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 [embedded in the audio player above] that I didn't touch on in my original article 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 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 CE894?
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.
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.
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 11/27/08 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 anti-conspiracy 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. Hilarious.
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. But I thank you for all the laughs you and your "Black Op" guests have provided me.
David Von Pein
November 30, 2008
February 16, 2009