Steve Roe

19 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I love selecting one of these "conspiracy gospel factoids" and following it through. Throughout the conspiracy literature, the hotels Torni and Klaus Kurki are routinely referred to as "two of the finest and most luxurious hotels in Helsinki."

When Oswald arrived in Southampton, he told English customs officials he had $700 and planned to stay a week. $700 in 1959 is equivalent to $7,169 today, He actually left the next day. He spent one night at the Torni and then moved to the less expensive Klaus Kurki for a couple of nights.

I could find nothing about the room rates at either hotel in 1959, but they aren't that expensive today (roughly $200 for the Torni, $120 for the Klaus Kurki). I doubt seriously they put much of a dent in $700 in 1959.

"Way beyond his means"? Really? What is the implication - that the CIA or some other nefarious sponsor paid? If so, why did Oswald move to the less expensive Klaus Kurki? Hey, live it up at the Torni, false defector guy!

A minor point, surely, but EVERY TIME I follow through on one of these factoids of conspiracy gospel I find it doesn't withstand scrutiny. I mean, EVERY TIME. Where do these factoids come from, and why are they repeated uncritically by subsequent generations of "researchers"?

Please, show me I'm wrong here. Show me that in 1959 these were two of "the finest hotels" in Helsinki, "way beyond the means" of Oswald and his $700.

 

 

 

Lance, disregard DiEugenio's sophomoric answer to Helsinki Hotels in 1959. As usual he hasn't a clue, nothing new.

For the record, in 1959 the Finnish Markka (Pre-Euro currency) was 320FM to $1 USD. Researching old newspaper records back in 1958-59, First Class Hotels in Helsinki were going for $7.50 USD a night. I haven't found the cost for one night stay in the Torni or the Klause Kurki, but it's patently silly to believe it was anywhere near $100/night in 1959. The Klause Kurki was closer to the Soviet Embassy than the Torni, only 0.7 mile walk from that hotel. Reasonable to assume the Torni was a little more expensive. 

These were the days when the US$ was strong against other currencies. 

Also, Finland lifted the visa requirement for American citizen tourists in 1958, meaning Oswald could come in/out on his American Passport. There were many tourists from America going on Russian tours via Finland, this was nothing extraordinary. 

We do know, as per the record, Oswald spent $300 USD on Russian In-Tourist vouchers. 

23 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I believe the key to what Oswald was up to is found in his hope that John Abt would represent him. Abt was the chief legal counsel for the Communist Party USA. Oswald said he didn’t know Abt personally “but I know about a case that he handled some years ago, where he represented the people who had violated the Smith Act.” (The Smith Act criminalized advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.)

Welcome back Lance. Nothing has changed here, same old arguments and the conspiracy theorists still haven't solved the Kennedy and Tippit murders. 

I agree with your point about John Abt. That's a big key to Oswald's mindset. Sadly, it gets ignored by conspiracy theorists, but that's nothing new. 

In agreement with you, Oswald was smart in many ways. I sure wouldn't call him dumb by any means. He taught himself Russian, studied Marx and history, handled himself pretty well in those New Orleans debates. 

Yet given all that, how can a man be so stupid to get himself framed with his own rifle? 

If conspiracy believers believe this Patsy theory, then you have to agree Oswald was the dumbest man alive in 1963. 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1. Pulling out? Probably. Pulling back? Definitely. My understanding of politics and Kennedy's politics in particular lead me to believe he would have distanced himself and the country from S. Vietnam while maintaining some financial and material support. It's clear I believe that he would absolutely positively have not sent hundreds of thousands of American boys to fight in SE Asia, and absolutely positively have not bombed civilians in the name of diplomacy. 

2. I'm skeptical the military was the driving force behind the assassination, but remain open-minded, and supportive of John Newman's journey into that mindfield. 

Newman's claims are for another discussion.

Well, it's good you have an open mind about the Vietnam situation in the Kennedy years. There's been this constant mantra among conspiracy believers that Kennedy was this man of peace, going to pull out of Vietnam, etc. It's the old Camelot stuff. 

Running short of time, but if you want to see Dr. Buzzanco's arguments against the nutty Oliver Stone film, here's his three-part series. John F. Kennedy Goes Hollywood: Oliver Stone’s Fantastic History | Afflict The Comfortable (The Mind of Bob Buzzanco)

DiEugenio wrote a dumb K&K article about Buzzanco calling him "Chomsky's Useful Idiot". Bob Buzzanco: Chomsky’s “Useful Idiot” (kennedysandking.com)

Dr. Buzzanco is a credited historian who studied the Vietnam War years before, not a pop culture pseudo one like DiEugenio. 

