James DiEugenio

This almost never happens, but its continuing. More from John Armstrong: Prior to 1963 postal money orders were "punched" with rectangular holes prior to deliver to the US post office for sale to customers, as were the stubs/receipts attached to the end of postal money orders. As you can see on many examples, with an uncashed postal money order from 1961 (front and back sides), with rectangular punched holes. And postal money order stubs, with rectangular holes. Why don't you ask DVP, or any of these idiots, how the postal money order stubs can have rectangular punched holes prior to being deposited to a bank as they claim. And, by the way, do you notice that the ink from the postal stamps, payee, and payor did not bleed thru to the reverse side of the money order?

This is a treat, John Armstrong is allowing me to quote him at length on this one: As usual, the DVP's are presenting only part of the story. My question to you is why in the world do you even give these people the time of day?? You can spend a life time refuting their silly claims, and in the end what you have done is hopeless because these people will always come up with new ways to debunk anything that points to a conspiracy. When you find someone, anyone, who makes a practice of debunking you have a choice to stand beside them or stand against them--there is no middle ground. Now, with that said, what do you think serious minded researchers think about people who believe in Judyth Baker, or DVP or McAdams any of the other pundits who never do any creative research, but limit their work to debunking? I see that some of these idiots are saying that bank employees "punched" rectangular holes in checks and money orders after they were deposited to a bank. This is absolutely ridiculous!! One of these idiots claims that IBM reader/sorter #1219 and #1419 were used to make these punches. Jim, if you or anyone gives a xxxx about accuracy, then simply go to the IBM website and look up IBM reader/sorter #1219 and #1419. These are magnetic ink readers, repeat magnetic ink readers, and do not punch holes in any checks or money orders or deposits of any kind.

A non sequitir Let me post Dave Joseph's wonderful and valuable time line again. http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf This is research.

From John Armstrong: When postal money orders were produced/manufactured at the printing office (circa 1963) twelve small, rectangular holes were punched on the card stock used to make postal money orders. These punched holes, identified by Hollerith code as numeric numbers, matched the serial number printed on the front side of each postal money order. These holes made it possible for large volumes of postal money orders to be electronically sorted and arranged in a systematic way after being returned to a US Postal repository by the banking system. The rectangular punched holes on CE788 identify the serial number of this money order as 2,202,130,462. This was the postal money order allegedly used to pay for the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. In the future all you need to do is ask these pundits to "put up or shut up." These people are good at confusing amateurs with carefully worded prose, but seasoned researchers know to ask for proof before giving any thought to their claims. It took me less than 60 seconds to realize and understand DVP's claims were without merit. Does this guy really think that the purpose of an IBM electronic/magnetic reader-sorter is to punch holes in checks and money orders??? Does he really think that each and every bank in the country had these very expensive machines in order to process checks and money orders like punch cards????? Jim, this is unimaginable stupidity. Don't waste your time with these people.

This piece by Josephs is even better I think: http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsMOTimeline.pdf very revealing of how the money ordere(s) surfaced.

DVP asks, well how do you know the money order would need a stamp? Maybe because the guy who owns Klein's said it had to pass through the Federal Reserve system? Or did you not read the article by David Josephs on this? Maybe Jean Davison did not recommend it to you? I wonder why? See, this is research, not the net surfing you and Jean, and McAdams do http://www.ctka.net/2015/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

Very nice job Sandy. I was going to jump on and make many of these same points. But you have done such a good job that I will wait a couple of days for this to sink in, and my comments will be mostly more background on how this works and why Castle and Davison were so wrong that its kind of dumb. DVP is such a sucker for Jean Davison, it is a bit ridiculous. Anyone who could write a book that bad about Oswald is not to be trusted with the evidence. http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html

