James DiEugenio

Steve: Were they trying to hide it with the wrong dates?

In his essay in The Assassinations, Gary writes, quoting the HSCA volumes, "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs, none had differing accounts...it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." He references this to HSCA Volume 7, p. 39

Blunt and Bagley were acquaintances for a number of years. Malcolm built up a good rapport with the guy. Bagley dedicated the last decades of his life trying to disprove the acceptance of Nosenko as being a genuine defector. Malcolm and John Newman were also interested in this idea. In fact, today, John agrees with Bagley on that topic. And that was the basis for the relationship. What is odd about that? Its a heck of a lot less odd than following alien abductions etc.and comparing them with a homicide case. Finally, Bagley answers a question from his new friend about a technical issue that he would understand. And Malcolm was sort of tight flipped about that. It was John who thought it was important enough to make public. What Malcolm himself thought important about it was the fact that it paralleled what Betsy Wolf had gone through as shown in the newly declassified documents from the HSCA. Documents he decided to send me. IMO, the important thing about the Wolf documents is that I do not recall this particular issue, about the obstructions put on the Oswald file, as being in the HSCA report. And second, I do not recall Wolf ever saying anything about her months long pursuit of this mystery, and all the paper she generated trying to solve it. Again, these are the dangers of secrecy and non disclosure agreements. The Betsy Wolf endeavor seems to me to be quite important overall. It is a troubling issue that what she did is only now just being made public after about 55 years. If you ask me, its a disgrace.

To my knowledge, which is not current, he may be coming out with another book. And if I am correct on this, and again I am not current, it will be specifically about the murders of his uncle and father.

HA HA HA HA The above is one of DVP's unintentional guffaws. JBC knew that the WC was so full of crap it stunk. Period. End of story. Be a man DVP.

Sandy if you read Gary's essay in The Assassinations, yes that is the case. The actual chart in which he names the witnesses and maps out their observations, that is in Murder in Dealey Plaza. p. 199. DVP knows all this and has for years. I have never been able to understand why, because he has no life, we have to be his caretakers. I am not trained in that field.

Lancie Boy used this against Joe Bauer? What a joke. I mean really, this guy was a lawyer? All I can say is he would have been right at home on the WC.

Davey is forgetting that the same amount of people saw it at Bethesda. Way to go Davey Boy!

OMG, Davey so you ignored everything I wrote correct? About the HSCA report giving the wrong info in their report what you and FC relied upon right? Then you ignore the stuff about the camera also and how the HSCA fudged that one. And now you bring up the Z film as the last bastion? I am not big on the Z film alteration that is true. But if you really listened to me, what I have said is that if there is such a case, the WIlkersons have made a pretty good argument for it being just about this issue: the rear skull wound was blacked out. Can we now drop this. Like Soupy Sales, you never get tired of the custard pie in the face do you?

Steve, That is what Lancie Boy is saying could be mistaken for a DPD car?

Davey cut out the other part of the quote. When the reporter asked him why he did not say anything about it he said that the country needed closure. (McBride, Into the Nightmare, p. 418) And he always insisted he was hit by a separate shot. And he told the same thing to Groden when he and his wife visited Dealey Plaza.

