Thomas Graves

To bow to any corrupt system is to legitimize it and stunt your own thinking ability, especially when corruption in peer review is recurrent and proof of that is publicly available. When is this elitist charade going to be called out? I won't be lead to ignore the human biases embedded in the peer review system that is deliberately used as a tool by dividers and conquerors of society from an intentionally academic vantage point to uphold authoritarianism and crush dissension with a pen. Not only has the internet made it easier for anyone to publish a non-peer-reviewed book, it has also made it easier for "the establishment's" peer review participants to exert their bias with no immediate repercussions for doing so (I only link proven examples, but there are thousands more proven examples if you seek them out). Your constructs are very hard to follow. Do you really believe that all writings are of equal validity? No! They've all been altered by the bad guys! LOL --Tommy

And how does one go about "proving" the genuineness of an historical, "home movie" film like this? Gotta come up with the original? I.e., not a copy? If a copy, gotta fend off and "disprove" all the alterationists' objections, point by point? --Tommy

Larry, Where do you think Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "Marina's husband" -- LOL) was at the time of the assassination? Out on the front landing, or hovering on the ground floor / 2nd floor near a rear door? Thanks, --Tommy

Jon, Regarding this "Z-film forgery" issue, upon whom is the burden of proof -- DVP (not forged) or you (forged)? --Tommy

That's an excellent question, Jon. Maybe one of our photographic experts knows the precise answer. In lieu of that, I can tell you what I believe the case to be, based on my rudimentary understanding of the overall context. Since I believe that Altgens 6 was taken 2-3 seconds after the first shot hit JFK, and that Couch and Darnell started filming about 20 seconds after the final shot, then I believe, if my arithmetic is correct, that about 25 seconds (plus or minus 5 seconds) separate the two images. Just curious: Why do you ask? --Tommy

Jon, Can you prove it was forged? Was the whole thing forged, or just parts of it? Which parts? --Tommy PS In your highly-anticipated response, please don't use words like "obviously" and "clearly" and certainly." Those words just don't "cut it" (pardon the pun) with me when it comes to the JFK assassination and "film / photo alteration."

I missed it, but I'm guessing that if Trejo had put the offending word or phrase in quotation marks, he probably wouldn't have been banned. By the way, whatever happened to Greg Parker, David Josephs, and / or Steven Gaal? Just wondering. --Tommy

As one doctor put it, everyone dies from cardiac arrest, ultimately. Excellent point. --Tommy

I agree, Stephen. My favorite at the moment is "The U.S. created ISIS." --Tommy

Hear, hear! From a 2013 EF thread.... JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo? None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder. DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening. I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call. DVP April 14, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110 WOW DVP! And to think you've been nailed for lying in at least 30 posts on the Amazon forum today.... LYING (with examples and CITES), it's little wonder why you're deflecting onto someone else. http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg99?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=99&cdThread=Tx2TWVIHCI1W2YB David G. Healy, Are you saying that David Von Pein is a "xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire"? ... --Tommy as the included AMAZON thread shows, Tom. Frankly, I could care less who says what to whom. Who lies to whomever.... There are trite little folks defending both sides of the debate. But when one puts themselves off as a know-all be-all when it concerns case evidence then meets an unknown on an equal, knowledgable footing basis, fur flies. And DVP has met his match, found wanting and then some... Read the thread if you have time, then you tell me... the case evidence always wins out! Have you read Talbot's new book yet, Tommy? Amazon. Is that something like YELP? --Tommy

Hear, hear! From a 2013 EF thread.... JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo? None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder. DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening. I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call. DVP April 14, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110 WOW DVP! And to think you've been nailed for lying in at least 30 posts on the Amazon forum today.... LYING (with examples and CITES), it's little wonder why you're deflecting onto someone else. http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg99?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=99&cdThread=Tx2TWVIHCI1W2YB David G. Healy, Are you saying that David Von Pein is a "xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire"? --Tommy

