Word on Mr. Bugliosi
Chad Zimmerman
Bugliosi's impending book(s) on the assassination of JFK.
He has been working 7 days a week on his massive book due to the publishing
deadline. He is working on condensing the book from 2500 pages to 1500
pages.
Chad
Peter Fokes
wrote:
LOL!
Poor fellow.....
At least, I'll have a good heavy book for the end of my bookshelf. It
will keep the other JFK assassination books on the shelf rather than
the floor.
I've always appreciated the way Einstein worked.
Short and simple.
E=mc [squared]
:-)
But then again, when someone is trying to solve the unsolvable and
confronts mismanaged evidence, dead witnesses, hidden files,
unexamined fibres, and no positive ID of shooter, maybe 1500 pages is
a good substitute for a solid simple conclusion. Hopefully this is
just his first revision and the next one will condense it to 250
pages.
I like to read in bed and 1,500 pages doesn't cut it!
PF
PF
Pamela McElwain-Brown
wrote:
>>From a reliable source, I have obtained information pertaining to Mr.
Well, don't you find this extremely long wait suspicious? How are we
supposed to know what he's been up to during all this time? Are you
implying that we should trust that he hasn't changed his story over the
years? <g>
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 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
Peter Fokes
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 14 Feb 2005 15:22:28 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>wrote:
>
>>>From a reliable source, I have obtained information pertaining to Mr.
>>Bugliosi's impending book(s) on the assassination of JFK.
>>
>>He has been working 7 days a week on his massive book due to the publishing
>>deadline. He is working on condensing the book from 2500 pages to 1500
>>pages.
>>
>>Chad
>>
>>
>
>Well, don't you find this extremely long wait suspicious? How are we
>supposed to know what he's been up to during all this time? Are you
>implying that we should trust that he hasn't changed his story over the
>years? <g>
>
>Pamela
You mean he doesn't think Manson used psychic waves to make Oswald
kill Kennedy anymore!!!!!!
PF
Chad Zimmerman
As usual.
Chad
"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:e2b21196s97ei092u...@4ax.com...
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2005 00:01:41 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>On 14 Feb 2005 15:22:28 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>From a reliable source, I have obtained information pertaining to Mr.
>>>Bugliosi's impending book(s) on the assassination of JFK.
>>>
>>>He has been working 7 days a week on his massive book due to the publishing
>>>deadline. He is working on condensing the book from 2500 pages to 1500
>>>pages.
>>>
>>>Chad
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, don't you find this extremely long wait suspicious? How are we
>>supposed to know what he's been up to during all this time? Are you
>>implying that we should trust that he hasn't changed his story over the
>>years? <g>
>>
>>Pamela
>
>You mean he doesn't think Manson used psychic waves to make Oswald
>kill Kennedy anymore!!!!!!
>
>PF
I have wondered about that myself Peter. How are we going to be able
to evaluate his final product unless somebody can pilfer or purloin
for us an earlier draft? :-0
Pamela :-)
Steve
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: Pamela McElwain-Brown <pamelaj...@mindspring.com> - Find messages
by this author
Date: 15 Feb 2005 09:34:09 -0500
Local: Tues, Feb 15 2005 6:34 am
Subject: Re: Word on Mr. Bugliosi
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:21:57 -0500, Peter Fokes
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
<justplainfoke...@rogers.com> wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2005 00:01:41 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
><pamelaj...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On 14 Feb 2005 15:22:28 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
>>wrote:
>>>>From a reliable source, I have obtained information pertaining to
Mr.
>>>Bugliosi's impending book(s) on the assassination of JFK.
>>>He has been working 7 days a week on his massive book due to the
publishing
>>>deadline. He is working on condensing the book from 2500 pages to
1500
>>>pages.
>>>Chad
>>Well, don't you find this extremely long wait suspicious? How are we
>>supposed to know what he's been up to during all this time? Are you
>>implying that we should trust that he hasn't changed his story over
the
>>years? <g>
>>Pamela
>You mean he doesn't think Manson used psychic waves to make Oswald
>kill Kennedy anymore!!!!!!
>PF
I have wondered about that myself Peter. How are we going to be able
to evaluate his final product unless somebody can pilfer or purloin
for us an earlier draft? :-0
You speak redundantly, Pam.
I am, however, going to pass this post along to Mr. Bugliosi. I am
sure he is going to enjoy this one.
Steve
Peter Fokes
Helter Skelter. It was not an academic book but rather an interesting
read.
PF
On 15 Feb 2005 14:41:32 -0500, "Steve" <drumr...@wmconnect.com>
wrote:
Barb Junkkarinen
<justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>Btw, is Mr. Bugliosi an academic? Is he a professor? I recall reading
>Helter Skelter. It was not an academic book but rather an interesting
>read.
>
>PF
He's a lawyer. Successfully prosecuted Manson.
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:43:54 -0500, Peter Fokes
><justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>>Btw, is Mr. Bugliosi an academic? Is he a professor? I recall reading
>>Helter Skelter. It was not an academic book but rather an interesting
>>read.
>>
>>PF
>
>He's a lawyer. Successfully prosecuted Manson.
>
>Barb :-)
Thanks. That is revealing. We have had previous books on the JFK
assassination from "lawyers". History is unlikely to turn to "lawyers"
for the final word on the JFK assassination. It is the role of
academics who are steeped in the history of the time who will very
likely play a role in future opinions re: this event.
Having said that, I am sure Mr. Bugliosi can write an entertaining
book though. HS was entertaining.
PF
black...@aol.com
> >
> >He's a lawyer. Successfully prosecuted Manson.
> >
> >Barb :-)
>
> Thanks. That is revealing. We have had previous books on the JFK
> assassination from "lawyers". History is unlikely to turn to
"lawyers"
> for the final word on the JFK assassination. It is the role of
> academics who are steeped in the history of the time who will very
> likely play a role in future opinions re: this event.
>
> Having said that, I am sure Mr. Bugliosi can write an entertaining
> book though. HS was entertaining.
>
> PF
The Bug was also the "prosecutor" in the BritTV Trial of LHO some years
back. He's pretty unabashed about thinking it was Oswald alone. But it
should be interesting to hear the case of a professional prosecutor.
Bug is also a smart cookie.
Peter Fokes
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
Hehe ... Bug!
You know some of those lawyers on the WC were kinda bright too!
Lets see....Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,
Earl Warren, that Specter guy, Rankin, etc., etc... oh I could go on
and on and on about lawyers that have looked into this case...all
pretty bright cookies.....
I don't know that I'd call Earl Warren, War though!
Or Specter, Speck!
I'd call Gerald Ford, Mr. President though!!!!
PF
>
R J Johnson
news:a1l411hc8d22ndkv6...@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:51:41 -0800, Barb Junkkarinen
: <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
:
: >On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:43:54 -0500, Peter Fokes
: ><justplai...@rogers.com> wrote:
: >
: >>Btw, is Mr. Bugliosi an academic? Is he a professor? I recall reading
: >>Helter Skelter. It was not an academic book but rather an interesting
: >>read.
: >>
: >>PF
: >
: >He's a lawyer. Successfully prosecuted Manson.
: >
: >Barb :-)
:
: Thanks. That is revealing. We have had previous books on the JFK
: assassination from "lawyers". History is unlikely to turn to "lawyers"
: for the final word on the JFK assassination. It is the role of
: academics who are steeped in the history of the time who will very
: likely play a role in future opinions re: this event.
:
: Having said that, I am sure Mr. Bugliosi can write an entertaining
: book though. HS was entertaining.
I'm fairly sure that Vincent Bugliosi hasn't tried a case since the Manson
conviction, not unlike Marcia Clark and Chris Darden from the OJ Simpson
fiacso. But Bugliosi has been an excellent author of non-fiction since then.
His book "Outrage" was one of the best of the lot about the Simpson trial
and surely the reason he stopped his work on his JFK book at that time. Of
course, "Outrage" sold quite nicely and in addition contains the best
definition of the legal concept of circumstantial evidence that I've read to
date.
Bugliosi is also the author of "And the Sea Will Tell" and another book
whose title escapes me at the moment. If you liked Helter Skelter, you might
also enjoy Outrage.
Traits that I believe make people with a legal background excellent choices
for writing a book about crime, other than the obvious would include;
experience distilling their arguments into a compelling narrative, a
somewhat unique understanding of what does and doesn't constitute evidence,
and finally, an ability to appeal to that which is rational and reasonable
in all of us. Of course you can see every lawyer joke out there for what
could be wrong with a lawyer as an author. :)
--
---- Robert J. Johnson
Barb Junkkarinen
He is a smart cookie ... and a good writer. Helter Skelter was the
first book of his I read ... and became a fan. I have been waiting for
his book for a very long time .... could be 15 or so years ago that he
appeared on some talk show, somebody mentioned the assassination, and
he said someday he could write the definitive book and in just a few
pages slam dunk Oswald as a lone nut. I thought I surely would like to
see THAT as no matter how smart he is or how good a writer, I just
don't see how he can make a convincing case on that one.
Barb :-)
>
Pamela McElwain-Brown
<rj.jo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
Well, let's see, that gives VB a break on the release of his
ever-forthcoming JFK book. But wasn't OJ over 10 years ago? How much
more leeway are you going to give him while at the same time making
demands on Judyth. :-0
Pamela
Chad Zimmerman
I'd be curious to know which case he lost.
Chad
"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:a1l411hc8d22ndkv6...@4ax.com...
Mike Bull
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gb75119b7le5f12fk...@4ax.com...
> On 15 Feb 2005 16:07:38 -0500, "black...@aol.com"
> <black...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> >
>>> >He's a lawyer. Successfully prosecuted Manson.
>>> >
>>> >Barb :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks. That is revealing. We have had previous books on the JFK
>>> assassination from "lawyers". History is unlikely to turn to
>>"lawyers"
>>> for the final word on the JFK assassination. It is the role of
>>> academics who are steeped in the history of the time who will very
>>> likely play a role in future opinions re: this event.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I am sure Mr. Bugliosi can write an entertaining
>>> book though. HS was entertaining.
>>>
>>> PF
>>
>>The Bug was also the "prosecutor" in the BritTV Trial of LHO some years
>>back. He's pretty unabashed about thinking it was Oswald alone. But it
>>should be interesting to hear the case of a professional prosecutor.
>>Bug is also a smart cookie.
>
> He is a smart cookie ... and a good writer. Helter Skelter was the
> first book of his I read ... and became a fan. I have been waiting for
> his book for a very long time .... could be 15 or so years ago that he
> appeared on some talk show, somebody mentioned the assassination, and
> he said someday he could write the definitive book and in just a few
> pages slam dunk Oswald as a lone nut.
What an ass.
Mike :-)
Glenn Sarlitto
Yep. A very intelligent investigative cookie who knows how to communicate.
