Edgar Tatro on Bugliosi (cameo by Tony Marsh)
Dave Reitzes
was authored by Edgar Tatro. I've taken the liberty of inserting paragraph
breaks, which are lacking in the copy I was sent, and correcting one
spelling error.
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, May 22, 2007 Vincent Bugliosi spoke about his new book,
Reclaiming History, at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge Massachusetts.
Approximately 70 patrons were there. A young girl representing the Harvard
Book Store introduced him in a highly complimentary manner and he received
a positive reception from the crowd. I sensed immediately that I was in
the minority.
My best friend, Rick Russo, a humble, but confident individual, who
possesses excellent knowledge and insights into the JFK case, filmed
Bugliosi's presentation. Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, the journalist with
CIA links, who interviewed Oswald in Russia and subsequently pegged him in
a published article shortly after 11/22/63 as an obvious loser who must
have killed JFK, sat one row in front of me, but approximately 20 seats
away. She kept turning around to look at me. I expected she recognized me
from somewhere, but couldn't remember who I was. One row behind me, and
two rows directly behind MacMillan sat a couple who clearly recognized me,
but I didn't know who they were at the time.
Bugliosi began his speech by complaining about the podium which possessed
wheels. As a result he couldn't lean on it at all. He also complaiined
about the instability of his microphone stand. He admitted that he
complains all the time and employs sarcasm incessantly. He interjected an
anecdote about a hotel room in which the bathroom light didn't work unless
he managed to push a switch near the front door of his room. He made
mention about the difficulty in pronouncing his name which clearly
irritates him since he has brought the issue up at other speaking
engagements. He cited one person who called him, "Mr. Bela Lugosi." The
audienced found his schtick amusing.
The rest of the night was all business, selective preference dripping in
condescending ire. Bugliosi called Reclaiming History, "A book for the
ages." He made it clear that "Modesty is not a vitue" in his self-
absorbed mind. He felt it a necessity to be assertive and confident in
overdrive in order to assure all conspiracy theorists that he is beyond
reproach in integrity and fighting spirit, that they just can't beat his
positions on the JFK matter. He admitted that he wanted to make a lot of
money, but that marketability was second in priority to scholarship.
There is no question in my mind that Bugliosi absolutely loves himself and
intentionally projects that image, one that also oozes with controlled
disdain while on stage. He said that he could have prosecuted Oswald in
two-three-four days, but after 44 years of conspiracy books, the JFk
assassination has become "the most complex murder case in history." It has
become a "bottomless pit" and that admission may have been his one
assertion that will not be challenged.
Basically, his speech paraphrased the introduction to his book and the
half hour filmed interview available on his web site. His primary
contention is Oswald's sole guilt. He cited that 53 pieces of evidence
confirm that Oswald alone committed the JFK and Tippit murders and he
rattled off five points concerning the matter....Oswald owned the Carcano;
he was the only TSBD employee to flee; he killed Tippit; he pulled a gun
at the theatre where he was arrested; and he lied about owning a rifle.
Bugiosi knows Oswald lied because the backyard photos show him with the
rifle.
Bugliosi boasts that "no reasonable person" can disagree with him. The
unyielding arrogance and unmitigated self-assurance of his declarations
were endless--- No credible evidence of conspiracy exists. Bugliosi admits
that motive, means and opportunity abounded for many organizations to
commit the crime, but these basics, espoused constantly by conspiracy
theorists, are just not enough. Motives prove nothing. Besides, the FBI
found no Oswald connections to groups like the Mafia or the CIA, and no
one who is "credible" has ever leaked anything substantiating a
conspiracy. The integrity of the FBI, is obviously unquestioned by
Bugliosi as he made his assertions, and the definition of "credible"
certainly is one that might be interesting to determine if a phalanx of
reseachers were allowed open access to him in a proper forum.
Bugliosi states as fact that Oswald was such a loser that no organization
would have trusted him as a hired killer, and that the Mob or the CIA
would have killed him instantly, if they had employed him. He cited that
he has amassed 32 concrete proofs that no conspiracy existed and those who
believe in a conspriacy are either silly or ignorant of the evidence. The
simmering rage and belittling of "conspiracy buffs" was ever-present.
Bugliosi stated that the parade route was set so late that no conspirators
could have been ready in time. To think otherwise is just "silly." He
explained the head snap as a neuro-muscular reaction, that the Zapruder
frames show a 2.3 inch forward head movement before the eventual snap
backward. And anyone who alleges that the Zapruder film has been altered
is a fool. Before answering questions from the audience, he made it clear
that no other weapons were found and no other bullets were discovered
either.
I do not claim that the above synopsis covers everything Bugliosi offered,
but it covers most of his overview. The questions asked by the audience
showed little or no knowledge of the inticate and complex aspects of the
case. Most annoying were those who gushed over him like rock and roll
groupies as well as the philosophical questions as to why the masses would
(foolishly) buy into conspiracy theories. Such discussion never pressed
Bugliosi to defend any of his premises and the Q & A was so short-lived,
there was little time to engage him in any meaningful dialogue. One
individual named Tony Marsh, called him a liar at one point and Bugliosi
just carried on with his presentation. Marsh's outburst tended to
reinforce the idea that some "conspiracy theorists" are obsessive and rude
in their approach to the case. Audience members behind Marsh lashed out at
him later as book buyers lined up for Bugliosi's autograph and Marsh
angrily shouted back at them.
