Jim DiEugenio 2003, 2009, 2018

[Vince Palamara]

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Again, thanks so much VInce.  

The last one is a favorite of mine.

[Vince Palamara]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Again, thanks so much VInce.  

The last one is a favorite of mine.

My pleasure! 

[David Von Pein]

5 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

 

 

 

Thanks for the videos, Vince.

Here are just a few of my observations concerning some of the errors made by James DiEugenio in the above video presentations....

1.) The "12" that appears in the postmark on the envelope that Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods is very likely not a postal "zone" code designation at all. It's likely a machine number, as several people I've talked to over the last several years have said. (Much more on that subject at the link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

2.) Jim incorrectly seems to think that Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 (at 19 H 286) proves that the Warren Commission and/or FBI lied about the info on Oswald's P.O. Box application. But we can easily see that the form that Jim thinks is from "Box 2915" is really from a different P.O. Box application altogether---it's from Box 6225, which was the box that Oswald rented on Nov. 1, 1963.

3.) Relating to Oswald's rifle purchase, DiEugenio is dead wrong when he said that Ruth Paine wrote the date "Oct. 22nd" on her March '63 calendar page. And Jim makes a further error by saying that Ruth told the WC that the date should have been Nov. 22. But she actually wrote "Oct. 23" on this calendar page, and she fully explained to the WC that it was a mistake on her part, and she meant to write "Nov. 23", which was the date when she learned (no doubt via Jesse Curry's 11/23 DPD hallway press gathering) of the "March 20" date for Oswald ordering the rifle. Where DiEugenio got the "Oct. 22 / Nov. 22" dates from, I have no clue. But he's wrong about those dates.

4.) And, of course, we've got Jim D. repeating the now-proven-to-be-wrong claim that "Elmer Lee Todd's initials are not on that bullet [CE399]". And Jim also repeats the incorrect notion that John Hunt actually photographed CE399 itself, vs. what Hunt actually did in 2006---he saw the photos of the bullet at the National Archives and (I guess) re-photographed the photographs. But Hunt never said he handled the bullet itself. He said his work with CE399 was done "using four of NARA's preservation photos."

5.) Jim claims that Vincent Bugliosi (and all LNers) have, in effect, "four magic bullets" (the Walker bullet + the 3 rounds supposedly fired by LHO on 11/22). Such a claim made me laugh out loud, considering the fact that DiEugenio (and most other CTers), per the most widely-accepted conspiracy theories, have a number of "magic bullets" themselves.

E.G., the CTs have TWO bullets with pretty strong "magic" powers when talking about just the bullets that CTers say hit JFK in the back and throat. Both of those bullets, for some unknown and weird reason, failed to travel more than a couple of inches into Kennedy's body. Both bullets, per CT accounts, just simply stopped on a dime inside JFK, even though they hit no solid objects whatsoever. And then, on top of that hunk of "magic", both bullets then either got lost on their own or were dug out of JFK's body by alleged plotters who were apparently part of the forever unknown and always unseen "cover-up squad".

So, whenever I hear a conspiracy theorist pontificate about how it's the LNers who possess "magic bullets" in the JFK case, I am compelled to demand equal time so that I can then talk about those two "magic missiles" that the anti-SBT CTers have had possession of in their collective imaginations since 1963.

Edited July 13, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

For new members, DVP and I argued this for a long time.  

I can assure you he is a pro at recycling arguments he loses into a new dimension. So it looks like he did not.  That is what got him tossed last time.

I will be looking for any thing new that he does post at his site to try and do the same thing.  Which he said he would not.

Anyone can find these old arguments, in which he uses his incredibly bad sources.

I have a lot of new things to do, like promoting the film in Florida, and trying to find those missing Church Committee documents on Oswald and Customs,  rather than recycle DVP's mildewed nonsense. As I showed  in another thread, that order could not have gotten to Klein's the next day. Having nothing to do with flight time, but the double sorting process, and the deposit into the bank in less than 24 hours.

End of story. DVP loses. Again. 

Bye Dave.  Have Bill Brown hold your hand now.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

For new members, DVP and I argued this for a long time.  

I can assure you he is a pro at recycling arguments he loses into a new dimension. So it looks like he did not.  That is what got him tossed last time.

I will be looking for anything new that he does post at his site to try and do the same thing.  Which he said he would not.

Anyone can find these old arguments, in which he uses his incredibly bad sources.

I have a lot of new things to do, like promoting the film in Florida, and trying to find those missing Church Committee documents on Oswald and Customs,  rather than recycle DVP's mildewed nonsense. As I showed with in another thread, that order could not have gotten to Klein's the next day. having nothing to do with flight time, but the double sorting process, and the deposit into the bank in less than 24 hours.