I too became a fan after reading his book. I'm not sure how long ago it
has been, but do remember his claims while on the talk show circuit not
long after Posner's "Case Closed" became a best seller. I don't remember
Bugliosi claiming Oswald to be nuts. I thought he used Malcontent. Either
way, I also don't see how he can write a definitive book on Oswald's
sanity. Personally, I tend to lean towards another description of Oswald
and written by another former investigative attorney type from California;
a disoriented youth. Will be interesting to finally read his take on the
matter after waiting such a long time.
Glenn
Pamela McElwain-Brown
And yet Barb has no problem giving him a 15-year free pass waiting for
his book, while she continues to put pressure on Judyth. Go figure.
Pamela
John Hill
> On 15 Feb 2005 00:01:41 -0500, Pamela McElwain-Brown
> <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >On 14 Feb 2005 15:22:28 -0500, "Chad Zimmerman" <Doc...@cableone.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>From a reliable source, I have obtained information pertaining to Mr.
> >>Bugliosi's impending book(s) on the assassination of JFK.
> >>
> >>He has been working 7 days a week on his massive book due to the publishing
> >>deadline. He is working on condensing the book from 2500 pages to 1500
> >>pages.
> >>
> >>Chad
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, don't you find this extremely long wait suspicious? How are we
> >supposed to know what he's been up to during all this time? Are you
> >implying that we should trust that he hasn't changed his story over the
> >years? <g>
> >
> >Pamela
>
> You mean he doesn't think Manson used psychic waves to make Oswald
> kill Kennedy anymore!!!!!!
***ROTFLMGDAO***
--
John Hill (joisa)
Martin Shackelford
good work on the RFK assassination--but there is was pro-conspiracy. I
won't pre-judge his book--it should be worth a read.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
suppporting it. Lesser historians, unfortunately, sometimes do the same
thing. Posner pretended neutrality at the start. We'll see how this one
works out.
Martin
David VP
>> Bug is also a smart cookie.
You're darn tootin'!
"FINAL VERDICT: THE TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY" (By Mr.
Bugliosi and Fred Haines) will be the new "JFK Assassination Bible". Of
that, I have ZERO doubts.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
http://www.wwnorton.com/orders/wwn/004525.htm
Mr. Bugliosi, in this writer's opinion, has a kind of "Built-in radar
to the truth" -- which is coupled with an unsurpassed level of common
sense, logic, and thoroughness in preparation that, to me, is
impossible for CTers to overcome.
For, if a JFK book entitled "Final Verdict" is still on the table
(being scribed by Mr. Bugliosi), and he STILL after 20 to 25 years
hasn't found one credible hunk of "CT" evidence by which to ditch his
"Oswald-did-it-alone" tome, then ... folks, the ballgame's over. Plain
& simple. The ballgame is over!
I hope Mr. Bugliosi appears on every TV and radio show within reach,
and I hope he hits the CTers' ridiculous and time-consuming claims of
conspiracy very hard verbally. They deserve it. The "CT Myth" has
persisted for way too long -- and Mr. Bugliosi is no doubt a bit angry
about the continued spreading of FALSE information re. the JFK case.
And (I imagine) we'll be reading some of that anger within the pages of
his volume(s).
Plus: he'll possibly be talking about the "In the air" Syndrome that
Mr. Bugliosi discussed at length in his O.J. Simpson book ("Outrage"),
and on his excellent 6-Tape series of videos on the Simpson Trial, made
in 1999 ("Absolutely 100% Guilty"). This "In the air" Syndrome
permeates the minds of people and can even change a person's long-held
beliefs with regard to elements of a major, high-profile case, like the
O.J. case and the JFK assassination.
I'm sure Mr. Bugliosi will spend an ample number of pages discussing
how Oliver Stone's movie is, in great part, one of the main reasons (if
not THE main reason) why so many younger people (born after JFK's
death) believe that this massive, all-encompassing conspiracy existed
to kill the President in 1963.
I, too, was "caught up" in the "Stone Fever" in 1991-1992, after seeing
Oliver's very-polished motion picture. And I'm not, and never really
was, a "CTer".
Just goes to show how a well-oiled Hollywood flick can influence
people's thinking. And Stone's "JFK" certainly did that, without
question.
And I hope Mr. Bugliosi is successful in tearing down the "Oliver Stone
JFK Myth" that was "created" by the release of that Hollywood film.
I, for one, am also VERY glad that Mr. Bugliosi (whom I respect
greatly) is "on the case" from an LN POV. I cannot think of ONE other
person better qualified to write the 2,000-page book(s) he's currently
writing. Because there isn't a person better qualified. None.
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=9288
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his
sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986
-------------
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories," he said. "I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think
I can convince the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed
JFK." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 22, 2004
-------------
"I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American
people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics
and techniques used in the movie "JFK" just after the Oliver Stone
movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q& A, and I asked for
a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a
conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.
Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was an
enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of the
story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I asked
how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their hands.
Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 6, 1997
------------------------------------
Martin Shackelford
Martin
Grizzlie Antagonist
>
>> >
>> >He's a lawyer. Successfully prosecuted Manson.
>> >
>> >Barb :-)
>>
>> Thanks. That is revealing. We have had previous books on the JFK
>> assassination from "lawyers". History is unlikely to turn to
>"lawyers"
>> for the final word on the JFK assassination.
Actually, since "lawyers" are often in the business of prosecuting
crime and defending the accused, lawyers are as able - and often more
able - to provide enlightenment on such issues than anyone else.
However, the final word on the JFK homicide was provided by gunsmith
Howard Donahue, as explicated in Bonar Menninger's "Mortal Error"
published in 1992.
>It is the role of
>> academics who are steeped in the history of the time who will very
>> likely play a role in future opinions re: this event.
Yeah, the intellectualoids. They've never steered the public wrong
before.
------------------------------------
grizzliea...@yahoo.com
"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
- Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004
"Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo."(The people
hiss at me, but I am well satisfied with myself).
- Horace, the Roman poet
Logical positivism, dominant in American and
British universities, is suicidally bent upon
establishing the impossibility of knowing any-
thing. (As Wyndham Lewis suggested in "Self
Condemned", the neo-positivist pedant reduces
himself to a mosquito, able to wound, nearly
invulnerable to counter-assault - but only an
insect, not a man).
- Russell Kirk, Enemies of the Permanent
Things
atlasrecrd
I thought Judyth's book was done back in '99, Pamela?
Or has it been necessary to "revise" it?
VB has said he's still writing his; what will basically be a
prosecutors brief. As a "witness", Judyth should be able to state what
she claims and be done with it. At least by now. LOL
R J Johnson
: Well, let's see, that gives VB a break on the release of his
: ever-forthcoming JFK book. But wasn't OJ over 10 years ago? How much
: more leeway are you going to give him while at the same time making
: demands on Judyth. :-0
I believe Outrage was written in 1996, so ten years is close enough. He sold
a ton of those and that may have factored into his decision to take his time
with his book on the JFK assassination. Bugliosi also wrote at least one
other book since then.
I have written to Bugliosi twice over the past 5-6 years to let him know I'm
looking forward to the publication of this book. I think it has the
potential to be an important addition to the literature and at the very
least, a good read.
I don't know if I could come up with an analogy comparable enough to state
how ridiculous I find the combination of Judyth and Vincent Bugliosi within
the same paragraph. Bugliosi is an accomplished author and one I very much
enjoy reading. His record of publication and sales speaks for itself. Judyth
OTOH is, well... She's Judyth. Her record also speaks for itself.
I'm not aware that I've ever made any "demands on Judyth" with regards to
the timing of the (alleged) publication of her book. Are you?
Martin Shackelford
1990), and he had already made up his mind about his conclusion by 1986,
when he served as a TV prosecutor in a disorganized show trial. Sounds
like a lawyer's brief to me. It suggests that he has been trying for 15
years to come up with a way to make the argument sound convincing.
Posner spent less time doing the same thing, but then his argument
wasn't all that convincing.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
<rj.jo...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>"Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:ucu4111davrgcaf0v...@4ax.com...
>: Well, let's see, that gives VB a break on the release of his
>: ever-forthcoming JFK book. But wasn't OJ over 10 years ago? How much
>: more leeway are you going to give him while at the same time making
>: demands on Judyth. :-0
>
>I believe Outrage was written in 1996, so ten years is close enough. He sold
>a ton of those and that may have factored into his decision to take his time
>with his book on the JFK assassination. Bugliosi also wrote at least one
>other book since then.
I think he wrote a book on the Jon-Benet Ramsey case.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Glenn, by lone nut I didn't mean he was saying Oswald was nuts ... but
that Oswald did it alone, lone gunman, no conspiracy .... commonly
referred to in this arena as a "lone nut."
Barb :-)
>
>
>Glenn
Barb Junkkarinen
<pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Free pass" is the new buzzword, I guess. Sigh. Nope ... am irritated
that Bugliosi has written other books in between when he's supposed to
be getting this one out. From what I understand, he developed such a
mass of material that it has to be severely pared down ..... maybe it
just wasn't as easy to nail Oswald as he thought it was going to be.
To compare every thing and every one to Judyth is stupid, imo.
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> "Pamela McElwain-Brown" <pamel...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:ucu4111davrgcaf0v...@4ax.com...
> : Well, let's see, that gives VB a break on the release of his
> : ever-forthcoming JFK book. But wasn't OJ over 10 years ago? How much
> : more leeway are you going to give him while at the same time making
> : demands on Judyth. :-0
>
> I believe Outrage was written in 1996, so ten years is close enough. He sold
> a ton of those and that may have factored into his decision to take his time
> with his book on the JFK assassination. Bugliosi also wrote at least one
> other book since then.
>
Oh really? And what job does Mr. Bugliosi work at right now, since he
quite as a prosecutor? Consultant? He may be taking his time on this
book which was cancelled by Norton because he is living comfortably by
being supported by the government.
> I have written to Bugliosi twice over the past 5-6 years to let him know I'm
> looking forward to the publication of this book. I think it has the
> potential to be an important addition to the literature and at the very
> least, a good read.
>
How long can you wait? 10 years, 20 years?
> I don't know if I could come up with an analogy comparable enough to state
> how ridiculous I find the combination of Judyth and Vincent Bugliosi within
> the same paragraph. Bugliosi is an accomplished author and one I very much
> enjoy reading. His record of publication and sales speaks for itself. Judyth
> OTOH is, well... She's Judyth. Her record also speaks for itself.
>
And Bugliosi is on the record making false statements about the JFK
assassination, just as Posner was before he wrote HIS book.
Anthony Marsh
>>>Bug is also a smart cookie.
>
>
> You're darn tootin'!
>
> "FINAL VERDICT: THE TRUE ACCOUNT OF THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY" (By Mr.
> Bugliosi and Fred Haines) will be the new "JFK Assassination Bible". Of
> that, I have ZERO doubts.
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/39e65a14bc704f39
>
> http://www.wwnorton.com/orders/wwn/004525.htm
>
> Mr. Bugliosi, in this writer's opinion, has a kind of "Built-in radar
> to the truth" -- which is coupled with an unsurpassed level of common
> sense, logic, and thoroughness in preparation that, to me, is
> impossible for CTers to overcome.