At this point I walked over to Priscilla Johnson MacMillan and asked her
if I could get a photograph of the two of us together. The gentleman who
had sat behind her offered to take the picture. I thought I might be able
to use it if I ever publish my own book about the complicity of LBJ, his
handlers and his cronies in the Dealey Plaza caper. She asked me who I
was, and I told her that I had testified before President Clinton's
Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Boston in 1995 right after
her testimony. I told her I was a member of those who spoke in Nigel
Turner's "The Guilty Men," that I had corresponded with Oswald's mother,
was friendly with Marina Oswald and Judyth Baker. I concluded by saying
that I disagreed with everything Bugiosi had just said.
The man who took the photo was named Paul and he told me that he had taken
my course years ago at Quincy College. His derisive tone was such that it
was evident to me that he was rejecting EVERYTHING I had ever said in
twenty-five hours of class (3,000 slides). I was momentarily stunned and a
little hurt. I told him that my class was twenty years ago and I added,
"Imagine what I know now." He replied, "Unless you can link that little
weasel, Oswald, to LBJ, you don't have a case." His constant smile was
hard and unfriendly. I tried briefly to cite a few issues, (nine witnesses
who observed a bullet hole in the windshield), but he had no intention of
listening. I was just not "there" in his closed mind. As I walked away,
knowing the futility of pursuing any meaningful interaction, I was
thinking to myself that I knew Oswald's best friend, George de
Mohrenschildt, is described in recently declassified military documents as
a "business associate" of Lyndon Baines Johnson, but those Brattle Theatre
folks wouldn't have read them if I had those documents right in my hands.
I decided to have Bugliosi sign my book and get a photo of him too. When I
reached the signing table, I told him, "I've known Gary Mack for
thrty-five years." His eyes lit up and a broad smile beamed. He said,
"I'll be seeing Gary Thursday." Then I told him that I had edited
Madeleine Brown's memoirs and was a primary recruiter for those who
participated in "The Guilty Men". The smile faded. I told him that I had
read some of the book and I said, "We will have to agree to disagree." I
added that I knew a lot of information that he didn't. He advised me to
read the rest of the book to make sure of that. I told him I would do so.
He smiled again. He wanted to know my name, and when I said, "Ed Tatro,"
he admitted knowing it in some vague manner from his research. I concluded
(sarcastically), "I'm one of the kooks." In a rather gracious moment, he
said, "But you're searching for the truth." I replied, "Yes." I refrained
from saying that I knew a lot of it, but I didn't want to act like him,
and it was clear throughout the night that the book buyers behind me were
barely tolerating folks like me. The line of people behind me was lengthy
and I saw no real purpose in confronting him on any issues of substance.
The time, place, and circumstances were just not conducive to anything
productive. While in line, I had briefly offered advice to Tony Marsh that
this was no place for him to get into a shouting match, that he was not
appreciated here by this gathering, and it might be best to keep his cool.
I managed to meet Priscilla again and she said, "Paul told me you used to
teach a course on the assassination. When is your book coming out?" I
wasn't sure I had mentioned my book previously, but it was clear to me
that she and Paul were friends. The question was---Did they become friends
later in life or were they friends when he took my course? I don't know
that answer. I do know an FBI informant named Hollis Mosher, (identified
as such in his obituary), took my course four or five times so it
shouldn't surprise me if a friend of a CIA asset had done so also. Am I
being wisely cautious or am I paranoid? We know that Bugliosi would call
the latter notion, "just silly."
I told her that she must be thrilled with this book, and she said she had
not read it yet, but she admitted that she was glad that Bugliosi had
confronted the conspiracy theories. I spoke candidly by telling her that
many researchers had brought forth some outrageous concepts, but for
Bugliosi to lump all assassination critics into one lump was unfair.
Having earned three college degrees, I certainly do not consider myself
insane, irrational or unreasonable. She seemed to accept that criticism,
but stoically so with an accepting shrug.
Bugliosi headed in Priscilla's direction and thanked her profusely for her
input. He told her that he could not have written the book without her
help. The gathering was breaking up and Bugliosi's rather sizable
entourage of disciples followed him out to a waiting auto. Rick Russo and
Bugliosi began a rather intense debate over the nature of JFK's head
wounds. Rick cited many witnesses who had observed a frontal shot, but
Bugliosi rejected anything he pointed out. It's difficult to share any
meaningful postions on a street corner, one inundated by youngsters
unwilling to hear any viewpoint contrary to Vince Bugliosi's. One
20-something said, "No one said any shots came from the grassy knoll that
day" to another Bugliosi supporter. I snapped, "What are you talking
about? Sixty-four witnesses said shots came from the grassy knoll." He
said, "Not that day!" Of course, as this clown was defending his comment,
I could still picture the video of Bill Newman telling a Dallas television
crew (THAT DAY) that the shot had been fired from the grassy knoll.
It was time to leave. I talked to one 28 year old who admitted knowing
virtually nothing, and I advised him to read as many books as he could.
Twenty years ago I had watched Bugiosi debate Mark Lane in Boston. After
the debate ended, I engaged Bugliosi in conversation. A lingering crowd of
twenty or so observers gathered around us. I told him that there were lots
of problems with the evidence and I gave him one example. Since I was
constantly teaching a course at the time, the names were fresh in my mind.