But guess who is Putin's Regime Useful Idiot now? Just who does James DiEugenio work for? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

On 12/7/2022 at 5:13 PM, Pat Speer said:

A quick comment. It sounds like Buzzanco is of the mindset "No right-winger would kill Kennedy because JFK was a cold warrior and his Vietnam policy was the same as LBJ's." We used to hear this a lot. But it's just not true.

Some of the earliest conspiracy theorists were right-wingers who thought it unlikely a wanna-be commie like Oswald would kill Kennedy, since they considered Kennedy a commie himself. 

IOW, it doesn't matter what some "historian" using 20/20 hindsight says today, the right-wingers of 1963 considered JFK a major obstacle to be overcome. 

Pat before I answer this, do you believe:

1. Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam at the time of his death?

2. The military industrial complex/CIA/Military were involved in a plot to murder the President because he was pulling out of Vietnam?

These are well known claims by Oliver Stone and DiEugenio. 

14 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Steve, I’m talking about documents that have already been released. They’re just sitting in NARA and have never been put online, so only a handful people have ever seen them. 

And you’re wrong about Myers on this one. I think it was the blog post where he went on a diatribe against the Ed Forum, but he called anyone with an interest in studying the JFK case a pathetic loser, or something like that. 

EDIT: I don’t think the Buzzanco debate is the example you’re going for here. I think the vast majority of listeners would agree that Jim won that debate, and came off as much more cool-headed and knowledgeable about the case. Buzzanco admitted that he knew basically nothing about the assassination - after telling Jim repeatedly to “look at documents” - and he went on to append an introduction to the debate for his own podcast instead of presenting the debate unedited. 

1. Documents that have been released, sitting at NARA? You have to be more specific than that. Give me a link to look at. 

2. Of course, most of the conspiracy crowd here are going to favor DiEugenio, especially the Harvey & Lee contingency. Let me give you some insight why this debate happened. DiEugenio got upset over Noam Chomsky's talk about Kennedy being a "Cold Warrior". DiEugenio spells this out clearly in his opening argument. Buzzanco, a credentialed History Professor in Houston, is in agreement with Chomsky about Kennedy having actually studied all of this for years. Chomsky, a well-known and respected personality on the left, upset DiEugenio because of course, Stone/DiEugenio want lefties to support their narrative. So Buzzanco agreed to debate DiEugenio on Aaron Good's Podcast. Good is in the Skyhorse stable of book authors like DiEugenio. They have a connection. But Good conducted a fair moderation of the debate. 

The debate questions mainly centered around Kennedy's Foreign Policy and Vietnam. Stone/DiEugenio for whatever reason, believe Kennedy was murdered because he was a man of peace, was going to pull out of Vietnam and the "cough" Deep State killed him so they could have their war. Buzzanco is not into the minutiae of the Assassination, he mentions this many times. He was there to debate Kennedy's Foreign Policy and Vietnam and just how preposterous Stone/DiEugenio push this nutty narrative. Believe me there were many other historians before Buzzanco writing about this. 

Bottom line it was not a debate centered around whether Oswald was innocent or guilty. 

The debate format was not favorable to get into more detail on the remarks and rebuttals. 2-3 minutes to state your case, hardly enough time to get everything in, on both sides. But what is extremely clear is DiEugenio pushing a false narrative that Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam. It's Poppycock and Pop Culture-Quasi History. 

One of the major points in the debate is the undeniable fact that Kennedy was in the Coup Planning of Diem. Yep, you can go to the Kennedy Library online and listen to the tape recorded. If you are pulling out of Vietnam, then why are you overthrowing the leadership and plunge it into chaos with American Military Advisors in country? 100% common sense. DiEugenio will never tell you this. 

Another mind-blowing claim by DiEugenio was Kennedy had no idea that there were assassination plots against Castro. Wow! 

2 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

appropriate for my last post to this forum...

Mr. Myers is not a researcher, Mr. Myers is a story teller without credential... Mr. DiEugenio is a historian, researcher AND writer with credentials. -- Get you lies straight, we're forever cleaning up lone nut messes... as for .John, hopefully, I will see that asshole, soon...

Peace everyone -- even 'da nutters...

Historian? Take a listen to this when DiEugenio went up against a real historian and gets schooled. Listen particularly the first couple of minutes to hear how DiEugenio threw a fit. 