>
> For, if a JFK book entitled "Final Verdict" is still on the table
> (being scribed by Mr. Bugliosi), and he STILL after 20 to 25 years
> hasn't found one credible hunk of "CT" evidence by which to ditch his
> "Oswald-did-it-alone" tome, then ... folks, the ballgame's over. Plain
> & simple. The ballgame is over!
>
Isn't that what you guys said when Case Closed came out?
> I hope Mr. Bugliosi appears on every TV and radio show within reach,
He would not dare to appear in public. He knows that he can not defend
his theory. He has already embarrassed himself enough by his previous
public comments.
> and I hope he hits the CTers' ridiculous and time-consuming claims of
> conspiracy very hard verbally. They deserve it. The "CT Myth" has
Time-consuming? Wow, this is a new low for the cover-up. So, according
to you there should be no debate and no investigation because it takes
too much time out of our daily lives? You want people to have more time
doing what? Playing video games? Watching mindless reality TV shows?
> persisted for way too long -- and Mr. Bugliosi is no doubt a bit angry
> about the continued spreading of FALSE information re. the JFK case.
> And (I imagine) we'll be reading some of that anger within the pages of
> his volume(s).
>
Yeah sure. Name just ONE supposedly false piece of information that Mr.
Bugliosi has debunked for us. I debunk false information every day. I
have heard nothing from him.
> Plus: he'll possibly be talking about the "In the air" Syndrome that
> Mr. Bugliosi discussed at length in his O.J. Simpson book ("Outrage"),
> and on his excellent 6-Tape series of videos on the Simpson Trial, made
> in 1999 ("Absolutely 100% Guilty"). This "In the air" Syndrome
> permeates the minds of people and can even change a person's long-held
> beliefs with regard to elements of a major, high-profile case, like the
> O.J. case and the JFK assassination.
>
> I'm sure Mr. Bugliosi will spend an ample number of pages discussing
> how Oliver Stone's movie is, in great part, one of the main reasons (if
> not THE main reason) why so many younger people (born after JFK's
> death) believe that this massive, all-encompassing conspiracy existed
> to kill the President in 1963.
>
Oliver Stone's book is the main reason why we got the JFK Records Act
and have been uncovering new information which points to a conspiracy.
> I, too, was "caught up" in the "Stone Fever" in 1991-1992, after seeing
> Oliver's very-polished motion picture. And I'm not, and never really
> was, a "CTer".
>
At the time it came out, I was right here in the newsgroups warning
people that it was only propaganda and full of errors. Where were you?
> Just goes to show how a well-oiled Hollywood flick can influence
> people's thinking. And Stone's "JFK" certainly did that, without
> question.
Ah, reality check here. Lots of famous works have influenced public
opinion on important issues. Uncle Tom's Cabin. J'Accuse. Etc.
>
> And I hope Mr. Bugliosi is successful in tearing down the "Oliver Stone
> JFK Myth" that was "created" by the release of that Hollywood film.
>
No matter how many errors were in the movie, it served its purpose to
raise public awareness.
> I, for one, am also VERY glad that Mr. Bugliosi (whom I respect
> greatly) is "on the case" from an LN POV. I cannot think of ONE other
> person better qualified to write the 2,000-page book(s) he's currently
> writing. Because there isn't a person better qualified. None.
>
>
> http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=9288
>
>
> "Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
> Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
> the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80
> percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
> still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his
> sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a
> tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
> I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986
>
> -------------
>
> "Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
> theories," he said. "I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think
> I can convince the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed
> JFK." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 22, 2004
>
> -------------
>
> "I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
> F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
> My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
> know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American
> people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
>
And you don't dispute those figures? Most die-hard WC defenders are
supposed to dispute those figures and counter-claim that most people
actually believe Oswald was the lone nut. You are not trying hard enough.
> But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics
> and techniques used in the movie "JFK" just after the Oliver Stone
> movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q& A, and I asked for
> a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a
> conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.
>
> Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
> the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
> the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was an
> enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of the
> story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I asked
> how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their hands.
>
That ignores the massive government propaganda over the years to promote
the lone nut theory.
> Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
> romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
> Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
> palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
> sense." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 6, 1997
>
Then his book was cancelled in 1998.
> ------------------------------------
>
>
Glenn Sarlitto
No shit, Sherlock! :-)
Glenn
R J Johnson
news:%KKQd.22956$ya6.7361@trndny01...
: Oh really? And what job does Mr. Bugliosi work at right now, since he
: quite as a prosecutor? Consultant?
Not sure I understand the question. He's been an author, lecturer, TV
consultant, and who knows what else since he quit the DA's office. I don't
know that I could say exactly what anyone, who has written more than one
book that made the NY Times Best Seller List, does for work at any given
point in time. I've always had this funny notion that one of the perks of
writing just one number one bestseller would be that one wouldn't have to
work in the traditional sense each day.
: He may be taking his time on this book which was cancelled by Norton
: because he is living comfortably by being supported by the government.
Is your idea that his book was cancelled still based on the computer
ordering system at your local bookstore? I just checked Norton's website
and they still list Bugliosi's book. Did Norton tell you they cancelled
it? I wrote to them once about a new release date and never received a
response.
Do you have evidence that he is being supported by the government or is
this just speculation on your part?
: How long can you wait? 10 years, 20 years?
There are so many good books out there Anthony that I will never be able
to read all that I would wish to in one lifetime. I can wait for as long
as it takes him to finish. If Bugliosi were to decide drop the project, I
doubt I'd lose much sleep over his decision.
: And Bugliosi is on the record making false statements about the JFK
: assassination, just as Posner was before he wrote HIS book.
I don't doubt that you believe that. I also don't doubt there will be much
more that you won't like when the book gets published.
David VP
his theory. He has already embarrassed himself enough by his previous
public comments.
He KNOWS he can't defend his position?? LOL!
You, sir, are ....... anybody find out yet what Tony M. is?
You're also in for a rude awakening when Mr. Bugliosi knocks aside
every conspiracy theory in "Final Verdict".
David VP
reason. It was "postponed" after Nov. 1998; but why Anthony thinks this
equates to "cancelled completely" is anyone's guess.
The publisher (Norton) has confirmed via e-mail that Mr. Bugliosi's book
is still coming.
Verbatim from the publisher W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. (February
2005)...........
"The author is delivering (if all goes as planned) in 2005, and we
will publish in 2006. We have not set a pub. date yet, as the author is
still writing."
Regards, Morgen
----------------
Mr. Bugliosi, however, told radio host Michael Dresser in late November
of 2004 that the book would be published in Nov. 2005 -- and, based on
the first post in this thread from Chad Z. (re. the fact "he's working
7 days a week"), I'm betting that he's trying to meet the publisher's
deadline for "Fall 2005" releases (if at all possible).
If he can't "deliver" all the pages by May or June of 2005, then he'll
have to wait until the next publishing period (which I believe for
Norton would be Spring 2006).
Either way, it's coming, and I am greatly looking forward to it. YMMV
of course. :)
Martin Shackelford
level it was held (there is a film showing the agent), it would have had
to fire through the windshield of the (Queen Mary) Secret Service
followup car. The geometry is inescapable.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
become available, it has been added. Her account hasn't changed.
Martin
David VP
supposed to dispute those figures and counter-claim that most people
actually believe Oswald was the lone nut. You are not trying hard
enough.
What in Sam Hill's hell are you babbling about here??
Of course I *know* most people believe in a conspiracy. Why should I
"dispute" that obvious fact. And Mr. Bugliosi *knows* this fact too. So
what? The large % of CTers certainly doesn't mean that a conspiracy
did, in fact, exist on 11/22/63. And that's exactly what Mr. Bugliosi
was talking about in that quote I posted. People WRONGLY believe a lot
of things in their lifetime. A conspiracy in the JFK case is just one
of them.
12 jurors in the O.J. case said he was "not guilty" -- but that
certainly by no means indicates that Simpson was "innocent". Far from
it. And Mr. Bugliosi proved that fact is his O.J. book in 1996 as well.
Who CARES what the majority of folks *think* anyway? It's meaningless
when compared to the cold, hard facts in evidence in the case against
Lee H. Oswald.
Any *reasonable* person who thinks Oswald is a TOTALLY-INNOCENT "Patsy"
needs a reality check, post-haste. And Mr. Bugliosi will be providing
that reality-check in late 2005 or early 2006. You can bank on it.
* Flame Away *
Grizzlie Antagonist
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Donahue got it wrong. For the AR-15 to have hit JFK in the head, at the
>level it was held (there is a film showing the agent), it would have had
>to fire through the windshield of the (Queen Mary) Secret Service
>followup car. The geometry is inescapable.
>
>Martin
If he was standing up on the back seat, as indeed he was seen to have
been standing up in the back seat, he certainly could have fired over
the windshield.
The windshield could not have been designed in a way as to block his
return fire at a sniper directly in front.
Grizzlie Antagonist
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>And he got a pass--Gerry Spence put on a very poor defense on TV.
>
>Martin
Oh my GOD!
Talk about being a SORE LOSER! Well, let's just play the game over and
over again until Gerry Spence puts on a defense more to your liking and
you get a better result.
Earth to CT's - YOU LOST!
<grabbing them by their collective throats and screaming in their
collective ears> YOU LOST! YOU LOST! YOU LOST!
YOU LOST in 1969! YOU LOST this mock trial!
I know that's not supposed to happen; I know that you are NEVER supposed
to lose; I know that the waters are supposed to part whenever you make
grandiose pronouncements about discovering the "true story" about a
martyred leftist president, but YOU LOST! YOU REALLY DID! YOU LOST!
And you will LOSE the verdict of history.
DEAL with it! GET OVER IT!
R J Johnson
news:1108615853.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: Anthony likes to use the word "Cancelled" for some odd (and incorrect)
: reason. It was "postponed" after Nov. 1998; but why Anthony thinks this
: equates to "cancelled completely" is anyone's guess.
I thought I had read previously that Anthony had gone to a bookstore and
when he asked them to order the book it came back as cancelled by the
publisher. Anthony apparently took this as the definitive word that the
book was cancelled.
However, this classification could have been made by the bookstore
(chain?) to put an end to the pre-orders for a book that now had no
definitive publishing date.
Any question about whether the book was cancelled becomes a moot point
when it finally gets published. Wait, how silly of me. I'm sure someone
might continue to insist it was cancelled regardless of what happens.
--
---- Robert J. Johnson
: The publisher (Norton) has confirmed via e-mail that Mr. Bugliosi's book
:
:
David VP
has debunked for us. I debunk false information every day. I have heard
nothing from him.
This is an idiotic statement re. Mr. Bugliosi. Why? Because V.B.'s book(s)
hasn't been released yet; and any "debunking" will be contained within the
approx. 2,000-page "JFK 'FINAL VERDICT' Bible".
