James DiEugenio

Boy is that interesting.

Its ok when DVP calls someone a xxxx, right e.g. Shields and Dougherty. He then tries to cover up that fact by saying, well, I just think Frazier's testimony supersedes them, which is baloney. Either Frazier is lying or Shields is about whether or not LHO was with Frazier parking the car. Either Dougherty is lying or Frazier is about Oswald's package. The reason he does this is that he does not want us to use his tactics on him. That motive is pretty transparent. Shields and Dougherty had no reason to lie. Frazier did. I once put together a list of 57 people who had to be lying for DVP to be right. He did the same salsa dance. Talk about a double standard.

Mr. Nelson, why you insist on not understanding what I am saying is a mystery to me. Becuasae most people consider me to have some facility with the language. 1. If, after reading my review of Waldron and Hartmann, you did not understand why I have doubts about Lebed and the whole C Day/Almeida plot which the general seemed to be obsessed with, and why he would reveal it to Fulton, then I consider that to be your problem. Or maybe you did not read either review I linked to. Those reviews were two of the most popular and viewed critiques ever posted at our site. That is on you, not me. 2. If you did not understand my references to Armstrong and Hewitt in lieu of Drain, again that is on you not me. 3. Returning to Waldron/Hartmann and Lebed, I did not introduce this topic, Fulton did. In your review, you passed over this without a mention. Let alone an arched eyebrow. This shows the difference in our approaches. To me the important thing about writing criticism, in almost any field, is not the evaluation. It is in the analysis. It is there that one really understands the object being discussed. If the critic is knowledgeable and incisive then he can illuminate the work in such a way that the reader can benefit from his writing. And hopefully the reader can begin to look more thoroughly at the field in general. But it also follows that the more informed and painstaking the analysis then the more reliable the evaluation. Your review of the book has no kind of analysis in it, either comparative, qualitative, or quantitative. And in fact, you buy Fulton's journey into John Hankey land when you seem to endorse his version, and reason for, the death of JFK Jr. Finally, one should never be eager to leap to the conclusion that because one does not comment on what someone else says that this denotes agreement. It does not. I made my reasons for my criticism of the book in a scholarly way. I said no one can critique this book because of the (questionable) literary techniques the author used to assemble it. Those methods guaranteed one could not cross check the content of the discussions therein described. You apparently were willing to dismiss this key point. If I would use your tack then I could say that Geez, since Fulton said LBJ was a force in the murder of JFK, that is why Nelson wrote what he did. I did not. My concerns with the book were not at all what you say they were. They were just what I described. As I said, it is not possible for anyone to do a real critique of this book since it would take much more time, money and effort than it is worth. And also because Fulton has used a methodology which makes it simply not possible to cross check a large part of his material, since the other person has left this mortal coil. Again, for whatever reason, you ignored this in your review. Which indicates your agenda.

IMO, the McChann interview is really something. I never heard of that landmark he uses, the Janet Leigh gala before. As I said, if that is accurate, then it cinches the whole imposter idea.

Excuse me to the longhairs. But it was published in France. https://www.nouvelobs.com/histoire/20190121.OBS8876/60-personnalites-veulent-rouvrir-les-enquetes-sur-quatre-assassinats-des-annees-60.html Incredibly Jean Daniel is still alive and edits this journal.

Larry: Her book is not the only one on the subject with that general thesis. There was a book by Peter Hounam, former Times of London reporter which said just about the same thing, the idea was to nuke Cairo and therefore eliminate Nasser once and for all. Its called Operation Cyanide. http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/07/operation-cyanide-the-attack-on-uss-liberty-was-a-failed-provocateur-action-and-pretext-for-us-invasion-of-egypt-for-israel/

Does he read French? I thought that was all a hoax and he lives in the Bronx.

One of our best reviewers critiques the Gayle Nix Jackson book and gives Pieces of the Puzzle a positive review. Very interesting info in here about Odio and McChann and MC trip. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-k...anthology-2017

What a card shark Davey is. It would have never come up if Ball had not read the FBI report. Can you be honest and give me a yes or no to that Davey?

Nice one David.

I suggested that they contact the office of AOC. I told them, look send her my article on RFK which was one of the ten most popular ones at Consortium News this year. She will then see that he was a heck of a lot closer to her than he was to Steny Hoyer, the guy she beat and the other dinosaurs. And she might sign on and so might Pressley. Ron, they are working on that issue right now. I will let you know about it when its finalized and you can sign.