I discussed the chain of transfer for the "magic bullet," CE 399. The
bullet was found by hospital employee, Darrell Tomlinson who gave it to O.
P. Wright, a hospital security guard. Wright gave it to a Secret Service
man named Richard Johnsen, who brought it back aboard Air Force One.
Johnsen turned it over to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service
and he gave it to FBI agent Elmer Todd who gave it to Robert Frazier of
the FBI who conducted the ballistic tests upon the bullet. Unlike Todd and
Frazier, Johnson and Rowley admitted that they never marked their initials
into the bullet, a grave error in judgment if Oswald had ever been
properly brought to trial. Any clever defense attorney would have
introduced the possibilty of a bullet switch to frame his client,
particularly in a political murder such as this.
Bugliosi dismissed the issue immediately by claiming that errors like that
occur all the time. I countered that they shouldn't happen, especially in
a case concerning the murder of the president of the United States. It is
evident to me that Bugliosi's cavalier approach and powers of denial
concerning the BIG DALLAS LIE have existed for decades. Thus, I wasn't
really surprised when his advanced placement version of Posner's Case
Closed hit the book stores. Now we know, thanks to the excellent research
by Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar, (See the History Matters web site),
that FBI agent Bardwell Odum's name was cited on FBI documents in which
hospital employees, Tomlinson and Wright stated with confidence that the
bullet they had handled resembled CE 399. Odum insisted to Thompson and
Aguilar that he never handled the bullet, never showed it to the two
witnesses and never wrote the FBI documents in evidence. Furthermore John
Hunt's meticulous research (see his essays, particulary, "Frazier
Speaks,") confirms that CE 399 does not contain the carved initials of FBI
agent Elmer Todd. Thus, CE 399 is NOT the same bullet which Todd handed to
FBI agent Robert Frazier. I doubt Bugliosi even knows about Hunt's
explosive essays about the bullet/ballistic anomalies in this case.
Twenty years ago, I tried one last time with the Manson prosecutor. I told
him Emory Brown and I had discovered a sidewalk mark consistent with a
bullet scar (and a suspicious history as well in its background), which
coincided with photo blow-ups in my possession of a human-like figure
holding a rifle-like object on the grassy knoll south, the unfamous knoll.
Bugliosi said he wanted me to send him copies and wrote his name and
address on a piece of paper. But the next night the Boston newspapers
quoted Bugliosi as saying, "Kennedy assassination buffs are like wolves
baying at the moon." I never contacted him. I'm glad I didn't... Suffice
it to say, on May 22, 2007, Rick and I left Cambridge with a general sense
of cynism, but with a quiet understanding, that even if we can't win this
mighty quest, that we have much work to do in an effort to fight the good
fight for the principles of justice and democracy. We must never
capitulate despite the odds against our success. We must not allow
Bugliosi's mastery of fallacious arguments to stand unchallenged. He is a
worthy adversary, but his lone nut theory is more than "silly." It is a
classic representation of Orwellian propaganda and needs to be addressed
despite our limited resources and minmal access to the national media.
SINCERELY, EDGAR F. TATRO
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
Dave
David Von Pein
-----------------------------------------------
>>> "Bill Newman telling a Dallas television crew (THAT DAY) that the shot had been fired from the grassy knoll." <<<
Of course it never once occurs to Mr. Tatro to ask a very simple
question concerning virtually ALL of those "64 Grassy Knoll" witnesses
-- i.e., WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY NEVER HEARD EVEN **ONE** SINGLE SHOT
FROM THE TSBD?
Bill Newman said that he heard ALL THE SHOTS coming from the "little
mound of ground" there on the Knoll. Which means what exactly?
I'll tell you what it means...it means William Newman (and all of the
other 50+ witnesses who said that EVERY SHOT came from the Knoll area)
are wrong! Simple as that. They HAVE to be wrong....or else buy into
the notion that NO SHOTS came from the TSBD...which would make even a
larger pct. of earwitnesses WRONG re. all the shots those people
heard.
The answer to this is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing to have
to say it.....Those Grassy Knoll witnesses (by the very fact they did
not hear different sounds/shots coming from multiple places) heard
only Lee Harvey Oswald's shots from the Depository, and the acoustical
environment in Dealey Plaza was playing tricks on them.
There is no other logical explanation for 55 to 60 people (or however
many witnesses the various conspiracists wish to place in the "ONLY
HEARD KNOLL SHOTS" category, which we know is dead-wrong, because even
CTers admit to a few audible rear/TSBD shots) to say they heard only
shots from the front, when we know that's impossible in this case.
I had several lively, sarcastic-filled discussions online with Mr.
Tatro a few weeks ago at a place on the Internet called "Olney Daily
Mail"....but when the site demanding cash to continuing to post, I
packed up the LN gear and said bye...but my main points were made well
before the money machine stepped in to silence us cheapskates. ;)
Naturally, Mr. Tatro just ignored/skewed/sidestepped everything I
argued, like he's doing with V. Bugliosi in his above batch of
nonsense.
And Tatro, in my discussions with him too, was harping on the
"windshield" and John Hunt's brilliance and how JBC's clothing was a
possible key to the case in some way (I can't see how at all, of
course, since even most CTers agree that Connally was shot with just
one bullet from behind; so where's the beef there? Beats me; but it's
a CT fighting point since Nellie washed John's shirt--*gasp!*)
I've looked at Mr. Hunt's work re. Bob Frazier, and it's totally
unconvincing IMO. For one thing, the photos of 399 he provides prove
nothing. I can't even see the initials of Frazier and Killion! So
Elmer Todd's scratch marks could be on there somewhere. No way to tell
from those pictures.
