Jump to content
The Education Forum

A simple question to James DiEugenio


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The Single Bullet Fantasy never happened.  Its that simple.  When that obviously planted bullet was found, the WC was stuck with it.  Because if they did not use it, then they would have to admit that 1.) not only was there a conspiracy, but 2.)  the cover up was working in hand with the plot;  or why else plant the bullet--albeit on the wrong stretcher.

Your consistency can be relied upon Jim, if little else. Once again, what you've written here amounts to nothing at all. Where is your alternative explanation of the evidence that supports the single bullet theory? I'm beginning to think you don't have one!

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Love the way you and your soul brother DVP snip away the most important part of the post and then ask that stupid question.

Here is the answer you and he do not like to the point you will not acknowledge it so you do not have to reply to it:

 

Now your side has fallen back to the stance that, well see, its more coherent than anything you guys have.  What shamelessness.  As Bob Tanenbaum once said, this is  like the prosecution saying to the defense, "What have you got?"  See, it does not work like that in the real world.  The defense is not mandated to prove its case. The prosecution has to do that and you cannot. But even with that, I have tried to put together a scenario in Destiny Betrayed, which I think is pretty solid.  But the thing is, the WC screwed up the evidence so badly when the trail was warm, that it makes it that much harder to find out what really happened.  Especially today, after the ARRB did not fulfill its mandate properly and Trump is still on bended knee with the CIA.

 

I await your reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

Your consistency can be relied upon Jim, if little else. Once again, what you've written here amounts to nothing at all. Where is your alternative explanation of the evidence that supports the single bullet theory? I'm beginning to think you don't have one!

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

The autopsists speculated JFK has hit with hi-tech rounds that wouldn't show up on x-ray, or in the body.

The FBI was briefed on the potential appearance of such weaponry -- it would come in from outside the country.

If the guy Ruby shot had been offed within an hour after JFK -- the FBI was primed to blame the JFKA on the KGB.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I Love the way you and your soul brother DVP snip away the most important part of the post and then ask that stupid question.

Here is the answer you and he do not like to the point you will not acknowledge it so you do not have to reply to it:

... etc ...

I await your reply.

Again, Jim. You've written nothing. Why do you keep doing that? All of this time you waste doing absolutely nothing, it's quite incredible.

There is the single bullet theory, which is the best fit for the available evidence, as far as I know. So this 'stupid' question has to be asked again, I'm afraid. What is the alternative explanation? You don't have one, so you must rely on conjecture and suppositionevidence was mishandled or faked or whatever. All you're doing is attempting to discredit the theory, without providing a coherent alternative explanation, using 'evidence' that isn't evidence at all; that has essentially been woven out of whole cloth. While that approach might work in a court of law to plant doubt in the minds of a jury, it has no meaning whatsoever in what is laughingly referred to as a 'research community'.

So Jim, what is the alternative explanation? Most people heard three shots, JFK and Connally reacted simultaneously to being shot, witnesses saw just a single shooter, no other bullets were found, and so on, so it would have to fit in with all of that real evidence. Good luck! I'm eager to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baker, you just cut it out again.

 Which is proof positive you cannot answer the question and you are alien to the real world situation which Jack Ruby robbed us of.  It is your side that bears the burden of proof.  And you cannot uphold that standard in any way. That is because the Single Bullet Fantasy is such a sick joke.

 Just read the following:  

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-impossible-one-day-journey-of-ce-399

Now after that, show me why I should believe that piece of bird dung.

 

As per what I think happened, I just told you that I put forth an explanation in my book Destiny Betrayed.

If you do not want to read it, fine.  But that is on you PB, not me. And, with you, its par for the course. What you have ever offered this forum is a mystery wrapped in an enigma.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2018 at 4:16 AM, Paul Baker said:

Again, Jim. You've written nothing. Why do you keep doing that? All of this time you waste doing absolutely nothing, it's quite incredible.

There is the single bullet theory, which is the best fit for the available evidence, as far as I know. So this 'stupid' question has to be asked again, I'm afraid. What is the alternative explanation? You don't have one, so you must rely on conjecture and suppositionevidence was mishandled or faked or whatever. All you're doing is attempting to discredit the theory, without providing a coherent alternative explanation, using 'evidence' that isn't evidence at all; that has essentially been woven out of whole cloth. While that approach might work in a court of law to plant doubt in the minds of a jury, it has no meaning whatsoever in what is laughingly referred to as a 'research community'.

So Jim, what is the alternative explanation? Most people heard three shots, JFK and Connally reacted simultaneously to being shot, witnesses saw just a single shooter, no other bullets were found, and so on, so it would have to fit in with all of that real evidence. Good luck! I'm eager to read it.

Pardon me, Paul. I hope you don't mind me jumping in for a bit.

Didn't Dr. Humes probe the hole in JFK's back and then say that the distance traveled by the bullet was a short distance because he could feel the end of the opening with his finger? Didn't almost every doctor and nurse at Parkland that saw the front neck wound before the tracheostomy say that they thought that wound appeared to be one of entrance and not of exit? Do you have a medical source that indicates that JFK's back wound was tracked through the body and to his neck?

