Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary

[David Von Pein]

In a memo by Melvin Eisenberg, he writes that Warren said, "This was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles....He placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculations such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln."

That passage, of course, doesn't even come close to justifying or confirming this ridiculous "Sweep All Conspiracy Under The Rug" spin put on it by conspiracy clowns like Jimmy DiEugenio:

To the point that Liebeler told Odio that heck, even if we find evidence of a conspiracy--which she certainly was--Warren told us to shove it under the rug.

It's just one additional example (among hundreds) that illustrates how totally inept many conspiracy theorists are at being able to reasonably and properly evaluate ANY of the evidence or statements connected with the JFK assassination.

The very last people in the world who should be examining the JFK murder case are the members of the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, such as James DiEugenio. The members of that silly club should be thoroughly embarrassed to even show up at any JFK forum. But, amazingly, they aren't embarrassed in the slightest.

Re: Earl Warren:

Mr. Bugliosi said it very nicely when he made this rational observation (which DiEugenio and Company will, and have, totally ignored, of course):

"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch rumors that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the facts of the assassination. But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that only false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public? How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"

Edited February 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[John Dolva]

They did. Katzenbach called for a solution that satisfied the people, This memo still stands. The people are not satisfied.

Warren produced a magnificently flawed set of volumes. (and RFK bided his time) A Coup had just occured. The CIA and the Pentagon were about to go 'viral'. What JFK had tried to accomplish led to a near Civil War in the US that led to a decade of destruction of those who were prepared to take on the establishment. It was a pivotal moment in the class struggle during the time of a cold war between Stalinism, which infected significant portions of the 'left' that people might have looked to for leadership, and the Junta. The reason that the SWP were targeted was because of the repercussions of Kruschev on Stalin and the search for a clear marxist approach to the Cuban Revolution. The SWP and the CPUSA started some collaboration. The Fourth International was splitting and 'true' Trotskyism, or Marxist-Leninist factions, were recognised by the Junta as the danger. LaRouche scurried off to the British Healyites.

[David Josephs]

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

Put your dress and handbag away, David.

That's really the best you can do here Lee?

We have members discussing Hoover, his knowledge, Mexico City, LBJ and all you have are childish insults...?

What an amazing waste of time you are....

-------------------

And yet... you STILL have nothing to refute Hoover's knowledge, his declarations and his physical evidence other than, "go see JFK again"... Pure marketing brilliance Lee.

How involved must a conspiracy be to the CIA that they needed to send Hoover on a wild goose chase in Mexico?

While Hoover is on the heels of a conspiracy... State and ONI seem to be right on board with it... as Katz's memo showed.

MAYBE Hoover simply siezed upon an opportunity - But we're not having a "discussion", are we....

Your turn to insult again... we're ALL dripping with anticipation at your next witty utterance...

If Oswald was FBI, as we suspect... this little piece of the puzzle successfully binds his hands to NOT look further.... we ALL understand that... yes?

I can see the T-shirt now... "J. Edgar - ask 'em about Mexico - Hoover"

[Cliff Varnell]

Good one Craig.

LOL

Now we have two exploding heads!

Craig Lamson and Jim DiEugenio making common cause in opposing the prima facie case for conspiracy! Whoddah thunk it?

But neither of them can muster a fact based argument for their support of the SBT trajectory.

No actual discussion of fact on this issue from these Brothers in Bunch.

I wonder if Jim DiEugenio -- in his own words -- could explain how a multi-inch, convex-curved fabric bulge above the bottom of the collar is exactly like a fraction of an inch concave-curved fabric indentation below the collar?

Since Craig's only talking point is to howl at the sun (now he's got Jim doing it!), I'm not expecting any coherent intellectual response from Jim.

Dave Reitzes always has the same kind of deer-in-the-headlights response to the prima facie case as

does Jim DiEugenio.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

Craig Lamson and Jim DiEugenio making common cause in opposing the prima facie case for conspiracy! Whoddah thunk it?

But neither of them can muster a fact based argument for their support of the SBT trajectory.

Yeah, right. As if DiEugenio's "LOL" post means he supports the SBT trajectory. What a goofy thing to say (particularly when aimed at a firm anti-SBTer like Jimmy D.).

Edited February 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson and Jim DiEugenio making common cause in opposing the prima facie case for conspiracy! Whoddah thunk it?

But neither of them can muster a fact based argument for their support of the SBT trajectory.

Yeah, right. As if DiEugenio's "LOL" post means he supports the SBT trajectory. What a goofy thing to say (particularly when aimed at a firm anti-SBTer like Jimmy D.).

Ever see Jim DiEugenio argue for the low back wound? He once cited the Croft photo in opposition to the clothing evidence.

And what is it about these two photos that make Craig, Jim and David want to remove them from their responses?

Edited February 6, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Who's head is exploding now? Why it's cliffy varnell!

ROFLMAO!

LOSING truly fits you cliffy.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David Von Pein]

Ever see Jim DiEugenio argue for the low back wound?