And the "timing" mix-up re. Frazier getting CE399 at "7:30" vs. around
9 PM on 11/22/63 is just silly too. Because if Frazier is the little
"creep" (as Tatro said Hunt called Frazier; although I missed that
invective in Mr. Hunt's expansive essays on him), WHY on Earth didn't
Frazier make an effort to simply change his "7:30" time to match the
time of Todd?
Did Frazier WANT to be called a plotter after the fact?! It makes no
sense. It was simply a mix-up in the times, which couldn't BE more
common in almost any criminal case; or in ANYTHING in life, for that
matter. Such "time" discrepancies probably happened a dozen times in
the JFK/Tippit case alone, in fact.
Sorry, Ed T.; I'm going with Vince. (Until you can produce a few of
those non-LHO bullets anyway.)
DVP
Glenn Sarlitto
hehehehe...
Regarding
"One individual named Tony Marsh, called him a liar at one point and
Bugliosi
just carried on with his presentation. Marsh's outburst tended to
reinforce the idea that some "conspiracy theorists" are obsessive and
rude
in their approach to the case. Audience members behind Marsh lashed
out at
him later as book buyers lined up for Bugliosi's autograph and Marsh
angrily shouted back at them. "
Thanks for the confirmation. I don't post or lurk at Simkin's Chat
Group. And I readily admit, it has been awhile since I visited your
website. I was hopin' for a video to confirm what Tony Marsh himself
posted here last week regarding this HYSTERICAL EVENT. I heard thru
the e-mail grapevine yesterday that someone who was there wrote an
article. Didn't say where it was published, but quoted the above, as
well.
Seeing that Tony Marsh has already confessed that this outburst was
pre-planned....
In Tony's own words...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fff1f28f721da2ef/0de6292db92cc915
May 22, 2007
"As planned, I called him a liar to his face."
Just Curious. Was Marsh a LONE ATTACKER? Or, did he have COHORTS
making it a CHILDISH and INCONSIDERATE CONSPIRACY to CAUSE CHAOS?
As they say here in Milwaukee and Chicago as well....This was truly a
CLASS ACT!
FORE!
GS
Anthony Marsh
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>> "Bill Newman telling a Dallas television crew (THAT DAY) that the shot had been fired from the grassy knoll." <<<
>
>
> Of course it never once occurs to Mr. Tatro to ask a very simple
> question concerning virtually ALL of those "64 Grassy Knoll" witnesses
> -- i.e., WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY NEVER HEARD EVEN **ONE** SINGLE SHOT
> FROM THE TSBD?
>
> Bill Newman said that he heard ALL THE SHOTS coming from the "little
> mound of ground" there on the Knoll. Which means what exactly?
>
> I'll tell you what it means...it means William Newman (and all of the
> other 50+ witnesses who said that EVERY SHOT came from the Knoll area)
> are wrong! Simple as that. They HAVE to be wrong....or else buy into
> the notion that NO SHOTS came from the TSBD...which would make even a
> larger pct. of earwitnesses WRONG re. all the shots those people
> heard.
>
Of course it never once occurs to Mr. VP to ask a very simple
question concerning virtually ALL of those TSBD witnesses
-- i.e., WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY NEVER HEARD EVEN **ONE** SINGLE SHOT
FROM THE grassy knoll?
Several witnesses said that they heard ALL THE SHOTS coming from the
building. Which means what exactly?
I'll tell you what it means...it means all those TSBD witnesses who
said that EVERY SHOT came from the TSBD are wrong! Simple as that. They
HAVE to be wrong....or else buy into
the notion that NO SHOTS came from elsewhere TSBD . . . which would
make even a larger pct. of earwitnesses WRONG re. all the shots those
people heard.
> The answer to this is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing to have
> to say it.....Those Grassy Knoll witnesses (by the very fact they did
> not hear different sounds/shots coming from multiple places) heard
> only Lee Harvey Oswald's shots from the Depository, and the acoustical
> environment in Dealey Plaza was playing tricks on them.
>
The answer to this is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing to have
to say it.....Those TSBD witnesses (by the very fact they did
not hear different sounds/shots coming from multiple places) heard
only Frank Bender's shot from the grassy knoll, and the acoustical
environment in Dealey Plaza was playing tricks on them.
> There is no other logical explanation for 55 to 60 people (or however
> many witnesses the various conspiracists wish to place in the "ONLY
> HEARD KNOLL SHOTS" category, which we know is dead-wrong, because even
> CTers admit to a few audible rear/TSBD shots) to say they heard only
> shots from the front, when we know that's impossible in this case.
>
You don't have 60 people. And how can you explain away the fact that the
acoustical evidence pinpoints three shots coming from the sniper's nest?
Coincidence? Random noise?
Sorry, VP. I'm going with conspiracy until you can produce the bullet
which the WC said missed.
> DVP
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> Dave,
>
> hehehehe...