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

If NARA complies with Biden’s order to digitize the entire ARC I bet we’ll see the biggest leap forward in the collective understanding of the case since the ARRB. Critical, enormous document collections like the FBI field office files and HSCA numbered files have never been online, and outside of the government only a handful of obsessives have ever even seen that stuff. In spite of this fact, Dale Myers has actively discouraged and insulted anyone interested in studying the case - and I think that’s abhorrent considering how much material there is that essentially no one has ever looked at. That’s a big part of why I give him a hard time. I’m skeptical in general of appeals to authority, but when someone appeals to themself and tries to discourage anyone from verifying their work my trust and respect for that person plummets pretty quickly.

I think you are badly misinformed about the remaining documents that the MFF filed the lawsuit against Biden. The only WIF (withheld in full) documents are primarily tax records, a total of 515 records. Those were exempted from the JFK Act. The MFF lawsuit is about the "redactions" in already released documents. The documents have already been released for viewing, it's the redactions in those documents that is covered in the lawsuit. 

I'm for the release of the redactions, and most likely Biden will comply, in my opinion. 

Dale Myers is not discouraging people to research, that's just crazy. A couple of years ago with another researcher, we discovered the magazine that Oswald ordered his murder weapon revolver out of. It was a long-time mystery for researchers, and we presented it to him. It was solid proof. He does have an open mind, but I can tell you from experience, he's extremely meticulous and verifies everything down to the nth degree. Mr. Myers is not a sloppy researcher, such as DiEugenio and his ilk.  The Destiny Betrayed film is a good example poor research chock full of provable errors. 

6 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I think Myers has lost patience with the conspiracy people and I can understand it and empathize with it. Does it diminish his arguments when he responds to these people in a way they take offense to? Perhaps, but a person can only take so much.

There was absolutely no reason for anyone to post some of the remarks that certain individuals did after John's death. If you don't like the person, just don't say anything. That's what I did when Mark Lane died for example.

I agree Tracy, thanks. 

7 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Steve, I hate to do this, but I’m gonna have to request a source on this “unbiased researcher” business. I’ve never said that I was unbiased. I’ve literally said the exact opposite on this forum - I’m pretty sure more than once. If you’re referring to my statement that I judge arguments on merit, that’s true. But my interpretations of the evidence are as clouded by bias as anyone else here. It’s inescapable. I just try to be aware of it the best I can. 

Regarding my comments about Myers and the Holan residency issue, I never said I reject 100% the possibility that the Holans moved to Patton St. before the assassination. I actually said the opposite, that the evidence suggests it’s very possible. However, as I argued in that thread, repeatedly, the evidence doesn’t come anywhere close to establishing unambiguous proof. You might disagree, but if we’re limiting the discussion to Myers’ article I think I have a pretty good case on this one. If I see any evidence that changes my mind you’ll be the first to know.

On to misquote number three. I never once mentioned Morris Brownlow, and I’m pretty sure my only reference to the claims of Doris Holan was in response to Greg D. I’ve never even read Doris Holan’s statements. My argument was based strictly on the questionable evidence put forth in Myers’ article for the move occurring prior to the assassination. I have no idea where you’re getting this stuff about Brownlow. 

I pick on Myers because the freakouts on his blog make him sound like a child. How is anyone new to the case with any shred of investigative talent supposed to take that sort of thing seriously? If you want to prevent the development of conspiracy-oriented bias tell Myers to tone down his online rants. 

I know your reading comprehension is a lot better than this, so I’m not quite sure how you came up with any of this stuff. Is this really deserving of it’s own thread, a triple misquote and an irrelevant video?

You seem to want me to pick apart the arguments and/or ridicule the behavior of Jim D. like I do with Myers. If Jim starts posting on K&K the same type of invective drivel that Myers does on his blog I’m all over it. If Jim was really “gloating” over McAdams’ death I don’t support him doing that. Is that what you’re looking for? Is it really worth my time to get mixed up in your feud when there’s someone as fun to criticize as Dale Myers - with his insult extravaganzas, condescension, and unwillingness to discuss his own research? I don’t think so. 

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that calling someone a “despicable human being” probably violates the forum’s rule against insults. Didn’t you just accuse Jim a few days ago of breaking the forum rules for using words like “clowns” and “disinfo agents”? 

Also you spelled my name wrong. 

1. Tom, I apologize for misspelling your name. I will correct it. (I have a friend in Houston that spells his name with 2 M's, oversight my fault). 

2. Regarding your "unbias" researcher remark, I was giving you credit for looking at issues without bias, credibly. Now that you explain yourself, I accept your honest explanation. 

