Jim DiEugenio Twists The Facts
David Von Pein
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
www.blackopradio.com/black404a.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black404b.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black404c.ram
ANOTHER DiEUGENIO ADDENDUM:
Upon re-listening to James DiEugenio's Black Op Radio appearance from
December 11, 2008 (linked above, in three segments), I found several
additional hunks of deception, mangling, misrepresentation, and
evidence distortion on DiEugenio's part that I had not previously
noted in my December 2008 critique of that particular Black Op
program.
It seems as though the more I listen to a conspiracy theorist like
DiEugenio (who can ramble on and on for hours about how everything
under the sun was miraculously and perfectly synched and wired into
his make-believe "JFK Conspiracy And Cover-Up"), the more and more
bullshit I find in Jim's rantings.
Here are just a few more examples of DiEugenio's B.S. from the
12/11/08 Black Op show:
1.) DiEugenio had the immense gall to accuse Dr. Russell Fisher (who
was one of the four members of the 1968 Clark Panel) of performing
some "magic" [DiEugenio's word] with respect to the location of the
entry wound in the back of President Keneedy's head.
According to DiEugenio (who apparently considers it his duty to make
up shit as he goes along, without a scrap of solid evidence to support
the accusations he makes, other than his very fertile imagination),
Dr. Fisher "takes care of this problem" [DiEugenio; 12/11/08] with
respect to the location of the entrance wound in JFK's head when "he
[Fisher] just simply moves the wound in the back of the skull up four
inches" [DiEugenio; 12/11/08].
But what DiEugenio fails to then talk about is the AUTOPSY PHOTO of
the back of Kennedy's head (linked below), which positively
CORROBORATES the so-called "magic" that Fisher just performed:
It couldn't be more obvious that the ONLY thing that looks remotely
like a "bullet hole" in the above picture is the red spot near the
cowlick (which is a location that is almost exactly 4 inches above the
EOP of Kennedy's head, which also just happens to perfectly
correspond, per the Clark Panel and the HSCA, with the location of the
entry wound as seen in the lateral X-ray of JFK's head).
So, unless Mr. DiEugenio wants to believe that Dr. Fisher and his
three cohorts on the Clark Panel were THEMSELVES involved in some kind
of clandestine project to FAKE the autopsy photos and X-rays,
DiEugenio doesn't have a leg to stand on when he accuses Fisher of
performing some "magic" with respect to the location of the entry
wound in JFK's head.
And the above paragraph is true because Fisher was merely basing his
conclusion about the "cowlick" entry location on the original photos
and X-rays of President Kennedy's head, with Fisher (and the Clark
Panel as a whole) coming to the only possible logical conclusion that
anyone could come to after evaluating the photographic evidence --
which is: the entry hole in JFK's head was located high on the head
near the cowlick.
RELATED ARTICLE (WHAT IS JOHN STRINGER'S CAMERA "CENTERING" ON?):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/41ac07fa581bee2d
===========================
2.) Like all rabid conspiracy theorists always do, James DiEugenio
wants to think that autopsy physician Dr. J. Thornton Boswell was part
of the "cover-up" plot to hide the truth about JFK's wounds too, with
DiEugenio citing the hand-drawn "dot" on Boswell's autopsy face sheet
as proof that Kennedy's upper-back wound was located in an area that
totally destroys the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory.
But, as usual, DiEugenio doesn't tell the Black Op audience about the
fact that Boswell also included detailed measurements regarding the
wound's location in the margin of the face sheet (linked below):
And those written-in measurements confirm the precise location of the
wound, which are written-in measurements that certainly take
precedence over the "dot" on the same face sheet.
Naturally, though, DiEugenio thinks that the non-exacting "dot" on the
face sheet is a MUCH better measuring device than are the detailed
"14cm. from the tip of the right mastoid process" measurements that
were written in by Dr. Boswell on the VERY SAME FACE SHEET.
===========================
3.) DiEugenio also enjoys propping up the fact that no probes could be
successfully put through President Kennedy's body during the Bethesda
autopsy on 11/22/63. And this is supposed to prove that the SBT is a
wet dream of lone-assassin proponents.
But Mr. DiEugenio never ONCE bothers to ask himself this question when
focusing on the "probing" issue:
I wonder if there could possibly be an alternate explanation
(other than the explanation of a bullet coming to a stop after going
into JFK's body just a few inches) to reconcile the fact that the
probes would not go through JFK's upper-back wound at his autopsy?
And, of course, there is, indeed, a very logical and reasonable
"alternate explanation"....and it's an explanation that James
DiEugenio should already be aware of (and he probably is aware of it).