>
> Regarding
>
> "One individual named Tony Marsh, called him a liar at one point and
> Bugliosi
> just carried on with his presentation. Marsh's outburst tended to
> reinforce the idea that some "conspiracy theorists" are obsessive and
> rude
> in their approach to the case. Audience members behind Marsh lashed
> out at
> him later as book buyers lined up for Bugliosi's autograph and Marsh
> angrily shouted back at them. "
>
> Thanks for the confirmation. I don't post or lurk at Simkin's Chat
> Group. And I readily admit, it has been awhile since I visited your
> website. I was hopin' for a video to confirm what Tony Marsh himself
> posted here last week regarding this HYSTERICAL EVENT. I heard thru
> the e-mail grapevine yesterday that someone who was there wrote an
> article. Didn't say where it was published, but quoted the above, as
> well.
>
> Seeing that Tony Marsh has already confessed that this outburst was
> pre-planned....
>
Not just that, but if you could read the messages here you'd see that I
promised that I would call him a liar to his face.
> In Tony's own words...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/fff1f28f721da2ef/0de6292db92cc915
> May 22, 2007
>
> "As planned, I called him a liar to his face."
>
>
> Just Curious. Was Marsh a LONE ATTACKER? Or, did he have COHORTS
> making it a CHILDISH and INCONSIDERATE CONSPIRACY to CAUSE CHAOS?
>
Cohorts? My, my, you seem to see conspiracy everywhere. I did not expect
to see anyone I know there, but accidentally saw a few people I knew. I
would guess that there were about 15 conspiracy people there out of an
audience of 70 or so out of a possible 235 seats.
> As they say here in Milwaukee and Chicago as well....This was truly a
> CLASS ACT!
>
Bugliosi asked me why I did not elaborate and I explained that I did not
want to monopolize his lecture. I made my point.
David Von Pein
question concerning virtually ALL of those TSBD witnesses -- i.e., WHY DO
YOU SUPPOSE THEY NEVER HEARD EVEN **ONE** SINGLE SHOT FROM THE grassy
knoll?" <<<
That's a really easy one.....
IT'S BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ACTUAL SHOTS TO BE HEARD FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL.
What part of this obviously-true-based-on-the-sum-total-of-the- evidence
explanation did you fail to understand, Sir Antonio?......
"The answer to this is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing to have to
say it.....Those Grassy Knoll witnesses (by the very fact they did not
hear different sounds/shots coming from multiple places) heard only Lee
Harvey Oswald's shots from the Depository, and the acoustical environment
in Dealey Plaza was playing tricks on them." -- DVP; 05/31/2007 AD
Glenn Sarlitto
Tony,
>
> > In Tony's own words...
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
> > May 22, 2007
>
> > "As planned, I called him a liar to his face."
>
> > Just Curious. Was Marsh a LONE ATTACKER? Or, did he have COHORTS
> > making it a CHILDISH and INCONSIDERATE CONSPIRACY to CAUSE CHAOS?
Regarding...
>
> Cohorts? My, my, you seem to see conspiracy everywhere.<
No Tony, I dont' see conspiracy everywhere, but I always ask the
question as to the who/how many was involved. As should anybody.
Actually, it seems to me that you're the one who sees more
conspiracies and sinister actions out there than I do.
GS
I did not expect
> to see anyone I know there, but accidentally saw a few people I knew. I
> would guess that there were about 15 conspiracy people there out of an
> audience of 70 or so out of a possible 235 seats.
>
I
> >> "Imagine what I know now." He- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
snl1...@yahoo.com
> > May 22, 2007
>
> > "As planned, I called him a liar to his face."
>
> > Just Curious. Was Marsh a LONE ATTACKER? Or, did he have COHORTS
> > making it a CHILDISH and INCONSIDERATE CONSPIRACY to CAUSE CHAOS?
>
> Cohorts? My, my, you seem to see conspiracy everywhere. I did not expect
> to see anyone I know there, but accidentally saw a few people I knew. I
> would guess that there were about 15 conspiracy people there out of an
> audience of 70 or so out of a possible 235 seats.
>
> > As they say here in Milwaukee and Chicago as well....This was truly a
> > CLASS ACT!
>
> Bugliosi asked me why I did not elaborate and I explained that I did not
> want to monopolize his lecture. I made my point.
>
You "made" *your* "point"?
Ri-i-i-i-i-ght...and so did the people who were seated behind you
who showed their disdain towards you for your making your ''point''.
The thing is, is that you proved Vince Bugliosi's point about some
conspiracy buffs being "obsessive rude". SHEESH!
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>-----------------------------------------------
>
>
>>>> "Bill Newman telling a Dallas television crew (THAT DAY)
that the shot had been fired from the grassy knoll." <<<
>
>
>Of course it never once occurs to Mr. Tatro to ask a very simple
>question concerning virtually ALL of those "64 Grassy Knoll" witnesses
>-- i.e., WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THEY NEVER HEARD EVEN **ONE** SINGLE SHOT
>FROM THE TSBD?
>
>Bill Newman said that he heard ALL THE SHOTS coming from the "little
>mound of ground" there on the Knoll. Which means what exactly?
>
>I'll tell you what it means...it means William Newman (and all of the
>other 50+ witnesses who said that EVERY SHOT came from the Knoll area)
>are wrong! Simple as that. They HAVE to be wrong....or else buy into
>the notion that NO SHOTS came from the TSBD...which would make even a
>larger pct. of earwitnesses WRONG re. all the shots those people
>heard.
