DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 77)


http://EducationForum.com


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Everyone knows from multiple sources that the likes of [Dave] Reitzes and DVP and [John] McAdams have decided that the discussion of [Oliver] Stone's film JFK at IMDB is a very good place to prey upon the uninitiated in order to work on "perception management". Therefore, they have done much propaganda--both of the white and black type--in order to make the understanding of the film a cesspool of disinformation.

One of the BOR [Black Op Radio] listeners has sent me a FAQ file that one of them set up, I suspect it's Reitzes, since he is the designated Garrison/New Orleans guy in the cabal. It's a real doozy.

Make no error about it, the war over this film is still being fought. The idea today is to...ignore all the releases of the ARRB that back up what was in the film.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And there were so many documents unearthed by the Assassination Records Review Board that supported Jim Garrison's case against Clay Shaw that a top-level member of the ARRB said this on October 10, 1998 (just after the ARRB closed up shop):

"In truth, Jim Garrison, and hence the Oliver Stone movie, has been discredited by these documents. If you read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson; 10/10/1998

Let me guess what Jim DiEugenio thinks about the above quote --- Anna Kasten Nelson, one of the 5 top-level board members of the ARRB, was full of shit and didn't have the slightest idea what she was talking about on 10/10/98.

Right, Jimbo?

[The complete C-Span video interview with Nelson, plus a highlighted section concerning Jim Garrison and the Oliver Stone film, can be seen below.]


EXCERPT:




COMPLETE INTERVIEW:



DAVE REITZES SAID:

Jim DiEugenio complains that Stone and [Zachary] Sklar's JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM (New York: Applause, 1992) is "a source rigorously ignored" by a sinister "cabal" of propagandists that supposedly includes me.

I don't know about anyone else, but I reference JFK: THE BOOK OF THE FILM literally hundreds of times at my website.

My website also explains in great detail the sources for Stone's "Willie O'Keefe" character (David Logan, Ray Broshears, and, most obviously and importantly, Perry Russo), in a section of my "JFK" critique entitled, "The JFK 100: Who Is 'Willie O'Keefe?'"

If anyone here would like some factual information about Oliver Stone's movie, you should check out my site.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Glad I smoked you out Reitzes. DVP probably got on the hot line.

Who wrote the phony FAQ? How about an honest answer OK, instead of your usual self serving piousness?

[...]

And BTW Dave [Reitzes], I will go after your phony--and funny--100 errors of fact in Stone's JFK.

Surely one of the most irresponsible pieces of internet claptrap ever written.


JAMES DiEUGENIO LATER SAID:

The above shows why I don't talk to DVP anymore.

The guy has not the slightest idea about the dynamics of the ARRB.

[...]

The idea that Shaw was somehow not involved in deep cover work for the CIA, this is just ludicrous today.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Even if he was (which he wasn't, of course), you still cannot tie Clay Shaw to the JFK assassination in any way, shape, or form. And nobody else on the Earth--not even your hero Earling C. Garrison--could tie Shaw to the assassination either.

And, as I mentioned to DiEugenio previously, even if Shaw had been butt buddies with all of Jimbo's favorite New Orleans characters (Oswald, Ferrie, and Banister), nobody has been able to come within 1,000 miles of tying any of those people to an assassination plot in 1963. (Except for Oswald, of course. But, naturally, since Oswald is the only guilty party among that New Orleans foursome, it means that DiEugenio will pretend that he was totally innocent of shooting anyone on 11/22. Because, as per usual, GUILTY = INNOCENT and INNOCENT = GUILTY to Garrison-lovers like Jimmy Di.)

And to just dismiss, as DiEugenio did above, the 10/10/98 quote of one of the members of the ARRB based on some paper-thin reasoning about the "dynamics of the ARRB" is quite disingenuous, IMO.

Ms. Nelson saw those documents herself. She knows what's in them. But she said something six years AFTER DiEugenio's "Destiny Betrayed" was published -- and it's something that irks DiEugenio and totally undermines and discredits Jimbo's entire book:

"In truth, Jim Garrison, and hence the Oliver Stone movie, has been discredited by these documents. If you read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson; October 10, 1998

Is it any wonder DiEugenio wants to ignore the above quote?

David Von Pein
January 15, 2012