A large portion of Vince's book(s) will be devoted to debunking the
various theories of conspiracy (hence: the massive size of the
volume/volumes). Mr. Bugliosi has said himself that he has devoted
literally "hundreds of pages" to refuting the CTs.
I've also taken note of the fact that Mr. Bugliosi (over the years) has
been very careful about his choice of words when speaking in public about
the JFK case. He hasn't talked in any great detail at all re. the case --
just small snippets and his overall belief in Oswald's lone guilt in the
crime (like those quotes I've already posted in this thread).
He's probably talked in more detail when he's giving a lecture at some
college somewhere (if he does do this with regard to the JFK case; but
perhaps not -- but I know he gives lectures on "court/prosecutorial
procedures" and on the Manson case many times).
But as far as the snippets that appear in either newspapers or on-line,
there has been just a "generalized" amount of info given out by Vincent on
the JFK case. He's obviously "saving" the "details" for people to read in
his book(s). Which I don't think is a bad thing at all.
So to claim that Mr. Bugliosi hasn't "debunked" any conspiracy theories is
simply a silly statement at this time -- when it's fairly obvious he
actually HAS done this. We just haven't been able to read about the
"debunkings" as yet. But.....we will.
Bud
I`d bet he does on a regular basis. I`d bet he is out promoting this
book when it`s finished.
> He knows that he can not defend
> his theory.
One might wonder how Marsh figures he is privy to Bugiosi`s
thoughts, if one were prone to wonder about such things.
> He has already embarrassed himself enough by his previous
> public comments.
I`ll pass on a comment on this one, anything I can say to that is
sure to unsuitable for the moderated group.
> > and I hope he hits the CTers' ridiculous and time-consuming claims
of
> > conspiracy very hard verbally. They deserve it. The "CT Myth" has
>
> Time-consuming? Wow, this is a new low for the cover-up. So,
according
> to you there should be no debate and no investigation because it
takes
> too much time out of our daily lives? You want people to have more
time
> doing what? Playing video games? Watching mindless reality TV shows?
>
> > persisted for way too long -- and Mr. Bugliosi is no doubt a bit
angry
> > about the continued spreading of FALSE information re. the JFK
case.
> > And (I imagine) we'll be reading some of that anger within the
pages of
> > his volume(s).
> >
>
> Yeah sure. Name just ONE supposedly false piece of information that
Mr.
> Bugliosi has debunked for us.
He seems to be writing a book debunking the notion that there was a
conspiracy to assassinate JFK.
> I debunk false information every day. I
> have heard nothing from him.
I`m sure he has heard nothing from you, either. Bugliosi is a
credible person who people want to hear from. He sells his ideas
because they have value.
> raise public awareness.
What the public is unaware of is how many errors were in the movie.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
On 17 Feb 2005 00:08:22 -0500, "David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Anthony likes to use the word "Cancelled" for some odd (and incorrect)
>reason. It was "postponed" after Nov. 1998; but why Anthony thinks this
>equates to "cancelled completely" is anyone's guess.
>
>The publisher (Norton) has confirmed via e-mail that Mr. Bugliosi's book
>is still coming.
Would that be before or after Godot? <g>
>
>Verbatim from the publisher W.W. Norton & Co., Inc. (February
>2005)...........
>
> "The author is delivering (if all goes as planned) in 2005, and we
>will publish in 2006. We have not set a pub. date yet, as the author is
>still writing."
>
> Regards, Morgen
>
>----------------
>
>Mr. Bugliosi, however, told radio host Michael Dresser in late November
>of 2004 that the book would be published in Nov. 2005 -- and, based on
>the first post in this thread from Chad Z. (re. the fact "he's working
>7 days a week"), I'm betting that he's trying to meet the publisher's
>deadline for "Fall 2005" releases (if at all possible).
>
>If he can't "deliver" all the pages by May or June of 2005, then he'll
>have to wait until the next publishing period (which I believe for
>Norton would be Spring 2006).
>
>Either way, it's coming, and I am greatly looking forward to it. YMMV
>of course. :)
>
"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.
More at www.jfk100x.com, also www.in-broad-daylight.com.
David VP
and
when he asked them to order the book it came back as cancelled by the
publisher.
Yes, he (Anthony) did do/post that.
But-- afterward -- when confronted with the proof that it HAS NOT been
"Cancelled", it seems Tony still thinks it has been (for CT reasons all
his own evidently).
Anthony Marsh
What proof? I have yet to see any proof posted. So far the WC defenders
have only posted speculation. Maybe it will come out this year. Maybe it
will come out next year. It was listed as being published in 1998 and
then it was listed as cancelled.
I am still waiting for Carl Oglebsy's autobiography to come out. Do you
think it ever will? I was helping a local author on a book on JFK and it
was cancelled because it was too conspiracy oriented.
Just because an author has a contract and has been given a hefty advance
is not proof that a book will come out.
Anthony Marsh
Promoting it yes, on the circuit. Defending it, no.
>
>>He knows that he can not defend
>>his theory.
>
>
> One might wonder how Marsh figures he is privy to Bugiosi`s
> thoughts, if one were prone to wonder about such things.
>
One's thoughts are often betrayed by one's actions.
I said ONE supposedly false piece of information. He can argue all he
wants that the WC is correct, without bothering to present any facts.
>
>>I debunk false information every day. I
>>have heard nothing from him.
>
>
> I`m sure he has heard nothing from you, either. Bugliosi is a
> credible person who people want to hear from. He sells his ideas
> because they have value.
>
He is famous because of infamy, because of the case of Charles Manson.
Bud
Specifically what parts of his book do you feel need defending? Be
sure to supply the page numbers of the material you feel need
defending.
> >>He knows that he can not defend
> >>his theory.
> >
> >
> > One might wonder how Marsh figures he is privy to Bugiosi`s
> > thoughts, if one were prone to wonder about such things.
> >
>
> One's thoughts are often betrayed by one's actions.
What actions has Bugliosi performed that have betrayed his opinion
that his theory cannot be defended?
A more prudent person might wait for the book before claiming what
it lacks. I suspect he is going to address the false idea that there
was some kind of conspiracy in JFK`s assassination. Why a book needs to
be written to support such an obvious thing is beyond me.
> >>I debunk false information every day. I
> >>have heard nothing from him.
> >
> >
> > I`m sure he has heard nothing from you, either. Bugliosi is a
> > credible person who people want to hear from. He sells his ideas
> > because they have value.
> >
>
> He is famous because of infamy, because of the case of Charles
Manson.
Not the book he wrote on that subject? Not the movie that was based
on that book?
Anthony Marsh
Oh please. I knock down more wacky conspiracy theories every day than
Bugliosi ever will.
Anthony Marsh
>>>Name just ONE supposedly false piece of information that Mr. Bugliosi
>
> has debunked for us. I debunk false information every day. I have heard
> nothing from him.
>
> This is an idiotic statement re. Mr. Bugliosi. Why? Because V.B.'s book(s)
> hasn't been released yet; and any "debunking" will be contained within the
> approx. 2,000-page "JFK 'FINAL VERDICT' Bible".
Is this yet another example of "wait for the book"? How many times have
we heard that and how many times have we been disappointed?
>
> A large portion of Vince's book(s) will be devoted to debunking the
> various theories of conspiracy (hence: the massive size of the
> volume/volumes). Mr. Bugliosi has said himself that he has devoted
> literally "hundreds of pages" to refuting the CTs.
>
Sure, it's called strawman arguments. He will find the silliest wacky
theories and easily shoot them down. He is such a master of logic that
he will prove that aliens did not shoot the President from a hovering
UFO. Wow, like I'm really impressed.
> I've also taken note of the fact that Mr. Bugliosi (over the years) has
> been very careful about his choice of words when speaking in public about
> the JFK case. He hasn't talked in any great detail at all re. the case --
> just small snippets and his overall belief in Oswald's lone guilt in the
> crime (like those quotes I've already posted in this thread).
>
Because he is unfamiliar with the evidence and does not want to make a
bigger fool of himself than he already has.
> He's probably talked in more detail when he's giving a lecture at some
> college somewhere (if he does do this with regard to the JFK case; but
> perhaps not -- but I know he gives lectures on "court/prosecutorial
> procedures" and on the Manson case many times).
>
So you claim. Cite his college lectures and quote what he says about the
JFK assassination.
> But as far as the snippets that appear in either newspapers or on-line,
> there has been just a "generalized" amount of info given out by Vincent on
> the JFK case. He's obviously "saving" the "details" for people to read in
> his book(s). Which I don't think is a bad thing at all.
>
Oh yummy. Everyone is waiting anxiously for the divine truth directly
from God!
> So to claim that Mr. Bugliosi hasn't "debunked" any conspiracy theories is
> simply a silly statement at this time -- when it's fairly obvious he
> actually HAS done this. We just haven't been able to read about the
> "debunkings" as yet. But.....we will.
>
If he HAS done it as you claim, then cite and quote.
>
Anthony Marsh
> "Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
> news:%KKQd.22956$ya6.7361@trndny01...
> : Oh really? And what job does Mr. Bugliosi work at right now, since he
> : quite as a prosecutor? Consultant?
>
> Not sure I understand the question. He's been an author, lecturer, TV
> consultant, and who knows what else since he quit the DA's office. I don't
Great. Maybe all those things. Maybe someone is fronting him. Maybe he
lives off the royalties.
> know that I could say exactly what anyone, who has written more than one
> book that made the NY Times Best Seller List, does for work at any given
> point in time. I've always had this funny notion that one of the perks of
> writing just one number one bestseller would be that one wouldn't have to
> work in the traditional sense each day.
>
> : He may be taking his time on this book which was cancelled by Norton
> : because he is living comfortably by being supported by the government.
>
> Is your idea that his book was cancelled still based on the computer
> ordering system at your local bookstore? I just checked Norton's website
> and they still list Bugliosi's book. Did Norton tell you they cancelled
> it? I wrote to them once about a new release date and never received a
> response.
That's what I said. I said that I went to the local bookstore and they
checked their computer and it said that the book was cancelled.
>
> Do you have evidence that he is being supported by the government or is
> this just speculation on your part?
>
Of course not.
> : How long can you wait? 10 years, 20 years?
>
> There are so many good books out there Anthony that I will never be able
> to read all that I would wish to in one lifetime. I can wait for as long
> as it takes him to finish. If Bugliosi were to decide drop the project, I
> doubt I'd lose much sleep over his decision.
>
Fine. So you are prepared to wait until 2037? Does that indicate your
present age?
Martin Shackelford
job Spence was doing, especially given his record as a defense attorney.
Key witnesses were ignored (some were taped, but then not used), key
evidence wasn't mentioned, etc.
If you want to see an EFFECTIVE summary of the evidence for Oswald's
innocence, read Howard Roffman's Presumed Guilty.