>
The number "64" is absurdly inflated.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Of course it never once occurs to Mr. VP to ask a very simple
> question concerning virtually ALL of those TSBD witnesses -- i.e., WHY DO
> YOU SUPPOSE THEY NEVER HEARD EVEN **ONE** SINGLE SHOT FROM THE grassy
> knoll?" <<<
>
> That's a really easy one.....
>
> IT'S BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ACTUAL SHOTS TO BE HEARD FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL.
>
Logical error. You are begging the question. It would be like me claiming
that Oswald was not involved because he didn't fire any shots. You assume
something without bothering to prove it.
> What part of this obviously-true-based-on-the-sum-total-of-the- evidence
> explanation did you fail to understand, Sir Antonio?......
>
The fact that you have not bothered to look at all the evidence.
> "The answer to this is so obvious that it's almost embarrassing to have to
> say it.....Those Grassy Knoll witnesses (by the very fact they did not
> hear different sounds/shots coming from multiple places) heard only Lee
> Harvey Oswald's shots from the Depository, and the acoustical environment
> in Dealey Plaza was playing tricks on them." -- DVP; 05/31/2007 AD
>
>
Yes, echoes from the pergola made people near it think that a shot from
the grassy knoll came from the TSBD.
Dave Reitzes
One wonders when, after all these years of sniping from the sidelines,
Tony is finally going to set forth what "really" happened to John F.
Kennedy and all the evidence proving the beliefs to which he so frequently
and vehemently alludes (but rarely specifies) to be the truth beyond any
reasonable doubt.
Dave
Gerry Simone (O)
Some heard both. Some heard only from one source.
You can't dismiss every GK ear witness like that.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1180604115....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's hardly a scientific analysis.
>
>Some heard both. Some heard only from one source.
Only five witnesses heard shots from two directions.
That's a terribly low number if shots *came* from two directions.
.John
Anthony Marsh
Disdain for dissidents is nothing new.
> The thing is, is that you proved Vince Bugliosi's point about some
> conspiracy buffs being "obsessive rude". SHEESH!
>
Oh my, we can't have that now, can we? Everyone must bow respectfully
and believe every word he said. I think that was someone else's method
in 1933.
And remember, I didn't start the yelling.
Anthony Marsh
No, you shouldn't. What business is it of yours? Buzz off.
> Actually, it seems to me that you're the one who sees more
> conspiracies and sinister actions out there than I do.
>
Oh really? The list and compare which conspiracies you see versus the
ones I see.
David Von Pein
GRASSY KNOLL."
TONY THE TIGER: "Logical error. You are begging the question. It would
be like me claiming that Oswald was not involved because he didn't
fire any shots. You assume something without bothering to prove it."
DVP NOW:
Oh, come now, my good man. As if anything could POSSIBLY convince you
beyond a reasonable doubt that no shots came from the precious Grassy
Knoll.
Nothing will ever convince a hardline, entrenched-for-decades-in-the-
CT-muck CTer of such a thing.
Right, Tony? Or wrong?
Not even this from Dale K. Myers....
http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
Anthony Marsh
> DVP: "IT'S BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ACTUAL SHOTS TO BE HEARD FROM THE
> GRASSY KNOLL."
>
> be like me claiming that Oswald was not involved because he didn't
> fire any shots. You assume something without bothering to prove it."
>
> DVP NOW:
>
> Oh, come now, my good man. As if anything could POSSIBLY convince you
> beyond a reasonable doubt that no shots came from the precious Grassy
> Knoll.
>
>
> Right, Tony? Or wrong?
>
Right? Of course Tony is right.
> Not even this from Dale K. Myers....
>
> http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm
>
>
I have pointed out Dale Myers's errors before. You guys used to think
that the WC was infallible until the critics pointed out the errors. You
used to think that Vince Bugliosi never made any errors until I pointed
them out. That is why I am here, to point out the errors on both sides.
Anthony Marsh
> On 1 Jun 2007 23:00:32 -0400, "Gerry Simone \(O\)"
> <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's hardly a scientific analysis.
>>
>> Some heard both. Some heard only from one source.
>
> Only five witnesses heard shots from two directions.
>
> That's a terribly low number if shots *came* from two directions.
>
>
So what? The truth is not an opinion poll.
Anthony Marsh
> On May 31, 4:02 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, VP. I'm going with conspiracy until you can produce the bullet
>> which the WC said missed.
>>
>
> the knoll when you can produce the shot the HSCA says missed.
>
>
Maybe I already proved that the grassy knoll shot did not miss.
Anthony Marsh
You could start by reading the articles on my Web site, but you won't.
David Von Pein
>>> Maybe I already proved that the grassy knoll shot did not miss." <<<
LOL.
Gee, maybe the authorities should be told about Tony's incredible
discovery! Ya think? They seem to think just the opposite.
snl1...@yahoo.com
"Dissidents"? You insulted a man in a public place by calling him
a name.
There is quite a difference in being ''dissident'' and being a name
caller.
>
> > The thing is, is that you proved Vince Bugliosi's point about some
> > conspiracy buffs being "obsessive rude". SHEESH!
>
> Oh my, we can't have that now, can we?
I don't know. Can we? From what I have seen in here, you seem to
believe yourself to be the person who is supposed to have all the
answers!
>Everyone must bow respectfully
> and believe every word he said. I think that was someone else's method
> in 1933.
