(PART 92)

NOTE --- In this 92nd installment of this series,
I don't talk to James DiEugenio directly, but instead I speak to some members of his fan club.


Wow -- I am in this book. (I think this is the 65th book I am in.)


Yeah, as long as Vince Palamara is mentioned in a book, he's happy. And that makes it a great book, per Vince.

DiEugenio spends a few days (or a week or two) looking into the background of Tom Hanks and decides that Mr. Hanks qualifies as "a complete jerk" (DiEugenio's online quote; July 21, 2013).

In my opinion, there's only one jerk concerning this matter--and it's Jimbo D., who thinks ALL of the evidence against Oswald is fake. ALL of it.

Here's what I said on July 22, 2013, about DiEugenio's attack on Tom Hanks:

"I see Jim DiEugenio has now decided to attack Tom Hanks with some pretty severe criticism. Jimbo doesn't seem to care who he slanders, as long as it's somebody who has some common sense about Oswald's guilt in JFK's murder.

"What a complete jerk Hanks is." -- J. DiEugenio; 7/21/13

DiEugenio has evidently done a few weeks' worth of "research" on Mr. Hanks and his movie career, and Jimbo has now decided that Hanks is a "complete jerk". Jimmy D. is pathetic (of course).

Mr. Hanks, btw, is said by many people in Hollywood to be one of the nicest individuals in the whole movie business. Now, I'll admit, I have no idea if that appraisal of Tom H. is spot-on accurate or not. I've never met the man. But I have heard several people say a lot of good things about Tom Hanks.

Naturally, Jimmy D. thinks Hanks is a "complete jerk" because of Tom's stance on the JFK case. And now I see where DiEugenio is going to attack Vince Bugliosi some more on another non-JFK topic too -- the Manson case -- as Jimbo will apparently be making an attempt to smear Vince in some way regarding Bugliosi's prosecution of Charles Manson for the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders.

So, if he can find a way to attack and smear Hanks and Bugliosi, he's evidently going to do it in his 2013 book "Reclaiming Parkland", which probably would be better suited for the supermarket tabloid magazine rack than it would be for the mainstream book-buying public.

An alternate title that would very likely fit the 500 or so pages of trash talk that are likely going to be inside DiEugenio's book would be: "Smearing Two Good Men For The Price Of One Crappy Book".

I cannot say with any authority what kind of Hollywood-type gossip and/or "dirt" DiEugenio has dug up about Tom Hanks, but I *can* say with some degree of authority that James DiEugenio is dead wrong about many of the things he says about Vincent Bugliosi. And I can say with absolute confidence that DiEugenio is totally wrong (and even *nuts*) about almost *everything* he believes regarding the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

Jimbo has proven to me time and time again in my online debates with him that he has virtually no capacity for properly and reasonably evaluating the evidence that exists in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And anyone who thinks I've overstated my criticism of DiEugenio's weak capacity for rational evidence evaluation in the Kennedy case only needs to glance at a few of these articles."
-- DVP; July 22, 2013


This ["Reclaiming Parkland"] is a FANTASTIC book by Jim DiEugenio--get his updated DESTINY BETRAYED, Jesse Ventura's new one, Charles Hurlburt's new book...several really good books out there.


Oh brother.

A little about Vacillating Vince Palamara.

"Vincent Palamara doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he's on. Many months after fully endorsing Vincent Bugliosi's lone-assassin book, "Reclaiming History", we're treated to this strange 5-Star review written by Mr. Palamara for Jim Douglass' conspiracy-flavored book.

It's perfectly fine to ride the JFK fence forever -- Jerry Dealey at the JFK Lancer forum does that very nicely, in fact. And I've enjoyed talking with Jerry on several occasions in the past.

But Vince Palamara seems to be in a different category. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure WHAT category of "JFK researcher" Mr. Palamara currently resides in. But he seems to be trying his darndest to play the entire field and to have it both ways. By reading some of his reviews for both anti-conspiracy and pro-conspiracy material, it would appear that Mr. Palamara believes in a unique "No Conspiracy Conspiracy" with respect to the death of John F. Kennedy."
-- DVP; June 17, 2008


David, have you read the book?