It's this explanation given on the ARRB record in 1996 by Dr. Boswell:
"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." -- J.T. Boswell;
02/26/96
But, implacably, Mr. DiEugenio (who probably sees conspirators in his
sleep every night) wants to believe that the ONLY possible explanation
for the unsuccessful probing of JFK's back wound is because the wound
was not a through-and-through wound at all, despite the above ARRB
testimony offered up by one of the doctors who performed the
President's post-mortem examination.
Which, of course, given such a belief, means that DiEugenio is now
also forced to believe something far sillier than the Single-Bullet
Theory -- he's forced to believe that not just ONE bullet struck the
soft tissues of JFK's upper body in Dallas' Dealey Plaza and totally
disappeared without a trace (while leaving behind absolutely no
substantial visible damage in JFK's body whatsoever)....Jim D. must
believe that TWO separate bullets (coming from two different
directions) hit JFK in the upper back and throat, with neither missile
exiting Kennedy's body. And then, to top off this cartoonish scenario,
BOTH of those bullets vanish off the planet.
And yet THAT'S the type of two-bullet nonsense that a conspiracist
like Mr. DiEugenio apparently thinks is much more logical and
believable than the SBT.
Pathetic, isn't it?
===========================
FAST-FORWARD:
If we fast-forward to two different DiEugenio Black Op Radio
appearances in July 2009 and September 2009, we'll find additional
things to rake James D. over the coals about -- such as:
Jim's belief that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover would have actually
wanted to FRAME AN INNOCENT LEE HARVEY OSWALD as the lone killer of
President Kennedy!
That particular idea is just crazy, IMO. And it's crazy mainly because
Hoover loved his Bureau, and he certainly didn't relish the idea of
having his FBI being blamed (even partly) for having not kept a better
eye on the person who assassinated the President of the United States.
And since Hoover knew that the Dallas FBI office (and agent James
Hosty) knew about Lee Oswald being in Dallas in the weeks leading up
to the assassination, the idea of Hoover becoming involved in a post-
assassination cover-up operation that would (per many conspiracy
theorists) falsely implicate a totally-innocent man named Oswald for
the murder of JFK is a theory that I wouldn't swallow in a million
years.
IMO, it's much more likely that J. Edgar Hoover would have been trying
desperately to CLEAR Oswald's name after the assassination of the
President (and, hence, clear Hoover's own FBI of any perceived
negligence in the eyes of the public), rather than attempting to frame
the very man that Hoover's FBI boys should possibly have been watching
more closely prior to November 22nd.
Does DiEugenio think that Hoover WANTED to stain his very own Bureau
with a black eye that would probably never heal by accusing an
innocent Lee H. Oswald of killing John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?
That's nuts.
The bottom line is this --- J. Edgar Hoover was no more involved in an
after-the-assassination "cover-up" than Jim DiEugenio or I were.
How can we know this to be true?:
Because the man whom J. Edgar Hoover was convinced murdered President
Kennedy WAS, indeed, the man who murdered JFK in Dallas in 1963. And
that man was Lee Harvey Oswald. And you can't "frame" a GUILTY person.
FRAME -- "Contrive the evidence against (an innocent person) so
that a verdict of guilty is assured." -- Merriam-Webster OnLine
Dictionary
www.Merriam-Webster.com/dictionary/frame
===========================
Another "SBT"-related item that I want to bring up is associated with
Jim DiEugenio's 2009 comments about President Kennedy's "strap
muscles".
DiEugenio evidently believes that the Warren Commission's Arlen
Specter (with the assistance of Arlen's ever-obedient lapdog, Dr.
James Joseph Humes) invented some kind of "B.S. story" [DiEugenio;
07/16/09] about the strap muscles of JFK.
Jim D. seems to think that this "B.S. story" concerning Kennedy's
strap muscles was necessary in order for Specter and his merry band of
worthless WC liars and cover-up artists to further perpetuate the Big
Lie known as the "Single-Bullet Theory".
But just WHY would DiEugenio (or anyone) think that such obfuscation
and lies were necessary in the first place?
The above question, IMO, is a very good one to ask a conspiracy
theorist like DiEugenio--especially when also directing the
conspiracist to Warren Commission Exhibit #903 (one of my very
favorite and almost-always-ignored Commission exhibits):
As we can easily see in CE903 above, Arlen Specter and the Warren
Commission certainly did NOT require Bullet CE399 to enter President
Kennedy's NECK (which is the place on Kennedy's body where almost all
CTers think the WC has the bullet entering JFK).
In fact, if the entry point for the bullet were to be moved up into
the "NECK" of the President (or the stand-in for the President in
CE903), the trajectory for the SBT would essentially be ruined,
because the bullet would then be exiting TOO HIGH on Kennedy's body
for the SBT to be valid (the bullet would exit around the level of the
chin via such a "neck" entry location, instead of where we know the
bullet did exit--at the tie knot).