Putting "YOU LOST" in caps repeatedly just looks childish.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> On 17 Feb 2005 08:13:33 -0500, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Donahue got it wrong. For the AR-15 to have hit JFK in the head, at the
>>level it was held (there is a film showing the agent), it would have had
>>to fire through the windshield of the (Queen Mary) Secret Service
>>followup car. The geometry is inescapable.
>>
>>Martin
>
>
>
> If he was standing up on the back seat, as indeed he was seen to have
> been standing up in the back seat, he certainly could have fired over
> the windshield.
>
IF? That is very weak. We can see him at the time and we know that he
was not standing up on the back seat. No one was. He never got the
rifle's muzzle high enough to shoot over the windshield. End of wacky
theory.
> The windshield could not have been designed in a way as to block his
> return fire at a sniper directly in front.
>
What? The design of the windshields of both cars was stock, unmodified.
David VP
>> I suspect he is going to address the false idea that there was some
kind of conspiracy in JFK`s assassination. Why a book needs to be written
to support such an obvious thing is beyond me.
Good lord, you couldn't be more incorrect with this statement.
There most certainly IS a "need" for a massive "LN" all-encompassing
tome like that which is being scribed by Mr. Bugliosi. An absolute
NEED. Mainly because there NEVER has been one published before (with
this scope and detail that is).
Since 99.99975% of ALL assassination material is being written (and
projected on the large movie screens around the world) by people with
obvious CT AXES to grind -- I'd say that Vincent's LN effort is MUCH
NEEDED (for a certain amount of simply counter-balance if nothing
else).
Mr. Posner's effort was excellent, too. But it wasn't long enough, and
didn't go far enough and ignored a few key issues, as Mr. Bugliosi has
himself said with this quote...........
"I agree with all of (Gerald) Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
---------------------
"Final Verdict" is definitely "needed". And I have confidence that it
will meet the demands of its excellent title.
Grizzlie Antagonist
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Don't be ridiculous--I was appalled as I watched the program what a poor
>job Spence was doing, especially given his record as a defense attorney.
Given Spence's record as a defense attorney, you are not in a POSITION
to judge him or to second-guess him.
> Key witnesses were ignored (some were taped, but then not used), key
>evidence wasn't mentioned, etc.
Presumably because these key witnesses and that key evidence was
inadmissible under the laws of the jurisdiction under which this mock
case was tried or because it/they were unreliable and were likely to
have backfired on the defense case.
Again, you are not in a position to judge or second-guess Spence.
>If you want to see an EFFECTIVE summary of the evidence for Oswald's
>innocence,
Arthur Conan Doyle, possibly the greatest real-life detective of all
time, once effectively "summarized the evidence" for the existence of
fairies dancing in his garden, and I regard the notion of Oswald's
innocence as equally fanciful.
>read Howard Roffman's Presumed Guilty.
Howard Roffman was a young twit when he wrote that book, and ever
since he wrote it, his tastes in literature have shifted to more - uh
- outre subjects. His credentials as a detective were poor then and
are considerably more suspect today, in light of his proclivities.
I guarantee you for every mistake that Spence might have made in his
trial, Roffman made a dozen in his book.
Anyway, what's the point of throwing a book at me and saying "Read
this". I can throw a reading list at you too. I've always felt that
Bonar Menninger's "Mortal Error" answered all questions worth
answering and settled the issue.
>Putting "YOU LOST" in caps repeatedly just looks childish.
Maybe so, but after 41 years, it's actually necessary and
well-deserved.
CT's have actually destroyed lives looking for the Fascist under every
bed. It's time to put you in your place. It's time to call a halt to
the Inquisition.
David VP
Bugliosi ever will.
Oh sure.
** big ol' eyeroll **
R J Johnson
: Fine. So you are prepared to wait until 2037? Does that indicate your
: present age?
I wrote I was prepared to wait until he was finished and that I also
wouldn't lose sleep over a decision to drop the project entirely. I
thought that if I died before then, it was a given that I would have
stopped waiting for the book. My mistake. Let me add, Anthony, I will
cease to wait for the book if I'm dead. I'm currently 55 so 2037 may not
be out of the ballpark but with the way I feel lately, it may well be...
:)
Anthony Marsh
Bud wrote:
False construct. I did not cite any page numbers nor will I. The page
numbers will change as he writes the book.
Now, to specific things that he will not defend. The SBT.
>
>>>>He knows that he can not defend
>>>>his theory.
>>>
>>>
>>> One might wonder how Marsh figures he is privy to Bugiosi`s
>>>thoughts, if one were prone to wonder about such things.
>>>
>>
>>One's thoughts are often betrayed by one's actions.
>
>
> What actions has Bugliosi performed that have betrayed his opinion
> that his theory cannot be defended?
>
Lack of interviews where he expounds his theories.
Failure to attend conferences.
Failure to give interviews.
No, that would be a gullible person, who assumes that the book will be
perfect because he assumes that Bugliosi is perfect.
It will be quite easy for him to shoot down the wackiest theories.
>
>>>>I debunk false information every day. I
>>>>have heard nothing from him.
>>>
>>>
>>> I`m sure he has heard nothing from you, either. Bugliosi is a
>>>credible person who people want to hear from. He sells his ideas
>>>because they have value.
>>>
>>
>>He is famous because of infamy, because of the case of Charles
>
> Manson.
>
> Not the book he wrote on that subject? Not the movie that was based
> on that book?
>
Just the prosecution of the case alone would be sufficient. Like Marsha
Clarke for prosecuting OJ Simpson.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>
>> On 17 Feb 2005 08:13:33 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Donahue got it wrong. For the AR-15 to have hit JFK in the head, at the
>>>level it was held (there is a film showing the agent), it would have had
>>>to fire through the windshield of the (Queen Mary) Secret Service
>>>followup car. The geometry is inescapable.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> If he was standing up on the back seat, as indeed he was seen to have
>> been standing up in the back seat, he certainly could have fired over
>> the windshield.
>>
>
>IF? That is very weak. We can see him at the time
Oh, do tell. Given that every photo is focused on the presidential
limousine, where can "we see" the SS follow-up vehicle?
>and we know that he
>was not standing up on the back seat.
"After the first shot, the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy
jumped out and tried to get over in the back seat to him and the
second shot rang out. After the first shot, the Secret Service man
raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in
the seat"
- Warren Commission testimony of S.M. Holland, (affidavit read into
the record)
Interviewer: After the second time he was hit, what did the Secret
Service men do?
Holland: Well, I noticed that this Secret Service man stood up in the
car, in the President's car.
Interviewer: When did he stand up in the car?
Holland: Just about the same time the President was shot the second
time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the
seat.
- Post WC interview with Holland, The Scavengers and Critics of
the Warren Report (Dell Publishing, 1967)
"As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud,
sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like
gunfire. I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles
running away. I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car
with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone."
- SSA Winston Lawson, typed statement read into the WC record
>> The windshield could not have been designed in a way as to block his
>> return fire at a sniper directly in front.
>>
>
>What? The design of the windshields of both cars was stock, unmodified.
So? I'm saying that it could not have been built HIGH enough to block
a SS agent's return fire at a sniper in front. Otherwise, it would
have had a self-defeating purpose.
>End of wacky
>theory.
I wonder how many accidental homicides involving firearms have taken
place over the last 41 years - or for that matter - in the 41 years
preceding 11/22/63.
Martin Shackelford
myths in the case, and trotted it out as though it was his original work,
and supported his no conspiracy thesis, though nearly all of the debunking
had been done by pro-conspiracy researchers.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
A web search shows that Salon announced Bugliosi's book for release in
November 1998, his literary agent listed it for release in "Spring 2001,"
Mark Crispin Miller said in February 2005 that Bugliosi was "finishing up"
the book, the literary agent now lists it for November 2005 (co-author
Fred Haines, unlisted by Amazon.com in connection with any other book,
nothing in a web search either). The current title is Final Verdict: The
Simple Truth in the Killing of JFK. Guess we'll see.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
>
> A web search shows that Salon announced Bugliosi's book for release in
> November 1998, his literary agent listed it for release in "Spring
> 2001," Mark Crispin Miller said in February 2005 that Bugliosi was
> "finishing up" the book, the literary agent now lists it for November
> 2005 (co-author Fred Haines, unlisted by Amazon.com in connection with
> any other book, nothing in a web search either). The current title is
> Final Verdict: The Simple Truth in the Killing of JFK. Guess we'll see.
>
Is that anything like "the check is in the mail"?
David VP
other book, nothing in a web search either.
Fred Haines --- http://imdb.com/name/nm0354247/
Anthony Marsh
> On 19 Feb 2005 13:33:33 -0600, Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 17 Feb 2005 08:13:33 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Donahue got it wrong. For the AR-15 to have hit JFK in the head, at the
>>>>level it was held (there is a film showing the agent), it would have had
>>>>to fire through the windshield of the (Queen Mary) Secret Service
>>>>followup car. The geometry is inescapable.
>>>>
>>>>Martin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If he was standing up on the back seat, as indeed he was seen to have
>>>been standing up in the back seat, he certainly could have fired over
>>>the windshield.
>>>
>>
>>IF? That is very weak. We can see him at the time
>
>
>
> Oh, do tell. Given that every photo is focused on the presidential
> limousine, where can "we see" the SS follow-up vehicle?
>
>
This shows that you have not been doing your homework. Different photos
were taken from different angles. Take a look at the Altgens photo 1-6. It
was taken from head on and shows both the limousine and the SS follow-up
vehicle. That is equal to about Z-255. But I did not specify photos. You
are probably thinking of ONLY the Zapruder film. But you probably don't
even know that there is more to the Zapruder film than you have seen. In
many frames we can see the SS follow-up vehicle in the sprocket hole area
which is not generally projected. We can also see the SS follow-up vehicle
in other films taken from different angles. For example in the Bronson
film, which was not released for many years. It shows that Hickey was not
standing up with the rifle's muzzle high enough to shoot over the
windshield. End of wacky theory. Do your homework.
>
>>and we know that he
>>was not standing up on the back seat.
>
>
>
> "After the first shot, the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy
> jumped out and tried to get over in the back seat to him and the
> second shot rang out. After the first shot, the Secret Service man
> raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in
> the seat"
>
> - Warren Commission testimony of S.M. Holland, (affidavit read into
> the record)
>
Please don't cite Holland. His impression was that the SS agent was in the
limousine. And Hickey did raise up. He can see him in other photos with
the rifle up in the air. Not at Z-312.
>
> Interviewer: After the second time he was hit, what did the Secret
> Service men do?
>
> Holland: Well, I noticed that this Secret Service man stood up in the
> car, in the President's car.
>
"In the President's car."
> Interviewer: When did he stand up in the car?
>
> Holland: Just about the same time the President was shot the second
> time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the
> seat.
>
> - Post WC interview with Holland, The Scavengers and Critics of
> the Warren Report (Dell Publishing, 1967)
>
And Holland was confused. The SS agent with the rifle was not in the
Presidential car. He may have also seen Clint Hill run up to the limo.
