Jump to content
The Education Forum

A simple question to James DiEugenio

Recommended Posts

Did Baker just say what I think he said? A pile of warmed over WC malarkey. All to avoid the question about there being no evidence for a transiting wound in JFK's back.  And the generals knew that which is why they stopped Humes from the dissection.

First, there was never any survey of anything close to all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza about the number of shots or the directionality.  Go ahead, try and find where the FBI  tracked down all the witnesses.  You will not find that in the record.  Which should tell you something right then and there.

Second, no other weapon found?  There were two reported that morning, an Enfield and a Mauser, plus they found a Mauser shell in Dealey Plaza. And we did not learn about that until 30 years later.

Third: One shooter!!!



ROTFL :drive

Hey Paul, you claim to be a scientist right?  (Of course, a scientist who, unlike everyone else, still somehow claims some validity for the CBLA.)  Now, when you look at the Z film, somehow that does not say anything to you?  JFK is hit like a thunderclap, his entire body is smashed backward and lifted slightly upward and to his left, with such force that it bounces off the seat; motorcycle policemen are hit with blood and issue with such force that they think they were hit themselves.  And somehow that is one shooter. With the TSBD behind the limo?

Now, before you run into the arms of the lying Alvarez or the phony Sturdivan, you know the whole "jet effect" and neuromuscular reaction has been discredited by Aguilar  and Robertson and also on TV in ITTC.  (But I know you will run there anyway,  since you cannot do anything else.)

Now, if there is one shooter, then why did all those witnesses run to the GK, many more than went to the TSBD.  (Which is another indication that you are wrong with your first point.)

Besides that, then what about the testimony that will live forever in the minds of anyone who was interested in this case back then.  A guy named Sam Holland, and the seven other witnesses who saw smoke from the GK. (like Simmons.) Sam actually ran over there if you recall.  And he saw those footprints which looked like they were going back and forth.  And then you match this up with Bowers, and the false SS ID and the guy talking into what looked like a radio mike etc. I mean that was all established back in 1967.

I have saved Baker's best for last: He says one shooter, seen by a few and in perfect alignment. Say this: what chutzpah this guy has. He must think we are idiots. One shooter from the rear who rammed JFK backwards into his seat. Yeah sure.  Second, the only witness in 55 years who said LHO was in that window was Brennan.  Not only was Brennan not able to ID Oswald at the phony line ups--which is incredible on its face--but as Ian Griggs writes, there is a real question if he was even at a line up. And the FBI gave up on trying to determine how his story ever got to the police in the first place.  Now if you balance all the problems with Brennan,  with the impossibility of Oswald being on the sixth floor--which has been proven by a slew of writers--like say Roffman, way back when, then, puhlease Mr Baker. Third, do you really think we buy Dale Myers and his phony cartoon about the alignment? Bob Harris destroyed that fake rendition years ago.  So did Pat Speer. Larry Schnapf will be bringing a computer simulation out that will show the Single Bullet Fantasy was not possible.

As per reading my book, c'mon, you don't really think I buy that do you?  Can I give you a quiz? Try something else.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours 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.

Excuse me, Paul,

The doctors at the autopsy probed JFK's back wound. Humes could feel the end of it with his finger. Unless you can provide evidence otherwise, the single bullet theory ends there.

Please. Where is your medical evidence that JFK's back wound was tracked through JFK's body and to the front of JFK's throat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, David Josephs said:

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

Thanks David. Your statement is just true. From what I know, there is no medical evidence that indicates the bullet went through the body. I'm hoping Paul can provide it.

Humes could feel the end of the opening with his finger. Testimony from Jenkins and Knudsen indicate probes were also used. I've never heard of a single X-Ray or any other medical examination that indicated a bullet pathway. From what I understand, after Humes probed the wound, there was confusion in the autopsy room as to where the bullet went. When they doctors were alerted to the discovery of CE 399 in Parkland, they concluded that the bullet must have worked its way out of the shallow back wound during cardiac massage. To the best of my knowledge, the doctors at the autopsy did not conclude that the bullet traveled through the body and exited the throat.

Where is the medical evidence that shows us that there was a bullet hole that was tracked from point A on his back to point B on the front of his throat? What is the medical explanation for Humes saying he could feel the end with his finger, if the bullet hole did indeed traverse the body? I hope Paul can explain this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Baker has proven my point. 

He said he bases his ideas on a fervid belief that “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.”  His beliefs not his facts is why I choose not to contend with Mr. Baker.  However…

On the other hand his discussion of the Z film is naïve.  It gives me the opportunity to go over the authenticity of the Zapruder film again.  The technical aspects of the Z film has been argued ad nauseum with some saying yea and some saying nay.  Not being a technical guru, I have avoided those issues.

But, there are many content problems indicating alterations throughout the film.  I give you as an example Z frame 157.


Can you see any content problems here?  If you don’t then don’t feel bad.  Almost everyone who looks at this frame in over 50 years has not seen any problems.  Let’s start with the one that stuck out like a sore thumb to me and occasioned a further look at this frame.  “Falsum number 1.”

This is the image of Bob Willis and his extra, long leg:


The extra length of his leg is not a shadow however much you might want it to be.  The extra long leg has a shadow.  Sometimes, I think these things are put into the film just to show that the film is a fraud.  If so, the editors wasted there time.  Almost everyone has missed this.  Some how or another most people turn a blind eye to this or ignore it all together.

Next is the Johnson security vehicle.  This is the vehicle immediately following the Vice-Presidential limousine.  It was a 1964 Mercury Monterey Breezeway. “Falsum number 2.”