Specter's pointer in CE903 shows that the SBT trajectory works just
perfectly -- with the entry wound on JFK being in the UPPER BACK (not
the "neck"), the exit wound on Kennedy being right at the tie knot
(just exactly coinciding with JFK's real throat-wound location), and
the end of Specter's pointer being placed in the bullet hole in John
Connally's jacket (the exact jacket worn by the real John Connally on
11/22/63).
So, I'd like to ask James DiEugenio this question---
With a photographic exhibit in the public record like CE903 (which
beautifully demonstrates, in a visual manner, the complete workability
and feasibility of the single-bullet hypothesis), why would Arlen
Specter (or any other Warren Commission member) feel the need to
invent a "B.S. story" about the strap muscles of President Kennedy in
order to further advance the notion that the SBT is the truth?
I can only assume that Mr. DiEugenio must also believe that Commission
Exhibit 903 is worthless and is part of the "B.S. story" that Jim
thinks Specter invented from whole cloth.
Jim must certainly believe that CE903 is worthless and useless as
demonstrative SBT-endorsing evidence. Because if Jim doesn't think
that CE903 is worthless, then he'll need to re-think a lot of his
other anti-Warren Commission criticisms when it comes to the subject
of the Single-Bullet Theory.
And that's because CE903, all by itself, proves that the Warren
Commission did not require a bullet to enter John F. Kennedy's "NECK"
in order to make the Single-Bullet Theory plausible.
The only question that remains now is---
Why do conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio believe the stupid
and impossible things they believe?
David Von Pein
September 13, 2009
===========================
I discuss a lot more of DiEugenio's crap from the 12/11/08 Black Op
program in the 2008 article below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f40f7c3d2563783f
=============================================
RELATED LINKS:
www.Box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210
=============================================
davidemerling
> The only question that remains now is---
>
> Why do conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio believe the stupid
> and impossible things they believe?
>
> David Von Pein
> September 13, 2009
I think I can answer that!
Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
there was no conspiracy.
They won't admit it for any (or all) of the following reasons:
1. They have invested so much time & energy arguing their point they
cannot find any graceful way to back away from their position. They
perceive such a retraction would be an embarrassment and they refuse to do
it.
2. They have the personality trait that requires titillation. They have a
natural affinity to believe the more extraordinary and interesting
explanation for things. They have a natural revulsion for the ordinary and
the uninteresting. To believe that a disturbed 24-yr- old ex-Marine took
his mail-order rifle to work one day, pointed it out the window, pulled
the trigger three times, and snuffed out the life of the most important
man in the world is simply not interesting enough for them. Their basic
philosophy in life is "Nothing is as it seems." They scoff at Occam's
Razor. These are the people who refuse to accept that a wing fuel pump in
a TWA 747 malfunctioned, emitted an electrical spark, ignited jet fuel
fumes and caused a passenger airliner to explode and go plummeting to the
earth shortly after takeoff from JFK International Airport. Where's the
fun in that? Wouldn't be far more interesting to claim that the airliner
was brought down by a missile and that our government is covering that up?
After all, you can hardly make a made-for-TV movie about a malfunctioning
fuel pump.
3. They tend to be rebels. Not that there's anything wrong with being a
rebel. The world needs rebels! But they are rebels for the sake of being a
rebel - nothing more. They have no cause for which to be rebellious
because, to them, being rebellious is an end in itself. Oh sure, they'll
feed you moral platitudes about how they are trying to find justice in the
world; but what else are they going to say - "I just like a good debate!"?
4. They are natural recalcitrants. They have a desperate need to be
different. Ironically, Oswald was a natural recalcitrant. Robert Oswald
once said of his little brother, "He wanted the attention by being unique.
If everybody had been a Marxist - he would have been an AMERICAN!"
5. They are addicted to research - but not in a good way. I know there are
archeologists obsessively trying to find the bones of the "missing link."
I know there are scientists desperately trying to find a cure for cancer.
That is research, too. And that's good! These people are genuinely trying
to find something that will benefit mankind. That is not the motivation
for these conspiracy advocates - although, they WILL tell you that is
their objective. By the way, this "affliction" is not the sole province of
conspiracy advocates, this also applies to many lone nutters, as well.
They participate in the debate because they enjoy the research, not
because they really care about any greater good their efforts will
produce. I would say that I'm somewhat guilty of this. Although I have
throttled back my research immensely over the years. I'm a recovering
Kennedy researcher. :)
"Hello, my name is Dave, and I'm a Kennedy assassination researcher."
[chorus] "Hello, Dave!"
"It's been 2 weeks since I have read anything about the Kennedy
assassination."
6. Finally, this is a GAME to them! They enjoy the back-and-forth banter.
It's like the game of Clue we all played as children. They like collecting
the evidence and piecing it together. Instead of it being Colonel Mustard
in the conservatory with the candlestick; it's a rogue element of the CIA
in the Dal-Tex Building with the Mauser. Or, a hired assassin from the
grassy knoll with a gun that fires ice bullets. Do you really want to piss
off a conspiracy kook - don't respond. It drives them crazy! They need
somebody to play with! And if you don't respond they make a big issue of
it - and declare victory. It's hilarious!