3. Regarding your issue with Dale Myers on his website using "invective drivel", after years of being attacked/smeared by conspiracy theorists over the Tippit murder, SBT, etc., I can understand his anger. What really matters is the truth. So that being said, you can go directly to his website and post your questions regarding the Holan address and it will be his choice whether to answer. I can't speak for him and will not tell him to tone down his rhetoric. Likewise, I don't expect you to instruct DiEugenio to quit insulting DVP, Bill Brown, Greg Doudna and others. 

4. Your comment about insulting DiEugenio over his McAdams death is noted. I will change it to "despicable human behavior". That is my opinion of Mr. DiEugenio's actions which were disrespectful within 24 hours of McAdams' death. As you can see DiEugenio stands by his comments. I don't recall anyone on my side of the argument making similar remarks on the recent death of Vincent Salandria and other noted conspiracy advocates. There are members here that knew McAdams as well as those on the Conspiracy side. Not only DiEugenio, but there were also others that couldn't control themselves gloating over McAdams' death with false innuendos. DiEugenio never tried to show decor, respect and some sense of moral responsibility to allow time to past for those friends and family grieving over his death. That's reprehensible behavior in my book. There are some noted conspiracy folks here on this forum that did not engage on this "pissing on McAdams' grave" act, and I commend them. 

5. Regarding the Brownlow video, I take note that you never brought up the Brownlow-Pulte claim. Fair enough. 

All that being said, Tom Gram (I spelled it right this time), in your opinion did Oswald murder Officer Tippit?

Tom Gram,

Apparently, you are unaware of Michael Brownlow and his past history as Dale Myers has his criminal history documented.  I understand you do not trust Dale Myers to tell the truth. Well, OK.

The subject of Doris Holan living on Tenth Street, you vehemently object to. Again, you, Tom Gramm place trust in Bill Pulte's and Michael Brownlow's account (interview of Mrs. Holan) that she lived there and reject 100% that Dale Myers that she actually lived at 300-1/2 Patton Steet. Now that's established Tom, let's review Mr. Brownlow.

Those of us that have been down to Dealey Plaza are well acquainted with Mr. Brownlow. Bill Brown said that he had many exchanges with him, and I did as well. Mr. Brownlow is a well-known "personality" that used to hang out around Dealey hawking stuff, giving lectures behind the picket fence to tourists, etc. He used to hang around Bob Groden and others. 

On my last visit to Dallas this year, Michael Brownlow was not there. Sadly, the scuttlebutt was he had health issues. I cannot confirm that and don't wish anything bad about an individual regardless of belief. If you want to see despicable human behavior, check DiEugenio's gloating on John McAdams death, just 24 hours after his death on this Forum. It's nauseating. I can provide the link, but I'm sure you will not request it.

So, Tom Gram, the "unbiased researcher", here is Mike Brownlow filmed by some tourist in 2019 explaining the Tippit murder. I direct your attention to the 10.00-minute mark of this video below.

Explain to everyone here on this forum your observations please. If you want to consult DiEugenio or Greg Parker in your answer, feel free to do it. 

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Are you serious Gerry?

I mean please.

This is a guy who says in the event of war, he would kill Americans.

At a time when he was trying to sell the Russians on his loyalty to Moscow.  I mean the guy even faked a suicide at that time. And that is on that same page!

I am really beginning to wonder about some of these new members.

Mr. DiEugenio this is JFK 101 as you seemed not to know Oswald made this statement to his brother as pointed out by DVP and Bill Brown. I thought you were the "well-respected researcher", as you braggingly self-promote yourself on the K&K site, and you don't know this? 

Dale Myers was right; you really don't know as much as you claim you do.  

Now it's a fake suicide? Again, we see you trying to rewrite history to fit your crazy narrative that Oswald was on an intelligence mission in Russia. But you know, Intel Ops like Oswald write this stuff in their diary all the time! Right Jamey??

Now to your comment "I am beginning to wonder about some of these new members". I'm sorry Jamey that these "new members" don't share your view. Maybe all of the opposing views should just be quiet, never express an opinion and let you and others preach the "Oswald didn't do it" sermon. Would that make you happy Jamey?

When are you and Oliver Stone going to make a public statement about your "Elmer Todd" mistake? I'm asking you again, as it seems you guys are trying to cover this up and sweep it under the rug hoping everyone will forget. It's still in your film, and you and Stone knowingly are selling false mistaken information to the worldwide public. Sometimes I wonder if Stone even knows about this. Here's your opportunity to set the record straight, do the right thing, the ball is in your court. Or you can just continue covering it up making money off of it. 