Edited by Denny Zartman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Do you have a medical source that indicates that JFK's back wound was tracked through the body and to his neck?

Mr. B here appears to be searching for the elusive "alternate truth" popularized by the most corrupt administration in history...   :up

and he does appear to raise Ad hom attacks to a new level

:rant

 

I post this for Denny....  the probe proved the wounds were not connected... that and there not being any channel thru the upper torso left by a .25" bullet

 

A number of people remember a metal probe being used... others don't.  O'Connor doesn't, stating HUMES' finger was the extent of it...

James Jenkins ARRB exhibit MD65... HSCA interview 1977

Jenkins recalled that the doctors extensively attempted to probe the back wound. He said the probe
they used was a metal one, approximately eight inches long. He said that,  "most of the probe went in... between the skin..." and not into the chest cavity.

He said Humes could probe the bottom of the wound with his little finger and said that the metal probe went in 2 - 4 inches. He said it was quite a "...fact of controversy..." that the doctors "... couldn't prove the bullet came into the cavity."

 

We also have MD135 Mr. KNUDSEN

The primary points that we are going to cover are the number and locations of wounds and the other details in the photographs that you described generally, such as the presence of metal probes in the photographs and the presence of rules in the photographs, and what have you.
Are you confident now that you saw metal probes in the photographs?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes.
Mr. Purdy. Are you confident that the metal probes were actually through the wounds when you saw them?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes I am certain of that, because it showed the point of entry and exit with the probe.


---

Mr. Purdy. Have you seen photographs of any other dead bodies that may have probes in them?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes, I have. I am certain on the Kennedy there were the probes showing the point of entry and exit.
Mr. Purdy. How many probes were there that you saw in a given picture? What is the most probes that you saw in a given picture at one time?
Mr. Knudsen. I know there were two.
Mr. Purdy. Two metal probes that were through wounds when you saw them?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Mr. B here appears to be searching for the elusive "alternate truth" popularized by the most corrupt administration in history...   :up

and he does appear to raise Ad hom attacks to a new level

:rant

 

I post this for Denny....  the probe proved the wounds were not connected... that and there not being any channel thru the upper torso left by a .25" bullet

 

A number of people remember a metal probe being used... others don't.  O'Connor doesn't, stating HUMES' finger was the extent of it...

James Jenkins ARRB exhibit MD65... HSCA interview 1977

Jenkins recalled that the doctors extensively attempted to probe the back wound. He said the probe
they used was a metal one, approximately eight inches long. He said that,  "most of the probe went in... between the skin..." and not into the chest cavity.

He said Humes could probe the bottom of the wound with his little finger and said that the metal probe went in 2 - 4 inches. He said it was quite a "...fact of controversy..." that the doctors "... couldn't prove the bullet came into the cavity."

 

We also have MD135 Mr. KNUDSEN

The primary points that we are going to cover are the number and locations of wounds and the other details in the photographs that you described generally, such as the presence of metal probes in the photographs and the presence of rules in the photographs, and what have you.
Are you confident now that you saw metal probes in the photographs?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes.
Mr. Purdy. Are you confident that the metal probes were actually through the wounds when you saw them?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes I am certain of that, because it showed the point of entry and exit with the probe.


---

Mr. Purdy. Have you seen photographs of any other dead bodies that may have probes in them?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes, I have. I am certain on the Kennedy there were the probes showing the point of entry and exit.
Mr. Purdy. How many probes were there that you saw in a given picture? What is the most probes that you saw in a given picture at one time?
Mr. Knudsen. I know there were two.
Mr. Purdy. Two metal probes that were through wounds when you saw them?
Mr. Knudsen. Yes

Metal probes in what photographs?  Sorry David, I'm not familiar with Knudsen and Purdy. Or MD (Medical Document?) 135.  Please enlighten me, once again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks to both of you.

That is of real evidentiary significance.  There is no evidence that at autopsy the back wound penetrated through the body.

In fact, the weight of the evidence says it did not transit.

Right there, PB has  some real problems.

It's interesting, isn't it? That, when the 'bodged' autopsy helps to lend a modicum of weight to the tenuous arguments of a conspiracy theorist, then - in that respect at least - it wasn't bodged at all. Bodged in some respects yes, not in others.

Three shots fired (heard by vast majority). One shooter (seen by a few). Bullet wound victims reacting simultaneously to an external stimulus (check out that Z film if you've never seen it). Shooter in perfect alignment with the victims and their wounds. No other weapons or ammunition found. It's kind of obvious. No amount of picking holes around the general periphery can really detract from any of that. I've read your book Jim, and that is its basic theme: avoid the facts at all cost and inject doubt. And I guess I must have somehow missed your theory that betters that of the WC, which surprises me, because I would have found that most interesting.

You are of the opinion that it's likely that no shots were fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD on that day, so who knows what you really believe. I'm not even sure that you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

It's interesting, isn't it? That, when the 'bodged' autopsy helps to lend a modicum of weight to the tenuous arguments of a conspiracy theorist, then - in that respect at least - it wasn't bodged at all. Bodged in some respects yes, not in others.