7. It's their hobby. They're collectors of offbeat artifacts, books,
videos, photographs, and they mistakenly believe that if they collect
enough "stuff", that they have some kind of special insight into the
truth. They have disdain for the information that is readily available.
Unless they can dig it up themselves ... unless it's something that is not
commonly known ... unless it's something rare, then, to their way of
thinking, it has less value.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
David Von Pein
YET ANOTHER DiEUGENIO "MISREPRESENTATION" ADDENDUM:
During the September 10, 2009, kookfest at Black Op Radio, evidence-
mangler James DiEugenio decided to distort and misrepresent yet another
one of my comments, when DiEugenio falsely claimed that I said that a plot
to kill JFK couldn't possibly have taken place in New Orleans simply
because New Orleans and Dallas are two different cities.
Naturally, though, DiEugenio has it all wrong. I certainly never said that
a conspiracy plot could never have been hatched merely because two
different cities have been thrown into the "conspiracy" mix by CT- Kooks
like Jim Garrison and Jim DiEugenio.
I wasn't talking about ONLY the CITIES involved. I was, instead, talking
about the PEOPLE within those two cities (New Orleans and Dallas) that
conspiracy promoters like Jim DiEugenio need to LINK TO THE ACTUAL
ASSASSINATION of President Kennedy.
And that's a bridge that has never been successfully crossed by any
conspiracy theorist in over 40 years' time, despite a lot of effort by
many people to "link" Lee Harvey Oswald to the so-called "New Orleans
plotters".
To be totally accurate and precise, here is my verbatim statement
regarding this matter (which DiEugenio completely mangles and distorts, as
usual):
"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this
particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact
at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans"
characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer
of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would
still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans
characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.
"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once
Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of
evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the
planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas,
Texas. No evidence whatsoever.
"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates
that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true
even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New
Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).
"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE
and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand
leap from this:
""LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY BANISTER",
"....to this:
""SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY"?
"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY
OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of
faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally
ridiculous." -- David Von Pein; July 31, 2009
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/af30e9a70409f7c1
www.Box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widget_hash=88cm88qq0r&v=1
Squinty Magoo
>
> www.blackopradio.com/black404a.ram
>
> www.blackopradio.com/black404b.ram
>
> www.blackopradio.com/black404c.ram
>
> ANOTHER DiEUGENIO ADDENDUM:
>
> And, of course, there is, indeed, a very logical and reasonable
> "alternate explanation"....and it's an explanation that James
> DiEugenio should already be aware of (and he probably is aware of it).
> It's this explanation given on the ARRB record in 1996 by Dr. Boswell:
>
> "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." -- J.T. Boswell;
> 02/26/96
>
>
SNIP
How can we believe anything Boswell says when more than thirty years
after the fact he's still sticking to the lie that the wound was in
Kennedy's "neck"? (Unless he's referring to probing the front of the
neck hole.)
Squinty Magoo
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 13, 3:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The only question that remains now is---
>>
>> Why do conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio believe the stupid
>> and impossible things they believe?
>>
>> David Von Pein
>> September 13, 2009
>
> I think I can answer that!
>
> Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
> almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
> a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
> there was no conspiracy.
>
> They won't admit it for any (or all) of the following reasons:
>
> 1. They have invested so much time & energy arguing their point they
> cannot find any graceful way to back away from their position. They
> perceive such a retraction would be an embarrassment and they refuse to do
> it.
>
More psychobabble from the CIA playbook.
> 2. They have the personality trait that requires titillation. They have a
> natural affinity to believe the more extraordinary and interesting
> explanation for things. They have a natural revulsion for the ordinary and
> the uninteresting. To believe that a disturbed 24-yr- old ex-Marine took
> his mail-order rifle to work one day, pointed it out the window, pulled
> the trigger three times, and snuffed out the life of the most important
> man in the world is simply not interesting enough for them. Their basic
> philosophy in life is "Nothing is as it seems." They scoff at Occam's
> Razor. These are the people who refuse to accept that a wing fuel pump in
> a TWA 747 malfunctioned, emitted an electrical spark, ignited jet fuel
> fumes and caused a passenger airliner to explode and go plummeting to the
> earth shortly after takeoff from JFK International Airport. Where's the
> fun in that? Wouldn't be far more interesting to claim that the airliner
> was brought down by a missile and that our government is covering that up?
> After all, you can hardly make a made-for-TV movie about a malfunctioning
> fuel pump.
