-
Posts
13,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Everything posted by James DiEugenio
-
Bush not in Dallas- He is dead
James DiEugenio replied to Vince Palamara's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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? -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
And that is why Davey is Davey. -
Bush not in Dallas- He is dead
James DiEugenio replied to Vince Palamara's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
DVP never replied: Did the WC ever hear of Rose Cheramie? -
Bush not in Dallas- He is dead
James DiEugenio replied to Vince Palamara's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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? -
Bush not in Dallas- He is dead
James DiEugenio replied to Vince Palamara's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Oh really? Did they ever find out who was at Sylvia Odio's door? -
A simple question to François Carlier
James DiEugenio replied to Paz Marverde's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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? -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Then, in addition to your other (ahem) qualities, you have a peculiar sense of humor. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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? -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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? -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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? -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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. -
James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist
James DiEugenio replied to Rodney Rivers's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I did not mean that Pat. I meant to the observations of Matt Douhit on the book. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
I will be checking back in here about every hour or so to await FC's reply to my question. So far, none. -
James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist
James DiEugenio replied to Rodney Rivers's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
Can you provide a link to that Pat? Thanks. -
A simple question to James DiEugenio
James DiEugenio replied to François Carlier's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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.
-
Bush not in Dallas- He is dead
James DiEugenio replied to Vince Palamara's topic in JFK Assassination Debate
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.
-
WN: How did that happen? For example, who did Hewitt take his marching orders from at CBS? Its in that article I linked to. Based on the Fienman documents. The top management--Paley, Stanton, Salant, and inexplicably Sig Mickelson, who was not part of CBS at the time, decided to halt the drive by the lower level guys to put the Warren Commission on trial. To the point that John McCloy ended up being a consultant to the show, something that both he and CBS lied about. This was convenient for Salant, since McCloy's daughter worked for him. Roger Feinman paid a high price for protesting what CBS did. He ended up getting terminated. But not before he spirited out these documents that proved their perfidy.
-
The evidence would certainly indicate that such was the case. In Hewitt's case since he was producing the news hour in 1964 he had to have been involved with the 1964 special in some way. On the later 1967 special I am not so sure. As per his rather nebulous comments about Nixon etc, it reminds me of Ben Bradlee and Talbot. Bradlee pleaded that he was just a young reporter in 1963. Talbot did not ask him, "But Ben, when you were at the peak of your power in 1976, after Watergate, you did all you could to smear the HSCA, including colluding with David Phillips to knock down the Bishop/Phillips Veciana story." In both cases, when Hewitt and Bradlee were in a position to do something positive, they utterly failed.It matters little what they said decades later in retirement.