top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureFred Litwin

Paul Bleau Chokes

Paul Bleau has written a book, The JFK Assassination: Chokeholds, with James DiEugenio and three other authors:



The authors provide "ten different arguments which independently prove that:


1. there was a conspiracy in the murder of JFK, and

2. that the chokehold issues provide more than a reasonable doubt that would have made it impossible to convict Lee Harvey Oswald in a criminal trial." (page 14 in the Kindle edition)


Here are their ten arguments:


  1. The official record impeaches the Warren Commission.

  2. Oswald's intelligence connections: He was no lone nut.

  3. Oswald was impersonated.

  4. Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.

  5. Jack Ruby was on a mission.

  6. Prior plots, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and useful idiots.

  7. The evidentiary mess of the twentieth century.

  8. The single bullet fabrication.

  9. Proof of a front shot is overwhelming.

  10. Sixty years of obstruction of justice.


None of these are really 'chokeholds.'


Over the next couple of months, I'll be examining these so-called chokeholds. They are really just regurgitated conspiracy nonsense -- a lot of this stuff has already been debunked on this blog through my series on Oliver Stone's so-called documentary series JFK: Destiny Betrayed.


The introduction itself starts on very shaky grounds. Here is a "casual discussion" of the authors from the 2022 CAPA conference: (page 10 - 11 in the Kindle edition)

Participants are Matt Crumpton, Mark Adamczyk and Paul Bleau.


MATT: What do you guys think of the backyard photo of Oswald?


MARK: Fake


PAUL: Odds are it’s a fake, there seems to be crop lines along the chin


MATT: Same facial expression on all photos


PAUL: Marina did not even know how to operate the camera that they said she took the picture with


MATT: Really?


MARK: It was made to sell his guilt to the public.


PAUL: The alleged rifle, the alleged pistol and magazines that paint him as communist all on his person … talk about over selling it.


MATT: What about the shadows that don’t seem to align?


PAUL: I don’t know about that, shadows are tricky… Anyway, for me this does not really matter as I really only focus on chokeholds. Madeleine Brown, Prayer man, Badge man… Too many of these are debatable. There are too many other solid arguments that are impossible to deny if explained properly.


MARK: That’s an interesting concept: Chokeholds!


The backyard photographs again?


What makes this particularly crazy is that the authors spend a large part of the introduction talking about standards of proof: (page 36 in the Kindle edition)


When reading this book, we ask readers to apply the high level of the standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence in reviewing the evidence pertaining to conspiracy and obstruction of justice and the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof with respect to the evidence regarding Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt as the “lone nut assassin”.


They ask that readers apply a high level of the standard of proof, and yet they themselves still think the backyard photographs are fake.


The HSCA undertook a comprehensive examination of the photographs and found them to be legitimate. The HSCA noted that it would have been impossible to alter the photographs without being detected:


In summary, it is possible to make copy photographs that are acceptable as originals. Nevertheless, because such a process poses many technical problems, any one of which if not solved would lead to detection under close examination of the photographs, we do not believe such a procedure was used to produce the three backyard photographs of Oswald.



It has long been argued that the photo of Lee Harvey Oswald in his backyard is a fake. Among other purported evidence of photo tampering, it has been argued that Oswald’s pose in the photo appears physically implausible. We have described a detailed 3-D stability analysis that refutes this argument. In addition, our 3-D model of Oswald and his surroundings provide further evidence refuting other claims of photo tampering: the lighting and shadows are physically consistent, and the length of the rifle in Oswald’s hands is consistent with the length of this type of rifle.


And, of course, Marina Oswald said that she took the pictures, let alone the fact that Oswald signed one of the photographs that he gave to George de Mohrenschildt. The HSCA found that the handwriting was that of Oswald's.



Despite all of this, these conspiracy theorists still believe the backyard photographs are fakes.


It's no wonder they believe they have found ten chokeholds.



Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Paul Bleau:


Was David Ferrie Clay Shaw's pimp?


Did Lee Harvey Oswald have an escort?


Edward Girnus was in prison for forgery, and he told a fanciful story about Clay Shaw and Lee Harvey Oswald.


Leander D'Avy told the HSCA he saw Oswald and Ferrie with the three tramps.


Bleau's analysis of Garrison's files is full of errors.


Bleau believes there were seven plots against JFK before Dallas.


Bolden's allegation that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago has changed over the years.


There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Tampa.


There is no evidence that there was a plot against JFK in Chicago.




Over the past several months, I have shown in multiple blog posts how Oliver Stone's documentary series, JFK Revisited and JFK: Destiny Betrayed, misleads viewers. In fact, despite months of work, there are still many more misleading segments that need to be addressed. It's no wonder that the fact checkers of Netflix nixed the airing of the films.


There is a choice between four hours of tendentious nonsense (JFK: Destiny Betrayed) and two hours (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass). As a handy guide for viewers, here are all those posts in order of their appearance in JFK: Destiny Betrayed and JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, preceded by some general critiques.






163 views

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page