Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bush not in Dallas- He is dead


Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I don't have an "opinion" as to whether anything is by his head or what it might be if there is.  I see the suggestive line, which could indeed be an antenna but could be a myriad of other things or even a reflection or illusion in a photo this blurry.  If it is an antenna, it could be a transistor radio, which would be entirely plausible at a newsworthy parade - or even a walkie talkie being used for some entirely legitimate purpose entirely unrelated to any assassination conspiracy.  Factored into the analysis has to be the sheer unlikeliness that a conspirator would be curbside in full view of hundreds of people, brandishing a walkie-talkie and carrying on a conspiracy-related conversation.  The photo is simply useless, except for the purpose of fueling raw, conspiracy-oriented speculation.  The fact that a lawyer doesn't grasp this reality is rather mind-boggling to me.

Bowers saw people in the parking lot utilizing radios?  You're going to have to educate me on that (or perhaps wipe the egg off your face), because he certainly didn't say it in his affidavit or WC testimony:

Mr. BOWERS - Yes, some 15 minutes or so after this, at approximately 12 o'clock, 20 to 12--I guess 12:20 would be close to it, little time differential there--but there was another car which was a 1957 black Ford, with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least.
Mr. BALL - How could you tell that?
Mr. BOWERS - He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other, and gave that appearance. He was very close to the tower. I could see him as he proceeded around the area.

Whoa, that's really definitive.  Put that together with your blurry DCM photo and you're about 95% of the way to a conspiracy.

If Bowers said something about "people in the parking lot utilizing radios" in some Mark Lane-coached video - well, yes, I guess I will have to dispute that.

Alas, I am obstinately going to refuse to play the game you would have me play.  Do get back to me when you find that "utilizing radios" quote so I can close this gap in my knowledge - or is this simply another example of "conspiracy facts" getting better every time they are retold?

Oh, I almost forgot:  Those wacky conspirators placed Dark Complected Man right in front of Umbrella Man, directly in line with Being Assassinated Man, just so you wouldn't miss them.  Yeah, that's how conspiracies work.  Too bad Prayer Man didn't get the memo and stayed in the shadows.

Ok so you admit it could be a radio. 

You admit only Bowers wc testimony is relevant. 

 

Just wanted to narrow things down. 

So are all witness statements useless except wc testimony?  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 791
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Here's my archived version of it on my website....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-129.html

To be honest, where I actually stopped was when Sandy said "Yes, Dave, that's a fake letter."  It reminds me of when Budd Hopkins finally sent me over the edge in regard to alien abductions:  Why don't we see these things when someone like Linda Cortile is floated out the window of her apartment in midtown Manhattan?  Oh, because the aliens have "mastered the art of invisibility."  Oh, right, gotcha.  How do you answer something like THAT?  'Bye, Budd.  This is essentially conspiracy logic.  The goal post just keeps getting moved until you find yourself dealing with invisible goal posts.

In regard to DCM, in other clearer photos he looks an awful like Waving Enthusiastically at the President Man (WEATHPM) or Just Sitting On the Curb Like a Lump Man (JSOTCLALM) to be a conspirator - of course, the conspirators were so diabolical that these benign poses were just part of the conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I never said the letter [CE15] was a fake. That is something you said about me that is false.

Who do you think you're kidding, Jim? Of course you think the letter is a fake and a fraud. You have no choice BUT to believe it's a fake letter.

Why?

Because you have said repeatedly in the past that you do not believe that Lee Harvey Oswald ever visited the Cuban and Russian embassies/consulates in Mexico City in September of 1963.

And since the bulk of Oswald's letter in CE15 deals with Oswald admitting the fact that he did, indeed, go to both of those locations in Mexico City, then how could you possibly NOT think that that letter was totally phony?

Or maybe you've changed your mind and you now want to admit that Oswald did, indeed, visit the Cuban and Russian embassies in '63. Is that what you want to do now, James? If not, then you have no choice but to believe that the letter we find with Oswald's signature on it in Commission Exhibit No. 15 is a totally fake document. So why pretend you believe otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really want to get involved but as an unbiased outsider.... dark complected or umbrella must have been giving some sort of signal no ? I mean, it makes a lot of sense, the first line of fire hadn't worked and people who then otherwise may not have been able to see that. Just because his name ends in 'man ' doesn't nessarily mean he is related to invisible leafy policeman badge ghost man. 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Ok so you admit it could be a radio. 

You admit only Bowers wc testimony is relevant. 

 

Just wanted to narrow things down. 

So are all witness statements useless except wc testimony?  

 

 

Do they offer Remedial Continuing Legal Education in your state?  I cited his WC testimony because, to the best of my knowledge, that was the ONLY PLACE where he said anything resembling your inaccurate and misleading assertion.  Duh and double duh.  Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jake Hammond said:

I don't really want to get involved but as an unbiased outsider.... dark complected or umbrella must have been giving some sort of signal no ? I mean, it makes a lot of sense, the first line of fire hadn't worked and people who then otherwise may not have been able to see that. 

Well, no.  We have an ironclad idea of who Umbrella Man was and what he was doing, which was delivering an obscure political message to JFK entirely unrelated to the assassination.  We have no reason to believe DCM and UM were connected in any way other than proximity.  We have no reason to believe that there was any third person to whom they were giving a signal.  So, no, I don't believe what you think they "must" have been doing follows at all from the facts we have.