Wow. I mean wow. Newman and a molehunt? http://www.ctka.net/reviews/newman.html For the record, in John's excellent book, and in the reissue, he makes no note of that. Just read my review. John's book is a wonderful review of the file traffic about Oswald and the man who had most control of that traffic and files within the CIA, James Angleton, and what he did with those files. John makes a very strong case that it was Angleton who was the upper level control agent with Oswald. The guy who came up with the whole molehunt idea was not Newman, and not SImpich. It was Peter Scott in an essay he wrote for Jerry Rose, which he called something like "The Search for Popov's Mole". I will be discussing this, along with some other aspects of Scott's work in my review of his new book, which isn't really a book. Its a collection of (mostly) previously published essays of his. And the ballistics in the Walker case was not "virtually non existent", this has turned out to be a (partial) cover story. The reason for it being that is whatever that ballistics evidence was, it had no relation at all to Oswald. And as some researchers have noted, the Warren Commission knew this, namely that the bullet was the wrong color and caliber for the alleged rifle of Oswald, (which, of course, Oswald did not order.) So Paul you were wrong about Craig. He is a Mob did it advocate. Trafficante and Marcello. But keep on trying, I know you will. Anyone but the CIA.

I am sure Carol will leave the country in shame after you get done with her work Paul. Your so called "debunking", is about as credible as DVP's latest pile of baloney. Which, btw, I will be replying to soon. Although Sandy Larsen did a nice job on a new thread in beginning the assault on his latest pretentious bombast.. (I will do mine on this thread as I will never reply to fruity Dave on his threads again.) I link you with DVP since you have the same amount of credibility: you and he are both zealots first. That is, your arguments do not follow the evidence. They are made up in spite of the evidence, and they always leave out something crucial to the argument. In your case, you want to minimize the ballistics evidence in the Walker case, since it demonstrates that Oswald did not shoot at Walker. Its the wrong bullet in every way. And, further, the WC knew this. But Hoover was intent on showing some kind of propensity for violence with Oswald, since there was none evident. So even though the DPD never seriously considered Oswald as a suspect in the Walker case--some accomplices eh?--Hoover, through Warren DeBrueys, did. Why do I say Warren DeBrueys? Because it was not Walker, or Marina, or the West German paper who got the whole phony "Oswald shot Walker incident" into the official story. It was DeBrueys. How do I know this? Because I do something that most "researchers" do not. I actually go to the witness' house and talk to them there. Back in 1994, Bill Davy and I visited Warren DeBrueys in his home in Metarie. He was all smiles as he greeted us on his front steps before we even got out of the car. As we walked in, he had a photo of himself shaking hands with Hoover on display in his living room. Warren told me he never read any books on the JFK case. During a break in the interview, I wandered into his library. There must have been about 12 books on the JFK case there. So much for his honesty. In that regard he reminded me of that lying FBI toadie, James Phelan. But later in the interview, Warren told us that he was one of the FBI agents in charge of the writing of the FBI report right after the assassination. Hoover transferred him to Dallas, and he brought in witnesses and experts to put together that whole godawful FBI report that was eventually submitted in December. And which was so bad, the Warren Commission didn't include it in its volumes of evidence. Which says all you need to know about it. Warren eventually burst out with this: I was the guy who made the link between Oswald shooting Kennedy and Oswald shooting Walker. I asked him: How did you do that? He replied that, Well Oswald shot Kennedy in the head, and someone tried to shoot Walker in the head, so it must have been Oswald. More food for Paul's growing legions of Walker did it acolytes. You owe everything to Warren and his Sherlock Holmes rapier mind. March on Paul. But give J. Edgar proper credit. Like Allen Dulles, he was a great American.

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/Aguilar_on_Files.txt Sorry I have to go to Rahn for this, but its revealing I think.

BTW, I am reading Talbot's book a second time. There is so much in there, you cannot absorb it in one reading.

If you go the CTKA site, you can see some of the articles there. If you purchase the CD, you can read every issue ever published. IMO, that CD is worth more than 95 per cent of the published books on the case.

Larry: Nice line up I think. Gary Murr, Mantik, Speer on fingerprints, Talbot, and Bob Tanenbaum. Is Bob going to be there in person or via Skype? BTW, I am speaking at ROKC via Skype.

Well, between Epstein and Files, who do you pick? Its the difference between a flea and a louse. But if you read the history of how this thing all started you will see that its that local Texas PI Joe West who started it. Gary Aguilar did a very nice piece in Probe for this one.