I don't really care what Jimbo argues. He's always wrong anyway.

I suppose you think the blood spot below the obvious bullet hole in this picture is the "real" bullet wound, right Cliff? (Or is this picture a complete fraud from top to bottom?)....

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson and Jim DiEugenio making common cause in opposing the prima facie case for conspiracy! Whoddah thunk it?

But neither of them can muster a fact based argument for their support of the SBT trajectory.

Yeah, right. As if DiEugenio's "LOL" post means he supports the SBT trajectory. What a goofy thing to say (particularly when aimed at a firm anti-SBTer like Jimmy D.).

To argue against the SBT on any ground other than debunking its trajectory is to concede the LN talking point that the trajectory works.

The trajectory doesn't work. But Jim has to ignore that fact so he can pump up the significance of his own work.

Standard sheep in wolves' clothing, frankly.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Ever see Jim DiEugenio argue for the low back wound?

I don't really care what Jimbo argues. He's always wrong anyway.

I suppose you think the blood spot below the obvious bullet hole in this picture is the "real" bullet wound, right Cliff? (Or is this picture a complete fraud from top to bottom?)....

According to the HSCA there is nothing in this photo to identify John F. Kennedy as its subject. The photo was not produced according to proper military protocols. There is no chain of possession for it.

The clothing evidence trumps any improperly produced photo of questionable provenance.

[Craig Lamson]

The clothing evidence trumps any improperly produced photo of questionable provenance.

Yep, that wonderful 3+ inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as seen in Betzner...unimpeachable clothing evidence...

What was that sound?

Oh yea, the duck tape cliffy had wrapped around his head failed again.

I think Cliff Varnell should be the face of the CT movement for the 50th!

Edited February 6, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[David Von Pein]

To argue against the SBT on any ground other than debunking its trajectory is to concede the LN talking point that the trajectory works.

Another goofy utterance by Mr. Varnell.

Most conspiracy theorists are silly enough to believe that JFK was shot in the back and throat with separate bullets, and I think DiEugenio is one of those people who believes that crazy theory. So those CTers are certainly arguing against the SBT on a basis other than "trajectory". (Not to mention the CE399 controversy.)

According to the HSCA there is nothing in this photo to identify John F. Kennedy as its subject.

Yet another goofball statement uttered by Varnell. Cliff must be going for the all-time "Goofy Statements Made By A Conspiracy Theorist In A Single Day" record. I think the current

record is 12.

I guess Cliff V. must have a good reason to totally ignore the following words written by the HSCA:

"The autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

The clothing evidence trumps any improperly produced photo of questionable provenance.

Cliff's getting ever closer to that record.

Edited February 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

To argue against the SBT on any ground other than debunking its trajectory is to concede the LN talking point that the trajectory works.

Another goofy comment by Mr. Varnell.

Most conspiracy theorists are silly enough to believe that JFK was shot in the back and throat with separate bullets, and I think DiEugenio is one of those people who believes that crazy theory.

Yes, Jim's hostility to the clothing evidence (he calls it "Model T") is inexplicable. I can only conclude that the prima facie case renders some of his work moot.

David, you've yet to address the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. You claim that a multi-inch bulge in both JFK's shirt and jacket bunched up entirely above the base of his neck.

But in this photo there was a fraction of an inch indentation below the base of the neck.

How do you resolve this discrepancy?

Edited February 6, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[David Von Pein]

How do you resolve this discrepancy?

I don't. And I couldn't care less about it.

The raw, basic facts regarding the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper back are the things that debunk your theory about the clothing:

1.) One bullet hole in JFK's shirt.

2.) One bullet hole in JFK's suit coat.

3.) One bullet hole in JFK's back.

Which means (regardless of WHERE the holes are in the clothing):

The one bullet which made the holes in the shirt and coat also had to make the one bullet hole in JFK's upper back.

This third-grade math seems to continually elude Mr. Varnell. We can only guess as to why.

Edited February 6, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

Cliff...

Is this the type of LNer acceptance of the iron clad evidence in support of a conspiracy you anticipated?

DVP/Lamson can do this ALL DAY LONG... and will.

btw - have either offered anything but "Hoover knew Oswald did it" in response to the notion that HOOVER knew there was a conspiracy...

I don't see ANYTHING from either man that refutes Hoover's awareness and declaration that there was a conspiracy....

How can they even BEGIN to argue against the following?

"that while I think there was no connection between him(Ruby) and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that." (this is written 3 days after the FBI report already states that there is no connection)

FBI REPORT: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10402

Further, investigation has developed no proof of any prior

contact or association between Oswald and his murderer, Jack Leon Ruby.

"I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr. Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation"

and the LAST LINE of the FBI report:

Leads are still being covered, and the FBI will continue to check out any

additional allegations or information which come to its attention. (DJ: uh, yeah... not so much)

THE DECEMBER 9, 1963, FBI REPORT http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html