DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
ADDENDUMS TO THIS POST:
There are several more idiotic comments that were made by both James
DiEugenio and host Len Osanic during their 55-minute get-together on
the 11/27/08 "Black Op Radio" program....comments that I didn't touch
on in my original article (linked above) concerning that abominable
radio broadcast of non-stop distortions and misrepresentations.
So, I'll take this opportunity in this follow-up post to touch on a
few of those things now.....
==================================
DiEugenio and Osanic think that the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm
Street was removed the day after the assassination.
Now, the main reason I didn't bring this topic up in my main article
above is because I'm not 100% certain that I am correct about the
things I'm going to say now. But I'm pretty sure I am correct here
when I say that the Stemmons sign was not removed from Elm Street on
11/23/63. The notion that it was removed I think is just another of
the many conspiracy-oriented myths surrounding JFK's murder that have
cropped up out of the woodwork since 1963.
There are two main reasons that I don't think the sign was removed:
1.) Since all reasonable people know that the only shots that were
fired on 11/22/63 were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the Book
Depository, and since there is virtually no chance whatsoever that any
of Oswald's three shots struck the Stemmons sign on the north side of
Elm Street -- there would, therefore, have been absolutely no logical
reason for the city of Dallas (or anyone else) to suddenly want to
remove or replace that Stemmons Freeway sign on Saturday, November 23,
1963.
But even if the sign was removed and then replaced with another
identical sign, such activity would have had nothing whatsoever to do
with trying to hide any kind of multi-shooter "plot" or "conspiracy"
with respect to the assassination of the President.
2.) I have seen numerous post-November 22 photos and films of Dealey
Plaza, and the Stemmons sign is still in place (and it sure looks like
the exact same sign AFTER 11/22 as it did on 11/22).
So, do some CTers think that the sign that appears in many post-11/22
pictures and films is a DIFFERENT sign from the one that appears in
Abraham Zapruder's home movie?
I've yet to see or hear of any proof at all that the sign was
"removed" or "replaced" almost immediately after the assassination.
But many CTers continue to believe the sign was removed or replaced,
evidently to hide the fact that the 45 additional shooters in the
Plaza were apparently all as blind as bats when their many bullets hit
the Stemmons sign instead of going anywhere near their target
destination of JFK's body, necessitating the complete removal of the
road sign by yet MORE co-conspirators and cover-up operatives.
I guess even the Dallas Department of Highways and Signage was "in" on
the cover-up plot too.
Also -- A Stemmons sign is certainly in the exact same place on Elm
Street as of the date of the Warren Commission's detailed re-enactment
of the crime on May 24th, 1964, six months and two days after the
assassination. Is this supposedly a completely different Stemmons sign
that we see here in CE893?:
And apart from the 5/24/64 WC re-creation photos, there is a much-
earlier indication that the sign was not removed, via a film taken by
the U.S. Secret Service on either November 27 or December 5, 1963
(I've heard conflicting accounts regarding the exact date when the
film was made; but either of those two dates would still drive the
point home about the sign still being exactly where it was on November
22).
The sign is easily visible in that 1963 Secret Service film [which can
be seen HERE and via the embedded video below].
==================================
20 minutes into the November 27th "Black Op" laughfest, DiEugenio
calls Dale Myers "the unnamed ghostwriter" of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007
book "Reclaiming History".
I guess James should probably read page 1515 of Vincent's book (in the
"Acknowledgments" section), which is where he'll find Dale Myers' name
being mentioned at some length, including these words:
"Dale [Myers] helped me in the writing of several sections of
[this book, "Reclaiming History"]."
I wonder how the above Dale Myers' "acknowledgment" equates to an
"unnamed ghostwriter"? Maybe Jim D. can tell us how that works.
http://JFKFiles.blogspot.com/Lifton's Ghost
==================================
This one should make all LNers roar with laughter:
Host Len Osanic is so clueless and silly that he actually blurted out
something on his 11/27 radio show concerning Vince Bugliosi that
nobody in their right mind could POSSIBLY even begin to think was
true:
Before being corrected by DiEugenio (and I have to give Jim credit
here--he actually got something right for a change when he set Len
straight on this issue), Osanic actually thought that Vincent Bugliosi
was an "agnostic" when it came to the subject of "Zapruder Film
alteration".
Which means, in Len's pre-November 27th mindset, that Vince Bugliosi
(the same man who Len hates so much for writing his lengthy pro-LN
tome--a tome Len has referred to as "bullshit" on numerous occasions)
would have been just as likely to BELIEVE in the crazy "Z-Film hoax"
nonsense as he would be prone to DISBELIEVE it.
~LOL Break~
How could anyone who was even semi-familiar with Vince Bugliosi's pro-
lone assassin stance possibly believe for even one second that
Bugliosi could still (to this day) be an "agnostic" when it came to
the idiotic theory of Z-Film alteration/fakery?
Len, you're amazing.
==================================
Jim DiEugenio also totally misrepresents the reason why "Reclaiming History"
author Vincent Bugliosi placed still photographs of Zapruder Film frames 312
and 313 in the photo section of his book, with DiEugenio (incredibly) claiming
in his 11/27/08 "Black Op Radio" appearance that the reason Vince highlights
Z312 and Z313 in his book is only due to the "leaning forward" status of
JFK's head at the time of both of those frames.
But, of course, President Kennedy's exact "leaning forward" posture at the
time he was hit with Oswald's fatal bullet is not the issue at all....and surely
DiEugenio must realize it's not the issue. The real issue is that Z312 and Z313
prove, without doubt, that JFK's head was pushed forward by the impact of
the bullet that struck his head within the space of that one-eighteenth of a
second between those two Z-frames.
.gif)
But DiEugenio bypasses that real reason entirely and babbles on with some
double-talk about how Bugliosi's real reason for propping up those two Z-Film
frames is due only to the forward "lean" (or angle) of Kennedy's head.
It's absolutely hilarious to watch a CTer twist and mangle the facts at every
turn in the (Elm St.) road. It's aggravating as all get out, too. But hilarious
as well.
David Von Pein
November 30, 2008
December 2, 2008
