Who Are: Mack, Perry, Russo, Zaid, Loomis, Pozner, McAdams, et al.?!

[Paul Rigby]

Paul why do you find it so necessary to keep changing the subject? If someone posted about the medical evidence, or Harvey and Lee, would just come back about the Z film? To lump Bob Groden in with Mack et al is absurd.
Jim has already offered to have this discussion privately with you, so why not take him up on it? Peter's question is a legitimate and important one. If you want to question the validity of the Zapruder film please start a thread doing so.
Thank you,
Dawn

DiEugenio publicly dismisses my objection to his attempt to depict Groden as Mack’s antipode, but simultaneously uses a proxy – you – to send me an email suggesting a private exchange on the subject of Z film alteration. Now, where have I run into that before? Ah, yes, with one Gary Mack. The subject? The Z fake. Was Mack interested in establishing a productive dialogue with the truth as its goal? Er, not exactly: I was to listen to him reading from the stone tablets of revealed truth. The tablets, inevitably, turned out to be made of plastic and manufactured in Langley.

The similarity in method between Mack and DiEugenio does not end there. Like Mack, DiEugenio uses a proxy – for Bill Miller et al, read Dawn Meredith – for the incredibly complicated business of posting on a forum. The idea appears to be that if one uses a proxy, the need to engage in the tiresome business of defending the content of one’s post is mysteriously obviated. Well, sorry to be disobliging, but it isn’t.

A third reason for not taking up DiEugenio’s offer of private exchanges on the subject of Zapruder fraudulence: In my one and only exchange with him – more accurately, through a proxy (you) - to date, DiEugenio sought to pretend black is white, and that he didn’t mean what he wrote, which was in any case “a guess.” The exchange is here:

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...nio&page=2

Your latest post confirms the wisdom of my decision not to have any part in any private exchange with either DiEugenio or you.

Paul why do you find it so necessary to keep changing the subject?

I’m not, Dawn: the championship of Groden is in DiEugenio’s piece. It’s just that you, for whatever reason, don’t want public discussion of this section of the essay. This begs the obvious question: Why? Because if it really is self-evident that “To lump Bob Groden in with Mack et al is absurd,” why the fear of public debate?

And so to the crowning glory:

If someone posted about the medical evidence, or Harvey and Lee, would you just come back about the Z film?

Of course not: But then as you well know, this isn’t the case here, for DiEugenio offers us a moving portrait of Groden as persecuted “holy fool,” mounting a lone battle in favour of truth and light in a hostile Dallas; and seeks, yet again, to sell us the Z fake as smuggled, dissident truth:

The only way it was shown was when Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film for the trial of Clay Shaw and when Bob Groden spirited out a copy to finally show to the public on TV in 1975. Got that, 12 years later the public saw it. I think 12 years is enough for emotions to cool down.

http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html

This is even poorer history than that served up by the very Museum DiEugenio (rightly) criticises. As a matter of readily verifiable fact, the second version of the Z fake was first shown on US television by a Los Angeles TV station in February 1969. Try here for confirmation:

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html

Show #368, 3 April 2008: Pat Valentino

In conclusion, if Groden is the answer, DiEugenio's asking some very strange questions.