If Bugliosi says so...
Denis Morissette
> IOW -- If Mr. Bugliosi says "FINAL VERDICT" -- it IS the
> final verdict. ......
>
Anthony Marsh wrote:
Pure advertising fluff. Bugliosi doesn't know what he is talking about
I write: You did not get it, Anthony. Did you? If Bugliosi says there
was no conspiracy, then there was no conspiracy! No more discussion!
Denis
David VP
conspiracy, then there was no conspiracy! No more discussion!
Correct. Absolutely correct. Without question. Without a shred of a
doubt. Irrevocably so.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
Um, no David, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Pos tried that one and
it didn't work. Oh, wait. The WC tried that one too and it didn't
work. Why not quit holding your breath in anticipation? You might
even enjoy living in the real world. :-0
Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" airs on the SPEED cable channel twice more on December 23, 2004. Here is a link to the
schedule: http://www.speedtv.com/programs/323/ More at www.jfk100x.com.
"The Pretty Pig's Saturday Night", a new essay on "the SBT" is at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2372.
Scroll down the main Ed Forum page to"Assassination of JFK", click on "JFK Online Seminars", and you will find my essay, plus many others.
Also, for more detailed limocentric questions and a backup of www.jfk100x.com please join jfk100x at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jfk100x/ (Yahoo Groups).
For information about my life away from research, visit www.themagicflute.org
Anthony Marsh
Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of someone here who really
believes that the Bugliosi book will come out, I went to the local
bookstore yesterday and asked them when the Bugliosi book will be coming
out. And they told me that the publisher had canceled the book in 2003.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
How interesting Anthony. Now can we expect all the LNTs who have been
so anxiously waiting for yet another SB scenario to start leaping off
roofs? :-0
Pamela
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" A Study in Scarlet,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1887
"Behind the Headlights: Presidential Limo" airs on the SPEED cable channel. Here is a link to the
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 1 Jan 2005 16:27:34 -0500, Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>
>>Denis Morissette wrote:
>>
>>> David VP wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>IOW -- If Mr. Bugliosi says "FINAL VERDICT" -- it IS the
>>>>final verdict. ......
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>> Pure advertising fluff. Bugliosi doesn't know what he is talking about
>>>
>>> I write: You did not get it, Anthony. Did you? If Bugliosi says there
>>> was no conspiracy, then there was no conspiracy! No more discussion!
>>>
>>> Denis
>>>
>>
>>
>>Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of someone here who really
>>believes that the Bugliosi book will come out, I went to the local
>>bookstore yesterday and asked them when the Bugliosi book will be coming
>>out. And they told me that the publisher had canceled the book in 2003.
The bookshop person is wrong. According to Norton, the publisher,
there is currently no expected date of publication and the book has
been postponed -- as of two months ago, at least, the book has not
been canceled. Personally, I think this is one nobody shoild hold
their breath over .... funny, years ago Bugliosi said that someday
he'd write the definitive book on the assasination proving that the WC
got it right ... he said it would be easy. Maybe he's discovered he
wasn't quite right on that. ;-)
Barb :-)
David VP
Bugliosi book will be coming out. And they told me that the publisher
had canceled the book in 2003.
They don't have any idea what they are talking about then -- because
the book has not been cancelled.
The book store was no doubt ONLY referring to the "cancellation" of one
of the many tentative publishing/release dates for the book (the last
of which was November 2003).
I've had word from the publisher THEMSELVES (as recently as just a few
weeks ago in November 2004) stating that they "hope to publish in May
2006". And that the manuscript pages are still being turned in by Mr.
Bugliosi.
In addition -- If W.W. Norton had cancelled the whole Bugliosi "Final
Verdict" project, they certainly wouldn't have the following webpage
still active on the Norton website. ...........
http://www.wwnorton.com/orders/wwn/004525.htm
Bud
Pamela McElwain-Brown wrote:
> On 1 Jan 2005 16:27:34 -0500, Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>
> >Denis Morissette wrote:
> >
> >> David VP wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>IOW -- If Mr. Bugliosi says "FINAL VERDICT" -- it IS the
> >>>final verdict. ......
