(PART 63)



My goodness, what a nice little diatribe by Jim DiEugenio above [top link].

What did I ever do to deserve such a devoted puppy-dog pal like DiEugenio?

The fact is, Jimbo, that I do indeed value the evidence in the JFK murder case (your last ranting-and-raving session notwithstanding).

I value the ACTUAL hard, physical evidence that proves (for all eternity) that
Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of TWO murders, even though Oswald is a person whom you think was TOTALLY INNOCENT of committing EITHER of those murders. (Talk about laughable. To deny Oswald's involvement in President Kennedy's murder is ridiculous enough, but for conspiracy theorists to extend that denial to
Officer Tippit's slaying is beyond ridiculous--it's pathetic.)

So, yes, I value the REAL evidence in the case (things like the palmprints and the fingerprints and the bullet shells and the guns and the bullets and the fibers and the paper bag with Oswald's prints on it and the many eyewitnesses who fingered your prized patsy, plus Oswald's own highly-incriminating actions on both November 21st and November 22nd of 1963).

And if you think that by taking a trip to Dallas or New Orleans or Clinton/Jackson (to discuss Jim Garrison's sham of a case against Clay Shaw) is going to suddenly make me see "the light of conspiracy", I beg to differ. Thanks to the Internet, I can evaluate just about every piece of evidence in the whole case by staring at this computer screen.*

* = Unfortunately, Vince Bugliosi doesn't even realize that fact to this day, although I tried to get word to him on this subject of "massive Internet content being available on the JFK case" in the past. But my messages apparently never got through to him.

In short -- I disregard "evidence" conjured up by conspiracists that has no basis in fact -- e.g., your contention that Lee Oswald had NO LARGE BAG at all with him on the morning of 11/22/63. (Don't you ever even have the decency to blush when you spout such silly theories? Even if you're only on Black Op Radio saying the silly things about Randle and Frazier and Paine and Ford and Dulles, et al, I'd think you'd turn beet-red with embarrassment when such unsupportable hunks of junk escape your lips, like the stuff about Frazier and Randle just MAKING UP the paper bag.)

But, alas, you think you're doing a great service to the heroic "JFK research community" by saying the vile things you have said (in print and on Internet radio) about such people as future President Ford and Ruth Paine and Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle (and so many others whom you have dragged through the mud without a speck of evidence to support your imaginary theories about any of these individuals whom you have verbally abused).

Gil Jesus wants some CTer to sue me because I merely called them a "kook" at one time or another. But what I'd really like to see is a headline in the Dallas Morning News next month saying that Buell Wesley Frazier and Ruth Paine have joined forces in a defamation lawsuit against a big-mouth high-school teacher named James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California. A headline like that would be worth more than three of my large "CIA Disinfo Agent" checks that I'm currently receiving each month from Langley.

>>> "You then have the gall or blindness to say that you are not political. When in fact the WC was probably the most politically oriented murder investigation in history. Run by four of the most arch conservative thugs in 20th century American history: Hoover, Dulles, McCloy and Ford." <<<

What was I just saying about DiEugenio's defaming remarks about certain people? Well, I see Jimbo just can't contain himself.

And, btw, what do your last sickening remarks have to do with MY OWN political beliefs?

Answer: Nothing.

The fact that the Warren Commission was composed of mainly politicians doesn't mean a thing to me. The EVIDENCE speaks for itself in the case that those politicians were assigned to investigate -- the JFK assassination.

Are you implying that because you believe that some of the WC members were, to repeat your vile phrase, "four of the most arch conservative thugs in 20th century American history", this therefore means that anyone who agrees with their "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusions about JFK's murder also falls into that same category ("arch conservative thugs")?

If that's not what you're implying, then please spell it out for me. After all, I'm just a dumb-as-a-stump lil' ol' Hoosier boy here (who has never known a "nice girl" in his life).

David Von Pein
March 16, 2011