Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[James DiEugenio]

Davey:

There is a difference between making assumptions that are based on the evidence, versus making them in spite of the evidence.

The WC did the latter all day and every day.  So did Bugliosi. Whenever there was a problem with the evidence, Bugliosi would say, well that is OK sine we know Oswald did it.. Recall, the WC and VB are the prosecution.  Not the defense.  They had the burden of proof.  Therefore, they should not be able to use many assumptions, particularly when they clash with the evidence. Especially considering the high standard to prove guilt in a murder case. 

But see,   if you recall, Oswald was murdered, literally in the arms of the Dallas Police.  After screaming he was just a patsy, he never got his day in court. Unlike the Nazis at Nuremburg, he never even had a lawyer.  

I find it interesting that he was rubbed out the morning after he made the Raleigh call to John Hurt.

Which is another thing I was going to ask you:

Did the WC know about Oswald's Saturday night call to John Hurt?

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let me answer my own question since DVP will take 12 hours to reply.

 

There is no evidence that they did know about this call.  Which now makes about 9 instances where the WC could not get to the bottom of a key incident or did not know about it.

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I urge everyone to read this fine article on the Raleigh Call.  You will never see anything like this posted by DVP or FC or the Arizona lawyer. (Who said he was leaving but now is back.  Some Xmas gift eh?)

Please read this all the way through, it brings up some very real  questions about what Oswald was thinking in detention with no lawyer.

http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now let me ask another question of FC or DVP:

Did the WC know that Ruby lied on his polygraph test?

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

There is no evidence that they did know about this call.  Which now makes about 9 instances where the WC could not get to the bottom of a key incident or did not know about it.

But every one of those things WAS known to the HSCA. And what again did the HSCA conclude?.....

They concluded that only Oswald fired shots that wounded JFK and John Connally.

But, per CTers, we're supposed to believe that this SECOND official investigation into the President's death was corrupt too, even though that very same committee DID conclude there was a "probable conspiracy" in the case. Go figure the logic of the CTers when it comes to sorting out that dichotomy.

It's always a fascinating pastime to watch the CTers preach to me about how the HSCA came to a conclusion that Oswald did not act alone, but then those same conspiracists will, in their next breath, talk about how they think that same HSCA "covered up" this or "falsified" that --- e.g.:

Most Internet CTers believe that the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel decided to lie through their collective teeth when they concluded that there was no fakery whatsoever to be detected in any of Oswald Backyard Photos and there was also no signs of any "altered" images amongst any of the JFK autopsy photos or X-rays.

Plus, there are the bald-faced liars, per many conspiracy theorists, who were part of the HSCA's handwriting panel, which concluded that all of the various documents allegedly written in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting or handprinting WAS, indeed, the actual handwriting and/or printing of Lee Oswald and was not the result of fakery or forgery.

That makes over two dozen rotten liars among just those two HSCA sub-panels alone. And the CTers have no problem at all believing that those 2 dozen or so people decided to toss their morals and scruples out the nearest window in order to paint Lee Oswald as an assassin (even though, per the CTers, those people HAD to know they were reporting something to the public that was exactly the OPPOSITE from the actual truth).

Call me stupid and naive, but I just don't think you could get SO MANY different people, working for the same investigative organization, to tell one lie after another concerning the various pieces of evidence connected with the JFK case.

A good question, IMO, to ask is --- How is it possible to get so many JFK conspiracy theorists to believe that so many people (ranging from the Bethesda autopsy doctors, to the Warren Commission, to the Clark Panel, to the HSCA) would be willing to tell so many lies---for decades on end---regarding virtually everything connected with Lee Oswald and the assassination of John F. Kennedy? Has the "research" world gone crazy? Or were they all merely hypnotized by the clever and deceptive Mark Lane way back in 1964? The answer to that inquiry remains a mystery to me.

Edited December 14, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

6 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

But...

remains a  mystery to me.

David Von Pein......

The amount of money that you make by maintaining a website that buries our President who was killed in a Coup de ta remains a mysteryto me. 

 

Care to share? How much do you make by perpetuating the coup?

 

Michael

[Michael Clark]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

David Von Pein......

The amount of money that you make by maintaining a website that buries our President who was killed in a Coup de ta remains a mysteryto me. 

 

Care to share? How much do you make by perpetuating the coup?

 

Michael

David Von Pein, how much money do you make by participating in the coup?

Monthly?

Yearly?

Daily?

tell us...

[François Carlier]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Just a quick question, Francois:

What makes you think that it was Oswald who shot Tippet?

 

😁 😁 😁
That question is funny.
Are you serious ?
People SAW him, man ! Whatever more do you need ?
(Actually, there is more, much more evidence, but when you have several witnesses who see a man kill another, I mean, as Bugliosi would say, that's the end of the ball game).
Oswald Killing Tippit is an indisputable fact.
 

[François Carlier]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Did the WC know about Oswald's Saturday night call to John Hurt?

My answer : I don't know and I don't care.
Because, only YOU think that it is relevant. in fact, it is NOT.
I'm surprised that you don't understand that.
It is your seeming inability to separate what is relevant from what is not that has led you astray.
Stick to what is relevant and you'll end up realizing that yes, Oswald was indeed the sole assassin !

[François Carlier]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now let me ask another question of FC or DVP:

Did the WC know that Ruby lied on his polygraph test?

What does this have to do with the overwhelming evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit and the total lack of evidence that Ruby knew Oswald or was part of a plot ?

[François Carlier]

Just now, François Carlier said:

What does this have to do with the overwhelming evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit and the total lack of evidence that Ruby knew Oswald or was part of a plot ?

Please, answer that question, for a change.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Wow way to come into a discussion and try and change the issue.   I’ll stick with it. So you know what that is by DCM head?  Do you dispute Bowers testimony?  

 

No one knows and no one will ever know. And that fact allows people to speculate endlessly. But there is no evidence that it is a two-way radio that he used to instruct unknown (and never located) assassins. In fact, it makes more sense that it was a transistor radio that he was using to try and find out more information about the tragic event he had just witnessed.

[James DiEugenio]

To answer DVP's above:

This is the kind of researcher you are: There are some things I have listed the HSCA did not know about, and you do not know the difference.

To answer FC, who sometimes does not know how funny he really is: One of the questions that Ruby lied about indicates he did know Oswald prior to the assassination.

I am tempted to say Case Closed right there.

But since it is alway amusing to fiddle around with these shameless charlatans, I will continue on to show what a mockery of justice and alleged "Fact Finding body" (DVP's explanation)  the WC was.  (How can you be a fact fining body if you leave out all of these facts?)

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Now, in addition to Ruby lying on his polygraph test--a fact that the Commission misrepresented by saying he passed, a deception that cover up artist Jean Davison actually bandied about in her book and DVP did not call her on it--did the Commission explain how that test was actually rigged in advance by the FBI technician?

And did the WC explain how the elaborate deception arranged by the technician  was so multi layered and purposeful that it violated about 12 different protocols of good practice? To the point that the test was deemed useless by a panel of experts who studied it?  It was so planned in advance bad that Bugliosi (another DVP hero) had to deliberately misrepresent it in his book.

Did the WC  then conclude by saying it was difficult to deem this was all an accident, and therefore the FBI knew what was happening with the test?

Edited December 14, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Short answer to the above, since they will never admit it:

The WC did nothing of the kind.  They did not even cross check the results with an independent firm.

They accepted all the crapola that test symbolized, even to the point that it rendered the FBI suspect as an investigating body.

That symbolizes  the worthlessness of the Warren Commission.