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >> Pure advertising fluff. Bugliosi doesn't know what he is talking
about
> >>
> >> I write: You did not get it, Anthony. Did you? If Bugliosi says
there
> >> was no conspiracy, then there was no conspiracy! No more
discussion!
> >>
> >> Denis
> >>
> >
> >
> >Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of someone here who really
> >believes that the Bugliosi book will come out, I went to the local
> >bookstore yesterday and asked them when the Bugliosi book will be
coming
> >out. And they told me that the publisher had canceled the book in
2003.
>
> How interesting Anthony. Now can we expect all the LNTs who have
been
> so anxiously waiting for yet another SB scenario to start leaping off
> roofs? :-0
Why would we need another source to restate the obvious?
Anthony Marsh
I got a printout from them. The computer says that the book is canceled.
FYI, some Web sites are slow to update their Web pages.
Anthony Marsh
And look at the publication date. 1998! Don't make me laugh.
Anthony Marsh
At the bookstore the computer said that the book had been canceled. And
some wag here claimed that the new publication date was May 2006. I
think someone at Norton was stringing him along.
Is this anything like, "The check is in the mail"?
Barb Junkkarinen
The editorial assistant at Norton I spoke with a couple months ago
told me the book is still listed as postponed with no predicted date
of publication. Make whatever you want of it but that's what I was
told....so that's all I know.
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
Barb notes above:
"...funny, years ago Bugliosi said that someday
he'd write the definitive book on the assassination proving that the
WC got it right ... he said it would be easy."
Odd way to research and write a book, eh?
Reach your conclusion first and THEN research and write the actual
book. Sounds rather lawyerly to me. A defense lawyer will structure
his presentation to highlight those aspects of the evidence that cast
doubt on the guilt of his client. A prosecuting attorney will do the
opposite. Each lawyer is hired to work in the best interests of his
client/state.
If Bugliosi had already reached his conclusion based on the available
evidence, then writing the book should have been a snap and taken very
little time.
The 40th anniversary of the assassination was an ideal time to launch
the book. It's difficult to imagine what is taking Mr. Bugliosi so
long: he reached his conclusion a long time ago and all he needs to do
is jot down his reasoning.
So you could be right, Barb. Maybe he developed writer's block when
reading Seth Kantor's account of seeing Ruby at Parkland, or a crimp
in his occipital from the medical evidence, etc., etc.
Rarely have I seen such a flap over a promised but not yet published
book..... and that includes that Fiorentino chap that used to post
here.... Is his promised book out yet?
PF
Glenn Sarlitto
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1dsgt01ioiplgi7nn...@4ax.com...
10-1 he discovered this when he first started.....:-)
I'm sure he has already discovered that it is not as easy as writing
Helter Skelter. Which reminds me, isn't Manson due for another parole
hearing soon?
Glenn
Anthony Marsh
Just my opinion, but I don't think that Bugliosi could ever be a defense
attorney. He always assumes someone is guilty and sets out to prove it.
> If Bugliosi had already reached his conclusion based on the available
> evidence, then writing the book should have been a snap and taken very
> little time.
>
Isn't that the very definition of a WC defender? Just slightly different
than saying that he believes that Oswald was a shooter.
> The 40th anniversary of the assassination was an ideal time to launch
> the book. It's difficult to imagine what is taking Mr. Bugliosi so
> long: he reached his conclusion a long time ago and all he needs to do
> is jot down his reasoning.
>
Could be that the onus of fact checking is upon the author rather than
the publisher.
Anthony Marsh
Isn't that slightly different from what someone else said he was told,
that the book was still forthcoming and would be published in May 2006?
Seems to me that someone is getting some misinformation somewhere
somehow. I would think that 2039 would be the perfect time to come out
with his new book, to coincide with the declassification of all WC
documents. ;]>
David VP
And some wag here claimed that the new publication date was May 2006.