Oh please. No one said that we are "supposed" to any such thing.
You came up with this on your own.
> And remember, I didn't start the yelling.
Doesn't matter.
You instigated the whole thing. And, in the end, confirmed Mr.
Bugliosi's point about *some* conspiracy theorists. Your little show
backfired on you.
Anthony Marsh
A distinction without a difference. All I did was say that one of his
statements was a lie. But he's hard of hearing so he asked me to explain
what I meant by that so I expanded on it by saying that he is a liar and
he lied.
I did not get to ask my questions.
I made it quite clear here that someone needed to confront him and call
him a liar to his face. So I did. Maybe tyrants would not feel so
empowered if ordinary citizens would confront them and call them liars.
Otherwise everyone just goes along and the tyrants think they have
consensus.
>>> The thing is, is that you proved Vince Bugliosi's point about some
>>> conspiracy buffs being "obsessive rude". SHEESH!
>> Oh my, we can't have that now, can we?
>
> I don't know. Can we? From what I have seen in here, you seem to
> believe yourself to be the person who is supposed to have all the
> answers!
>
Who else called him a liar to his face? Who else found the photo of the
flower at the reinterment?
> >Everyone must bow respectfully
>> and believe every word he said. I think that was someone else's method
>> in 1933.
>
> Oh please. No one said that we are "supposed" to any such thing.
But that's what you do. Even before the book came out, David VP was
calling him God and saying that his book would answer everything.
> You came up with this on your own.
>
>
>> And remember, I didn't start the yelling.
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
> You instigated the whole thing. And, in the end, confirmed Mr.
> Bugliosi's point about *some* conspiracy theorists. Your little show
> backfired on you.
>
Instigated? How else could I have gotten my point across? Hold up a sign?
I certainly hope I confirmed his prejudice.
Anthony Marsh
The authorities? FYI the authorities read my Web site, which you refuse
to do. And they are not interested in the truth.
David Von Pein
You've got a website???
~shrugs~
Dave Reitzes
If there were any merits to Tony's claims, he'd be arguing about them with
NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN, not DVP and JMcA.
He might also want to let CTs know about his ("maybe") proof. As far as I
can tell, even MY research is cited in more conspiracy literature than
his.
Dave
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 3, 11:20?am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> TONY WROTE:
>>
>>>>> Maybe I already proved that the grassy knoll shot did not miss." <<<
>> LOL.
>>
>> Gee, maybe the authorities should be told about Tony's incredible
>> discovery! Ya think? They seem to think just the opposite.
>
> If there were any merits to Tony's claims, he'd be arguing about them with
> NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN, not DVP and JMcA.
>
Dream on. The corporate media are controlled by your side.
> He might also want to let CTs know about his ("maybe") proof. As far as I
> can tell, even MY research is cited in more conspiracy literature than
> his.
>
BUllshit.
> Dave
>
>
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 11:20?am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> TONY WROTE:
>
> >>>>> Maybe I already proved that the grassy knoll shot did not miss." <<<
> >> LOL.
>
> >> Gee, maybe the authorities should be told about Tony's incredible
> >> discovery! Ya think? They seem to think just the opposite.
>
> > If there were any merits to Tony's claims, he'd be arguing about them with
> > NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN, not DVP and JMcA.
>
> Dream on. The corporate media are controlled by your side.
Anthony, as hard as it is to believe you're even serious about this sort
of thing, I'll just note that the media report every pro- conspiracy
allegation that comes along, and their reporters are almost never
sufficiently informed about the case to rebut the nonsense or even report
both sides of the story accurately. The only exceptions seem to be people
who have covered the story for decades, like Hugh Aynesworth (now retired
from journalism?) or George Lardner. And, unless he's done an about-face
in recent years, Lardner sides with the HSCA's acoustic theory and
conclusion of conspiracy!
Of course, if you can't get anyone in the "controlled" U.S. media to take
you seriously, why not go to the foreign press? Does the CIA control them,
too? How about the press in countries that hate the U.S. (and the CIA in
particular)? What's the matter, there aren't enough of those for you?
Either you don't care enough or you know there are insufficient merits to
your arguments.
You're just making excuses.
> > He might also want to let CTs know about his ("maybe") proof. As far as I
> > can tell, even MY research is cited in more conspiracy literature than
> > his.
>
> BUllshit.
Ooh, I think I struck a nerve. \:^)
Dave
Gerry Simone (O)
*sigh* It might have been a confusing mix of shots and echoes.
Ernst Brandt told me in Dealey Plaza during the 40th that he heard 3 shots
from the direction of the TSBD.
He was just before the Stemmons Sign. That's kind of in the middle
wouldn't you say?
A friend of mine lived next door to Norman Similas. I mentioned that NS
told a white lie. My friend said his story kind of wavered a bit from time
to time, but that generally, he thought the shots came from in front of
JFK.
Did you get your number from the HSCA statistical summary?
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4660dd9c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John McAdams
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Those 5 were right in the middle John. :-)
>
>*sigh* It might have been a confusing mix of shots and echoes.
>
>Ernst Brandt told me in Dealey Plaza during the 40th that he heard 3 shots
>from the direction of the TSBD.
>
>He was just before the Stemmons Sign. That's kind of in the middle
>wouldn't you say?
