Jim DiEugenio Nonsense on Clay Shaw
John McAdams
My, is this silly:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&view=findpost&p=204804
<Quote>
The idea that somehow Clay Shaw lost something important over this is
a myth promulgated by his backers like James Kirkwood and Warren
Rogers etc. It makes me wonder what DVP reads besides McAdams and VB.
The minute JG indicted Shaw, the CIA began an illegal and covert
campaign to make sure he would not be convicted. Because Jim
Angleton's Garrison Group had decided that if things were left as is,
JG would convict Shaw-and we have that in writing.
<Quote off>
In fact, the "Garrison group" first met on 20 September 1967, long
after the Garrison "investigation" took off.
<Quote on>
It began with the team of Phelan, Aynseworth and Sheridan coming into
town and using bribery and extortion to wreck the DA's case. It then
continued for two years--it actually increased in numbers and
intensity and scope-- to be sure Shaw was acquitted. This was partly
financed with secret funds sent through the local law office of Monroe
and Lehmann.
<Quote off>
Silly. Anybody have any idea what Jim's source on this is?
<Quote on>
When Shaw was acquitted, he then went on a speaking tour to deride
Garrison. And if you check out his will, which I did, he was fine at
the time of his death. A former Army Intelligence officer was sent in
while he was ill to take care of him.
<Quote off>
Was fine at the time of his death??!!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death9.htm
Jimmy D. simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Just look at this latest batch of illogical nonsense streaming from
Simkin's Conspiracy Pit. It's almost impossible to believe that the
Anybody-But-Oswald CT kooks can BE this blind. But, evidently they
are:
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206761&#entry206761
DAVID VON PEIN ASKED:
WHY would any of the conspirators have even WANTED to risk the whole
"patsy" ballgame by utilizing two, three, or four gunmen in Dealey
Plaza on 11/22/63?
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "I don't even know what the heck this question means." <<<
DVP SAID:
LOL. Oh, for Pete sake.
Jimbo knows exactly what my question means--and it's a perfectly
reasonable question, and one that no CTer can possibly answer in a
reasonable, believable way.
IF OSWALD WAS THE ONE & ONLY "PATSY" IN DALLAS, THEN SETTING HIM UP BY
UTILIZING MANY DIFFERENT GUNMEN IS JUST PLAIN SUICIDE. Such a multi-
gun, one-patsy scheme would not have been attempted by even the most
bumbling of conspirators.
>>> "I think he means that somehow Oswald was the shooter or one of them,
and that it would be stupid to put other gunmen in Dealey Plaza. If I am
right about this, then its his usual Von Peinian solipsistic view of the
universe. Once you step out of the solipsism, the answer is simple. Oswald
would not have tried to kill JFK since he liked him and worked for him."
<<<
LOL. But the plotters who were framing him didn't know this about Oswald,
eh? They just hoped that nobody else would find out that LHO admired and
liked JFK, is that it?
Hilarious.
And the "worked for him" crappola was a nice touch, Jimbo. It's pure BS,
of course, but it's the first time I've ever heard one of you guys state
it in such a fashion.
>>> "Even if somehow you could have snookered him into it, why do it? The
guy could not have hit Kennedy in ten run throughs under those conditions.
The shooting was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to
guarantee a kill shot. Just ask Craig Zirbel or Carlos Hathcock." <<<
More bullshit from Jim D.
The shooting "feat" by Oswald was not that difficult at all. The
"feat" was accomplished on camera by multiple CBS marksmen in 1967.
Naturally, however, DiEugenio will dismiss those CBS tests...because
CBS is part of the "MSM cover-up".
Reprise (just to prove my "Patsy" point from a slightly different
angle):
>>> "Even if somehow you could have snookered him into it, why do it? The
guy could not have hit Kennedy in ten run throughs under those conditions.
The shooting was so difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to
guarantee a kill shot. Just ask Craig Zirbel or Carlos Hathcock." <<<
Yeah, right, Jim. That's why your bumbling patsy-framers decided to FRAME
OSWALD AS A SOLO PATSY, even though the shooting in Dealey Plaza "was so
difficult that you needed three professional gunmen to guarantee a kill
shot".
Hilarious. Benny Hill was never funnier than the ABO conspiracy theorists.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206761&#entry206761
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16659&st=15&p=206763&#entry206763
JAMES "BLADDER-BUSTER" DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Again, someone help DVP. I don' t understand the above. Isn't that
what happened? The evidence that the shot was nearly impossible is in the
WC. Did that stop Dulles, McCLoy and Ford from saying LHO did it? Did it
stop the Ny TImes? Did it stop CBS? Does it stop John McAdams or DVP? So
where is the logic here? The conspirators knew that LHO would not fire,
and if he did, he would miss. So they needed three experts to be sure to
do the job. They did. The WC covered it up. The MSM bought it. End of
story." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The delusions never stop gushing from the fertile mind of James
DiEugenio, do they?
The PRE-assassination plotters who were framing Oswald as a SOLO PATSY,
even though the shooting "was so difficult that you needed three
professional gunmen to guarantee a kill shot" [DiEugenio's exact words],
just GOT LUCKY when the cops and the MSM and the WC decided to play along
and FRAME THE SAME SOLO PATSY NAMED OSWALD TOO!
And yet *I* am the one who supposedly needs "help" here, per
DiEugenio. Hilarious.
DiEugenio's next bladder-buster will undoubtedly be:
"Oh, who gives a damn if the people framing Oswald didn't keep
an eye on their patsy at 12:30 on Nov. 22?! What difference does it
make if a bunch of people see the patsy on the first floor of the TSBD
at the exact moment he's supposed to be up on the sixth floor killing
the President?! The DPD and Hoover and the WC's Troika will fix
everything afterwards anyway. So who gives a shit if the patsy garners
for himself seventeen different alibi witnesses in the Depository at
12:30? Big f**king deal, Davey Boy!"
jas
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "I don't even know what the heck this question means." <<<
Putting a good
jas
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "I don't even know what the heck this question means." <<<
Degrading, muddling up, and/or belittling a good question simply makes it
so the Buffer doesn't have to answer. I've seen it so many times here and
other forums and it is such a worn out and age-old Buffer tactic.
After all, if he pleads ignorance, he's in the clear.
To the traffic cop: "Uhhh...I didn't know what the posted speed limit was
-- please, would you cut me a break, officer?"
Anthony Marsh
The speed limit was not posted. The sign had fallen down last week.