James DiEugenio

Utterly false conclusions stated above about DCM because they only reason they can be expressed is this: THE WARREN COMMISSION NEVER FOUND THIS GUY AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THEY EVEN LOOKED FOR HIM! Hold your breath for DVP to ever even imply that this was a serious failing.

If you recall, Dan Rather went on national TV in 1993 with another of his garbage specials on the JFK case. At the end of the show he said that in 30 years there had not emerged a single piece of evidence to impeach the Warren Commission. What makes this even more sick is that he had interviewed both Belin and Tanenbaum for the show. Tanenbaum was really going at Belin so they cut a lot of it out. Off camera, between takes, Rather told Tanenbaum, "We really blew it on the Kennedy assassination." Is that about as bad as it gets? He knows he is wrong but he persists in the mythomania.

I can tell you there is no evidence that the WC ever heard of Rose Cheramie. They never figured out who was at Odio's door and never hear of Cheramie. Third question: Did the WC know who Richard Case Nagell was?

I Love the way you and your soul brother DVP snip away the most important part of the post and then ask that stupid question. Here is the answer you and he do not like to the point you will not acknowledge it so you do not have to reply to it: Now your side has fallen back to the stance that, well see, its more coherent than anything you guys have. What shamelessness. As Bob Tanenbaum once said, this is like the prosecution saying to the defense, "What have you got?" See, it does not work like that in the real world. The defense is not mandated to prove its case. The prosecution has to do that and you cannot. But even with that, I have tried to put together a scenario in Destiny Betrayed, which I think is pretty solid. But the thing is, the WC screwed up the evidence so badly when the trail was warm, that it makes it that much harder to find out what really happened. Especially today, after the ARRB did not fulfill its mandate properly and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA. I await your reply.

And that is why Davey is Davey.

DVP never replied: Did the WC ever hear of Rose Cheramie?

LOL. Someone is impersonating Oswald either in Mexico City or in Dallas seven weeks before the assassination, placing him in compromising situations in both places and that has nothing to do with who shot Kennedy. This is why Davey is Davey. Did the WC ever hear about the Rose Cheramie affair?

Oh really? Did they ever find out who was at Sylvia Odio's door?

Cory: Yes we have the story at Kennedys and King from a French newspaper. The story of Connally saying he always thought it was BS is in Joe McBride's book Into the Nightmare.

Davey: Unlike WN, i am actually kind enough to give you the time of day. The Single Bullet Fantasy never happened. Its that simple. When that obviously planted bullet was found, the WC was stuck with it. Because if they did not use it, then they would have to admit that 1.) not only was there a conspiracy, but 2.) the cover up was working in hand with the plot; or why else plant the bullet--albeit on the wrong stretcher. In every single forensic element, the SBF is simply and completely indefensible. That is why the story changed three times within two months of the shooting. If Larry Schnapf ever gets the money to complete his real computer simulation, he is going to utterly humiliate Dale Myers and his cartoon. (Although Bob Harris already has) Now your side has fallen back to the stance that, well see, its more coherent than anything you guys have. What shamelessness. As Bob Tanenbaum once said, this is like the prosecution saying to the defense, "What have you got?" See, it does not work like that in the real world. The defense is not mandated to prove its case. The prosecution has to do that and you cannot. But even with that, I have tried to put together a scenario in Destiny Betrayed, which I think is pretty solid. But the thing is, the WC screwed up the evidence so badly when the trail was warm, that it makes it that much harder to find out what really happened. Especially today, after the ARRB did not fulfill its mandate properly and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA. So please, that ignorant and smart aleck bluster might make you fell good, (fore hat reason I do not know). And it may help you score points with the likes of FC, Reitzes and McAdams. But as far as a real world inquiry into the facts, its just junior high school smart alecky stuff.

To FC. As I said, you wrote that I said the following: At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents. I am now asking you: Is the italicized phrase above what you quoted me as saying at that conference yesterday?

Then, in addition to your other (ahem) qualities, you have a peculiar sense of humor.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question from FC: Did you quote me at that December 10th conference as saying that I have been through the declassified files and concluded that there was nothing of substance in them?

PB: But, I am a sentient human being with a functioning analytical brain,and am able to be persuaded otherwise. LOL This from the guy who was still trying to confuse the process of NAA with CBLA in order to keep the NAA alive as a way of imputing Oswald's guilt. And then he says he is not hanging onto anything! I mean please Baker. Do you ever go back and read some of the things you place on this forum to see how silly and hypocritical you sound? PS Thanks Paz.

