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

[David Von Pein]

Bugliosi writes in his introduction that he will state the case as the critics would like. Yet he did not include this [Eisenberg] memo nor the memo of Fonzi's interview with Odio.

Why?

It's quite possible that Bugliosi didn't even know about Fonzi's interview with Sylvia Odio. But even if he did know about it, Odio's statement to Fonzi about Liebeler coming right out and telling her (a witness in the case) that Earl Warren had given the Warren Commission staff instructions to sweep all evidence of conspiracy under the carpet is just too absurd to believe for more than one millisecond. And Mr. Bugliosi would undoubtedly agree with me on that point.

But the Eisenberg memo is most certainly mentioned by Vince in "Reclaiming History", in multiple places. Maybe you should have read Vincent's tome a little better yourself, eh Jimmy Boy?

Let's have a look:

"Except for the moments right after the assassination when no one knew who the killer or killers were or whether a massive domestic or international conspiracy was involved, the closest reference to national security being an issue is a February 17, 1964, memo to the file (far, far less known than the Katzenbach memo) by Warren Commission assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg about the first meeting, on January 20, 1964, that Chief Justice Warren had with his staff.

Eisenberg quotes Warren as telling his staff that when President Johnson first asked him to head up the investigation (November 29), Warren said that the president spoke "of rumors of the most exaggerated kind...circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which would cost forty million lives. No one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility."

Of course, there is nothing in Warren's address to his staff about suppressing the truth to avoid a war. Indeed, as indicated earlier, Eisenberg goes on to say that Warren "emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be."

Naturally, as with his surgery on the Katzenbach memo, Mark Lane, in Plausible Denial, told his readers only about the "war" part of the Eisenberg memo, deleting all reference to Warren telling his staff they had to find the truth whatever it might be." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 367

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

There is also the following passage in Vincent Bugliosi's book, which also deals with the Eisenberg memo. And everyone please note the fact that Jim DiEugenio, when he quoted from the Eisenberg memo earlier in this Education Forum thread, has done the exact same thing that Mark Lane did in his book (as Bugliosi said). Jimbo has conveniently omitted the last sentence in this quote below (the part in italics, which is also in italics, for emphasis, in Mr. Bugliosi's book), although DiEugenio does mention it in this post, but he then goes on to completely dismiss it as merely being "CYA" on the part of Earl Warren (yeah, right, Jimmy):

"On January 20, 1964, Chief Justice Warren met with the Warren Commission staff at their first formal staff meeting. In discussing the role of the Commission with the staff, "Warren placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding further speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be." * -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344

* The above text in Bugliosi's book is followed by source note #118, which leads to this source reference:

118. JFK Document 015041, Memorandum to the file of Warren Commission staff member Melvin Eisenberg, February 17, 1964.

Here's the Eisenberg memo for everyone to see (and for everyone to see what DiEugenio decided to leave out when he first brought this memo up in this thread):

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10391&relPageId=1

And there is also this important excerpt from Page 2 of the Eisenberg memo that I doubt you'll ever see written in any conspiracy book:

"He [Earl Warren] therefore set a target date [for the release of the Warren Report] of June 1, with the understanding that the Commission could not issue a report until it was satisfied that it had reached the truth."

To repeat:

Melvin Eisenberg's last words on Page 1 of that two-page 2/17/64 memo are these words:

"He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be."

Those words throw a monkey wrench into DiEugenio's theory that Eisenberg's memo somehow corroborates and supports some kind of half-baked idea that Earl Warren was the chairman of a cover-up Commission, bent on NOT finding the truth. Doesn't it, Jimbo?

Jim DiEugenio and Mark Lane should team up. They seem to be birds of a feather.

Edited February 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

I maintain that we need to keep it simple. Concentrate on the indisputable fact that LHO didn't do it, and that the official story is impossibly wrong. While I tend to agree with Cliff about the holes in the clothing being the clearest indication that no single shooter could have done it, I understand that ours is not the prevailing opinion among researchers.

None of them have my record with David Von Pein.

I'm 2 for 2 with 2HR and 8RBI.

I've had two brief, relatively civil conversations with David. In our first discussion a while back David quickly conceded that JFK's jacket collar fell on Houston St.

In this thread David made the following concession:

How do you resolve this discrepancy [in concave/convex fabric folds]?

I don't.

That's 2 major points to which David Von Pein has stipulated.

How many major points of evidence has David Von Pein ever conceded in his hundreds of debates with CTs?

