David Giglio Interviews Jim DIEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

David Giglio's site, Our Hidden History is a really undervalued gem for our cause.  Everyone should be familiar with it since he transcribes and make audios out of primary documents.

He asked to do an interview with me on the subject of the obstruction of the JFK case over the years, which most of the public is not aware of.  Because the MSM avoids these issues deliberately.  It turned out to be kind of like a concise untold history of the case through the decades. You will never see this kind of info in the MSM. So let us hope this gets out.

http://ourhiddenhistory.org/entry/james-dieugenio-the-jfk-assassination-in-the-press-the-public-eye

I hope to get John Barbour for David next.

[George Sawtelle]

Jim

I'm surprised you continue to believe Eaglesham debunked Files. If you had read and understood my last post on the subject awhile back you would not use Eaglesham's article to debunk Files. 

I'm not saying you must believe Files. All I'm saying is Eaglesham in no way debunks him.

[James DiEugenio]

George,

Anyone can say anything they want on these forums. Since moderation is so loose. I mean look at the subject of Larry Hancock's book.

There is s a lot of interesting info in that interview that I know you were not aware of.

But can you show me where I bring up anything about Files or Alan in that interview?

Edited July 5, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[George Sawtelle]

Jim

It was during the question and answer period of the interview. The first caller asked you about James Files. You refered him to Alan Eaglesham's article as the reason you did not think Files was credible.

I hope you don't think that this is criticism of you and your take on Files. Far from it. All I want you to know is that Eaglesham's article does not reflect negatively on Files. I really believe Alan was snookered on this also.

BTW I enjoyed the interview and learned things I did not know about the JFK assassination.

[James DiEugenio]

George:

What are you talking about?

The interview with David GIglio had no question and answer to it.  And there were no call ins.

  You apparently did not read it.

 

[Joe Bauer]

On 7/4/2017 at 6:10 PM, James DiEugenio said:

George,

Anyone can say anything they want on these forums. Since moderation is so loose. I mean look at the subject of Larry Hancock's book.

 

Jim, is the fact that Hancock's new book is about UFOs and not the JFK assassination your point in the above post?

I read just about everything you post and I click onto many accompanying links to your other research and commentary works.

I listened to the entire interview with David Giglio.

When I want to listen to taped presentations and interviews that are quite long ( over one hour ) I put the volume on high and do simple chores at the same time. I do this when I feel the contents of these presentations and interviews are worth that effort.

In this Giglio interview you mentioned the Jack Ruby shooting of Oswald in the Dallas Police Department building basement on live national TV as an image so powerful and suspicion arousing ( contrary to the national media message of a single lone nut action ) to millions of average American citizens that it became the "fly in the ointment" regards the national media's complete and constant embracing and promoting of the WC Lone Nut finding.

How true and clear that view is.

I watched Ruby shoot Oswald on live TV. I was 12 years old at that time. That image will never leave me.

Even at that young age I was intelligent and aware and informed enough ( I was reading and watching every news item I could find on the assassination until I konked out late at night ) as at least half the adult population I am guessing. Like probably the great majority of Americans I was incredibly stunned and shocked about the JFK / Dealey Plaza event ( that one could only read about ) but I was far from instantly suspecting a conspiracy.

I was naively accepting the thousand times reported and repeated national media message that this crazy commie lone nut looking for attention was simply the perp and there wasn't much else to consider...until I saw Jack Ruby whack Oswald in the DPD building basement the morning of 11,24,1963.

From that second on, every fiber of my body and mind was charged with the deepest suspicion and doubt about the officially reported JFK killing narrative before then.

The national TV broadcast image of Ruby whacking Oswald witnessed in live time by perhaps tens of millions of Americans is the single most powerful psychological dynamic that back then and still today has rendered the MSM lone nut propaganda narrative as an emasculated and disbelieved one and triggered 50+ years of the greatest mistrust our society has ever expressed collectively toward their federal government.

The JFK assassination ( accompanied by Ruby's whacking of Oswald ) and RFK's and MLK's soon after are still the main keystones in this now institutionalized mind set. As they should be.

Jim, your sharing in this Giglio interview regards our 4th estate and it's neglect and abuse of it's original tenets in regards to the JFK assassination and the damage this has caused is clearly and coherently laid out.

I just wish that through it all and still today more Americans would care more about such matters that effect them in ways more important than they've ever realized.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[George Sawtelle]

Jim

I only read parts of the transcript. What I am refering to is an interview, a talking interview, where you take questions from the audience. I remember there was a bunch of good information in the interview. I can't find it now. Will keep looking.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/4/2017 at 2:15 PM, George Sawtelle said:

I'm not saying you must believe Files. All I'm saying is Eaglesham in no way debunks him.

George,

Doesn't Eaglesham's article show that the bullet casing Files supposedly bit down on wasn't manufactured till after 1970?

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Joe.

What I meant by the referral to Larry's book is that it is not about the JFK case is it?

I mean, I do not even post my RFK stuff on this forum, since that is not what this is supposed to be about.

[Michael Walton]

This thread should be renamed The Kennedy  Assassination  A Primer and pinned to the top of this forum. Not only does JD cover the case well but Giglio has some outstanding links to other resources.