No FC. As I said, you wrote that I said the following: At any rate, even you, James DiEugenio were unable to find anything of substance in the documents. I am now asking you: Is the italicized phrase above what you quoted me as saying at that conference yesterday?

This is what FC said that I said: This is not what I said on any shows. I was asked several times to mention some of the new revelations in the declassified documents from October 2017. I mentioned several new documents that had new information in them that were of substance to the case. These dealt with the CIA's reporting on Mexico City, the relationship between Ruby and Oswald, that the CIA destroyed Clay Shaw's 201 file, and the ultimate revealing in 2017 that Earle Cabell was a CIA asset since 1959. And those are just some of the important documents. I have not been through all of them as of now. Each one of those are of impact to the case. No one who understands the JFK assassination to any wide degree would say that they were not. The only way one could dismiss those revelations is if one had an MSM type agenda and was being paid to do so. Or if one had such an emotional attachment to the WC that they had to do so. Now this all started when FC asked me for some information on what was in the files. When I was reluctant to do so, he continued to ask me. I referred him to a show I did. He then quoted me as to the above. I am still trying to locate where I said that, because I do not recall doing so. Did FC ask me this question so that he could deliberately misconstrue what I said at that conference yesterday and then attribute the wrong quote to me and not to him?

Twelve hours ago I asked FC to please show me where I said that there was nothing of substance that was released in the new documents from October. This is what he says I said in an interview. I am still waiting for his reply to that query.

PB:The single bullet (or 'magic bullet' as conspiracy theorists tend to describe it) theory remains the most coherent interpretation of the established facts. It is not coherent at all. And I showed why in those pages I referenced for FC. Those pages are full of facts, pure and simple. Every step of the way the Single Bullet Fantasy collapses under scrutiny. Its a matter of data, not opinion. The reason people like Baker hang on to it is because without it, you have a conspiracy. Even the WC admitted this. And they realized that quite early in the proceedings. According to Pat Speer it was in January.

I did not mean that Pat. I meant to the observations of Matt Douhit on the book.

I will be checking back in here about every hour or so to await FC's reply to my question. So far, none.

Can you provide a link to that Pat? Thanks.

Can you please show me where I said what you write that I did say? That is there was nothing of any substance in the new documents. I would like to hear someone ask me the question and I replied as you just said I did. Because I do not recall saying that. I did say that many should not have been withheld, and many are still redacted. But when asked if there was anything substantial in there, I do not recall saying there was nothing there. Now, if you listened to everything I said on this subject since last October, can you please show me where I said that?

1.) I suspect that Dulles was also an advisor to the program. There is evidence to that effect, but I am not at liberty to reveal it right now. It was part of the declassified docs. You know the stuff that the MSM says has nothing of value in it. 2.) Very good point Ron. CBS had to have been tied in to the WC before that day of the report's release. As Mark Lane wrote, when he and DeAntonio looked at the outtakes from the 1964 program they were taken aback. Because whenever a witness would say something that did not jibe with the WR, they would cut and start over and repeat it until they got the answer they wanted. No one can read over 800 pages in a day, or in this case, just a few hours. And then put together a two hour documentary. It is flatly impossible. CBS had either the report of a summary in advance, and they working on this from that summary weeks in advance. And their intent was to back up that report and to place the imprimatur of CBS on it. But we now know that the CBS imprimatur in this case was worthless. Since it was not an independent inquiry at all. 3.) To reply to Pamela, from my understanding, CBS ended up rejecting Baker due to the work of attorney Carol Hewett, no relation to Don since name is spelled differently. Carol, one of the best researchers I knew, spent months on the Baker case. She did a very through investigation since she was a practicing lawyer and had access to many databases. She ended up thinking that Baker was delusional.

This is a pretty decent overview of Bush considering its The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/george-h-w-bush-icon-of-the-wasp-establishment-and-of-brutal-us-repression-in-the-third-world/

I don't know the answer to the first. But in 1964, he was the producer of the nightly news. Roger Feinman wrote that this made him the top line producer at CBS at the time. They gave that job to Les Midgley in 1967 as Hewitt transitioned to Sixty Minutes. From the information that Roger left behind, in 1964, Hewitt would have only been responsible to Salant and the CNEC.