Now, as Sylvia Meagher noted in her book, there is not any other witness in the volumes that can place a gun sack in Oswald's hands prior to the shooting or after he got in Frazier's car. I ask, does that sound possible? Does it sound probable? And recall, if one buys Frazier and his sister, the gun had to have been broken down inside that sack. Why was there no trace of grease or oil then? Further, how did Oswald put the gun back together? With what tools? Ian Griggs said he tried to do it with a coin and gave up after 25 minutes. And finally, let me bring up the key name of Troy West. West was the paper dispenser at the TSBD. When asked if Oswald ever came to him to get some paper in the weeks leading up to the assassination, he said no. When asked if he ever left his station he said nope. When asked if he ate lunch there, he said yes.

What Davey does not say is that the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report. This is Dougherty's WC testimony: Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door. Mr. BALL - When he came in the door? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes. Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes. Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of. Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that? And later on: Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time. Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir. Ball tried to use the FBI report against him, but Dougherty held firm.

Davey likes to say things like this and he does it by ignoring evidence. Derek did not just make that up. Shields told the HSCA that Frazier arrived at the parking lot without Oswald. I have that in my book and its sourced there. Davey wants to call him a xxxx. Now, there has never been anyone else at the TSBD who said they saw Oswald with that gun sack. Dougherty specifically said he did not see it. Therefore he is a xxxx according to DVP. (Unless you want to use the whole "fishing pole" story that Lifton is going to use in his book. That did not get a good reception when LIfton tried to use it here.) The point is that no one is ever going to know for sure since the WC was such a debacle of investigatory technique. One would think they would at least have gotten to the bottom of why there was no picture of the so called gun sack in situ. To my knowledge they did not.

You should add one thing Larry. John had nothing but disdain for Moldea. In fact, he had it out with him on this forum once. He actually made Moldea admit that he did not buy into the LAPD bullet audit in the RFK case. But the thing is, the word audit means accounting. If you do not agree with that then it means you think there were either more or less bullets fired. It is a virtual impossibility that there would be less. Because that would mean an even crazier schematic than Wolfer's. If you say there were more then that means you think there was a second gun. Although Moldea did not say that, to me that was the implication.

Davey Boy is shameless. Don't bother clicking through to his latest "obviousness". Why? Because they are anything but. First, Oswald never ordered that rifle Davey. You can moan and groan and think up of any silly and stupid excuse you want to. But one of the more convincing witnesses at the Houston mock trial was Brian Edwards. When he testified that the rifle in evidence is not the rifle the WC said it was, that was a turning point. Its the first time that got on any kind of a jury record. It will not go away. Second, funny about that so called sack. How come no one else saw it? Why did Shields tell the HSCA that Oswald was not even with Frazier when he parked his car that morning? Why did the DPD not photograph it in situ? They got the whole sixth floor except that. Why did Studebaker say the bag was twice as long as the one Frazier testified to? Why did Cadigan say there was no oil or grease found on the inside of the sack he got from the DPD? Yet the rifle was supposed to be soaked in Cosomoline. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 199-209. I had a lot of fun with this whole gun sack story.)

The above is more of Davey's Kreskin type of mind reading. Yawn. BTW, as per the whole pot/kettle thing, this is one of DVP's standard devices to transfer the unjustifiable practices he uses to others. Three comments: 1. No one will ever know for sure what Oswald said during those hours of detention with the DPD. The vast majority of it was not written down or recorded. And there is really no excuse for that. None, Zero. It is a complete disgrace. And to this day there is room for doubt that it was not recorded. I have never made any flat statements as to what Oswald said or did not say. It is only based on notes that may or may not be accurate. 2. As per the curtain rods story, Fritz said Oswald denied this. Now, do we know he denied it? No. But if he did not, it makes Fritz and Frazier look pretty bad. 3. To render Oswald's so called unusual trip to the Paine home on Thursday night into perspective, just ask yourself, "When did LHO start work at the TSBD?" So how unusual was it?

TMZ put the story back up: https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/19/jfk-rfk-mlk-malcolm-x-murders-assassinations-conspiracies-reopen-trc/ It is also up at Consortium News, the late Bob Parry's site.