No, I have not read the book. And I will not. But I know ALL of DiEugenio's arguments regarding the assassination and Bugliosi. And his arguments are absurd and foolish. And his 11th-hour attacks against Tom Hanks are so transparent a child could see through them.

DiEugenio seems to think that since Hanks has made films in the past that MIX fiction and actual historical facts (with Hanks taking liberties and "dramatic license" in some of those films), this means (per Jimbo) that ALL of Hanks' movies MUST adhere to the same formula. He can NEVER change that style.

In other words, producer Tom Hanks' new 2013 film "Parkland" cannot possibly be accurate because Hanks didn't stick strictly to all the FACTS in some of his past films. A silly argument to be sure. And DiEugenio's arguments against Hanks during his recent interview embedded below are laughable. At least they come off as being laughable to me. I'm embarrassed for him actually.


And David, if you can't see the massive problems with the case against Oswald, I'm sorry you're just not paying attention. Fortunately, people like you are in the minority and most people can use common sense.


Read my series where I go against DiEugenio. You'll see the inherent flimsiness of his whole case for conspiracy.

As I said, he's got ALL the evidence being fake. And he still endorses Jim Garrison's paper-thin case against Clay Shaw! In 2013, a guy is still saying "Garrison got it right".

DiEugenio's a darn good writer, I'll admit that. And that's part of what makes him an effective advocate for his patently ridiculous "Oswald As Patsy" and "Everything Was Fake" theories. But he does not evaluate evidence in a realistic and sensible manner. Good prose does not equal a great investigator.


I think he [DiEugenio] is very good at presenting evidence and I have read a lot of your back and forth with him. I think [he] makes a lot of good sense, while you just seem to recite your points straight out of the Warren Commission.



DiEugenio hasn't proven that ANY of the evidence against Oswald has been fake. And yet he thinks ALL of it has been faked and/or manipulated by the evil cops. He and other conspiracy theorists like him are living in their own dream world--a world where nearly every person in Officialdom was out to frame poor sap Oswald. It's silly. And, more importantly, it's impossible.


Maybe he hasn't proven it, but at the very least he has thrown up serious questions about the evidence, and not just him--guys like Cyril Wecht, John Armstrong, Vince Palamara, Joseph McBride, and Walt Brown have spent their lives looking into this. And based on their research, I believe they have created more than enough reasonable doubt to not believe the official story.


Well, Charles, in my opinion, there's just as much reason to doubt people like James DiEugenio and Joseph McBride. Even more reasons to doubt their theories, in fact, than to doubt the bottom-line conclusions reached by the Warren Commission.

And McBride, btw, is yet another author who doesn't even think Oswald killed Officer Tippit. And DiEugenio doesn't think Oswald murdered Tippit either. And THAT murder couldn't be any more solved. Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon on him when arrested. Naturally, that's still MORE evidence that is supposedly fraudulent according to the DiEugenios and McBrides of the world.

I think it boils down to this -- Just HOW MUCH of the evidence against Oswald (in TWO murder cases) is a reasonable person really supposed to believe has been faked by the authorities? Isn't there ANY limit? Per DiEugenio, apparently not.


Well, there are some strange occurrences even with that [Tippit] murder -- from the timing of the shooting, to whether Oswald could have even got to the scene on time, to Tippit's strange movements leading up to the shooting.


Sorry David....you are very mistaken, you should look closer. Oh, and it is definitely possible, lol.


Given the number of things that James DiEugenio needs to have "faked", "manufactured", "tainted", "substituted", "planted", and "tampered with" -- no, Dusty, it is not possible (here in the real world).

Not to mention all the witnesses he thinks lied out their ass since 1963--and are STILL lying--like Buell Wesley Frazier, for example. Buell has given multiple interviews here in 2013, and he's never changed his story about Lee Oswald carrying a paper bag into the Book Depository.

Yes, Buell thinks the bag was too short to be the rifle. But that type of discrepancy actually works AGAINST DiEugenio's theory, because DiEugenio doesn't think Buell Frazier saw Oswald with ANY LARGE BAG at all on 11/22/63! So, per Jim D., it's ALL made up in the first place. And yet Frazier couldn't manage to make a MAKE-BELIEVE bag a little bigger. And Jimbo has people falling for such crap. It's hilarious.