>
> "As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud,
> sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like
> gunfire. I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles
> running away. I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car
> with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone."
>
> - SSA Winston Lawson, typed statement read into the WC record
>
>
Sure. Hickey did stand up, but Lawson is telescoping his memories.
>
>
>
>>>The windshield could not have been designed in a way as to block his
>>>return fire at a sniper directly in front.
>>>
>>
>>What? The design of the windshields of both cars was stock, unmodified.
>
>
>
> So? I'm saying that it could not have been built HIGH enough to block
> a SS agent's return fire at a sniper in front. Otherwise, it would
> have had a self-defeating purpose.
>
That is stupid. Most cars, and all Presidential limousines at that time,
were NEVER designed to allow a person to return fire over the windshield.
>
>
>>End of wacky
>>theory.
>
>
>
> I wonder how many accidental homicides involving firearms have taken
> place over the last 41 years - or for that matter - in the 41 years
> preceding 11/22/63.
>
Lots. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions on
11/22/63. It is a physical impossibility that JFK was hit by a shot
fired from the SS follow-up vehicle.
Grizzlie Antagonist
>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>
>> On 19 Feb 2005 13:33:33 -0600, Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 17 Feb 2005 08:13:33 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>>>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Donahue got it wrong. For the AR-15 to have hit JFK in the head, at the
>>>>>level it was held (there is a film showing the agent), it would have had
>>>>>to fire through the windshield of the (Queen Mary) Secret Service
>>>>>followup car. The geometry is inescapable.
>>>>>
>>>>>Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If he was standing up on the back seat, as indeed he was seen to have
>>>>been standing up in the back seat, he certainly could have fired over
>>>>the windshield.
>>>>
>>>
>>>IF? That is very weak. We can see him at the time
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, do tell. Given that every photo is focused on the presidential
>> limousine, where can "we see" the SS follow-up vehicle?
>>
>>
>
>This shows that you have not been doing your homework. Different photos
>were taken from different angles. Take a look at the Altgens photo 1-6. It
>was taken from head on and shows both the limousine and the SS follow-up
>vehicle. That is equal to about Z-255.
I mean that there is no clear photo showing the SS vehicle at a time
that corresponds to the fatal head shot.
In the Altgens photo, Hickey HAS turned around completely and appears
to be looking up at TSBD. He is getting ready to grab the AR-15,
stand up, and fire in that direction.
>But I did not specify photos. You
>are probably thinking of ONLY the Zapruder film. But you probably don't
>even know that there is more to the Zapruder film than you have seen. In
>many frames we can see the SS follow-up vehicle in the sprocket hole area
>which is not generally projected.
The SS follow-up vehicle disappears from view in the Zapruder film
long before Z-312, even in the sprocket hole area.
>We can also see the SS follow-up vehicle
>in other films taken from different angles.
Not at a time that corresponds to Z-312.
>For example in the Bronson
>film, which was not released for many years. It shows that Hickey was not
>standing up with the rifle's muzzle high enough to shoot over the
>windshield.
The Bronson film has never been made public and cannot be found on the
Internet.
I have been in touch with someone who has first-hand knowledge of the
contents of that film, and he says that it's inconclusive.
If you can refer me to a link to the Bronson film or to any other film
that shows the SS vehicle and its passengers at a time that
corresponds to Z-312/313, I'll take a look at it.
But if you could have referred me to such a link, you would have
already done so.
I don't think that you've got a pony hidden under all of that barnyard
residue.
>End of wacky theory.
Howard Donahue is or was the only sane and reliable actor in this
drama. He was a retired gunsmith, who made a living testifying as an
expert on ballistics. He was not a government flunky, and he was not
a wild-eyed lefty looking for the fascist under every bed.
As far as I'm concerned, Howard Donahue PROVED that Hickey
accidentally shot JFK. He proved that it HAPPENED. So it's not
necessary to prove separately that it COULD have happened.
It's up to someone else to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So an
inconclusive Bronson film doesn't do the trick.
Of course, I can't stop you and the others from engaging in Wile
Coyote-like attempts to track down an imaginary conspiracy.
>>>and we know that he
>>>was not standing up on the back seat.
>>
>>
>>
>> "After the first shot, the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy
>> jumped out and tried to get over in the back seat to him and the
>> second shot rang out. After the first shot, the Secret Service man
>> raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in
>> the seat"
>>
>> - Warren Commission testimony of S.M. Holland, (affidavit read into
>> the record)
>>
>
>Please don't cite Holland.
Why not? CT's cite him religiously to prove a puff of smoke on the
grassy knoll.
>His impression was that the SS agent was in the
>limousine. And Hickey did raise up. He can see him in other photos with
>the rifle up in the air.
Oh-HO! So you ADMIT IT!
>Not at Z-312.
He's not visible at Z-312. And you're treading on thin ice. You
admit that Hickey stood up, but you insist that he wasn't standing up
at Z-312. We're talking about a matter of a very few seconds here.
When would you first place him on his feet holding the AR-15?
Remember, in the Altgens film, which you say corresponds to Z-255, he
is ALREADY looking in the direction of TSBD. How long does it take
him to spot Oswald firing at the motorcade, grab his AR-15 and get on
his feet?
Why SHOULDN'T he be up and on his feet while holding the AR-15 by
Z-312?
>> Interviewer: After the second time he was hit, what did the Secret
>> Service men do?
>>
>> Holland: Well, I noticed that this Secret Service man stood up in the
>> car, in the President's car.
>>
>
>"In the President's car."
So his attempt to describe what he saw during the most tumultuous
seven seconds of his life was confused. Are you denying that he saw a
Secret Service man stand up and at a time which corresponds to the
fatal head shot?
>> Interviewer: When did he stand up in the car?
>>
>> Holland: Just about the same time the President was shot the second
>> time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the
>> seat.
>>
>> - Post WC interview with Holland, The Scavengers and Critics of
>> the Warren Report (Dell Publishing, 1967)
>>
>
>And Holland was confused. The SS agent with the rifle was not in the
>Presidential car.
<Shrugs> See above.
>He may have also seen Clint Hill run up to the limo.
He says twice that he saw a secret service agent stand up IN THE CAR.
He isn't talking about Clint Hill. He's talking about a secret
service agent standing up IN THE CAR and holding a gun.
>> "As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud,
>> sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like
>> gunfire. I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles
>> running away. I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car
>> with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone."
>>
>> - SSA Winston Lawson, typed statement read into the WC record
>>
>>
>
>Sure. Hickey did stand up,
Hickey stood up! Hickey stood up! Hickey stood up! Hickey stood up!
Proclaim it throughout the land!
>but Lawson is telescoping his memories.
He's doing WHAT?
>>>>The windshield could not have been designed in a way as to block his
>>>>return fire at a sniper directly in front.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What? The design of the windshields of both cars was stock, unmodified.
>>
>>
>>
>> So? I'm saying that it could not have been built HIGH enough to block
>> a SS agent's return fire at a sniper in front. Otherwise, it would
>> have had a self-defeating purpose.
>>
>
>That is stupid. Most cars, and all Presidential limousines at that time,
>were NEVER designed to allow a person to return fire over the windshield.
And so what is the SSA with the AR-15 supposed to do if he sees a
sniper directly in front?
>>>End of wacky
>>>theory.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder how many accidental homicides involving firearms have taken
>> place over the last 41 years - or for that matter - in the 41 years
>> preceding 11/22/63.
>>
>
>Lots. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions on
>11/22/63. It is a physical impossibility that JFK was hit by a shot
>fired from the SS follow-up vehicle.
Can't be because it DID happen, so it must have been POSSIBLE for it
to happen.
Anyway, your repeated use of the phrase "wacky theory" is a "poisoning
the water" technique.
It suggests that a certain scenario is SO outlandish that you really
don't have to go to the trouble of using empiricism to discredit it.
You admit that death by accidentally-discharged gunfire is
commonplace.
Therefore, there is nothing inherently "wacky" about a supposition
that it took place on this occasion.
Martin Shackelford
the head shot. You can see Hickey's position--and what he was (and
wasn't) doing at the time. So much for "Do tell"--it's clear you need to
learn the evidence better before you get into these arguments.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
Bugliosi's remain in the realm of David's claims.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
inept selection of it. In addition, I spent 25 years observing lawyers
in court, I've read many books on defense lawyers, and studied trial
transcripts, so I have a pretty good idea how it all works. However,
your uninformed dismissal is certainly amusing. I'm sure you pay no
attention to movie critics or literary critics because they haven't made
classic movies or written the great American novel. Repeating your error
doesn't help matters.
"Presumably" means you are guessing--and both guesses are incorrect.
There was a time limit on the televised trial--none of the witnesses or
evidence were inadmissible. In fact, in a later showing, the program was
re-cut with some witnesses deleted and others added. It was more showbiz
than law that seemed to decide matters.
Your Conan Doyle reference trivializes things, so I'll ignore it. It is
also a way of evading Roffman--whom you dismiss in generalities,
innuendo and name-calling, generally a sign of a weak argument.
Meninger's book has been long-discredited. Apparently you haven't seen
the Bronson film.
To claim that one of the more bizarre theories, Meninger/Donahue's,
settles all questions, while ranting about the evils of CTs is just
pathetic. Most CT's have not "been looking for the Fascist under every
bed." That sort of broad stereotyping is another sign of a very weak
argument.
Talk of putting people in their place has its own dark echoes. And
comparing private citizens conducting research to the Inquisition is
simply bizarre.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
co-author--Hollywood!
A screenwriter who hasn't had a film in 13 years (and that a
made-for-TV), a director who hasn't directed in 31 years, and a producer
who hasn't produced in 38 years. And not a single book to his credit.
I liked his film of "Ulysses," though, and heard good things about his
"Steppenwolf."
No sign at all of the kind of background needed for a serious work of
history, though.
Martin
Anthony Marsh
> On 20 Feb 2005 22:24:53 -0500, Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 19 Feb 2005 13:33:33 -0600, Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 17 Feb 2005 08:13:33 -0500, Martin Shackelford
>>>>><msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Donahue got it wrong. For the AR-15 to have hit JFK in the head, at the
>>>>>>level it was held (there is a film showing the agent), it would have had
>>>>>>to fire through the windshield of the (Queen Mary) Secret Service
>>>>>>followup car. The geometry is inescapable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Martin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If he was standing up on the back seat, as indeed he was seen to have
>>>>>been standing up in the back seat, he certainly could have fired over
>>>>>the windshield.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>IF? That is very weak. We can see him at the time
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, do tell. Given that every photo is focused on the presidential
>>>limousine, where can "we see" the SS follow-up vehicle?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>This shows that you have not been doing your homework. Different photos
>>were taken from different angles. Take a look at the Altgens photo 1-6. It
>>was taken from head on and shows both the limousine and the SS follow-up
>>vehicle. That is equal to about Z-255.
>
>
>
> I mean that there is no clear photo showing the SS vehicle at a time
> that corresponds to the fatal head shot.