Now go ahead and call me a Clown, Bozo, DisInfo Agent provocateur again to your dwindling supporters. 

In addition, can you please quit playing these phony forum games about putting myself, Bill Brown, DVP and others on Ignore? Everyone knows you read the comments off your IPhone Safari browser. You're just embarrassing yourself over and over. 

On 11/28/2022 at 11:07 AM, Tom Gram said:

If the evidence against Oswald was so conclusive, lone assassin theorists wouldn’t need to make condescending and intentionally provocative comments. Dale Myers is by far the worst offender. The deliberately insulting unhinged rants on his blog read to me like insecurity and desperation, which makes it very hard to take him seriously. I can’t trust someone who needs to go on a massive ego trip just to make a point - and Myers would be a lot more credible if he could handle legitimate criticism without throwing a tantrum, in my opinion. 

1. Dale Myers has made a career out of giving the MSM what it wants concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

2.But that is what Myers, Russo, the late PBS producer Mike Sullivan, and Peter Jennings, were not going to do. It was they who were the masters of silence about really happened to JFK. And this new work helps show Dale Myers for what he was and is: a designer of sand castles in the air.

I guess you find this acceptable, right Tom? That's just two examples of DiEugenio's provocative baseless claims from his article. I understand you support DiEugenio, even with his nutty Sewer comments on another thread (escaping through a 15" drainage pipe). But DiEugenio has been lambasting Dale Myers for years, and of course just look at the nasty comments from Forum members about him as well. 

You can't have it both ways Tom.

Maybe you should direct your attention to DiEugenio's own vindictive vile past behavior, but of course you won't. DiEugenio has called me and others here, Clowns, Bozos, DisInfo agents and a whole host of against the Forum Rules INSULTS. 

I didn't see you Tom speak out against DiEugenio's own vile rants on this forum. 

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Also I’m pretty sure I’ve seen those pictures of the sewer lines. They are in the Garrison files in one of the photographic folders. I’ll try to dig them up when I get a chance. 

Tom don't waste your time on this loony tune sewer stuff by Steve Jaffe, who worked with Jim Garrison (DiEugenio's Icon). Jerry Dealey debunked this nonsense years ago with actual Dealey Plaza sewer maps from the city. http://www.dealey.org/sewtroll.pdf

17 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Since (for whatever reason) Mr. DiEugenio brought it up... Below is the "debate" between Matt Douthit and myself, on the Tippit case.

Warning, it's raw and unedited but very informative.

 

 

Having listened to this some time ago, Mr. Douthit's arguments were absolutely embarrassing. He makes no sense whatsoever. It's time to grow up folks, Oswald murdered Patrolman Tippit and there's plenty of evidence to support it. If this was supposed to be the definitive "Oswald didn't shoot Tippit" debater that DiEugenio supports......then he better go find someone better than this. 

Bill Brown handled this debate civilly and addressed Mr. Douthit's objections with logic, evidence and common sense. 

17 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1. The WC's re-enactment proved that a shot fired from the TSBD or Dal-Tex and just missing the president's head would have hit Connally in the armpit. 

2. Bullets are not always found at a crime scene. Connally's cufflink was never found, and roughly half of the exploded bullet was never found, so we know that possibility exists. We can also suspect JFK's back wound was created by CE 399, which had been undercharged for silencing purposes. 

Pat, is this really your alternative explanation why the SBT was fantasy?

1. The Secret Service reenactment was filmed from the TSBD sniper window and not the Dal-Tex. Surely you don't believe a sniper was firing from the Dal-Tex, do you? If so, where from? Where does it line up with? 

2. Now let's address your argument that CE399 had been "undercharged". We know the FBI tied that bullet to Oswald's MC to the exclusion of all others. There was an exhaustive study with test bullets to verify the tooling marks. So that rifle found on the 6th floor did fire CE399. Ok, now if I understand you right (correct me if I'm wrong), you claim the CE399 was not a "through and through" shot, in the back and out the throat. If that's the case, you are at odds with Dr. Cyril Wecht and his fellow HSCA panel members that did say it was "back-out the throat". Wecht challenges the SBT because he did not believe that shot did not go and hit the Governor. It just disappeared. Therefore, in Wecht's view, CE399 was not the bullet that hit the President in the back, because it was found. And he further complicates himself stating there was no way CE399 could have caused all the Governor's wounds. Crazy? I'm sure you have your own views on Dr. Wecht. 