Hold it. Do we need a history lesson here? Kilpatrick was a columnist for a major newspaper in Richmond in the late fifties and early sixties. This was well after Brown v Board. One of the cases included in that decision was the Prince Edward school system in Virginia, where the state deliberately deprived that school system of funding because of the Brown v Board case. Well Kilpatrick, in his best John Calhoun style, screamed "States Rights" to defend that decision to keep those kids without schools or teachers. Thereby ignoring the Civil War amendments and the Brown v Board decision. And Buckley backed him and had him write columns like this in NR! In fact, Buckley himself wrote columns echoing that attitude. As Mark Lane wrote in his book Citizen Lane, Buckley opposed voting rights for black citizens in the south even if they paid the poll tax. ( p. 321) How about this for Buckley's John Calhoun impression: "The central question that emerges is whether the White community in the south is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail politically and culturally in areas where it does not predominate numerically. The sobering answer is yes. The White community is so entitled because for the time being is the advanced race." (ibid) So much for America being a melting pot of different ethnic and racial groups, and also so much for majority rule/ minority rights. As per his Cold Warrior aspects, Buckley attacked Eisenhower for going to Geneva to just talk about nuclear controls in 1958. (ibid) Buckley had one goal in life: to purify the GOP of its wild and crazy John Birch society strain which sunk Goldwater, and to rid it of its moderate to liberal wing (Javits, Cooper, Goodell, Lindsay). He achieved that aim and paved the way for Reagan, Gingrich, and DeLay. And that is why the Republican Party is what it is today. BTW, let us never forget where Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign. The Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi. Seven miles from where Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman's bodies were recovered. And what was Reagan's theme that day? States Rights.

Uh, excuse me, we are going to reduce the murder of the UN Secretary General in Congo, the great Dag Hammarskjold, plus 16 other people, to Brandsetter and Lumpkin? Wow, I guess Lisa Pease and Susan Williams were all wet then. https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/17/the-mysterious-death-of-a-un-hero-2/

This is why Mr Nelson will never be a valued critic. I do not dispute the meetings. What I am questioning, quite specifically, is the content of the discussion. There is simply no way to ascertain that aspect. For the specific reason I mentioned, that is the passing on of the other party. As per Nelson's specialty, the cheap shot on Drain, the transfer to the FBI on the night of the 22nd has been certified and documented by writers like Carol Hewitt and John Armstrong. And it was done many, many years ago. In fact back in the late nineties for articles they did for Probe Magazine on Ruth and Micahel Paine and the disappearance of the Minox camera. How anyone can write about the Waldron/Hartmann thesis today escapes me. If you have not read my reviews of Ultimate Sacrifice and Legacy of Secrecy, please do: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/ultimate-sacrifice https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/legacy-of-secrecy-by-lamar-waldron-with-thom-hartmann The first one garnered a very nice compliment from a Los Angeles area Advanced Placement teacher. She said that she thought my review was a model for detecting misinformation and she taught a lesson to her class based on it. In the second, Waldron and Hartmann actually changed part of their book based upon my first critique, and I note it in the review.

Well, i have to rain on this parade. I never liked Buckley as either a person or a writer. The man was a racist and also a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior who would make good pals with Angleton. Buckley actually backed the writings of the Virginia newspaper racist James Kilpatrick into the sixties when JFK was breaking down Jim Crow in the south. As late as the eighties, he was pushing for extending the Cold War and criticizing the telefilm The Day After because it showed the dangers of atomic fallout. He and his brother James then did what they could to pull the Repubican party to the right by running against the moderate and liberal wings e.g. Goodell and Lindsay. This was picked up by Gingrich and Delay and that is why the GOP today is a bunch of rightwing nuts. So, please, I will not weep for Buckley.

i agree Larry. What I liked about John was that he actually got out of his house and went to the archives and dug through the paper to find new and interesting things. He took pictures of exhibits also. And he always shared what he had. He did fine work I thought on the ballistics and medical evidence in the JFK case. His posthumous RFK book should be good.

Isn't it just like Davey to be able to tell us when Oswald was lying and when he was telling the truth and why. I mean, we are talking about a guy who was literally murdered in the arms of the DPD in their basement when Captain Fritz jumped out and left him exposed. With two horns going off right before the murder by Ruby. The police then lied about how Ruby got into the basement and then covered up that lie. It was not exposed until the HSCA inquiry. And yet, somehow Davey will trust what these guys wrote down as the gospel truth about Oswald. And yet when Oswald says something exculpatory about himself, he is lying. Why? Because we know he is guilty. Same thing that Bugliosi did in his inflated door stop.

Actually there should be since I think Max Good taped it. There were about 6 good speeches given in addition to this.