David, I wasn't making reference to Jim D.'s work, I was referring to your assumptions--which are silly. There is a great deal of proof already in existence of evidence-tampering and the like.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time in these posts debating the issue. You should try to sell that stuff to someone who hasn't been around as long as I have, or hasn't researched as much. I've seen plenty of disinformationists and they all use the same tactics....the labeling, name calling, making excuses for evidence they don't like or can't explain....blah, blah, blah.


I don't see why following the evidence to where it obviously leads is "silly". Plus, you've got to factor in Oswald's own actions. Did he act like an "innocent patsy" to you?

And I love this part of Dusty's last post --- he says that it's the lone-assassin believers who are always "making excuses for evidence they don't like".

That's a riot, Dusty, seeing as how you conspiracy believers have a patent on "making excuses" for the evidence you "don't like". Such as pretending that all of that evidence is fake and planted.


Want some proof, try this page.


So, Dusty totally ignores 7 HSCA 41. Great. All of the HSCA's photo experts were wrong--or probably liars. Right, Dusty?


They [the HSCA's Photographic Panel] were wrong. And technology has advanced a great deal, which makes identification of alterations far easier. But don't take my word for it, go look for yourself. Or are you afraid to?

The images were altered, fake representations of JFK's wounds. Any examination of them is also fake, as it is based on false information.


Oh, good. More fakery! Fake autopsy pictures, fake examinations of the fake autopsy pictures. Blah, blah.

I can feel your pain though, Dusty. The "Everything's Fake" road is really the only one that you and Jim DiEugenio can travel down. Because, let's face it, if everything that points to Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt ISN'T fake---then it's pretty clear that your favorite patsy is guilty of two murders. And that would never do in James DiEugenio's world of fantasy. (Nor in Dusty's world either, it would seem.)

But, in reality, the "Everything Is Fake" ploy is merely a cop-out by the conspiracy theorists. It's all they CAN argue and still hope to have a snow-white and innocent Oswald at the end of the day. So, they'll claim the photos are fakes, along with the guns, the bullets, the bullet shells, Oswald's rifle-toting paper bag, Oswald's fingerprints on that paper bag, and even the witnesses are "fake" (i.e., coerced by the evil cops to tell lies).

The extent to which the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy promoters will go in order to pretend that Lee Oswald didn't shoot anybody on November 22, 1963, is outrageous, absurd, and just plain unbelievable.


Yes Dave -- All your videos serve actually to SUPPORT conspiracy, because the very first accounts and reports are not watered down.

Don't EVEN try to sell that lie that Oswald did this with that subpar rifle and the discrepancy between the wound in the head as reported by doctors and color autopsy photos -- HIS REAR SKULL WAS BLOWN OUT, DAVE. And the Zapruder film shows otherwise, NOT to mention all the other OBVIOUS WEIRD things that happened to evidence, witnesses, etc.

SO be honest David Von Pein, Lee Harvey Oswald is being convicted in the court of public opinion because he never had his day in court; was NEVER convicted in a U.S. court of law, therefore, ANY theory is purely based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ONLY. LEGALLY Lee Oswald is still an INNOCENT MAN!

What gets me is when faced with telling evidence that supports conspiracy, people like "boogyman" Bugliosi and Posner (the "poser") simply IGNORE it as if it does not exist, which is what The Warren Commission did. I saw that too in "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" [sic]--the same pig-headed lack of response.

I believe Vince Palamara showed beyond any doubt that security was unusually pulled off that day when it should have been DOUBLE around JFK.


Yeah, Davide, that must be why almost all of the early TV/radio reports talk about THREE shots being fired -- matching the exact number of shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

And the earliest reports also focus on ONE GUNMAN--not two or three or four. Yes, there's some initial confusion about where that ONE gunman was located, but there's no talk about 6 shots being fired from THREE guns (as Oliver Stone would want us to believe actually happened).

And the security surrounding President Kennedy's car in Dealey Plaza was absolutely no different than it was when compared to dozens of pre-November 22 motorcades. And you're only kidding yourself if you think it was different in Dealey Plaza.


Do you really think the doctors did not know what they were looking at? When they just about ALL (the ones with BALLS) said LARGE GAPING WOUND IN REAR OF SKULL EMPTY. SOME STATE THEMSELVES SHOT FROM THE FRONT. THEY have MORE credibility than ANYONE.