LOL ROTF

Sandy, this is the typical three blind mice--Lancie Boy, FC and DVP--and their appeal to authority. That is, if the HSCA or the WC says something is true, then ipso facto its true. They then discount or forget matters when the HSCA was honest enough to say something fatal to the WC: like the HSCA found that Ruby lied during his polygraph test. And further, the FBI rigged the test in advance. To any normal person that would carry the impact of a harpoon through the chest. Somehow, it just runs off their backs like water in a shower: What me worry? Now FC, and DVP, like to quote the HSCA report on this matter right? But yet they do not use the declassified record of the HSCA as produced by the ARRB. None of these guys do. Lancie boy thinks its the dark side of the moon. But its not. It is available and its been written about. And it directly impacts the HSCA report as written. See, the HSCA knew about what you quote: the doctors at Parkland saying they saw that hole in the rear of the skull. But they said, no these witnesses were mistaken since it disappeared at Bethesda. Well, it did not. And Gary Aguilar found the documents released by the ARRB which showed they knew about these other exhibits they had saying that witnesses at Bethedsa saw this hole also. In other words the HSCA lied in its report. And when Gary confronted them with this, none of them would accept the blame for writing that prevaricating statement. Not Purdy, not Baden not Blakey. Real profiles in courage eh? (The Assassinations, edited by Jim DIEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 273-77) But its actually worse. See, the HSCA said they used certain photo techniques to recognize patterns in the photos and then claimed they were real. They said that unfortunately they could not find the original camera and lens at the DOD to do an actual comparison test. Well, guess what FC? That was not really true either. The ARRB found evidence that the DOD had given the HSCA the camera that was used originally. But the HSCA said that this camera was not the right one since their experts said they could not produce a match. As Gary writes, it may be that the lens had been switched out in the intervening years. But no one can be certain because of the simple matter that the HSCA test results on the camera are gone. So there may be an innocent explanation, and there may not be.(ibid, pp. 279-80) Hard to trust a body in which no one somehow remembers who wrote a rather deceptive description of about 20 witnesses' testimony about the back of JFK's head. None of these guys does this kind of work. And they do not even read the books where the info can be found. That is why I call them the three blind mice.

If someone called a taxi, knowing what Hoover was doing on this case e.g. the Odio incident cover up, would not the FBI have found them? Would they not have asked everyone at Beckley, would they not have gone to the cab companies? Roberts said she saw two cops in the car. Do cab drivers dress like cops in the city of Dallas? The idea that somehow the DPD would admit there was a car there, or the cops would come forward, is too ludicrous to contemplate.

Maybe FC should start studying alien abductions like Lancie Boy.

Lancie Boy, what is the level of your reading comprehension? Reading too much about alien abductions lately? Anyone can see from above that when I revisited the start of this thread some of your stuff "filtered through". In other words people were silly enough to engage with you on something besides alien abductions. As I tried to point out, any lawyer who somehow compares that with a homicide case is really a bowl of wax. There are courses in criminal prosecution and advanced criminal prosecution at law school. I have never heard of one in Alien Abductions 101, let alone 201. Did you take those classes? What were they like and can you tell us the college that offered them? But that is not the real point is it Lancie Boy? The real point in you bringing all that up is to imply that anybody who actually studies the record in the JFK case must be as weird and lost as someone who does Alien Abductions right, Lancie? You know, the whole Tin Foil cap crowd. correct? Geez Lancie, was Richard Russell into Alien Abductions? Was Hale Boggs? Was LBJ? Was Richard Schweiker? Is Al Gore? Was John Connally? No they were not. But they all had severe reservations about the Magic Bullet and some of them more than that. Connally said he never bought the official story for five seconds. Schweiker said that when he studied the WC, it collapsed like a house of cards. After just one year of study Gore told Bud Fensterwald: You are correct, it was a conspiracy. See Lancie, the reason we are here is not because we think the moon landings never happened or aliens are abducting humans. I mean that might be what you are or were interested in. And you should continue to frequent those types of sites. We are here because Kennedy was killed by conspiracy, and that is not a theory, it is a fact. What is a theory is who killed him and why. That is what most of us are trying to figure out. Not because its fun, or interesting. Its not. But because we think something happened to this country in the sixties. In fact, according to a 2013 Hart Associates poll, 94 % of the public feels that way, namely that something happened to America after JFK was killed that sent the country into a downturn. (Maybe it was an outbreak of alien abductions? If so they should have called you, right Lancie?) That is what we are trying to do here. If you don't feel comfortable with it go to an alien abductions site, or a fake moon landing site. Should be easy to find. You would fit in much better there than here since whatever your detective skills are, they simply seem abysmal in a homicide case. But your attitude, rhetoric, and bombast would fit right in over there. Let us know if you need some help finding one. I am sure most of us would like to see you happy and wish you bon voyage to your new home. PS Thanks Denny.