>
> 3. They tend to be rebels. Not that there's anything wrong with being a
> rebel. The world needs rebels! But they are rebels for the sake of being a
> rebel - nothing more. They have no cause for which to be rebellious
> because, to them, being rebellious is an end in itself. Oh sure, they'll
> feed you moral platitudes about how they are trying to find justice in the
> world; but what else are they going to say - "I just like a good debate!"?
>
Rebels? Yeah, because they don't accept the government lies. So
conversely what do you call the people who are predisposed to accept any
and all government lies?
> 4. They are natural recalcitrants. They have a desperate need to be
> different. Ironically, Oswald was a natural recalcitrant. Robert Oswald
> once said of his little brother, "He wanted the attention by being unique.
> If everybody had been a Marxist - he would have been an AMERICAN!"
>
Spoken like a true Cold Warrior.
> 5. They are addicted to research - but not in a good way. I know there are
> archeologists obsessively trying to find the bones of the "missing link."
> I know there are scientists desperately trying to find a cure for cancer.
> That is research, too. And that's good! These people are genuinely trying
> to find something that will benefit mankind. That is not the motivation
> for these conspiracy advocates - although, they WILL tell you that is
> their objective. By the way, this "affliction" is not the sole province of
> conspiracy advocates, this also applies to many lone nutters, as well.
> They participate in the debate because they enjoy the research, not
> because they really care about any greater good their efforts will
> produce. I would say that I'm somewhat guilty of this. Although I have
> throttled back my research immensely over the years. I'm a recovering
> Kennedy researcher. :)
>
But research about our history is bad? Maybe that's what's wrong with
this country. Your "1984" mentality.
> "Hello, my name is Dave, and I'm a Kennedy assassination researcher."
>
> [chorus] "Hello, Dave!"
>
> "It's been 2 weeks since I have read anything about the Kennedy
> assassination."
>
> 6. Finally, this is a GAME to them! They enjoy the back-and-forth banter.
> It's like the game of Clue we all played as children. They like collecting
> the evidence and piecing it together. Instead of it being Colonel Mustard
> in the conservatory with the candlestick; it's a rogue element of the CIA
> in the Dal-Tex Building with the Mauser. Or, a hired assassin from the
> grassy knoll with a gun that fires ice bullets. Do you really want to piss
> off a conspiracy kook - don't respond. It drives them crazy! They need
> somebody to play with! And if you don't respond they make a big issue of
> it - and declare victory. It's hilarious!
>
I've been fighting against guys like you all my life. It is not fun, but
someone has to do it.
> 7. It's their hobby. They're collectors of offbeat artifacts, books,
> videos, photographs, and they mistakenly believe that if they collect
> enough "stuff", that they have some kind of special insight into the
> truth. They have disdain for the information that is readily available.
> Unless they can dig it up themselves ... unless it's something that is not
> commonly known ... unless it's something rare, then, to their way of
> thinking, it has less value.
>
If you want to look into psychological motivation, do a paper on people
who willingly believe government lies.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
That's not what he ORIGINALLY said. Originally he said it was in the
upper back. Only later when he realized that was too low for a SBT did
he move it up a few inches to the neck. And no he was not referring to
the frontal wound. See his "correction" of his own diagram from the
night of the autopsy.
Robert Harris
<a32968d3-9c8f-431c...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Tell me something David, why is it that you presume you are seeing an
entrance wound in that photo, but deny that you see damage to the back
of JFK's head in this one,
http://jfkhistory.com/z337.jpg
Robert Harris
davidemerling
> More psychobabble from the CIA playbook.
>
> Rebels? Yeah, because they don't accept the government lies. So
> conversely what do you call the people who are predisposed to accept any
> and all government lies?
>
> If you want to look into psychological motivation, do a paper on people
> who willingly believe government lies.
See the trend ... "government lies", "goverment lies", "government lies"?
That is their starting point.
The problem is that they can't prove it. Further, whenever there is a
mistake (and there ARE some mistakes in the government investigation) they
always characterize it as a "lie". They always see something sinister.
One glaring mistake in a government investigation is the conclusion by the
HSCA that a fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll. The conspiracy
crowd practically wet their pants over that pronouncement. And even though
the basis for that conclusion has has been thoroughly debunked they still
like to repeat it as often as they can - even though they disagree with
just about EVERYTHING else the HSCA concluded. But they embrace their
worst conclusion. Nothing reveals the true character of the conspiracy
crowd more than this particular dynamic.
Is there anybody in the CT crowd who wants to stand by the original
acoustics evidence? And don't give me the old "Do you really expect us to
rely on a rock band drummer" routine. You know the debunking of the
acoustics evidence goes FAR beyond Steve Barber's astute observation. But
that's always a good sound bite, I have to agree. I know Tom likes to use
that one, but that's about as far as he gets in supporting the HSCA
"fourth shot" conclusion.
Tom likes to characterize Ted Callaway derisively as a "used car salesman"
as if to imply he is lying about his witnessing of Oswald carrying a gun,
running away from the Tippit murder scene.
