Jim DiEugenio reviews Ed Souza's Undeniable Truths

[Jim DiEugenio]

http://www.ctka.net/2015/SouzaReview.html

My review of Ed Souza's Undeniable Truths.

Starts off promising, then wobbles, then goes off a cliff.

[Jim Hargrove]

Jim, we're all anxious to read your review of John Newman's new book. Any ETA on that?

[Jim DiEugenio]

I have it in e book form now.

I need to do one more review of one other book before I get to work on it.

[Cliff Varnell]

http://www.ctka.net/2015/SouzaReview.html

My review of Ed Souza's Undeniable Truths.

Starts off promising, then wobbles, then goes off a cliff.

This is idiotic:

"And like Ryan Siebenthaler, and Doug Horne, Souza brings up the possibility that there may have been more than one wound in Kennedy's back."

More than one wound in the back?

With only one set of bullet holes in the clothes?

How do two bullets enter and leave only one bullet hole in the shirt, and one in the jacket?

Yet another JFK writer for whom the physical evidence in the case simply doesn't exist.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Please click and scroll down for the actual autopsy photos.

To be fair to those idiotic and ignorant authors, this is what Horne and Ryan are talking about.

http://heavensfellengazette.com

I did not say I agreed with it. But these are supposed to be the official photos before they were doctored up by Ida Dox on the orders of Baden.

Make of it what you will, there are all kinds of possibilities.

[Cliff Varnell]

Please click and scroll down for the actual autopsy photos.

To be fair to those idiotic and ignorant authors, this is what Horne and Ryan are talking about.

http://heavensfellengazette.com

I did not say I agreed with it. But these are supposed to be the official photos before they were doctored up by Ida Dox on the orders of Baden.

Make of it what you will, there are all kinds of possibilities.

Ah. So I take it you are in the camp of those for whom the physical evidence in the case doesn't exist.

Otherwise, the universe of what was possible is narrowed greatly.

One JFK back wound at T3 is a fact no one can factually challenge. The clothing evidence trumps any "autopsy photo."

There are NOT "all kinds of possibilities" -- except to the army of Pet Theorists who MUST ignore the physical evidence to advance their theories.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Cliff:

I made no comment about what I personally believed. I was conveying what an author wrote and showed he was related in that to two other writers. This is supposed to be what criticism is all about. You try and show where an author fits in by drawing comparisons.

Why you then have to say this about me:

So I take it you are in the camp of those for whom the physical evidence in the case doesn't exist.

I don't get it at all. If I described a book by the late Harry Livingstone and said something about his belief in Z film alteration, and compared what he said to say Costella or Lifton, would you then say the above about me?

Probably not. Right?

People can believe what they wish about what Horne, and Ryan and Souza describe. I provided a link so they can look at the evidence without it being censored in advance. Which is what Ida Dox and Baden did.

[Cliff Varnell]

[quote=Jim DiEugenio]Cliff:

I made no comment about what I personally believed. I was conveying what an author do believed and showed he was related in that to two other writers. This is supposed to be what criticism is all about. You try and show where an author fits in by drawing comparisons.

Why you then have to say this about me:

So I take it you are in the camp of those for whom the physical evidence in the case doesn't exist.

I don't get it at all.


Perhaps I've misunderstood.

When you say there are "all kinds of possibilities" aren't you endorsing the "possibility" there were two back wounds?

[Peter Lemkin]

The list of tampered with [or created out of 'whole cloth after the fact'] evidence is long and horrifying/damning. Ditto the tampering with [or creation of false] images - still and moving - along with witness 'statements'. To me this is fact. One can debate, perhaps, if this or that particular one fits in the category, but as there were persons and agencies/groupings deliberately [on their own/or on 'orders'] tampering with the evidence [by making it disappear when it was there; or appear when it was not], that opens up the door to all kinds of possibilities - and will inevitably make some evidence that should coincide with other evidence seem to contract one another. I think the tampering had two motives. 1] to hide the conspiracy and its details/trail, and 2] to make the evidence look/be too unreliable to make prima facia conclusions [and thus to try to perpetrate the hoax that the People should just 'trust' the [often complicit] authorities - who 'know better'.

From the start of the plot to today, the JFK Assassination was a 'magic show' - with disappearing items and conjured other ones. 'Facts' and evidence in the case are often relative, IMHO, little, sadly, is solid indisputable fact [although a hell of a lot of other parts of it can be discerned/decided with long and careful analysis]. Facts that are indisputable include that 'Oswald was not the assassin and not 'lone''; that he was the patsy for a much larger and high[est] level conspiracy; that 'what you saw' with the shooting and body was not 'what you got' [the evidence, such as it is, is largely false or tampered with]. As fake as the event was, our polity since then, and because of the event, and its governmental-level cover-up [which continues] is even more fake and illegitimate. Nothing comes easy in this case - and the tampered with evidence and witnesses are a large part of the reason. It was a coup and a secret one, at that. There is nothing they would/will not do to keep that fact hidden or confusing from the average citizen. There is a [changing over time with new information] hierarchy of evidence validity. I'd not off hand exclude the more than one shot to the back or in the back - and wouldn't let the apparent one hole in the clothes stop me in that regard. I've done amateur magic, and my uncle was a professional magician. One can do a lot to fool the 'viewer' to see / witness something other than what really happened. When the majority of police, authorities, investigators, media, and forensic teams were in league with [or manipulated by] the 'magicians' and their masters, evidential 'reality' is relative, and very much distorted. All that said, we have slowly made progress, IMHO, with the consensual view among the more reasonable, and open-minded, researchers/students of this most important and pivotal event. It set the stage for a host of other 'magic shows - such as: RFK, MLK, 9-11-01'...the list is sad and VERY, VERY long. Trusting the 'authorities' and 'official facts' IMO is a fool's game and fool's gain.

[Dawn Meredith]

Please click and scroll down for the actual autopsy photos.

To be fair to those idiotic and ignorant authors, this is what Horne and Ryan are talking about.

http://heavensfellengazette.com

I did not say I agreed with it. But these are supposed to be the official photos before they were doctored up by Ida Dox on the orders of Baden.

Make of it what you will, there are all kinds of possibilities.

"Doctored up...on orders of Baden"??

I noted Baden's utter dishonesty during the HSCA hearings (and since) but this is the first I am hearing that he actually ordered the falsification of evidence. (What is your source for this Jim? ) He's way more slimy than I realized.

Dawn