Al probably does not know about the travail of Betsy Wolf. Because those files were not released until last year. Very few people know about her because she has not been at all outspoken about what happened while she was on the HSCA. As opposed to say Ed Lopez or Dan Hardaway or the late Gaeton Fonzi. Betsy Wolf quite literally spent months, extending over a year, trying to figure out the mystery that Al is talking about here. Why did the CIA place so many unusual restrictions on the Oswald file? She literally took scores of pages of notes on the file. She interviewed several people who had experience with handling CIA files on personnel. She studied the history of the Oswald file and tried to actually build a model on how it was structured through time. These were the questions she faced: 1.) Why was there no 201 file opened on Oswald until 13 months after his defection? 2.) Why were so many restrictions placed on that file once it was opened? 3.) Would the file have been opened if Otto Otepka had not written his letter to the CIA about the false defector program? Its really too bad that she did not talk to Bagley. He could have given her some really interesting information. The excellent archive researcher Malcolm Blunt has given me much of Wolf's work. I have only reviewed the file once and its so dense and complex I will have to read it again. (Sounds like fun, huh Lance?) But I can say this in a tentative way before I do the second pass. Wolf concluded that the CIA would not have opened the Oswald 201 file if Otepka had not written his letter. Combine what with what Bagley said and, sorry, its not alien abductions.

BTW, I avoid any thread the Arizona lawyer starts because, as I explained above, I understand his game. But I went back and read some of the early stuff on this thread and his quotes filtered through. This guy never tires of recycling discredited MSM baloney. This idea of a "benign" cover up is about 25 years old, at least. And the Arizona lawyer trots it out as if its new. And he then says, well see, you people would rather believe in some kind of a plot since its more fun! I answered this question at the 30th anniversary on a nationwide radio show! Yes, back in 1993! My reply was this: 1.) No its not fun doing what I do. Its hard work and a lot of it is tedious. I live in LA, so while people are going to Malibu and Manhattan Beach, I am at the Corner Bakery with three books on the table drinking iced tea and eating a tuna sandwich, taking notes. Lots of fun eh? 2.) The reason I, and many others do it, is simple: the core evidence in this case simply does not support the official story. You can spin it anyway you wish to. You can cover it up, you can disguise it, you can ignore it, you can say, as VB did, "Well that is OK since we know Oswald did it", you can say, as Payette does, "Well its same as alien abductions". None of that will change the spurious state of the core evidence. And as time goes on the state of that evidence has gotten worse. If a prosecutor as skilled and as storied as Bugliosi had to cover up the failings in the record by burying it in a 2,646 page cinder block, and using a record of invective and insult along the way to somehow conceal that failure, then you know how bad things are with that record. When your chief piece of evidence is CE 139, and you cannot tell the reader the simple fact that this rifle is not the rifle the Commission says Oswald ordered, then somehow you have lost your way as a representative of the people in court. And that encapsulates what has happened in the JFK case. Notable people who are storied in other respects somehow shrink in stature when they cannot deal with the phoniness of the evidence in the JFK case. Its been labeled off limits, outside of Hallin's inner spheres. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallin's_spheres) Much easier to swim with the MSM current than to defy it. Just ask people who have tried to defy that current, e.g. Judge Joe Brown, Richard Sprague, Bob Parry, and Gary Webb. Unfortunately, in the last 2 cases, they cannot reply.

KG: But this could be an unspoken conspiracy between the two to promote Jim Di's books and traffic to DVP's website which certainly fits in with Jim Di's grand conspiracy theories where he certainly has never met a conspiracy he didn't like. One of the really fruity comments ever made here, but kind of par for the course with KG, who has yet to make an enlightening comment on the case. Which may show why he talks to Payette. I had been off of this forum for awhile until 3-4 years ago. I looked in and saw how DVP was essentially running roughshod over everyone with his SBT disease and the discredited "Its Oswald's rifle" baloney. I left a message at DPF to this effect. And began posting here in order to dispel the idea that anyone should take Von Pein's posting seriously, and I proved why. I was cheered on by most of the posters at that time as performing a quite helpful act by revealing that DVP was in no position to tell anyone what the facts of the case were. Since he was so biased that you could not trust anything he said. I stand by that statement today. And I would place Lance Payette is that category also. Except he is of the particular stripe who has the come on of "oh, i have seen the same thing with fake moon landings, and alien abductions. Plus I have read a lot of this stuff and somehow it really does not make all that much sense etc." The twofold giveaway with Payette is : 1.) What responsible lawyer could possibly compare moon landings and alien abductions with a homicide case? That is just so nutty that it should fall back on the guy who said it. 2.) To maintain that silly standard for the critical community, and yet to excuse every bit of chicanery, each bit of deception, every instance of unfairness, and all the incompleteness that made up the WC should tell anyone with any sense that Payette has an agenda only slightly smaller than the Grand Canyon. (Heck he's from Arizona isn't he?) And he then questions the decline in dialogue here. This is after he said he was leaving. Why should he leave when he has people like Kirk to play pattycake with. PS The post above is more proof of why Payette is as trustworthy as Von Pein. The man who said that the routing pattern demonstrated that the Oswald trip to Russia was a planned defection was not John, but Tennant Bagley. Bagley was a long time CIA officer who specialized in these matters. The fact that LP avoided the information and escaped into a cheap character smear tells you who this guy is.