Tom likes to characterize John Lattimer derisively as a "urologist" as if
he had no knowledge of ballistics.
He likes to shoot the messenger (usually with no basis to do so) and
always shies away from the substance of the message.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Jas
Trouble is, with some people here you're barking at the moon.
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfa8292-9c9e-4a63...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
74030...@compuserve.com
> davidemerling wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 3:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> The only question that remains now is---
>
> >> Why do conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio believe the stupid
> >> and impossible things they believe?
>
> >> David Von Pein
> >> September 13, 2009
>
> > I think I can answer that!
>
> > Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
> > almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
> > a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
> > there was no conspiracy.
>
> > They won't admit it for any (or all) of the following reasons:
>
> > 1. They have invested so much time & energy arguing their point they
> > cannot find any graceful way to back away from their position. They
> > perceive such a retraction would be an embarrassment and they refuse to do
> > it.
>
> More psychobabble from the CIA playbook.
The expert on all things CIA now sets the record straight. Where can this
"playbook" Be found, Marsh? Document it!!
Anthony Marsh
You don't get out much do you? That's exactly what they do in all those
stupid AIRPORT sequels. Accidents that happen in real life are made into
TV movies all the time.
You know you don't have to agree with anyone in particular's conspiracy
theory about something in order to know it was a conspiracy of some type.
> 3. They tend to be rebels. Not that there's anything wrong with being a
> rebel. The world needs rebels! But they are rebels for the sake of being a
What are, Seinfeld?
You always say there is something wrong with ANY dissent.
> rebel - nothing more. They have no cause for which to be rebellious
> because, to them, being rebellious is an end in itself. Oh sure, they'll
Like the movie Rebel Without a Cause?
Rebeling against a conformist society is cause enough.
Psychobabble, straight out of the CIA playbook.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 14, 12:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> More psychobabble from the CIA playbook.
>>
>> Rebels? Yeah, because they don't accept the government lies. So
>> conversely what do you call the people who are predisposed to accept any
>> and all government lies?
>>
>> If you want to look into psychological motivation, do a paper on people
>> who willingly believe government lies.
>
> See the trend ... "government lies", "goverment lies", "government lies"?
>
> That is their starting point.
>
> The problem is that they can't prove it. Further, whenever there is a
> mistake (and there ARE some mistakes in the government investigation) they
> always characterize it as a "lie". They always see something sinister.
>
So, what you are saying is that government lies are not necessarily
sinister. Sometimes you think they are good. Like Hosty's belief that the
cover-up was "benign."
> One glaring mistake in a government investigation is the conclusion by the
> HSCA that a fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll. The conspiracy
> crowd practically wet their pants over that pronouncement. And even though
> the basis for that conclusion has has been thoroughly debunked they still
> like to repeat it as often as they can - even though they disagree with
> just about EVERYTHING else the HSCA concluded. But they embrace their
Very few repeat it. Basically only a few of us who have actually studied
it and confirmed it. I am universally hated by the kooky conspiracy
believers for accepting the acoustical evidence because it rules OUT their
pet theories. No 10 shots. No shot at Z-285. No storm drain shot. No Badge
Man shot. Etc.
And would you believe, there is actually one guy who says that the
acoustical evidence proves the SBT at Z-224!
> worst conclusion. Nothing reveals the true character of the conspiracy
> crowd more than this particular dynamic.
>
Nothing reveals the true character of the WC defenders more than their
eagerness to lie about what conspiracy believers believe.
> Is there anybody in the CT crowd who wants to stand by the original
> acoustics evidence? And don't give me the old "Do you really expect us to
> rely on a rock band drummer" routine. You know the debunking of the
Hey, well wait a minute. You didn't even give me a chance to point out
that Steve Barber was a high school dropout like Lee Harvey Oswald, but
unlike Oswald does not have an IQ over 100.
> acoustics evidence goes FAR beyond Steve Barber's astute observation. But
> that's always a good sound bite, I have to agree. I know Tom likes to use
> that one, but that's about as far as he gets in supporting the HSCA
> "fourth shot" conclusion.
>
Well, in case you are a newbie, you are talking to the only guy who
rebutted the Ramsey Panel and proved that the acoustical analysis by the
HSCA experts is correct.
> Tom likes to characterize Ted Callaway derisively as a "used car salesman"
> as if to imply he is lying about his witnessing of Oswald carrying a gun,
> running away from the Tippit murder scene.
>
Well, can we limit it only to personal attacks? That's always fun.
Just ignore my thousands of messages where I bypass the personal attacks
to focus on the evidence.
> Tom likes to characterize John Lattimer derisively as a "urologist" as if
> he had no knowledge of ballistics.
>
Can you explain why a urologist would have to know anything about
ballistics? Lattimer's experience was during the war treating gunshot
wounds, mainly from rifles. That does not make him a forensic pathologist.