Yes, that was me. And that IS the latest info from the horse's mouth
themselves (W.W. Norton). Which probably means that Norton will announce
the exact release date sometime around December 2005 (or whenever they
announce releases for the upcoming "quarter" or "Spring Season" or
whatever "segment" they do such things in).
And the BOOKSTORE'S COMPUTER saying "Cancelled" means zilch. They aren't
the PUBLISHER. They are obviously just referring to it being "cancelled"
for the last scheduled release date of 11/2003.
I might also add -- That Mr. Bugliosi appeared himself on the Discovery
Channel "Magic Bullet" Special just over 1 month ago (Nov. 2004), and it
was said right on that program that "Mr. Bugliosi is working on the most
definitive book on the assassination since the Warren Report".
Obviously, the D.Ch. wouldn't have put that blurb on its TV program if, in
fact, the book had been cancelled.
Bud
I thought that a strange claim for a prosecutor to make, so I tried to
track down where Bugliousi claimed he could "prove" the WC got it right.
The closest I could find was this quote... "I believe there was no
conspiracy, and I think I can convince the average reader in 25 pages that
Oswald killed JFK." I doubt he would think his powers to persuade were so
great as to be able to convince everyone.
Anthony Marsh
>>At the bookstore the computer said that the book had been canceled.
>
> And some wag here claimed that the new publication date was May 2006.
>
> Yes, that was me. And that IS the latest info from the horse's mouth
> themselves (W.W. Norton). Which probably means that Norton will announce
> the exact release date sometime around December 2005 (or whenever they
> announce releases for the upcoming "quarter" or "Spring Season" or
> whatever "segment" they do such things in).
I just find it interesting that you claim one thing, Barb claims another
thing and Books In Print claims another thing. That indicates to me that
someone is not being given the correct information.
>
> And the BOOKSTORE'S COMPUTER saying "Cancelled" means zilch. They aren't
> the PUBLISHER. They are obviously just referring to it being "cancelled"
> for the last scheduled release date of 11/2003.
>
> I might also add -- That Mr. Bugliosi appeared himself on the Discovery
> Channel "Magic Bullet" Special just over 1 month ago (Nov. 2004), and it
> was said right on that program that "Mr. Bugliosi is working on the most
> definitive book on the assassination since the Warren Report".
>
Is working on. Great. Doesn't say will be published. Doesn't say when.
> Obviously, the D.Ch. wouldn't have put that blurb on its TV program if, in
> fact, the book had been cancelled.
>
Of course they would. David Lifton is also working on a book. So what?
Does that mean that we know when and if it will be published? I know
someone who was working on a book and it was canceled. That does happen
in the real world.
>
David VP
what? Does that mean that we know when and if it will be published? I
know someone who was working on a book and it was canceled. That does
happen in the real world.
Via this website.......
http://www.themichaeldressershow.com/books.200411.htm
..... comes this Mr. Bugliosi tidbit re. his upcoming TWO THOUSAND-PAGE
BOOK!! (Fabulous CT-bashing tome indeed! Cannot wait!) :) ......
"Michael Dresser's special guest on Saturday (11/20/2004) was Vincent
T. Bugliosi, who is finishing his 2,000-page book on JFK's
assassination to be published next November (2005) by W.W. Norton,
called "Final Verdict"."
David VP
So, you REALLY believe that a TV network is going to falsely claim on one
of its programs that a person is working on a book, even though said book
has been officially CANCELLED (and therefore will never see the light of
day), and the network involved has full knowledge of said cancellation?
This, of course, would NEVER have happened if Discovery Channel KNEW
beforehand that Mr. Bugliosi had cancelled his book and was no longer
working on it.
And it's just plain goofy to think a TV network *would* make such idiotic
false claims to the public. Because, in the long run, it would harm them
more than aid them. (And there's no "up" side to doing it in the first
place.)