My best guess: 2.

[David Von Pein]

Earth to Cliff V. --- The "stipulations" you claim I have made are meaningless in the long run -- and that's because your theory about the clothing is meaningless and useless.

Your "clothing" theory doesn't disprove the SBT in the slightest way. You just THINK it does.

And what about the HSCA's words on Page 41 of Volume 7 (about the autopsy photos being unaltered and those photos showing the body of JFK)?

All lies, Cliff? Really?

Edited February 7, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Martin White]

I think it would be hard for anyone to say, convincingly, that "rumours, if not quenched, could lead the US into a war that might cost 40million lives" unless "rumours" was code for "inconvenient facts that don't look good".

Rumours are unsubstantiated gossip. The US was never going to war on unsubstantiated gossip. Not even if that "gossip" was a NY Times bestseller.

Epstein does a great job of showing that the implicit purpose (quench ugly facts and/or rumours) trumped the explicit purpose (establish the truth) on several occasions. I have yet to see it explained better than in Inquest.

[Dawn Meredith]

Why does anyone bother to interact with DVP? A waste of forum space.

[Michael Hogan]

I have great respect for age and accomplishment. However having a septuagenerian* or octogenarian as the "face of JFK research"

may not be the best way to reach a younger generation that wasn't around in 1963.

Although it is an excellent EF topic that has generated some good discussion, I find the concept of a spokesperson to be impractical

and unattainable on most levels, certainly a national one.

A couple of years ago, John Simkin started a thread called Why we will never find out the truth about the death of JFK. I was pessimistic then

about what 2013 would bring and I have seen nothing to change my mind. I do realize that a lot of people would not agree with what I wrote.

http://educationforu...=30#entry187262

Today, I might change a couple of words that I wrote, but the meaning would remain essentially the same.

.....In January of 1964, Eric Norden wrote that President Kennedy was killed by a war state apparatus and that his death likely would never

be adequately investigated. Unfortunately, he was right. It was a military style operation, carefully crafted on a need to know basis.

I don't believe the year 2013 will result in anything different. Kennedy's death will be commemorated, discussed, debated,

and ultimately resigned to a false, incomplete and disputed historical record.

The people behind the murder of President Kennedy remain unknown, although there are many on this Forum that have

their own particular answer or answers. I've never believed for a moment that government records would reveal what

really happened in Dallas that day.

The conspirators are dead and the study of President Kennedy's murder has been relegated to more of a hobby than

any opportunity to obtain justice or truth.

*Absolutely no age-based disrespect to anyone's knowledge and understanding of President Kennedy's murder.

[Cliff Varnell]

Earth to Cliff V. --- The "stipulations" you claim I have made are meaningless in the long run --

Hi David,

I'm glad to see you acknowledge -- once again -- your prior stipulation to crucial facts concerning crucial physical evidence.

So let's not have any confusion or back-walking on this issue.

As stipulated readily by David Von Pein: the fact that JFK's jacket collar dropped in Dealey Plaza, and that there was no significant elevation of the clothing at the corner of Houston and Main before the jacket collar dropped.

Thank you, David.

No further questions.

[Cliff Varnell]

Why does anyone bother to interact with DVP? A waste of forum space.

I disagree!

Don't you love it when someone agrees with you?

I know I do.

David Von Pein agrees with the crucial physical facts proving 2+ shooters in the murder of JFK.

Every one hates the guy because he never concedes a point -- I love the guy because he's conceded both of mine concerning the clothing evidence.

I guess it all depends on your perspective, eh?

[Cliff Varnell]

I have great respect for age and accomplishment. However having a septuagenerian* or octogenarian as the "face of JFK research" may not be the best way to reach a younger generation that wasn't around in 1963.

Although it is an excellent EF topic that has generated some good discussion, I find the concept of a spokesperson to be impractical and unattainable on most levels, certainly a national one.

I must sadly concur, Michael. There is no consensus on what such a spokesman would say, other than repeat the same conclusion over and over re the fact of conspiracy.

A couple of years ago, John Simkin started a thread called Why we will never find out the truth about the death of JFK. I was pessimistic then about what 2013 would bring and I have seen nothing to change my mind. I do realize that a lot of people would not agree with what I wrote.

http://educationforu...=30#entry187262

Today, I might change a couple of words that I wrote, but the meaning would remain essentially the same.