Who has seen the most cases of gunshot wounds and what does he say about
the Kennedy case?
> He likes to shoot the messenger (usually with no basis to do so) and
> always shies away from the substance of the message.
>
Sure is a lot more fun that way. So why put the target in front of him?
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
davidemerling
> > Tom likes to characterize Ted Callaway derisively as a "used car salesman"
> > as if to imply he is lying about his witnessing of Oswald carrying a gun,
> > running away from the Tippit murder scene.
>
> Well, can we limit it only to personal attacks? That's always fun.
> Just ignore my thousands of messages where I bypass the personal attacks
> to focus on the evidence.
>
> > Tom likes to characterize John Lattimer derisively as a "urologist" as if
> > he had no knowledge of ballistics.
>
> Can you explain why a urologist would have to know anything about
> ballistics? Lattimer's experience was during the war treating gunshot
> wounds, mainly from rifles. That does not make him a forensic pathologist.
> Who has seen the most cases of gunshot wounds and what does he say about
> the Kennedy case?
>
> > He likes to shoot the messenger (usually with no basis to do so) and
> > always shies away from the substance of the message.
>
> Sure is a lot more fun that way. So why put the target in front of him?
Because the best way to dismantle Tom's opinions is to simply sit back
and let him talk. He'll drone on and on about people who lie, about
investigators who purposely misrepresented evidence, about commission
members trying to cover things up, about falsified documents, about
people who should be prosecuted for perjury, for faked and altered
photographs, etc ...
The most astute thing John McAdams said in his radio debate with Tom
was (and I'm paraphrasing), "I hope your listeners are keeping track
of just how *many* people have been mentioned as being involved with
this conspiracy."
Tom's arguments fall of their own weight. But you gotta let him talk,
because that's the only way the ridiculousness can build to a
sufficient crescendo.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<6dfa8292-9c9e-4a63...@w10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 3:46?pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The only question that remains now is---
> >
> > Why do conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio believe the stupid
> > and impossible things they believe?
> >
> > David Von Pein
> > September 13, 2009
>
> I think I can answer that!
>
> Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
> almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
> a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
> there was no conspiracy.
Yes, of course.
Everyone who disagrees with you, is a liar.
Not only that, but they have a long list of mental problems, which you
itemize for us.
But what you forget to mention is, that you are talking about the vast
majority of people in this country and throughout the civilized world
who laugh at your theory of a single assassin. In fact, most polls have
demonstrated that if we remove he undecideds, only a single digit
percentage of Americans agree with you.
So, you are claiming that the other 80% or so, are crazy and that you
are sane??
David, what gives away the true nutcases, is that they identify
themselves very clearly. They..
1. Are closed minded bigots.
2. Almost never talk about actual evidence.
3. Almost always talk about their adversaries.
4. Constantly present sweeping, unsupported generalizations.
Now moderators, I'm not claiming anyone around here is like that, but we
should be on the lookout in case any of these losers ever infest the
newsgroup!
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 14, 1:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> davidemerling wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 3:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> The only question that remains now is---
>>>> Why do conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio believe the stupid
>>>> and impossible things they believe?
>>>> David Von Pein
>>>> September 13, 2009
>>> I think I can answer that!
>>> Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
>>> almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
>>> a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
>>> there was no conspiracy.
>>> They won't admit it for any (or all) of the following reasons:
>>> 1. They have invested so much time & energy arguing their point they
>>> cannot find any graceful way to back away from their position. They
>>> perceive such a retraction would be an embarrassment and they refuse to do
>>> it.
>> More psychobabble from the CIA playbook.
>
> The expert on all things CIA now sets the record straight. Where can this
> "playbook" Be found, Marsh? Document it!!
>
YOU are not allowed to see it. They took away your clearances. Again,
did you ever make it to Yankee Blue?
tomnln
You have an opportunity to hear McAdams DEBATE on the 24th on BlackOp
Radio.
Personally, I like THIS one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
WHEN would YOU like to debate me David?????
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b266ea40-e909-4eee...@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
The most astute thing John McAdams said in his radio debate with Tom
was (and I'm paraphrasing), "I hope your listeners are keeping track
of just how *many* people have been mentioned as being involved with
this conspiracy."
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
Tom's arguments fall of their own weight. But you gotta let him talk,
because that's the only way the ridiculousness can build to a
sufficient crescendo.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/radio_debate.htm
jblubaugh
>
> read more »
You are a riot, especially the part about accusing anyone of
distorting the facts. Hats off to the king of spin.
JB
74030...@compuserve.com
> 74030.3...@compuserve.com wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 1:10 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> davidemerling wrote:
> >>> On Sep 13, 3:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> The only question that remains now is---
> >>>> Why do conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio believe the stupid
> >>>> and impossible things they believe?