Nice job Al. The comments by Bagley are really something. He said that shortly before he died. Makes you wonder.

Joe: Why are you leaving? I thought you were one of the better posters here. I do hope you reconsider.

Boy, did this thread go to Hades once I left for San Fran. I was piling up record after record which the WC had ignored, did not know about or never satisfactorily made a credible conclusion on e.g. Odio, the Kostin letter, Nagell, Cheramie, Ferrie's FBI provable perjury, Phillips and the anti FPCC crusade at CIA, the FBI taking Banister's address off the Oswald flyers etc etc etc. The Arizona lawyer called it mind numbing. I call it a disgrace. So bad he could not do his usual tag team act with Davey and FC. In his usual unintentionally funny way, Davey says he archived it at his site. HA HA HA HA If you look at what he did with the exchange on the Kostin letter, you will see he is still up to his old tricks. He left out the facts that 1.) There is no evidence Oswald could have known Azcue was transferred after the alleged MC visit, and 2.) Azcue denied meeting Oswald in MC. DVP should have a self disclosure statement on his site: "Please note that in all of my archived exchanges with WC critics, e.g. DiEugenio, I censor the conversations in order to make myself look better because if i did not, I would end up looking pretty silly."

BTW, I have to say that I thought that seminar went pretty well on Saturday. Although it was a closed invitation list, people came in from all over the country, and outside the country. Len Osanic flew in from Vancouver, Larry Schnapf from New York, Jim DeBrosse from Ohio. Always nice to listen to a distinguished roster of people doing current research on the JFK case, and in Lisa Pease's instance, the RFK case. Lisa's book A Lie to Big to Fail is now out and is being delivered. I wrote the Introduction for it and think it is the best book on that case. EF subscriber David Josephs was also there and I thought he did well, especially considering it was the first time he presented in the field.

As I said, then you have a dispute with physicist Paul Chambers.

Thanks Paul and Ron. (BTW, I do not really like to argue. I would much rather do what I was doing Saturday in San Fran. Presenting mostly new information to an interested audience in front of three cameras. Too bad it was not live streamed.. Nice to see you Mr. Brancato.) Baker somehow assumed that I was avoiding him? Is that what I am supposed to understand? When have I done that before? Why would I do that with him? As per his question, I think he is trying to say that somehow the famous JFK rearward reaction we see in the Z film is somehow unwarranted and not possible with a rifle shot? Is that what he is trying to say? And that somehow no one should ever bring this up again? (Although its OK for him to try and revive the CBLA.) And, sounding like Mike Baden, he says it only in Hollywood that bodies recoil like that. This argument is as old as the hills and its been discredited before by people like Gil Jesus. Gil has found film which show this type of reaction with bullet strikes. I don't like looking at them personally. But I have and other people have. And in those films, the body flew in the direction of the projectile. As Gary Aguilar has shown, in the WC's own experiments, the skulls used went in the direction of the projectile, and it was 10 out of 10 times. We know today that Alvarez rigged his experiments to make it seem otherwise. (Has Baker ever commented on the dubious scientific ethics in that?) Finally, a noted physicist named Paul Chambers wrote a book on this subject. Maybe Baker should argue with him.