12-08-2017, 09:34 PM
Jim DiEugenio-
You have embarrassed yourself with your endorsement of Sean Murphy's misbegotten lunchroom hoax. Is this why you've disappeared from this topic since April 21st? It's not easy, is it, to admit your mistakes? To firstly recognize that you, and your sidekick Albert Rossi, were completely fooled by this pernicious hoax hypothesis.
It might go a long way toward healing the hostilities in our JFK research community if you owned up to your error. From time to time this sort of thing happens when disagreements are discussed- one side is correct, and the other side is wrong. And the side that is wrong refuses to admit that they are wrong. They lack the humility. They are less interested in discerning the truth, than in how they appear to their fellows- how they think they appear. And it is more painful for them, the longer they hang onto their wrong position, when truth finally wins the day.
For several years I have argued, correctly and almost singlehandedly, for the reality of the lunchroom incident, against a barrage of opposition- the Murphy cultists. And one day you will thank me for this, Jim. I've had to defend the status quo because it is the truth, for God's sake. Their position is crackers. Theirs is a world where 2 + 2 = Sean Murphy, and anything that doesn't fit that world gets inverted so it does, or ignored completely.
Imagine if Carl Sagan, at the tail-end of his career, had endorsed the moon-landing hoaxers. He'd be rightly characterized as having gone crackers in his later years. This is what the Murphy Tar Pits will do to your mammoth ego, Jim, if you don't get the hell out of them.
Are you procrastinating, waiting for me to write yet another anti-hoax essay, so you can deliver your verdict? I work 6-7 days a week and am in no big hurry to compose that. My bullet-point critiques are in post #82 of June 22nd. And thanks to the diligent research of young Alan Ford, we can add a nice sharp arrow into my quiver- the Holmes testimony:
(VII p. 302) HOLMES: Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just as I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out into the crowd
to see what it was all about."
And Fritz's testimony also indicated that Oswald had been upstairs, in the lunchroom:
(III p. 213) BALL: At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
FRITZ: They told me that down at the bookstore. I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him- I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they had met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
BALL: Did you question Oswald about that?
FRITZ: Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
BALL: Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
FRITZ: He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
BALL: Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
FRITZ: He said he had a Coca-Cola.
And Carolyn Arnold was an eyewitness to Oswald in that upstairs lunchroom at 12:25:
Ms. Arnold was not given the opportunity to check her FBI statement of November 26 (WCD 5, p. 41), which claimed she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald just inside the front lobby at about 12:15.
Her March FBI statement, which she was required to sign, stated that she left the Depository building "at about 12:25 PM" (XXII p. 635).
In an interview with journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold claimed that "she saw Oswald in the 2nd-floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the motorcade... She left the building at 12:25 p.m. " Oswald "was sitting there... in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly."
She explicitly denied that her sighting of Oswald took place near the front door. "Why would I be looking back inside the building? That doesn't make any sense to me." (Dallas Morning News, 11/26/78)
The FBI had lied about what Carolyn Arnold saw in her November 26 statement. And Bart Kamp dishonestly portrayed her instead as lying to Earl Golz in 1978, in order to cover a gap in Murphy's hoax. And you are aware of this, Jim, and are not being honest with the research community by endorsing Kamp's essay.
Pathetic.
You have embarrassed yourself with your endorsement of Sean Murphy's misbegotten lunchroom hoax. Is this why you've disappeared from this topic since April 21st? It's not easy, is it, to admit your mistakes? To firstly recognize that you, and your sidekick Albert Rossi, were completely fooled by this pernicious hoax hypothesis.
It might go a long way toward healing the hostilities in our JFK research community if you owned up to your error. From time to time this sort of thing happens when disagreements are discussed- one side is correct, and the other side is wrong. And the side that is wrong refuses to admit that they are wrong. They lack the humility. They are less interested in discerning the truth, than in how they appear to their fellows- how they think they appear. And it is more painful for them, the longer they hang onto their wrong position, when truth finally wins the day.
For several years I have argued, correctly and almost singlehandedly, for the reality of the lunchroom incident, against a barrage of opposition- the Murphy cultists. And one day you will thank me for this, Jim. I've had to defend the status quo because it is the truth, for God's sake. Their position is crackers. Theirs is a world where 2 + 2 = Sean Murphy, and anything that doesn't fit that world gets inverted so it does, or ignored completely.
Imagine if Carl Sagan, at the tail-end of his career, had endorsed the moon-landing hoaxers. He'd be rightly characterized as having gone crackers in his later years. This is what the Murphy Tar Pits will do to your mammoth ego, Jim, if you don't get the hell out of them.
Are you procrastinating, waiting for me to write yet another anti-hoax essay, so you can deliver your verdict? I work 6-7 days a week and am in no big hurry to compose that. My bullet-point critiques are in post #82 of June 22nd. And thanks to the diligent research of young Alan Ford, we can add a nice sharp arrow into my quiver- the Holmes testimony:
(VII p. 302) HOLMES: Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just as I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out into the crowd
to see what it was all about."
And Fritz's testimony also indicated that Oswald had been upstairs, in the lunchroom:
(III p. 213) BALL: At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor?
FRITZ: They told me that down at the bookstore. I believe Mr. Truly or someone told me about it, told me they had met him- I think he told me, person who told me about, I believe told me that they had met him on the stairway, but our investigation shows that he actually saw him in a lunchroom, a little lunchroom where they were eating, and he held his gun on this man and Mr. Truly told him that he worked there, and the officer let him go.
BALL: Did you question Oswald about that?
FRITZ: Yes, sir; I asked him about that and he knew that the officer stopped him all right.
BALL: Did you ask him what he was doing in the lunchroom?
FRITZ: He said he was having his lunch. He had a cheese sandwich and a Coca-Cola.
BALL: Did he tell you he was up there to get a Coca-Cola?
FRITZ: He said he had a Coca-Cola.
And Carolyn Arnold was an eyewitness to Oswald in that upstairs lunchroom at 12:25:
Ms. Arnold was not given the opportunity to check her FBI statement of November 26 (WCD 5, p. 41), which claimed she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald just inside the front lobby at about 12:15.
Her March FBI statement, which she was required to sign, stated that she left the Depository building "at about 12:25 PM" (XXII p. 635).
In an interview with journalist Earl Golz in 1978, Carolyn Arnold claimed that "she saw Oswald in the 2nd-floor lunchroom as she was on her way out of the depository to watch the motorcade... She left the building at 12:25 p.m. " Oswald "was sitting there... in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly."
She explicitly denied that her sighting of Oswald took place near the front door. "Why would I be looking back inside the building? That doesn't make any sense to me." (Dallas Morning News, 11/26/78)
The FBI had lied about what Carolyn Arnold saw in her November 26 statement. And Bart Kamp dishonestly portrayed her instead as lying to Earl Golz in 1978, in order to cover a gap in Murphy's hoax. And you are aware of this, Jim, and are not being honest with the research community by endorsing Kamp's essay.
Pathetic.