Peter Fokes
>> Of course they would. David Lifton is also working on a book. So what?
>
>
>So, you REALLY believe that a TV network is going to falsely claim on one
>of its programs that a person is working on a book, even though said book
>has been officially CANCELLED (and therefore will never see the light of
>day), and the network involved has full knowledge of said cancellation?
Hey, look at CBS! You cannot believe everything you hear on "TV"!
>
>This, of course, would NEVER have happened if Discovery Channel KNEW
>beforehand that Mr. Bugliosi had cancelled his book and was no longer
>working on it.
>
>And it's just plain goofy to think a TV network *would* make such idiotic
>false claims to the public.
Oh, is it? You are A TRUE BELIEVER in what you hear and see on TV,
aren't you?
Because, in the long run, it would harm them
>more than aid them. (And there's no "up" side to doing it in the first
>place.)
Folks forget. They move on.
Who would remember besides you anyway?
The book will appear when it appears. What's the fuss about anyway.
Hold your horses.
And for heaven sakes, don't judge a book by it's future appearance!
I've heard of don't judge a book by it's cover but this is ridiculous!
PF
>
Anthony Marsh
>>Of course they would. David Lifton is also working on a book. So what?
>
>
>
> So, you REALLY believe that a TV network is going to falsely claim on one
> of its programs that a person is working on a book, even though said book
> has been officially CANCELLED (and therefore will never see the light of
> day), and the network involved has full knowledge of said cancellation?
>
Moi? Be skeptical of network news? Oh heavens!
> This, of course, would NEVER have happened if Discovery Channel KNEW
> beforehand that Mr. Bugliosi had cancelled his book and was no longer
> working on it.
>
I didn't say that Mr. Bugliosi canceled his book. I said that the
publisher canceled his book. He can still find another publisher.
He is still working on it.
> And it's just plain goofy to think a TV network *would* make such idiotic
> false claims to the public. Because, in the long run, it would harm them
> more than aid them. (And there's no "up" side to doing it in the first
> place.)
>
TV networks make idiotic false claims all the time. What's new about that?
>
Anthony Marsh
Promises, promises. So, now a different version of events. Not May 2005
as you said, but now maybe November 2005.
And your quote was not accurate. He is what the blog actually said:
Michael Dresser's special guest on Sat. was Vincent T. Bugliosi, who is
finishing his 2,000 page book on JFK's assassination to be published
next Nov. by W.W. Norton, called Final Verdict.
_______________________________________________
If you want to clarify the quote you need to learn how to do it
correctly. Use "[]" to editorialize.
David VP
2005 as you said, but now maybe November 2005.
Yeah. So what? (And you've got it wrong here -- I earlier said May
2006, not '05. But it now, evidently might be earlier. *thumbs up*)
> And your quote was not accurate. He is what the blog actually said:
>
> Michael Dresser's special guest on Sat. was Vincent T. Bugliosi, who is
> finishing his 2,000 page book on JFK's assassination to be published
> next Nov. by W.W. Norton, called Final Verdict.
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you want to clarify the quote you need to learn how to do it
> correctly. Use "[]" to editorialize.
Yes, I know what the blurb said. And I "added" to it appropriately, for
clarification sake. Since the blurb was written in November 2004, and it
said "next Nov." -- what does that mean to you? 2005 possibly? Indeed. So,
how was I not being accurate?
Your criticism of me on this semantics issue is totally foolish and
unfounded (not to mention WRONG).
David VP
publisher canceled his book.
And you're wrong. The publisher (Norton) has NOT cancelled it. Why you
think they definitely have is anyone's guess.
Drumrolls3
>From: Anthony Marsh ama...@quik.com
>Date: 1/6/2005 9:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <10trek2...@corp.supernews.com>
Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
Steve
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> David VP wrote:
>
> >>Of course they would. David Lifton is also working on a book. So
what?