Photo? Maybe. There are however films. Such as the Bronson film. This is
old news.
>
> In the Altgens photo, Hickey HAS turned around completely and appears
> to be looking up at TSBD. He is getting ready to grab the AR-15,
> stand up, and fire in that direction.
>
Great. In fact he DID grab the AR-15 later. On Elm Street he did not
stand up and no one stood on the seat.
>
>
>>But I did not specify photos. You
>>are probably thinking of ONLY the Zapruder film. But you probably don't
>>even know that there is more to the Zapruder film than you have seen. In
>>many frames we can see the SS follow-up vehicle in the sprocket hole area
>>which is not generally projected.
>
>
>
> The SS follow-up vehicle disappears from view in the Zapruder film
> long before Z-312, even in the sprocket hole area.
>
Yes, but I was not citing the Zapruder film for that. Just as an example
that there is more to it than you have realized. And that you can not
base your theory ONLY on the non-sprocket hole area of the Zapruder film.
>
>
>
>>We can also see the SS follow-up vehicle
>>in other films taken from different angles.
>
>
>
> Not at a time that corresponds to Z-312.
>
Yes, the Bronson film.
>
>
>>For example in the Bronson
>>film, which was not released for many years. It shows that Hickey was not
>>standing up with the rifle's muzzle high enough to shoot over the
>>windshield.
>
>
>
> The Bronson film has never been made public and cannot be found on the
> Internet.
>
Too bad. But it has been seen by man researchers.
> I have been in touch with someone who has first-hand knowledge of the
> contents of that film, and he says that it's inconclusive.
>
Wrong.
> If you can refer me to a link to the Bronson film or to any other film
> that shows the SS vehicle and its passengers at a time that
> corresponds to Z-312/313, I'll take a look at it.
>
I'll be home on Thursday and Friday.
> But if you could have referred me to such a link, you would have
> already done so.
>
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe someone has put it online. I am not saying that
anyone has. I am not saying that I have the technical means to make a
good copy and upload it.
> I don't think that you've got a pony hidden under all of that barnyard
> residue.
>
>
>
>>End of wacky theory.
>
>
>
> Howard Donahue is or was the only sane and reliable actor in this
> drama. He was a retired gunsmith, who made a living testifying as an
> expert on ballistics. He was not a government flunky, and he was not
> a wild-eyed lefty looking for the fascist under every bed.
>
Which does not count for that much.
I have discussed this many times before. I specifically praise his
analysis which showed how flawed the HSCA theory was.
> As far as I'm concerned, Howard Donahue PROVED that Hickey
> accidentally shot JFK. He proved that it HAPPENED. So it's not
> necessary to prove separately that it COULD have happened.
That is a logical fallacy. You can not accept something as a fact which
is physically impossible.
>
> It's up to someone else to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So an
> inconclusive Bronson film doesn't do the trick.
>
That is not quite true, but in fact we have already proven that it
didn't happen. It was physically impossible.
> Of course, I can't stop you and the others from engaging in Wile
> Coyote-like attempts to track down an imaginary conspiracy.
>
>
Have you seen the Bronson film for yourself? Yes or no?
>
>>>>and we know that he
>>>>was not standing up on the back seat.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"After the first shot, the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy
>>>jumped out and tried to get over in the back seat to him and the
>>>second shot rang out. After the first shot, the Secret Service man
>>>raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in
>>>the seat"
>>>
>>> - Warren Commission testimony of S.M. Holland, (affidavit read into
>>>the record)
>>>
>>
>>Please don't cite Holland.
>
>
>
> Why not? CT's cite him religiously to prove a puff of smoke on the
> grassy knoll.
>
Maybe there was a puff of some type of smoke. He is not the only witness
who reported that.
>
>
>
>>His impression was that the SS agent was in the
>>limousine. And Hickey did raise up. He can see him in other photos with
>>the rifle up in the air.
>
>
>
> Oh-HO! So you ADMIT IT!
>
Admit what? I have the photos showing the rifle up in the air. They were
after Z-312.
You need to buy the book Pictures of the Pain. Page 477.
That photo has also appeared elsewhere.
>
>
>>Not at Z-312.
>
>
>
> He's not visible at Z-312. And you're treading on thin ice. You
> admit that Hickey stood up, but you insist that he wasn't standing up
> at Z-312. We're talking about a matter of a very few seconds here.
>
I did not say that Hickey stood up. And certainly he never stood on the
seat as you alleged.
> When would you first place him on his feet holding the AR-15?
He did not stand up while the limousine was still on Elm Street. He
stood up halfway when the limousine was on Stemmons.
> Remember, in the Altgens film, which you say corresponds to Z-255, he
> is ALREADY looking in the direction of TSBD. How long does it take
> him to spot Oswald firing at the motorcade, grab his AR-15 and get on
> his feet?
>
Hickey never spotted Oswald. No SS agent spotted the shooter in the
TSBD. How fast would it take him to react? Maybe 3 seconds at most.
> Why SHOULDN'T he be up and on his feet while holding the AR-15 by
> Z-312?
>
>
Because he was not up and on his feet.
>
>
>>>Interviewer: After the second time he was hit, what did the Secret
>>>Service men do?
>>>
>>>Holland: Well, I noticed that this Secret Service man stood up in the
>>>car, in the President's car.
>>>
>>
>>"In the President's car."
>
>
>
> So his attempt to describe what he saw during the most tumultuous
> seven seconds of his life was confused. Are you denying that he saw a
> Secret Service man stand up and at a time which corresponds to the
> fatal head shot?
>
It is not so much that he was confused as that his wording was inexact.
I am sure that he meant that he saw a SS agent in the SS follow-up car
rise up with the rifle as it went under the triple underpass right
beneath him.
>
>
>>>Interviewer: When did he stand up in the car?
>>>
>>>Holland: Just about the same time the President was shot the second
>>>time. He jumped up in the seat and was standing up in the, on the
>>>seat.
>>>
>>> - Post WC interview with Holland, The Scavengers and Critics of
>>>the Warren Report (Dell Publishing, 1967)
>>>
>>
>>And Holland was confused. The SS agent with the rifle was not in the
>>Presidential car.
>
>
>
> <Shrugs> See above.
>
>
>
>>He may have also seen Clint Hill run up to the limo.
>
>
>
> He says twice that he saw a secret service agent stand up IN THE CAR.
> He isn't talking about Clint Hill. He's talking about a secret
> service agent standing up IN THE CAR and holding a gun.
>
If you believe that then you dismiss him as a reliable witness, because
Hickey was not in the limousine.
>
>
>
>>>"As the lead car was passing under this bridge I heard the first loud,
>>>sharp report and in more rapid succession two more sounds like
>>>gunfire. I could see persons to the left of the motorcade vehicles
>>>running away. I noticed Agent Hickey standing up in the follow-up car
>>>with the automatic weapon and first thought he had fired at someone."
>>>
>>> - SSA Winston Lawson, typed statement read into the WC record
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Sure. Hickey did stand up,
>
>
>
> Hickey stood up! Hickey stood up! Hickey stood up! Hickey stood up!
> Proclaim it throughout the land!
>
You ignore qualifiers.
>
>
>>but Lawson is telescoping his memories.
>
>
>
> He's doing WHAT?
OK, pretend that you have never heard of telescoping memories. Pretend
that you have never read Loftus or any of the other researchers into
human memory. Would it hurt you so much to do a search and read more
about it maybe?
https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/LoftusFienbergTanurSurveyResAP85.pdf
>
>
>
>
>>>>>The windshield could not have been designed in a way as to block his
>>>>>return fire at a sniper directly in front.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What? The design of the windshields of both cars was stock, unmodified.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>So? I'm saying that it could not have been built HIGH enough to block
>>>a SS agent's return fire at a sniper in front. Otherwise, it would
>>>have had a self-defeating purpose.
>>>
>>
>>That is stupid. Most cars, and all Presidential limousines at that time,
>>were NEVER designed to allow a person to return fire over the windshield.
>
>
>
> And so what is the SSA with the AR-15 supposed to do if he sees a
> sniper directly in front?
>
A sniper would be at a sufficient distance away that the agent could
stand up and fire over the windshield. The Presidential limousine being
only a few feet away would be blocked by the windshield. The rifle is
used for long range shots, not close range. At close range the agents on
the running board have their revolvers to return fire.
>
>
>
>>>>End of wacky
>>>>theory.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder how many accidental homicides involving firearms have taken
>>>place over the last 41 years - or for that matter - in the 41 years
>>>preceding 11/22/63.
>>>
>>
>>Lots. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the conditions on
>>11/22/63. It is a physical impossibility that JFK was hit by a shot
>>fired from the SS follow-up vehicle.
>
>
>
> Can't be because it DID happen, so it must have been POSSIBLE for it
> to happen.
>
That is a logical fallacy. You can not assume a fact and then argue that
it was possible because you think it happened. That's like UFOs.
> Anyway, your repeated use of the phrase "wacky theory" is a "poisoning
> the water" technique.
>
Not "poisoning the water." It's called "poisoning the well." It is one
form of rhetorical technique. I am not arguing against the person, I am
arguing against the wacky theory. There are tons of wacky theories about
the JFK assassination, on both sides.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
> It suggests that a certain scenario is SO outlandish that you really
> don't have to go to the trouble of using empiricism to discredit it.
>
But that is exactly what I have been doing, using empiricism to disprove
the wacky theory. I have not attacked you personally. I did not say that
all your facts are wrong. Just at the moment of the head shot the rifle
was not high enough to shoot over the windshield and hit JFK. End of
wacky theory.
> You admit that death by accidentally-discharged gunfire is
> commonplace.
>
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the JFK assassination. You could
likewise point out that lots of people have accidentally shot
themselves. But I do not see any weapons in JFK's hands.
> Therefore, there is nothing inherently "wacky" about a supposition
> that it took place on this occasion.
>
Inherently? It would not be inherently wacky because Hickey did have the
rifle in his hands. If the shot had occurred on Stemmons freeway then
you might have a case. BTW, no shots were fired from the SS follow-up
vehicle. That also negates the wacky theory.
David VP
Bugliosi's remain in the realm of David's claims.
Not for long.
Like in an add for the 1996 motion picture "Twister" --- "It's coming."
Come to think of it, that's an appropriate analogy -- Mr. Bugliosi's
book(s) will serve as a "Twister" -- it'll blow all the conspiracies
away.
:)
** wink **
Grizzlie Antagonist
<msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Given my knowledge of the evidence, I was quite able to evaluate his
>inept selection of it. In addition, I spent 25 years observing lawyers
>in court, I've read many books on defense lawyers, and studied trial
>transcripts, so I have a pretty good idea how it all works.
A better idea than Gerry Spence, no doubt.
And if you read a book on child care, would you be able to have a
baby?
>However,
>your uninformed dismissal is certainly amusing. I'm sure you pay no
>attention to movie critics or literary critics because they haven't made
>classic movies or written the great American novel.