>
>A friend of mine lived next door to Norman Similas. I mentioned that NS
>told a white lie. My friend said his story kind of wavered a bit from time
>to time, but that generally, he thought the shots came from in front of
>JFK.
>
I doubt that Similar was in Dealey Plaza.
At least, he has little credibility when he claims to have been.
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/09th_Issue/similas.html
>Did you get your number from the HSCA statistical summary?
>
No, redid it from scratch.
Actually, I had my student divide up into teams and do it. I checked
their work, and made the call in close cases.
I found a lot more GK shots than the HSCA. But fewer than Tink
Thompson, and *way* fewer than the wilder conspiracists.
Gerry Simone (O)
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:r9udnaAA5dVZL_zb...@comcast.com...
tomnln
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4664dbfe...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 4, 1:35?pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Dave Reitzes wrote:
>>> On Jun 3, 11:20?am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> TONY WROTE:
>>>>>>> Maybe I already proved that the grassy knoll shot did not miss." <<<
>>>> LOL.
>>>> Gee, maybe the authorities should be told about Tony's incredible
>>>> discovery! Ya think? They seem to think just the opposite.
>>> If there were any merits to Tony's claims, he'd be arguing about them with
>>> NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN, not DVP and JMcA.
>> Dream on. The corporate media are controlled by your side.
>
>
> Anthony, as hard as it is to believe you're even serious about this sort
> of thing, I'll just note that the media report every pro- conspiracy
> allegation that comes along, and their reporters are almost never
Largely they report it to make fun of it and remind everyone that the WC
was perfect.
> sufficiently informed about the case to rebut the nonsense or even report
> both sides of the story accurately. The only exceptions seem to be people
> who have covered the story for decades, like Hugh Aynesworth (now retired
> from journalism?) or George Lardner. And, unless he's done an about-face
Please don't cite an intelligence asset like Aynesworth or Lardner. We
know they are dedicated WC defenders, not objective reporters.
> in recent years, Lardner sides with the HSCA's acoustic theory and
> conclusion of conspiracy!
>
> Of course, if you can't get anyone in the "controlled" U.S. media to take
> you seriously, why not go to the foreign press? Does the CIA control them,
> too? How about the press in countries that hate the U.S. (and the CIA in
Yes, US intelligence controls them as well and uses its influence to get
foreign press to cover up stories.
> particular)? What's the matter, there aren't enough of those for you?
>
> Either you don't care enough or you know there are insufficient merits to
> your arguments.
>
> You're just making excuses.
>
>
Your only purpose is to attack conspiracy believers.
>>> He might also want to let CTs know about his ("maybe") proof. As far as I
>>> can tell, even MY research is cited in more conspiracy literature than
>>> his.
>> BUllshit.
>
>
> Ooh, I think I struck a nerve. \:^)
>
Nonsense. I am just pointing out his error.
> Dave
>
>
Dave Reitzes
> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 1:35?pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Dave Reitzes wrote:
> >>> On Jun 3, 11:20?am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>> TONY WROTE:
> >>>>>>> Maybe I already proved that the grassy knoll shot did not miss." <<<
> >>>> LOL.
> >>>> Gee, maybe the authorities should be told about Tony's incredible
> >>>> discovery! Ya think? They seem to think just the opposite.
> >>> If there were any merits to Tony's claims, he'd be arguing about them with
> >>> NBC, ABC, CBS & CNN, not DVP and JMcA.
> >> Dream on. The corporate media are controlled by your side.
>
> > Anthony, as hard as it is to believe you're even serious about this sort
> > of thing, I'll just note that the media report every pro- conspiracy
> > allegation that comes along, and their reporters are almost never
>
> Largely they report it to make fun of it and remind everyone that the WC
> was perfect.
Anthony is making this up, as he has no evidence to support his prior
claims.
> > sufficiently informed about the case to rebut the nonsense or even report
> > both sides of the story accurately. The only exceptions seem to be people
> > who have covered the story for decades, like Hugh Aynesworth (now retired
> > from journalism?) or George Lardner. And, unless he's done an about-face
>
> Please don't cite an intelligence asset like Aynesworth or Lardner. We
> know they are dedicated WC defenders, not objective reporters.
Anthony is making this up, as he has no evidence to support his prior
claims.
> > in recent years, Lardner sides with the HSCA's acoustic theory and
> > conclusion of conspiracy!
>
> > Of course, if you can't get anyone in the "controlled" U.S. media to take
> > you seriously, why not go to the foreign press? Does the CIA control them,
> > too? How about the press in countries that hate the U.S. (and the CIA in
>
> Yes, US intelligence controls them as well and uses its influence to get
> foreign press to cover up stories.
Anthony is making this up, as he has no evidence to support his prior
claims.
> > particular)? What's the matter, there aren't enough of those for you?
>
> > Either you don't care enough or you know there are insufficient merits to
> > your arguments.
>
> > You're just making excuses.
>
> Your only purpose is to attack conspiracy believers.
Anthony is making this up, as he has no evidence to support his prior
claims.
> >>> He might also want to let CTs know about his ("maybe") proof. As far as I
> >>> can tell, even MY research is cited in more conspiracy literature than
> >>> his.
> >> BUllshit.
>
> > Ooh, I think I struck a nerve. \:^)
>
> Nonsense. I am just pointing out his error.
But you can't prove me wrong, can you?
You should find yourself a more constructive hobby.
Dave