Yet, only 300 odd views of it. Meanwhile, the craziness and zaniness on this forum continues with, for example, Chris carrying on with the ridiculous Towner Frame Split thread - 13,000 views and counting.

That's  why it's  even more important  to pin this to the  top so there's  some kind of  balance before visitors start wading  through  the  muck.

[David G. Healy]

4 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

 

 

 

This thread should be renamed The Kennedy  Assassination  A Primer and pinned to the top of this forum. Not only does JD cover the case well but Giglio has some outstanding links to other resources.

Yet, only 300 odd views of it. Meanwhile, the craziness and zaniness on this forum continues with, for example, Chris carrying on with the ridiculous Towner Frame Split thread - 13,000 views and counting.

That's  why it's  even more important  to pin this to the  top so there's  some kind of  balance before visitors start wading  through  the  muck.

tsk-tsk... Muck? The films related to the JFK assassination/Dealey Plaza have been *real* popular for the past 20+ years. And, American taxpayers paid 16 million buck$ for the Zapruder film, MUCK? Altered film MUCK? Nutters have found it most difficult supporting that *LHO did it all by his lonesome*  sleight of hand because of those more than likely altered films. Every single Dealey Plaza assassination film is suspect. Math doesn't lie.

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by David G. Healy

[Chris Davidson]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Yet, only 300 odd views of it. Meanwhile, the craziness and zaniness on this forum continues with, for example, Chris carrying on with the ridiculous Towner Frame Split thread - 13,000 views and counting.

 

Jim DiEugenio: 

"The other thing that Sprague was interested in, is he want to set up experiments about the single bullet theory, and he was going to do them in public, except they were going to be real experiments, not set ups like the FBI did for the Warren Commission. And he was going to invite the press there, he actually announced that. And he was going to hire independent investigators, he was not going to use the FBI and the CIA, and he was going to have independent medical doctors. And he had a fleet of I think 13 lawyers. One of the first things he did is that he did a review of all the photographic evidence. And according to Al Lewis, that lasted almost all day, for about 6-7 hours. And before the presentation began, Sprague turned around at all the aides there and said, "I don't want anybody to leave unless I leave, and I don't plan on leaving." And so Al Lewis told me that when those presentations were over, out of the 13 lawyers, 12 of them did not believe the Warren Commission anymore. And I talked to one of the investigators, L.J. Delsa, and he told me that when they looked at the Zapruder film and the autopsy evidence, he concluded, hey, something's really screwy here with this autopsy evidence and the Zapruder film.

So in that phase, under Sprague and Tanenbaum, those guys were really looking at the Kennedy case like a homicide. They were really looking at the hardcore evidence. That is the autopsy, the Zapruder film, the photographs, and they were leaning towards the critics. And so the Warren Commission was really under siege then. But the media began to attack Sprague incessantly. I think there was a five part series in the New York Times."

Tactics sound familiar, Walton?

[George Sawtelle]

Sandy

Eaglesham bases his argument against Files on Fig 7. If you study Fig 7, you will find that there is no revision for the drawing itself simply because all revisions on the drawing have dates attached to them.

In the "record of alterations", there is wording 'revised and retraced' with the date 4-14-60. So there was a revision to the drawing itself, but where is it? The two revisions to the headstamp are the firing pin diameter and the length of the hyphen between the letters R and P. However these rivisions have dates attached to them. That leaves us with no revision to the drawing itself, which means the drawing should not have been revised and retraced in the first place. But that can't be because the drawing was revised and retraced and a date is attached to it.

Therefore the only conclusion that can be made is that the revisions to the firing pin and hyphen were the revisions that caused the drawing to be revised and retraced and thus we have the drawing itself. Furthermore the dates printed on the revisions to the firing pin and hyphen were inserted to so that we would believe that the said revisions were done on those dates printed near the revisions. IOWs, the dates printed above the firing pin and hyphen are phony and the revisions were made on 4-14-60. Thus Eaglesham did not prove his point and his rebuttal is not valid.

This doesn't mean Files is completely honest. All it means is that Eaglesham's article does not rebut the shells Files said he used.

For a more complete explanation refer to the thread where I first talked about Eaglesham's article. You'll probably find it in the archives under my name.

[David Von Pein]

Question for Jim DiEugenio.....

What was the exact date of your interview with David Giglio?

Thanks in advance.

[Michael Walton]

Chris and Dave,

I stand by what I said earlier.  The case was not all that hard to pull off. You set the stage, get a patsy in place, the shooters come out and do what they do, then fade away. The government, in cahoots with the media did the rest, causing subterfuge for the past 50 plus years.  That's all.

People like you two and many others (the Harvey and Lee crowd; the Jackie shot JFK crowd; and many others) have grossly muddled this case, ruining the outstanding work that's been done by real researchers.

So yes, this thread deserves to be pinned at the top of this forum so that folks can read what really happen before they start finding the silliness like the Z film was recorded at 48 FPS and 67% of the frames were removed, that blobs were painted onto the film, that Oswald had a clone from Hungary, and the clone's Mom had a unibrow and smiled a lot, and all of the other nonsense (e.g., muck).