Jim DiEugenio at the San Francisco, CA JFK Assassination Conference 3/3/18

[Vince Palamara]

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for this VInce.  I forgot about it completely.

[Pat Speer]

It seems like just yesterday. I think I was sitting just to the right of the camera. Are any other videos from this conference online, Vince? 

[Pete Mellor]

Jim gave this same presentation to the D.P.U.K. Canterbury Conference via video link in April 2018.

[Vince Palamara]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for this VInce.  I forgot about it completely.

Sure!

[Vince Palamara]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It seems like just yesterday. I think I was sitting just to the right of the camera. Are any other videos from this conference online, Vince? 

I will look!

[Max Good]

Hey Vince,

It looks like you are taking some videos off my YouTube channel and posting them on your channel without any attribution.  I shot and edited this video.  You could at least give me or my film a shout out.  Here is that video from my YT channel, posted about two months ago.

Thanks,

Max

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Well, I think its important, every once in awhile, to stop counting bullets in Dealey Plaza or speculating about who really shot Tippit.

A informed and up to date look at the Big Picture is helpful in writing history.  And it has nothing to do with being ultra liberal.  When you can back it up with facts, its  ultra truthful to the historical record.

Edited August 20, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

38 minutes ago, Max Good said:

Hey Vince,

It looks like you are taking some videos off my YouTube channel and posting them on your channel without any attribution.  I shot and edited this video.  You could at least give me or my film a shout out.  Here is that video from my YT channel, posted about two months ago.

Thanks,

Max

 

 

With all due respect, Vince, I think you need to go through your video channel and add attributions (at the very least) to where you got these videos. I was annoyed when I saw you posting Mark Oakes' video without attribution. I believe you fixed that. But I've recently noticed other complaints online about you taking videos from other people's websites without attribution.

You have a good reputation. You don't want to become known as the guy who takes other people's videos without attribution. 

P.S. I know it's not about money. I think we can both agree that Groden's trying to copyright the autopsy photos was wrong. But for most of us a little shout out--"Hey, this is a video put together by Max Good. Check it out!" Is enough.)

P.P.S. I realize, of course, that this gets complicated when posting news footage. But we can assume those guys got paid for their efforts. This is rarely true for fellow researchers.

[Vince Palamara]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

With all due respect, Vince, I think you need to go through your video channel and add attributions (at the very least) to where you got these videos. I was annoyed when I saw you posting Mark Oakes' video without attribution. I believe you fixed that. But I've recently noticed other complaints online about you taking videos from other people's websites without attribution.

You have a good reputation. You don't want to become known as the guy who takes other people's videos without attribution. 

P.S. I know it's not about money. I think we can both agree that Groden's trying to copyright the autopsy photos was wrong. But for most of us a little shout out--"Hey, this is a video put together by Max Good. Check it out!" Is enough.)

P.P.S. I realize, of course, that this gets complicated when posting news footage. But we can assume those guys got paid for their efforts. This is rarely true for fellow researchers.

Thanks- you make a valid point (yes, I fixed that one and several others). I did that for a slew of Bart Kamp videos, for which he was grateful for the attribution. I will do that now.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Vince Palamara

[Gerry Down]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think we can both agree that Groden's trying to copyright the autopsy photos was wrong. But for most of us a little shout out--"Hey, this is a video put together by Max Good. Check it out!" Is enough.)

I never knew that. How could he ever expect to get away with that? I wonder if he was hoping he could force Robert Knudsen to come forward as the copyright holder and thereby prove he had taken some of the photos rather than Stringer.

[Mart Hall]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well, I think its important, every once in awhile, to stop counting bullets in Dealey Plaza or speculating about who really shot Tippit.

A informed and up to date look at the Big Picture is helpful in writing history.  And it has nothing to do with being ultra liberal.  When you can back it up with facts, its  ultra truthful to the historical record.

Whenever I'm explaining the JFKA (and the implications, had it failed) to my peers they zoom in on quality of the assassination evidence or lack of it, but I try to tell them to look beyond that. For the best part of 30-40 years before the JFKA this structure had been created for the purpose of the US to become the dominant power of the world, to direct power and wealth for the benefit of a few, but JFK was going to dismantle their apparatus and effectively do a 180 degree turn. They weren't going to allow that to happen. Never. 

You had all these powerful stakeholders with hugely vested interests to get rid of him, that's why the cover up was so far reaching and successful. And what they needed after JFK was someone who would toe their line and someone they could easily dispose of (politically) if they became too much of liability. LBJ fitted the bill perfectly. 

I listened to the YT video today when I would normally listen to the UK soccer on the radio. It covered a lot of ground and tied a lot of things together really well, so instead of trying to explain this in my own words I will forward the link to this YT video in the future.  

In so many ways the Big Picture is easier to appreciate than what actually happened right in front of folk on 22/11/63. 

 

 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for that Mart.  Nice to see some new people on board.

And I agree, the Power Elite wanted no part of what JFK was doing.

Edited August 20, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:

I never knew that. How could he ever expect to get away with that? I wonder if he was hoping he could force Robert Knudsen to come forward as the copyright holder and thereby prove he had taken some of the photos rather than Stringer.

That wasn't it. Groden argued that he took the risk by copying the color autopsy photos and making them available...in books that he sold...and that all the versions of these photos published in other books and articles derived from his books. He felt that he was thereby entitled to some $ for the use of these photos (which in fact belong to the U.S. government). He sought to get around this, if I recall, by claiming he'd developed photos taken of the photos, and that these photos were thereby an original work. 

This was laughed out off court, if I recall. But I kinda see his point. If you took a photo of the Mona Lisa that others were using to make money, you might feel you were entitled to some of the proceeds. But in this case his photos were taken surreptitiously. It's a tricky business. 

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

That wasn't it. Groden argued that he took the risk by copying the color autopsy photos and making them available...in books that he sold...and that all the versions of these photos published in other books and articles derived from his books. He felt that he was thereby entitled to some $ for the use of these photos (which in fact belong to the U.S. government). He sought to get around this, if I recall, by claiming he'd developed photos taken of the photos, and that these photos were thereby an original work. 

This was laughed out off court, if I recall. But I kinda see his point. If you took a photo of the Mona Lisa that others were using to make money, you might feel you were entitled to some of the proceeds. But in this case his photos were taken surreptitiously. It's a tricky business. 

Thanks for that back story. These little pieces of info are interesting.