End of story. DVP loses. Again. 

Bye Dave.  Have Bill Brown hold your hand now.

Oh brother. Among the so-called "incredibly bad sources" I provide for my #2, #3, and #4 items above are Cadigan Exhibit 13, which PROVES for all time I was right on that PO Box point---it says RIGHT THERE that it's referring to Box 6225, not #2915. And yet, per DiEugenio, apparently Cadigan #13 is an "incredibly bad source" for the point I was making. Oh my.

And for #3, I utilized Ruth Paine's actual calendar page, which says RIGHT ON IT the "Oct. 23" date, not the Oct. 22 date that Jim incorrectly mentioned in his 2003 video. (Another "bad source", Jim?) (Oh my #2.)

And the 4th item on my list is something that I think even Jim has been forced to admit is true (much to his dismay, I'm sure)---i.e., that Elmer Todd's initials ARE on CE399, just as I have insisted they were for years now.

From July 2015:

JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "Todd's initials are not on the bullet."

DAVID VON PEIN -- "FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

And the sources I used for my 1st item---to combat the ultra-silly notion that Oswald would have had to walk many MILES out of his way to mail the Klein's order---are various people who are very familiar with U.S. postmarks and the tools that make such postmarks. And while I didn't receive an absolute concrete answer to what the "12" on the postmark signifies, I did get several "postmark experts" to say that it was their opinion that the "12" was not a Postal Zone Code.

End of story. Jim D. loses. Again. 

Bye Jim. Have Oliver Stone hold your hand now.

Edited July 13, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Allen Lowe]

16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh brother. Among the so-called "incredibly bad sources" I provide for my #2, #3, and #4 items above are Cadigan Exhibit 13, which PROVES for all time I was right on that PO Box point---it says RIGHT THERE that it's referring to Box 6225, not #2915. And yet, per DiEugenio, apparently Cadigan #13 is an "incredibly bad source" for the point I was making. Oh my.

And for #3, I utilized Ruth Paine's actual calendar page, which says RIGHT ON IT the "Oct. 23" date, not the Oct. 22 date that Jim incorrectly mentioned in his 2003 video. (Another "bad source", Jim?) (Oh my #2.)

And the 4th item on my list is something that I think even Jim has been forced to admit is true (much to his dismay, I'm sure)---i.e., that Elmer Todd's initials ARE on CE399, just as I have insisted they were for years now.

From July 2015:

JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "Todd's initials are not on the bullet."

DAVID VON PEIN -- "FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

And the source(s) I used for my 1st item to combat the ultra-silly notion that Oswald would have had to walk many MILES out of his way to mail the Klein's order are various people who are very familiar with U.S. postmarks and the tools that make such postmarks. And while I didn't receive an absolute concrete answer to what the "12" on the postmark signifies, I did get several "postmark experts" to say that it was their opinion that the "12" was not a Postal Zone Code.

End of story. Jim D. loses. Again. 

Bye Jim.  Have Oliver Stone hold your hand now.

David; no one’s listening.

[David Von Pein]

Just now, Allen Lowe said:

David; no one’s listening.

Thanks for that bulletin, Al. Great contribution there.

[Allen Lowe]

What? Can’t hear you. 

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Allen Lowe said:

What? Can’t hear you. 

Another brilliant Al Lowe contribution. Thanks.

[Tom Gram]

18 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

2.) Jim incorrectly seems to think that Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 (at 19 H 286) proves that the Warren Commission and/or FBI lied about the info on Oswald's P.O. Box application. But we can easily see that the form that Jim thinks is from "Box 2915" is really from a different P.O. Box application altogether---it's from Box 6225, which was the box that Oswald rented on Nov. 1, 1963.

David, Cadigan Exhibit 13 consists of section three of the application for Box 6225, and section one of the application for Box 2915. I don't think it was anything nefarious however. When the FBI Lab received the Dallas Post Office documents on 11/25/63, of course section three of the application was missing for Box 2915. Also, two copies of the Box 6225 application were supposedly sent to the lab, but only one was sent for Box 2915. When the lab received the forms however, the "additional copy", Q33, turned out to just be section three of the 6225 application. As you can see on Cadigan 13, the top form is marked Q33. The exhibit thus consists of Q33 and Q34 lumped together on one page - which are forms from two different post office boxes. 