Think about it:  You have a high-level, carefully planned Presidential assassination with highly trained, hand-picked assassins and assassination-grade weapons located at the absolutely most advantageous locations in Dealey Plaza.  The whole thing must be accomplished in a matter of split seconds or not at all.  Do you REALLY think you're going to have some goof with an umbrella and some goof with a walkie talkie standing at curbside in full view of everyone and giving signals as though they were traffic cops ("No. Fred, a little higher and about two inches to the right ... I'm not sure he's dead, Bill, squeeze off another couple of rounds ... Christ, Joe, you damn near hit me and I think you might have winged Jackie")?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I cited his WC testimony because, to the best of my knowledge, that was the ONLY PLACE where he said anything resembling your inaccurate and misleading assertion.

Here is Bowers after Mark Lane got ahold of him....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_YygHvgJjo6OUF4Zm9oUHAwX0k/view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its possible, not umbrella man, I understand his debunking but it does seem coincidental that a man, DCM, would stand in full view and give a signal of some sort, radio or not. Especially as prior shots had missed. IF there were sinpers in positions where they couldn't see JFK's in tact head but could see DCM's hand. 

Edited by Jake Hammond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Here is Bowers after Mark Lane got ahold of him....

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_YygHvgJjo6OUF4Zm9oUHAwX0k/view 

Witnesses always got "better," conspiracy-wise, in the hands of Mark Lane, didn't they?  Despite the heavy editing and convenient cuts for which Lane is famous, insofar as Cory's assertions are concerned he said nothing different from what he had said at the WC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Witnesses always got "better," conspiracy-wise, in the hands of Mark Lane, didn't they?  Despite the heavy editing and convenient cuts for which Lane is famous, insofar as Cory's assertions are concerned he said nothing different from what he had said at the WC.

Except that in the interview with Lane, Bowers added a comment about possibly seeing "a flash of light" or "smoke" near the Knoll. He never said anything about "flashes of light" or "smoke" in his WC testimony. (I just looked.) So that makes me wonder what influence Mr. Lane had on Mr. Bowers prior to that 1966 interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Do they offer Remedial Continuing Legal Education in your state?  I cited his WC testimony because, to the best of my knowledge, that was the ONLY PLACE where he said anything resembling your inaccurate and misleading assertion.  Duh and double duh.  Jesus.

I see well again you resort to insults. Why can’t you just be professional?  We’re you like this as a lawyer?  It’s sad. Really talking to you is like arguing w a stop sign. Frankly it’s beneath me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I see well again you resort to insults. Why can’t you just be professional?  We’re you like this as a lawyer?  It’s sad. Really talking to you is like arguing w a stop sign. Frankly it’s beneath me. 

My crack about Remedial Continuing Legal Education was admittedly somewhat over the top.  I actually meant Remedial Reading Comprehension because you consistently misconstrue (or ignore) what I have said.  You're trying to play neophyte litigator games with someone who practiced law for 35+ years and you're getting it shoved back up your wazoo.  You're damn right I was like this as a lawyer, and I never had a bar complaint or a sanction.  Professionalism in any context does not require me to suffer characters who think they are going to one-up me with tap dances.  People who come at me with substance get substance in response.  People who come at me with silly games get what they deserve.  When your tactics are exposed, you blithely ignore the entire substance of what has been said and just move on to the next inanity as though you were putting words in the mouth of some dipsy 18-year-old witness on cross-exam in a minor league slip-and-fall case::  "Oh, so you admit it could be a radio [well, yes, from my very first post] … you admit only Bowers WC testimony is relevant [well, no, you are mischaracterizing what I said] … and thus you cannot deny, can you, sir, that there was indeed a banana peel on the floor of aisle 3 on October 4, 2017, a day on which you, sir, were solely responsible for ensuring the absence of such peels in said aisle but failed miserably in the performance of your sacred duty?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

My crack about Remedial Continuing Legal Education was admittedly somewhat over the top.  I actually meant Remedial Reading Comprehension because you consistently misconstrue (or ignore) what I have said.  You're trying to play neophyte litigator games with someone who practiced law for 35+ years and you're getting it shoved back up your wazoo.  You're damn right I was like this as a lawyer, and I never had a bar complaint or a sanction.  Professionalism in any context does not require me to suffer characters who think they are going to one-up me with tap dances.  People who come at me with substance get substance in response.  People who come at me with silly games get what they deserve.  When your tactics are exposed, you blithely ignore the entire substance of what has been said and just move on to the next inanity as though you were putting words in the mouth of some dipsy 18-year-old witness on cross-exam in a minor league slip-and-fall case::  "Oh, so you admit it could be a radio [well, yes, from my very first post] … you admit only Bowers WC testimony is relevant [well, no, you are mischaracterizing what I said] … and thus you cannot deny, can you, sir, that there was indeed a banana peel on the floor of aisle 3 on October 4, 2017, a day on which you, sir, were solely responsible for ensuring the absence of such peels in said aisle but failed miserably in the performance of your sacred duty?"

Lol you need help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Lol you need help. 

I've already admitted to Michael Clark today that I'm "feeling guilty," so I'm not prepared to concede that I also "need help."  But get back to me tomorrow and I might!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...