> >
> >
> >
> > So, you REALLY believe that a TV network is going to falsely claim
on one
> > of its programs that a person is working on a book, even though
said book
> > has been officially CANCELLED (and therefore will never see the
light of
> > day), and the network involved has full knowledge of said
cancellation?
> >
>
> Moi? Be skeptical of network news? Oh heavens!
>
> > This, of course, would NEVER have happened if Discovery Channel
KNEW
> > beforehand that Mr. Bugliosi had cancelled his book and was no
longer
> > working on it.
> >
>
> I didn't say that Mr. Bugliosi canceled his book. I said that the
> publisher canceled his book. He can still find another publisher.
> He is still working on it.
>
I don't know where you get your information from, but you are off
**hugely** on this statemnt.
Anthony Marsh
That's what the computer at the bookstore says.
Anthony Marsh
>>Promises, promises. So, now a different version of events. Not May
>
> 2005 as you said, but now maybe November 2005.
>
> Yeah. So what? (And you've got it wrong here -- I earlier said May
> 2006, not '05. But it now, evidently might be earlier. *thumbs up*)
>
Yeah, maybe even next month, eh?
And no one finds it curious that the story about the expected release
date keeps changing?
>
>
>>And your quote was not accurate. He is what the blog actually said:
>>
>>Michael Dresser's special guest on Sat. was Vincent T. Bugliosi, who is
>>finishing his 2,000 page book on JFK's assassination to be published
>>next Nov. by W.W. Norton, called Final Verdict.
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>If you want to clarify the quote you need to learn how to do it
>>correctly. Use "[]" to editorialize.
>
>
> Yes, I know what the blurb said. And I "added" to it appropriately, for
> clarification sake. Since the blurb was written in November 2004, and it
No, you did not add to it correctly. That is what I was pointing out.
Learn to use brackets to add comments.
> said "next Nov." -- what does that mean to you? 2005 possibly? Indeed. So,
> how was I not being accurate?
>
I was only teasing you. The QUOTE is not accurate. It is not the same as
what appeared on the Web site.
> Your criticism of me on this semantics issue is totally foolish and
> unfounded (not to mention WRONG).
>
>
Not unfounded, but intended to be silly. It's called sarcasm. To make
fun of the constantly changing story about when or if the book will ever
be released.
David VP
release date keeps changing?"
Nope. Not a bit.
It's already changed at least 4 times already. So what? It means
nothing.
There's also already been two different publishers apparently involved
in Mr. B.'s project.
> "If you want to clarify the quote you need to learn how to do it
correctly. Use "[]" to editorialize."
Oh for Christ's sake! I'm actually being berated and raked over the
Bugliosi coals for utilizing a "parenthesis" instead of a "bracket".
LOL! LOL! And another .................... LOL!
BTW -- I probably *would* have used "brackets" to add comments inside a
quote -- however, many, many websites won't allow the use of brackets
for text, because the software thinks a bracket ALWAYS means you're
adding an image code to the message or an URL, etc.
Writing something within brackets is useless on many sites I know of,
because NOTHING will come out on screen. And I thought this newsgroup's
software might have been like that. Hence, I used "( )" instead.
I guess I should be thrown in the pokey & forced to read Mr. Lifton's
BEST EVIDENCE fifty times consecutively as a punishment! *
* = On 2nd thought, I think I'll choose the firing squad instead!
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>David VP wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Of course they would. David Lifton is also working on a book. So
>
> what?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>So, you REALLY believe that a TV network is going to falsely claim
>
> on one
>
>>>of its programs that a person is working on a book, even though
>
> said book
>
>>>has been officially CANCELLED (and therefore will never see the
>
> light of
>
>>>day), and the network involved has full knowledge of said
>
> cancellation?
>
>>Moi? Be skeptical of network news? Oh heavens!
>>
>>
>>>This, of course, would NEVER have happened if Discovery Channel
>
> KNEW
>
>>>beforehand that Mr. Bugliosi had cancelled his book and was no
>
> longer
>
>>>working on it.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't say that Mr. Bugliosi canceled his book. I said that the
>>publisher canceled his book. He can still find another publisher.
