of them). To me, such a notion of wholesale fakery is just not reasonable (or realistic). But I've come to realize that JFK conspiracy theorists possess a unique mindset when it comes to the topic of "evidence". Many CTers seem to have no problem at all believing that dozens and dozens of pieces of physical evidence in this case were fabricated, fraudulent, forged, planted, tainted, etc.---including those two important "Mexico City" documents (CE15 & CE2564). And if you want to believe that all of this "Mexico City" testimony provided by Marina Oswald on February 3, 1964, is nothing but a big fat lie being told by Marina, well, you go right ahead and believe that. But don't expect me to follow you down that rocky road either (despite the information that appears on page 20 of Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash 2"). Edited January 5, 2019 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said: A very interesting hypothesis popped up recently attempting to explain Lee Oswald's whereabouts during the period he was supposed to be in Mexico City. The new book by Paul Smith: JFK and the Willard Hotel Plot: The Explosive New Theory of Oswald in D.C. , Lee Oswald took a bus for Houston but did not travel to Mexico City, his imposter(s) did. Lee Oswald stopped in Austin and Dallas (Silvia Odio) and reached Washington, D.C. on the 27th of September. According to this hypothesis, Lee stayed at the pricy Willard hotel and was readying for an assassination attempt on October 1. On that day, a motorcade took place with JFK and H. Selasie parading in an open limousine and taking a sharp turn around Willard hotel. There were allegedly two opportunities to shoot at a motorcade, one during the parade on the 14th Street and another on the south lawn of the White House which was visible from Willard hotel back then. Besides the August letters by Lee Oswald in which he signalled he would be moving to Baltimore/Washington, D.C. for a job in October, there is a Secret Service report (dated December 1963) stating that Lee Oswald was indeed seen by a driver of an official's limousine, by a SS agent (Hicks?) and a local police officers. All three men were convinced that the man they saw coming out from Willard hotel and causing disturbance there was Lee Harvey Oswald. The evidence is circumstantial, however, the author makes a good job in connecting the dots. Thanks, Andrej. I don't buy his scenario for a single solitary second (of course), but at least author Paul Smith has put something on the table to try and answer the "Where Was Oswald?" question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: BTW, let me reply to these diversionary tactics by the two Nutters. That's what I don't like about your posts, James DiEugenio. You lack honesty. What you call "diversionary tactics" is actually common sense, logic, reasoning and the laying out of facts. It is you, in fact, who are using the the "Give your dog a bad name and hang him" tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: 1. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Cuban embassy. 2. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Soviet embassy. 3. At least ten chances for a photo--negative result. We actually have the CIA checks on this today. This is why Goodpasture lied about the Mystery Man photo. She could not find a pic of LHO. 4. The voice on the tapes is not LHO. Complete mismatch. This was so bad the CIA later lied about the tapes being destroyed prior to the assassination. They were not! 5. Duran's description is not LHO. 6. The Saturday call had to be phony per reasons stated above. 7. As David shows, the two CIA plants in the Cuban embassy were shown the picture of LHO. Both said he was not there. The CIA did not want to accept this so they tried again, came up empty twice. 8. David's new discovery is the CIA monthly phone bank summary. No listing of anyone who matches Oswald's description in the calls at at the Cuban embassy. 9. David has demolished the WC story of how Oswald was allegedly transported down and back up. Wrong passport, wrong buses. 10. I Love that visa card. The FBI tried to find the picture company where Oswald took it. Recall, he did not have it for Duran. They visited every picture shop in a five mile radiusof the embassy, could not find anyone who saw Oswald there. But there is something else wrong with the visa card which I will let David inform you of. And there is also something else wrong with the Russian embassy visit I will let on later. This is just the opening salvo. I guess we should keep on posting these until he replies. (Sound of crickets) Mister DiEugenio. I love it when you use David Mantik or David Josephs as sources. And then we are supposed to find answers to imaginary problems that they found in their dreams. I must admit that, after researching the Kennedy assassination case for, what, 29 years, and talking to almost everyone, the credibility I give David Josephs is close to 0 (it's actually closer to -1). I wouldn't use him as a source even if I was making an inquiry about his brother's first name… Anyway, let's get to the point. You want us to reply to statements as if they were true, but they are not, most of the time. I wish you could take some time off and then take a deep breath and then try to come as an outsider and read your own posts. They are full of emptiness and false or nonsensical statements. I wish you would realize it some day and I hope you do before you die. You see "problems" everywhere, "wrong" at every corner, "faked" under every stone, etc. Don't you realize it's a little "too much" ? I read a lot about conspiracy theories. I always find the same kind of flawed reasoning with other subjects. - you find all kinds of "problems" with the Kennedy assassination investigation - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the 9/11 investigation - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the Marylin Monroe simple death - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the nazi death camps shoah (have you read books or articles by people who claim that the gaz chambers never existed ? It's the same kind of James DiEugenio's style of arguments. Go ahead, check for yourself.) - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the moon landing - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the death of Nicole Brown (they even claim that they can "prove" that OJ was innocent. I can assure you, when I listen to them, they talk exactly like you) - likewise, other authors find all kinds of "problems" with the TWA 800 flight that exploded - etc, and so on, so forth… Yes, it is so easy to find "problems" in any investigation. It is so easy to find discrepancies in witnesses testimony ! We know that. But it takes honesty, and I mean, real honesty and an open mind, to reach a sane conclusion. Throwing all kinds of wild accusations and then being sarcastic toward those who don't answer your imaginary statements is something that you do constantly and you should not be proud of that. When you are old and you look back, it will be too late. You should stop to think about it ! David Josephs has "demolished" nothing at all. Only in your dreams. And I like the way you use the FBI and CIA as sources here. So, the FBI could not find the place where Oswald took his picture ? Do you believe them ? I thought they were co-conspirators, according to most of your writings. Well, never mind. David Von Pein, as always, has remarkably demonstrated here that Oswald was indeed in Mexico City. There can be no question about it. But, sadly, even David Von Pein would be unable to demonstrate to people like you that the White House is in Washington, DC and the Empire State building in New York, City... Edited January 5, 2019 by François Carlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: And OMG, the Ruth Paine letter! About a week ago, I noted all the problems with it. Yes, we know. You see "problems" everywhere ! We all know that whatever evidence we present, you'll find "problems" in it ! Have you ever found something "true" or even just "normal" in your life ? Edited January 5, 2019 by François Carlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 5, 2019 Share Posted January 5, 2019 5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: 6. The Saturday call had to be phony per reasons stated above. Sure, it was "phony". You are "funny". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now