I really could care less after that fact. Those men put their HANDS in the wound [and] examined the President. If anyone knows, THEY know. Base your opinion on that up-close and personal evidence. Anything AFTER that to me is not as creditable.


So you expect me to believe ALL the doctors are mistaken?? All of them are incompetent fools?? Right. Stop clouding the issue. You can't explain that away. So answer the burning question: All [of the] doctors were liars or incompetents??


No, the Parkland people were just WRONG. They were certainly not liars (and I've never once called any of them "liars"). And, of course, they were not incompetent. They were trained medical professionals working at a major U.S. hospital. But they were WRONG. And the photos and the Z-Film prove they were wrong.

How many times do I have to say it? You think ALL of the autopsy photos/X-rays AND the Zapruder Film are fakes. Okay. Go ahead and think that. You're wrong, but go ahead and believe that fairy tale if you want to. I, however, choose not to believe it.

And the evidence recovered perfectly merges and blends with the autopsy report/pictures/X-rays -- i.e., the physical evidence (all of it) suggests the person who killed JFK was located to the REAR of the car. And that's what the autopsy materials indicate too.

But that type of corroboration is something the conspiracists don't want to face. It's just MORE stuff they can call "fake".


The great public service DiEugenio provides us today...

[McBride's complete post is HERE.]


"Great public service"??? What a load of garbage.

DiEugenio hasn't gotten a thing right yet. And I doubt he started a winning streak with his whining about Tom Hanks.


Mr. McBride - thanks for posting this review. I read the 40-page chapter on Chicago and Mexico that was edited out of the book, and it is very detailed and revealing.

I don't know David Von Pein, but of course his reputation precedes him. I don't suppose that he read this chapter. What is clear is that he always throws the baby out with the bathwater if it's related to conspiracy in the JFK assassination. The researchers who he finds nothing but faults with have done so much good work. Of course it's possible that one or another conclusions they come to might not be true. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But to dismiss entirely their works because some of their conclusions are easier to poke holes in doesn't dismiss the good work they do.

This chapter on Chicago and Mexico, where DiEugenio destroys Bugliosi is a case in point. Is David Von Pein prepared to believe Bugliosi when he so cavalierly dismisses evidence of coverup in Mexico City? I guess so. In my opinion, it's David Von Pein who is wedded to a version of history that is patently false, not the writers and researchers who he mocks.


James DiEugenio of Los Angeles believes in so many things that are so incredibly wrong, they could fill up the L.A. Coliseum.

The number of things Jim gets RIGHT are so far outweighed by all of the stupid and wrong things he believes (e.g., Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy, Oswald didn't shoot Tippit, Oswald never took any large bag into work, Oswald didn't go to the embassies in Mexico, Oswald never shot at Walker, Oswald never even ordered or took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle C2766 OR Smith & Wesson revolver V510210, all the documents relating to Oswald's purchases of the rifle AND the revolver are fake, Ruth Paine has "CIA" stamped on her forehead, Buell Frazier is a liar, Linnie Randle is a liar, Will Fritz helped Ruby to shoot Oswald by opening up a "pocket" in the DPD basement [that's one of my all-time faves there; LOL], the 2nd-floor lunchroom encounter between Oswald, Baker, and Truly never even happened at all, and a thousand other preposterous things), therefore is it reasonable to believe anything he has to say about the JFK and Tippit murder cases?

How many times does a conspiracist have to cry wolf (or, in Jim DiEugenio's case, "Everything's fake!") before you stop listening to him entirely?

Perry, your witness.


How many times does a DVP type have to cry “believe me Red Ridinghood, there are no such things as wolves"?

Also, as anyone who watched the Perry Mason TV show knows, Perry's adversary in court lost every episode, save one.

Thus the person saying "your witness, Perry" was a notorious, continuing loser.


Come to think of it, it would be better if the DiEugenios of the world just stayed inside the framework of a Perry Mason episode. Almost all conspiracy theorists wallow in fiction 24/7 anyway. They'd be right at home on the CBS set with Perry, Della Street, and Lieutenant Tragg.

David Von Pein
October 2013