Pay particular attention to the way the top part of the vehicle looks.  Look at the front and back of the top.  Compare it to what you see in Z 157.


This is seen better in Z frame 166:


The security vehicle has two top ends, both of them rear ends.  One of them is in the front of the vehicle.  This was very poor photo editing.

Mannequin Row- the 19 people standing between the lamppost /  R L Thornton sign and the Stemmons sign.  There are 5 film and photo examples that say this group is imaginary and a figment of the photo editor’s art.  “Falsum number 3.”  These are:

Dick Bothun

Mary Moorman’s Glen McBride Polaroid

The Malcom Couch film

The Charles Bronson Film

The Mark Bell Film

The presidential limousine:  “Falsum Number 4.”


This version of Z frame 157 focuses on the presidential limousine.  Where is the president?  The front windshield and most of the limousine body belongs to another photo or frame.  It is done in a so-so, good enough manner.  The filmstrip cut and paste lines are visible.  The top of the windshield and sun visors are painted in badly.  There are other things through out the film but, this should be enough to show one the film has been tampered with in Z frame 157.

Facts not beliefs.

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, David Josephs said:

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

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


Thank you David.  There is al lot of stuff on that MF link I'd like to look at if I had more time.  Turns out I did know who Knudsen was as the White House photographer from the late 50's to early 70's but I'd forgotten his name.  I never associated him with anything regarding the assassination.  He does seem pretty sure of himself regarding the negative he developed of the two probes going all the way through JFK's neck and back.  Then he gave them back to the Secret Service and while some of the others he recognized turned up, that one disappeared.  Amazing, he didn't want to talk, they get the current SS legal council on the line who says he can to the HSCA, only.

Jeez.  I read for years according to all available sources no probes were used, Humes just stuck his finger in the back wound.  Then that after sticking his finger in it Humes used a short (8"?) probe that only went in somewhere between 2-4".  Now, they had propped JFK up with a 2 foot probe going all the way through his neck, another in his back - coming out the front???  And there was a picture of this?

Note: from ARRB MD 135, starting on page 22 of it.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That evidence about the probes is really strong for the fact the bullet did not transit.

And that has been reasonably explained by Dr. Boswell. But I'm guessing that Jim D. doesn't like this explanation about the "probing" at all. Right, Jim?....

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it." -- Dr. J.T. Boswell; Feb. 1996; ARRB Testimony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That evidence about the probes is really strong for the fact the bullet did not transit.

Maybe the sound and force waves went beyond the bullet, as they would be less impeded. That might account for Connally's reaction and wounds. David J might be able to help us with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Third: One shooter!!!



ROTFL :drive

Analytical thinking isn't your strong point, is it Jim? How can anyone argue with someone so inherently illogical. Someone who to this day still believes - like many others - that he won a debate with John McAdams on Black Op Radio. Even after failing miserably to answer his closing and extremely salient question.

So you're saying there was more than one shooter, or none, I infer. The latter premise, though extremely improbable, I wouldn't put past you. Perhaps someone injected JFK with some kind of brain exploding drug the day before. Connally was just a coincidence. Someone, at the same time, wanted to kill him.

As soon as you begin to travel down a path beyond the bleeding obvious, you begin to pile up a pile of logical fallacies, assumptions and false premises. 

Recently I got caught up in a discussion about 9/11. I asked someone if they thought it was all a big cover-up. The emphatic answer: 'Of course it was!'. You see, whenever something happens that is so big, and has such far reaching consequences, perceived or otherwise, there has to be something more to it, doesn't there? Most people leapt to that vacuous conclusion without any undue consideration. That this forum exists, that there have been so many words written about the events of 22 November 1963, is testimony to that idea. How can a pathetic little man with a gun, make so much difference?

The fact is that JFK was shot by a relative nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder. His motivation is the biggest mystery, and the only real mystery that remains, and will always remain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Baker said:


The fact is that JFK was shot by a relative nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder. His motivation is the biggest mystery, and the only real mystery that remains, and will always remain.

Paul, respectively speaking;

Just contemplating your post above. 

To me, this last paragraph of your post is somewhat confusing in that you make two points ( one in each sentence ) that seem to contradict each other.

"The fact is that JFK was shot by a relative nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder."

Here you state confidently and conclusively that Oswald was the shooter and I am guessing you're suggesting that Oswald's "nobody with a big fat chip on his shoulder" psychological burden traits strongly indicate or add to his guilt?

Isn't this first sentence statement substantially already an answer ( your answer ) to your unknown motivation mystery question you state in the second sentence? 

That Oswald's repressed chip on his shoulder anger, frustration and low self esteem had grown so great and heavy ( perhaps his feeling of hopelessness that Marina was never coming back to him was the final last straw? ) that this drove him to unleash all this through an action of monumental blind rage?  Maybe even a suicidal one?

But, with an added ( if I am taking myself out I might as well do it in a way to show everyone in the world that I really am a "somebody." )

Hey! That scenario fits Jack Ruby to a Tee!

However, you then state in the second sentence that you believe there is an even bigger mystery ( the "real mystery" ) that remains unknown about Lee Harvey Oswald's deeper motivation behind shooting JFK and that will remain unknown.

This second sentence point seems to reveal a less than confident belief in why Oswald did what you say he did in your first sentence.

And since motive is everything  ( right? ) which is it?  

A motive beyond Oswald's basic "chip on his shoulder" anger and frustrations one leaves the door wide open to almost any scenario, including conspiracy with others. Again, imo.






Edited by Joe Bauer
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

  • Create New...