Dear Paul, Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander. I suppose that would be against her Quaker principles? --Tommy The impression I get, Tommy, is that Ruth Paine thinks of all CTers as madmen imitating Jim Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw. That is, they just blame everybody they feel like, willy-nilly, just to see if anything sticks. They don't care who they hurt in the process. So, I gather that Ruth Paine just thinks of James DiEugenio as a kook -- and probably presumes that most people (CTers aside) have the same opinion of James DiEugenio, so it doesn't bother her anymore. It used to. Maybe if somebody prevails upon Ruth Paine to sue James and Skyhorse for libel -- and continues to prod her to convince her that these defamatory statements are harming her children -- then maybe she might hire a lawyer, I don't know. But I sort of agree with you -- Ruth Paine is a Charitable person and very easy-going. A sincere, public apology would probably satisfy all her 50 years of complaints. Regards, --Paul Trejo You make it should like it would be Easy Money for Ruth! A Slam Dunk! Just think -- Then she could take in other nice-looking Russian girls who are separated from their American husbands. You know, to help them. And to ... improve her Russian! --Tommy

Well, Paul, "proceeding further" is rather redundant, isn't it? Maybe you should say "barging right ahead," instead? Proceed. --Tommy

Dear Paul, Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander. I suppose that would be against her Quaker principles? --Tommy

Why don't you try to rebut what he says, Ba Ba, instead of yucking it up and making snide remarks? Or just be quiet there in the peanut gallery and actually learn something. --Tommy

So he's obviously afraid of you and your exploding dear deer heads, Ba Ba. --Tommy

All this talk about 191 grains and exploding heads and everything. Or was it 189 grains. All I know is that my 1942 Izhevsk Mosin-Nagant 91/30 kicked like a mule and was very accurate with iron sights and the 1954 Hungarian "yellow tip" ball rounds that I paid about ten cents apiece for. --Tommy

Maybe he's afraid of you, Ba Ba. --Tommy

Looking at the group of people framed by the TSBD entrance and with the street sign(s) behind them, the big man wearing the suit on the right edge of the group is, I believe, Ochus Campbell. Edit: "Check that. Upon further review," I think Ochus' and Truly's group are farther to the right, visible at the beginning of the clip. Never mind. That's not even the TSBD. Nix was shooting this from the north west corner of the intercetion of Main and Houston, so the TSBD is way off to the left, out of view. Sheez. --Tommy

Good post, Bob. --Tommy

edited

In Dallas, back in 1963 you could walk into any place that sold guns and buy any longarm without using an ID. The entire charade regarding Kleins, the money order, the P.O. boxes, and the bogus murder weapon was hastily contrived to pin blame on Oswald. Without that evidence there would be essentially no case at all, it was required to prop up the Lone Nut theory Chris, There's a theory that Oswald was participating in senator Robert Dodd's congressional investigation of the illegal purchasing of firearms by mail order. --Tommy

Jim: Well, yes and no. The "yes": Obviously, every author decides what format he prefers to use for footnotes. One could argue that an abbreviated format was thought to be sufficient for general readers who were not likely to engage in any personal research. The "no": I'm sure that Caufield obtained cost estimates from more than one potential publisher and perhaps he thought that providing conventional footnotes (using something like the Chicago Manual of Style rules) would have added x-number of additional words and extra lines of text which, in the aggregate, would have prohibitively increased the cost of publishing his book. It is also possible that Caufield ran into the same problem as I did with respect to my own research, i.e. when my FOIA research began 35 years ago, the type and quantity of notes which I took were much different from what I did 10-20 years later. In many cases, there was no way for me to go back to again review the original materials which I obtained through inter-library loan or which I saw when I traveled to other locations. BOTTOM-LINE Whatever the reasons, I just think it is disappointing because serious students will have a very hard time following the evidence trail which Caufield provides. A serious limitation, IMHO. --Tommy

Personally, I see Don Knotts, aka "Barney Fife.". --Tommy