                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: John Reagor King <caeru...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Battling Another CTer (Re: "Reclaiming History")
Date: 8 Oct 2012 21:03:35 -0400
Lines: 198
Approved: jmcad...@shell.core.com
Message-ID: <caeruleo-BF0F3C.12552408102012@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
References: <07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2-88de-28bb779f96e1@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (Intel Mac OS X)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.84.1.1
Path: t10ni23657861pbh.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!feeder.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!panix1.panix.com!not-for-mail
Bytes: 9479

In article 
<07ee0ec2-e7e6-41b2-88de-28bb779f9...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
 David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> http://www.amazon.com/review/RZD82270D69E8/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding
> =UTF8&asin=0393045250&cdForum=FxVMQ58Y9WOJZ4&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=T
> x3L36ZL9W89MBT&newContentID=Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7&store=books#Mx3ISWFLHQ7QYD7

I have just joined in with that thread on Amazon.

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
> 
> I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this
> book well before the publication date.
> 
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> 
> I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment connected to this
> Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears
> at the top of my review.
> 
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
> 
> The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26
> volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).
> 
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> 
> Better look again. The Warren Commission Report actually includes
> MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander:
> 
> WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm
> 
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm
> 
> WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0406a.htm
> 
> How many more indexes do you require?

And today, what does it matter how well or how poorly the documents were 
indexed in the original publication?  I would think Mr. Puffer ought to 
have known years ago that all of this stuff has been superbly indexed 
online for more than a decade, making it childishly simple to locate 
practically any document in the 26 volumes.

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
> 
> That is a massive number of pages for something of such poor quality.
> 
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> 
> You're obviously buried in conspiracy quicksand, Garry. The fact is,
> the Warren Commission Report and volumes are massively comprehensive
> (certainly comprehensive enough to determine what needed to be
> determined--i.e., Who Shot JFK and did he do it alone?). Naturally,
> you totally disagree. Well, what's new there?
> 
> The WC's biggest mistake was not taking a closer look at the autopsy
> photos and X-rays. Therefore, we had to rely on inaccurate drawings
> made by Mr. Rydberg.

Ah yes.  Are you starting to agree with me a little on that issue, 
David? :P

> But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to
> discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because
> the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and
> X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP
> came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was
> shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND.

Yep, exactly the same conclusions I myself have expressed that all shots 
came from behind, fired from one rifle, in one building.  So my belief 
in something connected with that doesn't conflict in the slightest, eh?  
I "wonder how" I'm able to manage to not have any crisis of conscience 
over that? :P

> And
> the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to
> the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?

No, they were correct.  There was just one issue about the autopsy that 
none of them, including the HSCA, studied adequately. :P

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
> 
> You made the same mistake with this review. It's way too long.
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> 
> It's a really long book, so I wrote a really long review to go with
> it.

That's what a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of posters say to me here too, 
that some of my articles are much too long, including those which 
discuss issues that cannot come even close to adequately representing 
those issues in an article that is any shorter.  I feel like making tart 
comments about their attention spans, but I usually restrain myself 
somewhat. ;-)

> So sorry you were displeased. I hope you'll forgive me for not
> meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be
> hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)

I thought your review of the book was just the right length, neither too 
long nor too short.  So please don't get hanged just yet. ;-)

> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
> 
> He [Vincent Bugliosi] did very little actual research (almost none in
> fact) and although the book was 20 years in the making, precious
> little of that time was used in researching and writing this book.
> 
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> 
> You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Between
> approximately 2001 and November 2006, Mr. Bugliosi worked 80 to 100
> hours per week on "Reclaiming History". And to say he did almost no
> research for the book is to simply ignore the 10,000 source notes that
> appear in the book.
> 
> Get real, Garry. So far you're anything but.
> 
> GARRY PUFFER SAID:
> 
> I wasn't aware that Mr. Garrison had been "thoroughly discredited." By
> whom?
> 
> 
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> 
> By anyone with a smidgen of common sense, that's by whom. Just read
> Vincent's section on that topic in "Reclaiming History" (beginning on
> Page 1361). Apparently you didn't.
> 
> For Pete sake, Jim Garrison's own lead investigator, William Gurvich,
> resigned in disgust and told the world that Garrison had "no case"
> whatsoever against the man Garrison was prosecuting for murder--Clay
> Shaw.
> 
> Read more about Garrison's total lack of evidence against Shaw and
> Gurvich's comments about the case here ("RH" page 1361):
> 
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GMnMIobxRGs/UHHyTgp1k3I/AAAAAAAAJxA/v8gs3bqOUgo/s160
> 0/RH-Excerpt.png

As I have already noted to Mr. Puffer on Amazon a few minutes ago, it is 
my impression that he seems to be unaware that since his death quite a 
few of Mr. Garrison's claims have been proven conclusively to be false.  
Some of them were proven to be false by his own widow.  And I haven't 
even mentioned there yet the whole business of the release after his 
death of documents which show that the Clinton witnesses were originally 
saying some things that were quite different from what they later said 
at the trial.

> GARRY PUFFER PUFFED:
> 
> Your review suffers from the same faults as "Reclaiming History": It
> is voluminous but without substance,

Oh, I had missed that he said "without substance."  ROFL.  In actual 
fact it was his own reply to you that was without substance.

> it contains untruths, and it
> avoids any ideas that conflict with its conclusions. I'll give your
> review a D- because there are very few grammatical or spelling errors.
> 
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> 
> How sweet of you. But at least a D- is better than the F- that you're
> getting for your review of my review.
> 
> The day you come up with one solid piece of credible evidence that
> undermines the "Oswald Did It" conclusions of both the Warren
> Commission and the HSCA, please drop me a line. Thus far no conspiracy
> theorist has been able to do that. But, who knows, maybe Garry Puffer
> of Riverside, California, will be the first. Good luck.
> 
> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com

This is similar to me.  I'm still waiting, and waiting, and waiting for 
just someone, just anyone, to prove, for the first time ever, that more 
than 10% of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said that the shots came from 
multiple directions.  I have been saying for years that it is less than 
10%.  Only three or four posters here have disputed me in the slightest on 
that, yet all they ever do is just say I'm wrong, over and over and over, 
but they never make the slightest attempt to come within a million 
light-years of proving me to be wrong.  Some of them even stoop to 
claiming I said something I've never said, such as claiming that I even 
once said "exactly 10%" and ignoring the words "less than" that ALWAYS 
precede the percentage in my statements, or claiming the reverse, that I 
said "exactly 90%" for the witnesses who said the shots came from a single 
direction, while ignoring the words "more than" which almost always 
precede "90%" in all my statements about this.