Basically, the lab just mixed up the forms and screwed up in assigning exhibit numbers, which carried over into the WC: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62270#relPageId=214&search=Microfilm_

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62253#relPageId=97

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. That is a Post Office Department Form 1093, application for post office box, and the post office box number is 6225, and it is signed, "Lee H. Oswald." 
Mr. EISENBERG. And why is that included on the picture with Cadigan Exhibit No. 13, or rather on the picture with Commission Exhibit No. 791? Is that because they were both from---- 
Mr. CADIGAN. relate to box 2915. 
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you have any particular reason for printing that up with the photograph of Exhibit No. 791? 
Mr. CADIGAN. No. I think it may have been part of another exhibit which has not as yet been introduced. 
Mr. EISENBERG. Does your identification of Exhibit No. 791 in any way depend upon that photograph? 
Mr. CADIGAN. No; not at all. 
Mr. EISENBERG. So we can disregard it for our purposes? 
Mr. CADIGAN. If you want to, I can take it out. 
Mr. EISENBERG. Well, it is in. 
Mr. CADIGAN. I mean I can just cut it along here. 
Mr. EISENBERG. I would rather leave it in, since it is in the record. 

There is plenty to be suspicious of with the mailbox evidence, but I think this was just a screw up. 

 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

David, Cadigan Exhibit 13 consists of section three of the application for Box 6225, and section one of the application for Box 2915. I don't think it was anything nefarious however.

Yes, Tom, I (of course) agree with you on this one. But there have been many CTers (including Jim DiEugenio in the 2003 video above) who apparently haven't bothered to notice that the P.O. Box number in question at the top of Cadigan Exhibit 13 is NOT for Box 2915, it's for Box 6225. But I've argued with some CTers who keep insisting (incorrectly) that Part 3 of the Box 2915 form is shown in Cadigan 13. Here's another CTer in the discussion below (Gary Craig) who made the same mistake DiEugenio made:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html

Edited July 14, 2022 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

In looking back at this, besides being a little perturbed  that I look so young, the point I was trying to make was: why was the part 3 disposed of but the other part of the application was still there? Pretty simple point I think.

But is  that not the  mystery of the whole affair?

And is there not another FBI report that says Oswald did not designate anyone on part 3?

But the work Tom has done on this may change the whole equation, so I give him the stage.

(PS, can you imagine denying the Walker bullet was magical?  Just look at what is was originally described as. This is why I won't deal with DVP anymore.  Also originally, I was not referring to the sources DVP says I was referring to.)  

 

 

Edited July 14, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Gram]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

In looking back at this, besides being a little perturbed  that I look so young, the point I was trying to make was: why was the part 3 disposed of but the other part of the application was still there? Pretty simple point I think.

But is  that not the  mystery of the whole affair?

And is there not another FBI report that says Oswald did not designate anyone on part 3?

But the work Tom has done on this may change the whole equation, so I give him the stage.

 

 

Thanks Jim. I went pretty deep on this, and in my opinion, the evidence very strongly suggests that the name "A. Hidell" was listed on the box application. However, the evidence also very strongly suggests that section three of the application did exist after the assassination, and that it was buried on Nov. 23 before SA Alfred Ellington submitted the postal forms to the FBI Lab.

Here's what the Chief of the Postal Inspection Service wrote in his official report ten days after the assassination; and this is just one example of many:  

The mailing was addressed to A. Haidell, Box 2915, Dallas, Texas. This was Oswald’s box and on the application for it he showed that A. Haidell would be one of the persons who would receive mail through the box.

The obvious question is this: why the hell would they get rid of such an incriminating piece of evidence? Well, section three of the Box 2915 application is only one of several postal forms that were deep-sixed. 

I won't attempt to recreate my 50-page essay in a forum post, but the gist of it is that the FBI and Warren Commission flat out lied about how Oswald's mail was forwarded in the latter half of 1963, period. This was almost certainly done to cover-up Marina Oswald's relationship to Box 2915, and the fact that she had filed her own change of address forms with the Post Office.

Here's a link to my essay at Greg Parker's site plus a Google drive link that might be slightly easier to read since some of the formatting (like apostrophes for some reason) went a bit wonky when it was uploaded - if anyone is interested. 

https://gregrparker.com/rethinking-oswalds-mail/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XvkmfIq44G8B-B_RV4L90f5AoXYdRTN4/view

[James DiEugenio]

Tom, you say that part 3 was only one of the postal forms that was deep sixed?

Did you not also write that a letter carrier testified that he was carrying mail to Ruth Paine's house for Oswald much earlier than the mail should have been delivered there?

And that Ruth and Marina actually filed a change of address form together?