Undercharge bullet? Although it could be a remote possibility, I find it entirely unlikely. Why? Look at the President's reaction on the first shot that hit him. He raises his arms up to around the neck area (he did not grab his throat), and he slumps to his left onto Jackie. He appears to be somewhat motionless after slumping until the fatal head shot. Would that be consistent with a shallow back wound as you profess? I don't think so. 

Unless someone reloaded CE399, removing gun powder from the shell, the Olin Western round nose bullets were reliable and deadly fully charged. I don't understand why anyone would do that and for what reason? Makes no sense, unless you have this elaborate conspiracy of faceless-nameless people trying to frame Oswald by ensuring the bullet is found. What if they missed? Big stretch of the imagination in my opinion. 

Here's Dr. Werner Spitz's conclusions to the Church Committee. 

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=32022#relPageId=1&search=Western_CE399

58 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

In order to make JFK's and JBC's wounds line up, he went with the the neck wound location presented in the Rydberg drawings, when he knew it was inaccurate, and pretended JBC was further to the left in the car. And he suborned false testimony to support these deceptions.  

Which brings me to two questions Pat.

1. How did a bullet Zig-Zag around the President, hitting the Governor sitting in the lower jump seat? Was that a magic bullet? Dr. Shaw said the Governor's wound path was on a downward trajectory. So where did that bullet come from? 

2. What you are suggesting is two different hits, ergo two different bullets. So where are your two bullets? Where did they go? 

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per Roe, what a joke.  This is the man who wrote one of the most sickening, nauseating, gross pieces of tripe I have ever read about Sebastian LaTona.  Now please note, I went head to head with Von Pein for about a year over Bugliosi.  So when I use those words to describe what Roe wrote, that means something.  What he wrote about LaTona could be studied at Langley in the art of black propaganda.  In its own way it was as bad as what PBS and Mike Sullivan and Russo did in 1993 and their repeat of their JFK special in 2003.  For this man to get up on a soapbox and declare himself a paragon of morality for the living and dead, I mean, in light of just that fact,  its something out of Sunday morning comic strips. But that is how fatal LaTona is in this case to the official story, and that is why we had a police investigator, Mr. Edwards, present that evidence.

Mr. DiEugenio your serious lack of knowledge of the case is showing again.  

Here's what I wrote about the Sebastian Latona print examination:

Then Edwards makes a point about the Palm Print lifted by Day, saying Latona "there was no evidence that the print was even taken." Sounds sinister, right? Of course Stone zeroed in on that comment to arouse suspicions of his viewers. So let's see what Sebastian Latona said about it in his Warren Commission Testimony.

Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Latona, could you describe to us what a lift is?

Mr. Latona. A lift is merely a piece of adhesive material which is used for purposes of removing a print that has been previously developed on an object, onto the adhesive material. Then the adhesive material is placed on a hacking, in this case which happens to be the card. The adhesive material utilized here is similar to scotch tape. There are different types of lifting material. Some of them are known as opaque lifters, which are made of rubber, like a black rubber and white rubber, which has an adhesive material affixed to it, and this material is simply laid on a print which has been previously developed on an object and the full print is merely removed from the object.

Mr. Eisenberg. When you say "the print" is removed, actually the powder----

Mr. Latona. The powder that adhered to the original latent print is picked off of the object.

Mr. Eisenberg. So that the impression actually is removed?

Mr. Latona. That is right.

Representative Ford. Is that a recognized technique?

Mr. Latona. Yes; it is.

Representative Ford. In the fingerprinting business?

Mr. Latona. It is very common, one of the most common methods of recording latent prints.

Mr. Eisenberg. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?

Mr. Latona. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.

Mr. Eisenberg. And were you told anything about its origin?

Mr. Latona. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.

Mr. Eisenberg. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?

Mr. Latona. Yes; I did.

Mr. Eisenberg. Did you succeed in making identification?

Mr. Latona. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.

Mr. Eisenberg. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?

Mr. Latona. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of LEE HARVEY OSWALD1

As you can see of course there was no evidence of the print being lifted, because the dusting powder on the print is totally lifted off with the cellophane. To a casual viewer, the impression Stone implies, there was no evidence of a print EVEN BEING LIFTED. 

In addition, there is more testimony to help explain this:

Mr. Eisenberg.

Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?

Mr. Latona.

We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Mr. Dulles.

Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----

Mr. Latona.

Completely.

Mr. Dulles.

The original print?

Mr. Latona.

That is right.

Mr. Eisenberg.

So that you personally, Mr. Latona, did not know anything about a print being on the rifle which was identifiable until you received, actually received the lift, Exhibit 637?