Well, there are two things that make this an apples-and-oranges
comparison.
First of all, scriptwriters and producers don't have to go through
years of intensive training for the purpose of getting a license to
write, as attorneys do.
Second of all, the SOLE means of evaluating a creative work is the
extent to which it entertains and/or edifies its audience - so an
entertainers performance is obviously evaluated different from an
attorney's.
>Repeating your error
>doesn't help matters.
>
>"Presumably" means you are guessing--and both guesses are incorrect.
>There was a time limit on the televised trial--none of the witnesses or
>evidence were inadmissible.
Really? Are you sure that the rules of evidence weren't utilized in
advance to determine what would and what would not be presented?
>In fact, in a later showing, the program was
>re-cut with some witnesses deleted and others added. It was more showbiz
>than law that seemed to decide matters.
And the sun was in Gerry Spence's eyes. And the dog ate his homework.
You're just making excuses because you didn't like the result.
>Your Conan Doyle reference trivializes things, so I'll ignore it. It is
>also a way of evading Roffman--whom you dismiss in generalities,
>innuendo and name-calling, generally a sign of a weak argument.
And you're trying to make excuses for why one of the most prominent
defense attorneys around today could not acquit Oswald in a mock
trial, generally a sign of a weak argument.
And perhaps CT's who deride John Lattimer as a urologist and now as a
Nazi sympathizer are also trying to firm up their own weak arguments.
You can do a Google search on your own if you like if you want to find
out what Howard Roffman is doing these days. I'd sure hate to be
guilty of "innuendo"
>Meninger's book has been long-discredited. Apparently you haven't seen
>the Bronson film.
<cheerfully> It's not available for viewing by the public as far as I
know, and Howard Donahue saw it before his book went to press and was
unconvinced, and I trust Howard Donahue before I would trust any CT.
>To claim that one of the more bizarre theories, Meninger/Donahue's,
>settles all questions, while ranting about the evils of CTs is just
>pathetic.
<a little less cheerfully> But CT's ARE evil, at least in a petty
way.
>Most CT's have not "been looking for the Fascist under every
>bed." That sort of broad stereotyping is another sign of a very weak
>argument.
No, no. That's exactly what you've been doing. Looking for the
fascist under every bed.
You'd call it "McCarthyism" if it was being practiced against you.
>Talk of putting people in their place has its own dark echoes.
]
What do you want me to say?
CT's are using phony ballistic and sophistic evidentiary arguments as
a means of trying to recreate some sort of combination of Marx's
dictatorship of the proletariat and Woodstock Nation.
Misbehaving children need to be spanked.
> And
>comparing private citizens conducting research to the Inquisition is
>simply bizarre.
>
>Martin
It's not always private citizen research. Jim Garrison was armed with
subpoena power.
Tom Bethell, a columnist for the American Spectator, worked for
Garrison during his New Orleans shenanigans and he once wrote about
how he and everyone on the staff knew that Clay Shaw was innocent but
everyone was afraid to tell Garrison.
Yes, I would say that Garrison conducted an Inquisition.
But private citizens can do their own share of harm. Billy Lovelady
was literally hounded to death by people who wanted him to recant his
ID of himself on the steps of TSBD in the Altgens photo.
CT's have accused a number of innocent people of being involved in the
non-existent conspiracy. George O'Toole carried a tape recorder
around with him and re-interviewed Howard Brennan and Wesley Frazier
in 1973 ostensibly as part of a ten-year retrospective.
Then he wrote a book about having taken those recordings and
subjecting them to a PSE analysis (the PSE is roughly about as
reliable as a divining rod) and declaring, "Ha ha! Those two are
LIARS! They must be CO-CONSPIRATORS!"
Martin Shackelford
included in Robert Groden's original video compilation "The JFK
Assassination Films," and has been restored in the current DVD edition.
I called Donahue at the time, and he tried to argue that the Bronson
film was "inconclusive" too--but he wasn't convincing. He had seen the
film in motion once, and I had studied it in slow motion, and looked at
frame enlargements, including a stereo pair. In addition, I just
captured EVERY frame from that sequence and studied them in slow
motion--quite clearly, no one within the Secret Service car is
standing--only those on the running boards. Put simply, he was wrong.
Hickey isn't standing in the Altgens photo at Z-255, 3 seconds earlier.
The Bronson film is on a website, but the copy is too poor for good
analysis:
http://www.jfk-online.com/films.html
Clear frames appear in Pictures of the Pain, and in Photographic Memory,
both by Richard Trask. But the best way to view the information is using
the DVD version in single frame mode.
The Bell film shows that Hickey isn't yet standing. The Gene Daniel
film, which overlaps with Bell, also doesn't show Hickey yet standing.
Hickey has passed beyond Dealey Plaza before a photo shows him with the
AR-15 in hand. Mel McIntire's photo showing the Queen Mary on the
Stemmons Freeway ramp shows Hickey still seated. We first see him
standing with the AR-15 in the Al Volkland photo taken on Stemmons Freeway.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
The Bronson film has been "available for public viewing" for more than a
decade, first on a video collection by Robert Groden, and then on a DVD
version of the same collection, currently available. Donahue viewed it
in motion--I have clear captures of EVERY frame of the sequence--there
is NO question that Hickey wasn't standing up in the Queen Mary. See my
nore detailed post on this.
Calling CT's "evil" is absurd. It's tarring ALL with the sins of a few.
Please show ONE post in which I identify anyone in this case as a "Fascist."
I talked about private researchers--you sought to counter that by
mentioning ONE critic in a position of authority--that's no argument.
Again you show the gaps in your knowledge more than anything else.
Martin
Peter Fokes
>He is working on condensing the book from 2500 pages to 1500
>> >>pages.
>> >>
>> >>Chad
Good idea!
Falling asleep with a 2500 page book on my chest would likely cause a
nightmare.
PF
Questioning
"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
news:g200919q9bqbj223s...@4ax.com...
Peter Fokes
>Guaranteed Snooze though.
:-)
I started reading OUTRAGE... Bugliosi's book about the OJ trial but
got tired of his constant berating of everyone involved in the trial:
the judge, the prosecuting attorneys, the defence attorneys, the jury,
etc., etc.
Now the JFK case is a different kettle of fish. No trial occurred so I
guess he'll have to direct his criticisms at the CTs, maybe the WC,
etc., etc.
Hindsight is a glorious thing. You can observe what has occurred and
tell folks what you would have done differently.
And no one talks back at you!
Not even Nick Beef :-)
PF
John Hunt
> On 24 May 2005 16:39:29 -0400, "Questioning" <12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Guaranteed Snooze though.
>
> :-)
>
> I started reading OUTRAGE... Bugliosi's book about the OJ trial but
> got tired of his constant berating of everyone involved in the trial:
> the judge, the prosecuting attorneys, the defence attorneys, the jury,
> etc., etc.
Me, too. I finaly got through it on the third attempt. It was worth it
once I programed my mind to block out the vitriol.
>
> Now the JFK case is a different kettle of fish. No trial occurred so I
> guess he'll have to direct his criticisms at the CTs, maybe the WC,
> etc., etc.
>
What can Bugliosi do for the LN side that has not been done?? It will be
interesting to see his take on the medical and ballistic stuff.
John Hunt
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Knowing -- as I do -- your interest in the FBI, may I suggest another
fascinating book entitled:
The Union Station Massacre: The Original Sin of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI
by Robert Unger
The author meticulously combed the large FBI file of the 1933 Union
Station Massacre in Kansas City. He concludes that Hoover used the
shootings to glorify the FBI and frame Pretty Boy Floyd and sidekick
Adam Richetti.
PF
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>"Peter Fokes" <justplai...@toronto.hm> wrote in message
>news:dd5791tmu54bc3d23...@4ax.com...
>> On 24 May 2005 16:39:29 -0400, "Questioning" <12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Guaranteed Snooze though.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> I started reading OUTRAGE... Bugliosi's book about the OJ trial but
>> got tired of his constant berating of everyone involved in the trial:
>> the judge, the prosecuting attorneys, the defence attorneys, the jury,
>> etc., etc.
>
>Me, too. I finaly got through it on the third attempt. It was worth it
>once I programed my mind to block out the vitriol.
Yes, I found his points interesting. The trial was a travesty.
I am looking forward to reading his new book. I am an amateur who
spends some spare time on this topic. I make no pretensions to be an
expert on the law, or to have a key to the puzzle. Never have.
As a moderator I have enjoyed hearing from all points of views on this
subject but have been attacked and ridiculed many times for
questioning valid contradictions and deficiencies in the arguments
against Oswald.
>> Now the JFK case is a different kettle of fish. No trial occurred so I
>> guess he'll have to direct his criticisms at the CTs, maybe the WC,
>> etc., etc.
>>
>
>What can Bugliosi do for the LN side that has not been done?? It will be
>interesting to see his take on the medical and ballistic stuff.
I hope his focus is on the case and not on folks who have a different
opinion based on their own knowledge of the evidence. Attacking the
CTs, for example - as Mallon does in Mrs. Paine's Garage -- is a
fruitless avenue for proving the case against Oswald. Hopefully he
takes the high road and leaves the wacky theories of some CTs aside.
Perhaps he'll even make a bit of money for his effort too. Nothing
wrong with that.
>John Hunt
PF
David VP
Hi Peter. I agree.
I believe he should walk a bit of a fine line between "prosecuting
attorney trying to convict Oswald" (which he no doubt will, and should,
concentrate on a good deal, quite obviously) and just LAYING EVERYTHING
OUT ON THE TABLE -- whether it points toward CT-ism or LN-ism.
And then, after laying it ALL out there, explain to us (the reader)
just EXACTLY WHY THIS CT EVIDENCE DOES NOT MEAN *ANYTHING* WHEN IT
COMES DOWN TO ANSWERING THE QUESTION AT HAND -- "WHO KILLED PRESIDENT
KENNEDY IN DP?"
I suppose those two items above ARE somewhat inter-related to a degree
-- because Vince ALWAYS was of the opinion, even at an actual murder
trial, that he should "Pre-empt the defense", and put on evidence that
is even damaging to his case before the defense put it out there.
But I have a feeling that in a REAL TRIAL, that "Pre-emptive strike"
policy only went so far, and he probably "held back" on some things if
he thought perhaps the defense would maybe NOT present it at trial;
therefore some things might NEVER come out in the open.
This is, IMO, where Mr. Bugliosi has to be careful. EVERYTHING MUST BE
LAID OUT THERE (unlike Mr. Posner's book; which I DO think is a very
good piece of work, and DOES hang Oswald via the overwhelming
evidence).
But even Vince has said that he does not agree with Posner on his
approach to the case (per this quote of Vince's for example).......
"I agree with all of (Gerald) Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
>> Perhaps he'll even make a bit of money for his effort too. Nothing
wrong with that.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I agree.
Especially considering the fact that Vince has lived over 20 of his
nearly 71 years working on just this ONE JFK book project. I'd say that
deserves some monetary compensation.