.....In January of 1964, Eric Norden wrote that President Kennedy was killed by a war state apparatus and that his death likely would never be adequately investigated. Unfortunately, he was right. It was a military style operation, carefully crafted on a need to know basis.

I don't believe the year 2013 will result in anything different. Kennedy's death will be commemorated, discussed, debated,

and ultimately resigned to a false, incomplete and disputed historical record.

The people behind the murder of President Kennedy remain unknown, although there are many on this Forum that have

their own particular answer or answers. I've never believed for a moment that government records would reveal what

really happened in Dallas that day.

The unreleased files might narrow the universe of possible perps, fuel better informed speculation. But lead to a "truth"? Anything that incriminating would have been deep-sixed long ago. Nevertheless, Release the files! I'm all for better informed speculation.

The conspirators are dead and the study of President Kennedy's murder has been relegated to more of a hobby than

any opportunity to obtain justice or truth.

Justice was denied by mortality and the possible knowable universe of "truth" in the murder of JFK (as distinct from the cover-up of his murder) is very small, specific, and known for almost 50 years. Most everything beyond the root facts is speculation. (stop me if you've heard this before B) )...

JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn't exit, no round was recovered at the autopsy.

JFK was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, no round was recovered at the autopsy.

An unknown number of bullets struck JFK in the head.

That's it. That's the extent of the "truth" regarding the murder of JFK. (The actual killing, not the cover-up!)

We don't have to form a committee to find the truth about the murder of JFK -- there is so little "truth" to examine, but at least what we have allows us the parameters for reasoned, informed, well-grounded speculation.

*Absolutely no age-based disrespect to anyone's knowledge and understanding of President Kennedy's murder.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Why does anyone bother to interact with DVP? A waste of forum space.

I disagree!

Don't you love it when someone agrees with you?

I know I do.

David Von Pein agrees with the crucial physical facts proving 2+ shooters in the murder of JFK.

Every one hates the guy because he never concedes a point -- I love the guy because he's conceded both of mine concerning the clothing evidence.

I guess it all depends on your perspective, eh?

You don't understand "perspective" cilffy. Nor the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3+inch fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner...Weaver too.

Poof, you are done.

[David Josephs]

LMAO

Lamson STILL playing with his 3 little inches..... must be why the holes all line up...

Tell us why the hole in the back is NOT 3 little inches higher than the holes in the shirt and jacket

Since according to you, at the time of the shot, the fabric of the shirt and coat is riding 3 inches higher on JFK's body..

[David Josephs]

And if all we are talking about it Betzner or Weaver... and NOT at the time of the shots...

Who cares?

[Craig Lamson]

LMAO

Lamson STILL playing with his 3 little inches..... must be why the holes all line up...

Tell us why the hole in the back is NOT 3 little inches higher than the holes in the shirt and jacket

Since according to you, at the time of the shot, the fabric of the shirt and coat is riding 3 inches higher on JFK's body..

Yep those lovely 3 inches. You got ANY WAY to disprove the unimpeachable davie jo?

No?

Surprise, surprise. You know as much about this as you do parallax, which would be absolutely nothing.

Time to you to back to your only true skill, cut and paste.

BTW, you really think that "overlay" has any validity at all? ROFLMAO!

Edited February 7, 2013 by Craig Lamson

[Cliff Varnell]

And if all we are talking about it Betzner or Weaver... and NOT at the time of the shots...

Who cares?

Sir Issac Newton. The first law of motion. Since Weaver shows that the shirt was flat on JFK's back, and JFK committed no gross movement to push his shirt up more than a fraction of an inch, the Weaver photo is definitive.

There was no "outside force" acting on JFK's clothing other than JFK's casual movement.

[Cliff Varnell]

I could go on and on. In every area of investigation, the critical community, facing nothing but reluctance from NARA, ridicule from the MSM, and in the face of the work of agents, assets, and charlatans, it has persevered to the point that today the crime is now solvable in a genuine way. And if Craig Watkins refuses to impanel a Grand Jury, we should put the heat on him to do so.

And who do "we" want to see indicted?

Jim, are you going to take the collated work of 5 researchers on the provenance of CE399 by way of introducing the NAA -- and present this mess to the Grand Jury in order to prove a conspiracy existed in the first place?

The living person most people associate with the JFK assassination is George H. W. Bush, due to the Hoover memo.

But Jim DiEugenio pooh-poohs the significance of the Hoover memo.

So...who is the Grand Jury going to indict?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Cliff Varnell