Mr. Latona.

What is nauseating is your repeated insults here on this forum on myself, DVP and others who have a different view. This of course is breaking the Forum rules. But don't worry, you continue to get away with these "Bozo" remarks and apparently the Moderators will do nothing to enforce it. 

So, keep insulting others, you own this forum, rules do not apply to you Mr. DiEugenio.

3 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

I thought the family of the deceased could bring a libel case?

It's been tried before, but the courts have not upheld the libel charge. Andrew is correct. 

41 minutes ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

Pretty sure you can't defame the dead. That's how Albert Goldman was able to write those sensational books about Elvis, Lenny Bruce and John Lennon. He couldn't be sued.

Andrew, you are right. I will correct my mistake on the libel. 

19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

For some unknown reason, Mr. DiEugenio didn't even see fit to include a link to Dale Myers' July 24, 2022, article that DiEugenio is heavily bashing at his K&K website. (There was no link to it in Jim's K&K article as of 8:55 PM EST on 11/14/2022 at any rate.)

Therefore, I'll post a link to Myers' 7/24/22 article/review here:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2022/07/Reviewing Oliver Stone's Documentary

 

Yes Mr. DiEugenio does not want people to read Dale Myers' article in full and decide for themselves. This is typical of Mr. DiEugenio's side hustle K&K conspiracy website. 

Also, Mr. DiEugenio does not mention the embarrassing mistake with the Elmer Todd initials on CE399, he himself admitted as an "errata". To date, as the Stone cartoon series is still playing, Stone and DiEugenio have not made any public statement/disclaimer to the viewing audience of their gross mistake. Therefore, it's business as usual with the Conspiracy Story Telling Genre of Stone/DiEugenio, despite documents (as well as the ARRB) stating he did put his initials on CE399. Dr. Mantik has admitted his mistake and cleared himself by being honest and they know it was a blunder. 

 Stone and DiEugenio still sit on their hands and do nothing.  Honest brokers?

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

There's really nothing out of the ordinary about any of this, especially since the Russians had every right to be suspicious of Oswald's true motivations and intent, based on his erratic behavior. Once they realized there was nothing special about him, they promptly sent him to toil away in Minsk, hundreds of miles from Moscow. I find it perfectly reasonable that they continued surveillance of him afterwards -- this was standard KGB operating procedure during the Cold War.

 

You're well aware that this statement has been disputed, with a plausible alternate explanation given by an old friend of yours here.

Jonathan, the USMC 3rd Quarter earnings false mystery has been solved. As Fred Litwin wrote about it, it's expanded on here in this article.

https://steveroeconsulting.wixsite.com/website/post/oswald-s-marine-corps-3rd-quarter-pay-false-mystery

Mr. DiEugenio never bothered to check the record to confirm or deny Doug Horne's observations about the missing Social Security deposits for Oswald from the USMC. In fairness to Mr. Horne, that's what he observed, however Stone/DiEugenio ran with it and blew it up on film to cast suspicions that the CIA or whatever Intel group paid him before he took off to Russia.

It's 100% baloney.

Oswald was paid in cash and Mr. DiEugenio needs to contact his publisher again about yet another "Errata".

6 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Who says they "knew" he was going to defect?

I would expect the defector, false or otherwise, to keep his or her mouth shut so as to not attract a tremendous amount of undue attention. Oswald did the exact opposite. Do you believe officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow were purposefully duped by conspirators back in Washington as to the true nature of Oswald's arrival in Russia?

You can "suspect" it all you want, but the fact remains that Oswald's actions in Russia are thoroughly inconsistent with him being a part of a U.S. intelligence program, as are his well-documented fears that he would face prosecution from the U.S. government once he returned to the country.

Thanks for educated answer Jonathan. That's exactly right. Oswald was worried about being prosecuted for his actions while in Russia. 

On 11/1/2022 at 8:21 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Uh, maybe because he defected and then threatened to give secrets of the U 2 to the Russians?  The bigger question is why he was allowed back in the USA and given money to do so.

Again, we see Mr. DiEugenio's serious lack of research. Oswald did attempt to renounce his US citizenship, but technically he did not. As this 1961 document shows, Oswald was still a US citizen. Synder asked Oswald to return in a couple of days (gave him a cooling off period) to formally renounce his citizenship, signing papers. As we know, Oswald did not return to the American Embassy in Moscow. So technically he was still an American citizen. 

Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XVIII (maryferrell.org)

What does that mean? It means Mr. DiEugenio that any American (with Citizenship) requesting return from another country without funds can request a loan from the State Department to travel home. The State Department routinely provided this service to stranded Americans abroad through emergency funds. 