>>He is still working on it.
>>
>
>
>
> I don't know where you get your information from, but you are off
> **hugely** on this statemnt.
I stated up front exactly where I got my information from, the computer at
the local bookstore. And Bugliosi is STILL working on the book. Do you
dispute that?
Anthony Marsh
>>"And no one finds it curious that the story about the expected
>
> release date keeps changing?"
>
> Nope. Not a bit.
> It's already changed at least 4 times already. So what? It means
> nothing.
> There's also already been two different publishers apparently involved
> in Mr. B.'s project.
>
That was not my point. I did not say that the timeframe had changed. I
said that the STORY about the release date keeps changing from person to
person, each claiming to have the OFFICIAL word from the publisher.
Someone is not getting the story straight if there are 4 different versions.
>
>
>
>>"If you want to clarify the quote you need to learn how to do it
>
> correctly. Use "[]" to editorialize."
>
> Oh for Christ's sake! I'm actually being berated and raked over the
> Bugliosi coals for utilizing a "parenthesis" instead of a "bracket".
> LOL! LOL! And another .................... LOL!
Well, we would hope that Bugliosi would not make a mistake like that.
But I guess it's ok for a WC defender here to misquote things.
>
> BTW -- I probably *would* have used "brackets" to add comments inside a
> quote -- however, many, many websites won't allow the use of brackets
> for text, because the software thinks a bracket ALWAYS means you're
> adding an image code to the message or an URL, etc.
>
HUH? Only if you are writing in HTML. I hope you aren't doing that,
silly boy. [[[[[[[[]]]]]]]].
> Writing something within brackets is useless on many sites I know of,
> because NOTHING will come out on screen. And I thought this newsgroup's
> software might have been like that. Hence, I used "( )" instead.
>
You may be thinking of the greater than or lesser than signs.
In HTML you would have to carefully program in the special characters to
reproduce those. Such as < meaning lesser than and > meaning
greater than. This is terribly complicated and not meant for the faint
of heart.
Just don't try typing in an Ampersand or your computer might explode! ;]>
David VP
computer at
> the local bookstore. And Bugliosi is STILL working on the book. Do
you
> dispute that?
Aw, let's drop it. What the hell's the use. *smirk*
(You'll be trading in your official "CT" badge for one marked "LN" soon
enough anyway. I'll see ya.)
David VP
I said that the STORY about the release date keeps changing from person
to person, each claiming to have the OFFICIAL word from the publisher."
Once again, you are incorrect.
I have never discussed ANY "OFFICIAL", definitive release date coming from
the publisher (W.W. Norton Co., Inc.). (With the exception of mentioning
the FIRST official release date of 11/22/1998, which was postponed,
obviously.)
All subsequent (post-1998) dates have been UNOFFICIAL GUESSES by various
persons, including Mr. Bugliosi himself and the publisher.
The May 2006 estimate from Norton is just that -- an "estimate", and
nothing "official". But it certainly indicates a publication that has not
been totally cancelled. The mere fact "estimates" are being discussed
tells us this fact.
Vincent told one radio interviewer in September 2001 that his 2-volume
book would be out "in about a year", which was obviously just a wild
guess, and turned out to be an incorrect guess.
That 42-minute interview (re. Vince's book on the 2000 Election in which
he very briefly mentions the JFK book at the tail end) can be heard here:
http://server.wnur.org/thisishell/archive/20010901bugliosi.ram
Peter Fokes
>Aw, let's drop it. What the hell's the use.
A sensible idea for a book whose time has not yet come!
Lol
PF
Anthony Marsh
Great, so I guess 2039. This guessing game sure is fun. Is there a prize
connected with it?
David VP
You're dead wrong here.
