A simple question to James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

54 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I met James DiEugenio for the first time yesterday, because he invited me to join a round table symposium on JFK and related in SF. First time I have attended anything JFK related since following Mark Lane in NYC in 1964 when I was 16. Linda Pease was there sharing some of what is in her new book on RFK, but the rest, including Jim D., spoke on issues related to JFK. Jim’s talk was basically about John Kenneth Galbraith (at least that was the main point I got from it) being the most important and trusted advisor to JFK from the get go (after RFK). Jim’s forte in my opinion is his ability to correct false historical narratives, and he is very good at it. At one point during a short exchange I had with him, he mentioned this current thread. Jim likes to argue, as he did a few times yesterday, and I’ve seen him get testy here on the Forum with some writers and researchers.  But there is no ill will in it. What is most obvious is that he cares about truth and tries to be truthful always. 

That last sentence is the single most important trait of a Historian imo.  Thanks Paul.  I've never blamed Jim for getting PO'd at the disinfo specialists employed to appear on here.  I do myself. 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Paul and Ron.

(BTW, I do not really like to argue.  I would much rather do what I was doing Saturday in San Fran.  Presenting mostly new information  to an interested audience in front of three cameras. Too bad it was not live streamed.. Nice to see you Mr. Brancato.)

Baker somehow assumed that I was avoiding him?  Is that what I am supposed to understand?

When have I done that before?  Why would I do that with him?

As per his question, I think he is trying to say that somehow the famous JFK rearward reaction we see in the Z film is somehow unwarranted and not possible with a rifle shot?

Is that what he is trying to say?  And that somehow no one should ever bring this up again? (Although its OK for him to try and revive the CBLA.)

And, sounding like Mike Baden, he says it only in Hollywood that bodies recoil like that.

This argument is as old as the hills and its been discredited before by people like Gil Jesus. Gil has found film which show this type of reaction with bullet strikes.  I don't like looking at them personally. But I have and other people have.  And in those films, the body flew in the direction of the projectile.  As Gary Aguilar has shown,  in the WC's own experiments, the skulls used went in the direction of the projectile, and it was 10 out of 10 times. We know today that Alvarez rigged his experiments to make it seem otherwise. (Has Baker ever commented on the dubious scientific ethics in that?)

Finally, a noted physicist named Paul Chambers wrote a book on this subject.  Maybe Baker should argue with him.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Baker]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Paul and Ron.

(BTW, I do not really like to argue.  I would much rather do what I was doing Saturday in San Fran.  Presenting mostly new information  to an interested audience in front of three cameras. Too bad it was not live streamed.. Nice to see you Mr. Brancato.)

Baker somehow assumed that I was avoiding him?  Is that what I am supposed to understand?

When have I done that before?  Why would I do that with him?

As per his question, I think he is trying to say that somehow the famous JFK rearward reaction we see in the Z film is somehow unwarranted and not possible with a rifle shot?

Is that what he is trying to say?  And that somehow no one should ever bring this up again? (Although its OK for him to try and revive the CBLA.)

And, sounding like Mike Baden, he says it only in Hollywood that bodies recoil like that.

This argument is as old as the hills and its been discredited before by people like Gil Jesus. Gil has found film which show this type of reaction with bullet strikes.  I don't like looking at them personally. But I have and other people have.  And in those films, the body flew in the direction of the projectile.  As Gary Aguilar has shown,  in the WC's own experiments, the skulls used went in the direction of the projectile, and it was 10 out of 10 times. We know today that Alvarez rigged his experiments to make it seem otherwise. (Has Baker ever commented on the dubious scientific ethics in that?)

Finally, a noted physicist named Paul Chambers wrote a book on this subject.  Maybe Baker should argue with him.

Yes, apologies for making the assumption that you were avoiding the question. But this specific subject is something that is widely used to shore up many ideas of a conspiracy, time and time again. The fact remains that, if you do the simple maths, you'll come up with a number that in no way accounts for any level of violent movement of the target when a small, high velocity projectile hits it, and this isn't even accounting for the penetrative power of the bullet, which is - after all - what they are generally designed to do. They're meant to penetrate and cause damage: not bounce off of things to merely push them in a particular direction, and even if they did do that, that wouldn't automatically give rise to any level of violent movement.

It's very basic, proven science and maths. Proven several hundred years ago, in fact. When anyone says that the rearward movement of JFK at the time of the headshot is consistent with being shot from the front, that simply isn't true, or is at best misleading. Robert Groden said it, I believe, when the Z-film was shown in the mid-seventies on TV. He may have even said the same to the HSCA. Jim Garrison (or at least, Kevin Costner) said it over and over in Oliver Stone's film JFK ('Back and to the left, back and to the left ...'). People expect this to happen when someone is shot, and that is the only reason it becomes a compelling argument to most people. Reality doesn't support it.

You can argue about neurological reactions to being shot, but that could happen in any direction and is not neccessarily related to the direction of travel of the bullet.

The movement of JFK in response to the headshot is not relevant. Indeed, if you look at a high contrast rendering of Z313 you can clearly see where some of the bullet's momentum has been spent. It's moving forwards relative to the motion of the limousine; i.e. it has travelled there from somewhere behind.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Paul Baker

[James DiEugenio]

As I said, then you have a dispute with physicist Paul Chambers.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I have to say that I thought that seminar went pretty well on Saturday.

Although it was a closed invitation list, people came in from all over the country, and outside the country.  Len Osanic flew in from Vancouver, Larry Schnapf from New York, Jim DeBrosse from Ohio.  Always nice to listen to a distinguished roster of people doing current research on the JFK case, and in Lisa Pease's instance, the RFK case.  Lisa's book A Lie to Big to Fail is now out and is being delivered. I wrote the Introduction for it and think it is  the best book on that case. 

EF subscriber David Josephs was also there and I thought he did well, especially considering it was the first time he presented in the field.

[David Josephs]

thanks Jim...

It was a real pleasure meeting all the authors and researchers I've admired these past 20 years..

Meeting and speaking with Peter Dale Scott an extra special treat I was not expecting..

Thanks again for the invite and kind words...

DJ

Edited December 17, 2018 by David Josephs