Let me add this about Probe. ​No other journal in the field ever inspired its readers to actually write and query MSM magazines, and then get their work published there as we did. Because our information was so new and solidly based, our readers then used it in traditionally MSM magazines. This happened at least three times. That is how good Probe was. In fact, we even had MSM magazines write us for copies of certain articles! Who else can say that about their JFK publication? That is why so many people lamented its shutdown. In his inscription to me of JFK and the Unspeakable, Jim Douglass, who was a contributor, wrote that he was tutored for that book by his reading of Probe Magazine. And if you have not read it, you do not know how distinguished it was.

Carol Hewett was a practicing attorney in Florida for thirty years. She had a very good record in jury trials. She lost very, very few of them. When you achieve a law degree, and practice in court for that long with her record, I will give credence to your smears of her career. As per your characterization of Probe Magazine, no journal in the field ever had as many distinguished authors, memorable articles, or as much praise from those in the community than Probe did. I asked you politely not to frequent this thread. As I do not like to argue with zealots. You have refused to do so. Even though you have your own thread on Ruth Paine, you are intent on killing this one.

Thanks Martin. I appreciate that. Its disturbing when people not only do not follow new evidence, as Carol has produced; but actually reject it out of hand since it does not jibe with their own personal agenda. And actually undermines it.

Mr. Root began this thread with the following piece of evidence: From Epstein: The "Neutron Activation Analysis done in 1977 (by the HSCA) exactly matched the metallic elements found in the bullet that was recovered in Walker's home to the batch of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition used in Oswald's rifle in the assassination of Kennedy.... the House Select Committee employed a very advanced form of neutron activation analysis to match the recovered bullet and fragments to the ammunition used in the Mannlicher Carcano. Does everyone recognize the absurdity of this Epstein statement today? ​But even several years ago, like in 2006-07, the whole viability of the NAA was under severe attack. ​Around that time, maybe earlier, I attended a seminar held by Gary Aguilar in the Bay area. He had both Rick Randich and Pat Grant there. The former is a metallurgist and the latter is a statistician. Along with the Spiegelman/Tobin team, they would eventually demolish this NAA pseudo science to the point that the FBI would never use it again since it risked having agents sent to prison for perjury. And even Blakey , who Epstein uses above, later called it junk science. ​But on that day, Randich listed all the trace elements detectable in the fragments in evidence. I, and others, were utterly startled by the difference in the amounts of trace elements--when they are all listed, not cherry picked-- between the fragments. But the one that was clearly off the charts was the reading for the Walker bullet. Simply a non starter. It was so off that I asked Randich the following question: You are saying that theoretically all of these could have come from the same batch? (This referred to points he made about the actual smelting and crystallizing process .) He said, they could. ​I said, what is the science behind this then? He said, you're talking to the choir. Epstein was full of crap when he said this.

Mr. Trejo, I have told you that I will not indulge in a debate with you for reasons I stated previously. You are a zealot. I don't argue with zealots anymore. I had my fill with DVP. In your own way, you are as bad as him. You have your own thread on Ruth Paine, fine. Anyone who wants to engage with you can do so there. And my God, anyone who pontificates to me on what Jim Garrison thought about certain suspects in this case has no respect for primary research. Because I am the only person that Garrison's family ever gave his files to prior to the ARRB. So, if I want to talk to you, I will on your thread. So far, I don't. Zealots don't respect evidence.

In this thread, I have only quoted from two pages of my book Destiny Betrayed, second edition. I wrote many more than that about the Paines. In both Destiny Betrayed and Reclaiming Parkland. And still, there were things that I decided to leave out, like the calendar. Some people who read Destiny Betrayed, were kind of taken aback by all of these pages and questions. One person asked me, "Have the Paines ever really been investigated?" I had to reply that, no , they had not. Whatever questions the WC lawyers and Secret Service had were shoved under the rug. JIm Garrison tried to cross examine Ruth, but she managed to be, let us say, less than candid about a couple of key matters. Amazingly, the HSCA never examined her or Michael Paine. That is a shocker even for Bob Blakey. The ARRB did the same. When Probe understood that the ARRB was going to close down without examining the Paines, we started a letter writing and fax campaign to get them to bring them in for questioning before the doors closed. But by this time the chief counsel, Jeremy Gunn, was gone. The Board was kind of rudderless. But the final chief counsel did call me. And said they were too short of time and funds to take up such a major endeavor. So I called up Carol Hewett and asked her if she would prepare all the briefing books and the questions for the ARRB on the Paines. I even asked her to be in the room when they were cross examined. Unfortunately, Cheryl from the ARRB, decided against it. BTW, ARRB chair Tunheim said more or less the same when someone asked him about the failure to examine the Paines. He said they had limited funds for new investigations, and Gunn and Horne apparently decided to spend it on the medical evidence and the Z film. So, as George said to Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, "And that, as they say, is that." In retrospect, its all kind of incredible to contemplate. I mean, its one thing to just shove under the rug people like Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha Smith, and Shaw in New Orleans. But the Paines were right there, out in the open. And from the beginning, Sen. Richard Russell was not buying them. (Of course, he didn't buy several things that the Troika of Dulles, McCloy and Ford, shoved down the public's throat.) But as outlined above, they largely escaped official inquiries as to who they really were and what they actually did. That is how bad the inquiry into the JFK case has been. We should all thank Carol Hewett, or it would have stayed that way.