One prime example of a website Forum that NEVER allows the use of ANY text
inside brackets "[ ]" is JFK-LANCER.COM. Nothing appears on screen PERIOD,
if you try placing a message inside brackets.
And I assume other sites do this as well. So, as I said --- you are
incorrect, silly boy.
David VP
Yep, there sure is.
That "prize" being --> A 2,000-page two-volume book entitled "Final
Verdict" that will free you from your futile bondage of CT-ism that has
shackled you all these years. (How many years has it been for you, Mr.
Marsh?)
Anyway -- You'll soon be free of the many concocted Conspiracy Theories,
once & for all.
Anthony Marsh
And how come YOU can't do it, oh brilliant one? What do you possibly
think that Bugliosi can say that all the lame WC defenders haven't
already said before?
Anthony Marsh
That may be the way their software works.
Can you read these?
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Peter Fokes
>> "This guessing game sure is fun. Is there a prize connected with it?"
>
>Yep, there sure is.
>
>That "prize" being --> A 2,000-page two-volume book
Gosh, must be very complicated case, eh?
Longer than the Bible for heavens sake!
LOL
PF
Peter Fokes
And who says SIZE doesn't count, eh David VP!
Poor old Einstein ... he kept it short: E=mc squared :-)
PF
>
>
Peter Fokes
>"... book entitled "Final
>Verdict" that will free you from your futile bondage of CT-ism that has
>shackled you all these years."
And pray tell, how do you type with your hands tied behind your back
by the futile dogmatism of your LNT-ism?
Do you dictate to your better half.... NOT.
Russ, can you help this fella? Tutor him perhaps?
He seems to have the urge to be a psychologist but, without the
necessary tools of the trade, he just ends up insulting other posters.
You could do it Russ. Take the case.
PF
David VP
Just that -- I'm NOT as "brilliant" as Mr. Bugliosi. Nowhere close (sorry
to have to admit). But few are. Plain and simple. He has a "knack" (for
lack of a better word). That shouldn't, however, be confused with a
"trick" way of presenting the evidence. That's not what I mean.
Ever read "Outrage", re. the O.J. Simpson case? Dozens of times I found
myself saying "why didn't *I* think of that?!" and nodding my head in
agreement.
So MANY things that were actually quite obvious in retrospect about that
case zoomed straight over the heads of EVEN SKILLED LAWYERS. And NOT ONE
PERSON on Natl. TV during the 1995 Trial ever claimed Clark/Darden/The
Prosecution Team were doing such a rotten job. To the contrary, in fact --
many TV pundits PRAISED the prosecution team, saying they were "terrific",
"outstanding", "brilliant in court today!".
Just read a few pages of "Outrage", and you'll see how wrong those TV
sentiments were/are.
That's where Mr. Bugliosi comes in. He can easily explain what SHOULD be
"obvious", but often isn't. Even to people who should know better --
people in his own profession.
As he has said: "Many times something is only obvious once it's pointed
out to you." And THAT is where Vince excels greatly.
The amount of such common-sense material amassed over 20-plus years in
working on the JFK case should, indeed, be staggering and
ultra-enlightening to anyone who hasn't completely closed their mind(s) to
the WC (overall) findings.
You'll see.
> "What do you possibly think that Bugliosi can say that all the lame
WC defenders haven't already said before?"
Oh my gosh! -- Plenty. Plenty! Loads a-plenty!!
It's that "knack" thing I was talking about. It's built-in. Most people
don't possess it. He can make you SEE things differently using the VERY
same evidence & data that have been out there for years.
You'll see. *
* = Assuming any CTers will be smart enough to read Mr. B.'s work. If
not -- your loss, completely.
David VP
> "And who says SIZE doesn't count, eh David VP!"
For goodness sakes! Vince could PROBABLY use up 5,000 pages to debunk
all the various crazy CTs!
That will be a big portion of the book -- debunking EACH and EVERY
theory. Hence: the most COMPREHENSIVE work ever on the case.
So, this SIZE doesn't surprise me too much (considering).