James DiEugenio Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) Chuck is a very proficient maker of AV essays, He just did one on the RFK case that was really good. He has now done one on the JFK case that is also good. Really simple and easy to understand. This should be devoted to Vince Salandria. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/proof-of-conspiracy-in-jfk-assassination-rev Edited October 5, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Adams Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Obviously, very thorough work on this. And very convincing. The Warren Commission really did not believe the masses would read their report, and they were correct. LBJ's response when receiving his copy was "It's Heavy". I also doubt he did any reading other than a summary. So, we believed what we were told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Nice to see Jim DiEugenio join the T3 back wound party! Jim has previously denied the fact JFK was hit at T3 — better late than never! Bravo Jim! I wrote this 23 years ago under my “punk rock” pseudonym Nick Sylene. THE SECOND SKIN -- 2 Home Tests Prove Conspiracy Against JFK http://web.archive.org/web/20040411161201/http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/11/11-15/11-15-14.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) The thing is Terry, they made a mistake. Dulles told McCloy, nobody reads anymore so let's publish a lot of stuff. Well, people like Salandria did read it e.g. his two part Liberation series in early 1965--and then he compared it to what was in the report. And he came up with stuff like the above. You noticed that the 9-11 report did not repeat that pattern right? Edited October 5, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: The thing is Terry, they made a mistake. Dulles told McCloy, nobody reads anymore so let's publish a lot of stuff. Well, people like Salandria did read it e.g. his two part Liberation series in early 1965--and then he compared it to what was in the report. And he came up with stuff like the above. You noticed that the 9-11 report did not repeat that pattern right? I think the 9/11 Commission released some of their records online around 2007. Edited October 5, 2020 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 5, 2020 Author Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) That's not the same Micah. With JFK, the report was footnoted to the accompanying volumes. When those volumes came out about two months after the report, people live VInce read them. In fact, Maggie Field actually set up easels, at the top was what was in the report, below that was a series of excerpts from the volumes with all the evidence that contradicted the sentence from the report. That book was never published, I wonder why? Edited October 6, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 Is there any medical litetature suggesting that the skin on the back could have shifted enough to have a t3 wound look as high as it does on the autopsy photos? If it were possible for the skin to move that much, maybe one could argue for a t3 wound without the photos being faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted October 5, 2020 Share Posted October 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said: Is there any medical litetature suggesting that the skin on the back could have shifted enough to have a t3 wound look as high as it does on the autopsy photos? If it were possible for the skin to move that much, maybe one could argue for a t3 wound without the photos being faked. In the Fox 5 back-of-the-head photo the head was tilted back, pushing down on the skin — thus the folds in the skin at the base of the neck. The photo is a fake — full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 6, 2020 Author Share Posted October 6, 2020 (edited) BTW, I have an interesting essay coming up at K and K about these early critics, including Vince, and less well known people like Maggie Field, Shirley Martin and Ray Marcus. An invaluable source for me on this, and a book I think everyone here should be interested in reading is John Kelin's Praise from a Future Generation. I briefly mentioned it in my elegy for Vince. But in this upcoming essay I used it extensively. To my knowledge, it is the only book that chronicles the history of the critical movement from 1964-1969. It is both complete and well written. And it goes into the early work on this issue and the essays by Vince and Sauvage, which actually preceded the first American book, Inquest. Speaking of which, I will have a lot to say about Mr. Epstein and his book. Edited October 6, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: BTW, I have an interesting essay coming up at K and K about these early critics, including Vince, and less well known people like Maggie Field, Shirley Martin and Ray Marcus. An invaluable source for me on this, and a book I think everyone here should be interested in reading is John Kelin's Praise from a Future Generation. I briefly mentioned it in my elegy for Vince. But in this upcoming essay I used it extensively. To my knowledge, it is the only book that chronicles the history of the critical movement from 1964-1969. It is both complete and well written. And it goes into the early work on this issue and the essays by Vince and Sauvage, which actually preceded the first American book, Inquest. Speaking of which, I will have a lot to say about Mr. Epstein and his book. One thing Klein's book never cleared up was what happened to Shirley Martin's tape of their meeting with Oscar Huber. Martin's daughter claimed she recorded the conversation with an audio recorder running through her purse strap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 6, 2020 Author Share Posted October 6, 2020 Wasn't her daughter killed in an auto accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Wasn't her daughter killed in an auto accident? Around 2000, Shirley Martin's daughter had email contact with John Klein, as footnoted. Edited October 6, 2020 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Mellor Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Wasn't her daughter killed in an auto accident? On 8th September, 1967, Shirley Martin's oldest daughter, Victoria, who had accompanied her mother to Dallas to interview witnesses, was with her friend Candy in a VW Beetle, that was "sideswiped" by another car. Candy died the next day but Victoria, who sustained twenty-four broken bones in the crash, lingered for four days before dying of her injuries. After the death of her daughter Shirley Martin gave up research into the assassination of JFK. Certainly agree, Kelin's book is a must. Edited October 6, 2020 by Pete Mellor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted October 6, 2020 Author Share Posted October 6, 2020 That was really tragic. From my reading of the book, that really dealt Martin an emotional blow. As it would so many. That hurt because she was not just a good researcher, but everyone liked her. Plus she had a good relationship with Marguerite, and unlike others, she was close to Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Mellor Posted October 6, 2020 Share Posted October 6, 2020 30 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: That was really tragic. From my reading of the book, that really dealt Martin an emotional blow. As it would so many. That hurt because she was not just a good researcher, but everyone liked her. Plus she had a good relationship with Marguerite, and unlike others, she was close to Dallas. Not just tragic, but very suspicious....like the safe driving record of a certain taxi driver killed in a head on crash in '65 or the suspected 'sideswiped' vehicle driven by the supervisor of a railroad tower in '66. 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