> >>>> David Von Pein
> >>>> September 13, 2009
> >>> I think I can answer that!
> >>> Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
> >>> almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
> >>> a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
> >>> there was no conspiracy.
> >>> They won't admit it for any (or all) of the following reasons:
> >>> 1. They have invested so much time & energy arguing their point they
> >>> cannot find any graceful way to back away from their position. They
> >>> perceive such a retraction would be an embarrassment and they refuse to do
> >>> it.
> >> More psychobabble from theCIAplaybook.
>
> > "playbook" Be found, Marsh? Document it!!
>
> YOU are not allowed to see it.
Is that what your CIA handler told you to say? II sm not surprise you
are riggling out of it0
> They took away your clearances.
Oh? Tell me about it. Or did your CIA handler tell you to say that.
> Again, did you ever make it to Yankee Blue?
Probab;y that and more. I had so many clearances that security did not
use names.. If you are as brilliant as you claim about all thingd CYS, you
could tell me what it was for. That's the only waty I could recall. Do
you recall the OP-9 one?
davidemerling
> > Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
> > almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
> > a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
> > there was no conspiracy.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> Everyone who disagrees with you, is a liar.
Who have I called a liar? In this debate I almost never use that
characterization. For the most part, I think people are either honestly
mistaken, sadly misinformed/mislead, deluded, or just being stubborn.
I don't think you're a liar, Bob. I don't even think Tom is a liar.
> Not only that, but they have a long list of mental problems, which you
> itemize for us.
>
> But what you forget to mention is, that you are talking about the vast
> majority of people in this country and throughout the civilized world
> who laugh at your theory of a single assassin. In fact, most polls have
> demonstrated that if we remove he undecideds, only a single digit
> percentage of Americans agree with you.
You know better than to throw that statistic at me. Most people cannot
intelligently articulate the most basic elements of this case one way or
the other. They can't even intelligently argue a good case for a
conspiracy. They know that many conspiracy books have been written and
they have probably seen the movie JFK. They are aware that there is
controversy and they are just ASSUMING that there must be some substance
to the conspiracists' persistent and shrill scream.
> So, you are claiming that the other 80% or so, are crazy and that you
> are sane??
I excuse most of those 80% because I know that they know very little about
this case. You, on the other hand, have no excuse. You should know better.
> David, what gives away the true nutcases, is that they identify
> themselves very clearly. They..
>
> 1. Are closed minded bigots.
Bigots??? Where did that come from?
> 2. Almost never talk about actual evidence.
Those who believe that Oswald acted alone base their viewpoint exclusively
on the evidence. That is the foundation of their belief. You just don't
accept that evidence. Instead, you spinning your wheels chasing shadows.
Let's face it - we just disagree as to what constitutes compelling
evidence.
If I told you that CE399 was the bullet that passed through Kennedy and
caused all of Connally's wounds you would dispute that with "evidence"
that I would not accept as particularly compelling. It's just a different
perspective of the evidence.
> 3. Almost always talk about their adversaries.
I think we have all been guilty of that, at some time or another, in this
never ending debate.
> 4. Constantly present sweeping, unsupported generalizations.
Generalizations?
Like Oswald's rifle SPECIFICALLY being the murder weapon?
> Now moderators, I'm not claiming anyone around here is like that, but we
> should be on the lookout in case any of these losers ever infest the
> newsgroup!
I doubt if John needs your help. He has blocked many of my posts - even
ones that, to me, seemed rather tame. So, don't worry, somebody's looking
out for you.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
pamela
>
> read more »
Yet another weighty tome from "DVP" showing just how difficult it is
for him to try to connect the dots of the JFK assassination and end
up with the neat slogan that LHO acted alone.
David Von Pein
>>> "You are a riot, especially the part about accusing anyone of
distorting the facts. Hats off to the king of spin." <<<
El-Oh-El time, kids!
I didn't realize presenting the EVIDENCE as actual (non-planted) EVIDENCE
amounted to "spin" in a CTer's eyes.
All I can suggest to the CTer here is: get some new orbs....ones that
actually recognize EVIDENCE as EVIDENCE.
Robert Harris
<03d407a0-9edc-4a0a...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 15, 3:05�pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Deep down in a place they will never admit exists - I firmly believe
> > > almost all of these "researchers" who so stridently assert that there was
> > > a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW that
> > > there was no conspiracy.
> >
> > Yes, of course.
> >
> > Everyone who disagrees with you, is a liar.
>
> Who have I called a liar?
You just said,
"almost all of these 'researchers' who so stridently assert that there
was a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination, actually KNOW
that there was no conspiracy."
David, it is a lie to tell people that there was a conspiracy if you
believe there was none.
It's bad enough that I have to correct you about the facts of the
assassination, David but it gets a bit tedious when I have to correct
you about your own statements.
Robert Harris