Part of the agreement of a State Department loan is to surrender his/her passport until the Loan was paid in full. This was the case and Oswald did pay back his State Department loan in full. 

Wonder why the CIA didn't help him pay back his State Department loan? Huh?

All in the record Mr. DiEugenio.

Of course, your silly argument that Oswald was BOTH a CIA provocateur and an FBI Informant is nothing but mindless speculation. Oswald scraped together money, $200 from his brother Robert and the rest in small increments through Money Orders (Oswald didn't have a bank account in Dallas) and paid back his State Department loan. 

Then in New Orleans he applied for a new passport and was granted. 

58 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I give Sandy a lot of credit for this.

In looking back through this thread I noted that Jonathan said that

1. Armstrong did not prove that Oswald did not order the MC rifle and

2. That Oswald was a CIA agent is conjecture

Whew.

Concerning point number one, if John did not prove this, then when the baton was picked up by David Josephs he took it the last yard.  And if you have not read his work, then that is on you not him. In fact at at the mock trial in Houston, Brian Edwards' testimony on this  issue kind of saved the day. It is simply not possible for a money order to be sent that distance and then be deposited in Klein's bank that fast.  And that is just one  incongruity of about seven in the transaction.

As per point two, I mean please.  Why would Oswald be learning Russian in the Marines?  Why was he not being paid through them in the last quarter?  Why would he then defect to Russia through the only station in Europe where you could get a visa in 48 hours? How did he know that? But finally, why would the CIA be rigging his file as he did this?  Someone was at the first gate in the process and instructed  Mail Logistics to send his documents to the OS division. And them only. 

This is not where they should have gone. So why did someone interfere with the process that early?

This guaranteed that no 201 file would be opened on Oswald, since OS was a kind of dormant division in this regard.

So please no more of this nonsense. Its not conjecture at all today.

I have to hand it to DiEugenio, he is very entertaining with these old, debunked claims. It's laughable. 

1. Armstrong and Josephs did not prove the Klein's rifle purchase was faked. It's a sheer fantasy mixed up with the crazy two Oswald's and two Marguerites fairy tale.  

2. Your Klein's money order could not have been processed in 24 hours is also a big embarrassing claim. DiEugenio, you remember that right? You said it couldn't reach Chicago in one day, and then back peddled trying to cover up your goof on overnight mail. And Mr. DiEugenio, Oswald's Klein's money order purchase was on the Klein's Cash Register (Accounts Receivable run sheet), yes, the very next day.

3. Brian Edward's claim of the wrong rifle strap D-Rings was also debunked. 

4. Oswald was paid for the 3rd Quarter by the USMC Mr. DiEugenio. It was paid in cash, and it's documented. 

5. Oswald a CIA asset? Really? 100% baloney. Maybe you can explain to everyone here why the "Patsy CIA Asset, Witting Defector" had to fight to get his Undesirable Discharge from the Marine Corp overturned.......while in Russia! Is that how CIA Assets are treated? 

Bottom line, Jonathan Cohen is 100% correct and you are pushing old worn-out debunked nonsense. I know you don't like it, but Jonathan is using common sense, something very rare on this forum.

But hey, business as usual, right Mr. DiEugenio?

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Allen.  But Greg Parker did the best work on this.

Parker literally undressed Doudna more than once since Greg tried his usual escape antics for Ruth.

 

Really? Parker's explanations are laughable. His "Old Mexico" story was extremely entertaining. 

It was not Hootkins or Oswald at Shasteen's Barber shop. Hootkins lived in Dallas and was an Astronomy buff or student. He wanted to learn Russian so he could understand the language in regard to Astronomy. That's 100% verifiable. Hence Ruth Paine gave him lessons in the Russian language at St. Marks. 

Greg Doudna is correct, Shasteen is mistaken about the identity of Oswald. 

So, let's add this crazy theory to ROKC's list of Fiascos.

1. Prayer-Blob

2. Oswald never lived in the Beckley Rooming House

3. There were no shots fired or rifle being pointed out from the 6th floor of the TSBD

4. DPD planted the bus transfer on Oswald

5. The Baker-Truly encounter with Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom never happened. Yes, that's right, Baker and Truly who haven't never met before just made this story up despite the huge embarrassment to Baker letting the assassin go. That's ROKC logic.

And many more that I've forgotten about. Bottom line - ROKC hasn't proved anything in their Group-Think Country Club. 

Naturally DiEugenio supports them, 100%.