To continue from page 199 of Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, from reply 34 above, about Ruth and her friend from Costa Rica: "When they got back to the USA, they remained friends. The woman actually won Ruth's confidence. For Ruth admitted to her that her father, William Hyde, had worked for the CIA. She even told her that she had an estranged daughter who would not talk to her until she came to grips with the evil she had down in her life. When the woman asked Ruth, "What evil?" she clammed up. But the friend is certain that she was talking about the Kennedy assassination since the assassination was the previous context of the discussion."

As JIm Marrs once told me, the problem was that there were just too many people going to Dealey Plaza. I mean literally tens of thousands a year. Dallas was in denial of this as being their biggest tourist attraction. They tried to say it was the set for Dallas, the TV series, Jim said that was utter BS. So they decided to co opt it. And boy did they. With CIA input. I mean when I saw the books they had on sale there, I just about blew a gasket. The only two from our side were John Kelin's book, which is not really a pro conspiracy book its really a history of the critical community. And Stone's Book of the Film. And that was it. They then bought a corner store across the street, for more books and gifts across the way. Groden told me they did this because they knew he was looking into leasing it himself. And they wanted to co opt that move also. The biggest co opt was what they did for the 50th in Dealey Plaza. That was just nauseating. Its worse for me since I predicted they would do that two years before. And Gary and the Sixth Floor tried to conceal what was going on at first. But boy that was absolutely, pure 1984, via the famous Apple commercial. Except we had no heroine with the hammer. But to this day, I am convinced if we had filed a timely lawsuit we would have prevailed, at least upon appeal. And Brad Kizzia wanted to do it too. The thing is it was such a fascist operation that we could not even get inside the plaza to register any civil disobedience, a la King in Selma. The city had about 200 cops on extra duty stationed at all three entrances to the plaza. And they had blockades set up in front of the cops so you could not get anywhere near the plaza. What made it all the worse was Alex Jones on his megaphone screaming at the police, to make us all look even worse.

Jon: Not entirely true. In an upcoming link to the From the Archives feature at CTKA, I will show, via Carol Hewett again, that Ruth and Michael were equal opportunity employees, that is they also did dirty work for the FBI in the Oswald case.

Boy that is a real doozy of a reply to you by Gary. I mean he covered all the typical John MCAdams bases. And then people jump on here and defend him for not being a real Oswald did it zealot. Incredible. And I also am glad you exposed the whole imbroglio about the CIA being in on the ground level of the Sixth Floor Museum.

As we will now see, there were others besides Sue Wheaton who suspected Ruth was some kind of agent or asset in Central America. And it was not just in Nicaragua. Ruth's name got around to the neighboring areas. "In NIcaragua, because the situation was so confrontational and since there was no powerful mainstream media to protect her, the suspicion of Ruth being an asset of the Agency was widespread. Steve Jones followed up on Sue Wheaton's information with another female worker who knew Ruth in Nicaragua and befriended her. When Ruth's surveillance activities finally became too suspicious in Nicaragua, the two women drove to Costa Rica for some R and R. When they arrived near the Costa Rican camp, some people approached the car to help them out. When they saw it was Ruth, they walked away moaning, "Oh no, its Ruth Paine. Keep her away from us. She's CIA." It got so bad, the pair had to leave." (ibid, p. 199)