Three shots fired (heard by vast majority). One shooter (seen by a few). Bullet wound victims reacting simultaneously to an external stimulus (check out that Z film if you've never seen it). Shooter in perfect alignment with the victims and their wounds. No other weapons or ammunition found. It's kind of obvious. No amount of picking holes around the general periphery can really detract from any of that. I've read your book Jim, and that is its basic theme: avoid the facts at all cost and inject doubt. And I guess I must have somehow missed your theory that betters that of the WC, which surprises me, because I would have found that most interesting.

You are of the opinion that it's likely that no shots were fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD on that day, so who knows what you really believe. I'm not even sure that you know.

The autopsy wasn't botched, the truth was. How? Simple: the autopsy pathologists lied and claimed the were unaware that Kennedy's modified tracheotomy was a former bullet wound. You are the one who should be arguing the autopsy was botched, because if it wasn't, the doctors didn't share what they learned.

Edited by Micah Mileto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read through this post and I fail to understand why anyone would want to try to explain or argue with anything people like Carlier, Baker, etc espouse.  You are not going to change their minds on anything.  It is a useless endeavor.  It doesn't matter what you say.  You will not be able to change the twisted logic of their repeated questions on whether you can answer something or not.

Here's an example:  Baker says "You are of the opinion that it's likely that no shots were fired from the sixth floor of the TSBD on that day, so who knows what you really believe. I'm not even sure that you know. "   That statement says you really don't believe the true evidence.  Actually, 5 out of 7 witnesses who were located the closest to the sniper's nest said the shots came from a different direction.  You just can't air that in a court.

Anything you answer on this will be rejected and then the favored, twisted question will be repeated such as "what is the alternative explanation?" and then repeat the process.  And, they will provide some evidence for their argument such as "Three shots fired (heard by vast majority). " which is apparently true but doesn't say anything about a large number of witnesses saying something different. 

Another example is "(check out that Z film if you've never seen it)".  The Z film is totally corrupt and unusable as evidence for anything.  The Z film doesn't work as evidence under two principles, Falsum in Uno, Falsum in Omnibus and a lesser standard Falsum in Multis, Falsum in Omnibus.

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

The Z film is totally corrupt and unusable as evidence for anything.  The Z film doesn't work as evidence under two principles, Falsum in Uno, Falsum in Omnibus and a lesser standard Falsum in Multis, Falsum in Omnibus.

No-one has ever demonstrated forgery of the Z-film. No-one. In any case, the whole idea is ridiculous, because the conspirators would have had to seize every bit of photographic and film evidence from every witness to ensure that the photographic record was consistent with their story. Stupid. Plain and simple. Of course, no matter how many times anyone points out this blaringly obvious flaw in the Z-film fakery story, along with all the others, it will still be bought up, again and again, ad infinitum. That's how 'research' works here ...

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Actually, 5 out of 7 witnesses who were located the closest to the sniper's nest said the shots came from a different direction.

 ... along with much picking of cherries (in any case, of course, quite meaningless given the evidence that supports one shooter on the sixth floor of the TSBD, even if your statement is correct) ...

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

I've read through this post and I fail to understand why anyone would want to try to explain or argue with anything people like Carlier, Baker, etc espouse.  You are not going to change their minds on anything.

... and a plethora of false statements. I think you'll find, John, that the opposite in this case is true. I can't speak for anyone else, but as I've said more than once before: I don't care whether there was a conspiracy or not. I just wholeheartedly believe that this was the whim of a single, sad, lonely man, with a gun, one sunny day. Nothing suggests otherwise.

Edited by Paul Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Metal probes in what photographs?  Sorry David, I'm not familiar with Knudsen and Purdy. Or MD (Medical Document?) 135.  Please enlighten me, once again.

The ARRB is your friend Ron...  :secret

They were able to get a lot of the HSCA testimony out and added to it... 

KNUDSEN is a very interesting story worth digging a bit deeper

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1019  
ARRB Medical Exhibits

125.ARRB MD 129 - Gawler's Funeral Home "First Call Sheet" which records events of November 22-23,1963

  126.ARRB MD 130 - Gawler's "Arrangements File" which records arrangements for President John F. Kennedy's Funeral

  127.ARRB MD 131 - Coffin Card (Made Out by Texas Coffin Company) found inside Dallas Bronze Casket by Gawler's Personnel Subsequent to Funeral of President John F. Kennedy

  128.ARRB MD 132 - Telephone Call Notice prepared by Gawler's Funeral Home secretary for Joe Hagan on 4-16-64 (which relays Mr. Dave Powers' "O.K." to speak with William  Manchester); also attached is a h

  129.ARRB MD 133 - Washington Post newspaper article dated February 27, 1965 titled:"Dallas Mortician for JFK Paid $3,495.00"--article is about payment for Dallas Bronze Casket

  130.ARRB MD 134 - Gawler's after-action report titled: "Funeral Arrangements for John Fitzgerald Kennedy"--events of November 22,23,24, and 25 are recounted.

  131.ARRB MD 135 - Transcript of August 11, 1978 HSCA Deposition of Robert L. Knudsen

 

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...